Man, I love caucusing. Voting is a solitary affair; you fill out your ballot alone in the voting booth or at the kitchen table, and then turn on the TV to watch the results. But caucusing is a social event; you vote, you argue, you persuade, you horse trade, you vote again… it’s democracy at its rawest and most exciting. Throw in a little beer and it gets even better.
We got a great crowd at the Drinking Liberally caucus last night; 51 patriotic Americans signed in to help show Iowans what to do tonight, and the first round of balloting contained few surprises:
| Candidate: | Votes: | Delegates: |
| John Edwards | 20 | 3 |
| Barack Obama | 15 | 2 |
| Chris Dodd | 6 | 1 |
| Hilary Clinton | 4 | 1 |
| Dennis Kuccnich | 2 | 0 |
| Mike Gravel | 2 | 0 |
| Bill Richardson | 1 | 0 |
| Fred Harris | 1 | 0 |
And if this were a primary, that’s pretty much were it would have ended — no second guessing, no second chances for those who threw their vote away on a losing candidate. But caucus goers get the opportunity to temper their votes with reality, and move to their second or third choices if their first choice goes bust. A half an hour of drinking and negotiating and more drinking later, and the Dodd camp leverages their initial strong showing into an even stronger one:
| Candidate: | Votes: | Delegates: |
| Barack Obama | 17 | 2 |
| John Edwards | 16 | 2 |
| Chris Dodd | 13 | 2 |
| Hilary Clinton | 5 | 1 |
So goes Drinking Liberally, so goes the nation: a three-way tie between Obama, Edwards and Dodd. That’s my prediction for Iowa, and I’m standing by it.
Who’s Fred Harris?
A new Des Moines Register poll puts Obama at 32%, Clinton 25%, Edwards 24%, and Dodd 2% on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. http://www.desmoinesregister.c.....iowapoll07
Bet all those folks from Iowa are going to feel relieved and happy tomorrow night. That the WHOLE ordeal will be over and all the carpet baggers will get the heck out of their state. Leave them in peace, stop all the endless advertisements, and let the folks just watch their TV shows.
So Edwards actually LOST votes after the first round??? How did that happen?
How does Clinton end up with a delegate when she has only 5 out of 51 votes?
@4 “So Edwards actually LOST votes after the first round??? How did that happen”?
I’d like to ask the same question. If this is an example of the “committed” Democratic voters at the DL caucus, what else can they be swayed to do?
@1…Phil…
Former, as in so former it’s several former presidents ago, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, who ran for President back in 1980.
Say…who was it that was elected in 1980 by a landslide over a stumblebum flop of a President, then re-elected by an even larger landslide in 1984 over the stumblebum’s Veep?
Extra credit for anyone who remember’s his wife’s first name.
The Piper
@ 6
A “committed” Democrat isn’t the same as a “committed” Republican. The former is committed to nominating the best candidate from a field of generally very good candidates. A committed Republican is someone who currently resides in an asylum.
So Edwards actually LOST votes after the first round??? How did that happen?
Tactics. We Dodd backers, having scooped up the Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel voters, thought we could knock out HRC (and not take away a delegate from JRE) by adding one or two from Edwards. Apparently, we were too persuasive. And Hillary added one final vote to preserve her delegate.
How does Clinton end up with a delegate when she has only 5 out of 51 votes?
Good question. This year, Washington will not use the 15% threshold at the precinct level. That change kinda snuck up on us, but we used it for our caucus. Check my DailyKos diary from yesterday for details.
Some Edwards voters just weren’t sure.
@3 Yeah, they have better things to do, like planting $100-a-bushel corn. Can you see $10 gas, $10 bread, and $10 milk coming? It’s coming.
@6 They can be swayed to do the best thing for their country — that would never happen in a GOP caucus.
@7 Are you referring to the guy who ran the country by consulting astrology charts? The one who shredded the Constitution along with documents in a rogue colonel’s office? Who sponsored Latin American death squads who murdered American nuns? Who borrowed money like a guy who had stolen your credit card? Who tried to take credit for the accomplishments of a courageous pope and an enlightened Russian leader? Whose greatest contribution to history is that he slept through most of his cabinet meetings? That guy?
@10 It’s tough to choose among such riches … the Pukes, by contrast, can only spin the roulette wheel on a collection of mediocrities.
Roger,
For Republicans like Piper, it’s an article of faith that Reagan was the best President this country has ever had, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will shake that faith. It is, however, amusing to see them rationalize away this belief.
As an example, of the last four two-term Presidents, only one finished his second term with a higher approval rating than he had when he started his first term. That President wasn’t a Republican, which is why many Republicans go apoplectic when you point this out.
@13…RR…
I’m talking the one who defeated the Soviet Union, who presided over significant economic growth after his predecessor failed miserably then blamed his failures on the American people (frauds, humbugs, charlatans, liars, and hacks do that, you know), who restored America’s confidence in itself, and who left office with unprecedented approval ratings.
BTW…that “enlightened Russian leader?” You don’t get to be the General Chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by being “enlightened;” he wore out more than his share of political brass knuckles.
It was Mikhail Gorbachev who ordered the elite Spetsnaz troops into Afghanistan in a “kill or be killed” effort to break the back and the will of the Afghan resistance. And he almost pulled it off. Had it not been for the CIA and the Saudi’s funneling billions of dollars into arms, including Stinger missiles that started taking out $20 million dollar Soviet aircraft with the use of a few thousand dollars of shoulder mounted investment, Afghanistan would be in a still-surviving Soviet Bloc.
Gorbachev was as good an actor as Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus. He was so good that he fooled gullible liberals and a sees-only-what-he-wants-to-see rabbit that he was “progressive,” when, in fact, he was a product of his system, just as bloodthirsty as Brezhnev, and every ounce the dedicated Communist until that horse died and was buried.
The general Gorbachev appointed to head the Soviet army in Afghanistan was Mikhail M. Zaitzev. Ever heard of him? Think back to 1968 and the form Czechoslovakia. He executed (good word) the brutal and bloodthirsty invasion of Czechoslovakia that crushed what was called the “Prague Spring.”
Zaitzev’s Afghan strategy? Kill everything that moved, burn everything that was even remotely flammable, and destroy everything that was worth anything; a complete scorched earth strategy.
Is that your idea of “enlightened?” Or are you just another Walter Duranty type filled with apologies for Soviet genocide and war crimes?
Just checking…
The Piper
@16 Piper
Since you take things on faith, perhaps evidence is irrlevant. But FWIW:
Piper Scott says:
I’m talking the one who defeated the Soviet Union, who presided over significant economic growth after his predecessor failed miserably then blamed his failures on the American people (frauds, humbugs, charlatans, liars, and hacks do that, you know), who restored America’s confidence in itself, and who left office with unprecedented approval ratings.
OHHH you mean the fellow who wasted huge numbers of US dollars on defunct battleships and a missile shield? Or was thi the fellow who bribed the Iranians to keep hostages until he was elected???
Or .. maybe the one who made fun of the idea we needed a natinal energy polkicy?
As for WHO overcame the Commies … I have never understood why ANYONE would give RR credit for that, can you explian?
BTW…that “enlightened Russian leader?” You don’t get to be the General Chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by being “enlightened;” he wore out more than his share of political brass knuckles.
It was Mikhail Gorbachev who ordered the elite Spetsnaz troops into Afghanistan in a “kill or be killed” effort to break the back and the will of the Afghan resistance. And he almost pulled it off. Had it not been for the CIA and the Saudi’s funneling billions of dollars into arms, including Stinger missiles that started taking out $20 million dollar Soviet aircraft with the use of a few thousand dollars of shoulder mounted investment, Afghanistan would be in a still-surviving Soviet Bloc.
NOW I understand: Bush bombs Taliban …GOOD
Gorby bombs Taliba .. BAD!
Gorbachev was as good an actor as Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus. He was so good that he fooled gullible liberals and a sees-only-what-he-wants-to-see rabbit that he was “progressive,” when, in fact, he was a product of his system, just as bloodthirsty as Brezhnev, and every ounce the dedicated Communist until that horse died and was buried.
YEP, the man who CHOSE to bring democracy to his country rather than war, the man who made the rule of law mre than a rpken word, yep … terrible terrible
Maybe we should have assassinated him?
The general Gorbachev appointed to head the Soviet army in Afghanistan was Mikhail M. Zaitzev. Ever heard of him? Think back to 1968 and the form Czechoslovakia. He executed (good word) the brutal and bloodthirsty invasion of Czechoslovakia that crushed what was called the “Prague Spring.”
Aha! Gorbo bad because democracy succeeded and he did not invade! RR Good because democracy bad and he undermined govt of Chile and Nicuargua? AHA!
Zaitzev’s Afghan strategy? Kill everything that moved, burn everything that was even remotely flammable, and destroy everything that was worth anything; a complete scorched earth strategy.
As opposed to our use of agent origin and shock and awe.
Is that your idea of “enlightened?” Or are you just another Walter Duranty type filled with apologies for Soviet genocide and war crimes?
Absolutely!!! That is why WE elected a Nuke Sub commander as President and he rebuilt the USN to be an effective force for a post soviet world.
That is why we are selling US military secrets to China w/o any oversight?
And wasn’t there a Repricate who suggested we ought not to be involved in natin building?
Oh, who was the Prexy who looked in Putin’s eyes?
Hmmm….
Just checking…
The Piper
Me too.
This reaganophilia of the Reprocans is bizar.
I actually liked some things about this cheery man. I liked his flag waving, his sense of pride in the US.
BUT there is a little thing called facts.
Reagan did long term harm to the US. His vaunted Soviet policy led us to support the fall of a moderate regime and replace it with a nuclear armed coteries of dubious states. WE ended up trading Gorbo, basically a European Social Dem, for the neofacists Russia has today.
Here in the US, he nearly destroyed the US military. In point of fact the build up was under Carter (look it up), RR spent money on toys like antique battleships.
The conomy? It is true that he turned Carters’ mood around, BUT he spent this giood will badly. Instead of an energy policy, we just burned more Saufi OIl and became more dependent. Instead of building up US edccation, we took it down.
Lets go one step further. Why, depite a personality worth of a Hollywood reporbate was Clinton so popular? BECAUSE he put teeth into Reagan’s good times. Rubin’s ecnomimics, inderstading that government borrowing … a la RR or GWB hobbles an econmomy, understanding the vakue of INVESTMENT as opposed to making war, .. these were and are Bill Clintoin’s legacy.
Just for fun, consider what is GOOD about today’s US economy:
Internet: INVENTED BY GORE! (This is actually true, he was the onhe who pushed DARPA to make this a public activity)
Built totally on PUBLIC investment.
Bitotech: NIH doubles under Clinton (it is now a shambles under the Repricans).
Piper,
I’ll let Roger discuss whether or not “enlightened” is an appropriate adjective for Gorbachev, though I get the sense that Roger’s use of the term was relative.
Rather, I’ll simply thank you for proving my point about the Reagan article of Republican faith. I’m particularly fond of the notion that Reagan, somehow, gets credit for the economic growth of the 80’s-a decade that made it possible for the neo-Keynesians to rise, phoenix-like, from the monetarist ashes of the 70’s.
As for approval ratings, FDR left the office with an approval rating above 70%, and Clinton was to top Reagan’s approval rating when Clinton left office. Indeed, no matter how you want to slice the approval-rating pie, Reagan can, at best, be considered average.
An interesting part of the RR mythology is that the current Repub party which is trying to idolize and canonize him, and has a project to have a public edifice named after him in every county or parish in the country (really) would throw him out of today’s party and would have turned on him in 1984. Why? Because for all his nonsense about voodooo economics and the crackpot economics of supply siders, Reagan actually supported THREE seperate budget deals with the Democratic Congress that raised taxes to try and stem the flood of budget deficits brought on in large part by his first tax slashing in 1981.
That is when we proved that supply side theory is in the realm of the crackpot wing of politcal science, and is rejected by real economists.
Reagan also somewhat astutely “redeployed” our troops from Lebanon in 1983 so they would not be targets and escalate tensions in the mideast, signed an arms control measure of substance in 1987, and signed on to the Bill Bradley led tax agreement of 1986, which was a real step (long since eradicated and erased by Republicans in Congress and W) to force corporations to pay a fair share of taxes. He also paid lip service to the social conservative theocrats, but he did it with a nod and a wink, and never really engaged any of their issues on a consistent basis.
Don’t get me wrong, I can go on and on about all the huge problems with Reagan and the damage he started to our Democratic Republic, and I still refuse to utter the words -R– R– International Airport. But compared to the current occupant, in his waking moments he at least looked rational. I can’t believe I would ever feel nostalgia for Reagan. But at times, I have in recent years.
Gaurdians of a conservative heterodoxy try and erect a mythology around him, but to do so, they ignore history and the real record of his presidency.
BTW, historicial revisionism can be dangerous. See, Quagmire, military intervention and occupation.
-Tom
@15…DJ…
Your arrogance causes you to make false assumptions and incorrect statements about what I think.
Among 20th-Century Presidents, I put Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus up there in the top tier. Without regard to positions or ideology, he was an excellent President. He was a leader, an inspiring personality, he got things done, and he left America in way better shape after his second term than it was in at the beginning of his first term.
I regard Abraham Lincoln as America’s greatest President.
In terms of failed Presidents, Jimmy Carter is in that group along with James Buchanan. In both cases, the job befuddled the man with the man never being able to get his arms around the times within which he lived and the events of those times.
Bill Clinton left office with high approval ratings, and, in many respects, he was effective. But he still sullied the office, was lucky in that he faced neither the threat of imperialistic Communism or fascistic terrorism (well, on this score the argument can be made he chose to ignore it because the poll numbers didn’t make it an issue of consequence in his day).
Still, it was Bill Clinton who signed Welfare Reform and blew off a lot of the looney left (think Sister Souljah).
Come to think of it…did you see the sequal to Animal House? It ran for eight-years as a reality series, but played only in one theater: the Oval Office.
Now, the archetype cross between Bluto Blutarsky and Otter Stratton, Bill Clinton, offers us Our Lady of Perpetual Pain and Sorrow as the next CinC. Uff da! In the meantime, the Bad Ship Edwards lists so far to port that it’s about to capsize while Barack Obama’s experience qualification for President increases measurably with each moment he’s a U.S. Senator. Where was he again, say, six years ago?
The election is over 10-months away, and anything – ANYTHING – is possible…even another Republican landslide…or not. All I know is that anyone who makes hardcore predictions or puts money down on this or that candidate or party is bucking house odds, which are steep against early prognistications.
The over-confident and the over-blinded-by-their-partisan-loathing need to keep a little slack in their system or they’ll end up with egg on their faces one way or another.
The Piper
@7: Rosalyn. What do I get for my extra credit?
As for RR, as an inspirational leader he was effective; in almost every other respect he was a disaster. (Though I give him credit for doing a 180 on the nuclear issue – it showed a flexibility that points up all the more just how bad GWB is.) But two additional points. First, RR’s fans give him far too much credit for overthrowing Communism; the courageous people who risked their lives in Russia and a dozen other countries to overthrow their governments (nonviolently, except in Romania) always seem to get forgotten in this equation. Second, RR had more indicted cabinet members and administration members than any other modern president in our history; his hired hands were frequently corrupt or otherwise abused their power — many of them plaguing the country anew with GWB — and RR, in the kindest possible interpretation, didn’t care.
Piper:
Sorry – Reagan was a pathetic president. He left us saddled with a huge deficit, spent money on wastful things (remember Star wars? – that was a huge boondoggle) and was a blithering idiot by the end of his term (due to early onset Alzheimers).
I remember press conferences where he never answered a single question – but always had an irrevelevant anecdote. No Reagan is up there on the Iran-contra, trees cause pollution and coporate wlefare republican list of great presidents – but in actuality – he was a buffoon with no great accomplishments – the soviet union fell under it’s own weight and we found out that Reagan overestimated it’s danger.
Back on topic: while I like Edwards – he blew it for me in the VP debate with Cheney. He failed to attack false statements made by cheney (like Al Qaida was present in Iraq before the war – and he seemed too lightweight and yielding on foreign policy) and because of that lack of spine I still don’t trust him for president. I like Edwards – but he voted for AUMF for Iraq and he has shown a lack of hard-hitting debate in the past. These problems have me leaning towards Obama.
I will vote for Hillary only in the general election – any Democrat is head and shoulders over the republicans and their support of torture, denial of the basic right of habeus corpus and support for the corrupt bush adminstration and it’s war of deception.
@22:
Actually – the president elected in 1980 and 1984 was Reagan – so the wife would be Nancy – unless the question is asking about the “stumblebum” – but Piper is sometimes not clear in his questions….
@22…Geov…
Sorry…unless Mrs. Carter did a reverse Big Love, t’weren’t her. Fred Harris’ missus first name is LaDonna.
BTW…when Fred ran for the Demo Prexy nomination, every official above the level of business agent with the SEIU was under implicit direction to support him…or get the ax…irrespective of whether Marty Blake, then International V-P for the PNW was in the Henry Jackson camp.
We can argue Ronaldus Maximus Reaganus all day and all not, and we’ll never agree. I’m quite content to let history judge his eight-years…especially when compared to his predecessor’s four failed years.
Suffice to say, he is a hero of mine; a man of principle, optimism, charm, and who held a foundational belief in both what America stands for and the decency and common sense wisdom of the American people. He trusted them, and they returned that trust by voting him into office with two of the largest electoral victories in U.S. history.
When he died, there was a national outpouring of both grief and deep affection for The Gipper, and I was proud to have been asked to pipe the official Seattle-area memorial service for him held at Cedar Park Church and then attend the private wake for him afterward.
He had courage, vision, and integrity. And in today’s GOP he remains the standard against whom we measure all other candidates. Can you Demos come up with anyone on your side who’s so beloved by your base? Or are your candidates merely tolerated – a gaggle of grossness for whom you’ll vote only because he/she/it is ABB all the while you hold your nose as you cast your ballot?
Eventually, Ron will be on the Rock.
The Piper
@24…CnR…
OK, ok, ok, ok…! You made your point. So, implicitly, did Geov…
The question wasn’t about Ronaldus Maximus Reaganus or jimmy the least of carters, but, rather, about Fred Harris.
Admittedly, my use of pronouns was a tad sloppy.
The Piper
Reagan started looting the treasury for the benefit of his boosters in 1980 and things didn’t return to relative sanity until the end of Clinton’s second term. The budget was balanced and even some debt was being paid down – enough to make Greenspan nervous.
Will it even be remotely possible to dig ourselves of the hole Bush and his enablers in Congress have left as their legacy?
It’ll be a miracle. But this country is truly doomed if that bat shit insane crowd is ever given another shot. Ever. Even a generation from now.
Piper,
Your arrogance causes you to make false assumptions and incorrect statements about what I think.
Well, except where I managed to point out the flaws in your recital of the facts–flaws which you ignore as you embark upon yet another attempt to bolster the contention that Reagan was anything more than, at best, an average President.
As for Clinton having “sullied” the office, as a point of fact, I seem to recall that it was a dress that was sullied and that the sullying took place in a powder room adjacent to the office.
If you’re talking about the Office in general, as opposed to the Oval Office, there isn’t anything in Clinton’s presidency to rival Iran-Contra. While I suppose one might contend that there is a shred of plausible deniability there, the necessary level of deniability boarders on sheer incompetence. Either he knew what the hell was going on, or he did an absolutely piss-poor job choosing those who advise him.
The GOP’s endless Reagan worship has to be attributed to revisionism. For Reagan as for a long-dead favorite uncle, time has a way of hiding faults and exalting perceived positive traits. I recall Reagan as being a very divisive president who worked ceaselessly to deceive the American people about what his administration was doing (or, at least that’s what his staff did). I must say, though, that given the guy currently sitting in Reagan’s chair, even I feel a bit nostalgic for Reagan. He certainly wasn’t as dumb as W and I don’t believe he had W’s utter disdain for his political opponents.
It can certainly be argued that Reagan correctly perceived that the Soviet system was crumbling from within, and brought it down largely by bluffing the Russians into pouring resources into a last frantic strategic arms race. This led to the Soviet Union’s economic and social collapse, but in the process we nearly brought the same fate upon ourselves. This was partly due to neocons in the Reagan administration (although I’m willing to believe that the Gipper himself was more “old school”) who were already pursuing the Grover Norquist “drown-government-in-a-bathtub” philosophy, including the postulate that if it was a Good Thing to bleed the treasury, they might as well stuff as much of it as they could into their own pockets.
Beyond that, the end of the Cold War left us for a time in a sort of cultural limbo, because so much of our national “sense of purpose” had been wrapped around striving to do all sorts of things bigger, faster and better than those Nasty Old Rooskies. It also left us with the problem of the giant military-industrial organism which continued to holler “FEED ME” like the carniverous plant in Little Shop of Horrors.
The Piper notes, about Ronald (not Ron, who’s a good guy) Reagan:
What?? They’re going to rebury the guy on Alcatraz? Has Simi Valley kicked him out of town?
@31…NinS…
Ron on the Rock = President Reagan on Mt. Rushmore.
Certainly within my children’s lifetime.
The Piper
Piper @ 32
Little wager perhaps? He was far too divisive, unlike the others on Rushmore.
Upton @ 6 — A LOT of swaying can take place after a sufficient number of beers. The Iowa caucus runs on a shorter schedule, I believe.
Sheesh, Piper. I knew what you so delusionally meant.
I’d be happy to join proud leftist’s action.
@33…PL…
You have any idea how hated Jefferson was in his day? How bitter and divisive the rancor was between Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
You think Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus was divisive, then you better go back and study the first 50-years of the history of the United States post-Constitutional ratification.
Since I said in my children’s lifetime, a wager would be foolish. Besides, why bet with the HA Happy Hooligans? When asked to put up or shut up on the chances of Richard Pope getting elected, they did neither; they skedaddled.
And I never wager for personal gain.
The Piper
I never wager for personal gain.
Technically true if you always lose.
33 Uhhh….like him or not, you’d certainly have to call Lincoln’s Presidency “divisive”.
Piper @ 36
In your children’s lifetime, the Church of St. Reagan, where your generation of Republicans worship, will fade away. Historians will look at Reagan with the unvarnished objectivity that time and distance provide and reveal the many inadequacies of the man. Reagan led to Bush. That alone precludes Reagan’s legacy from improving with time.
Art @38
Certainly from the perspective of the nation dividing shortly after he took office, you are correct. Lincoln, however, was masterful in bringing different voices into his administration and winning them over–read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals. William Seward, who initially thought he was just a hayseed from a backward state, became one of his greatest fans. And, support for Lincoln had become broader as he entered his second term. What I should have said, nonetheless, is that history has recognized those presidents on Mt. Rushmore as the right figures for their times. History will not so recognize Reagan.
40 And that, sir, is something upon which I would tend to agree with you. However, I’m not sure that history is always totally sane.