Changing Time (s) in Russia?

  In 2007, Time magazine made Vladimir Putin, then in his last year as Russia's president before becoming prime minister and planning to come back to the throne again, Person of the Year.

2007 Time Person of the Year

This year, 2011, Time chose "The Protester" as person of the Year.

2011 Time Person of the Year

The protests in Moscow over the rigged December elections continue and as outlined by Foreign Policy Russian correspondent Julia Ioffe in a series of articles, the Times in Russia May be a Changing. The series gives good insight into the goings on on the ground in Moscow that will help you when we study Russia next semester. Interesting not only to read the articles, but the opposition comments posted. One needs to be reminded, it is one-thing to be a government-critiquing journalist in a liberal democracy, quite another to be one in still Putin's Russia.

Kreminology 2012

'Tis the Season

The election season begins Tuesday with Iowa's Caucus. It will be must-see political TV. Since it's been "frontloaded" to DURING our Winter Break, you have to take care of this one on your own.


When you get exasperated at FOX/MSNBC/CNN analyzing the results with holograms and muti-touch gestures, CSPAN has traditionally been live at several caucuses. You should definitely check out what they actually look like.

In the past, I have posted live comments while following the action here, but I will be in the home of Mickey Mouse (insert your own political joke here), but I will be checking out the blog from my smart phone. Post your comments here.
Let's see who gets the "Big Mo'." To break down the polls, Nate Silver on fivethirtyeight.com has Ron Paul still looking good. His read gives you good insight in predicting election outcomes:
I’m not always a big fan of dissecting individual polls — mostly because there are liable to be a plethora of them in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next several days and their errors will tend to be mitigated as more are added to the average.


"Nevertheless, the new CNN poll of Iowa contains a methodological quirk that is worth bringing to your attention and which will probably result in the survey underestimating the support for Ron Paul.

The issue is that CNN’s Iowa poll was conducted by using a list of registered Republican voters and registered Republicans only:

Sample was drawn from the complete list of registered Republican voters provided by the Iowa Secretary of State.

What’s wrong with using a list of Republican voters for a Republican caucus poll? The answer is that it’s extremely easy for independent and Democratic voters to register or re-register as Republicans at the caucus site. Historically, a fair number of independent voters do this.

According to entrance polls in Iowa in 2008, for instance, about 15 percent of participants in the Republican caucus identified themselves as independents or Democrats on the way into the caucus site. Although the way that voters self-identify is not technically the same thing as which party they are officially registered with, this is probably a good proxy for what percentage of voters changed their registration to Republican when they signed in at the caucus location.

Read more

Also, CNN has an interesting take on has the negativity of the 2012 campaign maybe leading to the downfall of the Iowa Caucus and its need for "retail politics" The author fears there migh t be bad moments when citizens come out to publicly voice their support and vote for their candidate Tuesday night.

Could negativity kill the Iowa caucuses?

Political TV pundits have said that this could be shaping up as the most negative campaign in US History. Really? Not quite, check out this video that puts the words of Jefferson and Adams into today's media. The election of 1800, with quotes taken out of context from the NY Times, makes the tiff between Gingrich and Romney over the Lucy Chocolate Factory comment look "sweet."

Set your alarm: Review and Study

The first 5 minutes or so of this is a really great overview of our course! It is must see TV  before the final - nice review "The Great Debate."

The Great Debate

Your Final Exam test is first thing tomorrow morning. Review in you Patterson text First Amendment issues -- we will hit them the week we get back from break.
 AP Government 1st Semester Final Exam (U.S.) 

60 multiple choice (45 min.); 1 of 4 free response (25 min.)
Free Response:
Media Coverage of Campaigns


 Interest groups and policymaking institutions


 Congressional oversight of federal bureaucracy


 Budget/Policy barriers


Multiple Choice:

Constitutional principles
Checks & balances
Judicial review
Separation of powers
Federalism
Popular sovereignty
Limited government


 Political Parties, Campaigns & Voting Behavior


Political ideologies

Voting behavior (influences on)

Political socialization
Voter turnout
Electoral college
Primaries (open, blanket, closed, runoff)
Special interest groups/PACs/lobbyists
Media coverage
Critical elections


 Congress
Committees
Conference committees
Key pieces of legislation
Incumbent advantage
Rules
Presidential removal
Apportionment, Reapportionment, Gerrymandering
Authorization of spending (oversight of bureaucrac
Legislative process
 Presidency
Role
Constitutional Powers
Nominating Process
Powers (Increase of: “Imperial Presidency”)
War Powers Resolution
Line-Item veto ()why the president doesn't have it, and many governors do)
Cabinet
Appointment of Federal Judges
Vice-President (what presidential candidates look for in a running mate)
Reagan legacy (from a chart)


 The Judiciary
Tenure
Caseload
Strict v. loose constructionalist

Landmark cases: McCullough v. Maryland, Grisswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona.
Warren Court (from a political cartoon)

Dual court system: Federal/State, Criminal/Civil

 Misc (Bureaucracy, 1st Amendment: free exercise, establishment clause; freedom of expression, symbolic speech; exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 14th Amendment “Modifying Clause” reserved powers

Dual Presidency: Juggling a Sick Congress and Kim Jong Il's death

Patterson outlines the complexities of a dual presidency, where major foreign policy and domestic issues need to be juggled simultaniously. This week started with delayed news that reported the death of a dictator and the killing of 89-10 Senate passed two-month payroll tax exemption by what amounts to a House filibuster.

(From FP blog and the NY Times)
Kim Jong Un, the third son and successor to Kim Jong Il, visited the mausoleum where his father's body was lying in state on Tuesday. Meanwhile, praise from state media suggested that his transition to power remained on track.


In the capital of Pyongyang, weeping North Korean citizens filled the city's squares and placed flowers at monuments around the capital to mourn the death of Kim Jong Il. China and Russia, North Korea's most important allies, also declared their support for the new government.

South Korea released a statement offering its condolences and expressing hope that the two countries could work together for peace on the Korean Peninsula. It will not, however, be sending an official delegation to Kim's funeral on Dec. 28.

Meanwhile, South Korean and U.S. intelligence agencies were forced to grapple with questions of how they knew nothing of Kim's death, even two days after it occurred. The lack of reliable intelligence suggests that the two allies know relatively little about the inner workers of the Kim regime, or how the coming transition will play out.
_____________

And on the domestic front.......cancel that Christmas vacation to Hawaii, Mr. President.

(From NPR)

Rather than holding a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate-approved package to extend payroll tax cuts and long-term unemployment benefits for another two months — a package they oppose — House Republicans now plan to effectively reject the measure without having to cast "no" votes

As The Hill explains:

"House Republicans are setting up a vote on whether to go to a conference with the Senate. They say a vote to go to a conference with the Senate would serve as a vote against the Senate bill. Critically, however, it would be expressed as a vote in favor of going to the conference, and not a vote against cutting the payroll tax."

Or, as Politico says, "House Republicans postponed a planned Monday night vote on the Senate-passed payroll tax cut bill, bowing to pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers to fight the battle in a fresh media cycle, avoid a dark-of-night vote and, perhaps most important, find a way to reject the Senate bill without voting directly against a tax cut."

The vote is expected to happen around midday.

As Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has been saying in recent days, Republicans in the House (which they control) want the extensions to be for a full year, not two months. They don't want to just "kick the can" down the road, he says.

Getting any extension done before the payroll tax cut and long-term jobless benefits expire on Dec. 31, however, may prove impossible. The Democratic-controlled Senate has adjourned for the holidays. And Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said his chamber won't negotiate with the House unless the short-term, two-month extensions are passed first.

Commander in Chief: 'Welcome, Home!'

(From White House blog)
President Obama traveled to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on Wednesday -- home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces -- to salute the service of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines who fought in Iraq and helped to bring the war to an end.


"As your commander in chief, and on behalf of a grateful nation, I’m proud to finally say these two words," he said, "Welcome home."
-------
It was President George W. Bush's executive agreement to have U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of this year, a promise kept by the Obama administration, whose address was more somber and sober, and welcoming to the troops and the reflection of over 6,200 US lives (over 150,000 Iraqis) lost in the warm, than Commander in Chief Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003.

Holding Court

Call this post a full-court press on Supreme Court news and views (article on Stevens "The Dissenter," and "The Incredible Shrinking Court," need to be read by Tuesday):From the NY Times Supreme Court blog:

Justices Agree to hear Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law
1) An example of certiorari being granted in a highly controversial, political and social policy that has been playing out in Arizona.

The Obama administration challenged parts of the tough immigration law in court, saying it could not be reconciled with federal immigration policies.

2) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to choose an abortion.


Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings. The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012335

3) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news recently by speaking his mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.


As the above data shows, Thomas' silence during Supreme Court oral arguments is legendary. While his colleagues pepper lawyers with questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8 justices force legal teams to perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes at a time, Thomas often leans back in his large chair and stares at the ceiling.

When he does speak during oral arguments, it's almost always in private conversation with Justice Breyer. (And from the looks at the menus that they swap, those conversations are often about what to get for lunch.)In the past, Justice Thomas has said the oral argument time is not meant for Justices to show off but for the lawyers to make their legal arguments before the Court. But Thomas has recently said--in jest-- that “My colleagues should shut up!”
_____________


4) In the Ny Times article, "The Disenter," gives insight into how the High Court has moved right and now the self-proclaimed conservative, and eldest (and now retired) member of the Supremes, may have been be The Nine's most liberal justice:

"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to federal courts.

"Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Tuesday.

5) The second article you need to have read by Tuesday is Time's cover story from last October:


The Incredible Shrinking Court

"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly symbolic."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670489,00.html

5) Finally, a re-run post from 2009's 'Global Warming' SC decision:


The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.

The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar.

At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.

From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?

MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.

JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.

(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.

MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.
__________________

As we watched the Elena Kagan hearings last June, here are some sites to help you teach the US Supreme Court. First off the Chief Justice always writes a year end report which, among other things, talks about the number of cases appealed to the Court each year and how many were given certiorari. It is a very short document that you can easily digest.OYEZ.org


SCOTUS Blog is another great resource. Here is a link they put together yesterday on year end statistics, graphs, etc. (including how often each judge voted w. each other, the number of 9-0 decisions (more on this than any other) and much more.

Where does Elena Kagan stand on...















http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html?ref=politics

Families living in cars: Are policies, politicians to blame?

This 60 Minutes piece Sunday should make us all think. But what is the answer to the problem. Is policy, politicians or the people? Interesting to read the viewer comments on the website:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389750n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

What does this say about American Political Culture?

SuperCommittee Primer

(From apgov.org)

Watch from 1:00-6:00. Learn a little about the "Super Committee" for next week (may have a policy deliberation next Thursday). BTW, the "Super Committee" is a joint (House and Senate) select (members selected by the leaders of each chamber for a specific purpose) committee.


Boehner, Reid Duel Over Super Committee Failure in Op-Eds

(From National Journal)


House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., squared off in dueling USA Today op-eds over the super committee's failure to produce a plan to reduce the deficit, each blaming the opposing party for its refusal to compromise.


“I did everything possible to support the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction,” Boehner said.

Republicans, he added, made “good-faith offers,” even when not everyone in the party was enthusiastic about their content. Boehner blamed President Obama and Democrats who “insisted on dramatic tax hikes on American job creators.”

Reid, on the other hand, said that Republicans caved to the “tea party extremists and millionaire lobbyists” in their party. Democrats were ready to make a grand bargain, but Republicans refused to meet them halfway, Reid wrote.

The Senate majority leader said that he would oppose any efforts to walk back the automatic spending cuts that are scheduled to take place since the 12-member panel failed to reach agreement. Boehner said his next effort will be finding common ground with Democrats to address health care costs without tax increases.

Chief Turkeys: A Presidential Thanksgiving history

(From the WSJ.com, Melanie Kirkpatrick)

Last I checked, Thanksgiving is still scheduled to take place Thursday. The economic news may be gloomy, but unlike President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, President Barack Obama has not tinkered with the date of the holiday.


In 1939, FDR decided to move Thanksgiving Day forward by a week. Rather than take place on its traditional date, the last Thursday of November, he decreed that the annual holiday would instead be celebrated a week earlier.

The reason was economic. There were five Thursdays in November that year, which meant that Thanksgiving would fall on the 30th. That left just 20 shopping days till Christmas. By moving the holiday up a week to Nov. 23, the president hoped to give the economy a lift by allowing shoppers more time to make their purchases and—so his theory went—spend more money.

Roosevelt made his decision in part on advice from Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins, who was in turn influenced by Lew Hahn, general manager of the Retail Dry Goods Association. Hahn had warned Hopkins that the late Thanksgiving, Nov. 30, might have an "adverse effect" on the sale of "holiday goods."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574548082613991744.html
This year marks the 64th anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation. Though live Thanksgiving turkeys have been presented intermittently to presidents since the Lincoln administration, the current ceremony dates to 1947, when the first National Thanksgiving Turkey was presented to President Harry Truman.


So while they say not to talk about religion or politics around the Thanksgiving Day table, call this entire post the Political Warrior cornucopia of political/historical/religious/culture info to impress your guest this Turkey Day.

Starting with the 'Chief Turkey.' At right, President George W. Bush pardoned "Pumpkin & Pecan" the two birds that were saved by the president's signature in 2008.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2011, President Obama will pardon two National Thanksgiving Turkeys from Minnesota in a ceremony in the Rose Garden. Both birds will live out their days at George Washington's Mount Vernon estate. The President will celebrate the 64th anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation, reflect upon the time-honored traditions of Thanksgiving, and wish American families a warm, safe, and healthy holiday. If last year's embeded ceremony below, you can watch the TBN (To be named National Turkeys live at http://www.whitehouse.gov/.



Happy Thanksgiving.....I'm thankful for your blogging comments!

Broken Government? Your Job: Fix it

Mike Adams,the creator of the above cartoon, thinks things are bad at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):"Of all the cartoons we've ever done on the FDA, this is the one that people seem to like the best."


It addresses the issue of FDA conflicts of interest. The Food and Drug Administration, an agency that suffers under the hallucination that it protects the public from dangerous foods and drugs, has actually become the marketing department of Big Pharma. It actually takes money from drug companies in exchange for evaluating and approving their drugs, and the decisions concerning which drugs to approve almost always come down to a panel of "experts" who have strong financial ties to the very companies impacted by their decisions.''

Well, if it's "Broken Government" then it's your job to fix it.

Before you start with your poster/policy pitch assignment due Tuesday, consider this article from US History.org

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/8d.asp (take note or the merit system and bureaucratic accountability).

Have one person from your stake your claim for an agency in the comment section starting 11/22. Also, list the 3 or 4 members of your group.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 
EPA Chief: Enviroment should be above partisanship. Do you agree? Also, would Richard Nixon (before Watergate) make it in the current GOP. Afterall, it was his administration that created the EPA in 1970.
 

Posting of last week's assignment

Go to http://www.congress.org/ (Type in your zip code)


Who are they? What party? When were they elected?

What percentage did they win by in the last election?

What committees are they on?

Go their webpage: What legislation are they currently working on? (2 or 3 examples)

Redistricting Game
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
 


1st, Click on “play the game.”

Go to: Mission 4: The Voting Rights Act

Go to: Learn More

2nd, Read about the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Explain the purpose of the Voting Rights Act and how it relates to redistricting.

3rd, Have fun! See if you can “win” the game - redistrict the State of Hamilton.

______________
 
Post your result in the comment section of the redistricting game post below

Obama: 'Long and painful chapter' is over; New Book to be written in Lybia

(From CNN)

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama on Thursday called the death of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi both the end of a "long and painful chapter for the people of Libya" and the hallmark of a successful U.S. foreign policy.


In the first official government remarks on the killing of a longtime foe who was behind terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens, Obama pledged his government's support as Libya builds a democratic system from the ruins of dictatorship.

FULL STORY

With regime change in Lybia, what needs to happen next for the revolutionaries to create a democratic government. Are you optimistic, or pesimistic about the future of Lybia?

A Big Victory Shout Out

This site allows allows you to type in a member of Congress and see how many bills he/she has introduced, how many earmarks he/she have asked for and received. The site does not give its definition of earmarks, nor tell if the bills are for one's entire career (I suspect it is), but nonetheless, it is an interesting starting point.


Judy Biggert (R) our representative from the 13th District has just two bills to her credit as of 2010. She was first elected in 1998. She won re-election in 2010 to a seventh term with 64% of the vote.

But she has given a big shout out to WVHS. I found the above video on the Warrior's Back-to-Back State Champion Women's Soccer Team Website. A couple of summers ago U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert gives her one-minute shout out to the Tribe. While we make fun of these "One-minute resolutions" legislatures use them to make constituents feel happy and proud. I did when I saw it.

Do we like our lawmakers doing this type of constituent service for us, or is it really a waste of time when there are more important matters at hand?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=595320026

Elephants, Donkeys and Gerrymanderers, Oh My!

Here is a way for you to continue your education, win or lose, on the world of Congressional gerrymandering.

The Redistricting Game is designed to educate, engage, and empower citizens around the issue of political redistricting. Currently, the political system in most states allows the state legislators themselves to draw the lines. This system is subject to a wide range of abuses and manipulations that encourage incumbents to draw districts which protect their seats rather than risk an open contest.

By exploring how the system works, as well as how open it is to abuse, The Redistricting Game allows players to experience the realities of one of the most important (yet least understood) aspects of our political system. The game provides a basic introduction to the redistricting system, allows players to explore the ways in which abuses can undermine the system, and provides info about reform initiatives - including a playable version of the Tanner Reform bill to demonstrate the ways that the system might be made more consistent with tenets of good governance. Beyond playing the game, the web site for The Redistricting Game provides a wealth of information about redistricting in every state as well as providing hands-on opportunities for civic engagement and political action.

The Redistricting Game was created at the USC Game Innovation Lab - part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts', Interactive Media Division.

Play the game here: http://www.redistrictinggame.org/index.php

Redistricting Game for Real in Illinois

In January, it was announced that Illinois will lose a congressional seat, the U.S. Census Bureau said; following the 2012 elections, Illinois will send 18 members to the House of Representatives, down from the current 19.


Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times wrote about the redistricting, re-apportionment, possible gerrymandering and the political wrangling that will be going on in Springfield. To an earlier post with the re-districting game, how would you draw Illinois' new 2012 Congressional map?
___________

WASHINGTON--Illinois will lose a congressional seat, the U.S. Census Bureau announced on Tuesday; following the 2012 elections, Illinois will send 18 members to the House of Representatives, down from the current 19.

Nationally, the reapportionment favors Republicans: states that vote Republican gained the most seats, which has implications not only for the balance of power in Congress, but in the 2012 presidential campaign, because the the electoral votes are based on the new census counts.

In Illinois, Democrats will take the first stab at drawing the new district maps at a time when the GOP just picked up four seats. Presumably, the Illinois Democrats will mull whether they can throw together in a fight for survival any of the 11 Illinois Republicans who will be sworn in on Jan. 5 with GOP Reps. Joe Walsh, Bob Dold, Adam Kinzinger, and Bobby Schilling potentially the most vulnerable.

Illinois remains one of the top five most populous states in the nation, with a new official population total of 12,864,380, according to the new Census figures.

The Tuesday announcement just deals with reapportioning the 435-member House of Representatives. Starting in February, the Census Bureau will start announcing the state-specific numbers that are needed in order for redistricting. In Illinois, the Democratic controlled Illinois General Assembly will try to draw new boundaries for House, state legislative, city wards, judicial and other districts--though if there is not agreement, the job is kicked over to a commission.

The reapportionment favors Republicans: Texas picked up the most seats--four, with Florida gaining two and Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington gaining one.

In all, ten states lost seats. Eight of them are states that vote Democrat: New York and Ohio lost two seats, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are down one.

Missouri and Louisiana are also down a seat.

Illinois has been loosing congressional seats since 1930. Here's a recap on the number of House members Illinois has been sending to Washington each decade:

2010: 18

2000: 19

1990: 20

1980: 22

1970: 24

1960: 24

1950: 25

1940: 26

1930: 27

In Illinois there will be a political struggle over whether a new congressional map drops a seat from northern Illinois or Downstate. There also will be internal wrangling between GOP and Democratic incumbents who would not be threatened with losing their seat because of population shifts--but would want to improve or enhance political viability by having new district maps include neighborhoods that would be reliable Republican or Democratic votes.

If the census shows a big Hispanic population increase in Illinois--and if that growth is not scattered across the state--Illinois Democrats may be under pressure to create a second Hispanic district. The first Hispanic district in Illinois was drawn following the 1990 census--a convoluted "C" shape district that includes Hispanic neighborhoods on Chicago's North and South Sides wrapped around a district running from the lakefront to the near western suburbs drawn to yield an African American representative.

Following the 2000 and 1990 census, in Illinois, the GOP and Democratic House incumbents got together and cut deals with each other in order to try to protect their own seats in the wake of the musical chair scenario where it would be impossible for all of them to return to Congress. Still, they could not all save their seats. The remap after the 2000 Census saw Democratic Rep. David Phelps and GOP Rep. John Shimkus running against each other in the same district. Shimkus won and has been re-elected ever since.

State Sen. Kwame Raul (D-Chicago), who chairs the state senate reapportionment committee, told me on Monday the legislature will try to seize more control of the congressional remap process because it is their "responsibility," he said. Redistricting reform measures Raul backed never won state legislative approval.

View the current Illinois Congressional map, with its represenatives here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL

Cup and Saucer

(From CBS 2 School)
Cup and saucer is a metaphor used to differentiate the roles played by the House of Representatives and United States Senate.

Thomas Jefferson once expressed his doubts about the usefulness of the Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” George Washington asked. “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” Washington declared, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Our bicameral legislature was divided for reasons other than compromising between big states and small states. Each house represents the people, yet they also possess remarkably different responsibilities. The House, modeled on the British House of Commons, represents the passions of the people. The Senate, modeled on the British House of Lords, responds to these passions with reason. James Madison saw the Senate as an “anchor,” a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” of the people. The Senate is to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. Today, with the advent of directly elected Senators and the 24/7 televised news cycle, it is more difficult to discern between the passions of the House and the Senate. You could say two overflowing cups now characterize our Congress. Who is going to clean up the mess?

Alexander Hamilton while speaking to a group of foreign visitors observing action on the floor of the House of Representatives said, “Here Sir, the people govern.” For this reason our legislative branch continues to be our democracies most prized possession.

Know how these terms empower the U.S. Congress:

Incumbency


Necessary and Proper


Special orders


Franking


Gerrymandering


Leadership


Logrolling


Constituent Service


Commerce Clause

A tough case to make?

(From Political Warrior, Jan., 2011)
I  should cry, but it's healthier to laugh. So as any meaningful filibuster reform went dead in the Senate, the Onion News Network reported on how lawmakers may have forgotten how to pass laws even with big, or unanimous majorities.

For real, the Washington Post's Ezra Klien reports on how it will continue to be true that a simple majority will not get bills passed in the 112th Congress.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/wonkbook_filibuster_reform_dea.html

Yet, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did make some changes in the stalling process. The broad agreement is the most significant change in the chamber's rules in 35 years. That's really saying something about the saucer chamber, because other than dropping the confirmation process for about 400 federal agency nominees, it seems like it will be more like business as usual than "Change We Can Believe In," on Capitol Hill.

Lee Hamilton makes the case for Congress

http://kropfpolisci.com/congress.hamilton.democratictheory.pdf

Make sure you read Hamilton's article, as well as 301-317 in the Patterson text, possible quiz??
After the filibustered block of the American Jobs Act last week, Politico reports that Teachers will come (or go) first in the first stage of the pieced together jobs plan:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will begin breaking apart President Barack Obama’s jobs bill with a vote on the provision that helps states pay teachers and first responders, his office and the White House said Monday.

Reid will hold a press call Monday afternoon “to announce the introduction of the first individual component of President Obama’s jobs bill,” his office said in an email to reporters soon after White House press secretary Jay Carney alerted journalists aboard Air Force One. “The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act will help states and local governments keep teachers in the classroom and police officers and firefighters on the beat.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66144.html#ixzz1b3qRNOKm


 
 

The F-Word Senate takes in-action, again

WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and a group of Senate colleagues went to the Senate floor Wednesday to speak out against the Republican filibuster of the American Jobs Act. Levin and Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Richard Durbin of Illinois spoke to highlight the Republican decision to thwart the will of a majority of the Senate and prevent a bill designed to address the nation’s jobs crisis.

In Senator Levin's remark's take note of key terms in play in the delaying legislation techinque: policy; filibuster; bully pulpit.




In CBS News reporting of the the filibuster that was to happened, why is the key number to pass a bill in the 100-member, 112th Senate 60?

Blog you thoughts on the merits of the filibuster in the comments section.

Filibuster and Cloture


Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

(From Polictical Warrior archives)

Your text defines filibuster as a procedural tactic in the U.S. Senate whereby a minority of legislators prevents a bill from to a vote by holding the floor and talking until the majority gives in and the bill is withdrawn from consideration.

Like Rodney Dangerfield, this Congress doesn't get much respect. Just Unlucky? Congress Job Approval at 13% Americans rate it slightly above sludge, but below President Obama and former president George W. Bush, the least admired president in the history of polling.

Who gets the blame for the so-called "Do Nothing Congress?"

Well, as the chart from Secretary of the Senate, a record number of cloture motions were filed in the 110th Congress, and the non-momentum didn't stop in the 111th. Majority Rule?

Did this week's inaction show just more of the same?

Majority rule has essentially been repealed by the F-word Congress. Without the super-majority of sixty votes to end the filibusters, the accomplishments of the 110th Congress were limited (GI-Bill, Children's Health Care and minimum wage as riders as notable exceptions to Progressives; continued stimulus packages to all Americans a victory in the conservative column). The 'Do Nothingness' was reinforced by over 131 veto threats by President Bush (who never issued a veto when Republican majority Congresses ran up record deficits on Capitol Hill).

So the question for the 112th Senate is should it move to remove the filibuster? Or is the procedure a needed part of the Cup and Saucer dance that is currently like a slow Washington waltz? A 51-vote majority to pass a law seemingly has been replaced by the super majority 60.

In our texts, of civics and history, we note how Strom Thurmond (he who served in the Senate till he was 100 years old) filibustered for 24 straight hours to block civil rights legistlation. It was rare, historic and self-hurting (Thurmond sat in the sauna the entire night before so he wouldn' t have to lose his podium to take a pee). And the procedure worked. Now the F-word has been so common, that the minority party can just make a resolution to block. They don’t have to read newspapers and phonebooks and sit in a sauna the night before to pull one off.

With 40 votes to block, minority Republicans have kept the Democrats at bay at the end of the 110th Congress. On the American Jobs Act that was just blocked from being debate or voted on, the majority Democrats needed all 53 of its members (counting Independent Joseph Lieberman)  plus 7 GOP members to debate the bill. No up or down vote on the Jobs Act, just more procedural theater. There has been no vote on immigration legislation, or Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for that matter, on any real important governing policy. Governing is Hard, Politics is Easy.  The 110th, 111th and so-far the 112th has mostly been a do-nothing Congress -- some may say filibustered to death.

When the Republicans were in the majority they devised a "nuclear option" to consider outlawing the procedure, when Democrats threatened to filibuster several of President Bush's judicial appointments. Now it seems to be their only winning play in the Senate.

Jimmy Stewart filibustered and become a populist hero in the classic film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Those were the days...

EC Movie Night Thursday 6 pm Rm 156

(From PBS Independent Lens)

When Jeff Smith, a 29-year-old part-time political science instructor, decided to run for Congress, his friends and family members thought he was joking. “I don’t think a person with the mind that he has should waste it on politics,” quipped his grandmother, Ida. But as the race to replace former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt heats up, Smith mobilizes an army of nearly 500 volunteers in a grassroots campaign that is low on funds but big on passion, threatening to shake up Missouri state politics. CAN MR. SMITH GET TO WASHINGTON ANYMORE? follows the Smith campaign in the months leading up to the election, charting this political underdog’s efforts against the leading candidate, State Representative Russ Carnahan, the scion of Missouri's most powerful political dynasty.

Bring popcorn or whatever.....but bring your minds......this is a great documentary that bridges political campaigns and Congress.

PBS Independent Lens

'Sweet' Influences on lawmaking

(At the end of this week, we will start our study of Congress. To give you a sweet taste of an instituion that has sour public approval ratings, here are a couple of interesting posts. First, the Tribune reports on the important desk Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk is manning. Second, a look in on the influence candy makers had on the treat of  moving the end of Daylight Savings until after Halloween.)

WASHINGTON — Here's a sweet story from the nation's capital, a tale devoid, mostly, of its political knife fights and grenades.


Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, maintains a Senate tradition dating to 1965, back when he was in kindergarten at Fairmount School in Downers Grove.

He is assigned to Desk No. 95, which is near the Senate's most heavily used entrance, making it perfect to serve as the chamber's "candy desk." Kirk, his aides and Illinois candy manufacturers keep it stocked with treats for senators and staff. It's loaded with confections such as Jelly Bellys, bite-size Snickers bars and Ferrara Pan chocolates.

"Senators, being older, can get kind of grumpy in the afternoon, and have this tradition of being able to reach into this desk to get a treat," Kirk, 52, said.

Chocoholics in the chamber need not worry because Kirk won't name names. It's partly discretion, partly the nature of his calorie-laden cache. Rather than staying at his desk and minding the store, Kirk is often buttonholing colleagues on the Senate floor.


"I'm deep in the well (of the Senate) talking to 15 members about 14 things," he said. "The desk kind of runs itself. I can't tell you individual (candy) preferences. It's a 'drive-by' pickup they do … a pretty stealth swoop."

His own weakness? When sugar-free Orbit gum won't suffice during a "hypoglycemic dip," Kirk chooses chocolate.

For more on how the Illinois Republican handles this informal leadership spot:

Kirk's Sweet Desk

The Senate, more than the House of Represenatives, is associated with evolving traditions of (worthy?) of the Upper House. Here's the skinny (really?) on the history of the candy desk.

Since 1965

(Was it a Trick, or a Treat? This was big news at Halloween and the influences on lawmaking on Capitol Hill four years ago. This post origninally posted on Political Warrior in Nov. 2007)




Last year's Trick-or-Treating was different. Because Congress in 2007 moved Daylight Savings time back to the first Saturday in Novemeber, my son went to a record number of doors in the Sunlight. (In 2008, I think he set a new record).

"I got lots of candy more than ever before,'' said then nine-year-old Patrick. "It should have been night, because night is cooler going trick-or-treating, and the houses are more lit up . But I probably wouldn't have got as much candy."

Hmm. Despite the fact that Patrick did get tooth paste at one house, the load of his loot may have been due to influences on Capitol Hill. The New York Times City Room Blog says the candy lobby gave an influential push for a rider to the 2005 Engergy Policy Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005  NYT story on the influences on federal lawmakers to shed more light on Halloween night (child safety was also a legitimate concern) is linked here:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/an-extra-hour-of-daylight-thank-the-candy-lobby/index.html?hp

Caucusing is EASY......

This is really a well done Clinton campaign video that was posted in 2008 before the Jan. 3 Iowa Caucus. It is a must see.


I do agree with the Clinton campaign that caucusing is not as hard as exercising. But more importantly, it is a great party builder, a grass roots organizing tool AND a way to meet your democratic neighbors! People meet "caucus" buddies, both Clinton and Obama supporters in 2008. In 2008, WV grad and former Youth & Government president Sarah Sampson was part of the ground game for the Obama campaign, offering baby sitting services for parents who went to caucus.

Remember.

Exercising is hard.

Singing is hard.

Dancing is hard.

Caucusing is easy!

(Just a take-off of the 'Governing is HARD, Politics is EASY...Caucusing in retail politics and all politics is local pulled together in a festive atmosphere that can build campaigning momentum.) 

Our Caucus is Tuesday:
 
For Tuesday,
 
1) produce a slick-looking campaign book;
2) produce or download a television ad;
3) try to get our class to vote for your group as the best campaign staff after your 8-minute presentation


Book It (what needs to be in the book):

 Slick-looking cover – Though if you pick Michelle Bachmann, be careful of a crazy-eyed Newsweek portrait. Cover should have at least one of the candidates’ mottos.

 Platform/finance tracker – brief descriptions of main issues of the campaign and list tracking campaign donors. Who is enjoying the most “Mother’s Milk of Politics” can be found @ (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/summary.php)

 Script of a campaign ad – either that you produce or that the candidate’s campaign produces. You need to bring the ad to show.

 Position paper – 3-page policy piece highlighting your candidate’s “Reagan Rule of 4” – the four top positions you and your candidate.

 Copy of a speech. A member of your staff will give the speech on caucus day.

 Propaganda – not necessarily in the book, but brought into the caucus. Can be posters, buttons or food stuffs.

Another example of political efficacy

This is another example of political efficacy without giving money or voting for politicians. Sent to me from my guy, Bono.


Dear Chris,



I've been known to drop the occasional expletive, but the most offensive F word to me is not the one that goes f***. It's F***** - the famine happening in the Horn of Africa, mainly Somalia.

I hope you'll take a few minutes to watch ONE's new video "The F Word: Famine is the Real Obscenity" and in doing so sign the petition:

http://act.one.org/go/136?akid=2622.297800.MtVv1y&t=3

Dear Members of Congress,

The famine in Somalia has killed 30,000 children in 3 months. In 2011 we have the opportunity to make famine a thing of the past. Lives are in your hands. Please fully fund Feed the Future and help break the cycle of famine for good.

The reasons for the famine in the Horn of Africa are complex and solutions are difficult, especially in Somalia, but we can’t lose sight of some simple facts:

1. 30,000 children have died in just 3 months. Thirty thousand. With over 12 million people at risk.

2. Famine is not a natural catastrophe – drought doesn't have to lead to famine. It can be prevented, as we have seen in much of Kenya and Ethiopia.

In the 21st century, it's an obscenity that people are dying because they can't get enough food to eat. Every one of those 30,000 children is part of a family – a son, a daughter, sister or brother. We can't imagine what it must be like to starve to death, but most of us know what it's like to lose someone we love.

Please watch the film and make use of the voice you have -- sign the petition. It will make a difference in putting pressure on world leaders to do more to help those in need right now, and live up to promises already made to invest in the things proven to work – early warning systems...irrigation...drought resistant seeds… and of course, peace and security.

Thanks for reading.

Bono

Three Stooges 2012?

(From APGov.org)
Are you ready for some football? Hank Williams Jr. isn't.

Questions.....Should Hank Williams, Jr. be taken off of MNF for what he said? Is there bias in the way CNN reported what was originally broadcast on Fox News, or bias in Fox News giving Hank Williams, his Soap Box? Or, is it all just Dirty Laundry  ' Infotainment.?'
 

 
Again, is this why, "We Hate the Media?"
 
For the record, Fox News clebrates its 15th birthday on Friday and MSNBC is also 15 this year. James Fallows wrote his article 15 years ago, when the cable news stations and their viewers (Fox, 102 million, MSNBC 78 million) had far less influence. By the way, CNN (100 million homes, almost 1 million domestic hotels and availability in 212 countries and territories) was the first 24-7 news station. It was founded in 1980.

On the campaign trail, can money buy you love?

(From Ken Halla's US Government Teachers Blog)

Money -- "The Mother's Milk of Politics."  Later this week we will talk in class about campaign financing. With McCain-Feingold (BCFA, 2002) we now are seeing changes in donation levels for individuals every campaign cycle. Now an individual can give $2500 (unless there is a primary and then it is $5K) and a PAC can give $5000. Here is the FEC page with all the other donation rules.
_______________

Love (or Hate) and why/why not -- a site from Gallup Poll which shows "the state of the states" and includes changes in political affiliation, the economy and even health from 2008, 2009 and 2010.  You can use this data in part to decide what states to target with what type of plans (hint, focus on Iowa and Illinois for our caucus).  If nothing else, this is a great example of the data professional polling organizations offer to candidates and campaign handlers.

How to read a poll

 
In its traditional media role of scorekeeper, we will see more and more polls reported between now and the beginning of caucuses and primaries in Jan. These days, it seems there's a poll for everything. In this episode of Congress.org's D.C. Decoder, host Craig Crawford shows you how to tell if a poll's results are legitimate.


www.rollcall.com/cqpolitics/dc_decoder/48423-1.html

Roberts Rules

("The 2 Teachers" preview the 2011-12 Supreme Court Season and invite you to Supreme Court Fantasy, From CitizenU)

On Monday October 3 the high priests of our sacred temple of justice arrive to render their services. October 3, 2011 marks the day when “the Nine” Supreme Court Justices return to work in order to provide judgments in the most pressing issues of our time. In our political arena, hardly any issue passes without some sort of judicial decision.


Though we boast, “justice is blind,” Court decisions today all too often appear politically predictable. Greater access to information combined with more and more scrutiny have made our Supreme Court Justices look more like political actors then Platonic guardians of timeless principles.

When John Roberts became Chief Justice, back in 2005, he hoped for a less partisan Court. Unanimous Court decisions continue to be our Court’s most popular. During Roberts’ tenure the Court’s unanimous decisions make up just over 40% of their decisions. Yet today the conservative and liberal blocs continue to be clearly defined. Over 20% of all Court decisions end in a 5 – 4 decision.

Under Roberts' rule the conservatives often find themselves in the majority. According to the SCOTUS blog Stat Pack the conservative Justices clearly vote with the majority more than the others. Justice Kennedy, often the swing vote, sided with the majority 94% of the time last term. The other conservatives; Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito, sided with the majority close to 88% of the time.

The leading liberal on the Court, Justice Ginsberg, agreed with Justice Alito only 62% of the time. Contrast that with Chief Justice Roberts who sided with Alito 96% of the time.

This widely perceived Court partisanship might play a role in the upcoming presidential election. Both conservatives and liberals alike have called upon the Supreme Court to address once and for all the constitutionality of Obama Care. There will be other cases of note but none bigger then if the Court rules on the controversial individual health care mandate provision of Obama Care.

Both President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts pledged to rule in a post partisan fashion. As we welcome back the Court on Monday Roberts’ rule has been anything but post partisan. Political circumstances have put Roberts’ rule on a “collision course” with the Obama Administration.

To “the Nine” we say, “Welcome back.” We look forward to your rulings. The conservative to watch this year may not be running for President. The conservative to watch may be Chief Justice John Roberts. 2012 looks to be Obama’s rule versus Roberts’ rule.
________________________________________________

For our Court enthusiasts we invite you to join our Supreme Court Fantasy League. Follow the guidelines below.

United States Supreme Court

2011 Fantasy League

Rules

1. Research both the Court case and the views of each Supreme Court judge. Predict the Court’s decision by checking which judges will side with the majority.

2. Score 10 points if you are able to predict the Court’s final decision. Give yourself 5 points if you predict the Court’s vote total.

3. Give yourself 2 additional points for each judge you predicted would be in the majority and 1 point for each judge you predicted would be in the minority.

4. Draft one judge (Draft selection will be determined by lottery. Trading will be allowed). Every time that judge is in the majority give yourself 5 points.

5. Person with the most points at the end of the term wins.

6. Keep track by printing out the scorecards linked here.