PUMA=Bull Moose?

Something tells me that Bill Clinton is a die hard PUMA. In a speech to the Governor’s Association meeting, Bill extolled the virtues of the original progressive, Teddy Roosevelt:

Clinton concluded his speech by reminding governors, who are marking the association’s centennial, that the issues they face today are similar to problems President Teddy Roosevelt grappled with a century ago.

Those include inequality among rich and poor, immigration and energy policy.

If those issues are dealt with, “We’re about to go into the most exciting period of human history,” Clinton said.

John McCain seemed to be channeling Bill as well when he made a similar observaton:

He said government should play an important role in areas like addressing climate change, regulating campaign finance and taking care of “those in America who cannot take care of themselves.”

“I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold,” Mr. McCain said, referring to Roosevelt’s reputation for reform, environmentalism and tough foreign policy.

Could this be a coded message to PUMAS, from both Bill Clinton and McCain?  As I’m sure Clinton knows, Teddy knew a thing or two about being run out of his party.  In fact, TR and Hillary have a lot in common:

The voice of the people” was clear in the Republican primaries. But the voters were not allowed to “speak” in most states.This was the first year in which there were presidential primaries. The primary system had developed on the state level for state offices from the 1890s on, and in 1912 presidential primaries were introduced, often promoted by supporters of TR. But some 36 states had no direct popular Republican primary. In these states delegates were chosen by state conventions, and delegates to state conventions were usually chosen in local conventions. It was a system easily dominated by professional politicians, particularly in the South where there were few Republicans but many delegates.

That sounds an awful lot like the way Obama won in red states like Idaho and Utah.  It also reflects how undemocratic the causus system is (as if we needed further proof).

 Republicans in the South were often simply federal officeholders, such as postmasters and revenue collectors. Rough politics was nothing new , but in 1912 records were set for riot, rough house, fraud, and dispute. The end result was that in many states contesting delegates claimed the same seats. Some 254 delegate seats to the Republican convention were contested.

The Republican National Committee, dominated by President Taft’s supporters, had the power to decide the delegate disputes.

Isn’t that exactly what happened at the RBC meeting?  But wait, the similarities keep on coming:

 Incidentally, of the 53 members of that committee, 15 had not been elected delegates to the convention in 1912, and four came from US territorial possessions and 10 from Southern states, areas where GOP politics was completely controlled by presidential patronage. these three groups accounted for 29 members of the Republican National Committee– a majority. Of the 254 contested seats, TR was awarded 19 and President Taft was given 235. About the best that could be said for the GOP adjudication process was that Taft had stolen a majority “fair and square.” That is to say, what was done was probably legal , if barely so in many delegate cases. But there were no law suits and trials. The courts seldom got involved in party disputes in those days.

A loss of 22 delegates would have denied Taft the nomination on the first ballot. The conclusion seemed obvious to Roosevelt’s supporters at the Republican national convention in Chicago in June 1912. The Chicago Tribune printed a banner headline: “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.”

The whole fair and square thing sounds a lot like how the RBC decided to award delegates to Obama that had been won by Clinton in the Michigan primary.  Their “Fair Reflection” regarding the Michigan primary took delegates that were awarded by the voters to Clinton and gave them to Obama.  They also awarded him delegates based on him receiving EVERY SINGLE write in ballot, even though they were never even opened, and Obama went out of his way to make sure that his write in would not even be legal.  Too bad we don’t have the same editorial board as the Chicago Tribune did back in 1912.  So how did Roosevelt’s supporters react to this shameful affront to democracy?

Most of Roosevelt’s delegates walked out of the Republican convention and held a mass meeting, where it was decided to bolt the Republican Party and found a new party. Roosevelt agreed to lead a new party if nominated . In August 1912 the national convention of the new Progressive Party met in Chicago, and nominated TR for President and Governor Hiram W. Johnson of California for Vice President. In November the Republicans for the first and only time in history came in third in both the popular and electoral vote for President. TR came in second, and because of the split in the normal Republican vote, Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected.

This last bit is my favorite part.  This is what we need to do in Denver. And if Clinton’s delegates formed their own party, I think they very well could win the presidency.  Even if they didn’t, it is imperative that Obama does not get rewarded for such an anti-democratic power grab for the reigns of the party.  Theodore Roosevelt understood this, even in defeat:

By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out by party leaders when the voters had spoken first, Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system. “..Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? ” TR asked in March. “I believe they are. My opponents do not.” It was democracy that was on trial in the contest for the nomination that year, and in the long run democracy won.

I agree with TR, American people are fit to govern themselves.  Obama and his supporters do not agree.  They believe that they are entitled to their nominee by hook or by crook.  They believe that some voters are more equal than others.  Hell, they believe they can even read the minds of people who didn’t even vote and with a straight face argue that they would have voted for Obama–if they hadn’t been tricked into not voting –so they should be given as much consideration as the people who took their civic duty seriously and actually went to the polls.  (I should mention that the irony is not lost on me that one of Teddy’s distant relatives would be chairing the RBC that stole delegates from  Clinton and gave them to Obama)

We all remember TR from history class as the rough and tumble, “carry a big stick” guy.  But what many people don’t know was that, like Hillary, he was also a champion of women’s rights.  In fact, his (Bull Moose) Progressive Party had many women in  powerful positions, and in the 1912 election two of the states that TR carried were states that had given women suffrage already:

At the first national convention of the Progressive Party, in Chicago in August of 1912, all observers noted the prominence of women, women delegates, women leaders. The Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White recalled: “We were, of course, for woman suffrage, and we invited women delegates and had plenty of them. They were our own kind, too– women doctors, women lawyers, women teachers, college professors, middle-aged leaders of civic movements, or rich young girls who had gone in for settlement work.” “Settlement work” refers to the settlement houses in the cities, places where the poor could obtain basic social services, not then available from government. Many social workers, male and female, supported the Progressive Party in 1912. Indeed, the most famous settlement house leader and social worker in American history, the beloved Jane Addams of Hull House in Chicago, was at the convention, and seconded Theodore Roosevelt’s nomination for President. This was said to be the first time that a woman had addressed the national convention of a major party. The rules of the Bull Moose Party, adopted at the Chicago convention, mandated that four women were to be members-at-large on the Progressive National Committee. This was to insure female representation at the highest levels of party leadership.

In November 1912 Theodore Roosevelt carried two states with women’s suffrage, Washington and California (he won six states in all);

We will never know what might have happened had Roosevelt triumphed in the GE of 1912.  We do know, however, that he got more votes than the Republican nominee.  If Hillary were to follow his example I think she could actually go the whole 9 yards and beat both McCain and Obama.  Many people suggest that she could never do this as it might damage Bill Clinton’s legacy in the eyes of the party.  I’m not so sure.  Roosevelt’s legacy, and even legend, are the stuff of which our shared national pride is made.  I’d like to think that in 100 years Hillary is remembered as the scrappy underdog who took on her party, and this time, won.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Super Tuesday
• The Ron Paul Revolution Is Not Over?
• Women to GOP: Just Not That Into You
• Clinton’s Hopes for Florida Fade