News Headlines for Independent Voters 10/31/09
By Nancy Hanks | Related entries in NewsNews Headlines for Independent Voters 10/31/09
Note in the majority of voters in New Jersey are independent and will play the decisive role in Tuesday Gov election there.
Mike Bloomberg, in coalition with the NYC Independence Party, carries out an independent nonpartisan race for the future of New York City.
Elsewhere in New York, independent candidates, parties and voters the name of the game…
And in Last Word(s) — I hope you’ll take a peek at the left/right Dem/Repub dialogue that permeates the print media and the blogosphere. As a long-time activist with the independent (non-Dem) left, I’m always happy to see progressives take on the right wingers as in Radical? Not! (By Eugene Debs, New Majority) below.
-NH
NJ Gov Race
Bergen County a key factor in governor’s race (By Cynthia Burton, Philadelphia Inquirer) Democrats outnumber Republicans there, 169,000 to 111,200. But the biggest voting group, as it is everywhere else in the state, consists of unaffiliated voters, who number 250,300. Unaffiliated voters have recently been voting with the Democrats.
Election not a big draw to Gloucester County voters (By Jessica Landolfi, NJ News-Star Ledger, Trenton Times) Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 with 70,744 registered Democrats, 35,637 Republicans and 82,607 unaffiliated.
NY Races
Thompson Endorsed by Cuomo (By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, NY Times)
Hoffman and Owens in a Tie for New York Special Election (CQ Politics/PollTracker)
A GOP Civil War in Upstate New York (By KATE PICKERT, Time) But then, the race in the 23rd is no longer about local issues. It’s about a Republican Party with little current power inside the Beltway searching for a way out of the wilderness. And it’s about conservative Republicans sending a message — the future of the party is the conservative base. (It’s also, incidentally, about money; according to the Federal Election Commission, more than $650,000 has flowed to the candidates from independent groups just since Oct. 24.) “The 23rd has as little significance as Gettysburg. It’s just where the Armies met,” says Bob Gorman, managing editor of the Times and my old boss. “Everybody was looking for a fight and that’s where they found each other.”
ACORN: Vann, go (By DAVID SEIFMAN, NY Post)
Court of Appeals won’t hear Bethlehem WFP case (by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist, Albany Times Union/Local Politics)
LAST WORD(S)
Radical? Not! (By Eugene Debs, New Majority)
Our Heritage Newt Gingrich weighs in on events current and Founding-era. (interview by Robert Costa, National Review Online)
Are the Tea Partiers good or bad for the GOP? A round table discussion of whether the revolt of the conservative base is a blessing or curse for the Republicans (BY THOMAS SCHALLER, Salon) EXCERPT: Agne: What we found was that even as these independents have started to pull back from Obama and the Democrats in Congress a bit — some concern about healthcare, some concern about spending, a few other things — they still fundamentally want them to succeed. They want to see the edges come off some of these policies, but they want to see it go through. They want the change that Obama promised them in the election, they’re just not quite sure what that change should look like. The Republican base voters fundamentally want Obama to fail. They believe that he is intentionally trying to lead the country into a ditch, essentially, that he is trying to lead the country to failure, and thus to socialism. And so they see it as a moral responsibility to oppose every single step of his agenda. There’s no sense of compromise. There is a clear moral obligation to stand firm and oppose him, no matter what. And that’s really the fundamental dilemma that we were just discussing.
Self-Image and Party Politics (By DAVID BROOKS AND BOB HERBERT, NY Times/The Conversation) Is it possible for both parties to lose at the same time?
More Signs of Trouble for 2010 (William Galston, The New Republic)
Hello, Donklephanters! I’ve been on the stump over the past number of weeks for NYC independent mayoral candidate Mike Bloomberg and the word on the street is that Column C (the Independence Party line) is the vote for nonpartisan grassroots people’s power.
In print news, note that the majority of voters in the Garden State, from north to south, are independent and will play the decisive role in Tuesday’s Gov election there.
Elsewhere in New York, independent candidates, parties and voters are the name of the game…
And in Last Word(s) — I hope you’ll take a peek at the left/right Dem/Repub dialogue that permeates the print media and the blogosphere. As a long-time activist with the independent (non-Dem) left, I’m always happy to see progressives take on the right wingers as in Radical? Not! (By Eugene Debs, New Majority) below.
-NH
NJ Gov Race
- Bergen County a key factor in governor’s race (By Cynthia Burton, Philadelphia Inquirer) Democrats outnumber Republicans there, 169,000 to 111,200. But the biggest voting group, as it is everywhere else in the state, consists of unaffiliated voters, who number 250,300. Unaffiliated voters have recently been voting with the Democrats.
- Election not a big draw to Gloucester County voters (By Jessica Landolfi, NJ News-Star Ledger, Trenton Times) Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 with 70,744 registered Democrats, 35,637 Republicans and 82,607 unaffiliated.
NY Races
- Poll: NYC Mayor Bloomberg up by double digits in home stretch (From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser)
- Thompson Endorsed by Cuomo (By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, NY Times)
- Hoffman and Owens in a Tie for New York Special Election (CQ Politics/PollTracker)
- A GOP Civil War in Upstate New York (By KATE PICKERT, Time) But then, the race in the 23rd is no longer about local issues. It’s about a Republican Party with little current power inside the Beltway searching for a way out of the wilderness. And it’s about conservative Republicans sending a message — the future of the party is the conservative base. (It’s also, incidentally, about money; according to the Federal Election Commission, more than $650,000 has flowed to the candidates from independent groups just since Oct. 24.) “The 23rd has as little significance as Gettysburg. It’s just where the Armies met,” says Bob Gorman, managing editor of the Times and my old boss. “Everybody was looking for a fight and that’s where they found each other.”
- ACORN: Vann, go (By DAVID SEIFMAN, NY Post)
- Court of Appeals won’t hear Bethlehem WFP case (by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist, Albany Times Union/Local Politics)
Last Word(s)
- Radical? Not! (By Eugene Debs, New Majority)
- Our Heritage: Newt Gingrich weighs in on events current and Founding-era. (interview by Robert Costa, National Review Online)
- Self-Image and Party Politics (By DAVID BROOKS AND BOB HERBERT, NY Times/The Conversation) Is it possible for both parties to lose at the same time?
- More Signs of Trouble for 2010 (William Galston, The New Republic)
More news headlines for independent voters at The Hankster
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 31st, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Mr. Meta and Cheryl Jones, Donklephant. Donklephant said: DONKLEPHANT: News Headlines for Independent Voters 10/31/09 http://ow.ly/15Yxgt [...]
October 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Since Bloomberg is on record against his being able to run, why is it ok for him to run. What principles does he have if his own word has no meaning? Or is it just politics as usual instead of a shining example of a better politician? Just wondering.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
Word — thanks for your question. Since I don’t work for Bloomberg, you’ll have to ask him what his principles are, and believe me, he’s gotten that question before!
I will tell you this: I am a founding member and an officer of the NYC Independence Party (the elected Treasurer of the Queens County Committee of the NY Independence Party).
We formed the IP as a grassroots people’s party — a party that could represent the interests of poor and working people, ordinary people, and break out of the 2-party sludge that puts all of us in danger in this country.
The collective executive committee of the 5 NYC counties (94 elected officers) decided to endorse the Mayor (who has been a good partner for 8 years and a good mayor, and is after all now an independent…) AFTER 1) taking the Mayor to court over his move to override the people’s referendum – twice – to implement term limits (the courts ruled in his favor — AND let’s not forget that it was a Democratic Party-controlled City Council (NYC is 5-1 Democratic registration) that allowed the override — that is the ONLY way this got through; and 2) putting the Mayor through a very rigorous process of meeting with IP party bosses Fred Newman and Jackie Salit (covered by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/nyregion/27independence.html), a media frenzy meeting with the 94-member collective Executive Committee of the NYC IP county organizations and a closed-door grueling hour-long Q&A with grassroots leaders of the Executive Committees. There were intense negotiations. The NYC IP plays hardball politics and everybody knows it.
The NYC IP made these decisions and engaged in these negotiations AFTER the decision was made by Mayor Bloomberg, the NYC Democratic Party-controlled City Council, and the courts, that Mike would run for a third term in spite of the 2 voter referendums that established and re-established term limits for NYC.
The main question that we had to ask ourselves was: Are we going to sit this one out, having built a significant grassroots base and organization that could be a player on behalf of ordinary New Yorkers and in the interest of our kids, our city and our in this very partisan (and corrupt) town?
Our answer, after intense collective soul-searching in monthly Executive Committee meetings led by party leader Cathy Stewart and a wrenching dialogue with strategist/philosopher Fred Newman, was — let’s do this.
Frankly, and I mean no disrespect to our Mayor, who has been a very good mayor, nor to my colleagues who may feel more strongly about candidate qualifications than I, but I just don’t give a sh*t what Mayor Bloomberg’s principles are. Principles and $2.50 will get you on the subway. What I care about is what the principles of the American people are. It is ordinary Americans who will determine the future of the country. I’m voting for Bloomberg on C so that the NYC IP can continue to build an option for all New Yorkers.
The principles of the NYC IP are intact — we remain the organization of independent grassroots people’s power.
-Nancy
November 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Nancy – Thanks for the response. I guess to my eyes and I don’t live there. My main concern is not what others said. If he thought term limits were wrong and was now running I think he could honorably say, I have always thought they were a bad idea. Since he didn’t and from what I have read was all for them and against any change, I think he has less credibility and by extension…
I think principles are very important but that is for another day.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
First off I’d like to point out that this is not what Lieberman is saying. He’s saying the plan WITHOUT a public option will cost the government more than a plan WITH it.
He’s voting for the Exchanges, the individual mandate, and all the other stuff.
Especially since he’s done a 180 on the public option, did it right after the insurance companies did, and justifies it with their discredited talking points.
They’re tinkering to reduces increases in provider payments. Which has nothing to do with the public option right now as Pelosi has taken Medicare reimbursement rates out of it.
Massachusetts does not have a public option. Otherwise it’s quite similar to the DC plan.
This thread is supposed to be about Lieberman’s statements on filibustering the public option.
And apparently you support Lieberman because you hate the MA plan, and he wants national reform to be more like the MA plan.
Uhh…
Mandatory Medicare payment cuts are actually already the Law. Clinton and Gingrich balanced the budget partly be saying if Medicare costs increased past a certain point payment rates would be cut.
Doctors managed to delay implementation of the program every year for the past few years, so in January the total pay cut will be 21%. Obama doubts this pay cut will happen, but it’s in the budget. He actually tried to get rid of the mandatory cuts completely, but that would have added. $245 Billion to the deficit. That is dead in the Senate, but a House version will probably pass soon:
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/display/article/113619/1480603?verify=0
The plan would replace those mandatory cuts with a nonpartisan board that would figure out fair payment rates, and only tolerate increases when they were justified.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Word, yes I think principles are important, but I’m trying to raise whose principles are important and what’s the context. We aren’t laboratory mice trying to make our way through a maze according to abstract principles discovered by Dr. So-and-So! I think Bloomberg thought that he had more of a contribution to make, he cares very much about the city, and let’s face it — no new leadership was stepping forward. Bill Thompson???? Whaaaat??
Again, I don’t condone his dismissal of the voters’ referendum on term limits, however, Mike Bloomberg has never abandoned independents. I’m an independent. I appreciate Mike’s leadership and I will support it based on the principle of moving this city forward and away from the partisan clubhouse politics that has damaged our people.
Let’s keep up the dialogue!
Nancy
November 1st, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Nancy-
From what I have read from you I think you are thoughtful and have the best interests at heart. I just think Bloomberg weakens if not ruins the brand (to put it in marketing terms). The issue I see is that everyone thinks they are right and that my guess is everyone thinks they are the best person for the job so without a standard, there really isn’t anything to hang things on. It, in my eyes, makes the Independents look like the new partisans instead of a fresh “different” voice.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Word, if you are concerned about independents being new partisans, one litmus test might be support for nonpartisan elections.
Yes, I think we need to hold politicians to a standard, and that is what I was trying to describe to you — we have put Mike Bloomberg to OUR test here in NYC, and he has passed. Many hot-shots have latched onto the insurgent independent movement and have ended up abandoning us — from Ross Perot to Jesse Ventura to endless local partisan functionaries who seek political expedience for one election or another.
The NYC IP supported Bloomberg in 2001 on the basis of his support for nonpartisan elections. Mayor Bloomberg put nonpartisan election on the ballot in 2003 at our request. Fred Newman and our team met with Mike to discuss this and Mike said, in effect, if we enact nonpartisan elections it will do away with the Independence Party. Newman said: Bring it on! We have never been advocates of partisan interests. The NYC IP has been dubbed the “anti-party party” for that reason. We are in business to put the parties out of business, and to put ordinary Americans in business in terms of what our policy is. We have been leading that effort for 2 or 3 decades.
I hope that you’ll have another look at independentvoting.org and catch a glimpse of what we are doing here in NYC and nationally. It’s important.
Nancy
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Word, if you are concerned about independents being new partisans,
Sorry for not making my views more clear. I was trying to say if the new improved leaders are hypocrites I don’t see much that’s new or much of an improvement over the current crop of hypocrites.
I think you want something that would be phenomenal which would be an electorate electing people based on their ideas rather than party label. The problem is your hat is hung on a guy who is a hypocrite. All the good things for me melt away at that point. I’d rather have an honest guy I disagree with. When I can’t count for a person’s word to mean anything, I can’t count on them for anything.
You look at Bloomberg and see the good and I look at him and see a rich guy who likely thinks he lives under a different set of rules. An honorable man wouldn’t run. (I thought the same thing about the election to get rid of Gray Davis.) I find him coming up short, regardless of whether I’d agree with him on the issues. I just see it different, I think for a movement to shake things up and really change things you need someone who has principles and who you can say he’s really different, they are really different. I just see “We like him so who cares what he says and what he does and whether he is honorable ”
I’m a purist, sorry.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
OI apologize for interrupting this thread with a health care post. It was supposed to be in another thread.
There are two possibilities. One: I pasted from Appleworks into the wrong tab of my browser. Two: Gremlins have invaded the servers and are conspiring against me.
I choose to blame the gremlins.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Hey Nick — yes, it seems like Gremlins!
Word — I think that Barack Obama is different, he shook up politics — or rather, we the people shook up politics by electing him. But he’s still a Democrat. Politics isn’t that clean, almost by “definition”. We’re trying to put 100,000 votes on Column C tomorrow. That’s what will shake up politics. Stay tuned! And thanks for the conversation about these matters.