Did You Hear That Obama Actually Won Texass? We Wonder Why Not?

Dear Fellow Founder Stalkers,

Behold, the CNN Election Center Results for Texass' March 4, 2008 Primary AND Caucus. As you know the Texass Two-Step allocates 2/3 of the state's delegates for the primary vote and 1/3 for the caucus vote. Texass has (sortof) finally finished counting up the day's votes and Senator Obama has emerged victorious!

Senator Obama 99

Senator Clinton 94

We have not seen this much reported in the news, so we thought that we would draw your attention to these facts. Enjoy!

Bush-Clinton Oligarchy

Dear Founder-Stalkers,

Have you ever thought about the fact that from 1988 to 2008 the President of the United States has been named either Bush or Clinton? That is twenty years of two families dominating the presidency--twenty years! Let's look at the definition of an oligarchy, shall we?

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Compare with autocracy (rule by one person) and democracy (rule by the majority).

Yes, dear Founder-Stalkers, there are important differences between an oligarchy and a democracy. When the same two families dominate the presidency, then we can say that our political system is the rule of the few, not the rule of the majority. With the presidency controlled by two families and with the consolidation of political power into the Executive Branch that we've seen over the past twenty years, our government has become less majority rule and more oligarchic rule. For the past twenty years--a generation--we have allowed the same two families to control our government. If we saw another nation allow two families to dominate their politics, then we would not hasten to call that nation an oligarchy. But, when we look at ourselves we somehow still think that we still live in a democracy. How strange, we think. Of course, we know that many of our leaders have been born to privilege and have been somehow distant relations, but we believe that our current oligarchy is different in kind and we fear the effects of an entire generation (current college students were born between 1986-1990) that knows no other president than either Bush or Clinton.

Many of the Founders were concerned with the question of how to limit political family dynasties. GW was the perfect choice to be our first president many argued, in part, because he did not have a son and thus would not be allowed to set up a hereditary president-monarchy. John Adams was feared on account of his politically active son, JQA, and the family was often tarred with the "monarchist" label by politicians of both the first and the second generations. Since the Adamses we've had other important political dynasties--the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys--but, none of these family members ruled back to back like we've had recently. In fact, we've not had two families so completely dominate American politics since the Hutchinsons and the Olivers divided all of Massachusetts Bay Colony's political offices between them--and, we know what happened to them.

Tommy wrote a letter to Gerrymander on January 26, 1799 when he was hoping to become president that pretty well sums up his political principles and pointedly denounces hereditary office holding:

I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by it's friends, & not that which it's enemies apprehended, who therefore became it's enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising it's features by the forms of it's administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle.

We understand that Senator Clinton, and indeed one day Chelsea Clinton and Jenna and Barbara Bush, have the right to run for president under our Constitution. We understand further that if the people choose them, then these Clintons and Bushs are justly the President of the United States. We just wonder if this kind of oligarchy is really in the best interest of the nation.

M.O.W. believes that when Senator Obama argues that Senator Clinton represents "politics as usual," that this might be a part of what he means.

What say you, Founder-Stalkers?

more at twiigs.com...

M.O.W. Causes Controversy!

Dear Founder-Stalkers,

Our last post on our experience at the Texass Two-Step and our reflections upon Senator Clinton's negative campaign strategy, which we called the "politics of alienation," has caused quite a stir over at The Rhetorical Situation. We are trying mightily to come up with something clever to say in response to all of their important points, but in the meanwhile, we thought that you might enjoy listening in/being a part of the conversation.

P.S. Our dear friend forwarded us the above picture as a t-shirt for sale around the interwebs. We found it very wrong, obviously, but yet kinda funny, and perhaps apropos to this post in an earnestly ironic kinda way. Please don't hate on us.

Obama Beats Hillary on Patriotism

M.O.W. voted twice for Senator Obama yesterday. The first time we used one of those new-fangled electrified machines and the second time we signed our name to a list. We have to admit that we had never caucused before now--we are relatively new to Texass, after all. We found the caucus slightly disorganized, but we believe that it only appeared disorganized because most of the people there had also never been to a caucus before and we none of us quite knew what we were doing. Thankfully there were a handful of folks there who had been doing the Texass Two Step seemingly for decades and they kept things organized.

We waited in line outside of our polling place and Founder-stalked for a while (was Jimmy Buck really the worst president or has GWB out done him in suckyness, we wondered and discussed with our line colleagues), then we filed into our church polling place (most polling places seem to be churches in Texass, they being in such abundance) and stood around for a while. There was an awkward moment when the dozen or so Republicans outted themselves and were asked to hold their caucus elsewhere. Then once the Republicans had removed to another location we Democrats got in line to sign our name and declare our candidate. After so doing the votes were counted (and witnessed by second parties--no shenanigans here!) before the Chair made his announcement:

SENATOR OBAMA WON OUR PRECINCT! Hooray!!

Now we divide up Clinton supporters on one side and Obama on the other and we elect our County Delegates (M.O.W. is proud to say that we will represent Senator Obama at our county convention later this month--step one in our master plan to get to go to the DNC). After a few resolutions were proffered from the floor and many handshakes and congratulations were exchanged we Democrats parted the scene to watch how the rest of the state(s) voted in their own precincts.

As you would expect, M.O.W. enjoyed our time at our caucus. We love being among the politically active people. We love when old, young, white, black, brown, rich, and poor come together to act politically. We saw that they who caucused were respectful of one another, interested in politics, hopeful for the future, angry about the past. We talked, laughed, stood, and sat together. We acted together to make decisions.

We formed a community last night--however briefly--and we knew it.

We shared a lot of information and opinions. We talked, in particular, about why we supported Senator Obama and how we felt when we were told that we were mere members of a herd that did not know rhetoric from reality. As you can imagine, our fellow caucus members were a wee bit sensitive about this question.

Once we returned home and turned on the news M.O.W. quickly lost the afterglow of our political community building experience. 3 AM phone calls. All rhetoric. Unprepared. No plan. Meetings in Canada. Ug. It seems as though HRC would win Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texass and that she would do so by nasty and negative invective against our hero.

After our experience at the Texass caucus we wonder about the wisdom of HRC's choice to try to win the Democratic nominee at all costs. As we have already discussed, rhetoric is nothing more than a tool of language; rhetoric binds a community together; rhetoric allows us to avoid violence. They who critique rhetoric are really critiquing the people because they are implicitly arguing that the people do not know right from wrong, true from false. They who critique rhetoric presume that the speaker is a manipulator and that the audience has been easily manipulated. The good folks that we spoke to at the caucus last night were very aware that the criticisms of Senator Obama's rhetoric were actually criticisms of them and they were hurt by them. They defended their choice, they defended their right to choose, they defended their judgement.

Senator Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama put the citizens on the defensive as much as they put Senator Obama on the defensive.

And M.O.W. wonders at what cost? Senator Clinton is squandering the peoples' opportunity to unite the nation and re-invigorate the political process and she is so doing for her own benefit at the expense of the people and the nation. We would remind you, dear founder-stalkers, of the founders' original understanding of patriotism. According to Henry St John Bolingbroke, from whom the founders learned about patriotism, a true patriot would defend the the peoples' liberty by defending the constitution, would reject party and faction, and would seek to unite the nation behind one vision so that all could work toward the common good. The patriot did not do any of this for her own benefit--we must never seek power for our own sake--but, rather the patriot acts for the good of the people.

We ask, dear fellow founder stalkers, by these criteria who is the patriot? We believe that it is clear that Senator Obama alone possesses true patriotism. One candidate is a war hero, yes, but that is not the same as being a partriot by Bolingbroke's (or the founders') standard. Another candidate is a party hack, a policy wonk, who claims that her experience with her party gives her the credibility that Senator Obama lacks. Senator Clinton is mistaken. Her experience makes her a part of the problem, not the solution. The true patriot rejects party in order to unite, Senator Clinton embraces party in order to divide.

And divide she will if she continues these attacks on Senator Obama and the people. She cannot divide Senator Obama from his supporters without alienating them from the political process. Alienated voters do not vote. If Senator Clinton thinks that she will defeat Obama with negativity in the primary and then re-gather together his constituency to support her in November, then she is seriously misguided.

Alienated voters do not vote. And Senator Clinton is practising the politics of alienation.

As we witnessed in our conversations at the caucus last night the people are very aware that they are being insulted by Senator Clinton, the media, and the Republican Party (this is the company you keep Senator Clinton?). They are tired of politics as usual. They want to believe that we can make a difference in politics and improve all of our lives. Calling the people stupid followers of empty rhetoric is a failing strategy because it will only alienate those Americans who are excited about politics for the first time in a long while.

All of the pundits last night urged Senator Obama to find a way to respond to Senator Clinton's attacks while still staying on message as the uniting candidate who stands for hope, change, empowering the people, and the end of politics as usual. M.O.W. believes that his strategy is clear:

Senator Obama must draw from the founders' understanding of patriotism to win this election.

Senator Obama already behaves as Bolingbroke described the Patriot. He already seeks to protect the people's liberty by defending the constitution, he already rejects party and faction, he already seeks to unite the nation for the common good. He needs to stay on message and be more clear about why Senator Clinton is NOT a Patriot and why her attacks on him only prove precisely how far away she is from the founder's ideal of patriotism. In other words, Senator Clinton's negativity needs to be turned against her to show that it is precisely the thing that makes her unworthy of our trust.

Senator Clinton stands for politics as usual, Senator Obama stands for patriotism.

Election 2008: Madeleine K. Albright Lays it Down

Dear Founder Stalkers,

We quite found former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright's January 13, 2008 Boston Globe piece to be very thoughtful and thought-provoking. We wonder, if we were to use Secretary Albright's 10 points as the criteria by which we should judge who should be the next president, then who would come out on top?

Clinton, Obama, Edwards or someone else? Please discuss.

more at twiigs.com...

Executive Power, Part II: The 2008 Presidential Election Edition

We are very concerned about the 2008 Presidential election, especially because of what the last Administration has done to pervert the balance of power between the branches (see our post on Cheney's Law below). M.O.W. knows that there are serious problems facing the nation; indeed, how could she forget with CNN reminding us that the "planet is in peril" at every opportunity. Yes, we must choose our next president based upon how well we believe that she or he can solve problems, for America--and the world--faces more problems today than perhaps it ever has before in its history. Let's face it, loyal founder-stalkers, we are beset on all sides with impending disaster: the economy, health care, Social Security, education, the environment, race relations, the un-ending War on Terror, and more each demand real solutions in the next eight years. We have real problems that need solved, and how.

The temptation, therefore, is to promote someone to the office of the presidency who is a known problem-solver. Yet, M.O.W. believes that we must be very careful about who we chose, for a balance must be struck between choosing a president who is energetic and one who will abuse their power and further consolidate power in the Executive Branch. We know that there are many, many problems facing the nation and that Americans may be tempted to vote based solely on who has a workable plan to fix Social Security or the environment or end the War on Terror, for example. But, M.O.W. strongly believes that the presidency itself is in as precarious a position as the environment or the economy and she would urge her fellow Americans to consider how their candidate would handle power once it was theirs.

We are not alone in our worry. Rachel Morris over at Washington Monthly has an excellent article about the possibility of a Rudy Giuliani presidency and what his track record as NYC Mayor portends for his use of Executive power. She argues that if we can read the past as prologue, then "of all the presidential candidates, Giuliani is most likely to take the expansions of the executive branch made by the Bush administration and push them further still." This is a thought that makes M.O.W. very, very nervous.

Like most Americans, we were grateful for Mayor Giuliani on September 11, 2001. We felt, unlike President Bush, that Mayor Giuliani seemed like a leader. He appeared on tv at regular intervals and said things that made sense: he needed these services here and there, he had co-ordinated rescue efforts here and there, we should stay out of the city, donate blood, help out, etc. Yes, M.O.W. was impressed with Giuliani on that day, especially when contrasted with what President Bush said--"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world"--as if saying something as inane and insipid as that would actually help anything or anyone on that day. Thus, M.O.W. can easily see the appeal of a Giuliani presidency: he seems like the kind of guy who would solve problems and get things done.

And, we need problems solved right now.

But, let us remember that we need to resolve the problems with the constitution too and if Rudy Giuliani is the kind of leader who gets things done by fiat and refuses to act within the restraints accorded to the office by the constitution, then his presidency would be harmful to the nation. History is full of examples of people giving power to men who promise to solve problems and who become tyrants, dictators, fuehrers.

M.O.W. is watching the presidential race very carefully. She plans to ask each of the leading candidates what they would do with power should it become theirs. We encourage our fellow founder-stalkers to do the same.

2008 Prez Wannabees

M.O.W found this chart on the internets and thought that it might be helpful for those of you--like her--who are trying to sort out all of the myriad candidates and positions. This little chart--M.O.W. is not sure who made it, truth be known--handily organizes the 18 known candidates on 18 issues facing the United States in the year 2007.

We have to admit that no one here corresponds exactly to our views, but we like Obama and Edwards the best at this point (we even have an Obama t-shirt). They seem hopeful, energetic. They seem like they have a plan and they know how to use it. They do not appear to be out for power merely for power's sake, but rather to do something good with it. We like that and we hope for good things from them. Remembering that abuse of power comes as no surprise, we are cautiously optimistic, however.

Yet, in glancing over their respective positions we were a little dismayed to learn that Edwards supports the death penalty, which M.O.W. finds barbaric. Why, oh, why Mr. Edwards should the state be allowed to kill people? Isn't it bad enough that we have the world's largest prison population? And, Mr. Obama, don't think that we didn't notice that you and Edwards both support the Patriot Act and are both against same-sex marriage. What gives, gentleman? We find many things to admire in your positions, we would just feel more comfortable giving you our support if we could understand why you think it fine to deny people basic rights and equality.


What say you Founder-Chic readers: Obama/Edwards '08 or Edwards/Obama '08?

more at twiigs.com...