Grover Norquist,, Power Broker

We read about Norquist in Off Center.

Here he is in the news:

Special interests aided tax-reform advocate
A range of groups funded Norquist

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | March 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Grover G. Norquist has become one of the nation's most influential activists by portraying his group, Americans for Tax Reform, as the leading ''grass-roots taxpayers movement," which gets thousands of politicians to sign a pledge against any new tax.

Behind the ''grass-roots" activism, however, is a multimillion-dollar donor list that is the envy of Washington. And the Massachusetts native has always refused to name his financial backers.

But interviews and copies of Norquist's donor lists, obtained by the Globe, show that contributors include an array of special interests ranging from tobacco companies to Indian tribes to a Las Vegas casino.

The biggest surprise is Norquist's largest individual donor: Richard ''Dickie" Scruggs, a Democratic Mississippi trial lawyer, who contributed $4.3 million. Scruggs had received a $1 billion fee in the landmark tobacco case against the same tobacco companies that were also Norquist's donors.

This is the kind of story that seems to support Hacker and Pierson's argument about the coordination between interest groups and parties.

Campaign season: o6 and 08 are both underway

note: I have had much help in this post from my scholarship worker, Ben C.

For an interesting article dealing with campaigning, campaign strategies, party perceptions, and public opinion, find Women Wage Key Campaigns for Democrats, by Robin Toner. 'Mommy Party' Aiming to Take Back House.

First, note how the Democrats are using a common campaign strategies: building off the other party's failure, and using public stereotypes to send a message:

Democratic strategists are betting that the voters' unrest and hunger for change — reflected consistently in public opinion polls — create the perfect conditions for their party's female candidates this year.
"In an environment where people are disgusted with politics in general, who represents clean and change?" asks Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Women."

Further, although it is not the main point of the article, it touches some on the importance of power through number of seats:

But Amy Walter, who tracks House races for Cook, said, "If you look at the top Republican targets this year, the success of Democratic women candidates will be very important in determining the number of Democratic pickups."
A net shift of 15 seats to Democrats from Republicans would turn over control of the House.
For all the enthusiasm on the Democratic side, experts say this will not be another 1992-style "year of the woman," the breakthrough year when the number of women in the House and Senate jumped by more than half. There simply are not enough competitive or open seats to make that kind of change likely.

Then, this article shows that good politics might not always be about perfect policy or great political skill, but rather more about timing and the current political landscape:

It is far easier for challengers to win an open seat than to oust an incumbent.
"It's not about how many women are running," said Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List, the Democratic women's fund-raising organization. "It's about how many women are running where they have real opportunities to win."

Lastly, on campaign strategies, notice how the Republican strategy is different than that of the Democrats. Democrats are looking to turn the upcoming elections into a national campaign, while Republicans will focus more on specific local issues.


In an article entitled Bush is Facing a Difficult Path on Immigration issues of competing interests and the political power of the presidency are addressed.
Although Bardes,et al. tell us that the president plays a role of "Party Chief," this issue illustrates that a president requires cooperation:

He has lost control of his own party on the issue, as many Republicans object to his call for a temporary guest-worker program, insisting instead that the focus be on shutting down the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
In short, Mr. Bush is facing another test of his remaining powers as president.

Perhaps the bigger issue here, though, is the political limbo that Bush is caught in, as he tries to play to competing interests:

The discussion has intensified as Mr. Bush finds himself caught between two of his most important constituencies: business owners and managers on the one hand, conservatives on the other.
Philosophically, the president, whose own sensibility on the issue was shaped by his experience as governor of Texas, says he is committed to a program that meets the needs of business: the creation of a pool of legal foreign workers for industries that have come to rely on low-wagelabor.
But politically, Mr. Bush must satisfy his most conservative supporters. Many of them view illegal immigration as a strain on schools, the health care system and the economy, and some have warned that in their opinion the nation's cultural identity could be washed away by a flood of low-income Spanish-speaking workers.
For now, Mr. Bush is trying to navigate the storm with a proposal that tries to satisfy both groups: a toughened border enforcement plan coupled with a temporary guest-worker program that would allow some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States to register for legal status and remain here for as long as six years.

In this whole discussion, political strategy is always in mind:

Mr. Bush dropped his immigration proposals as too risky for his 2004 re-election campaign, but took them up again in 2005. By then, in an effort to calm conservatives, he had switched his tactics, emphasizing the national-security part of the plan.

Two more articles speak to political strategy and the 2008 campaign.

First, remaining on immigration:

Senate GOP Fears Frist's Ambitions Split Party
Conflicts Seen With 2008 Aspirations

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A04

By pushing his way to the front of the volatile debate over immigration, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has reignited complaints that his presidential ambitions conflict with his leadership duties at times and put him at odds with his GOP caucus.

Frist (R-Tenn.) pointedly told the Judiciary Committee on March 16 that unless it produced a comprehensive bill by Monday, he would send his own proposal to the Senate floor. The committee worked overtime to comply, but Frist still arranged for his bill -- which places more emphasis on border security -- to draw several hours of debate before yielding to the committee measure as the vehicle for amendments and votes, which will start today.

And second, switching issues and candidates:

ABCNews illustrates the importance of playing to your base. This article, entitled McCain Woos the Right, Makes Peace With Falwell discusses John McClain’s political moves in an attempt to “woo” republican party elites; he recently backtracked on his stance against a marriage amendment:

McCain's outreach to conservatives on marriage is politically important because of the way he sharply denounced a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage when it was considered in 2004. McCain called it "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" because it "usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

As per the headline, McCain has been quite critical of Falwell in the past, while this year he is scheduled to give the commencement at Falwell's Liberty University.
As we have studied, primiaries often cause candidates to move to more extreme positions, since the (fewer) voters in primaries are more liberal (Democrats) or conservative (Republicans). When you go out of the mainstream (by definition) can you get back?

Time Magazine and Campaigning

Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Bardes, et al., speak to campaigning. Time Magazine has two recent stories that a student of politics might find helpful in writing a paper:

From the March 20 coverstory:

An Eye On The White House And An Eye On You
Forget television ads. In 2008, candidates will watch your Web searches and cozy up to your friends
By JOSH TYRANGIEL

one example in the article:

Keeping supporters passionate is important, but to win elections you have to sway the undecideds. If they won't watch ads, at least one possible candidate thinks they might watch the campaign. "We've discussed the possibility of doing a reality show," says a Senate aide whose boss is contemplating a long-shot White House bid in '08. "The obvious danger is that it would have to be warts and all to be credible, and you'd have to give up some control. The upside is people get emotionally invested in the candidate." The aide emphasizes that no offers exist yet. "But," he adds, "it's inevitable that somebody's going to do it, so why not us?"

For more risk-averse candidates, the two parties are creating elaborate lists of voting-age adults and cross-referencing them with consumer and demographic information, all with an eye toward sending out the most tailored communications possible. "No one under 35 wants to hear the same message about Social Security as someone over 65," says Crawford, "and there's no reason why they have to. On one issue, you can make four or five ads targeting entirely different groups. It's cheap because you don't have to pay for airtime, and because I don't need to book a studio"-

From the April 3 edition of time Magazine, (posted March 26):

Republicans On The Run
As midterm campaigns gear up, Bush's party fears a backlash that could end its 12-year hold on the House
By KAREN TUMULTY, MIKE ALLEN

As we have talked about, disarray in one party merely makes opportunity for the other party -- the Democrats would have to capitalize on this. Alsoas we have talekd about, gerrymandering assists incumbents, which naturally assists the majority party.

Still,

In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "Had enough?"

Then, a page or two later in the article, a paragraph we could write, having studied about the importance of constituent casework:

Republicans can take some comfort in the fact that one general rule about politics remains true, even in this difficult year: as mad as voters are at Washington in general, they are still pretty happy with the individual people who represent them. In the TIME poll, 63% of respondents said they approved of the job their local lawmaker was doing. That's one reason Republican strategists say they plan to battle the national tide by localizing individual races.

The article also discusses the need of Republicans to stand together -- recall that this is one of the strengths of the party that Hacker and Pierson identify.

The most obvious line of defense for Republican candidates is to point out their differences with the President, as the party-wide revolt over the ports deal amply demonstrated....
But party leaders are warning privately against taking that strategy too far. "If Diet Coke criticizes Coke, people buy Pepsi, not Diet Coke," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. In an internal Republican Party memo provided to TIME, Jan van Lohuizen, a longtime Bush pollster, warns candidates tempted to distance themselves that "President Bush drives our image and will do so until we have real national front-runners for the '08 nomination. If he drops, we all drop." Another Republican strategist describes the problem for G.O.P. candidates this way: "Adding weight to the anchor doesn't help them."

Yes, you can use Time, or other newsweeklies, as your news sources.

More on Presidential Aids

Former Reagan Aid Lyn Nofziger died Monday. The New York Times has a remembrance/obituary that includes the following statements:

He put up a cynical facade that endeared him to the reporters he dealt with, but he remained devoted to Reagan, even though he was never part of the president's innermost circle.
...
Despite his service in the Reagan and Nixon White Houses, Mr. Nofziger was not a doctrinaire conservative. He could, however, take the gloves off when he felt it necessary to serve the boss, either as a communications aide to Richard M. Nixon or as a political director for Reagan.

He worked under Reagan to replace Democrats in the federal bureaucracy with loyal Republicans. John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel, wrote that Mr. Nofziger had helped compile the Nixon White House's "enemies list."

Presidency and the Media

The Bush White House has long viewed the media skeptically. A nice piece discussing this is Fortress Bush, from the New Yorker magazine; in that article, Ken Auletta relates,

What seems new with the Bush White House is the unusual skill that it has shown in keeping much of the press at a distance while controlling the news agenda. And for perhaps the first time the White House has come to see reporters as special pleaders—pleaders for more access and better headlines—as if the press were simply another interest group, and, moreover, an interest group that’s not nearly as powerful as it once was.

Given this view toward the press, an article in today's Washington Post seems to signal a turnabout:

Off the Record, Bush Makes Media Inroads
Private Sessions Rare for Administration

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; A14

As he defends his Iraq policy with a public campaign of speeches and a recent news conference, President Bush also has been waging a private campaign that has included off-the-record sessions with White House reporters, sources said yesterday.

One gathering, which took place Thursday in the White House residence, was an unusual gesture by Bush, who has agreed to comparatively few lengthy exchanges with reporters during his five years in office. Bush has said publicly that he needs to convince Americans that the U.S. mission in Iraq is on a path to victory, despite what he called a news media focus on daily violence.

Wow, a person sure could write a paper with that and chapter 11, eh?

The Presidency

Americans tend to we focus on a president as the head of government. In chapters 11 and 12, e will emphasize (a) the presidency -- an institution -- which (b) needs the cooperation of other branches of government.

Two relevant stories to illustrate:
(a) Basrdes, et al. (394f) discuss executive organization. The EOP is introiduced ion 395, and the first office listed under it is the White House Office -- WHO. Turn over to 396, see the WHO discussed mre fully. Turn to
In 1st Major Shift of 2nd Term, Bush Looks to Inner Circle to see a stroy about Andrew Card, the chief of staff, resigning.

Calls for shakeups in the Bush Adminsitration have been louder in the past week; Elizabeth Bumiller had a story last week about the possiblity of bringing someone in to assist Karl Rove: Are Late Innings the Time for a Relief Pitcher?.

(b)From the LA Times:

High Court to Review Guantanamo Case
Challengers say military tribunals permit Bush to act as lawmaker, prosecutor, judge and jury. Congress has complicated the debate.

The Supreme Court is hearing argument today on the preident's authority to creat military tribunals:

It is an authority the president's lawyers say is part of his power as commander in chief. The challengers, including current and former military lawyers, say the tribunals are unfair and unconstitutional because they permit the president, acting through Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, to act as lawmaker, prosecutor, judge and jury.

But this momentous dispute over the role of law during wartime may well end in a non-decision, thanks to a late intervention by Congress.

In December, lawmakers heaped praise on themselves for outlawing the use of torture against prisoners. They did so by adding an amendment sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war, to a military spending bill. At the same time, they inserted a provision in the bill saying that detainees at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay had no right to have their claims heard in federal court.

Branch Relations

1,889 days and no vetoes: Bush gaining on Jefferson
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY Updated 3/23/2006 7:34 AM
WASHINGTON — President Bush Thursday becomes the longest-sitting president since Thomas Jefferson not to exercise his veto, surpassing James Monroe.

What is the story here -- that Bush has masterfully worked with the Congress, or that Congress has abandoned its institutional role? Not surprisingly, we see both points made in the article:

Some analysts say Bush's failure to use his veto shows an unwillingness to confront fellow Republicans who control Congress. "He doesn't want to fight battles unnecessarily and create a distance between himself and his party," says Mark Rozell, a George Mason University political scientist who has studied presidential vetoes.

Others say Bush's avoidance of the veto is a sign of strength. "Bush and his party are so close on most issues that there's no need to veto," Mackenzie says.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., scoffs at that: "This is a rubber-stamp Congress. Why would he veto anything?"

Congress and Reelection

This article is used inthe powerpoint on Congress: Institutional Structure and Functions. We assume a member of congress wants reelection. How do they rig the institution to allow that?

Lawmakers get out of the House

By Kathy Kiely
USA TODAY

...
Members of Congress are taking an entire week off for St. Patrick's Day. It's the latest scheduling innovation to give members more time to meet with constituents.
...
During the first two months of the year, House members logged a total of 47 hours in the Capitol. They took off almost the entire month of January , while the Senate confirmed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

For both chambers, workweeks have become short in recent years. Roll call votes are seldom scheduled for Mondays or Fridays. In the House, they are often postponed until late Tuesday.

As a result, it's difficult to schedule committee meetings. ...

Is the real function of congress to serve the member?

Congress, the budget, and Parties as coalitions

Bardes et al. discuss budget making in chapter 10. As noted in class, we willcome back to the budget iin the last section of the course, although you are welcome to write papers about it now. Many articles about the budget process will be published inthe next few weeks, since congress is supposed to have a budget resolution by April 15.

This time of sizable deficits is brining out some conflict within the majority party, as seen in USA Today a couple weeks ago (hey, I was on Spring break, too):

GOP edges away from proposed cuts
Trimming benefits could be costly for lawmakers in election year

From wire reports

WASHINGTON With many Republicans nervous about cutting popular programs in an election year, lawmakers in the House and Senate are signaling they won't support President Bush's newest proposals for politically painful cuts in Medicare and other government benefits.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said the budget he'll put to a vote in his committee today won't include Bush's plans to cut Medicare, farm subsidies and food stamps. After shepherding through a five-year, $39 billion benefit-cut bill last year, Gregg said he didn't have the support he needed for a second round of cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare....
...
Election-year politics have driven many of Gregg's decisions and have frustrated the conservative New Englander, who is one of Congress' most ardent advocates of bringing federal benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare under control before the baby boomers' retirement overwhelms them.

Political Parties and supportive groups

Political parties are coalitions; while labor has traditionally been associated with the Democrats, Republicans are trying to make inroads in that. Tuesday's New york times reports, G.O.P. Makes Its Pitch to Firefighters' Union. Reporter Steven Greenhouse reports how several GOP officials have met with the firefighters, and there are hints of Hacker and Pierson: 'work with us, since we are the majority party, if you want to get your agenda passed.'

The Teamsters, the service employees and other unions have begun cooperating with Republicans. But rarely have the Republicans made such strong overtures toward a union as they did on Monday toward the firefighters.

There is also a dose of symbolism in this effort:

The firefighters have cachet because they are viewed as pillars in many communities and because 343 New York firefighters were killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

A second article from Tuesday's New York Times about groups and parties is Pastors' Get-Out-the-Vote Training Could Test Tax Rules. As nonprofits, churches are not supposed to engage in campaigning for any candidate:

A politician speaking to a religious group is hardly new, and the tax code allows churches and other tax-exempt charities to register voters and to express views on public issues.
...
The tax agency found "a disturbing amount" of political activity during the 2004 election, including churches' inviting just one candidate to speak or distributing voters' guides that in effect favored one candidate over another, Mr. Everson said in a statement.

This is "spot-on" wth Hacker and Pierson's argument that tht Republican party has been more focused on mobilizing the base, and not moving toward the center as the median voter model would predict:

Republicans, encouraged by their success mobilizing religion-minded voters in 2004, are stepping up their efforts to collect church directories around the country to help turn out voters for the midterm races. Democrats are watching the Pennsylvania senator's race closely in part because Mr. Santorum's opponent, Bob Casey Jr., shares Mr. Santorum's opposition to abortion rights, defusing the issue that has galvanized Christian conservatives.

Recruiting Candidates for Office

Recruiting candidates for office is one function of parties (ch 8). Republicans have enjoyed public support in the area of foreign policy in the recent past (see BSS, 260). Democrats have worked to counter this through their recruiting, and in Illinois primiary this week, a vet won the primary:

Duckworth wins Illinois primary
AP
CHICAGO — Former Army Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth, who lost her legs in Iraq, narrowly defeated Christine Cegelis to win the Democratic congressional primary nomination for the suburban Chicago district seat held by the retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde.
...
The race could have national repercussions as Democrats try to regain control of the House of Representatives in November. Duckworth, 38, is one of nine veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan running for Congress this year. Only one, Van Taylor, winner of a March 7 primary in Texas, is a Republican.

Congressional Approval Ratings

1. In class we have talked about public approval and disapproval of congress: people tend to like their individualmember, but not the institution. From the March 10 USA Today,

Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53% of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

The article goes on to identify two important factors that we have also identified in class: voters will be selecting candidates and not parties, and dissatisfaction with one party does not necessarily translate into good fortune for the other party:

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

This last point reinforces Hacker and Pierson's focus on the importance of leadership and discipline of the organization of a party.

Parties and coalitions

Bush's approval rating falls to new low
WASHINGTON (AP) — More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

The Presdent has been in the 30s before, and the CBS poll last week had him at 34%. According to Hacker and Pierson, so long as one is more concerned about the base than the median voter, that should not matter. However, the article continues:

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82% in February to 74%, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

An article in Today's Washington Post addresses the Congress-White House tension: party unites, but self interest divides (at least in an election year):

The president's weakness portends a tough battle for Bush's fellow Republicans who face a challenge from Democrats to their dominance in both houses of the U.S. Congress in the November midterm elections, political analysts say.

"The prospects look very grim for Republicans," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. He said the poll numbers also bode poorly for key items on Bush's domestic agenda, such as immigration reform and his push to make tax cuts permanent.

Republicans will increasingly be forced to choose between loyalty to the White House and their own viability, Baker and other analysts said.

That is both supported and challenged by the USA Today article, mentioned above:

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

Ah, parties as coalitions, performing that juggling act.

The Democrats and Mobilization

An article that ties in wonderfully with our discussion of the 21st Centruy Campaign (chap 9, BSS) and with the Hacker and Pierson, appeared in the Washington Post Wednesday March 8.

Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle
With Private Effort on Voter Information, Ickes and Soros Challenge Dean and DNC

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A01

A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.

The Democrats also looked more like Republicans in a Texas primary Tuesday: an incumbent moderate Democrat faced a stiff challenge from a more liberal Democrat, paralleling the story Hacker and Pierson told about Marge Roukema in chapter 4.

the race was close, but the incumbent survived a scare, winning 53%-41%-6%. Also consistent with the 21st Campaign, and with the conclusion of Off Center, liberal weblogs played an important role in fundraising for the challenger, while the more centrist Democratic Leadership Conference supported the incumbent. Both stories then demonstrate the a party's efforts to define itself, master new methods of campaigning, and be able to be a competitive party in the larger political environment.

Parties and Coalitions

Two recent articles on parties and their attempts to cut into the coalition supporting the other party. Both involve religious affiliation, Jewish supporters of the Democrats and Evangelical supporters of the Repoublicans.

From Monday's Washington Post:

Post-9/11 Drive by Republicans To Attract Jewish Voters Stalls

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 6, 2006; A05

Nearly five years ago, immediately after the Sept.11, 2001, attacks, Republican strategists identified what they hoped would be a powerful new engine of support. "September 12 Republicans" were Jewish Democrats and independents who would switch their allegiance because of their concern over national security and their appreciation of President Bush's stalwart support of Israel.

It is such people that Vice President Cheney will be courting tomorrow, when he speaks to the closing plenary session of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference. But the much-trumpeted effort by the Bush White House to make deep inroads on the Democrats' historic claims on Jewish voters -- and, even more important politically, the campaign contributions of Jewish donors -- has not materialized in any convincing fashion, according to poll data, fundraisers and campaign finance reports.

In 2004, Bush improved his 2000 performance among Jewish voters, jumping from 19 percent to 25 percent, according to exit polls. But this gain was disappointing to many Bush supporters -- and was substantially below the 35 percent level Republican presidential candidates averaged through the five elections of the 1970s and 1980s.

And from the self-styled "good government" magazine the Washington Monthly, story on how "moral values" transcends abortion and sex, and includes the care of God's Creation -- e.g., concern with global climate change:

The article entitled When Would Jesus Bolt
begins with the discussion of Randy Brinson, and evangelical who has registered and mobilized many religiously committed voters, working for a bill to study the bible in the Alabama legislature, working with Democrats:

when Brinson and the other supporters—including several Pentecostal ministers, some Methodists, and a member of the state board of education—entered the state house chamber to make their case, they faced off against representatives from the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women of America, and the Eagle Forum. These denizens of the Christian Right denounced the effort, calling it “extreme” and “frivolous” and charging that it would encourage that most dangerous of activities, “critical thinking.” The real stakes of the fight, though, were made clear by Republican Rep. Scott Beason when he took his turn at the lectern. “This is more than about God,” he reminded his colleagues. “This is about politics.”

Actually, it's about both—a fight over which party gets to claim the religious mantle. Nationally, and in states like Alabama, the GOP cannot afford to allow Democrats a victory on anything that might be perceived as benefiting people of faith. Republican political dominance depends on being able to manipulate religious supporters with fear, painting the Democratic Party as hostile to religion and in the thrall of secular humanists. That image would take quite a blow if the party of Nancy Pelosi was responsible for bringing back Bible classes—even constitutional ones—to public schools.

The article includes another dimension of the moral values associated with evangelicals:

While Brinson has been working with Democrats in Alabama on the Bible literacy bill, other evangelicals are having their own road to Damascus moments. One of them is Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and a frequent subject of profiles on “kinder, gentler” evangelicals in outlets like Newsweek and USA Today. Cizik has spent years trying to get evangelicals invested in what he calls “creation care,” the idea that God gave them responsibility for tending to the earth. His hope has been that a Republican administration would be more likely to pay attention to lobbying from its own base on issues like carbon dioxide emissions than from liberal environmentalists.

Updates to Second Exam Study Sheet

Question 3: Drop all

Question 6: make sure to add in the concept of latent interest (presently its implicit.

Question 8 includes the folling: Explain how Madison's constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers award special interests precedence over the common good.. Drop it. Do recall how we linked Madison to an idealized model of pluralism; the remainder of question 8 is useful for answering whether we actually achieve that idealized model of pluralism (where interests check each other).

Question 9: five roles of political party: have some sense of them, but do not expect a short answer on them; Do think about "opposition" role --how does that role show up in Hacker and Pierson?

Question 12 on three faces of the party: not so important. Do relate to Hacker and Pierson, however in the sense that their argument is that Party in Government is "off center" of the party in the electorate.

Questions 14 and 15 on political parties get at the decline of party and the rise of candidate centered politics -- due to the rise of technology and the need for money. Look to Hacker and Pierson for how parties have responded in turn (especially how the Republican party has more successfully responded: how?).

Question 20: make sure you note that several of the factors related to whether we vote are demographic -- relate back to question 5. Other factors: party competition!

Question 21 on media: there might be a coupel MC questions, of obvious / main things but expect no short answer questions on "roles of media."

Question 23 runs through the background of all this stuf. we will continue thinking about culture / structure next section of the course. If you see it now, great; if not, stick it out, and do not sweat it for this exam.

Partisan Conflict: Within Parties

USA Today Cover story reports

GOP rift on ports, poll dip hit Bush
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee vowed to "kill" the proposed sale of some cargo operations at six major U.S. seaports to a Dubai firm as a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found overwhelming opposition to the deal.

The controversy has set up the most dramatic split to date between President Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill. It also seems to have dented Bush's standing on handling terrorism and narrowed the Republicans' long-standing advantage over Democrats on the issue, the USA TODAY survey shows.

In both 830 and 930 classes we discussed parties as coalitions, and the challenge of keeping a coalition together. The poll that is reported is interesting because of the notion that different parties "own" issues (as discussed in the 8:30 class, and as seen in BSS in Figure 8-4, page 260). the USA Today poll reports figures more favorable to Bush than the CBS Poll reported earlier in the week.

The same Friday USA Today paper has a story on conflict within the Episcopal Church over gays:

Episcopal Church torn by gay issue as more parishes leave

By Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY
More than a dozen congregations have defected from the U.S. Episcopal Church since the first of the year in a growing rebellion triggered by the ordination of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

More quick links: news for learning

1. Political parties are an interesting blend of ideologies and interest grooups. So the following story should be easy to follow: conservatives prefer less involvement with government (ch 1) and tend to support the Republican party (chs 6 and 8).

U.S. Easing Fines for Mine Owners on Safety Flaws

By IAN URBINA
and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: March 2, 2006

CRAIGSVILLE, W.Va. — In its drive to foster a more cooperative relationship with mining companies, the Bush administration has decreased major fines for safety violations since 2001, and in nearly half the cases, it has not collected the fines, according to a data analysis by The New York Times.

Federal records also show that in the last two years the federal mine safety agency has failed to hand over any delinquent cases to the Treasury Department for further collection efforts, as is supposed to occur after 180 days.

2. Here is a story that marries Federalism (ch 3) and Regulation. One arguemnt for federalism is it allows states to experiment: "unity without uniformity." On the other hand, uniformity can be good, especially in the commercial realm, where companies may do business in many states.

Bill May Undo States' Rules on Safe Food

By MARIAN BURROS
Published: March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The House is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would pre-empt all state food safety regulations that are more stringent than federal standards.

The measure would require uniformity on warning labels and set standards that would affect a wide variety of state regulations.

According to the National Uniformity for Food Coalition, whose members include trade associations, supermarket chains and food manufacturers, different laws in different states confuse consumers. "The citizens of all states deserve the same level of food safety," the coalition's Web site says. "Food cannot be safe in one state and unsafe in another."

But critics of the measure — including state departments of agriculture, state food and drug officials, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the California attorney general and a long list of consumer advocacy groups — say it would gut all state regulations, including food safety investigations and sanitation standards for restaurants. In some instances, they say, the bill would replace regulations with nothing because there are no federal standards.

In particular, the bill would pre-empt California's Proposition 65, a 1986 law that requires consumer notification about contaminants known to cause cancer or birth defects.

3. Just in time to follow up on our discussion of the weakening of labor, and its consequences for pluralism, mobilzatoin, and fund raising, the AFL-CIO has been meeting in San Diego this week:

Labor Leaders to Convene, Faced With Uphill Battles

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 27, 2006

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 26 — When the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s leaders gather this week at a luxury seaside resort here, they will once again be on the defensive, a situation made worse by the split the labor federation suffered last year.

Whatever those uphill battles, a second report is interesting for reporting that the Union is determined to be a player in the 2006 elections:

A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Spend $40 Million on Election
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 28, 2006

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 27 — With Republicans on the defensive over corruption, the A.F.L.-C.I.O's leaders said on Monday that there was a strong chance in this fall's elections to oust what they said were antiworker majorities in the House and Senate.

The union leaders voted to spend $40 million in the campaign, their most ever in a midterm election. ...
Union leaders said they would concentrate their efforts on 15 Senate races, 40 House races and governors races in California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

4. The role of rules in determining elections runs through Hacker and Pierson; as noted, the Supreme Court heard argument about redistricting today. This story also reports on on limits on campaign finance in Vermont: will the Court revisit its ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that spending is free speech, protected by the First Amendment, while donations are not protected speech?

Supreme Court Set to Weigh Central Election-Law Issues

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: February 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — The most pressing and unsettled questions in election law are those that concern the role of money, the role of race and the role of partisanship. The Supreme Court will take up all three this week.

extra Credit Opportunities

Truman Today this week brings several opportunities for extra credit.

As in the past: a) attend; b) write up a paragraph or two, summarizing "who / what / where / when" and c) engage your brain and mine: give an observation or two, ask a question or two, reflect.

1. “Puncturing Surfaces: An Examination of the Creative Process”

Aaron Fine, associate professor of art, will present this forum.

7 p.m.
March 2
Student Union Building Alumni Room

Fine will focus on the process of creating a body of work, as well as the connections between his creative research and the work of other artists at various points in history. Specifically, he will focus on the theme of “surfaces” in his paintings to facilitate a discussion of how the artist works and how that relates to a cultural context.

A reception will follow and be accompanied by an exhibition of Fine’s artwork.


2. Marc Becker (Soc Sci) will lead the March 2nd Global Issues session on the World Social Forum. The World Social Forum is a yearly meeting of activists who debate alternatives to globalization under the slogan “another world is possible.” Join us at 7:00 pm Thursday in Violette Hall 1000.

[this is a change: Due to unforeseen military responsibilities that have taken him out of town, Major Steve Konecny (Mil Sci) will be unable to present the Global Issues Colloquium session on March 2. This presentation on “The U.S. Army’s Transformational Imperative” has been tentatively rescheduled for April 6.]



3. Truman’s Mock Trial team will be having an exhibition from 6-8 p.m., March 3, in the SUB Activities Room. Admission is free, and refreshments will be provided. Spectators will be asked to be members of the jury. For more information, contact Bryan Gelecki at 402.578.2349.

Multiple Choice Questions used in 3.1. class, Hacker and Pierson

Hacker and Pierson claim the relationship between economic resources and political resources is

a. random
b. statistically positive: the wealthier are more likely to vote, organize, and donate.
c. statistically negative: poorer people are politically more active, since they want to keep government programs
d. irrelevant to policy in America


Why does it matter that traditional labor unions have declined in strength?

a. organizations are an important source of political information and mobilization for potential voters
b. with labor weakened, there are fewer checks on business.
c. groups are an important source of campaign contributions, and this decline in union strength has occurred just as costs of campaigns have grown
d. all of the above

Considering Hacker and Pierson, and Bardes, et al., why doesn’t the median voter matter as much as the model of the median voter would suggest?

a. many candidates run in “safe districts” where elections are essentially uncompetitive
b. the elections in “safe districts” are really decided in primaries.
c. in primary elections, parties appeal to their Base, which is more ideologically extreme
d. all of the above

Why Symbolic Politics? D'oh!

In class, and in the handout that was placed on BB6, I compared the ideal political system with a model of symbolic politics:

I. Ideal model of political system:
a. Interested and engaged voters,
b. Who are well informed by the media,
c. On positions of the candidates,
d. Select those who will govern

II. But we assume Political Actors are self interested...

III. Alternative Model: Symbolic Politics
a. Politics is an activity engaged in by the few
b. In a representative democracy, these few, the political elite, need the support of people
c. Numerous symbols and myths are used to secure and maintain the support of the (largely disinterested and politically unaware) masses.

Here's a news story that draws attention to the "largely disinterested and politically unaware" part:

Study: More know 'The Simpsons' than First Amendment rights
CHICAGO (AP) — Americans apparently know more about The Simpsons than they do about the First Amendment.

Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey.

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

Texas Redistricting Case argued before Court

A central claim of Hacker and Pierson is that our political outcomes are more a result of structural rules than they are of cultural preferences. Instead of a sift to the right among american voters, instead we see a series of electoral rules that favor the Republican Coalition.

One rule that clearly matters for political representation in the United States is our ue of single-member districts to elect members of congress, instead of using proportional representation (this is the same as Bardes, et al.'s discussion of "The Winner-Take-All Electoral System," on page 270; see also, what If... on page 250).

How those single member districts is drawn -- gerrymandering, see chapter 10, page 349 -- matters for the political fortunes of the two parties. Hacker and Pierson discuss how then-Majority Leader Tom Delay was instrumental in redistricting in Texas in 2003, a move that ensured Republican control of Congress (see 124-25)

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, although it is difficult to prove given redistricting is done usually every 10 years. What was unusual about the Texas redsitricting case is that new lines were drawn by Republicans in 2003, two years after having just been drawn (by Democrats).

From the New York Times:

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Texas Redistricting Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Texas Republicans were guilty of a naked political power grab when they redrew congressional boundaries, the Supreme Court was told Wednesday in a case that could have a major impact on elections.

Justices are considering whether the Republican-friendly map promoted by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay is unconstitutional.

The 2003 boundaries approved by the GOP-controlled state Legislature helped the Republican Party pick up six seats in Congress, but it also led to serious woes for DeLay. He was charged in state court with money laundering in connection with fundraising for legislative candidates. He gave up his leadership post and is fighting the charges.

''The only reason it was considered, let alone passed, was to help one political party get more seats than another,'' justices were told by Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who represents the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the groups challenging the plan.

''That's a surprise,'' Justice Antonin Scalia quipped. ''Legislatures redraw the map all the time for political reasons.''

But Smith said lawmakers should not be able to get away with drawing oddly shaped districts that protect incumbent Republicans and deny voters their chance to vote for other candidates.

The court could throw out the map, just in time for elections this year.

Or it could not. But it nicely illustrates that battles in Democracy are not just about mobilizing you to the polls, but also determining the rules uder which our votes will be counted.

Update Oh, yes, the other major case the court heard today involved Anna Nicole Smith and "the will." The case is really about federalism -- the power of federal courts to become involved in state probate matters.

Power Brokers

One of the concepts that Hacker and Pierson use is the New Power Broker -- people and groups that raise funds and affect the behavior of incumbents and candidates. As we have discussed, many incumbents face a greater threat in their primary, form their own party, than from the opposition party in the general election. The previous post illustrated that.

Here is an article from a couple weeks ago on "K-Street" and lobbying:

Clients' Rewards Keep K Street Lobbyists Thriving

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; A01

A few years ago, a coalition of 60 corporations -- including Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard and Altria -- made an expensive wager. They spent $1.6 million in lobbying fees -- a hefty amount even by recent K Street standards -- to persuade Congress to create a special low tax rate that they could apply to earnings from their foreign operations for one year.

The effort faltered at first, but eventually the bet paid off big. In late 2004, President Bush signed into law a bill that reduced the rate to 5 percent, 30 percentage points below the existing levy. More than $300 billion in foreign earnings has since poured into the United States, saving the companies roughly $100 billion in taxes.

Although not every political battle yields $100 billion, the return on investment in lobbying is often so substantial that experts and insiders agree that Washington's influence industry will continue to thrive no matter how lawmakers decide to rein it in.

Political Parties

Over the past month I have several posts about political parties as Factions: They are here, here, and here.

Now that we are into chapter 8 on political parties, and now that we are into Hacker and Pierson, those posts "fit" better.

Today's USA Today has an article that is remniscent of Hacker and Pierson's discussion of the importance of primary elections, in chapter 4, The Race to the Base. Recall that their argument is that primaries really matter, since many districts or states are "safe" for a particular party. And in the primary, you may well face a more ideological extreme canddiate -- a real threat given that primary voters are more ideologically extreme than general election voters.

In this cover story, Crossing party lines makes targets of some incumbents, Susan Page writes,

The primary challenges to the Senate's most liberal Republican and one of its more conservative Democrats are signs of the litmus tests that partisan voters on both sides are applying this year. They come as advocacy groups, including the conservative Club for Growth (backing Chafee's opponent) and the liberal MoveOn.org (which may support Lamont), are increasingly willing to help finance primary challenges to incumbents.

In Tuesday's primary in Texas, MoveOn.org is targeting Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar because of his coziness with President Bush. (While MoveOn is raising money for challenger Ciro Rodriguez, the Club for Growth is doing the same for Cuellar.)

And in Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine, up for re-election this year, is getting flak from fellow Republicans for joining the Gang of 14. A deal forged by the bipartisan group of senators thwarted Democrats from using a filibuster to block some controversial judicial nominations, but it also preserved the maneuver for "extraordinary" cases.

The bottom line: Voting records that once might have been seen as a sign of independent-minded statesmanship are now an invitation for an intraparty brawl. Strong feelings over the Iraq war in particular are sparking protests by anti-war Democrats toward elected officials who try to find some middle ground. Even New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party's most prominent liberal, has been criticized in her state for supporting the Iraq war resolution.

Note that Club for Growth and Move.on both appear prmoninently in Hacker and Pierson.

Yes, you can write a paper on this -- the hard work is still to be done, I just brought it to your attention.