They reap what they sow.

At the 1980 Democrat convention, Jimmy Carter survived a very close nomination battle with Ted Kennedy, only to lose the general election. Rather than accept the truth, that Ronald Reagan was an immensely capable politician while Carter an immensely incapable one, Democrat Party officials jumped to a very undemocratic conclusion: you just can't trust the voters to do the right thing.

And so, determined to increase the odds that the party chooses an electable nominee, the party bigwigs created superdelegates, who comprise approximately 20% of the people who will choose the Democrat nominee this year. These 800-odd individuals have the power to overturn the votes of millions of Democrat voters spread over all fifty states. Who are these superdelegates, these undemocratic party elite?

According to The Politico, half of the superdelegates are white men, which is surprising given that white men only comprise 28% of the Democrat Party. Men overall make up 64% of the superdelegates, again surprising given that only 45% of the party membership is male. This, from a party that trumpets with pride and smug superiority that its leading contenders this cycle are a white woman and a black man, as if race or gender are better qualifiers than character and experience.

Now, with it clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will earn enough pledged delegates in the remaining contests to lock up the nomination, the choice will lie in the hands of these 800-odd party elite, each of whom holds a vote equivalent to roughly 10,000 actual Democrat primary voters. Delegates will go into Denver with teeth set on edge, and the opposing campaigns will be there with plans and maneuvers aplenty. The Democrat convention will be, for once, must-see TV.

All hell will break lose in Denver. The superdelegates will be told by the Clinton campaign that she is the most electable candidate because she has been vetted, because she won the big, important states, because she might well have the delegate and vote leads if Michigan and Florida delegations had been seated, because she has more experience, and because the "Republican attack machine" will go after Obama for his past drug use and his allegiance to a pastor who hates white people. The Obama campaign will answer that he holds the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, that being First Lady is less valuable experience than being a state senator, that he is much more talented at using lofty, inspiring rhetoric, and that Clinton is a proven liar who often seems to be handling the gears of the so-called Republican attack machine.

And the difficulty is that they will both be right. While they are attempting in good faith to ascertain the best nominee for their party, delegates will be reminded that being "pledged" doesn't really mean anything, and now that they are actually at the Convention they are capable of doing absolutely anything they want. They will then be barraged with a series of manipulative floor maneuvers designed to sway delegates away from one candidate and towards another. The very party platform will likely face upheaval, as various resolutions and planks are proposed that blatantly pander to key Democrat constituencies. To attract women delegates, the Obama campaign may call for the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment. To attract minority delegates, the Clinton campaign may introduce a resolution calling for a national apology for slavery. And, pressed to deny their opponents a victory at all costs, each campaign will instruct their loyal delegates to vote down the proposals.

Stressed by these obvious attempts at vote-buying and constant lobbying, bothered immensely by being told to vote down proposals they usually strenuously defend, and secure only in the knowledge that the elitist superdelegates will just make the decision for them, the regular delegates elected by the little people back home will be very, very unhappy. Emotions will be raw and nerves on edge. Tempers will rise, and more than one fight will likely break out on the convention floor. At the end, women will head for Clinton, blacks will head for Obama, and it will be the white male superdelegates who make the final determination.

Women and blacks are the two biggest constituencies of the party, and one of those groups is all but certain to be alienated in Denver. Significant percentages of the supporters of whichever campaign loses in the end will either stay home in November or vote for McCain, and that's especially true for fans of Clinton. Further, this will represent the greatest opportunity for the GOP to expand its registration in nearly thirty years, as resentful, angry Democrats turn away from the party that spurned the candidate that looks and sounds most like them. If Clinton is the nominee, swing states with significant numbers of blacks will move towards McCain. If Obama is the nominee, as appears nearly certain, every large state will go Republican as women vote GOP.

This exact scenario happened before with different players, with a different dynamic. It was between a northern Democrat, part of the party elite and from a well-known family, and a southern good 'ol boy who turned the establishment on its head. The southerner won the nomination, the northerner literally turned his back to the nominee on stage, the resulting split did not heal for a decade, and the Republican won 44 states in a landslide.

The year was 1980. The candidates were Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, and the Republican was an affable westerner named Ronald Reagan. This was the situation that superdelegates were supposed to fix, were supposed to ensure never happened again. Just as the Democrats place inordinate faith in government's abilities to make better decisions than individuals, they have placed inordinate faith in their party elite to make better decisions than their voters. Between their superdelegates and their absurdly complicated proportional delegate assignments, they've set themselves up for a disastrous convention and a likely loss in November.

They reap what they sow.

The Republican candidates are all promising to cut taxes, and the new leader of the pack, John McCain, is also promising to do what George Bush didn't, and cut spending.  Meanwhile, the surge in Iraq that McCain pushed for last year is undeniably working.  Sectarian violence is down, American casualties have become much less frequent, and the Iraqis are slowly but steadily taking control over their own country.  Though I still believe the war to have been a tremendous error, I am relieved to see a safer environment for our troops and for the Iraqi people, and the light seems to be visible at the end of the tunnel. 

The war in Iraq is going well, and the economy is hitting the skids.  The campaign plan the Democrats used so successfully in 2006 is no longer valid, as the political ground is shifting beneath them.  It now appears very likely, though far from inevitable, that the Democrats will nominate the candidate surest to drive Republicans to the polls in droves.  Later this summer, then, history may well repeat itself in the form of a Mondale moment: a Democrat will take a stage and either contradict all statements she's made to this point, or be forced to admit she intends to raise taxes.  A Republican will promise to cut spending and let taxpayers keep their money.  And the voters will respond as they should: in their best interests.    

In his masterpiece treatise on political systems, The Republic, Plato observed that it is precisely those who desire power the most who should be trusted with power the least.  A cursory glance at history confirms the wisdom of this sentiment.  The years are littered with egomaniacs that would stop at nothing to gain power, desperate to wield it in pursuit of their subjective vision of a better world.

The single largest failing of democracy is that it makes it all too easy for such dangerous people to win office and gain power over the individual members of society.  This fact was the major reason that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 resulted in a Republic rather than a volatile democracy.  Republics have intrinsic protections against such abuse of power.  Still, the Founders cautioned their progeny, be most wary of those who overtly desire power.

Which is why we should be wary of Hillary Clinton.  Many thoughtful, objective people who have studied the various candidates, of both major parties, have concluded that there is something very unsettling about a potential return of the Clintons to the White House.  To some it’s the prospect of twenty-four years of the same two Yale-educated families in executive power, qualifying the United States for oligarchy status.  To others it’s the prospect of reliving the dreary series of seedy tales of the Clinton years, from Whitewater to Travelgate to Fostergate to Cattlegate to Lewinsky.  Even worse than reliving those tired scandals would be the new ones that would inevitably follow her inauguration.  

It is not merely the substantial baggage of the Clinton I presidency that Hillary carries, it is her own, well-documented difficulty telling the truth.  Her lies are so legendary that they approach the definition of cliché, and there are so many that it is impossible to list them all. From the illegal (missing subpoenaed Whitewater files hidden in her home) to the mundane (claiming to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary), she has demonstrated an outright contempt for the truth.  Here’s one that fell by the wayside but will surely come up again: the New York Post reported in 2000 that a former Clinton staffer named Paul Fray claims that Hillary once called him a “f-cking Jew bastard” in front of his wife and another staffer named Neill McDonald.  Sounds outrageous and hard to believe, and of course Hillary denies that it took place.  Yet Fray passed a polygraph exam, administered by a state-licensed polygrapher, and both Mary Fray and McDonald verified that it happened.  The Republicans probably already have campaign ads locked away in a vault somewhere.  

Perhaps even worse than her dishonesty is her waffling about where she stands on any issue.  She voted for the very war she now attempts to beat Republicans about the head with in an effort to find favor with the Democrat base.  She has promised to bring the troops home, yet has said that she would leave an undetermined number in Iraq.  She advocated for $5,000 federal gifts to each baby born in the United States, then disavowed the idea the very next day.  She opposed a constitutional ban on flag burning, and then co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which would have sentenced flag-burners to a year in jail.  She took the floor of the Senate to condemn torture as an acceptable means of gaining information, and then told the editorial board of the New York Daily News that there are some circumstances in which she believes it is warranted.  Within the space of five minutes on a nationally televised debate she advocated Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses and then denied that she thought it was a good idea.  Politicians are not generally known for their honesty and consistency, but even in these jaded, cynical times Hillary’s willingness to tell people whatever they wish to hear is stunning.  If she is asked, “What do you believe?” her answer might as well be, “What do you want me to believe?”

Then, too, there is undoubtedly something very mafia-like and power-hungry about the Clinton machine.  It churn outs eerily similar letters to our newspapers.  It plants questions in supposedly spontaneous candidate forums.  It moves to stifle the very dialogue and debate so healthy for the electoral process.  Every move is carefully calculated for maximum visibility and political benefit.  One cannot help but think they are not so much witnessing a campaign as much as a tremendous operation in fraud and deceit, designed not to educate the voting public but instead to engineer a grab for power.

Thankfully, there are signs that the people are beginning to take note of Hillary’s desperate desire for power, and her willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve it.  Barack Obama is rapidly closing the gap in polls both nationally and here in New Hampshire, and has already taken the lead in Iowa. According to a November 19th ABC News poll, when Iowa Democrats were asked which candidate is most honest and trustworthy, Obama led Hillary by a 2-1 margin.  A November 20th CNN/WMUR poll asked the same question of New Hampshire Democrats, with Obama leading Clinton 27% to 13%.  

With just a month to go before the first primary, the Democratic race taking shape is not so much about policy and ideas as much as it is about one central question: who do we entrust with the most powerful office in the nation?  One need not be a Republican to believe it should not be a certain lying power-hungry ivy-league lawyer from Chicago.  She wants the Oval Office so badly she will stop at nothing to get it.  Which, as Plato would say, is exactly why she should not have it.

 

 

Selected Sources:

http://www.wmur.com/politics/14651842/detail.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/16/hillary.book.response.02/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKTpwLxMmpk

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/07wed2.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/28/2007-09-28_hillary_flipflop_on_torture_inspired_aft.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3212

 http://nascentdotage.blogspot.com/2007/09/if-you-like-big-brother-youll-love.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html

To My Fellow Republicans,

It is now a year after the elections that drove our party from Congress, and from legislative chambers and governor's offices around the nation.  A year hence the voters will return to the polls and will, if so inclined, finish what they started last fall and sweep us from office entirely.  And, I fear, barring a dramatic change of direction this is exactly what will happen, for I sense the mood of the nation is still against us.  Despite this, except for a brief burst of introspection following the electoral disaster of 2006, there has been little or no change of course from either our party officials or most of our federal candidates.

I submit to you, my fellow Republicans, that we are long overdue in admitting some errors of judgment on the part of our leadership and highest elected officials.  Further, I submit that only by disclosing these errors, acknowledging them in full, and apologizing for them, can we hope to once again hold the trust and respect of the voters.  Criticizing the decisions of my own party leadership is not an action I relish, and it weighs heavily on my mind.  I do so out of a sense of deeply held principle, and in the conviction that only by this sort of self-examination can we move forward and reconcile with middle America.

I have been waiting these last twelve months for a letter such as this one to appear.  It would mean so much more were it to come from the party chairman, or a congressman.  But alas, it appears that no one else has stepped forward, and that if a letter is to be written at all it may have to come from me.  

These are the errors of our party as I see them:

We have enmeshed the nation in a war without cause or easy solution.  Under the guise of a tenuous connection to the 9/11 terrorists and the hobgoblin of weapons of mass destruction, our Republican president and congress invaded a sovereign nation and hunted down an admittedly ruthless dictator.  Now, using the rubric of "spreading democracy," our president continues to push for continued deployment and billions in new spending for a war that now approaches its fifth year.  This war has cost the lives of 3,860 of our soldiers, and the lives of at least 73,264 Iraqi civilians.

Based on false intelligence and deception at the highest levels, the Iraq War has been and continues to be a tremendous mistake.  The Republican Party has never, ever stood for war, especially not in the name of nation-building.  It has never, until recently, been our argument that we are to police the world.  The American people elected us to end the war in Korea and the war in Vietnam.  We should return to our historic premise, which held from the time of Jefferson to the days of Reagan, that we should encourage peace through trade and a strong defense.  We as a party must heed the words of Jefferson, "If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."  Open trade is much more effective at spreading our ideals than the use of our military.  

Our party, in collusion with the Democrats, has led an assault upon basic rights and freedoms inherent within the American character.  The Patriot Act, named in an demonstration of supreme Orwellian doublespeak, has given the federal government access to a slew of private records of every citizen, from video rentals to library records to phone records to bank statements.  "Free-speech zones" have been set up across the nation, severely curtailing the protests and freedom of expression that is the lifeblood of a free people.  And the Democrats, elected last year at least in part to reverse this disturbing trend, have promptly passed the Military Commissions Act, which allows the federal government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls of everyday Americans without even bothering to obtain a warrant.  

Since our party was formed to oppose slavery, after the splintering of Jefferson's old Democratic-Republican Party, we have stood for freedom.  When the nation was wrestling with the issue of slavery, it was Republican President Lincoln who signed the document ending the practice forever. When women asked for the right to vote, it was the Republicans who led the charge.  When the Democrats turned sharply left towards outright socialism, it was the Republicans who welcomed true liberal Democrats, those concerned with fundamental issues of liberty, with open arms.  And when one of those ex-Democrats became a great Republican president named Reagan, the United States had its greatest protector of free people and free markets in the White House than it had seen in perhaps a century.  We, the Republicans, must remember the counsel of our own Barry Goldwater, "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Charged by the American people with reducing the size and scope of government, we instead enlarged it.  In 1994 our party was handed a mandate when we were entrusted with control of the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades.  This was a direct result of our "Contract with America," in which we promised to cut taxes, spending, and the red tape that defines the federal bureaucracy.  While several taxes were cut, spending was not reduced.  In fact, entitlements such as Medicaid were expanded, subsidies to industries and agriculture exploded, and expensive new programs, including a return to the moon, were initiated.  These expenses, combined with the billions of dollars of spending on the Iraq War, have sent our budget spiraling into deficit.  Sent to Washington to eliminate the federal Department of Education, and return full control over education to the states, our Congress worked hand-in-hand with the Bush Administration to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, which, like so much Democratic legislation, has the best of intentions but is, at the end of the day, a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars and an intolerable intrusion into how parents and teachers run their local schools.  We must remember our roots and return to our rhetoric, and this time, should we earn back the trust of the people, we must follow through with our promises.

We have practiced the politics of exclusion.  Not so long ago, the Republicans were the party of the big tent.  All who believed in personal freedom and responsibility were welcome, and we could sort out our minor differences amongst ourselves in a jovial fashion.  But somewhere we lost that focus, and it became so important to win that we were willing to sacrifice entire segments of the people at the altar of victory.  In 2004, winning was so crucial to Karl Rove that in an effort to bring out social conservatives, he engineered the placement on multiple state ballots of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.  In the process, he single-handedly drove away many who might otherwise be attracted to our message of smaller government and greater personal liberty.  

Likewise, rather than spread our philosophy of less regulations and more opportunity to blacks across America, the candidates widely perceived to be the front-runners for our party's nomination in 2008 - McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney - all declined to participate in a debate held by the NAACP.  This is especially ridiculous considering that for the last half of the 19th century, every black person who held office did so as a Republican, in recognition that Lincoln was the president who ended slavery.  Martin Luther King Jr. himself was a Republican.  We must return to being the big-tent party, and welcome people of all colors and orientations and genders and backgrounds.  

Finally, I come to the greatest sin of all, the one for which all others are merely symptoms.  There is a reason that our party believed that it had a duty to deliver democracy to the Middle East.  There is a reason why we thought we knew better than the Framers of the Constitution, and came to believe their protections were outdated.  There is an explanation for why we abandoned our commitment to smaller government and began to spend money hand over fist.  And there is a reason why we thought nothing of pushing wide cross-sections of the American people out of our party.  We are guilty of hubris.  So confident were Rove and Tom Delay of their success in building a lasting Republican machine that they spoke not so quietly of a "permanent majority."  And the voters, having observed that we had forgotten who was really in charge, reminded us last November.  

And who can blame them?  

All is not lost, my fellow Republicans.  Although we lost our way, over the past decade, the right path is still there for us to reclaim.  It is not taken by our Democratic counterparts, who still insist as they have for the better part of a century that the answers to our nations problems lies in ever-larger, ever-more intrusive, ever-more expensive government.  Every day that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and those who form the new Democratic majority in Washington advocate a new program instead of addressing our mistakes, they frustrate the very voters who placed them in power.  Emboldened by our failure, they push spending to unimagined heights and leave our messy table untouched.  Our mistakes are there for us to fix.  We're still at war.  The deficit continues to grow.  Our freedoms remain at greater risk than ever.  There are still vast sections of the American people waiting to hear us resume our message of liberty and responsibility.  The abandoned trail to electoral success is there, where we left it, at the signpost of our principles.  

We must retrace our steps.  That means acknowledging our errors, as I have done in this letter.  It means apologizing to the American people on behalf of our party leadership.  It means we, the grassroots who never lost our Republican principles, moving at last to take our party back from the neoconservatives who led it so far astray over the past decade and sending them back across the aisle from whence they came.  It means biting back our pride and asking the people for another chance to lead.  And finally, when that time comes, it means keeping our promises.

We have a lot of work to do, and the sooner we begin the better.

Sincerely,

Keith Murphy
Manchester NH