image ripped from Jalopnik

Like many Americans, I watched the Superbowl and commercials with equal enthusiasm and enjoyed both. I thought the Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad at halftime was excellent. It never occurred to me that this was an overtly political ad, or endorsing Obama’s re-election, or supportive of corporate bail-outs. Who knew? Apparently I am not sufficiently politicized to recognize the offensive polarizing nature of the ad.

I naively saw the ad as simply a straight-line continuation of the theme and style of Chrysler’s excellent “Imported from Detroit” Eminem ad last year. [My Donk permissions do not permit me to embed the videos, but the 2011 Eminem ad is linked here and the 2012 Eastwood ad is linked here.]

Themes common to both ads include: Strength and resolve overcoming adversity; A focus on pride of place – (Detroit for Eminem – generalized to America with Eastwood); Dramatic uplifting music; A popular, way cool, instantly recognizable celebrity hinted at throughout the ad, emerging at the end, then dramatically delivering the money quote directly to the camera.

They are practically the same ad.

The purpose of advertising is to sell a product. The purpose of this ad is to sell Chrysler cars. Advertising sells cars by creating an image and cachet that buyers find attractive and associate with the car. This ad succeeds in this endeavor without ever showing the car.

Chrysler had\has an image problem. Along with GM, Chrysler suffered a serious black eye with the American public. Cerberus – the private equity firm that bought Chrysler from Daimler Benz cut its losses by means of of a government bailout and a managed bankruptcy with heavy handed terms dictated by the Obama administration. At the end of the day, Chrysler was purchased by Italian car manufacturer Fiat, mostly because no one else would buy it.

All of this was considered rather unseemly and distasteful to American car buyers at the time, but that was all in the past way back two years ago. Now we have a resurgent automobile industry with Chrysler cars “Imported form Detroit” creating jobs in America and competing with foreign manufacturers. Right? Well… not quite:

These ads are great because they succeed in wrapping Chrysler and their cars in the image of a resurgent Detroit and project a message of resilient Americans fighting out of an economic downturn – all delivered by respected and well-liked celebrity personalities.

If there is a political message to found here, it has nothing to do with the advertisement itself. The ad is doing exactly what any good ad should do. In fact, it does more - Memeorandum is tracking reactions, people are writing columns about it, it is being posted on blogs and social networks. Chrysler is getting more than their money’s worth from this spot.

The political problem is with the underlying company. The problem is with the moral hazard unleashed when they were bailed out with taxpayer money. The problem is with the subsequent heavy handed politically motivated machinations orchestrated by the Obama administration in the bankruptcy proceedings. I would not want to buy a car from that company.

I’d rather buy a car from that other company. That Halftime in America, Clint Eminem, Imported from Ohio Illinois Canada Mexico Detroit company. You know the one I mean… Fiat.

UPDATE:
You had to know this was coming. The Parody is linked here.

^{x-posted from “The Dividist Papers“}

This post may be a bit too local and parochial for the Donk, but many of the worst political ideas are ignited here on the Left Coast before burning a path of destruction across the rest of the country. Consider this an early warning of smoke on the horizon.

In any case, Oakland is likely to be in the national news again over the next couple of days. To the surprise of absolutely no one with a modicum of common sense, the City of Oakland will again be forced to roust the Oakland Occupiers from their encampment, with Occupy San Francisco not far behind. As before, it is likely that protesters will be injured, perhaps severely, when they provoke and resist police carrying out their assigned duties and responsibilities. This action in Oakland was made necessary by the Mayor of Oakland Jean Quan, who invited the Occupiers back into Oakland after ordering them rousted once before.

Some insight into how Jean Quan came to be in this position of authority:

One year ago, Jean Quan was elected mayor of Oakland. She never led in any poll at any time during the campaign. She always trailed front-runner Don Perata in every minute of the campaign from beginning to end.

On election day, 36% percent of Oakland voters said they wanted Don Perata as their mayor. Only 24% of Oakland voters said Jean Quan was their first choice to be mayor. In prior years, this would have triggered a runoff election and voters would have chosen between Perata and Quan in a head to head contest. Not this year. This was Oakland’s first Ranked-choice Voting election for Mayor. The other candidates on the ballot were eliminated and the second and third choice votes on their ballots were added to Quan and Perata’s totals. Jean Quan became mayor. Oakland saved the cost of conducting a runoff election.

Jean Quan ran a smart and innovative campaign. She asked Oakland voters for their second place votes. Why not? She is likable and her campaign employed fun YouTube ads. People like to give out consolation prizes. Why not give her your second place vote? What harm would it do?

Advocates for the ranked-choice voting system will tell you that if Quan and Perata ran in a runoff election, we would have seen the same result. They claim this was just a more efficient and less costly way to arrive at that result.

Matt Gonzalez is an RCV advocate. His op-ed in the SF Chronicle makes the case for RCV here in San Francisco. I’ll have more to say about his piece later, but this is what he says about the Oakland election:

It is Gonzalez that misses the point. The operative word in this quote is “should”: “Ranked-choice voting results should be identical to those of a traditional runoff…” Sure they should. We just don’t know if they are.

Gonzalez claims that Quan’s plurality of 2nd choice votes produced exactly the same result as we would have seen in a runoff vs. Perata. The truth is that he does not know that for a fact. No one does. It is just his opinion. My opinion is that Quan would never have beaten Perata in a one on one runoff. No one will ever know because Oakland never had that runoff election. The voters were denied the opportunity to make their choice clear. That is precisely the point. If no one knows whether Quan or Perata would have won, Quan’s legitimacy as an elected mayor is open to question and confidence in our democratic process is undermined. Yes – she won according to the ranked-choice rules, but no one knows if that truly reflected the preference of Oakland voters between Quan and Perata.

Now – all of this would be moot if Quan had proven to be a popular and competent mayor. That didn’t happen. So now Oakland voters are facing the question whether they legitimately elected an incompetent, or if they were denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate for mayor.

Let’s take another look at the Matt Gonzalez case for ranked-choice voting:

Two things to note – First, he no sooner finishes claiming that ranked-choice voting yields an identical result to a runoff, when he offers an exception. If you have “big money” and a “polarized” race, well – he admits you might get a different result. In other words, Gonzalez is saying we cannot trust the voters to make a decision under those circumstances. “Big money” and “polarized” are subjective pejoratives. Others may substitute terms like “commitment” to and “support” for the candidate they prefer.

More astonishing is his claim that ranked-choice voting is somehow “better democracy”. Step back and think about what he is really saying here. He is asserting that having a real run-off election, letting the voters make a simple, clear choice between two candidates, vote if they want to, vote for the candidate they prefer, adding up the votes to yield an unambiguous decision where the candidates with the most votes wins, is somehow a less good democracy. It is an absurd claim on its face.

Trusting the voters to make a simple choice between the last candidates standing is not a good enough democracy for Matt Gonzalez. According to Matt, we need this New and Improved Ranked Choice Voting Democracy 2.0! A better democracy! Now in a convenient 16-Pack!

He goes on to argue for the qualities that make ranked-choice voting a “better democracy.”:

None of these “better democracy” arguments are supported by empirical fact. All these “better democracy” claims can be distilled into this: Matt does not trust the voters in a runoff election to make the right decision. He fears voters might make a wrong decision in a polarized election. He is concerned voters might be unduly influenced by big money advertising. Matt wants” door-to-door” and “coalition building” candidates to win. Best not to take the risk that voters will choose the wrong kind of candidate in a real runoff. Net net – Matt believes the kind of candidate he prefers would have a better chance getting elected under RCV. Ranked-choice voting is a way to put his thumb on the electoral scale.

There is one and only one good rationalization for Ranked-choice Voting – cost. RCV saves the cost of a runoff election. That is certainly and unarguably true. But it is also unarguable that ranked-choice voting is less good democracy than simply trusting voters in a real runoff. It is utter nonsense to claim that there is a “better democracy” than giving voters a choice between two candidates, let them vote between the two candidates, and declare the one with the most votes the winner.

By utilizing ranked-choice voting, Oakland saved the cost of a runoff election in 2010. They are paying the price of incompetent leadership managing the Occupy Oakland protest now. Oakland will be paying for the additional cost of a recall election in 2012. One occupier paid with his life for Mayor Quan’s indecision. For Oakland, the cost savings of ranked-choice voting are illusory.

We just completed our first ranked-choice mayoral, sheriff, and district attorney race in San Francisco, along with our first public funding of the mayoral candidates. We have yet to learn the real cost of this electoral experiment here.

My suggestion for my comrades a here in San Francisco – If we want better democracy, there is a better way. Trust the voters. and scrap ranked-choice voting in San Francisco before it costs us like it cost Oakland.

^{X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall}“

If you haven’t heard yet, a new organization has popped up that promises to be a non-partisan/centrist/independent/moderate alternative for the rest of us.

It’s called No Labels and it’s launching next Monday. Happy Birthday to me.

Also, the symbol of the “party” is a buffalo.

I was born in Buffalo, NY.

Coincidence?

Yes, completely.

Donklephant contributor and author of the Rise of the Center blog, Solomon Kleinsmith, will be at the launch and has this to say about the partisan attacks this group is already weathering…

As for all the theories flying around, John Avlon, centrist independent pundit on CNN, former Giuliani speechwriter and columnist at The Daily Beast, might say these folks have a variant of what he calls Obama or Bush derangement syndrome, where ideology has blinded them to such a degree that they can’t just see something for what it is. No Labels doesn’t fit into their artificial ideological worldview, so they pull off mental gymnastics to invent wingnut conspiracy theories about how the group must be a puppet of dark forces from the other end of the political spectrum.

These ad hominem attacks are one sign that No Labels is my kinda group. I put up with the same attacks every day myself.

I’ve been praying for years for a well organized, well funded and professionally run political organization that centrist independents like myself could genuinely be a part of without being treated like second class citizens. I’m happy to see them attempting to create a big tent where moderates from both sides can work together with centrist independents. If I were to put together a MoveOn for moderates, as some aptly are calling No Labels, it would look largely like what I have seen from them thus far.

Let’s just hope we’re not seeing another Unity ’08. Something tells me we’re not. They look like they have a specific agenda and that’s a lot more than what we saw a couple years ago. Still, I have my doubts.

More as it develops…

Joe Scarborough will be part of the No Lables forum on December 13. And I am pleased.

From Huff Post:

WASHINGTON — TV’s Joe Scarborough, who today dismissed Sarah Palin as a symbol of “anti-intellectualism” with a “dopey dream” of being president, will help headline the launch next month of a new national group dedicated to restoring civility in politics.

Scarborough, a Republican, former Florida congressman and host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, will participate in the debut event of “No Labels” on December 13 at Columbia University in New York.

In case you haven’t heard, No Labels is a group who seeks to forward the political discussion beyond the partisan bickering.

And just in case you think No Labels is a partisan org, check out the pedigree…

Nancy Jacobson, a leading Democratic fundraiser and wife of Clinton-era pollster Mark Penn, launched “No Labels” last year with major advice coming from Mark McKinnon, who was media advisor to George W. Bush in 2000 and Sen. John McCain in 2008.

And let’s heed the group’s call to action…

The message of the group, encapsulated in a “Declaration” written by McKinnon, is a plea for calm, reason and cooperation. “We are not labels, we are people… We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern… We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect….

“We have a crisis of governance – a crisis that compels us to work together to move America forward… We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.”

Certainly something we can all get behind?

More as it develops…

With another decisive and bitter election coming up, it looks like further gridlock as Americans split further apart politically, socially and economically.  Names and labels are replacing concepts and ideas that once brought people to the table.  Not to be too romantic or idealistic but what ever happen to the concept of What you can do for your country?  Have we become a self centered, hedonistic, spoiled brat of a nation?  Or am I just a foolish cartoonist who thinks this country can still come together with action instead of words?  This is a rhetorical question by the way ;)

What better day and time to update our “10 in 10″ election prognostications? Last we checked in – Nate Silver (our polling analyst of choice) showed that 9 of the 10 seats most likely to change parties were all held by Democrats and he was forecasting a net 6-7 seat Republican gain in the Senate. One month later…

… with less than a month to go – 10 of the top 10 seats most likely to change parties are all held by Democrats and Nate is forecasting an 8-9 seat gain by the GOP. So – despite the nomination of a GOP clown candidate in Delaware (virtually guaranteeing a Democratic victory in that state) the odds of a GOP Senate takeover continue to improve.

Nate still gives the Republicans less than a 1 in 4 chance of retaking the Senate majority outright. But then he is basing his odds purely on the November 2nd mid-term results. As I have maintained throughout, the GOP need only take 8 or 9 more seats to make changing parties an attractive proposition to Lieberman and/or Nelson, and eight or nine seats look likely now.

Most surprising continues to be the race in Nevada. Sharron Angle is a terrible candidate. Harry Reid, as it turns out, is worse. “None of the Above” may be a spoiler.

The most disappointing potential race result for me is the one one that hits closest to home. Fiorina needs to make up some ground, and that will be tough in a state like California with less than 3 weeks remaining. But then… Scott Brown did what Scott Brown did in Massachusetts. Maybe there is just enough of that magic left over to surprise everyone on the left coast. Why wouldn’t California vote for a senator who throws down a shot of tequilla before delivering a stump speech? My last political contributions this season will go to Carly in California, and Kirk in Illinois. These are the seats that will make the difference.

I will make one change to my earlier prediction. Then I thought it unlikely that the GOP would take control of the House, invoking the “100 year Rule” and expecting the GOP to come up just short. My new, improved, and updated prediction is that the most likely scenario is that the GOP will go into 2011 with majority control of both the House and Senate. Nate and Charlie convinced me.

Apparently, Political tidal waves don’t care about 100 year rules, nor how deep a hole the GOP dug for itself in the last two cycles, nor how unconventional the candidates riding the wave may be.

It Looks like I’ll be changing teams again in November.

Suddenly I have a taste for a tall, icy glass of kool-aid.

Originally posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

UPDATE: 10-14-10 Some links added and updated since original post

Note the big drop in the past week. Obama had been bumping along at around pretty much even approval/disapproval, but then he made a principled, correct stand on what religious freedom means to us a nation…and his approval drops?

And, by the way, this isn’t even a mosque. It’s a small prayer center inside of a muslim community center. Think of a YMCA with a chapel in it. That’s all that’s being proposed. I think when people here “mosque” they think of a big domed building that’s sitting right across from ground zero…but that ain’t it. This thing is two blocks away on a side street and tucked inside of a much larger proposed complex.

But wait…there’s more!

Pew finds that more Americans now think that Obama is a muslim.

Wanna know why?

When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently. About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior.

The ignorance is just jaw dropping. What’s more, this study was taken BEFORE the mosque thing popped up. So who knows what those numbers look like now.

It’s weeks like this that make me think this country could be doomed. Because if people are this uninformed (or willfully misinformed), how is any politician going to be able to sell us on what really needs to happen over the course of the next couple decades?

Those in the know realize that we have major pain ahead and that the course we’re on is unsustainable. However, Americans have been brought up to be selfish and greedy, and while that works at the corporate level to power innovation, it divorces us from the reality of what it means to be a unified nation. We are individuals, yes, but we must also understand that even though we have a huge amount of cultural, spiritual and political differences…we’re all in this together and it’s going to take all of us to dig ourselves out of the hole we’ve created. And it shouldn’t take something like 9/11 to rally us again.

Excuse me, but I’m now going to reread Watchmen.

I wont be nearly the first person to be writing about California’s Proposition 14. I’m coming late into the game, having only listened to the vague positive talking points of the California Independent Voter Network (CAIVN), and their allies, who have talked this proposition up. But I began to see some dissent, and took at a look at it myself. To be blunt, if this passes, partly because of support from CAIVN and their allies, I will genuinely be embarrassed to affiliate myself with these organizations that I hold in very high regard for their work fighting for the rights of independents.

Like so many other laws that make it through corrupt, and usually quite partisan, legislatures or ballot initiatives, this law violates the first rule that an ethical lawmaker or political organization ought to look at when drafting a bill or proposition; ‘first do no harm’.

Independents are doing two things that are inexcusable by supporting this proposition. They are supporting a change in the electoral system, only allowing the top two vote getters to make it through to the general election, that has flatly been shown to not accomplish the stated goals of lessening partisanship in the other states and areas that have, or have had, such rules in place.

I am personally quite familiar with these kinds of rules. In my home state of Nebraska, I considered running for state senate, as an independent, myself. This rule was not the only reason I decided not to do so, but looking at a short primary season where I would have had to overcome a huge money, organizational and manpower deficit… it certainly was one of the straws that broke the camel’s back. Had I had the entire campaign season to catch up, my decision could have been different.

In other words… we’re hurting our own chances, in trade for a rule that has no history of lowering partisanship, and actually has a track record of lowering the rate of incumbent turnover.

The second mistake is even more insidious, and the reason why I dub this bill the ‘First DO Harm’ Act. The first could be explained away as being duped, misinformed or (at best) perhaps blindly grasping for straws on a gamble. No… this is wholly deliberate. This is taking a page from the two party duopoly playbook. Its inexcusable and so hypocritical I cringe to think about how it might effect the future of independent movement types should this pass in California.

Independents have been the whipping boy of the political process for the dozen or so years that I’ve been really paying attention to politics. Its terribly hard to have an effect on primary elections, the hurdles to running for office as an independent are disturbingly high in most places and candidates from the two major parties pay attention to us only when races get close.

If there is any group of people that we have some common cause with on electoral reform, its third party organizations. Now, I think that both major parties are far too partisan, and I recognize that organizations like the Green Party and Libertarian Party are even more ideologically extreme in most cases. But my ideological differences with them don’t go so far as to impinge upon my higher conscientious support for basic democratic ideals, and fundamental fairness.

Richard Winger, over at Ballot Access News, hits the nail on the head in his op-ed in the San Francisco Bay Guardian:

“…since minor party candidates almost never place first or second in the June primary, minor party members would never be able to run for statewide office in November. And, the catch is that only the November vote counts for meeting the 2 percent vote test.

and…

“The real irony is that the big newspapers of California know about this problem with Prop. 14 but refuse to mention it. That’s ironic because back in 1981, when Democrats in the Legislature wanted to toughen the ballot-access requirements, the big newspapers of California denounced that bill with full fury. Forty of California’s biggest newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations editorialized against that measure.

lastly…

“Prop. 14 is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the for-profit health insurance companies, the for-profit hospitals, and various multimillionaires, and the Yes on 14 campaign has a huge war chest. Why won’t the L.A. Times even mention this flaw in the measure? Who are the big dailies afraid of offending?”

And who are these independent organizations afraid of offending… or perhaps who are they pandering to?

This proposition flat out screws the minor parties. This glaring selfishness is made embarrassingly worse by the fact that several independent supporters I have communicated with, or read explanations of their reasoning for support, of the proposition have actually touted this as a way of further marginalizing these minor parties. This rings of a bully at school taking his anger out on even smaller kids because his bigger brothers have been beating on him for years. In fact, this is precisely what this is.

I’m not going to split hairs on this issue. Independents that support this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

For some people, the development of the new Coffee Party USA organization seemed like a godsend in response to the more extreme elements in the Tea Party movement. At first I thought that this could be the grassroots movement I’d been waiting for – one that actually included moderates independents, and actively worked across ideological divides to look for common ground, rather than partisan gain. In short, I was wrong.

After spending a few months helping organize the Nebraska chapter, helping upgrade sections of the national website and working on a few ad hoc subcommittees trying to build some structure in the organization… it became clear to me that the public reputation of the Coffee Party as a liberal answer to the Tea Party was actually quite true.

Some rumors about the organization showed no evidence of being true however.

The rumors about this being funded by some wealthy liberal entity showed no sign of being true from the inside, or the outside if you’re someone who knows what money looks like in an organization. At every turn, the leadership asked how we could accomplish our goals using free to nearly free options, and a number of things were turned down as options that cost merely a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars.

However, there really isn’t any transparency in the organization, so I have no way to verify whether any of these claims are true or not. I did overhear some upper level people talking about low five digits having been raised, on a conference call, but have no idea where, or if, any of it is being spent, and while there has been talk of there being a board… I have no idea who these people are. For an organization claiming to be bottom up, both of these things are inexcusable, easy to fix, and were ignored when brought up by volunteers internally.

Problems like this… fundamental organizational issues, easy to fix and ignored by the leadership… are endemic internally at Coffee Party USA. If I had to pick one reason, other than the ideological bent, that I left, this would be it.

I also saw no evidence of Coffee Party USA having any direct coordination with Democratic party groups. They did seem intent on being sure to remain independent actors, not pawns of larger forces. This being the case, they had no problem hawking liberal talking points, from liberal icons and sources like President Obama, Paul Krugman, several Huffington Post articles and even Daily Kos.

I saw no evidence of Coffee Party USA being “astroturfed” either. Much to the contrary, they’re easily the most disorganized group of any size I’ve ever been a part of that had been around for more than a few months. The leadership of the organization claimed that they did not have time to do the work necessary to put the foundation of the organization on solid ground, but they of course had plenty of time to put together panel discussions, make promotional videos, pontificate and go on TV shows, among other things.

I took a few weeks off after expressing some of my concerns (along with other people) to see if the leadership would actually do anything about them, and left recently because I saw no efforts towards that. The main selling points for me, were the nonpartisan & non-confrontational tack they took, and how they appeared to look for common ground, rather than further raising the political temperature.

Early communications built an image of a somewhat left leaning organization who’s core was nonpartisan. But over time, as the conversations turned into action, it became clear that this wasn’t the case, and were neither nonpartisan, non-confrontational nor committed to working across traditional partisan divides.

While I was there, there was no active effort to bring people in from the center or right, while the liberal messaging, unwillingness to make it plain that we weren’t in fact a liberal response to the Tea Party (this was brought up several times internally, but rebuffed because they didn’t want to discourage liberal activist members), and with the media predictably painting the Coffee Party as such allowed the organization to be defined as what it in fact is… a liberal grassroots-ish organization.

A quick look at CPUSA’s Facebook page, the website, emails they’ve sent out, message boards and especially the internal conversations, among other things… show a fairly standard liberal grassroots organization. To be plain, this organization wishes to be seen as a nonpartisan group only so it can have a glean of high minded nonpartisanship and gain members in the center so they can better justify their liberal positions.

It didn’t help that the leadership flip flopped on early promises to only support the use of non-confrontational tactics by local chapters. They also flip flopped on a promise to make decisions on what issues the organization would take stances on through open votes among the general membership… among a number of other issues that were brought up internally.

Again, the leadership claimed to not have enough time to do the foundational work that an organization needs to do to be effective. If they have the time to be on panel discussions, make videos, develop new campaign after new campaign, podcasts, blogs, etc etc etc… they have plenty of time to focus on developing the organization. They just choose not to, showing where their priorities were. The most preposterous side of this whole mess was that they actually used the organization as a vehicle for self promotion, promoting the two founders’ documentary through official organization channels. This is clearly unethical.

When people spoke up about some of these issues, the leadership ignored those threads, and usually the conversations would die off after a day or two, with no response or action taken. The issues kept coming up every week or so, and I began to see that they were in no way interested in actually addressing these issues when I received two calls from Billy Wimsatt, one of the top level people, that offered a position higher up in the organization… but only if I would stop bringing up issues I had.

This was unacceptable to me, and should be to most. Independents and moderates beware. Unless you want to be token non-liberals that will be used to reach liberal ends, this is not the organization we’ve been waiting for.

Latest and greatest news and views about California’s open primary initiative, Proposition 14, on the ballot June 8. Partisans showed their true colors last week with back-room deals and litigation on the ballot wording. Prominent independent attorney Harry Kresky’s commentary on HuffPo “Words Matter” sheds lots of light on the nature of our democracy. And Phil Keisling, Oregon’s former Sec. of State who went to bat for that state’s Measure 65 which would have opened the primaries to voters who don’t choose to affiliate with a party, has a neat idea to Reduce Partisanship in today’s NY Times.

OPEN PRIMARIES

TAYLOR v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY – Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District, Sacramento. (RAYE, J., Leagle.com)

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/22/ca-proposition-14-democracy-without-independent-voters-is-like-taxation-without-representation/feed/ 9 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/another-legal-win-for-independent-voters-in-california-court-of-appeals-says-no-to-proposition-14-opponents/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/another-legal-win-for-independent-voters-in-california-court-of-appeals-says-no-to-proposition-14-opponents/#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:34:48 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18280

California Court of Appeals says no to Proposition 14 opponents, which is good news for independent voters. From CAIVN: “The Court rejected the CSEA language, preserved the lower court’s language, and ordered the restoration of the Legislative Analyst’s prediction of cost savings associated with the measure.” And open primaries gaining support in Pennsylvania and Illinois. Rock on!

PROP 14

IL: Was the Illinois Senate correct in defeating a bill that would have made primary elections open (not requiring voters to declare a party) in Illinois? (Helium) Yes and No articles HINT: 72% say no

More news for independents at The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/another-legal-win-for-independent-voters-in-california-court-of-appeals-says-no-to-proposition-14-opponents/feed/ 0 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/15/california-proposition-14-open-primary-ballot-language-decision-favorable-to-independents/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/15/california-proposition-14-open-primary-ballot-language-decision-favorable-to-independents/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:02:02 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18268

More commentary this weekend on California’s Proposition 14 “top two” open primary referendum after Judge Allen Sumner’s ballot wording ruling on Friday. The ruling was seen as a win for independent voters by attorney Harry Kresky of IndependentVoting and by Californians for an Open Primary/Yes on 14… Meanwhile, state Rep. Hunter Greene, a Republican who chairs the state House Ways and Means Committee, wants an open primary for Louisiana….

PROPOSITION 14

Greene says return to open primaries (The Advocate/Inside Politics)

More at The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/15/california-proposition-14-open-primary-ballot-language-decision-favorable-to-independents/feed/ 0 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/12/legal-fight-over-ballot-wording-for-proposition-14/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/12/legal-fight-over-ballot-wording-for-proposition-14/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:42:47 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18181

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner is expected to rule today on the ballot language for Prop 14. Leading independent Attorney Harry Kresky speaks out on the legal fight over the “top two” open primaries referendum:

“When the California legislature voted to put Proposition 14 on the ballot this June, it crafted a summary of the initiative which will also appear on the ballot, that accurately described what its effect would be if passed. Opponents of the measure have now gone to court to try to change the summary to frighten voters with misleading statements such as, “Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot.” If they have their way, a measure that expands the rights of voters – most especially the state’s three million independent voters – will be reframed as one that eliminates the rights of parties. Since an overwhelming majority of Americans are angry about partisan gridlock, now is not the time to protect political parties at the expense of the voters. The people of California deserve an honest representation of Proposition 14. Let’s hope the court looks out for them.”

The California School Employees Association has sued the Secretary of State (presumably on behalf of the California State Legislature) to change the ballot wording. Read more at California Independent Voter Network.

Keep reading below…

PROPOSITION 14

Christina Tobin, Libertarian for CA Secretary of State, announces schedule and opposes Prop 14 (Independent Political Report blog)

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/12/legal-fight-over-ballot-wording-for-proposition-14/feed/ 0 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/11/californias-prop-14-the-people-vs-the-parties/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/11/californias-prop-14-the-people-vs-the-parties/#comments Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:25:34 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18172

Independent voters in California (aka “decline to state”) vote in primaries at the whim of the party big-shots. And California Dems (including the school employees union) are playing some bad language games trying to dissuade voters from supporting Proposition 14, the “Top Two” open primary referendum on the ballot for a vote in June that will allow independents full participation. At issue is whether the political parties or the people have the power.

CALIFORNIA PROP 14

California Independent Voter Network

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/11/californias-prop-14-the-people-vs-the-parties/feed/ 3 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/06/independents-with-a-process/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/06/independents-with-a-process/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:27:52 +0000 Frank Hagan http://donklephant.com/?p=18161

Dissatisfaction with Congress is at an all time high, with the Congressional Job Approval polls at about a 19% approval rating. Usually a poor showing in these polls leads to an increase in the minority party’s rating, but the GOP is still showing lower than expected strength.

Third parties haven’t caught on, either, but grass roots campaigns like the Tea Party movement garner more respect. Disgusted voters may like to see strong, independent candidates, but the barriers to entry can usually be overcome only by an organized, well financed political party. Reformers have yet to come up with a way to break through unless the candidate is independently wealthy.

Now comes GOOOH.com from a computer analyst who thinks he has found a process that may work. Tim Cox believes strongly in a citizen legislature.

Tim’s plan is to sign up people who want to remove professional politicians in favor of local citizens. In each congressional district, these folks would answer a questionnaire, caucus together in groups of ten, and advance one of the ten to the next round. A congressional district with 100 interested citizens would start with 10 groups, all feeding their best candidate to the final group of ten for a decision. At the end of the process, each of the 435 congressional districts would have a candidate to run against the established candidates. Because Tim realizes the citizens of San Francisco may want a person with different views than the citizens of Salt Lake City, the only requirement is that the candidate agree to limit their term in Congress.

But the real question is funding. How can a local caucus of volunteers compete with the billions spent by the parties? The process is free too join as a voter, but people who decide to become “declared candidates” pony up $100 at the beginning. The funds are then distributed to the final 435 candidates to pay for filing fees, etc. The caucus members themselves provide the necessary signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Tim has addressed some of the difficulties in getting “regular people” to serve as legislators, including removing partisan influences. But I suspect the real story will be if the caucuses themselves hold together as differences become magnified through the selection process.

Cross-posted to FrankHagan.com

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/06/independents-with-a-process/feed/ 4 http://donklephant.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-bingo/ http://donklephant.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-bingo/#comments Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:47:44 +0000 Frank Hagan http://donklephant.com/?p=18054

Cross posted to FrankHagan.com

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-bingo/feed/ 1 http://donklephant.com/2010/01/26/administration-dont-like-our-message-no-worries-we-have-a-different-message-just-for-you/ http://donklephant.com/2010/01/26/administration-dont-like-our-message-no-worries-we-have-a-different-message-just-for-you/#comments Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:36:23 +0000 mw http://donklephant.com/?p=18019

Last week President Obama announced the “Volcker Rule” proposing tough constraints on big banks. During the announcement Barney Frank stood behind the president on the podium in visual support of the policy. As noted in my last post, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee then proceeded directly to an interview on CNBC, the media outlet that is arguably the most direct conduit to the banking industry affected by that policy. In the interview Barney Frank soft pedaled the impact of the proposed policy, saying it would not go into effect for 3 – 5 years.

Yesterday, in a background briefing, the administration announced a three year spending freeze on portions of the budget. Since departments with the fastest growing government expenditures like Defense, VA, the State Department, and entitlements are excluded from the “freeze”, it will have a negligible effect on the ballooning deficit. NYT:

“The payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit: The estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time.”

Shortly after the announcement, Jared Bernstein, economist and economic adviser to Vice President Biden, appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show – the media outlet that is arguably the most direct conduit to the progressive community. Mr. Bernstein proceeds to soft pedal even the very modest impact the policy would have on deficits, almost apologizing for it, and practically promising that the administration will really continue to be the big spenders that the progressives know and love. Maddow wasn’t buying what Jared was selling:

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

One cannot help but wonder if the administration is trying to be all things to all people, and risks representing nothing to no one.

I am sure the President will clear all of this up in the State of the Union address tomorrow.

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/01/26/administration-dont-like-our-message-no-worries-we-have-a-different-message-just-for-you/feed/ 4 http://donklephant.com/2010/01/25/politicos-peruse-presidents-populist-pivot/ http://donklephant.com/2010/01/25/politicos-peruse-presidents-populist-pivot/#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:55:15 +0000 mw http://donklephant.com/?p=17982

Considering President Obama’s propensity for continuous machine gun-like rapid fire communication, it is important to sort out which administration missives demand attention and which can be safely ignored. I take my cue from the number of politico’s lined up behind the podium.

Based on this metric, Thursday’s briefing deserved our attention. This was a 10-bagger. Ten – count them – ten administration and congressional luminaries lined up like so many potted plants serve as backdrop to the presidential announcement. There you have Paul Volcker, Bill Donaldson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Christine Rohmer, Peter Orszag, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and somebody else I don’t recognize. The occasion was President Obama’s announcement of the latest refinement to the administration “Financial Reform” initiative:

“It’s for these reasons that I’m proposing a simple and common-sense reform, which we’re calling the “Volcker Rule” — after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

He cautioned financial industry lobbyists to not fight his “common sense reforms … “ continuing “if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.“ The remarks came one week after he announced “we want our money back, and we’re going to get it. And that’s why I’m proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on major financial firms…” and one day before hitting the road for an Ohio Townhall where he promised to “never stop fighting to protect you from the kind of deceptive practices we’ve seen from some in the financial sector”. Clearly, the predicted presidential populist pivot against the banks is well underway.

Coincidentally (or not), all this bank bashing takes place in the context of a surprising rejection from the Massachusetts electorate, and equally breathtaking Democratic party retreat on the health care reform bill.

Wall Street reacted badly, falling in anticipation of the President’s speech, sliding further while he was speaking, and continuing to drop after he finished. This was possibly the worst Wall Street reaction to an administration initiative since Tim Geithner announced the plan to save Wall Street almost one year ago. Then, Tim Geithner was standing next to Obama as financial reform was introduced and later when the details were fleshed out over the summer. There is less certainty where he and Larry Summers stand now. At least in their role as potted plants, they appear to have moved closer to the exit than the president.

Whether financial reform is more politics than policy, or optics over substance, or whether it goes the way of health care reform, will be dependent on Congress and the bills being shaped in Chris Dodd’s Senate and Barney Frank’s House committees. It cannot be encouraging to reform proponents that Barney Frank went directly from his role as stage prop to an interview on CNBC where he soft pedaled the reforms announced minutes before.

Wall Street professionals were understandably confused:

I have not seen Rick Santelli quite this exercised since he inadvertently inspired the Tea Party movement last spring.

Let’s wrap this up with a quick Financial Reform Bill status check: The President is on the stump, giving speeches, sitting for interviews, and conducting town-halls in a media blitz supporting this major reform initiative. He campaigned on this reform and his administration has promoted several iterations of the bill since taking office. In the meantime, Democrats in the House and Senate are crafting reform bills that are inconsistent (if not incompatible) with each other and with the President’s promises.

No one knows what version, if any, will pass.

I think I have seen this movie before.

^{cross posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/01/25/politicos-peruse-presidents-populist-pivot/feed/ 8 http://donklephant.com/2009/12/30/interpol-no-tin-foil-hats-necessary/ http://donklephant.com/2009/12/30/interpol-no-tin-foil-hats-necessary/#comments Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:31:56 +0000 Frank Hagan http://donklephant.com/?p=17744

The conspiracy-minded blogs have been abuzz about President Obama’s Executive Order granting Interpol certain privileges and immunities. Fears of the loss of national sovereignty lead the pack with some going as far as saying this opens the door to Americans being kidnapped to appear before the World Court. The calmer voices have been saying it only grants “diplomatic immunity” to members of Interpol operating in this country. Both explanations are wrong.

Jake Tapper at ABC News has provided an explanation, complete with the history of the special classification:

The International Organizations Immunities Act, signed into law in 1945, established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws.

Experts say there are about 75 organizations in the US covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act — including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, even the International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

(These privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under “diplomatic immunity,” they are considerably less. “Diplomatic immunity” comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a “diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.” That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.)

President Reagan granted Interpol some protections in 1983, then President Clinton expanded them in 1995. But because Interpol did not have a permanent office in the US, the full protections of the International Organizations Immunities Act were not needed. Tapper reports he has been told Interpol established permanent offices in the US in 2004.

Individual officers of Interpol are still subject to our criminal and civil laws, and do not enjoy diplomatic immunity. The protections afforded Interpol by President Obama are the same as those given to other international organizations, including the International Pacific Halibut Commission.

Cross-posted to FrankHagan.com

]]> http://donklephant.com/2009/12/30/interpol-no-tin-foil-hats-necessary/feed/ 13 http://donklephant.com/2009/12/01/sen-webb-to-obama-hold-on-a-second/ http://donklephant.com/2009/12/01/sen-webb-to-obama-hold-on-a-second/#comments Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:12:54 +0000 Frank Hagan http://donklephant.com/?p=17483

ABC News affiliate WHSV in Virginia is reporting that Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, has sent a letter to President Obama expressing concern over some statements regarding the upcoming Copenhagen conference:

Dear Mr. President:

I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.

Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator

Senator Webb, often described as a politician with a independent streak, has not hesitated to speak out against other Obama Administration decisions. That independence earned him a reputation for being either rude or courageous (depending on your point of view) during the last administration.

Cross posted to FrankHagan.com

]]> http://donklephant.com/2009/12/01/sen-webb-to-obama-hold-on-a-second/feed/ 11