Handicapping the 2008 Presidential Election

Handicapping the 2008 Presidential Election
By Jerome Grossman

In the 2008 Presidential election, any Democrat will beat any Republican. Even Joe Biden. Even Dennis Kucinich, the most liberal candidate in the field. Check his platform on Kucinich.US.
President George W. Bush has become a symbol of incompetence by his failures on Iraq, Katrina, Walter Reed, to name only a few. The nearest parallel is the 1932 election. President Herbert Hoover had fallen into such disfavor that the race for the Democratic nomination was equivalent to election. And the entire Republican Party paid the price, losing elections for lesser offices in the states.
The turnout of Republican voters on Election Day will be lower because of sinking morale. Independent (or unaffiliated) voters are already breaking sharply for the Democrats. Democratic voters are enthusiastic, making more campaign contributions, anxious and active for regime change, this time in Washington, D.C.
The Democratic primaries will be more important than the November election, where victory is assured. Qualities of likeability and electability will be less important because those factors appeal more to the casual voters in November than to the party activists in the primaries.
That clearly helps Hillary Clinton. The Democrats, so eager to regain the White House now that Bush has shown them how to ignore Congress and its legislation, worry less about Hillary’s electability given the Republican collapse. Her big asset in the primaries will be her husband, still the most popular Democrat in the nation. But once the nomination is assured, Bill will be put in cold storage until the day after the election.
Barack Obama easily wins the likeability prize. Youthful, attractive, thoughtful and well-spoken, voters worry about his political inexperience leading him into the kind of difficulties suffered by the new Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, who has the same sterling qualities. He has to know how to govern.
While generic polls indicate the voters prefer the Democrats over the GOP by 15 to 20 points, Rudolph Giuliani leads all candidates for President, regardless of party. No seer has been able to explain this. However, his decline is imminent as soon as the voters learn of his close relationship with Bernard Kerik, his New York Police Commissioner and business partner. Giuliani asked Bush to nominate Kerik to be Head of the Department of Homeland Security while he was being investigated by the FBI for ethics violations, allegations of mismanagement, questionable financial deals and certain associations. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales grilled Kerik about them but did not stop the nomination. One week later, the President withdrew the name. Another example of administration incompetence.
The prize is great. The finish is in the bag. The Bush dynasty is finished, brought down by its own ignorance and arrogance and incompetence. Late night comedian Jay Leno reflected popular opinion when he quipped, “On this date in 1990, the first President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, which allowed, of course, his son George W. to become President of the United States.”

Remembering Father Robert F. Drinan (1921-2007)

March 2006

Dear Friend,

With great sadness, I report the passing of Father Robert F. Drinan, S.J. on January 28th, at the age of 86. Advocates of peace, justice and human rights throughout the world mourn the loss of this great leader. Father Drinan was the Chairman of PeacePAC since its inception in 1981.

The first time I met Father Drinan was on October 15, 1969, the day of the Vietnam Moratorium. He and I addressed a rally against the Vietnam War at Boston College attended by thousands of students and parents.

I knew Drinan as the Dean of Boston College Law School, a scholar and an excellent speaker. He was a one-man ecumenical movement in troubled Boston – a city with enormous problems in education and segregation where ecumenism was then rare. What I was not prepared for was Drinan’s passionate opposition to the Vietnam War.

Father Drinan had no political ambitions. Election to public office was unthinkable for a priest. But he did want a platform from which to preach against the death and destruction of the Vietnam War. Unpredictable events would give him that platform.

Following the massive turnout on Moratorium Day, peace activists in Massachusetts’ third Congressional District were determined to oust our hawkish incumbent Representative and win a congressional seat for an anti-war candidate. Our strategy was to unite behind one candidate chosen in an open caucus, so that the candidate would truly be selected by the anti-war grassroots. Drinan was one of six candidates. I was his floor manager at the caucus.

On the day of the caucus, 2,000 people arrived early and stayed late. After four ballots, Drinan achieved the two-thirds majority necessary for the nomination. This complicated process, organized by the grassroots, is probably the only authentic political draft in history. Among the other candidates not chosen, but who vowed to support Father Drinan, was an obscure young Vietnam veteran named John Kerry.

The caucus process was the key to Drinan’s victory in the September Democratic primary and the November election. Drinan immediately had 2,000 campaign workers and 2,000 financial backers. They were the people who won the election for him. They had a say in choosing their candidate, and they knocked themselves out for him. Some gave money over and over, worked week after week. Drinan did not have to raise the campaign money – we did. Drinan did not have to hire the campaign staff – we did. Drinan did not have to organize the unpaid campaign workers – they were already there. Drinan had only to preach the anti-war message – and he was inspiring.

Drinan’s victory was a watershed in Massachusetts politics, and had an effect in other states as well. The political establishment was dumbfounded that the liberals could pull themselves together and gather so many people and so many dollars to elect a frenetic guy in a Roman collar. In 1970, the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation was quite conservative. By 1980, it was the most liberal in the nation.

In his ten years in Congress, Drinan was an indefatigable crusader for peace, social justice and human rights everywhere. He helped end the Vietnam War. He filed the first impeachment resolution against President Nixon, fought U.S. funding for the death squads in El Salvador, ended the House Un-American Activities Committee, advocated for human rights all over the globe, and worked for the poor and friendless. He liked to think of himself as a politician, but, in fact, he was a moralist posing as a politician.

Drinan’s political career ended abruptly. In May 1980, the pope decided that Roman Catholic priests could no longer hold elective office. Father Drinan was clearly upset by the decision, but there was never any question that he would comply.

Father Drinan stayed active in politics by helping to establish PeacePAC, a division of Council for a Livable World – the electoral arm of the peace movement. PeacePAC helps to elect passionate advocates of peace and justice to the House of Representatives, as well as incumbent Representatives who have proven through their actions that they are dedicated to progressive causes. Since its founding in 1980, PeacePAC has helped elect 150 members of the House of Representatives, including 44 current Representatives.

Drinan also resumed his academic career, teaching law and ethics at Georgetown University Law School and lecturing and writing on human rights. He opposed the current Iraq war from inception with all his strength until his death a few weeks ago.

Father Drinan was a model of integrity, a brilliant speaker, and a person of conscience. He was my friend and co-worker. I was Chairman of the Drinan for Congress Committee for all five of his elections. To honor his life and work, PeacePAC has established a Robert F. Drinan Memorial Fund at Council for a Livable World. Contributions may be sent in the enclosed envelope.

In Peace,

Jerome Grossman
Chairman Emeritus
Council for a Livable World

PS – While we mourn Father Drinan’s passing, our work in Washington, DC continues, as he would have wished.

Obama Surprises on Money,Clinton Surprises on Endorsements

Obama Surprises on Money
Clinton Surprises on Endorsements
By Jerome Grossman
Campaign contributions are important to political contests not only to pay expenses but also as indications of popular support and the ability to buy advertising to reach millions of voters in fifty states.
The recent financial reports of the presidential candidates indicated that some had exceeded expectations: particularly Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. While their totals will inspire their supporters and add a degree of credibility to their chances, money raised is not decisive in such contests. Political history is full of candidates who could raise the money but not the votes. Romney’s amazing fundraising is not matched by his weak standing in the public opinion polls, but indicates that he could become competitive.
Up to this point in the campaign, Obama has tended to rely on general themes including hope, religion, and bipartisanship. His success in fundraising will probably encourage him to stick with that approach instead of spelling out specific and detailed solutions to domestic and foreign problems.
More important in the 2008 primary elections will be the political situation in Iowa and New Hampshire. The results in those states could generate a wave of support for the winner in the free media that would sweep the primaries of the big states on February 5.
The model for such a scenario is the campaign for John Kerry in 2004. Beginning as the establishment candidate, he squandered his lead with poor performances and was far behind Howard Dean. At one point, Kerry was even behind Al Sharpton in his home state Massachusetts.
However, in the Iowa caucuses Kerry obtained the support of the Vilsack machine, although popular Gov. Tom Vilsack remained neutral, his very capable wife endorsed Kerry and motivated the troops.
Following the Kerry victory in Iowa, he also came from behind in New Hampshire with the aid of William Shaheen, husband of the governor Jeanne Shaheen, who was also neutral.
With these two upset victories, Kerry became inevitable. The Free media enabled him to sweep most of the other primaries gaining him the party nomination.
This year, Hilary Rodham Clinton is the establishment candidate in the Democratic primaries, pressed by Barack Obama. Hardly noted by the media, Tom Vilsack and his wife have endorsed Clinton. Vilsack was a candidate for president, dropped out with political debts of almost $500,000 which Clinton says she will help to pay. Rumors have Vilsack on the Clinton ticket as Vice President.
On to New Hampshire, where Clinton has been endorsed by William Shaheen who has been appointed campaign co-chair in New Hampshire and the Clinton national committee.
Clinton has the support of most influential Democrats in these two small states. In Iowa, turnout for the presidential caucuses will be 130,000 or less; in New Hampshire a similar number. The Vilsacks and the Shaheens are known to all of them. While the media is focusing on the money raised. Clinton may have already won these key primaries by obtaining key endorsements on the ground. .

Saratoga......a poem by Jerome

Saratoga

Lincoln Avenue runs
As straight as a good two-year-old
From Broadway to the track grandstand,
Where old men bet on young horses,
Past a Civil War cemetery
Honoring the remains of young men
Who believed Father Abraham’s
Call to protect the national interest,
And lost their entire fortune
In the eternal photo finish.


Jerome Grossman
August 22, 1991

A New Immigration Policy: Practical and Humanitarian

A New Immigration Policy: Practical and Humanitarian
By Jerome Grossman

It is estimated that there are about 12 million illegal or undocumented immigrants in the United States. Most of them did not swim the Rio Grande, they overstayed their tourist or student visas, so there must be a record of their identities.
In 1986, with the enthusiastic assent of President Ronald Reagan, Congress granted amnesty, in effect legal residence to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Between 1986 and 2000, Congress granted six additional amnesties, legalizing more than three million.
While illegal immigration has increased since 1986, we certainly do not wish to discourage tourists or students from visiting our country, nor is it feasible to find, round up, and deport the 12 million illegals.
One way to get control of this difficult situation is to prevent employers from hiring illegals, and reducing the motivation and the flow of illegal immigrants. Employer based enforcement would deal with justified complaints from U.S. citizens that some employers exploit, mistreat, and underpay their illegals, turning away legal Americans looking for work.
A revised U.S. immigration policy should be humanitarian and practical, supporting human and civil rights for all immigrants, legal or illegal, as well as for the U.S. citizens affected.
Here are some suggested principles:
1. The U.S. must establish control of its borders and places of entry.
2. The U.S. must protect itself by preventing the entry of criminals and establishing standards of health.
3. The U.S. must establish regular and fair procedures that enhance respect for law and order.
4. The U.S. must establish a system of first come, first serve for all applying immigrants.
5. The U.S. must enforce fair labor practices for all workers at every level and make the hiring party responsible for enforcement.
6. The U.S. should encourage prospective immigrants to stay home and apply at U.S. embassies.
7. The U.S, should determine employment needs of industries and institutions to establish occupation quotas.
8. The U.S. quotas should have no preference of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion.
9. The U.S. should have generous procedures for admitting refugees in need of asylum.
10. The U.S. should support family reunification.
11. The U.S. should not build walls to enforce its immigration procedures or militarize its borders.
12. The U.S. may require applicants to submit proof of previous occupation.
13. The U.S. should not have guest worker programs.
14. The U.S. must crack down on U.S. employers who employ illegal workers or violate laws on working conditions.

The President Can Fire at Will (or at Dick or at Jane)

The President Can Fire at Will (or at Dick or at Jane)
By Jerome Grossman


I can’t get excited about the hubbub concerning the forced resignations or firings of the eight United States attorneys. This mini-tempest is another example of the incompetence of the Bush Administration, once again shooting itself in the foot.
This is one of the least of the Bush sins which include
1. Indefinite detention of prisoners without charges
2. Torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions
3. F.B.I. surveillance of U.S. Citizens
4. Wiretapping without warrants
5. Manipulation of military intelligence
6. Secret prisons in foreign countries
7. Refusal to enforce congressional legislation
8. And many other acts and programs at home and abroad

Democrats in Congress should note that they are fighting this skirmish on Bush turf. The President appoints these attorneys without congressional input and can fire them at will (or at Dick or at Jane). Furthermore, this tempest gives the President the opportunity to support the hapless Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who may not be a very good lawyer and administrator, but is the highest ranking American of Hispanic descent in the nation. Right or wrong, the President will help the Republican party with this fast-growing constituency by defending Gonzales. And this controversy changes the news cycle away from the Iraq War, the greatest Bush failure, at least for a few days.
It is strange that the firings were coordinated in a sort of massacre of attorneys. If they had been spaced and consummated individually over a period of months, the changes would hardly have been noticed; would have appeared routine.
Is it possible that the plan was to include a ninth U.S.Attorney? One who was given the Bush Administration the most trouble, transforming a routine investigation into a perjury conviction of a prominent and trusted White House official, I. Lewis Libby? Was Patrick Fitzgerald to be the ninth fired, and did the White House chicken out at the last minute?

Dayenu – It Would Have Been Enough

Dayenu – It Would Have Been Enough
by Jerome Grossman - 1998

If rich Virginia planter George Washington had merely made common cause
with the shopkeepers and rabble of Boston,
It would have been enough.

If he had only rallied the revolutionary colonists and suffered with them,
It would have been enough.

If he had only refused the temptations of an imperial presidency,
It would have been enough. Dayenu.



If impoverished Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln, born in Kentucky,
had merely made common cause with the slave blacks of the South,
It would have been enough.

If he had only fought to preserve the federal Union as a guarantor
of national cohesion and social justice,
It would have been enough.

If he had only inspired the American language with dignity and grace
and wit and brevity,
It would have been enough. Dayenu.



If New York aristocrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt had merely made
common cause with the ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-clothed,
It would have been enough.

If he had only protected the old, the widows, the orphans
with Social Security,
It would have been enough.

If he had only rescued the nation from the despair of the Depression,
It would have been enough.

If he had only resisted and defeated the nihilism of Fascism,
It would have been enough. Dayenu.

Four Presidents Withdrew U.S. Forces and Helped America

Four Presidents Withdrew U.S. Forces and Helped America
by Jerome Grossman

When George W. Bush was riding high, the conqueror of Saddam Hussein, the preemptor threatening to invade any country his intelligence apparatus tells him to, he had dreams of being honored on Mount Rushmore. The Iraqi resistance to the American military occupation has ended that fantasy.
Now is the time for the President to withdraw American forces in accordance with the dictum of General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Military Forces in Iraq, “There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security – but it is not sufficient.”
Withdrawal would save thousands of American and Iraqi lives but it is difficult for a superpower to admit defeat. But it has been done repeatedly by Presidents whose reputations have not suffered: President Dwight Eisenhower withdrew from Korea, recognizing a bloody stalemate; President Ronald Reagan withdrew from Lebanon after hundreds of U.S. marines were bombed to death; President Gerald Ford withdrew from Vietnam after 58,000 American soldiers died there; President Bill Clinton withdrew from Somalia after 19 American troops were killed there and one dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
Was there chaos and conflict in these countries after U.S. forces left? Yes. But after the foreigners departed there was one less issue to fight about. Each country must solve its problems in accordance with its history and customs. Did relations with the U.S. improve? Most assuredly, and we are doing plenty of business with them. Withdrawal is the way to make friends and influence people of every background around the globe.

March 20th is the fourth anniversary of the U.S. attack on Iraq

After Four Years of War in Iraq
by Jerome Grossman

March 20th is the fourth anniversary of the U.S. attack on Iraq. Already one of the longest wars in U.S. history, with military victory unlikely if not impossible, the obvious question is, how long before we bring the troops home.
For possible guidance, examine the record of the Vietnam War. On October 15, 1969, the Vietnam Moratorium brought ten million Americans to rallies all over the country calling for an end to the war. It was the largest demonstration in history.
On Boston Common, Senator George McGovern addressed more than 100,000 roaring people who did not work that day to illustrate their seriousness. That evening I spoke to 10,000 who packed Roberts Auditorium at Boston College. As I started to speak, I could feel the anger of the crowd. They did not cheer my words, they roared their feelings. I held onto the lectern against the torrent of anger. At that moment I believed that there was no way the war could continue.
But it did – for four more deadly years, wasting precious American and Vietnamese lives and billions of dollars in a dishonorable futile display of hubris. Will the same process be repeated on Iraq?
It is easy for a superpower to go to war against a backward nation of 25 million people, but it is difficult to get out without losing prestige abroad and political power at home. Let that be the unfortunate lesson to our future presidents.

Complete and Immediate U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq

Complete and Immediate U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq
by Jerome Grossman

On March 16, the U.S. Senate rejected a Democratic resolution calling for the President to “commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution…” The vote was 48 to 50, divided mostly along party lines.
Especially noteworthy was the provision that all United States combat forces be redeployed except for a limited number essential for 1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure, 2.) Training and equipping Iraq forces, and 3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
These exceptions to complete withdrawal of U.S. forces are important. Right now there are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. How many will be required to fulfill the three exceptions and for how long? One estimate is 80,000 troops remaining and that may be too low if counter-terrorism operations are organized on a broad scale.
Protecting the vast U.S. embassy in the Green Zone, as large as a city, will require thousands of defenders. The U.S. trainers of Iraqi troops will be exposed to attach by insurgents and nationalists dedicated to changing the Iraq government and ending the American occupation. Reducing the U.S. garrison is likely to make the remainder more vulnerable to the attacks of those seeking revenge for prior wounds, killings, and Abu Graib.
Arab nationalists and religious Muslims are likely to be suspicious of a partial withdrawal, especially a withdrawal that leaves a puppet government in power and buttresses it with military support.
The opponents of the U.S. will not be reassured by the American record of previous foreign occupations. Significant numbers of U.S. troops have been in Germany since 1944, in Japan since 1945, in South Korea since 1953, in Bosnia since 1995. In addition, the U.S. has bases and troops in hundreds of other foreign places, and there are no plans for them to leave. Moreover, the leading Democratic candidates for President, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have clearly stated that they will keep some G.I.s in Iraq to deter Al Qaeda and Iran.
If our country wishes to rebuild its reputation and the trust of other nations after the lies, misrepresentations and illegal acts in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it must withdraw its forces immediately and completely. That will decrease the threat to America by reducing the number of those determined to exact revenge for our actions.