Huckabee a Serious Contender or Just Serious About Croutons?

What better example of a profile primary than Huckabee's recent 11-page spread in The New York Times Magazine? Zev Chafets, the author, does an interesting job defining Huckabee. As a New Yorker, my strongest memory after reading it was the fact that Huckabee chose to eat at Olive Garden when visiting with the writer in Manhattan. Chafets writes, "I had offered to take him anywhere he wanted and then vetoed his first choice, T.G.I.Friday's." Huckabee orders soup and a salad and seems to spend a large part of the interview playing with his croutons. I am sure that the Gang of 500 will pick up on this as well. My question is whether America can take a candidate seriously when he visits Manhattan and chooses to eat at a chain. If he wants to appeal to more than the Midwestern voter, why not choose a pizza place or a deli? Is this a case of Huckabee being too humble and "small-town" for his own good?

The rest of the article is also interesting. Chafets's writing shows that he is slightly skeptical of this "dark horse" candidate. At one point, Chafets talks to Huckabee about foreign affairs and gets an interesting response. Chafets writes:

At lunch, when I asked him who influences his thinking on foreign affairs, he mentioned Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, and Frank Gaffney, a neoconservative and the founder of a research group called the Center for Security Policy. This is like taking travel advice from Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, but the governor seemed unaware of the incongruity.

The article is humorous at times, as both quotes illustrate, which allowed me to enjoyably read the entire 11 pages. It is obvious, however, that Huckabee will have to continue to work if he wants to be taken seriously. His rise to the top of the polls is not enough to counter his age and experience.

My Mac won't let me hyperlink but this should work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?ex=1355461200&en=e8ee2a8545fa9f6f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Clinton Applying Halpern and Harris

In an attempt to reverse Obama's surge in Iowa, Hillary Clinton has lifted a "trade secret" straight from Halpern and Harris: run toward your weakness. Her enemies during the battles of the 1990s portrayed Hillary as a ruthless, ultra-feminist liberal. Obama has not-so-subtly alluded to these memories with his electibility argument: do Democrats really want to nominate someone, he asks, that stirs the passions of every grassroots GOP voter?

To combat this argument, Clinton has begun to highlight her softer side -- she has become more "emotional" at recent speeches in Iowa and is airing ads featuring her mother and daughter gushing about how warm and caring she is. She has also launched a website, CNN reports, showing Hillary as a strong Senator who works hard for everyday people like you and me.

These efforts represent an attempt to drive down her infamous high "unfavorable" ratings the media has worried about and to steal (or at least mitigate) the "nice guy" image that Obama enjoys.

An active-postive President in the making?

While hardly an election-changing event, Thursday's Democratic debate allowed Senator Obama to look like a front-runner. He earned the praise of David Yepsen, the "dean" of Iowa political reporting, and the general wisdom is that he has finally "hit his stride" as a candidate. This afternoon, he projected authority, poise and a good sense of humor.

The moderator pointed out that some of the big names among Obama's foreign policy advisers once worked in the Clinton White House. How, then, would he "still deliver the kind of break from the past" promised to voters?

Hillary, off-camera, responded with a boisterous laugh that could barely contain her sarcasm: "I want to hear that!" she cackled. Obama, undaunted, brushed off Hillary's response with a disarming smile. Demonstrating a newfound grasp of the art of the soundbite, he coolly told the one-time frontrunner that he was "looking forward to you advising me as well."



While definitely trivial in the grand scheme of things, this episode suggests Obama's increasing confidence as a candidate. Previously, he seemed uncomfortable engaging in the nitty-gritty of campaign warfare. Now, however, he appears to have found a way to make it interesting for him and, as a result, be able to deliver convincing performances at debates.

SF Straw Poll Links

Sorry!! My hyperlinks didn't work. The Youtube video can be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFao5EilpCw&feature=related . The article can be found at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/10/BAOLTQJLN.DTL (then scroll to the bottom of the page).

SF Straw Poll Canceled

Below is a little piece on what's going on in San Fran with Ron Paul:

GOP goes wild: San Francisco Republicans have managed to prove that they can be just as wacky as the rest of the bunch.

It all started when the San Francisco Republican Alliance, one of many small GOP clubs in town, got together at the Holiday Inn at Fisherman's Wharf the other night for a little pre-election dinner and presidential straw poll.

The keynote speaker, Republican state Sen. Sam Aanestad of Grass Valley in Nevada County, delivered a long-winded speech on behalf of his candidate, Fred Thompson, leaving little time for other speakers.

But it did give Ron Paul backers time to put out a call for their supporters to show up - and the result was dozens of Paul's posse members trying to get in as Thompson's folks cried foul.

Club president Gail Neira, dressed in red and wearing a Santa cap, then got up and canceled the vote.

The stormy aftermath was caught on video by a Paul supporter, who promptly posted it on YouTube (watch here)


"This is why people are leaving the Republican Party," one Paul backer is overheard shouting. "You can't say, 'Come to a straw poll,' then cancel it."

"Yes, we can," one man replies.

"I want my money back," says another.

The video finishes with an older Paul backer angrily telling Neira, "You are a disgrace to the Republican Party."

What the tape doesn't capture is the hotel security guards who were called soon after to restore order and clear the room.

Neira says her phone has been ringing off the hook ever since from furious Paul supporters from all over the country. Still, rules are rules, and she was the one who got to make them. And as far as she's concerned, this was an invitation-only dinner.

"I don't believe in rewarding people who breach my protocol," she said.

No word yet on a plans for a sequel.


The article above can be found at sfgate.com.

The Freak Show, 1800

The text for this ad comes from an actual article in a Federalist newspaper.

Romney Goes Negative in Iowa

The Huffington Post has a story from the AP today that says Mitt Romney has decided to pull the trigger on attack ads. Romney is putting out a spot in Iowa attacking Mike Huckabee on immigration. The ad is in response to Huckabee's recent ascent in the polls, as well as an ad Huckabee is airing touting his immigration policy. The ad also tries to downplay Romney's shaky past on social conservative issues.

Romney seems like the 2008 election cycle's equivalent to the person in Risk who gets a hold of Europe early on. It looks nice at first, but then you realize you've put yourself in the cross hairs of every one of your opponents and you can't commit enough forces to win on any front. Romney was looking great this summer, but now he has different opponents attacking him on different political fronts. It's going to be very difficult for him to balance his campaign strategy anddefend against each of them.

Bill vs. Oprah

The New York Times reported today that Republicans are "uninspired" by their choice of candidates, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll. In contrast, Democrats are continuing to support Clinton, citing her as more able to unite the country. Interestingly, 44% of Clinton supporters say that Bill's presence encourages them to support Hillary. Obama's most recent endorser, Oprah Winfrey, does not seem to have any influence. The polling data states that only 1% of voters believe that Oprah's involvement will influence their decision.

The latest poll also makes one question what the other candidates can do to catch up to the front-runners, according to another New York Times article. Voters are happier with candidates that explain their own position on issues instead of attacking the other candidates about their stances. It seems that being on the offensive is less appealing in 2008. Perhaps Democrats are still unable to forget Kerry's flip-flops from 2004.

Republicans, Immigration, and the General Election

The BBC recently reported that Hispanics registered to vote favor Democrats over Republicans 57% to 23%. This is in contrast to the 2004 election, when Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote. Bush's 2004 campaign ran ads in Spanish criticizing Kerry's social views and drew many socially conservative Hispanics into the Republican camp. It appears that Hispanics, however, have abandoned the GOP, given the intensity of the immigration debate. Most Republican candidates during the recent Univision debate found themselves in a tight spot, trying not to alienate Hispanic voters but at the same time attempting to remain true to their conservative base. It will be interesting to see whether the lack of Hispanic turnout for the GOP will have a measurable effect on Republican performance in the general election. Their large presence in some swing states, such as Florida, indicates that it may.

The Future of the Presidency

The Freak Show lives. Just ask:

• Mike Huckabee
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mitt Romney
• Barack Obama

As Halperin and Harris point out, Senator Clinton can raise a great deal of money but has special problems:

• Weak candidate skills
• Bill
• Bill

Libby drops appeal case

A Politico.com article reports that today Scooter Libby dropped his appeal case probably hoping to pressure the White House into a pardon. Libby's lawyer attributes the development to high expenses and a long time frame for results. As a lame duck president, Bush is unfortunately more than likely to pardon the four felony counts in his last days in office. Not that Libby will ever have to serve jail time (thanks to Bush's grant of clemency), he just wants his (obviously guilty) record cleared.

Here for the official statement by Libby's lawyer.

CIA Destroys Tapes

Bush is under fire from congress and reporters who are looking for answers about tapes that were destroyed by the CIA. Bush is maintaining his position that he did not know about the tapes or their destruction before he was briefed about them on Thursday. The tapes were allegedly the tapings of interrogations of two suspected terrorists. One of the detainee's lawyers is pointing to a 2005 court order which required the government to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees." full story

Crossed Wires

A teenager from Iceland claims that he reached a private White House phone line while pretending to be the president of his country. If so, he would not be the first ordinary person to get through. On May 14, 1965, a Denver couple accidentally interrupted a call between LBJ and Abe Fortas. Story and audio here.

Interesting Take on Romney's Speech

Maureen Dowd wrote a column in today's New York Times comparing Romney's speech last week to JFK's speeches regarding his Catholicism. While many people have drawn strong comparisons between Romney and Kenendy, Dowd argues that Romney's speech was quite different because he is trying to appeal to the religious right, while Kennedy was trying to assure the voters that his religion would not be a major factor in his presidency.

Click here for the article.

Habeas Wrapup, Huck Oppo, the Future of the Presidency

In class, I promised more information on the writ of habeas corpus and "court-stripping." Click the links for that information.

See Geoff's post below on Huckabee's "Welcome to the NFL" experience, which is now happening with considerable fury:

• LA Times headline: "Parole officials: Huckabee pushed rapist's release."
• AP headline: "Huckabee Wanted to Isolate AIDS Patients."

In class this week, we shall consider the following questions:

• Who will be the next president?
• What legacy will Bush leave to his successor?
• How are changes in economics, technology, and international relations likely to affect the institution?

Giuliani jokes

Click here for some funny jokes about Rudy Giuliani. One highlight:

"Iran's president ... wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, but his critics said, 'No, no. You are trying to exploit Ground Zero for political gain, and that is Rudy Giuliani's job.'" --Bill Maher

Geoff

Iowa

Here is a great Politico overview of the Iowa Caucus. This is a good supplement to the Clinton video we watched. It is interesting to note that the Democratic and Republican caucuses are different. The Republican system is not like what we saw in the Clinton video. Instead, Republicans write down a candidates name on a blank piece of paper. Democrats also give more weight to rural districts.

The author has some interesting and humorous insight into the strategy Dems use in the caucus. Bribing people with snow shoveling and babysitting is perfectly normal. There is a lot of fighting that can potentially go on on caucus night, and neighbors can leave pretty mad at each other. The whole system seems so foreign to me and at the same time this strange process will be crucial to this election.

Oppo on Huckabee Already in Play

Huckabee's opponents did not wait long to pull the trigger with the oppo research. This article in the New York Times details the first issue: A convicted rapist that was released while Huckabee was governor later sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri. Huckabee had written a letter to the rapist while he was incarcerated saying "My desire is that you be released from prison."

The article drew parallels to the way strategist Lee Atwater smeared Michael Dukakis in 1988 with the Willie Horton debacle.

As Prof Pitney says, "welcome to the NFL".

Geoff

Cheney's Bold Iraq Predictions

Politico.com interviewed Cheney about the situation in Iraq in an article today, in which he boldly predicts that Iraq will be self-governing by January 2009. By then, he says, we will have "in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future." Good to see he's still right on line with his reputation for impossible and sometimes wholly false predictions. Congressional Democrats' responses aren't online yet, but I think we can read their minds.

The article also discusses the new White House belief that Iran poses no nuclear threat. Despite confidence in U.S. intelligence, he concedes that "there are things [intelligence officials] don’t know. There’s always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available."

Note that a contributor to the article is John F. Harris of our very own The Way to Win.

Huckabee polls well and Ideas about Romney

I have two unrelated parts to this post. First, as we are probably all aware, Huckabee has polled at first in Rasmussen. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315264,00.html This is the first national poll where he has come in first. I was wondering how large of an effect polls have traditionally had on voters. It seems that voters are more likely to support a candidate if that candidate is polling well. Huckabee seems especially likely to pick up voters because he is becoming the most fashionable Republican candidate. His decidedly populist demeanor is likely to serve him well among undecided voters. How much does this Rasmussen poll help him with those voters?
Second, I was curious with Romney's speech set for tomorrow about the potential power of the Mormon vote. While at a national level Mormons aren't likely to make a significant impact, could a strong Mormon voter turnout help Romney win the nomination? I am particularly thinking about the Mormon vote in states like Idaho, Arizona, and especially Nevada, where there is a fairly high Mormon population, particularly in the Las Vegas area. There are approxamately 7 million Mormons in the US. Obviously, not all would vote for Romney, but even if 2/3 of them voted for him in the primaries, couldn't that significantly help him win the nomination. Since only about 1.5 million live in Utah, the impact of the remaining supporters could be huge. On a related note, most of those who wouldn't vote for a Mormon are Republican. If Romney were to win the nomination over those votes, would it indicate that he had a strong chance of winning the general election, kind of like what happened with JFK in W. Virginia?
Continuing with Romney, I was wondering if he would have a weak presidency. Considering that he was governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, he must be very willing to compromise and work towards a centrist solution. In addition, his constant flip-flopping on issues shows that he is not terribly dedicated to sticking to the Republican core. In 2002, he earned a reputation for getting people to come together, again demonstrating his tendencies to try and bring people towards a middle ground. Finally, his mission in France would have taught him to reconcille two very different ways of living. So, all of this to me indicates that if elected president, he would try to just work things out, allowing Congress to trample all over him. Hasn't Congress best responded to strong executives?

Will Immigration Become an Issue?

Romney has attacked Giuliani for employing a landscaping company that employs illegal workers. Romney himself fired his own landscaping company last year. Shortly after firing the landscaper, Romney re-contracted the company. He said in a statement on Tuesday, "After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status." The landscaper was fired once again when Romney discovered that the contract had been violated. Romney fired the landscaper for, assumingly, political reasons. But why would he jepordize himself and his political career by hiring the same landscaper? I think this was a poor decision on Romney's part and this may push the issue of immigration back into the spotlight. Immigration has remained out of the public eye, for the most part, since President Bush's Immigration Reform Act was defeated in the Senate in 2006. This may be an issue to watch in the coming months since immigration caused national tension back in 2006. click here for article.

Military Tribunals

What the heck are these review tribunals? According to the New York Times they constitute "panels of military officers who review the initial determination that an individual detainee has been properly labeled an enemy combatant." Opponents to this system say the tribunals limit access to evidence and witnesses and forbid defense lawyers from participating in hearings. Waxman, a lawyer for six Algerian detainees, asserts the current procedure fails to offer "even the most elemental aspects of an independent adversarial proceeding."

So here are my questions: 1. Are there any checks on these tribunals outside of the military? What about outside the executive branch 2. Are there any alternatives to using the federal court system as a checking device on these tribunals? 3. Who made up these tribunal rules? Is this common protocol? How often do these review tribunals actual acquit people? 4. Has the military not used tribunals before the War on Terror?

Bush and National Security

The Washington Post has an illuminating article on the Guantanamo case before the Supreme Court today. See here for background on military commissions.

We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11. Why did the intelligence community fail to foresee or prevent it? From the report of the 9/11 commission:

Commenting on Pearl Harbor,Roberta Wohlstetter found it "much easier after the event to sort the relevant from the irrelevant signals.After the event,of course, a signal is always crystal clear; we can now see what disaster it was signaling since the disaster has occurred. But before the event it is obscure and pregnant with conflicting meanings. ...With that caution in mind,we asked ourselves,before we judged others,whether the insights that seem apparent now would really have been
meaningful at the time,given the limits of what people then could reasonably have known or done. We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures in:

• imagination (see bin Laden memo)
• policy (see NBC report)
• capabilities (see Washington Post on translators)
• and management (see map of intelligence community)

Our Monday class accurately predicted how the president would respond to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (full transcript here):

QUESTION: My question, sir, is are you feeling troubled about your standing here today about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people?

PRESIDENT: No. I'm feeling pretty spirited -- pretty good about life. And I made the decision to come before you so I could explain the NIE. And I have said Iran is dangerous. And the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world. Quite the contrary. I'm using this NIE as an opportunity to continue to rally our colleagues and allies. The NIE makes it clear that the strategy we have used in the past is effective.

Iran: New Intel...New Policy?

After the news that Iran's covert nuclear weapons program is inactive and has been since 2003, as reported in the NIE yesterday, many are asking: will the Bush administration's aggressive policy and rhetoric towards Iran change?

The New York Times published a couple interesting articles on this subject, see: the foreign policy debate,how the 2005 NIE was so wrong, and Bush's response.

President Bush held a press conference Tuesday and answered several questions on the new findings. It's interesting to see how Bush uses the NIE to support his current policy. Even though the intel community reported with "high confidence" that Iran halted their nuclear weapons program years ago, in direct opposition to the premise for the current foreign policy agenda towards Iran, Bush maintained that the information confirmed his current approach.

With the new intelligence, Bush seemed optimistic that the NIE could help him further his foreign policy objectives concerning Iran, saying:

"To me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community -- continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program."

Bush spins the report in an effort to make it cohesive with his current approach--illustrating an intimate and difficult relationship between intelligence and policy.

Foreign Policy and National Security

As we approach the end of the course, think back on two familiar quotations:

• “Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce [standing armies]. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.” -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 8.
• "If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."-- Tocqueville, Democracy in America

JFK taped meetings on the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 18, he and his advisers discussed the real possibility of nuclear war. (Text of this clip starts here at the bottom of p. 538). In October 1962, JFK discussed the Cuban Missile Crisis on national TV. As you reflect on JFK's decisionmaking, think about Peter Drucker's dictum: “The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision without disagreement.”

A couple of years later, LBJ dealt with the Gulf of Tonkin.

Bad intelligence contributed to the US reaction in the Gulf of Tonkin. It also led to other problems in future decades. One "remedy" has been the reorganization of the intelligence community.

Monetary policy

In speaking today of the presidency and the economy, we discussed how the president doesn't control the Federal Reserve, but their actions affect the economy. Today, stocks surged over the mere speculation that the Fed will cut interest rates. A link to the article is here.

We spoke of how presidents don't control monetary policy, but it does affect them politically. The surge in the stock market won't help Bush, but may help the incumbents party (Republicans).

Economic Policy and the White House

Here are some basic graphs on economic policy, and the special case of aging and Social Security.

Does the executive control where the money goes? No, Congress earmarks money for projects. Here is one example (h/t Charlie Johnson).

The Way to Win is not the Way to Govern

Mark Halperin, coauthor of The Way to Win, writes in The New York Times:

For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.

But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.

As we start the section of the course dealing with policy, we might discuss Halperin's point.

Presidential management of domestic policy requires knowledge of the bureaucratic complexity that we have already discussed. Take civil rights, for instance. It has many dimensions: for FDR, it was a war issue. For LBJ, it involved the FBI and law enforcement. No single agency is "in charge" of civil rights. Instead, various responsibilties belong to (partial list):

• The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department
• The Office for Civil Rights of the Education Department
• The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services
• The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of HUD
• The Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Department of Labor
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• The US Commission on Civil Rights

In trying to get hold of the domestic bureaucracy, the president relies heavily on OMB. Policy ideas sometimes come from the Domestic Policy Council.

The "policy streams (Pika 297-302) -- problems, solutions, and politics -- are all part of a broader policy process.

Hollywood Goes to the White House

A threesome:

• V for Vendetta
• C for Cookie
• Ron Paul video

Actors have endorsed presidential candidates. Harry Belafonte backed JFK. Ronald Reagan made a famous speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater.

Actors have run for president. Ronald Reagan usually played good guys, but in his last role, he played a villain. And here are Fred Thompson's greatest hits.

Movies and TV shows portray real and fictional presidents:

• Gore Vidal's Lincoln (1988)
• Primary Colors (1998)
• The West Wing

Movies supply insights into attitudes of their time. Did Americans think about nuclear war in the years after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? See scenes from two 1964 movies: Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove. Did a conspiracy kill JFK? Most Americans think so. And so Oliver Stone's JFK (1991) found an audience. Though a few years later, Seinfeld had a different take.

Anti-Mormon attacks on Romney

Last Thursday, news broke of anti-mormon calls being made in New Hampshire and Iowa. These were essentially attacks on Romney. Every other campaign has denounced the attacks and denied any involvement. McCain has gone as far as to ask the New Hampshire Attorney General to investigate. The latest speculation is that Romney may be behind the calls so that he can innoculate himself against attacks on his faith (similar to how Kennedy was behind anti-Catholic calls in 1960). An article detailing the possible links to Romney is here.

I'm curious as to the advisability of this tactic (whether it is by Romney or someone else). Presidential elections are open to much scrutiny, so I expect that we will learn who was behind the calls sometime soon. If it was Romney, will this actually help him? Or was it a political miscalculation that will dilute his leads in New Hampshire and Iowa?

The Democratic and Republican Shortlist

When the new president gets elected, they're probably going to be nominating a candidate or two for the Supreme Court. A few months ago, SCOTUSblog posted a "Short List" of possible appointees by Democratic president (with a follow up post) along with list for a Republican president.

The President and the Courts

How do presidents try to influence the courts? Obviously, Supreme Court nominations are a key method. See the story behind Justice O'Connor. How would the Democratic presidential candidates pick a justice?

Once justices are in place, the executive tries to sway the courts through legal arguments. Note the role of the Solicitor General.

The judicial branch, of course, restrains and influences the executive branch. The Bush administration recently lost a round on fuel economy standards but won a round on national security wiretapping. Can we generalize from these cases? In comparison with domestic issues, have courts been more reluctant to stay the executive's hand in matters of national security?

Primary vs. General Election

The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries demonstrate an interesting conflict in primary politics, according to a recent New York Times article (view the article here). The article mentions that voters in these two states are ranking the candidates based on two criteria. The candidates either appeal to the ideological views of the base constituency or they will prove to be electable on the national stage. This issue is extremely important for Republican voters who lack a clear cut front runner who is both electable and in line with the party's ideological views. I thought this was an interesting article as it relates to the strategies for primary politics mentioned in Halperin.

Congress NAILs the President

NAIL is a mnemonic device for four ways by which the legislative branch oversees or checks the executive.

• Nominations. The Senate must confirm presidential nominations to high-level executive posts. Most nominations are uncontroversial and win easy approval. But the threat of defeating nominees may influence the names that the president sends to the Hill. And confirmation hearings not only enable senators to judge the nominees' qualifications but let them send messages to the administration. See Leahy ask Mukasey about torture.
• Appropriations. Lawmakers may use earmarks and limitations are to direct and restrict the availability of funds for specified activities. Look here for a map of some earmarks. As with nominations, they may also use hearings to raise policy questions. See Obey ask Secretary Gates about Gitmo.
• Investigations. Congressional committees often conduct investigations and oversight hearings. One famous example was the Senate Watergate Committee, in which then-staffer Fred Thompson played a role. Congress may also study executive branch operations through the GAO, the CBO, and the CRS.
• Legislation. Of course, Congress may influence the executive by passing laws requiring or forbidding certain activities. As the readings point out, the Supreme Court ruled against the "legislative veto."

Congress seldom resorts to a more powerful weapon: impeachment. See the cases of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton.

In curbing the executive, how successful has Congress been? Under which circumstances does which branch have the upper hand?

Romney: Consultant-in-Chief

In last weekend's Wall Street Journal, there was an article describing how Romney's consulting background would shape a Romney presidency (link to the article)

An interesting excerpt from the article:

When asked for details about how he would reduce the size of government if elected, he mentions two things: The organizational chart of the executive branch, and consultants. "There's no corporation in America that would have a CEO, no COO, just a CEO, with 30 direct reports."

Running a government organized like this is, he explains, impossible. "So I would probably have super-cabinet secretaries, or at least some structure that McKinsey would guide me to put in place." He seems to catch a note of surprise in his audience, but he presses on: "I'm not kidding, I probably would bring in McKinsey. . . . I would consult with the best and the brightest minds, whether it's McKinsey, Bain, BCG or Jack Welch."

Romney goes on to mention how duplicative and wasteful government is, and talks about how he would "cut the fat". I think this is an interesting take on how to fix government, but how realistic is this in light of the discussion we had today? Government rarely shrinks, not even under avowed small-government politicians like Reagan. Given Romney's lack of inside-the-beltway experience, I really wonder whether he would really be able to pull this off.

But if Romney actually wins, I guess anything is possible.

Geoff Lewis

FBCI

Over the weekend I was thinking about something from last week's topic. It is small and relatively unimportant, but I was curious about it nonetheless. I was wondering about the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. I imagine it has played a significant role during the Bush presidency in catering to the religious voters. But I was thinking about the role this office would have in a Romney administration. Just how much does the religious preference of the president influence this office? Would Romney use this office to promote a Mormon faith-based agenda? Or would he specifically refrain from this? I also was thinking of what would happen in a Giuliani presidency, where faith clearly is not of much of importance. How would this office look under his stewardship? I guess I am wondering whether this office tends to be filled by members of the president's church, or if it is simply given (almost like a cabinet position) to someone who will please religious supporters.

Campaign Strategy in the Democratic Primary

According to this Politico article http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6816.html, it looks like Clinton and Obama are taking opposite strategies. Clinton opts for the partisan technique, rallying the base and "turning up the heat" against Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, is going for the "nation healed" motto and seeks to "reunite the country."

Why do you think these two candidates are going for these distinct strategies? What about Clinton makes "turning up the heat" more appropriate versus "a nation healed?" Also, what about the enviornment? When does the political enviornment call for a more conciliatory approach?

Also, does anyone know of examples in history where multiple candidates ganged up on the front runner in a primary and that front runner lost? If so, which underdog took the nomination? Has this proven to be a successful campaign strategy?

Swift Kids for Truth

A spoof off of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

Click here to see the satirical videos on Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, created by 23/6.com, a new comedy "news" site. Unlike the Swift Vets for Truth commercials, these farcical ads wont impact the polls, but they're funny.

Ted Strickland for Vice President?

On the topic of possible running mates, Ted Strickland, who was elected governor of Ohio last year by a wide margin, recently endorsed Clinton. Although he only has a year of experience as governor, he had a long career in the house beginning in the early nineties. He would be a huge asset in Ohio and he has the endorsement of the NRA. I also think he's fairly moderate, especially on social issues.

Congress and the President

This week, we look at relations between the branches. On Monday, we stand at the White House end of Pennsylvania Avenue. How does the president try to get his way with Congress? (See roll call votes). How does the president try to get his way around Congress? The answer to both questions involves a mix of formal authority (e.g., vetoes, executive orders, signing statements), public pronouncements (veto messages, statements of administration policy (SAPs) and informal persuasion.

As for the former, note how both President Clinton and President Bartlet used the Antiquities Act. In this case, as in others, have presidents overstepped their authority?

As for the latter, shall see a classic video presentation of LBJ working his will on Congress. Here is an audio on the same topic. (And another.) Could you picture similar conversations with President Bush?

On Wednesday, we take the view from Capitol Hill. How does Congress seek to influence or restrain the president and the rest of the executive branch. The ultimate weapon is impeachment, which Representative Kucinich tried to use last week.

Generational test for Republicans

Politico featured this article about global warming and the Republican party. I think there are two things our class can take away from it.

The article addresses young voters and how they can sway public opinion and the election. Several Republican legislators have begun to change their minds about global warming because of the environmental movement led by our generation. Activists have used the election effectively by putting pressure on candidates to say something about the issue. The Democratic candidates have all discussed global warming , and the trend is affecting Republicans. Grassroots movements can utilize election season in this manner.

On the other hand, this issue brings to light how superficial campaigning can be. The authors mention that the candidates are trying to stay away from addressing global warming in detail because the solutions are too expensive and therefore turn off the general public. While Republicans and Democrats are starting to agree that this is a real issue, they will use traditional campaign strategy and gloss over it with vague statements. The authors believe that it will be a while before their is action on the political front.

The President and the Bureaucracy

In current news, as Alannah points out below, Pat Robertson has endorsed Giuliani. Maybe he did not catch the YouTube video featuring Giuliani with Donald Trump.

As for the vice presidency and the 25th Amendment ....

Click here for information on the Clinton cabinet and here for the Bush (43) cabinet. Consider the criteria in Pika (p. 230):

• Political experience;
• Clientele or ethnic identification;
• Technical expertise;
• Pretenure friendship.

Here is a long list of independent agencies.

Here is information and rules and executive orders.

Thanks for Your Comments

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions. While I cannot respond to all of them here, let me offer a few reactions.

• I will make a clearer connection between course content and our discussions of current events. But please feel free to take the lead in raising topics.
• Whenever possible, I shall post discussion questions on the blog a day or two before class.
• I will give out a practice final similar to the air midterm. In addition, you might get together to devise your own study guide. I do not grade on a curve, so you lose nothing by cooperating with one another.
• Please use the blog to raise questions. Before a class, you might want to flag certain issues from the readings that you would like to discuss. After a class, you might raise questions that you did not get a chance to pose, or that you would like to discuss further.
• Some of you mentioned specific topics in foreign and domestic policy. We will definitely cover them in the weeks ahead.

The House voted yesterday to override Bush's veto on a spending bill for water projects by a 361-54 margin. The New York Times also reported that the House just passed legislation that combines veterans funding Bush supports with Health, Education, and Labor appropriations that Bush has threatened to veto. Like Schip, this is another example of Bush trying to stand for fiscal responsibility. The Republican leadership in the House sided with the Democrats, who claim that Bush won't support domestic programs while wasting far more money in Iraq.

The legislation could be the first veto override that this administration faces depending on how the Senate acts. It also reflects the political posturing in anticipation of next year's election. Bush is trying to return to his party's conservative roots but congressional Republicans, as was the case with Schip, face the possibility of being painted as not caring about domestic needs. On the other hand, Bush is accusing Democrats of loading pork on their spending legislation.

Giuliani Wins Robertson's Love

Giuliani and Romney both courted televangelist Pat Robertson for his endorsement, but The Los Angeles Times reports today that Giuliani was successful by proving to Robertson that he will nominate strict constructionist Supreme Court Justices and defend "our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists," in Robertson's words. Yesterday, Romney announced the endorsement of Sam Weyrich, founder of the Moral Majority.

These big endorsements are most unexpected because Giuliani and Romney were labeled early as the flip-floppers of abortion rights. While they are big names that both worked for with good reason, Robertson especially has somewhat decreased in influence in the evangelical world because of his own rhetorical mis-steps. It's a step for both candidates toward courting evangelicals on the whole, but I doubt these endorsements will be hugely influential further down the road.

Romney Ad

I ran into this Romney Ad released last week following the Democratic debate.

Romney attacks Clinton while emphasizing his own executive experience. I think the ad is effective. Romney is a strong public speaker with a better presidential image than Giuliani. It is also interesting to note that he has shifted his campaigning to Clinton attacks.

Just food for thought: Pomona held a discussion of the 2008 presidential election featuring a few of the Politics Faculty and the new Con-Law Professor, Justin Crowe, made an interesting argument that the real "winner" of the campaign is Bush's approach to presidential powers. In particular, he argued that while Democrats have attacked Bush's use of policy, They have not questioned his authority to implement those policies, especially with respect to national security. More specifically, Crowe mentioned the lack of transparency in the Bush administration and the unlikelihood that any of the candidates would operate differently.

I think the argument has some gaps (torture being the main one) but it is interesting to consider that the main Democratic candidates are not campaigning against presidential authority. In fact, I think it says a lot that the exception to this is Ron Paul as the loudest voice for less Presidential voice.

The West Wing

For more on the points that Matt raised (and for the writing assignment), see a story on a recent statement by Senator Clinton and an analysis of her comments.

Look here for a list of White House offices.

All presidents worry about staff leaks. LBJ did. Even the Bartlet White House did.

Fred Thompson the Actor/Politician

A recent article in the New York Times described a theme that Professor Pitney has addressed a number of times in class: the intertwining of Fred Thompson's political and dramatic careers. Fred Thompson's characters on screen are not that far from his persona in real life. Take a look at the slide show as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/arts/television/04kant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Race Thus Far

An article in today's NY Times summarizes the key issues of the upcoming election very well. It first touches on what the author deems "The Bush Effect," questioning whether Republican candidates are hurting themselves by not simply avoiding comparisons between themselves and President Bush but rather refraining from speaking of him at all. It points out that despite Bush's 30 percent approval rating, two-thirds of Republicans support him and asks whether a Republican candidate should be alienating these voters. The article also talks about campaign contributions, Iran, comedy as an asset, Congress, taxes, and the Internet. Check it out here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/us/politics/04vote-web.html?ex=1351918800&en=7c37f906ef99e54a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Nixon

• On Rummy
• The Smoking Gun Tape
• Farewell to the Staff

Obama won't accept VP

Barack Obama has announced that he will not accept nomination for the Vice Presidency:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_would_snub_VP_offer_from_1029.html

This is probably not much of a surprise, because candidates rarely announce any intentions for the Vice Presidency for fear of undermining their Presidential campaign. In many ways, Obama would be a poor choice for VP for any candidate, because he would overshadow the President, given the enormous hype surrounding him.

Since Professor Pitney (semi-jokingly) mentioned Sen. Tester as a potential running mate to Hillary Clinton, I thought I'd share some of Tester's campaign pictures. They are hilarious!!!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/testerforsenate/sets/72157594229425831/show/ How incredible would it be if Tester and Clinton did run together??!!!! That pair could not be anymore AWESOME.

Speaking of campaign stuff, please check out the RNC ad against Ford in the Tennesse senate race. While watching, keep in mind that Ford is black. (It's one of my favorite ads of the 2006 midterm elections. Basically, freakin' hilarious.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkiz1_d1GsA

And my last comment pertains to poor, old Rick Santorum. There is, I kid you not, a song about his daughter crying after Santorum lost the Pennslyvannia senate race... Talk about the interplay between media and politics. You can check the article out at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6384.html and even read some of the song verses.

Public Opinion, the Press, and Speeches

• George Washington, properly understood.
• You may find historical data on presidential approval in Pika, p. 90. Here is a graph of recent data.
• An example of a press conference memo.
• A clip of today's press briefing.
• A reading of the Gettysburg Address runs just two and a half minutes.
• Listen to FDR's "map speech" while looking at a 1942 map.

One of the WP politics blogs had this to say about Colbert's appeal:

"a Republican polling firm, recently completed a national poll of 1,000 likely 2008 voters that included Colbert's name in both the GOP and Democratic primaries. (He has announced his plans to run in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.) In the field from Oct. 18-21, the survey has a 5 percent margin of error.

In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth place behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (40 percent), Sen. Barack Obama (19 percent), former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent. Colbert finished ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent).

He was less lucky in the Republican field, where he took less than 1 percent of the vote behind even longshot candidates like Reps. Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul."

Hillary Running Away with the Dem Nomination

Supporters of Obama and Edwards like to think that Hillary Clinton -- like Howard Dean, Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy before her -- will go on to lose the Democratic nomination despite her early lead in the polls.

This study by Gallup Polling, however, suggests that such a scenario is unlikely. Hillary Clinton consistently leads her nearest rival by more than twenty points in national polls -- a rare feat in Democratic primary history and something that has occurred only twice before. In three of four Gallup polls taken in 1979, Ted Kennedy led Jimmy Carter by more than twenty points; in twelve of fifteen polls in 1999, Al Gore was ahead of Bill Bradley.

Gallup's study argues that the analogue to Clinton's 2007 dominance in national polling is Gore's lead in 1999. It also distinguishes Clinton's frontrunner status from Kennedy and Hart's:

Kennedy and Hart ultimately lost their nomination bids, but their large leads came much earlier in the campaigns. Kennedy's candidacy lost its steam when Jimmy Carter's popularity surged in late 1979 following the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Hart's 20-point lead occurred in the last poll taken before he suspended his campaign after the press was able to confirm rumors he was having an extramarital affair.

Gallup concludes that Clinton should "play it safe" to avoid jeopardizing her lead in the polls and approves of her recent emphasis on issues "that Democratic primary voters may not necessarily endorse, but that may position her better for the general election campaign against the Republican."

But national polls don't tell the whole story. We don't nominate our Presidents by a national primary, after all. Instead we allow two random states, unrepresentative of the demography of the whole nation, to decide for us. That's why Hillary, for her own part, is refusing the "inevitable" label, at least in Iowa. Yesterday, she told supporters that she is campaigning as if she were running "ten or twenty points behind" her closest rivals.

Hillary Clinton and Drudge

Given how much attention Halperin and Harris give to Matt Drudge and the Freak Show, I found this article in the New York Times to be very interesting. It goes together so nicely, you would almost think that people in Hillary campaign were reading our books.
Clinton Finds Way to Play Along With Drudge.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.

Colbert for President?

Stephen Colbert has announced that he is running for president. He is circulating petitions for the Republican and Democratic primaries in his native South Carolina.

There is just one problem: if his name appears on a real ballot, he runs the risk of breaking campaign finance laws. Politico quotes a Democratic election lawyer: “You don’t get a different set of rules because you’re running as a joke.”

Tactics in Presidential Elections

The best archive of presidential campaign ad is The Living Room Candidate. A good source of current spots (with some historical ads) is 4President.

Some moments from presidential debates. And a vice presidential debate: Bentsen-Quayle 1988.

Who voted for Bush and Kerry? See here for the exit poll.

Though the election was close nationwide, it was not close in most localities. See the graph of landslide counties.

Strategy in Presidential Electors

There are various formulas for predicting presidential elections. Here is one that relies only on the economy. The "13 Keys" model is both broader and more subjective.

Halperin and Harris write of Karl Rove, who served as President Bush's strategist. As a PBS documentary showed, Rove linked campaigning and governing in sophisticated ways.

As Halperin and Harris also explain, people such as Rove lie awake at night thinking about the electoral college. For more detail on the electoral college than you probably need, see here.

For a representation of "The Message Grid," see here.

Bush: Victim of Election Year Executive Flight or Evader of Senate Confirmation?

The New York Times today published a report noting that interim heads, intended to temporarily fill a position in the executive branch until the Senate confirms a new presidential nominee, currently fill a large portion of positions. Under the Vacancies Reform Act, passed in 1998, a president has 210 days to nominate another candidate for review by the Senate. Judging from the article, it seems as though Bush is solely the victim of flight from the executive branch in the runup to an election year; the fragility of the job security of conservatives is apparent given the growing possibility of a Democratic victory next November. Alternatively, the Times also suggests that the Bush adminstration may be attempting to circumvent the Senate's right to confirm executive appointments. Whatever the case, it seems as though the public has come to suffer from a lack of experienced and efficient heads at the helm of our executive agencies.

Schumer and Specter Push for Overturn of Buckley v. Valeo

As I was sifting through the news from this week, I found this article on the website of the New York Times. The article reports on the efforts of Senators Schumer and Specter to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court ruled that giving money to influence elections is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Additionally, the case effectively banned restrictions on candidates giving to their own campaigns, allowing candidates like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes to fund their own bids for the presidency. To digress, ABC News reported this week that Mitt Romney has surpassed Steve Forbes in donations to his own campaign; in class, we witnessed the effects of this money when we saw the video of the Ron Paul supporter criticizing Romney's excessive use of buses in the Iowa straw poll. Schumer and Specter have joined the opposition to current campaign finance laws which, they argue, allow for large donors to drown out the political voices of "average" Americans. The effort to challenge Buckley v. Valeo, however, seems to be ill fated given that a similar attempt failed in the Senate in 2001. We find ourselves, however, in another election year in which the frontrunners for party nominations have all declined federal funds. Perhaps this time around, Schumer and Specter will find a more responsive public.

The Nomination Campaign

Here is a great site for campaign ads, both current and historical.

Log Cabin Republicans "help" Mitt Romney via YouTube.


Here is a Giuliani vulnerability study. Though it was for the 1993 mayoral race, it does suggest what a presidential-campaign version might look like.

-
Convention moments:

• Riots 1968
• Pat Buchanan 1992

Writing Tips

Grading your papers reminds me of some writing tips:
1. Always introduce your quotations by identifying the speaker or writer in your text. Do not force your readers to go to the endnotes to figure out the origin of the passage that you quote.
2. What do you do when your endnotes cite a work more than once? Here is the answer:
In your essay’s footnotes or endnotes you will only need to use the full citation form once for a specific source. All subsequent citations of that same source will use either the Latin abbreviation “Ibid.” or a shortened citation. [More detail here.]
3. Superscripts follow punctuation marks (except a dash) in text and appear outside a closing parenthesis. Use Arabic numerals for endnotes.
4. Do not dangle your modifiers.
5. The CMC Writing Center, in Bauer 32, offers writing advice – in half-hour sessions – to all CMC students in need of help. Its hours are as follows:
Sunday 1-5 p.m., 7-10 p.m.Monday 9 a.m. - Noon, 1-5 p.m., 7-10 p.m.Tuesday 9 a.m. - Noon., 1-5 p.m., 7-10 p.m.Wednesday 9-Noon, 1-5 p.m., 7-10 p.m.Thursday 9-Noon, 1-5 p.m., 7-10 p.m.Friday 9-12 a.m.

The Presidential Nomination Process

Helena asked about the history of the unit rule in the electoral college. A brief (albeit opinionated) summary is here.

Madeleine asked about the complex system of federal matching funds. You may find more detail here.

The New York Times has good information on the delegate-selection process, including the latest dates for party primaries and caucuses. Before any official delegate selection there are unofficial events such as the Ames straw poll.

If you want to see some brief clips of Iowa caucuses, see here.

And the Dean Scream ... from a different perspective.

Presidential Advisers

I heard Professor Pitney talking to the New York Times on the phone about this issue and found the article this weekend. It seems like the advisory role has shifted throughout time. Lincoln embraced the debate that surrounded him and welcomed dissenting opinions. In these past 7 years, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney seemed to have run the show, how many dissenting opinions does the President listen to today?

When we elect our next president are we voting for the candidate or for his/her staff and advisers? There is a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton's team, there was a great article in the Washington Post this summer about "Hillaryland." After the Bush and Clinton presidencies, and the impact of their closest advisers, it seems like there is more to consider in an election than is clear to the American public.

"First Laddie" Diplomat

During Bill Clinton's recent trip to London, he told The Guardian that his Scottish friends suggest he be referred to as "first laddie" if his wife, Hillary, is elected president. In interviews released to the press in Britain, Clinton said Hillary envisions his potential role in the White House as a diplomatic one, in order "to restore America's standing" in the international community.

The possibility of having a First Gentleman in the White House (especially a former president) presents some interesting questions.

CMCers may remember, when President Clinton spoke in Bridges Auditorium last spring he was singing the same tune--he would gladly serve as US Ambassador to the world--and he reminded us that he will do whatever Hillary tells him. Who knows if that will include picking the presidential china.

Click here to read more.

Nixon to Clinton

President Nixon sought to rally the "silent majority" for his Vietnam policies. Gerald Ford was an experienced lawmaker with a detailed knowledge of government -- but Americans remember him via Chevy Chase. Carter had a pedestrial inaugural, and his presidency stayed that way. Reagan was a stronger communicator. Dana Carvey nailed Bush 41. Clinton, alas, will go down for an unfortunate phrase.

Speaking freely

Peggy Noonan had an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend entitled "Hear, Hear" - - talking about how we are limiting ourselves by controlling whom we do and do not talk to. Near the end, she urges both Republicans and Democrats to stop avoiding possible negative interactions while campaigning. She argues, I believe correctly, that if a candidate is serious about a certain policy issue it is necessary for him or her to talk to the dissenters. Politicians cannot afford to be scared of a few boos.

Check it out. The link above should work, but searching for it in the WSJ database pulls it up as well.

Ike Through Nixon

In early 1961, Ike gave his Farewell Address, famously warning of the military-industrial complex. Days later, the torch passed to JFK, who took a distinctly militant tone in the Cold War. Kennedy took full advantage of new technology, starting the practice of holding press conferences on live TV. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, had an earthy way of expressing himself.

In future weeks, we shall discuss Nixon in greater detail. But this brief clip gives a sense of his hard-edged view of international politics.

The Little Rock Nine

In class today, we will probably be discussing Eisenhower's use of federal troops to enforce a desegregation order in Little Rock, Arkansas. Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary. They had a ceremony with the original Little Rock Nine in attendance over at Little Rock Central High School.

M. Powell

I was unable to read previous posts, so I am not sure if this blog is intended to pertain strictly to our readings, or to the presidency in general. If the latter, I would like to comment upon Ahmadinejad's visit to New York and his speech at Columbia. I was interested in his visit for many reasons, but I was curious to see President Bush's remarks on the issue. I expected Bush to come down strongly on Columbia and Ahmadinejad, but rather, he expressed his acceptance of the situation and referenced free speech in defending the Iranian leader's right to speak.
Bush's reference to free speech made me consider something. Does the Consitution apply to Americans only, or to all who are on American soil? I am curious about this because the answer would connect Ahmadinejad's visit with Minuteman Project leader Jim Gilchrist's cancelled event. Extension of the Constitution only to American citizens would have a significant legal impact on the millions of illegial aliens here now. While this does not relate exactly to the presidency, Bush's remarks prompted this consideration.

- Michael Powell

From Roosevelt to Roosevelt

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson defeated former President Theodore Roosevelt in a three-man race. Incumbent William Howard Taft ran third.

Wilson suffered an incapacitating stroke, which raised questions about presidential succession.

Calvin Coolidge starred in the first presidential sound film.

Shortly before his inauguration, FDR survived an assassination attempt. See newsreel of the inaugural.

TR

See video (with period music) and audio of Theodore Roosevelt. Notice his tenor voice. The latter is from the 1912 Progressive campaign. He re-read it from a speech at Carnegie Hall.

The Early 19th Century Presidency

If you think that the president got rough treatment...



Attack ad



War of 1812





Look here for maps showing the territorial growth of the United States.

Iraq Address

President Bush spoke about Iraq last night. (Video here.) The Washington Post and Politico.com suggest that it did not shift much opinion, either on the Hill or among the general public. A Fox News poll says that 40 percent think that the Petraeus testimony was "slanted," while 35 percent think it was "truthful."

Kokesh

Adam Kokesh, who took this course a couple of years ago, is now a major figure in protests against the Iraq War. You may listen to today's radio interview here.

John Adams Miniseries

Paul Giamatti as John Adams.

No kidding: http://www.hbo.com/films/johnadams/index.html