Tag Archives: Republicans

Democrats Asleep at the Wheel Regarding Initiative 26

Posted on August 2nd, 2008 | Comments Off on Democrats Asleep at the Wheel Regarding Initiative 26

Democrats in King County have been asleep at the wheel and are about to crash unless they snap awake. The Republicans under Peter Von Reichbauer and Republican dollars have been busy trying to change the electoral landscape in their favor by putting Initiative 26 before voters.

Financial backers of both Dino Rossi and the BIAW are behind this measure.

Initiative 26 would be passed by a 2 step process. It is both on the August 19, 2008 Primary and the November 4, 2008 General Election ballots. It would amend the King County Charter to make the offices of King County Executive, King County Assessor and King County Council members nonpartisan.

The sleeper in all this is that it would also make the selection of the re-redistricting committee members nonpartisan. That means you would no longer have a balance between the two major parties but would have no idea of where these members stood politically. These members would draw the boundaries of the council districts.

Looking at who funded this measure to get on the ballot tells you who thinks they would benefit. As Josh Feit wrote on the Slog in March in a post entitled “Nonpartisan My Ass”:

“Proof that the idea is a GOP ploy: Citizens for Independent Government (the group pushing the initiative) has collected $145,000 and, according to finance records, more than 90 percent of the money comes from three donors: George Rowley, John Stanton, and John Hennessy.

Rowley, CEO of Rowley Properties, is one of the biggest supporters of Republican candidates and issues in this state. Dating back to 2002, his donations have included: $8,000 to Dino Rossi; $95,000 to the $172,250 to the Washington State Republican Party; $60,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee; $28,000 to the King County Republican Central Committee, General; $125,850 to the King County Republican Central Committee; and $6,000 to John Carlson in 2000.

Telecom mogul Stanton has an equally impressive list of contributions to conservative recipients: $5,300 to Rossi; $255,500 to the Washington State Republican Party; $100,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee; $30,750 to the King County Republican Central Comm Non-exempt; $25,000 to the BIAW’s PAC, ChangePAC; and $4,800 to John Carlson in 2000.

Nuprecon CEO Hennessy: $6,100 to Dino Rossi; $115,000 to ChangePAC (and ChangePAC 2004); $5,000 to the Washington State Republican Party; $10,000 to the King County Repub; and $3,400 to Carlson in 2000.

 

So the backers of I-26 are major supporters of Dino Rossi , John Carlson and the state Republican Party as well as the BIAW – the Building Industry Association of Washington which is behind Change PAC.

The Republicans know that voters in King County reject the politics of George Bush and Karl Rove, the divisiveness of politics like those Newt Gingrich supported and the corruption of politicians like Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. So they want to hide behind a nonpartisan label and not tell the voters what their political beliefs are.

Initiative 26 isn’t needed. Any politician can now run as an independent on the ballot, particularly under the Top 2 Primary System. Republicans do not need to declare they are Republicans if they are so afraid of the label and ashamed of their party.

But Initiative 26 wants to also prevent Democrats running as Democrats by prohibiting them from being identified as Democrats on the ballot. They want to deny voters the right to know when they vote which party best represents the views of the candidate. Voters will be less informed as to the political philosophy that a candidate supports. This will allow more Republicans an opportunity to hide their true political leanings behind a non-partisan label and sneak into office with a barrage of money from the BIAW or the Republican Party or Chamber of Commerce.

I-26 takes away voter choice and allows for big spending campaigns by special interests to mask a candidate’s true politics. We have a system that works. The voters have put Democrats in charge of the County Council and this is the Republicans campaign to try to regain control by not telling the voters the political party that the candidate belongs to.

Vote No on Initiative 26 Part 1 on August 19, and November 4, 2008! Part 1 asks”Should either of these proposed ordinances to place a charter amendment before the voters in November 2008 be adopted?”

In case question one wins you have a second chance If you want to retain some ability to id candidates by party. Vote for the King County Council’s alternative to I-26 in the second part of the ballot question.

Part 2 reads “Irregardless of whether you voted yes or no above, if one of the proposed ordinances is adopted, which one should it be?” Vote for the Council-proposed alternative.

Comments Off on Democrats Asleep at the Wheel Regarding Initiative 26

Posted in campaign finance, Democrats, Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

Posted on December 14th, 2007 | Comments Off on Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

If you need one more reason to vote Republicans out of Congress, just look at the huge $13 billion dollar Christmas present they gave the oil industry. The Senate yesterday passed landmark energy legislation to increase fuel efficiency of cars and trucks by 40% but on a 59 to 40 vote to end debate, were forced to strip from the bill key tax reform provisions to repeal special tax breaks for the oil industry. They also dropped a renewable energy mandate and renewable energy tax credits

One Democrat, Senator Mary Landieu supported the oil industry by voting no to end debate and one Republican, John McCain, was not present to vote. Considering the significance of this bill one has to wonder what he thought was more important than being there for the vote.

The 2008 election continues to shape up as a major turning point for America. It is an opportunity for Democrats to contrast their forward moving agenda to deal with issues like energy independence and global warming with the Republican sell out to corporate America at the expense of the common good for America’s citizens and their pocketbooks.

Face it, the Republicans continue to live in the past and remain beholden to special interests like the oil industry. And Democrats need to show some spine and be leaders in moving America forward. As the New York Times writes today,

“some environmentalists said they were unhappy that the bill would not provide large incentives for expansion of renewable energy sources like wind, solar and biothermal.
Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth Action, accused Senate Democrats of “capitulating” to Senate Republicans and the White House.
“When the Republican leadership and the polluter lobby have blocked important legislation, Senate Democrats have been all too willing to move in their direction,” Mr. Blackwelder said in a statement. “The result is that the two most positive provisions of the energy bill — a clean energy mandate and a tax package reining in handouts for fossil fuels and promoting clean energy — are being removed, while detrimental provisions, such as a radical five-fold increase in unsustainable biofuel use, remain.”

Carl Hulse in On the Hill quotes what part of the strategy of the Republicans will be during the coming year. It will be to blame the Democrats for the problems Democrats inherited from the Republicans, all the while doing everything they can to be sure that Democrats get as little done as they can to solve these problems.

Here’s what Hulse quotes the Republican National Committee saying in its comments on their recent victories in the Special Elections to fill two Congressional vacancies.

“The underlying economic anxiety that Americans feel toward the tax-and-spend policies of the new, wildly unpopular do-nothing Democratic Congress have led to the emergence of issues such as combating illegal immigration and providing tax relief to working families and will ultimately play to Republicans’ advantage next year,”

Give me a break. “Wildly unpopular do nothing Congress“? The Republicans are the ones obstructing getting things done. And President Bush’s vetoes since the Democrats gained the majority are part of this strategy. The Republican strategy is to try to prevent the Democrats from passing significant legislation so that the Republicans can say it is the Democrats fault.

Look at what the Republicans do, not what they say. They are playing with right wing talk radio hype hoping Americans are easily deceived.

“Providing tax relief to working families” ? If you believe the Republicans are going to do this you sure didn’t understand what was happening when they controlled Congress. Tell me how the Republicans, by preventing the repeal of the oil industries special tax breaks, and as a result giving $13 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry, is going to help working families.

The Republicans fought fuel efficiency legislation for cars and trucks all the way. The Democratic sponsored and passed bill according to the Environment News Service “is expected to save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day and save consumers some $22 billion in 2020. Proponents say it will also make a significant dent in U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, equivalent to taking some 60 million cars off the road. ”

Thank you Democrats!
The Environmental News Service  noted that the Democratic passed legislation also

“…tightens energy efficiency standards for government buildings as well as for consumer appliances and products.
“People underestimate efficiency, but today household appliances, lighting and electronics use up to two-thirds of energy in households,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat. “By requiring these new standards for manufacture of these products, we will save over 40,000 megawatts of energy. That is the same amount of electricity used in 19 states today.”

Thank you Democrats!

Comments Off on Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Economy, Energy, Environment, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , ,

Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

Posted on September 27th, 2007 | Comments Off on Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

The headline on an article in the New Times today reads, “Verizon Rejects Text Messaging From an Abortion Rights Group.” Verizon has teamed up with the political philosophy of the Chinese Government in saying it has the right to block “controversial or unsavory text messages”.

Verizon has rejected a request by Naral Pro-Choice America to allow its customers to sign up to receive text messages. The New Times notes that the other major wireless carriers have allowed their customers to sign up to receive text messages.

Verizon, by refusing the request to set up the text messaging program, prevents all messaging by Naral – including those that for example ask someone to contact their US Senator to oppose pharmacists refusing to provide US approved birth control or opposing Bush’s global gag rule against birth control for the world’s poorest women.

What wasn’t clear from the article was how Verizon arrived at its decision that the Naral text messages were controversial. Does Verizon, or would it, also ban text messages from any Pro Life group then as a result of this decision? It was a blanket denial for Naral.

By its action Verizon is saying it has the right to censor any group it deems controversial. I wonder if Verizon had existed in the South in 1860 if they would have banned texting by any group opposing Slavery as this was surely controversial.

Or would they if they had existed in 1890 have opposed any groups advocating for the Right of Women to Vote as this was surely controversial then.

Entering the world of corporate censorship is pretty scary to say the least. It puts Verizon in the category of the form of censorship that China does, prohibiting the free exchange of ideas. Some of this censorship is self imposed by business like Goggle so they can do business in China. For example Goggle Blogoscoped found about 9% of a list of 10,000 commonly used words were self censored by Goggle from the Chinese, including words like democracy, democrat, democratic, political, politics, rights and repression.

Is the issue of gun control controversial in Verizon’s eyes? Would Verizon accept text messages from the National Rifle Association and ban those from Cease Fire? Or would it ban all messages from groups advocating or opposing any gun use issue.

What about a group sending out messages about the Iraq War? Will it accept messages from some political groups and not others or ban all messages by groups with a position on this controversial issue? What about the recent controversy over MoveOn.org and General Petraeus? Would it now ban text messaging from MoveOn.org but allow those of a group calling itself Swiftboat Veterans for Petraeus? I made up the swiftboat name and am not aware of such a group but how does Verizon as a private company intend to make decisions as to which organizations to censor and which issues are controversial?

The original question of Verizon banning Naral text messaging actually has a swiftboating analogy. The company, Creative Response Concepts , that produced the swiftboat ads against Kerry is actually involved in the abortion /”Pro Life” issue, as AlterNet reports in a post entitled “Swiftboaters Recruited to Push Abstinence”

Creative Design Concepts has been hired involved by the National Abstinence Education Association to run a public relations campaign supporting abstinence only education policies. Does Verizon’s rejection of Naral’s controversial text messages also mean that the National Abstinence Education Association and Creative Response Concepts are also prohibited from using Verizon’s text messaging program or would Verizon allow them to do so if they wanted to.

Verizon has created a huge public relations blunder and in fact has now contributed greatly to the rationale for net neutrality. As the NY Times notes


“The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.
“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”


OK I am a Verizon user and so is my family. I am going to take Verizon at their word saying that they not accept message programs from groups that may be seen as “controversial or unsavory to any of our users” I am sure I am not alone in saying that I as a user find the Republican Party’s agenda for America offensive and I find the Iraq War offensive. So please , Verizon, do not allow any group that supports the Republican Party or the Iraq War to set up a text messaging program. I do not consider the Democratic Party controversial so please allow any Democratic organization to text. Thanks for listening and responding.

Addendum: For the record, according to AlterNet, the Swift Boat Ad Group, “Creative Response Concepts’ other clients have included the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Discovery Institute (a Seattle-based think tank that promotes “intelligent design” creationism), Regnery Publishing (a conservative publisher with David Limbaugh, David Horowitz, and Oliver North among their authors’ list), the Coalition for Patient Choice (a group advocating against managed care reforms, and which includes the conservative Eagle Forum as a member), the Media Research Center (a conservative media watchdog organization which recently honored Rush Limbaugh with the “Buckley Award for Media Excellence”), and a group called USA Next (which was formed as an alternative to the “liberal activism” of the AARP).”

Update – As reported on ClickZ this afternoon Verizon has reversed itself and now will allow text messages from Naral Pro Choice America. Naral issued a press release noting that over 20,000 messages protesting Verizon’s action were sent to Verizon in just 2 hours..

 

Comments Off on Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

Posted in Democrats, free speech

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Washington Policy Center’s Nonpartisan Joke

Posted on September 26th, 2007 | Comments Off on The Washington Policy Center’s Nonpartisan Joke

So how many Republicans can you invite to your Annual Dinner to speak and still call yourself nonpartisan? If you’re the free market right wing Washington Policy Center, its as many as you want. Because the joke is on anyone who believes the Washington Policy Center is really nonpartisan.

This year’s guest speaker is Jeb Bush – a REPUBLICAN, the President’s brother and a former Governor of Florida. He will be in Seattle tomorrow for the WPC’s Annual Dinner.

In 2006 it was conservative columnist George Will and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee – a REPUBLICAN now running for President.

In 2005 it was turncoat former Democratic Georgia Senator Zell Miller – who backed REPUBLICAN George Bush for President and who spoke at the REPUBLICAN National Convention
and former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn – a REPUBLICAN

Before that the Washington Policy Center says that Past Dinner honorees included:

Colorado Governor Bill Owens – A REPUBLICAN
former NY City Mayor Rudy Giuliani,- a REPUBLICAN now running for President
Karen Hughes – President Bush’s former speechwriter – a REPUBLICAN
Steve Forbes – twice a REPUBLICAN candidate for President
former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating – a REPUBLICAN

If you believe Zell Miller breaks the Republican label mold, then the joke’s on you.

Comments Off on The Washington Policy Center’s Nonpartisan Joke

Posted in Republicans, Right Wing

Tagged , ,

Republican Senators in Dire Straits in 2008 Elections

Posted on September 2nd, 2007 | Comments Off on Republican Senators in Dire Straits in 2008 Elections

Republicans face a bleak prospect in next year’s US Senate elections. Senator Larry Craig’s resignation added to what was already shaping up to be a daunting task. Craig’s situation just contributed a little more to an already tarnished Republican image that just got a little tougher to try to turn around. And it puts into play another state, that while Republican leaning, has elected strong Democrats in the past like Cecil Andrus and Frank Church.

The Republican’s problem starts with the reality that they have to defend 22 seats in 2008 while the Democrats are only defending 12 seats. And with the Iraq War and Bush’s ineptitude in running the government at a low ebb, they need to win 23 of the 34 seats up in the Senate to regain control.

Republicans are running in 4 states that went for Kerry over Bush in 2004 – Oregon, Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire

Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia who is 80 decided this last week to not run for re-election. This brings the state of Virginia into play for the Democrats, where ex-Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat who left office with an 80% approval rating, is considering running for the seat.
In Colorado another open seat exists with Republican Senator Wayne Allard retiring. As the Rocky Mountain News reported, the Republicans actually set his retirement up with the

“promise he made in 1996 to serve no more than two U.S. Senate terms.
The term limits pledge was a relic of the so-called “Republican Revolution” of the 1994 election, when the GOP swept to power promising to change the ways of Washington.”

In a close election in 2002 Allard renewed his pledge. “I’m term-limited,” Allard said in reaction. “That has always been my position. I’ve always said I believe in limiting my term. I’ve stipulated in past campaigns that I believe in term limits, and I’ve never wavered on it.”

As the Washington Post reported

Beyond Idaho and Virginia, the field looks barren for Republicans, GOP campaign aides conceded. NRSC fundraising has been weak, and Republicans appear to have only two real Democratic targets next year, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Johnson’s slow recovery from a brain hemorrhage has impeded Republicans from going on the attack.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report on Wednesday rated the Colorado seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard as a tossup, but the state has been trending Democratic. Anti-war sentiments are turning some voters away from the GOP, imperiling the re-election prospects of Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, John Sununu, R-N.H., Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

The Craig scandal is only the latest issue to demoralize the Republican Party, and new wild cards keep springing up, such as an FBI raid on a vacation home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and questions about the role that Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in Albuquerque. Democratic surrogates in labor-backed groups have even been attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The Cook Report considers those three seats and the Idaho seat “likely Republican,” but if the GOP is forced to spend money defending them, it would siphon funds from races where the money would be badly needed. As of June 30, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had $20.4 million on hand, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee had $5.8 million in its bank account.”

Another state that could come into play for democrats is Nebraska. Republican Chuck Hagel has been rumored to be considering retiring. If he does, former Democratic Senator and Governor Bob Kerrey is thought to be very interested in running.

Lots can change in 14 months but it’s all going in the wrong direction for the Republicans right now. It’s probably there bad karma coming back to get them. It was laughable to listen to listen to Senator John Ensign on the George Stephanopoulos show on Sunday. He is heading up the Republican Senators’ election effort.

Ensign said the public wants to elect Senators that “put country before party”. Well there’s one strike against the Republicans. Then he said it was “time to end partisan bickering” That’s two strikes. The third strike was when he said “we need health care we can afford.” That’s not the Republicans. They were the guys that didn’t do it when they controlled both houses and the Presidency. People aren’t dumb. The Republicans are the ones who gave a bonanza to the drug companies at the expense of the public with their corporate welfare drug package that was Medicare Part D. What a joke.

The Republicans are in for more tough times ahead. They are trying to spin it that the country’s problems are the Democrat’s fault. Congress is working under the Democrats now . But our problems are the legacy of a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress. And the American public knows that. There’s nothing more disingenuous than listening to Republicans talk about partisan bickering and inaction. That’s their legacy, not the Democrats.

Comments Off on Republican Senators in Dire Straits in 2008 Elections

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

Tagged , , , ,

Grassroots Democrats Missing in Action on Internet for August 21, 2007 Primary

Posted on August 23rd, 2007 | 1 comment

If you were hoping to find insight and inspiration on the Internet from local Washington State grassroots Democrats for the August 21, 2007 Primary you were bound to be disappointed. A close look at the websites of the local Democratic County and Legislative District organizations right before the Primary was disappointing to say the least.

The local grassroots Democratic groups were looked at first for how well they alerted people visiting their websites about the Primary. A second point of comparison was whether the organizations were using their websites to gear up for the Feb. 2008 Caucus and Presidential Primary next year. These are just a little over 5 months away.

The first step in evaluating the Grassroots Democratic organizations was to check whether or not they even had a website. The list of websites used was taken from the list on the Washington State Democrats website . Out of 39 county Democratic organizations, 11 (28%) did not have a website. Out of 49 Democratic Legislative District organizations in the state, 19 (39%) did not have websites.

Here is a summary of what was found when looking at the Democratic websites.

Washington State County Democratic organizations:

Washington counties – 39
county Democratic organizations with websites – 28 (72%)
August 21 Primary date mentioned- 10 on first page + 2 more in calender = 12 (31%)
counties with primary endorsements posted – 5 (13%) King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, Whatcom
number including a link to endorsed candidates – 4 (10%)
counties listing Feb. 9, 2008 Caucus date – 3 (8%)
counties listing Feb. 19, 2008 Presidential Primary date – 3 (8%)
county Democratic websites with links to Presidential candidates – 6 (15%)

Washington State Legislative District organizations:

Legislative districts –49
Legislative district organizations with websites – 30 (61%)
August 21 Primary mentioned – 7 on first page + 6 more in calender = 13 (27%)
Legislative District organizations with Primary endorsements posted – 12 (24%)
number including a link to endorsed candidates – 4 (8%)
Legislative Districts listing Feb. 9, 2008 Caucus date – 6 (12%)
Legislative District organizations listing Feb. 19, 2008 Presidential Primary date – 2 (4%)
Legislative District websites with links to Presidential candidates – 4 (8%)

To be fair 5 counties did not hold a primary. Those counties are Asotin, Ferry, Garfield, San Juan, and Wahkiakum. But that still leaves 34 counties that did hold a primary election.

Why is website presence in a campaign important? Googling on “Democratic endorsements Washington August 21, 2007 Primary” yielded the following results on the first 2 pages:

MajorityRulesBlog
47th Leg District Democrats
Lefty Blogs – Metropolitan Democratic Club
SEAMEC 2007 endorsements
47th District Democrats
the Stranger
King County Democrats
Wash Fed of State Employees

Googling on “Washington State Primary Endorsements” yielded:

MajorityRulesBlog
Sierra Club (MajorityRulesBlog post)
the Stranger
36th Distrct Democrats
LeftyBlogs
Washington State Women’s Political Caucus
SEAMEC endorsements

Googling on “King County Democrats 2007 endorsements” yielded:

King County Democrats
34th District Democrats
47th District Democrats
MajorityRulesBlog
Peter Sherman’s website
46th District Democrats
Gael Tartelton’s website
Jean Godden’s website
the Stranger

Having endorsements on the Democratic websites and candidates receiving endorsements and listing them on their website drove traffic to these sites. This gives additional exposure to the Democratic Party and their endorsed candidates.

By way of comparison, googling on “”Washington State Republicans 2007 Primary” produced one relevant Republican hit to a right wing blog at the bottom of the second page. Typing in “Washington State Republicans 2007 Primary Endorsements” yielded little of the Republicans but brought up the following in the first two pages:

Washington State Stonewall Democrats
MajorityRulesBlog
LeftyBlogs
Washington Federation of State Employees
the Stranger
47th District Democrats
BlogNet News
WashBlog

Despite the lack of a strong internet effort by the Democrats in making and listing endorsements, where it was done it obviously had an impact on visibility of the Democrats.

There is a reason that the Republican presence is so minor in the google searches. Despite the untapped potential of the Democrats in using the web to get exposure and use the internet for organizing , they were far ahead of Republican Party efforts.

The Washington State Republican website has only county organizations. There are no Republican legislative district organizations listed.

The Republicans had only 15 county websites listed for the 39 counties in Washington State. And they seemed to be even less aware that a Primary was occurring. Only 4 listed the August 21, 2007 Primary date on their website and only 2 had endorsements. Regarding the Presidential Campaign only 2 had a link to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates.

Just in terms of number of sites, the Democrat’s 58 grassroots organization sites outnumbered the Republicans by almost 4 to 1. Now if they can just get some web savy and get links up for the General Election in November with endorsements listed and links to endorsed candidates they can have a much stronger presence on the web.

And they also need to copy the Democratic State Party’s Road to the White House Presidential candidate’s links and add them to their webpages. Island County Democrats have links with pictures of the candidates which is a nice touch. So do the Spokane Democrats. and the Walla Walla County Democrats. Whitman County, Thurston County and Mason County are the only other counties that currently have links to the Democratic Presidential candidates.

And I could only find links available on the websites of the 1st , 6th, 44th and 45th District Democrats.

One additional element that the Democratic organizations should add to their websites is the free fundraising link for Democrats by ActBlue. ActBlue is set up to raise funds for all the Democratic Presidential candidates. John Edwards for President, for example, using the ActBlue website has raised $3,599,983 from 44,058 donors.

MajorityRulesBlog recently set up an ActBlue page for all the Presidential candidates. You can click on the link to see what one could look like for the Democratic organizations. Each organization would get exposure and credit for funds raised for the candidates.

1 Comment

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Media

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Can Democrats Win the White House without Washington and Oregon?

Posted on August 13th, 2007 | 2 comments

Republicans, in fear of being sucked under by the anti-Bush whirlpool, are looking desperately for ways to win the White House in 2008.

Republicans in California think the answer is to change the rules for next year’s Presidential election. Their strategy is to change California’s statewide winner take all primary with its 55 electoral votes to one allocating the votes based on who wins individual Congressional District votes.

Except for Maine (4 electoral votes) and Nebraska (5 electoral votes) states currently allocate their electoral college votes by a winner take all process statewide. Each state is allocated 2 votes for their 2 Senators and 1 vote for each Representative.

Currently 19 of California’s Congressional Districts are held by Republicans. In 2004 John Kerry won the statewide vote over Bush by 54% to 44%. However Bush won majorities in 22 of California’s 53 Congressional Districts.

Changing how California allocates its electoral votes would be the equivalent to transferring the combined vote of Washington (11 electoral votes)and Oregon (7 electoral votes) to the Republican column. Remember Ohio’s 20 electoral votes – we’re talking about a sizable impact if the Republicans proposed change in California is successful.

According to the LA Times a California Republican group is pushing the “Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative” for the June 2008 California Primary ballot. If passed by voters it would change significantly change the 2008 Presidential election.

“We’ve hit the mother lode of political interest,” said Republican consultant Kevin Eckery, part of the group pushing the Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative.

The measure was written by attorney Thomas Hiltachk, whose Sacramento firm represents the California Republican Party. Also backing the initiative is campaign strategist Marty Wilson, a fundraiser last year for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and now for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Neither Schwarzenegger nor any of the presidential candidates has signed on to the effort. Nor is there confirmed financial backing; Eckery said the fundraising to begin this week is aimed at getting $300,000 to $500,000 for polling and other preliminary work before signature-gathering. Collecting the necessary 434,000 signatures could cost $2 million.

Proponents are optimistic that backers of the presidential candidates will ante up. Though there are federal limits to donations to candidates, California law places no bar on the amount donors can spend on initiatives.

Can California do this? Yes they can. Each individual state and not the Federal Constitution determines how electoral votes are determined. Hiltachk has filed the text of the Presidential Election Reform Initiative with the California Secretary of State on July 17, 2007. He has paid his $200 filing fee and is awaiting the assignment of a ballot tile and summary. He filed in the name of “Californians for Equal Representation” based in Sacramento, California.

Of course no similar effort is slated for decidedly Republican states like Texas which has 34 electoral votes. Altering the rules in specific Democratic states like California to benefit Republican Presidential ambitions is totally in character for Republicans and is a serious threat to Democrats in 2008.

You only need to look at two recent instances where Republicans used the legislative and electoral process to change rules and commonly accepted legal procedures to benefit Republicans. One was the Republican recall campaign of Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 2003 which resulted in Davis’s recall and the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor.

The New Yorker in an article entitled Votescam by Hendrick Hertzberg in fact reports that California Republican Hiltachk was involved in the recall effort that put Schwarzenegger into office and that he is “Governor Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters.”

The other was the effort by Texas Republicans with the aid of Congressman Tom DeLay to redraw the Congressional District boundaries in Texas to gain Republican seats in Congress

Texas Republicans and Delay did their controversial redistricting action after they won control of the Texas Legislature in 2002. In 2004 the Congressional District numbers shifted dramatically. A 17/15 Democrat advantage changed to a 21/11 Republican advantage. In 2006 the Republicans still had a 19/13 advantage.

Distributing electoral votes to winners of Congressional Districts rather than winner take all state votes would seem at first look to be fair if every state had the same rules. But that would clearly not be the case if California alone shifted the way it proportions its electoral votes. The end result would be to shift electoral votes to the Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. Its like spotting the Republicans some 20 electoral votes before the counting even starts.

Would the proposal solve the problem of states clearly being Republican or Democratic and being ignored by the candidates because the outcome is not really in doubt? Actually it would probably make it even worse. You just need to look at the last Congressional campaign in 2006. National attention and money was focused into only 30 -40 battleground Congressional districts.

Would candidates really campaign all over Ohio for example? No – they would concentrate their resources in the much smaller geographical areas of contested battleground Congressional Districts up for grabs in Ohio. They would not be very smart if they spent their time in Congressional Districts that are clearly Republican or Democratic and unlikely to change.

Here in Washington State the biggest spending Congressional race was between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert in the 8th C.D. Not much attention was paid to Congressman Jim McDermott’s race in Seattle. If electoral votes were allocated by Congressional District, Presidential candidates would go to Bellevue, not Seattle or Everett or Yakima.

Another alternative being considered by some states is a movement to elect the President by popular vote. Such a bill was before the Washington State Legislature this last session. As proposed the legislation would not go into effect until states with a majority of electoral votes (270) passes the legislation. Maryland is the first state to pass such legislation.

See also:
Newsweek “A Red Play for the Golden State”
Sacramento Bee “Electoral System Initiative worries Dems”

2 Comments

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Initiatives, Republicans

Tagged , , , , ,

More Republican Campaign Legislation

Posted on September 28th, 2006 | Comments Off on More Republican Campaign Legislation

Republicans continue their cynical game playing the terrorism card in an attempt to get voter support for their candidates in the upcoming election. They continue to manufacture legislation to generate votes that they can use in attack ads challenging their opponents.

The terrorism game for Republicans emerges as an attempt to draw public attention away from the failures of the Bush Administration and Republican controlled Congress in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House in a 253 to 168 vote approved Bush’s bill for interrogating and trying terrorist suspects. Immediately the Republican Majority Leader Boehner said “It’s outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country.” So the bill passes and he attacks the Democrats?

But what was at stake? The bill passed by the House, H.R.6166 , is actually entitled ‘The Military Commissions Act of 2006. It deals with setting up new military commissions to try so called “illegal enemy combatants”. Here’s part of what the New York says in their editorial Rushing off a Cliff”:

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of  “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The President could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret – there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based in the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable – already a contradiction in terms – and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

It is politically motivated legislation that tells the world we really don’t care about the safeguards our founders wrote into the Constitution. I urge you to read the bill yourself.

Here are some quotes (highlighting is mine) and issues I saw.

I could find no mention of how quickly one needed to be charged with a crime, yet a specific time period, 20 days, is all that’s allotted for an appeal.

The definition of who can be tried by these commissions is very broad. The bill is also retroactive to cover any event in the past.

The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means–
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

And while the judge presiding has to have a judicial background, the people who sit on the commission and vote need not be. “Any commissioned officer of the armed forces on active duty is eligible to serve on a military commission under this chapter.”

“Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization”

” …hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission…”

“The military judge may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings under paragraph (1) only upon making a specific finding that such closure is necessary to–
`(A) protect information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities;…”

This bill is being pushed now to meet the political agenda and needs of the Republican Party and because this is the time Bush is most likely to get the least objection. I agree with the New York Times that it is full of bad policy and law for our country.

Comments Off on More Republican Campaign Legislation

Posted in Congress, Elections, Republicans

Tagged , , , ,

Time for Washington Secretary of State Reed to Step In!

Posted on September 16th, 2006 | Comments Off on Time for Washington Secretary of State Reed to Step In!

It is totally ridiculous that 10% or more of Washington state primary ballots for partisan races can be invalid. It smacks of incompetence and neglect both at the county and state level.

As reported this week in the Seattle PI and in the Seattle Times a sampling of Snohomish County’s ballots were showing up to 20% invalid for partisan races. Other counties absentee ballots were running at 10% invalid in Pierce County, 7% in Clark County, 11% in Clallam County, 5% in King County and 12% in Chelan.

The problem is that 25 of Washington’s 39 counties use a consolidated mail in ballot for the primary in which all candidates are listed. Looking at King County’s ballot I can see why voters may be confused. Maybe it’s because the layout and use of words is confusing. Did no one ever test the ballot design to see if people understood it or if it was clear? Were problems in the previous two primary elections merely ignored even though they had a high invalid rate?

The ballot is divided into lots of boxes. The section that says “PARTY PREFERENCE” is in a box by itself asking you to “vote for one” , then has an oval for for you to fill in for DEMOCRATIC or REPUBLICAN.

A message that says “If you do not select a party preference or if you select more than one party, your votes for partisan contests will not count.” is in a separate box above it. There is also a box below it saying your” selection is private and no record of your choice is maintained.”

Design wise this is very cluttered. And then you are asked for your party preference. Why not something simpler like “Pick the party primary you want to vote in.” or “Mark here which political party primary you want to vote in.” The word preference is not very strong and is actually confusing. A Webster’s College Dictionary says preference means the act of preferring. The word prefer is first defined as “to set or hold before or above other persons and things in estimation; like better: I prefer school to work.”

So I am being asked to estimate which party I like better? What if I like neither party. Is this an opinion poll question? Or is this some kind of intelligence test to see if I can make a decision based on multiple meanings for a word and connect things said in different boxes before I fill in an oval.

And to top it off the vote for “PARTY PREFERENCE” does not have a colored section above it like 2 party sections do and also the nonpartisan races and measure. But a block below it in a colored block it says “For Democratic Preference Start Voting Here . Did you notice something peculiar. Namely the words – “Start Voting Here”

The Bottom Line: With such a high rate of invalid ballots and with the possible confusion, I urge the Secretary of State to show some leadership, and for his office to direct that in all cases where voters have clearly only marked for candidates in one party or the other, that they ignore the confusing “preference” designation and bad ballot design and count those votes.

It is not acceptable to run an election and have that many ballots discounted. The question is, can the Secretary of State put aside his bias for open primaries and opposition to party designations and do the right thing. After all it is his job to insure that voters votes count. Votes should not be tossed out because of poor design and oversight on absentee ballots on a problem that they have been aware of now for two previous elections.

Comments Off on Time for Washington Secretary of State Reed to Step In!

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Republicans

Tagged , , , ,