Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”
In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it “God’s will.”
As a left leaning independent this is way over the line for me.
For those of us gripped by a concern that Democracy is fragile and at risk here in the US here is a path towards restoring faith in government of the people and by the people. We Want You…to be a Poll Worker comes from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, a prominent voice on Campaign and election reform.
In the long term, we need to figure out a way to recruit good poll workers. Current innovations include having high school students, many of whom would ordinarily be too young to serve as poll workers, staff the polls as part of their civics classes. We’d like to see other innovations: states could consider exempting poll workers from jury service for some period of time-surely many of you would rather serve one day than possibly get put on a weeks-long trial. Another innovation might be offering continuing legal education (CLE) credit for service at the polls. (Lawyers usually need to take some sort of continuing education classes to maintain their bar license, but often alternative activities such as judging moot courts or writing articles will count for credit as well.) Like jury service, CLE requirements can be a hassle to fulfill, and working the polls might be a nice alternative. In the credit framework, colleges and universities could also offer credit for work at the polls, either course credit or towards community service requirements.
Steven Thomma wonders about the future of Centrists in the article Does Obama’s rise mean less clout for Democratic centrists? They noted that while the Centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was meeting in Chicago Obama did not attend, even though he was home this weekend.
While I favor a Democratic take over of Government in order to correct GOP negligence and advance progressive policy, it stands to reason that the Democrats will also eventually spin out of control and descend into self dealing and other variations of corruption.
And this seems to me an opportunity for the DLC and the moderate Republican Leadership Council (RLC) to merge into one centrist organization to harness the growing ranks of independent and moderate voters. These groups have more in common with each other than they do with the extremists of their own parties.
Since many districts around the country lean heavy Conservative or Liberal it is unrealistic to expect candidates of opposite temperament to be elected. And so we will always have conservative and liberal representatives. But an influential Centrist organization can promote candidates, from either party, with pragmatic and collaborative sensibilities. This could provide the leverage in congress for just enough open mindedness and reasonable compromise to move our country forward through increasingly complex challenges in Health, Immigration, Energy, Environmental Protection…
The Boston Globe has this revealing profile of how a Firm gets big cut of campaign donations. Apparently the candidates realize only a modest percentage of the money raised in their name.
So along with special interests trying to game our system of public policy we have the political operatives who make their money off of the current private campaign financing fiasco. I suspect that the over whelming majority of candidates who are motivated by service would welcome a path to election that does not include pandering to narrow special interests AND political insiders who control the flow of money. Parallel to our addiction to oil is our addiction to an escalating cycle of privately financed campaigns.
We do have a choice if only a critical mass of good people would come together and say STOP!
The Election Law Blog has a helpful summary of today’s Supreme Court decision against limits on campaign financing. The Court ruled that just because a candidate is wealthy does not justify increasing the fundraising limits on his opponent. This follows previous court rulings that frown on limiting the fund raising of candidates.
I do not personally agree that money and speech are equivalent, particularly in Politics. The freedom of speech is not, to me, the freedom to drown out an opponent or prevent them from being heard. Increasingly it seems to me that the only solution to level the playing field in elections, and neutralizing the influence of narrow special interests, is to use public funds to balance the marketing reach of the candidates. I propose that candidates can raise as much money as they like but at reasonable intervals they, and their opponents, can receive public funds to ensure that their point of view is being heard by the voters.
To me the competition is not just between candidates but between the public interest and narrow financial special interests. The cost of public financing of campaigns is far less than the cost of accommodating narrow special interests.
Today the D.C Court of Appeals struck down a variety of FEC regulations that were too loose and vague to reflect the intentions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Details follow courtesy of Democracy21
While I am reassured that the intentions of the BCRA are being enforced I question whether the paradigm of trying to restrict the flow of money into politics is futile. Perhaps it would be more effective to adopt a paradigm to neutralize the influence of money in the crafting and enforcement of public policy. It seems to be that it would be a lot more effective and much easier to manage to simply use public funds to level the playing fields between candidates and parties. For Example, If Obama and supportive organizations raise and spend $400 Million then McCain and friends would get enough public money to equal their budgets.
This would preserve equal opportunity to market their candidates and issues while eliminating any interference in raising as much money as they like. And for those who think that this is welfare for candidates then consider that it is likely to be far less expense for the public than the special interest subsidies that distort pragmatic budget management.
Here are a few notes on my participation in the Texas Democratic Party Convention with 14,000 folks this weekend.
Thursday was a 6 hour meeting of the Platform advisory Committee which updates the 2006 version. I was gratified to see my finger prints on a variety of items: Same day voter registration, access to voting equipment by the disabled, redistricting reform, Mail in voting, Publicly financed elections, human trafficking, Energy net metering. It is amazing to realize how much impact each of us can have on important cultural institutions just by showing up and demonstrating a mature sense of understanding, communication and cooperation.
Friday was elections of delegates to various positions: national delegates, Elector college representative, party leadership, Committees on Rules, Platform Resolutions… Presentations from scores of speakers including Chelsea Clinton, Governor Kaine of Virgina and almost all the Democratic State Representatives and Candidates. Day ends at 4 am.
Saturday starts at 8am with all day meetings of the newly elected 30+ member resolution and platform committees. It was a fascinating experience of nuts and bolts democracy such as a one hour discussion about whether the Party should recommend the abolition of the Death Penalty. It did. Also was a debate about recommending criminal charges against Bush and Cheney. It didn’t. In essence it was a process of reconciling each member’s personal sense of balance between political realism and moral ideals. I also came to appreciate the awesome value of Roberts Rules of Order in managing group dynamics. At almost every moment the meetings could disintegrate and splinter if not for strong leadership and established rules of conduct. My respect for the talents and skills of Political leaders grew today.
In the end we voted around 60% of the Delegates to the national convention for Obama and 40% for Clinton.
I was disappointed in only a few ways, when after dozens of speeches about unifying the party the Clinton delegates promoted the idea that representatives to the various committees be allocated in proportion to Obama and Clinton supporters. Demonstrating to me that they were unclear on the concept of party unity. It was voted down.
Also in the heat of party enthusiasm the speakers frame many issues as that the Democrats are right and the GOP is wrong. I imagine this is reverse at GOP meetings. This may be fine for party regulars but it can undermine the courting of moderates and independents who vibrate between the values and point of of view of both parties. As with most elements of human nature we are all dualities of contrasting characteristics that ebb and flow with our changing circumstances. Sometimes we are each liberal and sometimes conservative. Crafting policy that reflects this truth requires particularly wise representatives who are relatively light on ideological purity and heavy on pragmatism.
HARTFORD, Conn. - The state has launched a voluntary program to publicly fund campaigns for statewide office and the legislature.
To date, 145 candidates have signed up.
In return, they must forgo contributions from political action committees, raise small contributions from individuals and adhere to campaign spending limits and other restrictions. The proponents of the law, passed in 2005, say it will give average citizens more of a voice in Connecticut politics and reduce the influence of special interests.
Candidates who qualify can receive $25,000 for a state House race and $85,000 for a state Senate race. Much of the money will come from unclaimed property.
Bravo for Connecticut! I can only hope that this is another small step towards increasing the proportion of pragmatic and open minded representatives free of ideological extremes and devotion to narrow special interests.
Also there is this op-ed out of Dallas questioning whether voters are better served by “less” competitive campaigns. The Author is proposing that redistricting aim to consolidate voters of similar politics so that they can be assured of representation rather than than having more competitive districts that may be more likely to disenfranchise more voters. In his scheme the real competition would happen at the primary stage where publicly financed campaigns could still have a liberating effect on independently minded candidates. I like that he challenges my notions about what is the wisest course towards more representative government.
Poll: Senate GOP Leader McConnell Trailing Democratic Opponent
By Eric Kleefeld - May 27, 2008, 8:49AM
The Senate Republicans are expected to have a rough time of it this year, but even this is big news: A new Rasmussen poll puts Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) behind his Democratic challenger, businessman Bruce Lunsford:
Lunsford (D) 49%
McConnell (R) 44%
Sample size: 500 likely voters.
Margin of error: ±4.5%
Party leaders are often considered safe bets for re-election, but McConnell’s ties to President Bush obviously haven’t helped his own prospects even in this red state. And with the DSCC out-raising their GOP counterparts, expect the Dems to make a play for this seat and others all over the map.
It is my understanding that Senator McConnell is the leading opponent of campaign and election reform and the leading champion of special interests and equating money with speech. I believe the world would be a more cooperative place without him in power.
Americans for Campaign Reform, the sponsor of the event, is an organization that was founded by New Hampshire political activist John Rauh and others. Its chairmen are former Democratic Sens. Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey, former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and Rudman. These four distinguished Americans recognize the need to change the method by which campaigns are financed, for several reasons.
First, to a large extent only the rich can participate in politics as candidates for major office. Second, the effect of money in politics retards the ability to solve problems because of the influence of major givers and lobbyists. Third, there is a need to level the political playing field.
In his remarks, Rudman pointed out the need to solve America’s big problems. He indicated that he had come to believe that money in politics was a pervasive evil that had to be solved by some effective method of campaign finance reform, or basic issues will not be addressed…
Campaign finance reform is not a fringe idea from Progressives or Independents. Some of our best and brightest leaders see it as a necessary part of the cure for America’s ailments.
David Brooks writes today about Running Mates but drops in a very sobering warning:
He (Obama) will find himself surrounded by highly partisan Democratic politicians, committee chairmen and interest groups thrilled to finally seize power. Some of them might have enjoyed his lofty rhetoric about change, but in practice, these organization types have no interest in changing politics. They just want to take the money and patronage that has been going to Republican special interests and give it to Democratic special interests.
I will vote almost entirely Democratic in the next election to help correct the damage done by the GOP. But it is entirely possible that the Democrats will not learn important lessons and slide back into service to special interests and extreme ideology. So I encourage us all to contribute to the re-education of the GOP by speaking out for a lot less social conservatism, a lot more pragmatism, a lot less posturing such as radically shrinking the size of government, and more on how to manage the services we all need and want more efficiently. I would like lower taxes but not at the expense of increasing suffering for others. I am all for promoting commerce but not that the expense of making our world less livable.
Historically the GOP and Democrats have swapped philosophical roles. Perhaps we can help with the next transformation.
“At Sunlight, when we learned that Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was convening a task force to address the issue of earmarks, we knew the odds of progress were slim. McConnell is an appropriator, a champion of earmarks and an ardent foe of almost every conceivable good government reform. He also has a keen political ear. So by forming a task force on earmark reform, he could arguably demonstrate action without actually moving. As “The Hill” reports here, Senator McConnell not only continues placing obstacles to moderate reform, but he is resisting a push for earmark transparency coming from within his own party.
How did McConnell undertake the issue without putting his caucus at risk of actually having to change its ways on earmarks? He appointed a working group with members on such opposite ends of the earmark spectrum odds were against success. Then he told them to come up with a unanimous recommendation. When they did that, McConnell moved the goal line again, saying he would attempt to work with the Democratic Leader to consider creating a Senate Rule the encompassed the suggestions. Even the most casual political observer wouldn’t be surprised to find that those “negotiations” came to nothing.
So it appears that the tactic is for leaders to pretend to seek solutions by putting the least flexible legislators together to negotiate. It seems to me that if the goal is progress then leaders would put the most pragmatic members of their team at the table. thus solutions that would appeal to the majority citizens are thwarted in order to protect either personal interests, special interests or the allegiance of narrow minded constituents. So what do you think is the remedy?
Thanks to Centerfield for pointing me towards this thoughtfully realistic post by Gruntled Center
Brooks actually cited two cases of the corruption of the Washington system. The farm bill was one, and the energy bill was the other. I agree that both are bad bills, more of a sweetheart deal for the biggest agribusiness and oil companies. That they both passed Congress overwhelmingly is a sign of a deep corruption in our politics.
It is also a sign of the necessity of compromise in making legislation. McCain made his reputation as a maverick — which he is quickly shedding. Obama made his reputation as a coalition builder, which entails voting for lots of bad legislation in order to get something done. These are two different ways of being a centrist.
Last night, RSC chairman Jeb Hensarling sent a memo to committee members urging them to attend today’s conference meeting in order to make their voices heard. “Collectively, the Republican Conference needs to unify behind a handful of policy proposals that are bold, simple, and are truly part of our core identity,” Hensarling wrote. Hensarling and the RSC will urge fellow Republicans to adopt an “action plan” around easy-to-swallow bullet points that can serve as the framework for the party’s larger message heading into November.
The plan calls for Republicans to accept an immediate, unilateral earmark moratorium; holding the line on spending and cutting taxes; reforming health care; dropping gas prices by increasing domestic production; prohibiting interstate abortion; and reforming certain welfare work requirements.
This might have more credibility, and not a bait and switch, if the recent Farm Bill didn’t pass with a veto proof majority that spread pork so recklessly that even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was even able to achieve subsidies for Racing Horse Breeders. It is easy to denounce earmarks while distributing favors directly in legislation.
As a relatively practical business person I am a big fan. Almost every response to every problem is a balancing of choices.
There is no standard definition, but it is widely accepted that the term came into use during the Clinton administration and was coined by adviser Dick Morris.
Morris described triangulation in a PBS interview in 2000, saying:
Morris: Take the best from each party’s agenda, and come to a solution somewhere above the positions of each party. So from the left, take the idea that we need day care and food supplements for people on welfare. From the right, take the idea that they have to work for a living, and that there are time limits. But discard the nonsense of the left, which is that there shouldn’t be work requirements; and the nonsense of the right, which is you should punish single mothers. Get rid of the garbage of each position, that the people didn’t believe in; take the best from each position; and move up to a third way. And that became a triangle, which was triangulation.
In 2006 Morris more simply described it as “taking the best from the right and from the left and discarding the rest.”
Others have given their own take on it. Time magazine’s Joe Klein ventured in Three Cheers for Triangulation that “it proposed the achievement of liberal ends through market-oriented conservative means. Welfare reform, which combined a work requirement with significant financial incentives for the working poor, was the best example of how the philosophy might work.”
If the Democrats don’t achieve 60 votes in the Senate then I hope they choose to master this political technique rather than condemn us to death by a thousand stalemates. And I hope we can all learn to vote for candidates with a temperament to appreciate the merits in different points of view.
In The first cut is the deepest… a Texas political insider imagines the first meeting to unify the Obama and Clinton Camps.
Craig (Clinton campaign representative): I hate you. I hate your boss. You have stolen the election from us, and if you expect me to like it, you’re out of your mind, you hamster chewing groin poker.
It is not just what is in it:
* Lower gas prices and energy costs
* Provide for a family-friendly work week
* Grow our small businesses
* Allow workers to take their benefits with them when they change jobs
* Take care of our parents and grandparents
* Assure health care for all
* Make prevention a national priority
* Crackdown on child predators and gangs
* Provide health care for our neediest children
* Reduce the costs and burden of college tuition
* Ensure every child in America can read and write
* Increase local control
* Ensure our schools perform for our children
* Take care of our troops, veterans and their families
* Win the war on terror
* Secure our borders
But what is not:
parental notification laws,
constitutional bans on gay marriage,
prayer in public schools,
promotion of two-parent families,
abstinence-only sex ed
internet porn crackdowns.
Flag burning amendments
While I am not persuaded that it is sincere, it does reflect the awareness that the conventional wisdom is moving away from the GOP and if they want to win any but safe races they need to adapt. My problem is that I just do not trust Republican’s and the only way to find out if they are serious about change is to take an unacceptable risk and vote for them.
This from Richard Kimball the founder of Project Vote Smart which gathers the voting records and opinions of candidates for almost all levels of government. The reasons that candidates give for their reluctance seems to justify a move towards public financing of campaigns along with a requirement to declare positions on issues relevant to the voters and perhaps some mandated debates to “out” the candidates for the few of us who would like to know that they think.
