vibinc

In Defense of Vic

Steve Ross — Sat, 12 May 2007 15:31:00 +0000

I would like to take this opportunity to defend Vic Snyder from my dear friends LWC and Freedonian.

As a former constituent of AR-02, I have seen the leadership and vision of Congressman Snyder first hand. Vic is a great representative. He’s not flashy, he’s not sexy, but he’s solid. There are a lot of good reasons to not “primary” Vic over this one vote. My list follows below:

1. Vic cannot be successfully attacked from the left. No one in their right mind would try to run any campaign against Snyder from the left. Since his election in 1996, Vic has been characterized as a bleeding heart liberal in every single general election. Admittedly, this characterization is false, Snyder is a left leaning moderate, but for Arkansas, Snyder is a liberal. Any primary campaign against him from the left would be doomed to failure in AR-02.

2. Vic is Squeaky-clean. If ever there were a representative that embodies all that a true steward of the people should be, it’s Vic Snyder. For 10 years he has been a measured, insightful, and scandal-free representative for the people of AR-02.

3. Vic is no Blue Dog. There are 42 self-identified “Blue Dogs” in the House, and Vic ain’t one of them. Any potentially successful primary candidate against Vic would have to come at him from the right. Is that what we want?

4. Does the punishment fit the “crime”? One vote of a bill doomed to failure in the Senate and an assured veto from the President should not mean that Vic needs to be primaried. I disagree with his decision, and have written him to find out WTF, but if we held everyone to the “one vote and you’re out” rule, we would have a Republican majority FOREVER.

Finally, here are some facts and figures, about this vote.

30 of 42 “Blue Dogs” voted against HR2237 representing 51% of the Democrats who voted against it and 12% of the total noes.

Full support of the Blue Dogs would not have carried the measure. That would have taken 42 of the noes.

The measure could have been carried had the “Blue Dogs” and the “New Democrats” come together to pass. 13 “New Democrats” of 44 voted against. Vic Snyder is a member of the “New Democrat” coalition. Other New Democrats voting against include: Barrow,  Bean,  Berkley, Chandler, Etheridge, Herseth, McIntyre, Melancon, Moore, Schwartz, Scott, and Udall.

Finally, So, you wanna primary Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer? Good luck with that.

I have written Vic to find out what I can about his vote. I’ll report if I get an answer. My point is, this is one vote on an issue that will take 292 in the House and 67 in the Senate to become law. I understand your passion, and agree that many in the list of 59 need to be primaried, however, this needs to be done on a case by case basis, not just on one vote. Remember, it’s about the whole block of cheese, not just a slice.

Ethics Reform in TN

Steve Ross — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:30:00 +0000

Last week the TN ledge sent HB1874/SB1264 to the Governor for a signature. The bill specifically prohibits any person convicted of a felony in their capacity as an elected official from running for office. I call it the John Ford Bill.

Since the whole Tennessee Waltz thing hit, and the Ed Ford/Rickey Peete thing landed, I’ve often wondered why the hell anyone would trust a person convicted of BRIBERY with a public office. Peete still got elected, AFTER his conviction several years ago. I don’t get it. This law, if signed, removes the possibility of the voter being more stupid than normal.

Another bill, HB1757/SB0518 sponsored by my Rep in the House (DeBerry – 90) was sent to the Governor earlier last week would authorize Shelby County to “bring its administrative and legislative offices and employees within the scope of regulation by the Tennessee ethics commission, as if such officials were state officials” if we’ll foot the bill for the additional oversight cost. Why the hell wasn’t this already the case? Does the state not have supremacy over the county and city? Another no brainer.

So far, my favorite is the draft ethics code for the City of Memphis released back in March. It reads like a poorly translated VCR instruction manual. The new rules are 44 pages of basic common sense, just what the city code needed. I presume that Ed Ford and Rickey Peete will recuse themselves from the vote, whenever it actually happens…for obvious reasons.

All of these measures are a step in the right direction, but only address one side of the problem. The other side is that people will continue to suspect unethical behavior by various elected officials until the elected officials do something to prove their innocence. This is not a court of law, but a court of public opinion, juried by a group of people who generally misunderstand or hold suspect, much of what goes on in government and as such put highly emotional, if not irrational standards of conduct upon their elected officials. In some well-documented cases this skepticism is justified. As a result, government officials should go the extra mile to maintain some level of sqeakyness, if for no other reason than to remove the question from the public psyche. But so many don’t. Why should they? We’re not REALLY paying attention as a whole.

Coming Soon!...Transparency, it's not just for ziploc bags anymore.

Police Keep Mayor from Crime Meeting

Steve Ross — Thu, 17 May 2007 16:23:00 +0000

A mob of 150 citizens overtook the Memphis City Council meeting on Tuesday. Citing poor law enforcement in the face of a burgeoning crime epidemic that is sweeping the city, the largest audience to greet the council in years demanded answers from the largely impotent body.

Surprised by the sudden interest of a typically apathetic populace, the City Council responded courageously, shifting blame from themselves to the strangely absent Mayor, Willie Herenton.

In an honest nod to the impotence of the City Council, Councilman E.C. Jones noted, “These people came to City Hall asking ‘Where is the Mayor?’ They didn’t ask for the City Council.”

From his undisclosed location, atop one of the Memphis skyline atrocities that somehow pre-dates his administration, the Mayor released this statement, “What do you mean people went to a City Council meeting? Awww shit!”

Mayor Herenton was encouraged to miss the meeting by political advisor / Police Director Larry Goodwin. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Herenton noted, “Had I gone in there, I knew at least one of the council persons would have used that as an opportunity to politicize a dreadful event. And for some self-serving politician to use that occasion to politicize crime, certainly I would have walked into that.”

A Herenton spokesman acknowledged that the Mayor was looking for other occasions to politicize crime. As reported by the Commercial Appeal, an arm of the Herenton re-election effort, last year Herenton asked for 500 new cops, paid for by higher property taxes. The City Council rejected that initiative citing the expense of relocating suitable candidates from other municipalities.

Still, all involved agree that something must be done to stem the tide of crime in the Bluff City, though few agree on the solution. Until such a solution is found, Herenton advises citizens to, “keep your doors and windows locked, and for God’s sake, stay away from Council meetings, they’re full of angry mobs of people!”

The inspiration for this post can be found here.

Corruption, meet Transparency…Transparency, meet….now where did he go?

Steve Ross — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:42:00 +0000

I’m the kind of person that’s always looking for a solution. Solutions aren’t nearly as sexy as problems…mostly because solutions can’t exist without problems, but when problems are presented, I find myself focusing on the solution. It just feels right. Bitching about the problem, while occasionally entertaining, just gets my blood boiling. Looking for a solution is calming…or something like that.

Last year, before the Democrats really started getting any traction on the whole “Culture of Corruption” meme (I’m still not sure HOW much ACTUAL traction it got, but they’re running with it) I started thinking about solutions to the perception of corruption, real or imagined.

Corruption is a tricky thing (knee slap). There are three kinds of corruption: Real Corruption, Real but un-provable corruption, and Imagined corruption. All three of these “forms” of corruption exist in the world today in some form or another.

Obviously, “imagined” corruption can be as damaging as the other two, but goes more to an individual’s, or group of individuals perception of the “corrupt” official. Imagined corruption is more about the predisposition of the accuser than the actions of the accused. Still, in many cases, no manner of rational or logical argument can disprove “imagined” corruption to the accuser, so it has to be considered. Don’t believe me…remember, Hillary Clinton allegedly “killed” Vince Foster back in ‘94. In short, “imagined” corruption is the stuff of tin foil hats…headgear that is getting more and more fashionable every day.

The other two forms of corruption aren’t nearly as fun to work with, because essentially they are real. These are individuals who should be held to account, in one way or another, for their misdeeds. These are law enforcement issues as much as anything else. Still, the single best defense against corruption of any flavor is transparency.

The handy dandy thesaurus on my computer here gives these synonyms for transparency: Openness, accountability, straightforwardness, candor. I think that all of these synonyms work quite well, but accountability is my favorite. “Required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible. Can anyone argue against this idea as an operational condition for government at ANY level, be it Federal, State, or local? Doesn’t sound good to you, may I suggest Turkmenistan?

Accountability, that’s what the disaffected populace yearns for…that or someone other than themselves to blame, and that’s precisely what our elected officials seem all too reluctant to provide.

Why the reluctance? Surely none of our representatives in government want to be portrayed as corrupt! Perhaps, but I tend to believe that it goes to two real issues: paternalism and fear. Paternalism is easy, find me one able body that doesn’t want someone or something subordinate to them and I’ll show you a slobbering yellow lab with a tennis ball in it’s mouth. Fear is a bit more, yet less, complicated. You see, if everyone knew just how little one has to know to be a legislator, not a good one mind you, just a legislator, then the secret would be out that any half-wit with a misshapen rug, nice teeth, and a fresh facelift can be one. Look at Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). He’s the former chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that, in channeling his inner plumber, called the internets a “series of tubes”. See it ain’t THAT hard.

Folks, your secret’s safe with me.

If I may be serious for a moment though…and I may or may not…fear of losing power TRULY is the issue at hand here. Even paternalism is secondary to the fear that one may be voted insignificant by a consensus of their peers, or worse yet, people they perceive beneath them. THIS is why Republicans love to card minorities at the polls and slip from think tank to administration official to lobbyist to think tanker as seamlessly as a Victoria’s Secret bra.

You looked…perv.

Fear or no fear, perv or not, the issue here is accountability. For a moment, I would like you to think about yourself. Go on, think about yourself. No, not the weird zit on your back, or that strange way your eyebrow curls when you’re pondering the speed at which paint dries…Nope look inside. Now that you’re in there, sweep some of those cobwebs away. Damn it’s dusty up here. Now, think about the last time you took responsibility for something stupid you did, without any help from anyone else. At some point we all try to shift, skirt, or sneak ourselves out of taking responsibility for our actions.

Believe it or not, politicians are people too. They do the exact same stupid shit you do EVERYDAY, only bigger, and in front of the media, and a bunch of loudmouth staffers, and that douchebag that keeps following him/her around. Luckily for them, the only people paying attention are the press secretary and the douchebag, so they may or may not get by with it. Rinse and Repeat as necessary. Unchecked, it doesn’t take long for this behavior to become a habit. Over time, your inspirational leader transforms himself to just another common hack.

Who’s responsible for this? Well, of course the politician is responsible for their actions, but just like a parent shepherding a child through childhood, the weight of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the constituents who neither saw fit to check the power of this individual, nor replace him/her for not representing them effectively.

Didn’t like that answer did you?

The simple truth is that a representative democracy, like we have here in the United States, needs as many people as possible participating in order to function effectively. Participation is not just voting, though that is participation at it’s most base level. Participation is staying abreast of the issues that affect your community city, state, and the nation.

Sounds like a big job, huh?

No one’s saying you have to have intimate knowledge of every issue, just a passing knowledge that could become intimate should you feel the need. It’s simple accountability. It’s being responsible. It’s being an adult. It’s preserving the ideals of liberty, that grand mythology that has never truly come to full fruition, but that we should all continue to seek.

This is what our nation can be if we are willing to work for it. (humming America the Beautiful in my head) This is what we can become. We can stem the tide of corruption, real and imagined if we all just work together to hold our politician's feet to the fire. Are ya with me? Cool, I’m going to the bar. Have fun with that.

Blowback 'Mountin'

Steve Ross — Sat, 19 May 2007 15:00:00 +0000

I’m no big fan of Ron Paul, or his isolationist foreign policy ideals, but Representative Paul spouts some truth here, particularly around 3:30 where he starts talking about “blowback”.

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican voice of reason on our current situation in Iraq in the US House. Here is a speech from April 17th, 2007 where he discusses our current situation in Iraq.

Again, I’m no Ron Paul fanboy or anything, but the Democratic Congressional Leadership could learn a thing or two from his unvarnished honesty and forthrightness. We need to keep doing the right thing…working to bring the troops home.

This weekend, the House and Senate Majority Leadership is working to craft some sort of bill that would both fund the troops in Iraq, not get vetoed, and save face from the artificial May 31 deadline that Senator Reid foolishly put on passage.

We need to send them a message,

DO NOT CAVE IN.

The Congress has already sent the President a bill that would fund the troops. Since that time, the President has shown no willingness to negotiate in good faith.

Ok Mr. President, then here is the same damn bill, right back at ya. With the passage of the bill, needs to be an ALL OUT MEDIA BLITZ, “We have voted twice now, to fully fund the troops. Our support for the safety and welfare of our military service members deployed abroad is unquestionable. President Bush chose to veto the first effort. Mr. President, you chose your disastrous policy over the lives of our soldiers deployed in Iraq. Here's another chance to do the right thing.”

It’s that simple folks.

Please send the leadership as well as your Congressman, a note of support for continuing to do the right thing...DON’T CAVE!

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
PH. 202-225-4965

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
You can email him if you’re from Maryland 5th…here’s a zip code - 20770
202-225-4131

Majority Whip James Clyburn
202-225-3315

Deputy Whip John Lewis
202-225-3801

Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid
202-224-3542

Majority Whip Richard Durbin
202-224-2152

Senator Charles Schumer
202-224-6542

DO NOT BLINK (Updated)

Steve Ross — Tue, 22 May 2007 13:39:00 +0000

Since the House and Senate changed hands back in January, there has been some mounting tension between the legislative and executive branches of government. The Democratic “majority” has called people in to testify, passed rules that restrict Abramoffist lobbying tactics and probably some other things that I just can’t remember now.

One of the most satisfying things has to be the Gonzo hearings. Seriously, aside from the fact that the guy looks like a muppet, I have never seen more entertaining television that watching that little guy squirm in his pee stained pants and “not recall” anything.

Yeah, a lot about the past 4 months has been very satisfying. I wouldn’t trade it for anything but perhaps a Senate minus both Lieberman and McConnell, my most favorite douchebag Senators. But something’s happening. We’ve pushed, and pushed and now they’re pushing back. What will we do?

I liken this whole thing to training a dog to walk on a leash. Before you even put the dog on the leash you gotta make sure he understands who’s in charge. Who’s walking who, as it were. Sometimes that requires treats and such to reinforce good behavior, sometimes, it means a firm hand to scold the dog for disobedience. In any case, it requires the intestinal fortitude to do something that may not be in character, but that needs to happen.

The dog (our president) has been roaming free in the backyard for 6 years now pooping where he sees fit, demanding more food and water, damn the consequences. Now that dog is fat. That dog is spoiled. That dog feels entitled to all that he has amassed, and is going to fight damn hard to make sure he keeps as much of it as possible.

The dog is acting like he’s gonna bite. He may try to bite. He may feel that he’s won by biting, but the dog only wins when we relent. Once you’ve given a dog that power to lash out, with few or no consequences, the dog has learned something that takes a very long time to unlearn. The dog has learned that it has ultimate supremacy over you, not the other way around, and that while you have some of the cards, the dog can do what it wants to as long as it has this ace in the hole.

This is what’s happening on the Hill today. If we relent, if we let up, even for a second, we will have “trained THIS dog” that we don’t have the balls to stand up for what we believe. We will have shown our tails in deference to THIS dog, and will forever be relegated as THIS dog’s bitch, until a new dog comes to town. In everything we try to do, from Congressional subpoenas, to legislation, we will be cast in a subordinate light to THIS dog, if we relent.

This is why we have to stand strongly together. This is why we have to jerk the slack out of the leash and make the dog walk NEXT TO US instead of dragging us down the street. This is why we CANNOT BLINK right now.

Already, in the media, there are reports that the Democratic Majority is going to cave. I’m sure they are talking about it, because that’s one of our favorite topics of conversation…caving (not spelunking). Still, we need to make our voices heard, before we throw out the baby with the bath water. On Saturday, I put out a list of people to call/email asking them to stand firm. I have no way of knowing if anyone did that, but I’m going to ask again. If you care about the long term efficacy of the Democratic Majority in the Congress, you will encourage these leaders, as well as your representative to stand firm for what they believe in.

Thanks again.

UPDATE: They blinked, and in doing so, the Democratic Majority has handed the MINORITY a stunning victory on one of the very platforms that we won on in November. It's hard for me to understand, and harder for me to swallow, but unlike some of the "Kos kidz" I will not call for public humiliation or holding back of campaign contributions. Instead, let's see how it plays out. I'm very disappointed, but the only thing getting thrown out from me, right now, is the bath water.

Representative Steve Cohen
202-225-3265

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
PH. 202-225-4965

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
You can email him if you’re from Maryland 5th…here’s a zip code - 20770
202-225-4131

Majority Whip James Clyburn
202-225-3315

Deputy Whip John Lewis
202-225-3801

Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid
202-224-3542

Majority Whip Richard Durbin
202-224-2152

Senator Charles Schumer
202-224-6542

The Supplimental

Steve Ross — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:21:00 +0000

Before I start, I would like to take a moment to point out two Republicans that broke rank with their party to vote against the unconditional funding of the war. Those two members are, Ron Paul of Texas and John Duncan of Tennessee. I’ve never voted for a Republican in a Federal race in my life, and don’t see an instance where I ever would, but these gentlemen showed a level of independence and intestinal fortitude that the 86 members voting aye in the Democratic majority should take as an example. Despite my general disagreement with much that these gentlemen espouse, I think they deserve some credit.

Now to the meat…

The vote is recorded under House Roll Call #425. There were 86 members of the Democratic caucus that voted for the Iraq funding amendment. Of those, 52 are either members of the Hand Wringing Democrats or the DINO Coalition. I’m not going to waste any more time on these members. They have made their positions known by their membership in these groups. It is interesting to note that 23 New Democrats and 7 Blue Dogs did not vote for the supplemental (some of these Representatives are members of both groups).

There were 34 Democratic Representatives who voted for the supplemental that are not affiliated with either voting bloc. Of those 34, 8 are 1st termers. They are:

Altmire – PA
Boyda – KS
Carney – PA
Giffords – AZ
Kagen – WI
Sestak – PA
Space – OH
Walz – MN

In their own words…

Altmire - "We need a Congress that will fulfill its constitutional responsibility for oversight and accountability. Our troops were sent to war without the equipment they needed and Congress shortchanged veterans benefits even as a whole new generation of veterans has been created."

Boyda - “We don’t have the troops, and we don’t have the equipment,” she said. “We don’t have the option of staying the course. We’ve got to stop making decisions based on where we wish we were. We’re not there, and we need to be able to make decisions based on reality.” - The Joplin Globe

Carney – At least he’s consistent. Carney never ran on getting out of Iraq. Read this NYT article.

Giffords – There isn’t much on her campaign site specifically about Iraq funding except this press release from before the election:"While the courage of our troops embodies the best of America, the poor management of the war in Iraq embodies what is wrong with Washington today,” Giffords said. “We can’t simply ’stay the course.’ We need a Congress willing to ask the tough questions and an Administration willing to answer those questions in order to develop a plan for success.”

She’s getting hammered from the left and the right (mostly right, robo calls start today…it IS Arizona after all). Apparently, being the hottest candidate in ’06 doesn’t get you much slack.

Kagen – Kagen ran on ending the war, but was never in favor of defunding. Here’s his apology/excuse for his vote yesterday.

Sestak – From his website: "There is a prompt way out of Iraq, and I believe that failing to do so means significantly hurting our other, more important long term interests in the world. Contrary to the Bush Administration’s claims, Iraq is not the central front in terrorism. Rather it is a result of our leadership forgetting the age-old axiom that “successful generals win first, then they go to war.” In short, we did not adequately plan for that before we went into Iraq and we are still there because of it, without a realistic strategy out. The only way is to use our disengagement as the catalyst for Iraqis and other regional nations to accept their responsibilities for a relative peace. U.S. interests in the world do not include pouring endless amounts of our national treasure of lives and money into elusive, endless goals, when we have so much else to achieve in this world."

Guess he changed his mind...

Space – If cutting off your nose to spite your face is a political platform, this statement pretty much sums it up.:“As much as I would like to see all of the troops withdrawn immediately, we simply cannot abandon our efforts in Iraq. We owe it to the law abiding people of Iraq who want freedom and democracy, and more than anything, we owe it to the thousands of U.S. troops that have sacrificed so much.”
Sacrificed so much that we need to sacrifice more to finish what?

Walz – Apparently he doesn’t need an issues page, but if changing the priorities really was one of his commercials methinks the coach/teacher/soldier protests too much.

I’m not going to harp on this too much, these guys are new but still should know better. It’s interesting to me that so much weight was put on some of these new members (particularly Sestak and Giffords) and their impact on the Democratic Majority when the other 33 Democratic freshmen saw fit to remain consistent with the positions that helped get them elected. It’s also interesting if not counterintuitive to me that while 7 of them were for either redeployment, removal from Iraq, or some kind of increased Congressional oversight they still chose to vote for THIS supplemental.

While it’s disappointing that these 8 members voted against the interests of the people and the soldiers deployed in Iraq, their 8 votes wouldn’t have changed anything. In fact, based on their districts, and their backgrounds (4 have military experience) it’s not that far out of character. Additionally, because these are new Representatives, perhaps there’s some reluctance to really stick their necks out there until they have another election under their belts.

These are not excuses, just things I think about when wanting to wail on someone. They played it “safe” in conventional wisdom/MSM terms, but it still can come back to haunt them.

The real villains here are the 78 more experienced members whose votes would have made the difference, and who should have known better.

I’ll get to them in my next post.

The Enablers

Steve Ross — Mon, 28 May 2007 17:24:00 +0000

In life, we have to make a lot of decisions. Some of them are easy, others tug at us both emotionally and intellectually, nearly ripping us apart. One way or the other, we have to make a decision, even if that decision is to not make a decision.

Our Representatives in Congress are selected by us to be our “deciders” in the legislative branch. We entrust upon them, the power to shape and pass the laws and funding and rules by which our republic survives. Not making a decision is not an option in most cases for these individuals. Indecision is one of the most unattractive characteristics a representative can have.

Last week, 86 Democratic Representatives in the House, and 38 in the Senate voted to fund the war in Iraq with no real restrictions or oversight on the Executive. In my last post, I highlighted some of the freshmen Representatives who voted for the funding. This time I’ll just list the Democratic Freshmen Senators: Brown (OH), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT), and Webb (VA). Sherrod Brown (RI) was the ONLY Democratic Freshman in the Senate to vote against the funding.

Unlike some of their House counterparts, these 5 newly elected Senators ran specifically on a platform of providing checks and balances in the wake of 6 years of rubber stamp Congresses. Senator Webb was one of the most vocal critics of the handling of the war during the election, proclaiming that the military could only win the war, diplomacy, that tool so oft neglected by this Administration, was the only way to win the peace.

Senator Webb’s vote on this issue is, perhaps, most disheartening of the 5. A military man, who served his country in so many ways, one would think that Webb would see the error of providing a blank check to an Administration hell bent on winning a war that has already been “won” but losing the peace through our incoherent, if not incompetent foreign policy.

How long can we, as a nation, continue to enable this President the luxury of unrestricted funding for this “long war” that has no foreseeable end? How long can we tacitly agree with this definition of “the struggle” before some mark of progress is demanded? These Representatives and Senators seem to feel that this can go on forever, all while talking out of the side of their mouth that it must end soon. Which is it?

Last November the American people spoke with one voice, handing stunning defeats to 6 incumbent Senators and scores of Representatives. The message, “fix this now!” These 13 freshmen along with the other 111 Democrats who voted for this unconditional funding, ignored that mandate, and in doing so, strengthened the long held belief that Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to effectively govern. Their decision to “put off” any real action until September, whereupon they will most likely cave in again, has helped prop up an Administration who currently enjoys a 30% approval rating. This decision flies in the face of a populace where 63% of the people believe that timetables, timetables that were included in the original funding bill vetoed by the President, are the proper course of action.

How will the American people respond to this dismissal of their will? How can anyone believe that their voice was heard in November? How will the Democratic Party prove its worthiness to govern in the face this fearful retreat from the moral high ground? In the face of 12 years of Republican pigeon holing, why would anyone turn away from the conventional wisdom that has been foisted upon and so visibly embraced by the Democratic Party? We have allowed them to define us for so long now as weak and spineless. Through our lack of resolve, we have proven this definition, and any penalty for this surrender is well deserved.

124 elected Democratic officials between the two houses made this funding, unencumbered by any real legislative oversight, possible. I hope, this Memorial Day they are hearing the error of their ways from their constituents. I hope that this day, they are visiting the wounded and the families of the fallen in this most detestable of wars, and finding the courage to stand up against the rhetoric of fear that has gripped this nation for 5 years. I hope that in this mythical newfound courage, these members can look beyond the wind tunnel “conventional wisdom” of the beltway, and find it within themselves to do the will of the people who elected them to office.

Most importantly, I hope these members of Congress will find the courage within themselves to take the keys away from the drunk. Allowing him to drive puts the blood of those whose lives are lost on our hands. It's time for us to drive.

Hanging Up the Bribery Pants

Steve Ross — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:49:00 +0000

My apathy has been flaring up the past couple of days. I’m not sure of the origin of this flare up, but I just can’t seem to get enough of the 24hr fear cycle, or re-runs of Scrubs.

One thing of note, HB1874 that would exclude people convicted of bribery or other “infamous” crimes from running for office was signed into law on the 1st. You can read the final draft here. Guess it’s time to hang up those bribery pants guys…or at least be more selective on where you wear them.

The Special Primary Election came and went with a whimper. Some people were surprised, some weren’t. Some are probably peeing themselves with glee that their “significance” has been validated or something. I don’t really know any of those people, but I have a suggestion for them.

It’s starting to get hot, and the mimosa tree in my backyard is spewing pink crap all over the place like the aftermath of a South Padre Island Spring Break party (Tequila Rose…ewwwwww).

Maybe I’ll go watch Tweety, I need a good hour of Scooter Libby apologists explaining why he should be pardoned, and hell, I haven’t got my fill of fear for the day.

It’s Happy Hour folks! Drink up!

P.S. Hey bruce, you can blink now.

Stop Tinkering!

Steve Ross — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:10:00 +0000

From The Hill:

Tinker files to take on Cohen again, setting up racially charged primary

Ugh!

General Thoughts & Other Such Nonsense

Steve Ross — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:17:00 +0000

I haven’t posted in a while, mostly because of my work schedule, but thought I would take some time to write something. This post is not really political in nature, but more personal.

I’ve been traveling a lot again. After nearly 10 years on the road, traveling is not something that I care for, but, in order to make the mortgage, it is necessary. As with most traveling experiences I lost/broke something. This time it happened to be the power supply for my laptop. Ugh. I’ve had more computer related problems this year, most of my own doing, than ever. Hopefully I’ll be back up and running so I can feverishly check my “news” later on today.

I see that Carol Chumney has filed for Mayor. This is a good thing for Memphis, even if she doesn’t end up winning. We need a hearty discussion about the future of this city, and the more people in the race, the greater the possibility that we can talk about something more than personalities and other such nonsense. I still haven’t decided who I will support at this moment. I’m waiting to see more about what the candidates plan to do with the city. Last week’s meeting with Herman Morris at Drinking Liberally was enlightening. Hopefully we can have more discussions with other candidates like that in the future.

I’m reading The Assault on Reason right now. So far it has been an enjoyable read. Most of the general information in the book is common knowledge by anyone who has followed this administration closely, but some of the details slipped by me. In this case, the devil truly is in the details. Even if there is a Democratic President and Congress after the next national general, it will take a lot of work to reverse some of the more damaging policies that this administration has put forward. The whole thing makes me tired.

Several nights ago, in an attempt to do something mindless, other than watch the Cavaliers get STOMPED by San Antonio I found this game called “Democracy”. It’s pretty cool for a $22 download game. Basically it puts you in the place of the leader of one of 12 countries. You adopt policies and set tax rates and deal with problems. Pretty simplistic, but also pretty neat. It would be a good exercise for someone who had little knowledge but high interest in the workings of government, and the impact of policies on the various groups that make up the populace. Right now I’m in my 21st term and still rocking...and who says progressive policies are unpopular?

Like I said earlier, I’ve been traveling a lot. My current career; Video director for corporate events, is my second career. My first was owing an art gallery. Both have their pluses and minuses. In both, I was self-employed (+). Being a gallery owner focusing on new and controversial art is a low pay proposition, particularly in Little Rock (-). But I got to be involved in many aspects of the art community (Theatre, Music, visual art) (+). Being a self-employed video director means that I have little time to do many of the things I love (-), and I find much of the content mind numbing (-). I do get more time off than most people (+), and I make a good living (+).

Because this is my second career, I’m not really that afraid of trying something new. I don’t guess I ever really have been. Eight years in to career number 2, I would really like to do something that takes advantage of both my current and former careers. I enjoy writing, but there’s nothing quite as satisfying as watching people sit back and enjoy a musical, or band or something creative that I have had a hand in crafting. I’m not sure that I’ll ever have, or make the opportunity to do something like that again, but I do miss it.

I’ve also been thinking about finishing my degree. Of course, a degree in music performance (my original degree program) is about as useful for furthering your career as toilet paper, so I’ll probably go with something else. Still not sure what, still not sure how, maybe online or something so I can still work, but right now I feel like the lack of a degree is the single biggest thing holding me back from discovering and successfully going after the next thing I need to do...whatever that thing may be.

I decided to write this post in the new Safari beta to see how it works with blogger. So far, it seems to be working nicely. I'll update if everything goes awry after I post.

Thanks for reading my little personal whoop-d-doo. Time to get back to my book, and enjoy my day off.

Cheers,
~v

OH SNAP!

Steve Ross — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:32:00 +0000

Henry Waxman, doing what Henry Waxman does best.

Ahh Congressional oversight, good to have ya back.

Band-Aid® for a bullet wound

Steve Ross — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:22:00 +0000

Tuesday, the state lege approved HB 1835, the so called“Crooks with Guns” Bill which would add anywhere from 3 to 10 years to felonies committed with firearms based on the severity of the felony, and the use, or not, of said firearm.

Can we be serious for a moment here? Does ANYONE think this is going to reduce crime? I mean, seriously. This seems more like a business opportunity for Nashville based Corrections Corporation (CXW)than any kind of crime bill.

This bill basically mimics the old, tired, and failed Federal mandatory minimum standards for drug offenses. Sure, once the drug dealers, or in most cases, users, got caught, they went to jail longer, making the streets “safer” for a time. Eventually, the corrections system couldn’t handle the number of inmates, and many ended up getting released. Because of those very same mandatory minimums, which had strict restrictions on who could get released after how, long, violent offenders would often be released years before some old harmless pot head who grew a little too much of his own.

Then there’s the other thing that people in Memphis should be absolutely SCREAMING about. This bill does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent crimes from happening. NOTHING. This doesn’t make us safer until the criminal gets caught and convicted. This does nothing to address the poverty or unemployment situations that often drive people to various forms or crime. This doesn’t address the pathetic educational system, our frontline defense against making newer younger criminals.

This bill is nothing more than a Band-Aid for a bullet wound.

If we really want to do something about crime in our community we need to think about crime in a radically different way. We have to create job opportunities for the 27,000 (2005) Memphians who are currently unemployed. We need to address the 34% of our students who do not graduate from High School. We need to fight to help raise the 24% of our population out of the shackles of poverty. Crime is not a one-dimensional problem, and until we change our thinking from merely punishing the offenders to prevention, we will continue to be saddled with this problem.

We need to hold our legislators to a higher standard, and get serious about addressing the root of the problem. While I’m sure that this will make a great campaign flyer for many running in next years election, we need to start asking the hard questions about why our legislators are too afraid or short sighted to address the needs of our communities that would do much more actually prevent crime than just punish the criminals more. Don’t fall for the hype. Just like speed limit signs don’t stop people from speeding, this law will do nothing to prevent individuals from engaging in criminal acts.

Happy Flag Day

Steve Ross — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:59:00 +0000

Today is Flag Day, that oft forgotten commemoration of the adoption, in 1777, of our nation’s flag that has the distinct misfortune of falling between 2 much more glamorous holidays; Memorial Day and Independence Day.

While not an official federal holiday, Flag Day was established by proclamation in 1916 by Woodrow Wilson. National Flag Day was established by an act of Congress in 1949.

Most importantly, Flag Day is also my mother’s birthday, so Happy Birthday Mom!

A Conspiracy is afoot…a foot is defined as…

Steve Ross — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:43:00 +0000

I’ll tell you one thing, Mayor Herenton was smooth. Smooth as glass. He was calm, cool and collected. And he went out of his way to make sure that people noted that he wasn’t angry, which almost defeated the purpose.

The conference started out a little weird. Herenton spoke in very slow measured sentences, as if he were carefully choosing each word, then went into definitions of Conspiracy, Benefactor, and, perhaps a couple of other words.

I just finished reading the complaint by Ms. Smith and the letter to Bredesen by Herenton and I have to say that even if this is a crock, it’s a well organized crock. If it’s true, we can expect 4 more years of Herenton, like it or not. I haven’t read the letter to USAG Gonzales yet, I’m not sure that it has been made public at this time.

Something that only bolsters the Mayor’s claim are the current investigations by the House and Senate Judiciary committees regarding the DOJ’s shenanigans with vote caging, attempts to fraudulently charge Democratic candidates with corruption near elections, and other attempts to disenfranchise largely minority voters. These efforts have been widely reported at TPM and firedoglake.

Needless to say, if one were able to fold this “conspiracy” into other federal actions in the city, one could make an argument that the malfeasance goes much further than the people named in the complaint.

For my money, I need some more shoes to drop and a little more information from something other than the blogoshpere to really form an opinion. Just like I said John Ford wasn’t guilty until found so by a jury of his peers, so will I reserve judgement for those named in this little imbroglio until there’s a little more substance to gnaw at.

Until then, this definitely gives us something to talk about.

Below are the links to the letters...Thanks to mymemphispolitics for getting these resources us so quickly.

Herenton's letter to Bredesen
Ms. Smith's Letter to the DA
Letter to USAG Gonzales

Here is a transcript of the Press Conference provided by the Commercial Appeal.

The Dog Ate My Homework

Steve Ross — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:22:00 +0000

I was going to write this big long thing about the Herenton deal yesterday, but after reading Brassmask, Autoegocrat, and 55-40, I don’t think I really have that much more to add. Couple that with Wendi C. Thomas’ piece in this morning’s CA, and I’m really at a loss…which is strange because usually she pisses me off enough to get my blood boiling.

The primary thing that binds the three main characters, Mayor Herenton, Richard Fields, and Gwendolyn Smith, in this little scenario is that NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY.

Mayor Herrenton may well be the victim of some concerted effort to make sure that he didn’t get re-elected, but the thing that is most damning of his administration over the 3 years that I’ve lived here is his lack of vision his polarizing effect on the community, and his irrational behavior.

Richard Fields has no credibility because of his continued character assassination of a number of African-American officials, starting with the Ophelia Ford incident back in 2004, which led to his resignation/removal (different people have different accounts of this) from the Shelby County Democratic Party, and continued on with his infamous letter about Robert Spence, the mailer against Jay Bailey for the Chairmanship of the SCDP, and a host of other things scattered hither and fro.

Gwendolyn Smith has no credibility, not because of her fraud conviction, but because she admits that she took money from Fields to carry out his alleged plan. Only when the money dried up did she chose to go to Herenton. That sounds like a classic double cross. Who was blackmailing whom? Sounds to me like a case could be made that Ms. Smith was blackmailing Fields.

Still, none of this gets to the issue at hand, the mayoral race. In what will be noted as either a stroke of brilliance or just dumb luck, Mayor Herenton has effectively “flipped the script” from a campaign about issues that are devastating the city, to one about racially motivated powerbrokers, intent on the continued subjugation of the black community. By setting the stage to make the campaign an exercise in race baiting, and “white rule” as Thaddeus Matthews calls it, the mayor has used one of the most classic emotionally driven tactics to shore up the African-American community against anyone who would oppose him.

With just over 100 days until the city elections, and 34 until the filing deadline, there’s plenty of time for this molehill to either turn into a mountain, or be swept away in a tide of honest discussion over the future of the City of Memphis. We have a lot more important things going on in this city than some half-baked sex scandal. My hope is that the people of the city of Memphis will chose to focus on the candidates, their issues, and their vision for the future of the city, instead of the old standby of race.

Actually, I Do Understand

Steve Ross — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:44:00 +0000

Ever since I was a young child, people, from parents to teachers, friend and foe have told me that I don’t understand. Whatever the topic, my perceived lack of experience, young age, or short tenure in a geographical location (at age 35, I’ve lived in at least 8 cities in 3 states) has disqualified my positions or opinions from those who have more time invested in the problems, situations, or location. This single dismissive statement has been the bane of my existence for as long as I can remember.

I’m a sarcastic, big picture, idealist. What that really means is, 1. I always have something inappropriately appropriate to say with little regard for the consequences, 2. I tend to focus on the overall issue guiding the problem, rather than the minutiae of the individual problem itself, and 3. I have an unshakable belief in the power of people and groups, be they communities or governments, to transform their lives and the lives of their citizens if they will just find it within themselves to look for the real root of whatever challenge they face.

These three characteristics, along with my tragically poor speaking skills, make it hard for many people to follow my line of reasoning in person. I think I make myself a bit clearer when I have time to write it out. Let’s give that theory a try.

Example: I don’t see poverty as a single issue. Poverty is a combination of issues, governmental, personal, societal. These issues are guided by choices and circumstance. All of these variables work together in concert to make the situation seem hopeless to the victim. Poverty cannot be adequately addressed solely with education, or higher paying jobs, or any other single or group of things that a government or group of governments may do. Poverty is not just a governmental problem, but also a societal problem. In order for poverty to truly be addressed, the people of the community at large must be willing to work together to mentor and guide the victims of poverty out of the mindset that helps sustain it.

This is not some blame the victim horseshit, but pure common sense. You wouldn’t sit a person trying to lose weight in a Jazzy at the nearest all you can eat buffet and expect them to be successful. By the same token, you cannot expect people, in dire living conditions with little or no hope, and a set of coping skills that are set up to deal with their current impoverished situation to magically pick themselves up and succeed at something that they may or may not have ANY experience in.

They need a go to guy. They need someone that can give them advise. Hopefully, that advice will help them make the appropriate choices and give them a different perspective. Coupled with the help of the afore mentioned governmental programs, hopefully they will have all the financial and sociological tools necessary to overcome circumstance so they can eventually succeed.

Now, I’m not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence with this example. I’m merely taking you on a trip down my line of reasoning. Is there anything extraordinary about it? Nope. Most of the readers that I know personally are probably wondering where the hell I’m going with this. I’m getting there, my longwinded self had to have a say in how this was going to go.

Brace yourself. I’m not trying to invoke the spirit of WW Herenton, but this may end up sounding a bit like a sermon. Just know, I’m not full on crazy…yet.

There’s a power that grips this city, more powerful than anyone can imagine. In fact, this power not only has its claws in the city, but the nation, and the entire world. This power is instinctual, psychological, and emotional. This power directs much of what we, as individuals do, in many cases, without our direct knowledge. Much of the failure that we all have experienced, as individuals, is the result of our reaction to this power. Like Shiva, in the Hindu tradition, this power can, at once be a destructive and constructive force.

It’s funny, because we need this power to live. Indeed, without this power we, as a species, would have most certainly perished in the days when survival of the fittest was the true law of the land. Still, it sustains all of the worst characteristics of the human race. Imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and nationalism thrive on it. Surely, without this power none of these “human” conditions could survive. And yet, we fight this power with half-hearted attempts and stop gaps, in what appears to be a rational way, when the enemy is not rational at all. The only thing that can stop this power is a conscious decision to reject the negative aspects, to which we all have been conditioned to embrace, to one extent or another.

But we all have something to lose. Status, position, or some worldly possession that we have “worked” so hard for. Ultimately, if any of these things are held to a standard that would raise one group on high at the expense of another, this power is well at work.

The power I’m talking about is fear.

Fear is the tie that binds those who rail against a return to “white rule” just as it grips those who would work to subjugate African-Americans. Fear is the power that keeps us from being all that we could be, in favor of incremental and inconsequential changes, that we so often spend time patting ourselves on the back for. Fear is the common thread that holds us back from experiencing our lives in the way that our creator, whomever that may or may not be for you, intended.

This may sound like a bunch of silly nonsense, but I would ask that you take a minute to consider it. What’s stopping us, as Memphians, or Americans or Humans, from ascending beyond our current situation? What is it that makes true positive change seem like an insurmountable task? What is the one common thread that binds us to a certain future of societal stagnation? I can only thing of one thing, and it transcends any man-made label, party, or faction.

Fear cripples true transformative change that we as humans are capable of achieving if we will just come off of our high horses, put up our straw men, and honestly and forthrightly work together to achieve it. Instead, through our irrational embrace of the fear we are so invested in, we are left with excuses and distortions that address none of the real problems at hand, but often reinforce the status quo.

I’m sick of the bullshit excuses that bind us to this world of fear-based exclusion. I’m sick of the lies that we have all bought into, on one level or another, ensuring that we can neither grow as a community, nor as individuals. But most importantly, I’m sick of leaders and their surrogates who use fear as a political tool to strengthen their power base and paralyze our communities, for no other purpose than to ensure their grip on power or disenfranchise one group or another.

So yes, actually, I do understand. I understand that all of us have bought into this fear that maintains our dysfunction. I understand that this fear that we hold so dear to our hearts supports the economic, social, and racial factions that divide us. I understand that every day we consciously or unconsciously maintain this fear, we strengthen it, making any change, be it radical or incremental, that much harder to achieve.

Most importantly, I understand that different people have different solutions for problems based on their experience. Until we remove the fear from the argument, and begin to talk both candidly and honestly with each other about solutions, casting no blame for the problems and respecting the perspectives of the people involved, we will just keep doing the same nothing over and over expecting a different result.

It’s time to stop telling people how much they don’t understand your personal investment in this fear based belief system that has served us so poorly, and start listening to the ideas of those whose seemingly foreign perspective just might be the salve that treats the inflammation of fear in our society. It’s time to call out those who would use fear as a manipulative tool to maintain the current state of affairs. It’s time to start asking yourself, am I part of the problem, or part of the solution, and if I am part of the problem, what can I do to change…that’s the first step to the end of our fear based society.

So yeah, I think I understand…do you?

What’s so Super about Super Districts?

Steve Ross — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:42:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, my friend LeftWingCracker wrote a post that detailed many changes he believes are needed in Memphis. The first thing he mentioned was the need for smaller City Council districts.

Currently, the Memphis City Council has 13 members, 7 from individual districts, and 6 from 2 “Super” Districts. The city’s two “Super” districts basically cut the city in half, east and west. The notion of “Super Districts” is not lost on me at all. In 1966 when our city government moved to a mayor-council arrangement, it provided for 7 districts and 6 at large positions. In 1995 when the Super Districts first went into effect, splitting the 6 at large positions between 2 huge districts made sense, to ensure that one constituency wasn’t running roughshod over the other. As a transitional solution it makes good sense. Still, I have to wonder why most Memphians are more directly represented in the State House than in their own City council.

There are 17 Representatives from Shelby County in the TN State House. Of those, 12 list addresses that are located in the city limits, the other 5 are from Bartlett, Cordova and Collierville. If there are 12 districts in Memphis proper that means an average representation of 1:53500, or 1 representative for every 53500 Memphians. With 13 council seats, one would think that the representation would be better (1:49385), but they would be wrong. Because of the district breakdown we have 2 tiers of representation. In districts 1-7 the ratio is 1:91700, and in districts 8and 9 it is 1:10700 (based on 2005 population numbers and an even distribution of people in the districts).

Unfortunately, that still doesn’t tell the story. Because of the “Super” Districts, some areas have more representatives than others. In Super District 8, which comprises all of 6 and 7, and a majority of 3 and 4, ALL of the members of the Super District 8 delegation reside in District 7, effectively giving District 7 a disproportionate power. There is a similar problem in Super 9, 2 members reside in 5 and one in 2. To break that down, District 7 currently has a 1:23000 ratio (4 members of the council residing in that district with 3 representing Super 8), District 5, my district, has a 1:30566, and District 2 has a 1:45850 ratio.

The big losers in this deal are Districts 1,3,4 and 6, arguably some of the most impoverished areas of the city.

The answer to this inequity is simple, “Super” districts must go. In order to adequately represent the people of Memphis there should not be a system in place to continually put those who lack economic power in a situation where they are less served than more affluent constituents. The current arrangement only reinforces class divisions in exchange for the more emotionally charged race divisions that are the constant talk to the city.

With all of the problems currently facing the city, we deserve better and more direct representation in the City Council, and the fairest way to accomplish this is by splitting the city up into 13 equal and equitable districts. This will, no doubt, face resistance from many of the powers that be, but more direct representation is not something that we can afford to put off for too much longer.

What’s the Plan?

Steve Ross — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:48:00 +0000

With just over 3 weeks to the filing deadline for city elections, candidates are starting to come out of the woodworks to drum up support for their campaigns. As of this writing, two of the 3 frontrunners, Herman Morris and Carol Chumney have filed petitions, the third, Mayor Herenton, has yet to file, but he could any day now. These three “frontrunners” and what will likely be a crowded field of up and comers, have a big job ahead of them, making their vision for the city known to the public at large.

Memphis has a lot of challenges facing it right now; violent crime is out of control, poverty is pervasive in many areas of the city, and our schools, while improving, still leave a lot to be desired. All three of these issues are tightly intertwined, and have, in some cases, spanned generations. In order to make any visible progress, we need to come together, as a community and work to solve these problems, but we also need someone who has the vision to both unify and lead us with a comprehensive plan of attack.

I know it’s early, and the candidates are just now getting their organizations together, but it is critical that those who would be our city leaders effectively communicate their vision to their constituents so that we, the people of Memphis, can make an educated choice in the future leadership of this city. Unfortunately, things don’t always work out that way.

Already, there is an effort to make this election the citywide equivalent of a High School class president’s race. Mayor Herenton’s press conference of two weeks ago, alleging a “conspiracy” to impugn his name by ensnaring him in a sex scandal, was laced with racial overtones and wild accusations. That's not to say that some of the allegations may not be true, but Herenton's attempt to stir up racial divisions is not what I would call "visionary" leadership.

In truth, it seems like every time the Mayor opens his mouth he's stirring up divisions. Several months ago he called Mayoral candidate Herman Morris "boy". I can only imagine some of the names he'll come up for the other Mayoral candidates.

How long of a shadow will this, and some of the other scandals facing the city, cast on the upcoming election? Who knows, but it's our duty, as responsible citizens, to cut through some of the crap and demand leadership from those who would be our leaders.

It’s time to start taking seriously about our city folks. Regardless of whom you support for City Council or the Mayor’s office, we need to demand that our elected officials address the needs of this city quickly, forthrightly, and completely. Until we demand better, our leaders will just keep feeding us the same old meal. I’m getting hungry for something else.

Lien on Me

Steve Ross — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:14:00 +0000

It seems that newly appointed City Council member Henry Hooper II may be in a bit of a pickle. As reported by Fox 13, Mr. Hooper, a former Secret Service agent, is fighting with a division of the US Treasury Department, his former employer, over a $400,000+ tax bill.

And I thought my taxes were high.

The tax liens, dating back to 2000, were not discovered during his background check. Perhaps a refund is in order. Hooper is currently fighting the liens in court.

This can’t bode well for the seat, formerly held by Rickey Pete, who plead guilty earlier this month to charges of accepting $12,000 in bribes.

If this keeps up, people will be running scared from Super 8 Position 2. A word of advice to those who would run for this seat, keep your nose clean and your powder dry. The curse of 8,2 just might rear it’s ugly head on you.

Nixon Pardons Agnew Assistant

Steve Ross — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:52:00 +0000

Today, in what can only be described as a callous disregard for the judicial system, President Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby, who was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying under oath, will now only pay a fine of $250,000 and serve 2 years probation.

President Bush, who as Governor of Texas only issued 16 pardons, and oversaw the execution of more people than any Governor in Texas history up to the end of his service, (153 under GWB, 158 have been executed since) (source) has pardoned a partisan hack who would lie to save his sorry ass and his magical puppeteer. So much for being tough on crime.

The biggest problem with this move is the message that it sends to not only Americans, but the entire world. By making this decision, Bush has weakened the rule of law world wide, by weakening one of the most fair, though certainly flawed, justice systems in the world. The President has confirmed that power trumps justice to a level that has formerly only been held by the tin foil hat community. Perhaps most importantly, he has diminished the moral and ethical framework that holds this nation together.

It’s sad really. As much as I despise all that this President has stood for, it’s really sad to see that our country truly has gone this far off the tracks. Trains don’t just magically un-derail themselves, and fixing all the fucking up that this administration has engaged in is going to take a hell of a lot more than wishing and hoping and thinking and praying.

I’ve been reluctant to advocate this, mostly because of the scars I still carry, but I think it’s high time to impeach the son of a bitch. The hip check hasn’t been working, time to put this presidency in “HOLY FUCKING SHIT” mode.

I’m still digesting this thing, but it’s past time to stop lobbing softballs, and start sending some 100mph fastballs at these jackasses…waaaaayyyyyy past time.

P.S. Fred Thompson, and all you folks who voted to remove Clinton for the same offense, yet have no problem with this little situation, you're a bunch of hypocritical fucktards.

Still Stewing over Scooter

Steve Ross — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:49:00 +0000

So now that I’ve had the night to sleep on this whole thing, I’m still just as pissed as I was yesterday. Sure, I’ve wiped the foam from my mouth and I’ve lost most of the twitch, but the impact of the double standard, and the callous disregard for our legal system is just plain unbelievable.

Let me make this clear, I always expected that Bush would pardon Libby…eventually. I never thought it would happen with 18 months left in his administration. I also understand that what Bush did yesterday WAS COMMUTE THE SENTNCE, NOT PARDON Libby. Ok, still guilty, just no jail time, he loses his shingle, pays a fine, does some probation, publishes his memoirs, and goes to work for Halliburton next week…fine, we all knew it would happen as some point. Still, I expected some time in the pokey. I mean, I figured the day after the election next year, the pardon would come down, not now.

Jail is the stick that is supposed to keep people from going too far off the reservation (even though all of us adults who don’t live in fairy tale land know that jail doesn’t stop crazy from doing anything). For a “Law and Order” President (no not TN Thompson) to bypass the law is so out of character…Libby must have something on him.

We already know that this administration is freelancing the constitution like Charlie Parker on a 3-day heroin blitz. Between the domestic spying, the alleged use of the US Attorneys office as a political tool, the potential war crimes, and their latest hit, the fourth branch of government (I swear they got the idea from a Taco Bell commercial) this administration has been engaged in a good deal of subterfuge for some time.

So let’s look at all the things that we have to look forward to from this administration in the next 18 months.

1. Congressional Subpoenas (8/07) – The President will ignore the subpoenas of Congress, be held in contempt, and will direct his Justice Department to do nothing to prosecute. The Congress in a stuttering fit of rage will scream out for it’s baba, and pass an Independent Council law, to replace the one that expired in 1999. The President will veto, and laugh all the way to 2009.

2. Assault on Iran (12/07) – As a result of single digit approval ratings and at the direction of his Wahhabi oil dealers, President Bush ordered the US Navy and Air Force to strike Iran for failing to end the flow of black market arms into Iraq and Afghanistan. China, one of Iran’s chief defenders in the UN Security Council, has given its workers 2 weeks off to punish the US, hitting hard their deep dependence on cheap plastic goods. Wal-Mart announces mandatory vacations for stocking staff.

3. Backdoor funding of the War (2/08) – When Congress voted last September to de-fund the war in Iraq by January ‘08, they fully expected troops to start returning to their home bases. Now it seems there are more troops in Iraq than ever. Some 250,000 US troops and convicted conscripts are currently stationed in Iraq to defend the country from the onslaught of the Iranian Army after the month long air strikes crippled the countries oil distribution system. “Where the hell is the money coming from”, declared Rep. Obey (D-WI), House Appropriations Committee chair. “This is just un-fucking-believable!”, he continued as he was carried off by Secret Service agents, “We will get to the bottom of this.”

4. Oil tops $100/barrel (3/08) – With two of the Middle East’s top oil producers in conflict, and no hope of Saudi Arabia or Venezuela ramping up production, light sweet crude topped $100/ barrel today.

The rest started to get pretty out there, so I stopped.

Here’s my point, and then I’ll let you good people get back to your coffee and morning TV, the President has shown a lack of regard for the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold all while posturing about upholding the Constitution. The President relegated this “serious matter” as he called the outing of Valerie Plame’s identity in 9/03, to a political matter, which seems to be ALL THAT MATTERS to this White House.

The executive branch is not an arm of ANY political party, though it most certainly has been used as such over the past 6+ years, it is the branch that is charged with “faithfully executing the laws of the United States of America”. President Bush’s dereliction of duty on this count may not be an impeachable offense, but it at least rises to the level of censure.

The people are coming around to the deception of the Administration, which is interesting, because Democrats in Congress, who largely ran on a platform of corruption reform and bringing trust back to government, still seem gobsmacked at the possibility that something has gone horribly wrong. The American people are pissed at this lack of action, and the Congress needs to step up and get some things done immediately to address the concerns of the people. Unfortunately, it seems that Congress is as scared of bringing charges against the President as the President isn’t scared of Congress.

These “equal” branches of government have allowed the executive branch so much latitude that balancing the scales at this point will take something drastic. Waiting 18 months for a new President will only reinforce the standard set by this White House. If we want to right the ship, we need to do it now. It’s time for Congress to either step up, or for the leadership to step down and let someone with some balls take the reigns, lest we fall even further away from the gospel that is our Constitution.

The “Race” is On

Steve Ross — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:02:00 +0000

Yesterday, Mayor W.W. Herenton filed his petition to run for, what could be, his fifth term in office. He held a press conference downtown outside the Shelby County Election Commission. Video of the event can be viewed here. (Two notes: 1. The audio quality is very distorted, 2. Do I need to show the Fox 13 camera ops where the mic/line switch is and do they not have headphones? WTF!)

After the press conference, the Mayor launched into a tirade against the “bigoted white media”. This comment seemed largely directed at the Commercial Appeal for only highlighting the problems facing the city.

The Mayor is right about one thing, in the 16 years of his administration a lot of things in Memphis have improved. There are few who have lived here for the majority of this time that can argue that point. The bigger issue now is not the entirety of his tenure, but the last 4 years. Most people can look at the entirety of their lives and can easily point out the good things, but life is not electoral politics. Elected officials are not always judged on the entirety of their service, but their effectiveness in the recent past. In the 3+ years that I have lived in Memphis, I have observed a city with no rudder, spinning out of control. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Mayor.

Near the end of his prepared comments the Mayor said that he would not allow anyone to “divide our community”. One must question if by community he means the entire city, or a segment of the city, because the comments that followed, along with the afore mention tirade, are nothing if not divisive. Using language that can only be described as “race baiting” the Mayor lashed out at the white community for trying to “plot against him”. The Mayor doth protest too much, methinks. If the white community is solely represented by the likes of Richard Fields, then let me agree. However, just as the Mayor does not solely represent the black community, the white community is not solely represented by the likes of the “so called snakes”. Blaming an entire segment of the population for the acts of the few is not only disingenuous, but patently racist.

The Mayor seems to be suffering from “Hammer/Nail” syndrome. This condition is simple, and goes as follows, “If your only solution is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”. The Mayor’s problem right now is getting elected in the face of lower approval ratings and a potentially strong field. The solution has become blame the “others” who are plotting against “us”. It seems ironic that the Mayor, who in one sentence lists all the civil rights challenges that the black community has overcome, would turn right around and use language similar to those who, in the civil rights era, sought to maintain the status quo.

If the Mayor truly wants to demonstrate his leadership ability, then I would suggest that he drop the race baiting rhetoric, and start talking honestly and, more importantly, coherently, about the future of this city and solutions to the problems that we face. Playing the victim may play to parts of his base, but ultimately, it serves no one…but the Mayor.

Happy 4th of July

Steve Ross — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:28:00 +0000

To all you poor saps who have to work today (that includes you s.mac) I say...sorry.

For the rest of you, light a firecracker (if you're outside the city limits), eat a hot dog and drink a beer, it's Independence day for crissakes!

Don't feel like grilling that dog? Head on over to the Blue Monkey on Madison. Today's lunch special, chilli dogs! While you're there you can say hi to s.mac and a whole host of other people who work at places that don't see the 4th as a lounge worthy holiday.

In any case, be safe, and be careful, the po-po is out in force. If you're drinking, a cab is only a phone call away, and way cheaper than a DUI or worse, an accident.

Cheers and Happy 4th,

~v.

Dear Mr. Mayor:

Steve Ross — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:47:00 +0000

I watched your filing event online the other day. Very interesting stuff. Obviously, you’re angry with the Commercial Appeal. Quite honestly, they’re not my favorite. When I think of local newspapers that really dedicate themselves to the important issues that affect their city, the CA doesn’t really register on the list. Still, they’re the only daily we have here in Memphis, and while I understand your anger, I don’t get your rhetoric.

You called the “white controlled media” “bigoted”, I’m not sure that’s the word you intended. In your press conference a couple weeks ago, you took some time to define some words for the media covering and the people watching the event. I thought I would take a tip from your masterful performance and define some words for you.

Bigoted - obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

Obstinate - stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

Racism - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

It seems that I have erroneously called your comments racist in a previous post. I would like to correct that mistake now. Your comments were not necessarily racist, but most certainly bigoted. In the mythology of W.W. Herenton there is no room for any opinion or perception of reality other than the one held by W.W. Herenton. That said, I would like to agree with you on another point you made on Tuesday. Yes, we need more positive public interest stories in all our media outlets. Memphians need more positive stories so that we can pull ourselves from the deep depression that we find ourselves in as a city. There are good things happening in Memphis, and the media has a duty to seek them out and report them, if for no other reason, so that more people can be educated about them, and hopefully join them in their efforts to make Memphis the best Memphis it can be.

Unfortunately Mr. Mayor, shiny happy uplifting stories don’t change the reality that there are serious problems that need to be dealt with, so, without trying to be one of those “bigoted white controlled media” people that you detest so much, I have some questions that I feel need to be answered.

What is your vision for the future of this city?

What positive outcomes do you see on the horizon as a result of your leadership?

What are you doing, as the city’s chief executive to stem the tide of violent crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, and the highest infant mortality rate in the nation?

How are you supporting the efforts of those people who are working for positive change in this city?

Why haven’t you sought to highlight the efforts of those seeking positive change through the bully pulpit afforded you as the city’s chief executive?

As the Mayor for “all the citizens of Memphis” what have you done, through action or word, to heal the racial and class divisions that help maintain the economic and social disparities plaguing this city?

With all due respect, these are not loaded questions, but honest points of discussion that seek to lift the conversation from one of harping on the problems, to providing a positive future for the city. These are the same questions that should be asked of your counterparts running for the office that you currently occupy.

Finally Mr. Mayor, I would like to agree with you that there are people in this city who would seek to oust you on strictly racial grounds. The problem with your tactic in addressing these individuals is that you empower their argument by throwing racially divisive rhetoric back at them. As a leader who seeks positive change in a city filled with nay-sayers and dividers, surely you do not seek to employ divisive rhetoric to propel yourself to an unprecedented fifth term. Surely you, of all people, know that a positive message, that does not ignore the problems, but seeks to deal with them aggressively and in a manner that unites the city, is the path that will bring you, and the city, forward.

I encourage you to move forward with your positive message, and look forward to hearing it, as it emerges in the coming months.

Thank you for your time.

It's Been a Helluva Day

Steve Ross — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:09:00 +0000

Ok, so I don't normally write about my life on the road as it were, but today has been nothing but exceptional, in that it has sucked.

I was scheduled to travel from Memphis to Spokane, WA via Northwest (my preferred carrier being that it is a hub in Memphis), then on to United to Spokane. I did not buy the tickets so I have no control over them, my client did...mistake #1.

I get to the airport and it's a nice sunny day. Sit down to futz with the myriad projects (I'm not bragging, but I'm awfully busy for all the sudden), and what happens, those beautiful puffy clouds that used to be puppy dogs and other random shapes turned into a mass concentration of hatred and despair. Time for a drink.

When my plane finally shows up, all looks well. We're a little behind, but I have a 3 hour layover in Denver...no biggie. I sit down and start back to work again.

2 hours later, after boarding, deplaning, and boarding again, we are off...kinda. Seems that in the frenzy to "fix" the plane, the ground crew left something hanging off the front gear. Ugh! Turns out it was no biggie, but the time is now working against me.

We land in Denver. It's 6:15, my connection leaves at 6:36. I frantically call one of the other guys on the flight and ask him to have them hold it, I'll be there in 15 min.

The plane stops at the gate. I'm ready. First Class be damned, I WILL BE THE FIRST PERSON OFF THIS PLANE. *bing* I jump from my seat and race down the aisle. This isn't my first rodeo, but I can honestly say I've never cut it this close. *tap,tap,tap (no not you Thaddeus), the door opens, and I'm off.

For those of you who haven't experienced the signature OJ Simpson Hertz commercial moment, well, all I can say is that it is fabulous.

I dash through the concourse to the terminal tram. The doors are about to shut. I yell like a little girl and someone is kind enough to hold the doors for me, ignoring their mortality.

Wait for it, wait for it...the doors open and I continue my sprint racing up the escalator, past the mom and kids who are probably still cursing me even though I messed not a hair on the childs chinny, chin, chin, and begin my final mad dash to the gate.

B45...B45...ugh. My smoke scarred lungs are exploding at this point. There's B38...oh Jesus, please don't make me count. B41, B43...almost there, just keep pushing. I dance with a Denver cop, he looks at me like I'm crazy. WHY THE HELL ARE THESE GATES SO FAR AWAY FROM EACH OTHER!

Then I see it, B45. I use the last bit of strength that I have to push harder, run faster through the mad congregation of cattle that most call people, round the corner, and the door is shut.

I almost lose it, but the gate agent quickly types in her code, takes my ticket, and without missing a beat I dash for the end of the jetway.

I've been burned like this before people. The plane may not be there when I get to the end. I press harder, sucking wind with every step. RUN FORREST RUN!!!!! Oh Jesus, this is the longest damn jetway EVER!

As I reach the end of the jetway, I see the door of the plane beginning to shut.

"Stop", I yell, the word spewing from my mouth like the cries of a pre-pubescent boy at the hands of a much larger bully.

The flight attendant looks around the corner and spots me, opens the door and I am the last one to board.

It takes me 30 minutes to fully catch my breath, and for my body to stop screaming at me. I traveled 3/4 mile in 7 minutes, through one of the busiest airports in the west. No, it's not a land speed record, but it was far faster than I should have been able to.

Of course, I have no luggage. That won't arrive until tomorrow...if I'm lucky. But still, I'm here, in one piece, though sore as hell.

All you runners out there are crazy sumbitches, that includes you sweetie.

I only hope that my trip home isn't as "eventful".

See ya on Thursday.

It Must Be a Conspiracy…Right?

Steve Ross — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:36:00 +0000

Lord have Mercy, indictments have been coming down more frequently than the rain, and one only has to wonder who’s next.

Today, the US Attorney in Memphis added two counts to Edmond Ford’s half dozen and brought Herenton fanboy, Joseph Lee, and trucker cap enthusiast Dennis Churchwell into the mix. It’s gonna be a long hot summer.

First of all, read the indictments here, and here (ht Mediaverse and Fox 13).

Then read the CA’s article about the indictments.

Here’s my favorite 2 paragraphs…

Lee had a reason to provide Ford preferential treatment. The politician was responsible for putting Lee in the top job at utility.

  During the tenure of previous MLGW president Herman Morris, the utilities at Ford’s funeral home were cut off several times for nonpayment of bills.

So who’s next? I’m putting my money on Herenton. He wanted Lee in there for a reason. What was that reason? Lee wasn’t any good as city finance dir. Why put him in charge of the city utility? Only Herenton knows that.

Be looking for more, I’m sure there’s more out there. When there is, I’ll mock them verily.

Harriet the Shy

Steve Ross — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:58:00 +0000

Harriet, Harriet, Harriet… Man are you having a rough time. First you get the nod for joining the Supremes yanked out from under ya, then you gotta chose between your man and the law. What’s a girl to do?

I hope you’re spending some time on the phone with your man because he’s put you in a place where you have to choose between the baby and the bathwater. If you don’t show up tomorrow, you probably lose your shingle. If you do, you piss off the man what brung ya. Ohh Lordy me this IS a pickle.

On top of all that, your man may have broken the law just by telling you to stay away from the dance. See, by instructing you to not show, your man may have obstructed justice, a federal crime. And surely by now we know that if a man can get in trouble for lying about a blowjob, a crime that saw leniency by this Administration for one of their biggest fans, that breaking the laws that he’s sworn to uphold will surely lead to hard times ahead.

Girl, I’m just sayin’, it’s time for you to find a new man. This man don’t love you. He’s usin’ you for your 80’s hair style and raccoon inspired mascara. Girl, you gotta get a grip, suck it up, and show up for that hearing tomorrow, if for no other reason than to save your own skin.

I know he’s shown forgiveness. I know he’s shown he’ll take care of his own, but seriously. Can he really take care of you when he’s fightin’ his own battles? Who do you think he’ll be thinkin’ of, you? Better get a checkup from the neck up. He’s got his own self in mind, not you. He’s running scared and showin his ass the whole way. I think it’s time to step up, say your piece, and watch that ass run off into the sunset. It may be your last chance to see it if this keeps up.

Panhandling is Not Killing Conventions

Steve Ross — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:30:00 +0000

(Ed. Note: Some of the issues I talk about below may seem mean spirited and not very “liberal”. So be it.) In today’s CA Amos Maki brings up the subject of our panhandling problem downtown, and its effect on our tourism industry. As a professional traveler, and a person who spends an inordinate amount of time in and around Convention Centers and Arenas nationwide, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the real problem facing the convention industry here in Memphis, and it isn’t panhandlers. Before I launch into my list of “problems” the city’s convention industry faces, let’s just talk about the “panhandler” situation. Memphis does have a lot of panhandlers for the small area that the downtown touristy spaces occupy. This is due to a lot of things but, in reality, panhandlers are a part of nearly every major city worldwide. I agree that panhandlers here are perhaps more brazen than in other cities. Still, when I think of aggressive panhandlers, New Orleans, Detroit, and San Francisco come to mind long before Memphis. Anyone who has ever walked from Union Square to Market St. in SF knows what I’m talking about…persistent, aggressive, if not threatening begging the whole way. The primary place that I have experienced panhandling in Memphis has been on Beale, but I know for a fact that the Main St. trolley route from the Marriott to Beale is a haven for panhandlers, as is the Bus Station near the DoubleTree. For people from out of town, it can be a bit scary. Still, if people want to come to Memphis panhandlers will not keep them away, and, the more people that come to Memphis, the more panhandlers we will see on the streets of downtown. It’s basic supply and demand. As annoying as panhandlers are they are not keeping conventions out of Memphis as Maki reports. There’s a far greater problem related to the infrastructure of our convention spaces and our hotel capacity that has a larger effect than any panhandlers. Convention Center Even though the Convention Center was updated a few years ago, there are a lot of issues related to it that keep mid to large-sized conventions out. The new Grand Ballroom on the upper level is a nice space, but it will only comfortably accommodate 1500 seated at rounds with any kind of stage and production support. While that seems like a lot of people, it really isn’t. If your event is larger, the only option downtown other than the Pyramid, which is largely mothballed, is the South Hall, a space that looks, feels, and sounds like a Wal-Mart from hell. The South hall can handle about 7500 people in theater seating with production support. I do not know of any attempt to serve food (like a large formal dinner function) there, but I can only imagine the cluster fuck that such a proposal would create. Additionally, the physical seating in the South hall consists of these hideous red folding chairs that probably were purchased with the building. They are uncomfortable and in a shabby state. Hardly the image an organization would like to project, not to mention actually having to sit in one for several hours. Because of the way that the Convention Center is designed, with all the wide open space on the upper level, it is impossible to get a standard 40’ or larger truck trailer with cab up to the expo space without the use of the truck elevator. This contraption allows one 53’ trailer per trip, and requires specialized operators to run. It is a supreme pain in the ass, and breaks down frequently even though it was newly installed with the update. This alone is reason enough to avoid the Cook. The individuals that make up the Convention Center Administration are dip shits on an order that I cannot even calculate. If these people are supposed to be the face of our convention business, their knowledge of the business and people skills leave much to be desired. They disdainfully execute their functions like a disaffected teen Taco Bell drive-through attendant, often costing the Convention Center and the events that chose to utilize the space, thousands of unnecessary dollars largely due to their inattention to detail. As an event coordinator I detest working with these people, and quite honestly, they probably sigh mightily when they see me coming, knowing that they have, once again, spent too much time on Solitare, and not enough on making my experience seamless. Were I in a position to push an event to a location, these people alone would motivate me to look elsewhere. That said, I have found the actual crew at the convention center (electricians, house crews etc.) to be helpful and responsive in the face of their superior’s incompetence. This is a nice thing. It would be very easy for them to be bitter in the face of this incompetence. They seem to understand and relate to the customer very well, and will do just about anything to make things right, despite the inattention of the house coordinators. Hotel Space There are about 10 downtown hotels that are suitable for convention attendees. They represent about 2500 rooms. Four of these hotels are 3 star or better (Marriott, Peabody, DoubleTree, and Westin representing 1500 rooms). Of these, only the Marriott (600 rooms) has direct access to the Convention Center (an additional 230 are within walking distance at the nearby Wyndham), creating a transportation expense for the meeting planner. Busing from one location to another is a budget buster and a potential logistical nightmare. Let’s think about these 2500 rooms in terms of the city’s largest convention…COGIC. COGIC brings anywhere from 10 to 15,000 people to the city every year. The influx of people strains the current infrastructure. Even if every room downtown were available and you stacked 4 people in each room (God help you if you’re in the Peabody) with the normal business and tourist traffic that could mean as many as 7500 people scattered throughout areas as much as 5 miles from downtown, and across the river in West Memphis. From a planning perspective this is a nightmare. Memphis needs another premiere hotel within walking distance (2 blocks) of the Convention Center, if for no other reason, to provide competition for the Marriott, which currently holds an exclusive on the lucrative catering contract. Unfortunately, aside from some space on the other side of the freeway, the Convention Center is out of reach for any competing hotelier. This is a problem for the local convention industry. By only having one major hotel in the vicinity, it gives the Marriott an effective monopoly, making block room negotiations between properties impossible. Production and Crewing There are two full service Production companies in Memphis that specialize in corporate events. Both of these companies are competent and affordable in comparison to the much larger companies that dominate the coasts and larger metropolitan areas. If you extend the area to include Little Rock and Nashville (on the I-40 corridor and within 3 hours of Memphis) that number jumps to 5. Additionally, if you include smaller companies that provide more specialized services (Lights, Sound, Video and Décor individually) that number jumps to nearly 25 across the I-40 corridor. Unfortunately, when events come to Memphis, little if any attempt to utilize local businesses is offered by the Convention Center staff. As a city owned building, though managed by SMG, every effort should be made to ensure that local businesses profit from the convention work that comes to the city. This is simply not happening. The coordinator staff at the Convention Center has an adversarial relationship with these companies, for reasons that pre-date my residence in Memphis. In doing so, they do harm to the locally owned businesses that should be profiting from these events. For those events that choose to use outside production support, they have the additional challenge of a weakened IATSE. Local 69 has been in disrepair for the past 10 years. There are other options, but they largely draw from the same pool of individuals. The lack of a large pool of professional and knowledgeable stage hands means bringing in more crew from outside of town, and further injuring the local economy by sending the money outside of the city. Other Considerations Incoming Land Travel Perhaps our greatest strength is our central location, and our placement at the crossroads of two of the most traveled interstates in the nation, I-40 and I-55. This makes it easy for people traveling to Memphis by car to get here, and also gives outside production easy access to the city. Airport While Memphis may be one of the busiest airports in the south, much of that traffic is for freight, ie. FedEx. It is difficult to get from anywhere outside of the southeast to Memphis, even on NorthWest, our largest carrier. Most of this is due to demand. People do not necessarily travel to Memphis, the travel through Memphis. I fly upwards of 50,000 miles a year, and nearly every time I come into town, the line at baggage claim, the truest test of tourist travel to Memphis, is small. While convenient to me, this indicates that the large number of people arriving at our airport don’t intend to stay, but to get elsewhere. This is also true of some other hubs, but Memphis is also less of a destination than say Dallas or Chicago. Ground Transportation from the Airport From my house near Cooper Young it is a $20 cab ride to or from the airport. It’s more like $30 to the Peabody or Marriott (despite what is advertised on the web). That’s high. Two years ago, traveling from LaGuardia in NYC to MSG in Manhattan cost $35 (NY Cab says it’s $26). For contrast, a pack of smokes in Manhattan costs 8 bucks. Here cigarettes are about $3.50. Granted, the distance is greater in Memphis (by about 3 miles) but with higher COL, and fuel prices in NYC, one would think it would be much cheaper here in Memphis. An effective public trans system to downtown would mitigate that problem, and give conventioneers more affordable options. Memphis is not a Destination Outside of Elvis fanatics and Blues enthusiasts, Memphis does not project an image that would attract a diverse group of people. In order to keep people coming to Memphis we need to have first class convention facilities. That is not happening. By focusing our efforts on the further improvement of the Convention Center, and increasing hotel capacity we can better position ourselves to capitalize on this industry. Conclusion So back to the panhandlers. I call straw man. A little increased police presence and greater enforcement can minimize this problem or at least make it more manageable. Ending the permits for these individuals would also go a long way in making it known that they are not welcome. Even though I don’t concentrate on it, Memphis has a lot of things going for it, and, with proper leadership, could attract a lot of business and potential jobs with convention business. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to want that, based on our actions. Until we focus our efforts on that, nothing will change.

Ohh August…

Steve Ross — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:19:00 +0000

August is just around the corner and I’m already dreading it. Not because of the hot days or anything weather related, but because Congress is out, the news media is asleep and as a certified news junkie, the decline in substantive news in August leaves me shaking in my boots. I should find another hobby.

People say one is the loneliest number, but I disagree, August is the loneliest number. August has no real holiday except for Watermelon Day (3rd), Sneak Some Zucchini on Your Neighbor's Porch Night (8th), Lazy Day (the 10th), and National Relaxation Day and National Failures Day (15th)(Source). Clearly August has absolutely nothing good going for it. In August it’s just lots of heat, humidity, and stupid fucking stories about heat and humidity that any old staffer could bang out or recycle from last year.

Ugh…

You know what would light up this August? Impeachment proceedings. That’s just what August needs to repair its slackardly public image. I can see it now, national news correspondents forced to work through August, whining and crying about the vacation that they missed. By the 15th they could dub it “The August from Hell!” That would be nice.

On an unrelated note, I saw the Simpsons movie last night and all I have to say is…

Spider pig.

This Would Spell Disaster

Steve Ross — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:09:00 +0000

If anything is a sign that Republicans are desperate, this is it.

The ballot initiative, if passed, would split California, a state that Democrats have won in all four of the last four Presidential cycles, into 53 electoral contests, with the majority winner for the state taking the final 2 electoral votes. This is a potential disaster for the Democrats in ’08 should it pass.

In 2004, had this rule been in place, President Bush would not have had to make Kenneth Blackwell, former Secretary of State in Ohio, carry his water. The 20 odd districts he would have taken in California would have given him the election alone.

I am no fan of the Electoral College. Honestly, while this would be a step closer to a direct election, until the issue of smaller states with disproportionate EC power is addressed, this move would cripple any future Democratic Presidential candidate.

Back in 2000, I did some math that compared the single vote power to Electoral College vote for every state in the union. States that have 6-10 electoral votes faired pretty well, with just about a 1:1 average. States with 11-20 electoral votes saw the power of their vote drop to about .9:1, or each voter was worth about 10% less than the average voter in a state with 3-5 Electoral votes. When you go to states like Texas and California the ratio is more like .75:1. This means that it takes 4 voters in California to achieve the same electoral vote power that it would take 3 in Montana or North Dakota.

Right now, even though states like Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Idaho have some of the lowest populations per square mile, if not per state in the Union, they have a great deal of power because of their electoral college distribution. For instance, Wyoming has less that 500,000 people, but it still has 2 Senators and a Representative, giving it 3 Electoral College votes. 500,000 people is fewer than in TN-09. Were Tennessee to do the same thing with it’s electoral votes, we might be able to give one to a Democratic nominee, but not three. Wyoming can.

Think about it this way. In Electoral College math, Wyoming has 1 vote per165,000 people. California has one for every 664,000. Tennessee has one for every 545,000. So in effect, Wyoming has 4 times the EC power per vote than California, and 3.3 times the power per EC vote than Tennessee. Splitting up California actually makes the problem worse by decreasing the power of each of the 53 districts to 689,000 per. The final two being winner take all…2.

If Republicans really want a fair fight in ’08 they would start a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College. Unfortunately, over the past 8 years it has taken cheap stunts like this to get a Republican elected President. I guess you do what you know. Sure the Electoral College is a messed up way to elect a President, but California baby, this ain’t the way to fix it.

In Case there was Any Question…Tom Tancredo is Nuts

Steve Ross — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:26:00 +0000

I’m still not sure how I stumbled across this article, but the level of stupidity is notable. What’s so sad is that while Republican candidates may not want people like Ron Paul at their debates, I’m sure, after this little bit of wingnuttery, that Tom Tancredo will be welcomed with open arms.

There are a lot of problems with Tancredo’s position:

1. Outside of possibly reading too many Vince Flynn and taking them as prophesy, there is little or no evidence that any terrorist organization has nuclear capabilities.

2. Threatening the Holy sites of Mecca and Medina is a sure fire way to either piss the entire Muslim world off at us for threatening their holiest of holies, making our goal of thwarting the terrorists even harder, or ensures a redoubled effort to commit a terrorist attack on American soil in the hopes that the resulting attack on the holy sites will destabilize the Saudi regime enough for these dip shits, to take over.

3. Threatening to attack a reluctant ally for the actions of people residing outside of their country is like slapping you mother for something stupid her second cousin did. Why even go there?

I’m sure Mr. Tancredo is a nice enough guy when he’s been staying on his anti-psychotics medication. It’s people like Tom Tancredo that not only make America look bad, but also the people in his poor district. This is a call to you, people of CO-06, after Tom gets back on his meds, and out of the Presidential race, don’t re-elect him. I’m sure there are plenty of qualified people in the district, that aren’t bat shit crazy. If you must go for crazy, at least go for harmless crazy.

Cohen on DKos

Steve Ross — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:41:00 +0000

Here is the post.

Last I saw, it was at the top of the rec'd list.

More Math on the Electoral College

Steve Ross — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:01:00 +0000

Yesterday, WTL posted about North Carolina potentially splitting it’s Electoral College vote by districts. As I wrote a couple of days ago, a national movement on this front would ensure that NO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE would win in the foreseeable future.

The idea of splitting a state’s EC vote is quaint, but still ignores the impact of states whose distributions are 5 or less. Currently there are 17 states and DC that have 5 or fewer Electoral College votes for a total of 69 electors (note: this also includes Maine and Nebraska who currently split their votes according to district though they have largely gone with the entire state). Of these states, 6 and DC voted Democratic for a total of 25 Electors, or just over 1/3 of the available vote in this category. All of these states are located in highly Democratic regions, with the exception of Hawaii. The remaining 11 states that voted Republican are in the Mountain West (except for W. Virginia).

Splitting these states would do nothing to the final EC distribution. Because these states are so small, any single pickup would do little to help a “minority” candidate, be they Republican or Democrat.

If we look at states with distributions between 6 and 10 votes we find a similar situation. There are 14 states with a total of 112 EC votes. Of these 14 states, 5 voted Democratic (CT, MD, WI, MN, OR) for a total of 44 or 39% of the available electors. Splitting the vote in these states would likely result in a wash, with many rural areas going to Republicans and Urban areas go to Democrats. There is a possibility of some pickups (AR01, AR02 for example) but when you consider the losses to gains, Democrats may actually lose.

The issue gets more complicated in states with 11-20 electors. Of the 131 available electors in these 11 states 64 or 49% went to Democrats. However, Kerry won 5 of these states (NJ, MA, MD, MI, WA). Sure, Kerry may have picked up single votes in TN-09, and Cuyahoga Co. in Ohio, and several other urban areas, but he would have also lost a couple in WA, NJ, and MD. This probably would have again, made it a wash.

In the remaining 6 states with 21 or more electors we see a similar pattern. Democrats would lose some 20 electors in CA, as well as a couple in rural PA, NY and IL, gain some in FL, OH, and TX and still lose the election.

According to Polidata as reported by the Cook Political Report, Kerry won a mere 180 of 435 congressional districts, that’s 20 fewer than the number of Democratic House members in 2004. If you add 2 electors for each state won that makes his total 216, well below the 252 that he received. Clearly, in the 2004 election this would have actually given Bush his mandate. (NSFW)

Let’s go back to the 2000 election for a moment, which was far closer than the ’04 election. If Florida had electoral plurality in place, Gore would have likely picked up 11 electors, and won the election. Unfortunately for Kerry in ’04, the loss of Iowa and New Mexico, along with the redistribution of electoral votes in IL, MI, NY, and PA further hurt his chances of winning.

The Electoral College is a relic of 18th century technology and rural fear. Were it not for smaller and rural states, the Electoral College would never exist. Additionally, since the inception of the Electoral College, and the inclusion of the 3/5 rule for population calculation (slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person to pump up the populations of rural and southern states) the Electoral College has sustained a tyranny of the minority in the selection of the nation’s executive.

There are several national efforts to effectively dismantle the Electoral College including National Popular Vote. This would effectively create a national voting bloc upon the adoption by a a group of states with a majority of the electors. This has about as much chance of passing as a renewed attempt at prohibition.

Abolishing the Electoral College has even less chance of passing. In order to do so we would need an Amendment to the Constitution. This would require 30 states to make happen. Since 17 states stand to lose the most electoral power, and another 14 states could lose a small percentage of that power, it seems highly unlikely that this would pass.

A solution would be to work for Electoral College plurality in states that trend Republican statewide, but have concentrations of Democratic representatives. FL, TX, and OH come to mind immediately. These three states alone could have brought as many as 29 additional Electoral College votes to Kerry in 2004, without taking any away, giving him 281 Electoral College Votes, and the White House.

The Republican Party is currently doing the EXACT SAME THING with it’s attempt to enact Electoral College plurality in California, giving as many as 20 solid votes to Republican candidates and weakening our single largest distribution of Electoral College votes in the nation.

Another solution would be selecting candidates that are compelling nationally. Kerry, while a fine Senator, was not compelling in the flyover states as evidenced by his success in those states. Kerry was the last refuge of the establishment in 2004, a safe place for those who were and largely still are scared of Howard Dean. Should Hillary Clinton become the candidate, we can expect the same level of success nationally if the Republicans find a candidate that will motivate their base. As of this writing, this has not happened, but there is plenty of time between now and the election.

My greatest fear going forward is that we will select a candidate that will affirm Republican talking points (ala HFJ) against Democrats, constantly apologizing for being a Democrat or worse, trying to run to the right of the Republican. This has to stop. I am encouraged that the DLC, one of the largest apology groups in the nation, is apparently losing strength. Still, should Hillary become the nominee, I have no doubt that there will be a resurgence of DLCers on the Sunday Morning windbag shows, backhandedly eroding any chance of a Democratic President in 2008.

We can work to rig the Electoral College to our favor all we want, but ultimately it is our candidate’s failure to own our policies that hurts us. Clinton won 12 more states in 1996 than Gore in 2000, and 13 more in 1992. Say what you will about Clinton but he made no apologies for who he was or what he believed. Neither Gore nor Kerry can say that in their campaigns. People expect strength in their Presidents. Strength of conviction and the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is right, even if it seems unpopular. In order for us to win in 2008, Electoral College be damned, that’s exactly the image we have to project. We can win as soon as stop beating ourselves. Hopefully, 2008 will be that year.

Happy Birthday Drinking Liberally Memphis!

Steve Ross — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:52:00 +0000

Here's a little video we shot to say Happy Birthday to the Memphis chapter of Drinking Liberally.

To find out more about the national movement that is Drinking Liberally, check out their site.

For information about the Memphis chapter go here.

Jim Strickland Button

Steve Ross — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:12:00 +0000

Hey guys, Below is a button for Jim Strickland's site/campaign for District 5. Here's the code...

This is what happens when your credit runs out...

Steve Ross — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:47:00 +0000

China, the country, not the wrestler, or the porn star, has us by the short hairs. See, they hold some $900b dollars in US debt, and enough hard currency to devalue our money to the level of the peso. That is, if they wanted to.

Well, if we don't stop threatening their way of life..."selling us stuff", by arguing for protections in the workplace, and trying to save American jobs, and arguing for a currency that lives on the free market, like ours does, they just might.

The UK Telegraph reports that the "nuclear" attack that so many of us have grown up in fear of, may just be around the corner. Not a bomb per se, a financial nuclear attack.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

Our trade deficit with China has nearly tripled since 2001 from $83b to $232b/yr. Total trade deficit since 2001, $1T. China is the second largest holder of US debt behind Japan.

This is the real deal folks. This is the equivalent of teetering on the brink of foreclosure.

24% of the American people see China as an economic threat according to a recent poll. Count me as one of them...a threat of our own making.

Magic word: sustainability - as in, we can't sustain this any more.

Who Supports Our Forgotten Workers?

Steve Ross — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:58:00 +0000

I’ve been in a fit of apathy over the past couple of days, and what better to reinforce that apathy than ANOTHER “debate”. This one dealt with some issues that are actually interesting to me, primarily dealing with labor. Still, we had to hear Obama shove his foot in his mouth, and Chris Dodd (27 years in the Senate), Joe Biden (34 years in the Senate) and Hillary Clinton (7 years in the Senate, 8 years in WH) apologize for helping create/maintain much of the mess, particularly with labor, that we currently have. I find the idea of the whole thing quaint, quite honestly. In the past 27 years no President has done ONE GOD DAMNED POSITIVE THING for the workers of this country, period. Granted, 5 of those 7 terms have been run by the Republicans, the other two, by the 20th century’s most successful “republocrat” and husband of the front-runner. What exactly does the AFL-CIO expect from this panel of insiders and general rich folk? What the hell do you expect them to say, “We’re working for more jobs in China and Mexico”? The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party has been running scared from labor ever since Regan busted up the Air Traffic Controllers strike back in 1981. Think I’m nuts? Check this out. Democrats, as a national party, have not done shit to strengthen unions. We’ve been cow towing to business interests to trying and seem more Republican. We’ve left the American worker behind, and they should be suspicious of us. To my way of thinking there were two credible candidates up there last night, one is a character in a Tolkien novel and IATSE #600 member who irritates the shit out of me, the other is a guilty rich guy (whom I happen to support, FYI). The rest are old school blowhards, and the NKOTB who did everything in his power to harness the credibility of being in his home state and not THEM. I have to wonder if there will be a Republican version of this. Labor as an organization may lean left, the members don’t necessarily, particularly in states in the mid-west. Perhaps they would like to hear just how soundly they will be fucked under another Republican administration. It’s not as bad now that Johnson & Johnson has that special “warming” formula, and hell, they should be used to it by now.

Huckabee goes Populist...

Steve Ross — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:38:00 +0000

This is courtesy of TPM...

If Huckabee can get this to sell, and there's no indication that he can, but still, the inevitability of Hillary is in some serious danger.

We Do it to Ourselves

Steve Ross — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:12:00 +0000

Last week, I wrote here about a report in the UK Telegraph. In the report, two Chinese Party members threatened the “nuclear option” with our currency. This move would effectively dump billions of US currency and bonds on the market, devaluing our currency beyond the historically low levels that it currently resides.

China may be sending a shot across our bow, or may be blowing smoke up our asses. The simple fact that another country can have such power over our finances and potentially use that power as a political tool is a direct threat to the efficacy of our nation. My position is, if they can, we need to assume that they will. The solution; work tirelessly to correct the problem (buy back the debt).

Since that piece, we have seen the Dow lose around 8% of it’s value due to a scare in the sub-prime mortgage market. Additionally, the dollar dropped further today due to the lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The market needed more liquidity, but as long as lenders are crapping themselves, we could drop the rates to zero and see little result. Japan’s financial crunch of several years ago is a great example of this effect. They had free money (0% interest from bank to bank) available for years, but it took several years for the lenders to come around and inject more liquidity into the economy.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that these events (China and the sub-prime market) are directly linked, but both issues are related to our fiscal policy decisions over the course of both this administration and, to a certain extent, the former. Our insistence on dismantling our ability to provide for ourselves through the outsourcing of our industrial infrastructure is the problem. By doing so, we set our nation up to be held hostage by those who may or may not have OUR best interests in mind.

By mortgaging our future through budget and trade deficits we give our economic competitors additional leverage against our financial independence. This leverage may not lead to the “nuclear option” because those who own our debt would be fools to dump it, effectively making these bonds junk, but it is this influence that these potential actions have on our nation that should concern us the most. If we cede this power to others through undisciplined spending, we are effectively selling our nation to the rest of the world.

In a comment on my previous post, Rick with the Freedonian asked about our trade deficit with China. Here are the numbers from the US Census bureau. Rick is right that the trade deficit has risen dramatically. In 2001 it stood at $83b/yr. 2003 it rose to $124b/yr. 2006, according to the Foreign Trade Statistics site on the Census.gov site it stood at $231b/yr, increasing nearly 280% in 6 years.

Trade is an important part of every nation’s economic health. Unfortunately, where China is concerned, we are so far out of balance with no end in sight, that by importing more goods from China we are damaging our future fiscal stability and further devaluing our currency, putting us in a classic Catch 22, more debt and less buying power.

This is not a call to end trade with China, nor is it a Pat Buchanan type xenophobic call to make China some kind of boogeyman. We must put our trade deficit with China more into balance and work to buy back as much of our debt as quickly possible. The genie must be put back in the bottle. Until we do so, our nation’s fiscal security rests in the hands of someone else.

Sources and Methods…

Steve Ross — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:29:00 +0000

It’s late, and I have to be up in 5.5 hours, but I can’t sleep for some reason so, here goes.

Remember a couple of years ago when the phrase “sources and methods” was in vogue? Mostly it concerned intelligence techniques, and revolved around how secretive everything had to be because if the terrorists ever found out how we haven’t found them, they would change their tactics. Since the main thrust of the Administration’s recent terrorist fighting techniques has concentrated on stateside threats, I guess the phrase has been shelved. In any case, it needs to be thought about, because it wasn’t thought about at the time.

If these “sources and methods” include spying on people stateside with little reason, via satellite or network (including phone) protocols that fall outside the law, or worse, in the grey area, as it seems to be, then how can we be the Reaganesque notion of the “shining city on the hill”? I mean, wouldn’t all that shiny screw up the satellite surveillance?

Seriously though, let’s think about this. For 30 bucks I can find out things about you that your mother doesn’t know. For $70, I can find out things that only you, your doctor, and your accountant know and perhaps some things you forgot. For $150, I can find out everything but what you ate last night, and I’d just as soon ask you that.

So if I can find all of this out, what’s to stop the government? They have the resources, they have the time, they have the manpower…what’s to stop them? 7 years ago I would have said the Constitution, but since the current administration uses it as a means to wipe the chicken grease off of their grimy little paws, I’m not so sure.

America has a lot of questions to ask itself in the next 14 months. We have to decide who we want to be.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Lafayette back in 1815 wrote this:

More than a generation will be requisite [for an unprepared people], under the administration of reasonable laws favoring the progress of knowledge in the general mass of the people, and their habituation to an independent security of person and property, before they will be capable of estimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of a sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests for preservation.

I still don’t think we are “capable of estimating” the “value of freedom and the necessity of a sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests” as a nation. If we were, we wouldn’t be running scared from our Constitution.

Yeah, it’s easy to think that the tide is turning, but I’ll have to agree with the Republican strategists who say that we are one terrorist attack away from their favored brand of “democratic totalitarianism”. We need strength in our resolve. We need comfort in that resolve. Not the resolve of an administration that would take all that we have fought to preserve over the past 200+ years and turn it into a junior varsity Soviet styled fiefdom, but the resolve of a robust nation that recognizes it’s strength in it’s diversity and dissent…a nation that views reasonable privacy as an asset, and does not work to quash it…a nation that holds on high the sound ideals set forth in the Constitution, circumstance be damned.

We’ve become chickenshitted. We can flex our military muscle in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever the hell else we feel like it as much as we want to, but the American public are too chickenshitted to keep the Constitution, the ideals our nation was founded on, from becoming Colonel Sanders next wet-nap.

We’ve lost our faith. We’ve lost our nerve. And the next person who serves as President won’t change that. We have to. So in this national month of media blackout and governmental stagnation, let’s take a moment to put our mythology aside and ask JUST WHO THE FUCK WE ARE as a nation. Until we know who we are, we can never reach or truly achieve that "shining City on the hill" status that would turn our mythology into a reality.

P.S. No George, I don't hate America, just "your" America.

I Can't Take Much More of This

Steve Ross — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:22:00 +0000

My frustration level with the Congress has been building for months now. It started back in December, right after the election, when Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table, a move that yanked the teeth out of the body, without a sufficient denture order. In May, I was very annoyed with the big chicken-out on a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Then there was the FISA reach around that happened just a couple of weeks ago. Come on people surely you must be joking. Finally, today, the new and improved deadline for receiving documents about warrentless wiretapping by the Senate Judiciary committee. It came and went with a whimper.

I have no more patience for this unbridled acquiescence. If this Democratic led Congress is to distinguish itself from the rubberstamp Republican Congress that preceded it, it must do something other than act as a rubberstamp Congress. That means holding the Administration accountable. That means holding the Administration in Contempt of Congress for their unwillingness to even respond to the reasonable requests of a body that is tasked with oversight.

This is about duty. This is about responsibility. This is about living up to the expectations of an electorate that overwhelmingly gave the Democratic Party the power to hold the Administration accountable for potential violations and abuse of power. This is a watershed moment for our Party.

The toothless response by the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee must be followed up by real decisive action. Anything short of a Contempt vote is inadequate. There are two key reasons for this assertion: 1. Failure to address this blatant dismissal of oversight authority means that future legislators will be left with few real tools to conduct their responsibility. 2. By rolling over to the Administration, the Democratic leadership will prove, once and for all, that they are no different from their Republican counterparts to an electorate that is becoming less and less tolerant of their inaction every day.

It’s time we act, and act with the authority that is both vested in the Constitution, and given us by the people of this great nation last November, and hold this administration accountable in both houses of Congress. If we fail, it is not only a failure for our Party, but also a failure for America.

UPDATE: Video of the Press conference..

Talent be Damned, Vick Should be Banned

Steve Ross — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:00:00 +0000

So I'm watching Monday Night Football tonight, and they just won't shut the hell up about Michael Vick. For the 3 of you that have been living under a rock and don't know, Vick, the Quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, has been indicted for dogfighting charges, and will plead guilty on Monday. The charges could put him behind bars for as many as 5 years, though they're saying on TV that he will serve up to 18 months.

Aside from the charges, which disgust me in ways that I can't even express, the thing that pisses me off about this is that some of these TV commentators are talking about Vick's eventual return to the NFL in essentially 2 years. I call bullshit. This is not some perpetual "being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people" like Pac-Man. This was a willful act of supreme inhumanity, perpetrated by an individual who not only should have known better, but had more to lose than I can really measure.

Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the NFL has the opportunity to shape the future image of the league. If Pac-Man has to stay out a year for being a dumb-ass with dumb-assed friends, then surely Vick should be banned for life for being involved in a willfully vicious and illegal activity that has taken the life of some 50 animals. Talent be damned, Vick should be banned. If not, all of Goodell's attempts to clean up the image of the league will be in vain.

Bush Dog – Vic Snyder AR-02 (Revised and Extended)

Steve Ross — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:32:00 +0000

Note: This is an updated version of an earlier post. This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

Vic Snyder is a Democratic Representative from Arkansas. First elected in 1996, Snyder was viewed as a liberal choice due to his work in the state legislature to have state sodomy laws repealed among other things. Both 1996 and 1998 were hard fought campaigns largely due to his positions on Arkansas sodomy laws, but since he has seen little competition winning around 60% of the vote in his past 3 elections.

According to the Washington Post, Snyder votes with Democrats 95.7% of the time, making him the third highest rated “Bush Dog” of the 41. He has a Progressive Punch Index of 77.65%. Snyder is a member of the New Democrats. He serves on the Veterans Affairs and Armed Services Committee. A former Marine and veteran of the Vietnam War, Snyder began practicing medicine as a family physician in 1982. He earned a law degree from the UALR Law School in 1988. He entered politics in 1990, running for State Senator, where he served in the State Senate until 1996 with his election to the US House.

Snyder has a fairly progressive voting record, receiving high marks from organizations like NARAL and the AFL-CIO. Additionally, Snyder has consistently voted to protect Social Security, to increase federal funding for Health care, and to protect public education. He receives low marks from right wing groups such as the NRA and the Christian Coalition, and has consistently voted against the Bush tax cuts. He voted against making the PATRIOT Act permanent, and electronic surveillance without a warrant, which makes his more recent vote on FISA puzzling. Additionally, Snyder voted against the original AUMF for Iraq, which makes his capitulation vote even more disappointing.

Inquiries made to Snyder’s office concerning the votes in question (FISA and Capitulation) have netted this response:

There are no simple solutions to resolving the crisis in Iraq. I have recently concluded a series of hearings examining alternative strategies for dealing with the Iraq crisis. Retired generals, think tankers, and academics who study the Middle East were invited in to offer alternative solutions for stabilizing Iraq, or minimizing the negative impact of a withdrawal, and to evaluate the impact on our national security. These hearings will help shape future legislative efforts, and may lay the groundwork for a bipartisan solution to the Iraq crisis. Without a bipartisan solution Congress cannot force a change of course before the next Presidential election.

As of this writing, Snyder has no primary or general opponent. If either is to emerge, it would probably be January before anything specific is publicly known based on past campaigns.

AR-02 is the most urban district in the state of Arkansas. Comprised of 8 counties in Central Arkansas, AR-02 is also the smallest district geographically in Arkansas. Pulaski Co. constitutes 52% of the population of AR-02 and has consistently given Snyder significant support. Of the counties in AR-02, only one, Saline, the third largest county in the district reported less than a majority for Snyder. AR-02 has a Cook rating of R+.1.

Bush Dog – Mike Ross AR-04 (Revised and Extended)

Steve Ross — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:57:00 +0000

Note: This is an updated version of an earlier post. This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

Mike Ross is a conservative Democrat from south Arkansas. Elected to his first term in 2000, Ross narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Jay Dickey by 4000 votes. Dickey challenged again in 2002 and only received 40% of the vote. In 2004 Ross ran unopposed and 2006 Ross received over 74% of the vote.

Ross is a member of the Blue Dogs. He votes with the Democratic party 91.4% of the time. Ross has a PPI of 72.79. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science and Technology.

Ross’ voting record is a mixed bag. He has consistently voted against choice, gun control, and civil liberties. On the other hand, he receives high marks for supporting Unions, public health, and fair (not free) trade. He voted to make the PATRIOT Act permanent, to ban flag burning, and to protect the Pledge of Allegiance.

AR-04 is a large rural district in south Arkansas. 26 of the state’s 75 counties comprise the District. Median household income as of 2004 was $30547, the poverty level in the district is near 18%. AR-04 is a geographically diverse area. Much of the eastern part of the district is farmland, while the northwest portion of the district gets into the southernmost part of the Ozarks. South Arkansas is very rural. The west end of the district trends Republican, and generally has a greater overall population density than the east.

In 2004 Bush carried AR-04 by less than 4200 votes with 227,210 cast for the two main candidates (51% to 49%). AR-04 has a Cook rating of D+.5

Bush Dogs

Steve Ross — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:02:00 +0000

On Wednesday, Matt Stoller of Open Left posted a list of the 41 Democratic Congresscritters that voted for the Iraq capitulation bill and the more recent “temporary” FISA update requested by the White House. The post can be found here.

Six of the 41 “members” of this illustrious group are Representatives in Tennessee and Arkansas. They are:

Lincoln Davis – TN-04
Jim Cooper – TN-05
Bart Gordon – TN-06
John Tanner – TN-08
Vic Snyder – AR-02 (who I profiled earlier)
Mike Ross – AR-04 (who I also profiled earlier)

Four of Five Democratic Representatives in Tennessee caved to the administration. That’s pathetic.

I feel that these four individuals need a profile of their own (per the request of the Open Left post), but as a newcomer to the state, and largely unfamiliar with most areas outside of Memphis, feel unqualified to write them. I am, however, more than willing to assist on any kind of stat research, technical support, or if you want to give me some insight on these districts, I’ll be happy to write them.

I understand that some of these Representatives may be friends or acquaintances. The thrust of this project is not necessarily to primary these people, or get them voted out of the House, but to create a grass-roots movement to hold them accountable for going against Democratic principles.

So, if you have some time this weekend and the inclination, give me a shout, or get a big old head of steam and write a profile on your own. Regardless of where you stand on the representatives, I think we all can agree that party loyalty is one of the main components necessary to maintain a majority in the House. These guys broke rank, and deserve to hear about it at the very least.

P.S. I see Jeff over at Pesky Fly mentioned something about this on Wednesday. Let this serve as a reminder, and an offer to help.

Ohh Gonzo, you should have been gone sooo long ago…

Steve Ross — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:16:00 +0000

If you’re not at work today, let me suggest you break out the bubbly, and raise a glass to the departure of the WORST USAG EVAH!

That’s right, unless you’ve been living under a rock, or trying to avoid the media, you know that Gonzo resigned. And there was much rejoicing.

Don’t get too excited though. This may be a triumph for freedom, justice and the American way, but it is likely a defeat for that which upholds these ideals, oversight.

By resigning, Gonzo can effectively thumb his nose at Congress, much like Harriet Miers. He’s no longer responsible to them, so to hell with them. If you think for one moment that this isn’t a part of the Administration’s strategy, you’re high.

Congress has already shown itself horribly lacking in its ability to get former administration officials to testify. Not only that, the House has done nothing to hold Miers in contempt. So, we can subpoena Rove and Gonzo all we want, if the Congress is going to roll over and wait for that belly scratch, they can expect to be waiting a long time.

Between the FISA fuck-up and the long list of things that have just gone wrong in the Congress since early May, both bodies seem to be in public opinion freefall. I think I have a solution for that. A 5 point plan, if you will...

1. Hold Miers in contempt of Congress (inherent contempt) and send out the dogs to get her.

2. Go after Gonzo for perjury or at least misleading statements, and send out the dogs for him.

3. Subpoena every single former administration official, just for shits and giggles and find those that don’t show in contempt, rinse and repeat.

4. Parade Miers and Gonzo, and anyone else who would subvert the will of Congress up the capitol steps in shackles, then announce that they have been taken to an undisclosed area of the Capitol, and if they are uncooperative, will be subjected to those “enhanced interrogation techniques” that they were so fond of in office.

5. Watch as Cheney goes on an extended tour of third world dictatorships (they’ll call it a “fact finding” mission).

Ahh, but that’s not going to happen. Our Democratic Leadership Castrati (DLC) in the House and Senate are happy to look helpless, to ensure that no Democrat ever sees the living quarters of the White House again. I don’t know what it is, but if these guys have a pair, they haven’t dropped yet.

So sit back, and enjoy the show as the Administration bats the congress around like a kitten with a new ball of yarn. Nothing better to bide the time, until the Bushes get run out of town and move to their new place in Argentina.

Happy Monday!

Skeletor to Replace Snarff at Justice

Steve Ross — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:59:00 +0000

Word on the street is that evil overlord and Department of Homeland Security chief Skeletor will replace the furry loveable but woefully incompetent Snarf at the Justice Department.

The move, largely seen as a chance to scare the living bejesus out of children and the Democratically controlled Congress, was hailed by many as “something else”.

This calls into question the current investigations in the DOJ. Will the shadowy Skeletor allow any investigations to go forward or will he merely create the perpetual stalemate that maintained his position on the cartoon He-Man and the Masters of the Universe for so many years.

In the mean time, the DOJ will be led by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. I feel safer already. /snark

Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s Time to Pick a Challenger

Steve Ross — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:37:00 +0000

With the upcoming Labor Day holiday, finally, some 6 months in, the Memphis Mayoral race is set to start heating up. With 3 top tier candidates, Herenton, Chumney, and Morris polling in a tight group, it seems almost certain that Herenton, with his guaranteed 30ish% and the power of the incumbency behind him, will win an unprecedented fifth term in office unless something radically changes.

I’m not going to make a determination as to whether that would be a good or bad thing, but with over 60% of the population favoring “someone else”, one would think that Herenton has outstayed his welcome in the Bluff City’s top spot.

This puts the upstarts and their supporters in the awkward position of either remaining loyal to their candidate and effectively splitting the vote, with both losing, or quietly coming together behind a consensus candidate that can do what no one has done before, defeat Herenton.

It’s a hard pill to swallow really. Both main challengers have their plusses and minuses. Both have their fervent supporters and detractors, many of whom are my friends. I’ve chosen to not take sides in any of this, watching from the sidelines and taking notes along the way. The one area of agreement that both camps seem to have is that it’s time for a change in Memphis, and that is really the issue at hand here.

Memphis is a divided city. More divided that anyone is really ready to admit. Since 1991, Herenton has used that division to his advantage, and by all accounts, barring some tectonic shift, he will use that to his advantage again this election year. This is the same brand of politics by division that Karl Rove and his cohorts used in 2000, the 2002 midterms, and 2004. We have the opportunity to stop it right here, right now, but it will take some co-ordination and concession.

I don’t know, and won’t say who the candidate is that can bring the city together, even if for a fleeting moment. But I know one thing for sure, if someone doesn’t work in that direction, their candidacy is screwed.

On September 10th, we have the opportunity to view the challengers in a real live debate on Channel 3 from 7 to 8 pm sponsored by MPACT Memphis and WREG Channel 3. The one hour debate is accepting question ideas from you, the people of Memphis. Send them to info@mpcatmemphis.org. Herenton was invited, but declined. This gives the 60% the opportunity to make an informed decision and hopefully not fall into the 30ish % trap so expertly set by the Herenton campaign.

Change seems to be what Memphis wants, but without some kind of coordination or concentration, we seem destined to more of the same. If we want change, we have to come together.

Shameful

Steve Ross — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:51:00 +0000

Representative Steve Cohen walked into what can only be described as an ambush. Last night, at the weekly meeting of the Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association, Cohen was attacked for his support of a bill that would provide stiffer penalties for people engaging in hate crimes, by the very people his vote sought to protect.

The world is one crazy assed place.

Aside from the normal racist, “He can’t represent us because he’s white” garbage thrown around, the biggest complaint seemed to surround the inclusion of homosexuals as potential victims of hate crimes.

Citing fears that he wouldn’t be able to bash gays from the pulpit, LaSimba Grey has been an outspoken critic of the bill. Unfortunately, Grey is being willfully wrong. The bill does nothing to limit protected speech, including the assertion that homosexual sex is a sin. Still, Grey and his followers continue to use this right-wing straw man to prop up their cause.

I’m no biblical scholar, but I challenge anyone to find a passage that quotes Jesus calling homosexuality a sin. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to find a passage in the bible where Jesus instructs humans to pass judgment on the “sins” of others. “Judge not lest ye be judged”, anyone? Indeed, in Matthew 7 it seems that in Jesus’ own words he instructs us to address our own problems first before trying to “fix” anyone else (Matthew 7:4-5). So, with that in mind, who is LaSimba Grey, or anyone else, for that matter, to pass judgment? Love the sinner, hate the sin anyone?

I suppose that preaching the forgiveness and understanding that Jesus speaks of in the Gospels just isn’t the stuff that will whip up the kind of spiritual nationalism that people like LaSimba Grey require to keep attendance, and by extension, tithes up. Nor is it the stuff of notoriety that Grey seems to crave. It is, however, a sad indictment on the state of Christianity in America, when the words spoken by the Christian savior are ignored in favor of worldly prejudice.

Perhaps the most saddening thing that I bring out of this development is that a leader in the black community would use the inclusion of another minority group as a means to block legislation that would serve his own people. This contradiction was not lost on the savior that Grey purports to glorify. As Jesus says in Matthew 7:15,

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Bush Dog - TN-04 Lincoln Davis Updated...

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:41:00 +0000

Note: This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

Update (10/9/07): As I and others wrote earlier today, there is a possibility of a Davis run for Governor of Tennessee in 2010.
Here are three posts about it.

Lincoln Davis TN-04, is a conservative Democrat from a rural district in Tennessee. First elected in 2002, Davis has gone on to win in 2004 and 2006 by healthy margins. Davis is fairly progressive on issues that affect rural Tennesseans. Some of these issues include cleaning up coal mine operations, and protecting Social Security and Public Education. On the other hand, Davis consistently receives high marks from conservative groups on issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage, and the GWOT. He voted to make the Patriot act permanent, and has consistently voted to continue funding with few or no benchmarks, the war in Iraq.

Davis is a member of the Blue Dogs. He votes with the Democratic Party 89% of the time. On Key votes Davis’ record is not so shiny, voting against the party on 4 key votes in the 110th and 12 key votes in the 109th. He has a Progressive Punch index of 68.01. He is a member of the Agriculture, Science, and Transportation and Infrastructure committees. 68% of his fundraising came from PAC’s. Of that money, 64% came from business. This means that 43% of his total fundraising effort in 2006 came from business.

In 2006 Norma Cartwright and Harvey Howard challenged Davis in the primary. Cartwright received some press on the internet but received few votes in the primary (10%). Howard did even less (3.8%).

As of this writing, Davis has no primary or general opponent. David Dunaway has been filing FEC forms since 1997, but has not run a campaign since his loss to Van Hilleary – R in the general election in 2000. The FEC site reports that Davis has some $83k on hand as of July.

Tennessee’s 4th district is a large J shaped district stretching from south central Tennessee to the north and east. There are 24 counties in TN-04. In 2006 only 6 of these counties had total vote counts of over 10,000 votes, and only 1 saw total vote counts reach 20,000. The Cook Political Report lists TN-04 a R+3.2 rating. In 2004, Kerry only won two counties in this district. In 2000, Gore, a native of Tennessee won 10, though those wins were in mostly smaller counties in the center of the state. The largest cities in the district are Franklin (42,000) and Columbia (33,000).

Bush Dog - TN-05 Jim Cooper

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:46:00 +0000

Note: This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

Jim Cooper TN-05 has been involved in Tennessee politics for a very long time. First elected in 1983 to TN-04 he served in this seat until he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate against Fred Thompson in 1994. In 2002 Cooper won the seat representing TN-05 and has served that district since. Cooper has staked out positions contrary to traditional Democratic values such as abortion, gay marriage, and the PATRIOT act. On the flip side, he has regularly voted for public health, pro-union, and pro environment. He has been called a “big spender” by some on the right, despite his continued efforts to keep the deficit in check.

Cooper is a member of the Blue Dogs. He votes with the Democratic Party 86% of the time. This is lower than any other Democratic member of the Tennessee delegation, even though he votes with the Party on key votes more than his conservative counterparts in TN-04, 06, and 08. In the 109th and 110th Congresses he has voted against the party on 5 key votes. His Progressive Punch Index is 71.93. Davis is a member of the Armed Services, Budget and Oversight and Government Reform committees. The majority of his fundraising comes from individuals (60%), but 77% of his PAC money comes from business.

Since his election in 2002, Cooper has seen only one primary challenge that had little traction. He has won every general election by significant margins. Currently, no candidates, including Cooper have declared for TN-05. A source in Nashville tells me that TN-05 is one of the safest Democratic seats in Tennessee, and that the feeling in the district is that Cooper can serve as long as he wants. In 2006 Cooper garnered 69% of the vote, 85% of that Coming from Davidson Co. A search of the FEC website for financial disclosures shows that Cooper has about $25k on hand after debts.

TN-05 is located in the center of the state. The district is dominated by Nashville (Davidson Co.), but also includes portions of Cheatham and Wilson Counties. Of the 178,000 votes cast in 2006 for the TN-05 House seat, nearly 104,000 for Cooper came from Davidson Co. alone, more than enough to put him over the top without the benefit of Cheatham (4477) and Wilson (14503) Counties. In 2004, Kerry and Bush ran neck and neck in heavily Democratic TN-05. Gore carried the District easily in 2000. The district has a Cook rating of D+6.2.

Bush Dog - TN-06 Bart Gordon

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:50:00 +0000

Note: This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

Bart Gordon, TN-06 is the senior member of the Tennessee Congressional delegation. First elected in 1984, Gordon has seen little primary or general election competition since redistricting in 2000, winning by devastating margins. Gordon, like other Tennessee Democrats holds conservative positions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Unlike the others he also favors eliminating the Estate Tax and making the Bush Tax cuts permanent. His positions fall more in line with traditional Democratic values on issues such as Education, Healthcare and Social Security. Gordon as chair of the House Science and Technology committee also favors “net-neutrality”.

Gordon is a member of the Blue Dogs. He votes with the Democratic Party 92.7% of the time. That number is deceptive because Gordon has voted against the party twice on key votes in the 110th Congress, and 12 times on key votes in the 109th. He has a PPI of 69.45. Gordon is the Chair of the Science and Technology committee and also serves on the Energy and Commerce committee. 51% of his fundraising comes from PAC’s and 71% of that comes from business. He is one of the most well funded members of the Tennessee delegation with over $746K cash on hand.

No candidate has announced in either the primary or general against him as of this writing. Additionally, all past candidates have issued termination papers of their campaigns.

Tennessee’s 6th district is located to the north and east of Nashville. It is a largely rural district comprised of 15 total and partial counties. The two largest cities in the district are Hendersonville (40,000) just northeast of Nashville, and Murfreesboro (92,000) to the southeast of Nashville. In 2004, Bush carried the district by 10 points. In 2000, Gore lost by a fraction of a point (3k votes) The Cook Political Report lists TN-06 with a R+3.8.

Bush Dog - TN-08 John Tanner

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:53:00 +0000

Note: This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

John Tanner TN-08 is the second longest serving Democrat in the Tennessee delegation. First elected in 1988, Tanner has seen scant opposition since his first term. Tanner is anti-abortion, against gay marriage, pro-gun, and for Free Trade. He supports protecting Social Security, opposes the Bush tax cuts, with the exception of the Estate tax, is pro-public health, and supports public education. He voted against making the PATRIOT act permanent, but has a mixed record on other civil liberties issues.

Tanner is a founding member of the Blue Dogs. He votes with the Democratic Party 88% of the time. Tanner has a PPI of 63.19. In the 110th Congress he has voted against the Party twice on key issues and in the 109th he voted against the party 8 times on key votes. He is a member of the House Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs committees. 72% of Tanner’s fundraising effort comes from PAC’s with 90% of that from business.

Any real opposition, be it primary or in the general, is unlikely. Tanner has consistently and soundly defeated just about every opponent since his election to the seat in 1988.

Tennessee’s 8th district is located in the northwest corner of the state. Made up of 19 complete or partial counties, the largest cities in the district are Clarksville (123k), Jackson (59k) and Martin (25k). Millington, TN, just north of Memphis, is the home of a Naval base that handles personnel, and is the only major military installation in Tennessee. In 2004 Kerry lost this district by nearly 6 points. In 2000, Gore narrowly won it. The Cook Political Report lists TN-08 with a D+.1.

Bush Dog - Gene Taylor MS-04

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:05:00 +0000

Note: This post is in response to, and support of the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left. This, like all the other profiles, is a work in progress. If you have any insight or information to add to this profile, please do so in the comments.

Gene Taylor MS-04, was first elected to the House in 1989, replacing Larkin Smith in a special election after his death. He won election to a full term in 1990 by a large margin, and has seen little significant opposition since. Taylor is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus. He has consistently acted contrary to Democratic platforms on issues such as; abortion, gay marriage, the PATRIOT Act, and separation of Church and state issues. He opposes privatizing Social Security and much of the Bush tax plan.

Taylor is a member of the Blue Dogs. He votes with the Democratic Party 79% of the time. In the 110th Congress, Taylor has voted against Democrats on 6 of 11 key votes. Similarly, in the 109th he voted against Democrats on 8 of 17 key votes. His PPI is 50.15. Taylor is a member of the House Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure committees. In 2006 Taylor received 60% of his fundraising from PAC’s, 78.8% of that coming from business (47.28% of his total).

Taylor has run with little opposition since his election in 1989 winning as much as 80% of the vote in this heavily conservative district.

MS-04 is located in the southeast corner of the state. All or part of 15 counties are represented in the district. The largest cities are Hattiesburg (150k metro), Gulfport (71k) and Biloxi (50k). Population totals in the district have probably dropped as the result of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. MS-04 has a Cook rating of R+16.3, the third highest Republican rating of a Democratically held seat behind Edwards TX-17 (R+ 17.7) and Matheson UT-02 (R+16.9).

My Thoughts on the "Bush Dog" Campaign

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:39:00 +0000

I’ve spent the better part of the weekend researching southern “Bush Dogs”. If you don’t know what a “Bush Dog” is, go to this FAQ to find out more.

With all the time I’ve invested, I thought it might be a good idea to talk about my intentions and my motivation in participating in this somewhat controversial project.

First of all, as you can see from the profiles listed below, they are not hit pieces. They are merely informational pieces about the Representatives in question. I have made every effort to remain neutral in reporting the facts about these individuals. Their records stand on their own.

Secondly, I’m not a political expert, but an active observer of the process. From that observation I have made some determinations and certainly have my opinions, but none of those determinations or opinions are included in the profiles.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, being involved in a campaign to hold individual representatives accountable for their voting record is not detrimental to maintaining a Democratic majority. A lack of accountability is what got us into the mess we’re in right now (Thanks Republicans), and all elected officials regardless of party or position should be held to account, even when it’s not an election year.

Fourth, the Democratic Party is a diverse community, and we should respect all sides of that diversity. Diversity spurs debate, which, while ugly at times, is one of the greatest strengths of the Democratic Party. Lack of diversity of thought is one of the things that is killing the Republicans right now.

So diversity is good, divisiveness is bad. It is only when we belittle each other in our disagreements, or affirm opposition rhetoric publicly that we weaken our party. If you need an example of this just check out anything Joe Lieberman has said in the past 18 months.

Aside from Lieberman, I don’t think there’s a Democrat out there who wants a weaker Democratic Party. Of the 7 districts that I have profiled, only three consistently lean Democratic, two of those by very small margins. Were it not for these individuals, who have overcome the odds, the Democratic Party would have a much smaller majority in the House. Indeed, without these 41 Representatives there would be no majority in the House. I applaud all of these members for their resolve in overcoming these electoral odds and retaining their seats in the face of adversity for, in some cases, years.

That said, I cannot square some of their votes with their party affiliation. Diversity is great, but voting against the fundamental right to privacy (the recent FISA debacle) seems contrary to not just Democratic or Republican values, but American values. I don’t say this to slam the 41 Democrats that voted to ease restrictions on wire-taps and other technologically advanced surveillance methods, but to put the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of a Republican administration that was too grossly incompetent and patently partisan to react to intelligence that signaled the immanent attacks of 9/11. Indeed, had the warnings brought forth in the August PDB that Bush characterized as “covering your ass” been heeded, these Orwellian tactics would not seem so “necessary” or palatable now.

Unfortunately, that’s all water under the bridge (pardon the pun Minneapolis).

Going forward, we need to put together a concerted effort to praise those who do the right thing, Bush Dog or not, and counsel those who don’t. We can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. That’s not to say we can’t hold those who vote against American values accountable, but that a more measured approach will help us from attacking too many sheep in wolves clothing so we can focus on the real wolves out there.

I hope that this is what the “Bush Dog” campaign eventually becomes. Sure, there are about 6-8 Representatives on the list that may need to be primaried, particularly in “safe” districts, and there’s nothing sexier than the idea that you, the individual, have the power to take someone out. There are just as many districts that are currently represented by Republicans where we can compete, and probably win. Ultimately, maintaining the seats we have and gaining more seats should be our focus. Democrats will vote more like Democrats when there are more Democrats around them to bend their ear and make a strong case to them.

In conclusion, let me just say a couple of things. 1. Holding our elected officials accountable is our job as citizens, and if it hurts their feelings, well, that’s what they’re getting paid for. 2. Holding them accountable doesn’t necessarily mean threatening them with a primary opponent, though, like all negotiation, that option should be left open. 3. We are strongest when we debate, not argue. By turning down the volume, and openly considering each other’s positions, without giving away the store (regional reference) we arrive at conclusions that achieve our needs without sacrificing our values. 4. We Democrats are blessed with a vibrant, energetic, and imaginative base, by harnessing this strength, we can ensure a better world for future generations.

Thanks for reading.

“Bush Dog” Profiles
Vic Snyder AR-02
Mike Ross AR-04
Lincoln Davis TN-04
Jim Cooper TN-05
Bart Gordon TN-06
John Tanner TN-08
Gene Taylor MS-04

Memphis’ Stupidity Reaches National Audience

Steve Ross — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:51:00 +0000

Here I am, about to get ready for bed in the nation’s capitol, and I stumble across this little number.

Do we have to air our dirty laundry (read racism) on a national scale?

I find it humorous that LaSimba Grey is not mentioned in the article. I’m sure that irritates him to no end.

Can we agree to be over this yet? For the sake of all that is Holy, this is and should forevermore be treated as a non-story. The only people who would make this an issue are the same people who make race a litmus test for service. Since when did Reverend Robert Poindexter, LaSimba Grey and the rest of the mob become Black Dixiecrats?

Think about that, after you clean up the drink from your computer screen.

And just who the fuck is Larry Moore? The article says he’s “a University of Memphis professor who teaches a course on how politics affects business”. I find one Larry Moore that is in the Civil Engineering Department, and another that is in the “School of Accountancy”. So this guy is either a number cruncher or an engineer. What a great source of political insight. Maybe he can score a job at CATO lite.

Why, why, a thousand times why?

I hope like hell that Memphis isn’t as stupid as this article portrays it. I hope with all my being. But hope doesn’t guarantee anything. And I’m not holding my breath until next August. This is war, pure and simple. And the dipshits that started it have the most to lose.

Hope you guys have padded toilet seats, because you’re not going to be able to take a crap without me writing about it.

P.S. Keep your feet to yourself and NO tapping.

Strategery

Steve Ross — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:34:00 +0000

Now that Congress is back in session, General Petraeus and Ambassaador Crocker have said their piece on Capitol Hill, and Rhambo and Pelosi have decided that going after deadbeat former administration officials is not a priority, one has to wonder, what is the priority of this Congress at this time?

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present to you the FY’08 budget.

Few people probably remember this, and fewer cared at the time, but this Congress came into office with no budget. It was January 31 before the House voted to pass the budget that the Republican led 109th left them and February 14th before the Senate passed it.

This may not seem like a big deal, but considering what was left to do this Congress has done quite a lot of things that most of us don’t really think about that are necessary to keep this nation running.

So we come to the FY’08 budget. Bush is threatening a veto on 9 of 12 2008 budget bills for just over $25 billion in additional spending. That spending includes money for infrastructure, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. That $25b amounts to $83/person for things that we elected Democrats to do.

My take is that this is something that Democrats feel they can win, and Lord do they need a win right now.

The President, always adept at keeping the beltway punditocracy singing his song, has chipped away at the resolve of many moderate Democrats, using much the same rhetoric that he would use to defeat them in elections…playing the left against the “middle”. It’s divide and conquer. Despite dismal poll numbers, this strategy continues to give him positive policy results.

Last month, the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick was allowed to go to the full Senate after some serious wooing of Dianne Feinstein. While things like this can drive even the most moderate Democrat crazy they are to be expected. It’s a basic rule of the many versus the few.

President Bush, and the Administration in general is the few. While he has many surrogates, those surrogates largely tow the line of the Administration. These individuals may have differing ideas about the minutiae of Administration policy, the media, in favor of the larger Administration narrative, largely ignores differences.

The many is the Congress. For Congress to speak with one voice takes a Herculean effort that will be as satisfying as weak chicken broth for the base of each party involved. This is why, no matter what the Congress accomplishes; it will be unsatisfying to a potential majority, or at least large minority of individuals. Further, with the challenge of 535 “voices” on the Hill, competing for airtime and money for their districts, the possibility of a unifying narrative, even for the Majority party, is virtually nil. This perpetuates the myth, pushed by the Administration, that the Congress is incapable of handling the business of the nation.

With all this said, let’s revisit my earlier idea…Democrats feel they can win on the budget and boy howdy do they need a win.

The budget is one of the things that Democrats are actually somewhat united on. In order to tackle some of the more divisive issues such as Iraq and the DOJ scandal, Democrats need to win something, anything, to keep their caucus from further fracturing and to generate some good press for the leadership, both in the House, and the Senate, where many Democratic initiatives are seeing the greatest resistance. Apparently Pelosi and Emanuel feel that the budget will do this, and they may be right, but the fight with the Administration will be long and hard. Democrats need to come into this with some serious backbone to win, and the opposition narrative is already emerging.

With the looming budget fight now in the Senate, House leadership is loathe to start any action that may result in losing support for 12 appropriations bills that passed the House by large, bipartisan margins. Going after Meirs and other former and current administration officials may be viewed as a battle that could lose the war. That doesn’t mean they won’t do it, or that any kind of deal has been cut, they just want to get the ball closer to the red zone before they go long for a touchdown.

We can assume that at least one budget veto is assured. There’s no way that this President is going to let the Democratic Congress score a victory without some resistance. By not actively pursuing a contempt vote in the House, Pelosi hopes that support from moderate Republicans and Blue Dogs will not disappear in the aftermath of a bloody fight over Iraq, or other contentious issues, allowing for a veto override/victory over the President.

In the Senate, the picture is not so clear. Majority Leader Reid has little power to force things through, and poking the bear in the Senate will likely end up a stunning defeat at the hands of Lieberman and some of the more conservative Democrats like the Nelson twins (Ben - NE and Bill – FL).

So, it’s a waiting game…waiting for the Senate, and the President to show their hands. Pelosi and Emanuel are saying late September or early October before any real movement. I expect the Bush Administration to drag the appropriations bills out as long as humanly possible. This is annoying and disheartening for a base of supporters who saw the new majority in Congress as a means to stop the Iraq madness and get some of what we have lost in the past 7 years back before the election of a new President. These things are still possible. We just have to be patient and ready. We have to let the leadership know that letting us down in the long term is not an option, and that they will be held accountable. Otherwise, we’re no better than the Republicans, and I just can’t live with that.

Another Day in Fairy Tale Land

Steve Ross — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:22:00 +0000

I’m still not sure why I read the Commercial Appeal. Aside from having to hold back the vomit building in the back of my throat as I read, and searching tirelessly for an important story not written by somebody named AP, it’s a daily utter disappointment. Today, surprisingly, there was something of interest written by somebody local, that wasn’t a scandal or some other dick waving fiasco. The headline reads:

Stadium report’s flawed, says city

Ok so maybe it is another dick waving fiasco, but at least it’s something I know a little about. Here are some things that I took away from this whole thing:

1. Memphis needs a new city run venue like we need a hole in the head.
The city cannot run venues period. The city cannot hire other companies to run venues, or hold them accountable to pay their power bills. Why, in the name of all that is holy do we need another city owned venue for our city to fuck up? Aren’t we happy with the 4 we have now?

2. The NFL told us to bugger off years ago
I don’t see any kiss and make up deals here. They’re not expanding any time soon, and neither the Colts nor the Ravens are making any noise about the need to skulk off into the night without warning to some new town. If they did, they’d probably go to San Antonio just to piss the Saints off. Also, as much as I love the Tigers, until they can stitch together 3 consecutive winning seasons they should be playing on a High School Field.

3. $150 million my ass
The FedEx Forum cost $250M. Or that’s what they tell us anyway. It seats about 20k people. Football stadiums are bigger than arenas, and even have roofs these days. Oh the humanity! The report says $300M. Reliant Stadium in Houston cost the city $442M. I’m sure we’re capable of building an uglier less functional building for more, but that seems like a good price range.

4. The Liberty Bowl
The Liberty Bowl currently seats 62,000 people. The proposed stadium would hold about 45,000. That means, that if we build a smaller stadium we have to change the name from “The Liberty Bowl” to “The Liberty Cup”, full meal football value at appetizer sizes.

5. The Findings
The funny thing about findings is that they are findings because they were unknown. If they weren’t findings they would be knowns and the city wouldn’t have had to fork out $140,000 to “find” them out. So, when a city administrator says the findings are wrong, that means they don’t fit in line with the administrations assumptions. Furthermore, when that same administrator say the findings make assumptions, that means that the assumptions made don’t fit the administrators assumptions. Finally, with all this said, I think that the findings/assumptions of a company that has consulted on many facilities such as this are more credible than the findings/assumptions of a city administrator who lacks the luxury of experience in such matters. The simple fact that they won’t release the report in its current state speaks volumes. Can anyone say damage control?

Memphis has a lot more important problems to deal with than creating a handout to building contractors. The fantasy that a new stadium will create long-term jobs is just that, a fantasy. This is an attempt to place another jewel in the crown of King Willie, and no ones buying it. Not to mention that the University wants a stadium on campus, but when did the desires of the single tenant of a building ever come into the equation?

Memphis, save your money and buy stock in Taco Bueno franchises, or something that would actually bring consistent, year-round cash flow into the city. A new stadium, is just another building that we don’t need, in a city that needs so much…like effective leadership.

Clark Endorses Clinton

Steve Ross — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:36:00 +0000

From his PAC, Securing America
and
MYDD

This is disappointing to me in so many ways. I was on the Draft Clark train back in ’04. As Clark seemed less and less likely to get his shit together, my support waned, but my respect for the man was not diminished. Clark was one of the most requested speakers for upstart Democrats in the ’06 election.

Unfortunately, this endorsement doesn’t really square with Clark’s longstanding positions on foreign policy particularly in the Middle East. It begs the question, is he fishing for a cabinet post or has he been working behind the scenes with Hillary all along?

I’d love to see another native Arkansan in the White House, even at VP, just so long as it’s not Huckabee, and Clark would be that alternative. Unfortunately, this endorsement, for the first time ever, has made me question a man whose character, up until now, I though was unquestionable.

I’m looking forward to more coverage on this.

Move On’s Miscalculation

Steve Ross — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:41:00 +0000

Yesterday the Senate, in a show of brazen balllessness, condemned an ad by Move On. The now infamous “Betray Us” ad, a witty play on a general’s name stirred up more shit than it was effective. Somewhere in all that shit the message was lost, and any impact the ad may have had on the debate in Congress about Iraq was held hostage to manufactured outrage. Good going guys.

I think the person that has the best perspective on this is General Wesley Clark. In the linked interview with Matt Stoller of Open Left, Clark calls the ad a “big mistake tactically”. I agree with him.

The Move On ad distracts us from the real culprit in the deception, George W. Bush. Patreaus may be presenting the best face of a terrible situation, but he is not the one that put us there, George W. Bush and an overly compliant and complacent Congress did. In attacking the General, Move On effectively blamed the manager for the actions of the corporation. Or, more plainly, blamed the guy in charge of executing a shitty policy from above.

The unwavering resolve of the Bush Administration was never going to be swayed by an attack on a surrogate. President Bush is the individual responsible for what is going on, and should forevermore be the target of our ire. Additionally, General Patreaus has a responsibility to carry water for the Administration if so directed by the executive. He complied. The spokesman should never be held accountable for the actions of the client. He’s just doing his job.

To their credit, Move On did go after Bush a day or so later, but by then it was too late. The damage had been done, and all anyone was talking about was this stupid fucking ad.

If the progressive movement wants to gain any traction in the nation, we need to start moving away from these one night stand advertising take downs. Sure they’re fun, and give us a thrill, but ultimately, we’re still sleeping alone. We need to be committed to a focused message. With that message we can actually start to influence the people and by extension, influence the debate. Without that, we’re just one step away from the Tin Foil Hat club.

I support any action to stop this stupid assed foreign policy we have in Iraq so long as the people making the decisions are the ones held accountable. Doing anything else is wasting our time, money and more importantly an opportunity to shift the debate by influencing others in our favor. That should be the ultimate goal.

Mayoral Race Malaise

Steve Ross — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:00:00 +0000

I gotta tell ya, this has been one of the most disappointing election seasons ever. One would think that with an election as important as choosing our city leadership there would be some fireworks, some…something. Nope. It’s been as interesting as watching paint dry.

You have to wonder if that hasn’t been the strategy of our incumbent mayor. Keep it low and slow, make them come to me, and then don’t acknowledge them. It’s as if Herenton believes that if he doesn’t act like there’s an election going on people will forget and maybe not vote against him. Not necessarily a bad strategy for an incumbent in a three-way race with a sure 30% of likely (crazy) voters backing him.

So, if the Mayor won’t act like there’s an election, what about the challengers? What have they been up to? By all accounts, not much. I signed up for the Morris and Chumney email lists back at the beginning of the campaign and have heard not a peep from them since (though I hear tell of 4 a day from Morris from others, maybe they just don't like me). What gives? It’s two days from Election Day, and not even a “hey go vote” email. Hmmmm. Something’s gotta give.

I hear tell of TV commercials and all this advertising stuff, but I don’t watch local TV if I don’t have to. In fact TV is just background noise for me when I happen to be home, which is not all that often. So, maybe I just missed that part.

I tried watching local news and found that it made me drink more, which for those of you that know me, know that’s not good. I just about need another bladder as it is.

Then there’s us bloggers. Where the hell have we been? Aside from the multiple daily screeds that emanate from ThaMATT who knows? I know where I’ve been...at the airport every damn week, where have the rest of us been?

Maybe I’m just too tuned into the national scene, which has always been my primary focus. Or maybe I just don’t know enough people to get the tasty morsels that I used to in Little Rock, but it seems to me like the entire establishment, traditional and independent, has let this one slip by.

Luckily, the voters haven’t. According to the CA, 74,000 of us have already voted. The Elections Commission figures around 150,000 will vote when it’s all said and done. For those of us supporting one of the challengers, like myself, I think that bodes well, Polar Donkey disagrees, but I guarantee at least one of us is right. In any case, I commend everyone who has already voted and those of you who will vote, regardless of choice, on the 4th. If nothing else, it shows you care about Memphis.

If you’re not planning to vote, change your plans. I don’t care if you’ve disagreed with everything I’ve ever written, it’s your civic duty to get out there and make your voice heard.

Here is a pdf of the voting locations and times.

If you don’t know your voting location go here.

Don't Pop Those Corks Just Yet

Steve Ross — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:17:00 +0000

The Fox 13 poll that was released last night offers up some good news for new leadership in Memphis, but don’t pop the champagne just yet folks. Election day is tomorrow and there’s still plenty of ground game left to throw the election one way or the other. I think the elder Harold may have done some of that tonight in his lack of appearance, but that’s really just a side note that makes me giggle on the inside. Let’s look at these numbers for real and take them apart the way they should be.

Here are the poll results breakdown. Unfortunately, they don’t tell us specific breakdowns of demographics like how many black women that make 40-60k are voting for whomever, or even the how many of what denomination were sampled. Still, it’s a dead heat and putting money on any one or the other is risky business.

The part that is most interesting to me is that 19% of respondents indicated something could affect their vote in the mayoral race. Of those respondents, Chumney had the softest support of the three main candidates, 43% though Morris is not far behind at 38%. This may be an indication of voter shift in the event of an inevitable Herenton win. Because the race is still fairly close, I believe it would take something pretty drastic to sway the majority of those voters making election night a long night for us political junkies.

Secondly, I find it interesting that Herenton has the highest percentage of voters that responded “something may come up”, when asked if they are certain they will vote, though the difference between him and Chumney is statistically insignificant (33% to 31%). Ground game will be key. Herenton has demonstrated in past elections an ability to GOTV, I’m not sure about the Chumney campaign. To be honest, there has been nothing spectacular about her campaign up to now. I won’t speculate as to why this is, though others have. Still, if she intends to win she had better bring some serious game to the table tomorrow.

Finally, something NOT about the poll that I just want to put out there. As this and other polls have shown, over 60% of the voters in Memphis want a change in leadership. Both Morris and Chumney fare well in head-to-head races against Herenton. Against Morris, Herenton picks up almost no support. Against Chumney he picks up a mere 5%. It would be unfortunate for the city to maintain the status quo due to this crappy math that a three-way race creates. If the voters of Memphis really want change they need to get off their asses in mass and make it so.

The Ford Dynasty in Memphis is Over

Steve Ross — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:57:00 +0000

That’s right, I said it, it’s over. Between convictions, crazy rants, and the fact that the two main brokers of this political block have abandoned Memphis, the Ford family should be allowed to wither away into nothing like political dynasties of the past.

It started in 1996 with the election of Jr. He was not really a local, and represented the district as such .His decision to run for Senate last year just proved that his primary interest was upward mobility in the beltway punditocracy more than anything else. Add that to Sr.’s continued absence and who’s left to lead the family forward? Jake? Edmund Jr.? Ophelia?

As reported in this morning’s CA, Sr. used a homesead provision of Florida’s Tax law to limit his tax liability on his $2.5M home on Fischer Island in Miami Beach, FL. In doing so he effectively told the state of Florida that he is a citizen. As the article in the CA asks, can Sr. even vote here any more? Methinks not.

Jr. on the other hand, has chosen Nashville as his residence here in Tennessee, though he splits his time in DC as head of the DLC. This is not terribly uncommon for members of the political class, but clearly indicates that Jr. doesn’t view Memphis as his home.

John Ford is going to jail, after they convict him in Nashville on state charges. Ophelia has something wrong with her that one can only characterize as “persistent fucktard syndrome”, and soon to be former City Councilman Ed Ford. is going to jail on bribery charges. That leaves the kids and County Commissioner Joseph Ford to carry on the family name in politics. I just don’t see that happening.

The Ford dynasty in Memphis didn’t come to life on it’s own. Lots of people in the 70’s helped make it happen. Many of those people are dead now. With all these and other factors, it’s easy to say that so is the Ford Dynasty in Memphis.

This gives up and comers a great opportunity to lead. If Herenton is defeated, God willing, we can expect several years of jockeying before any one group or family comes to prominence in Memphis. I look forward to fresh blood that the City Elections will surely bring and those that will come forward in the state elections next year. This is a positive thing for our community that will hopefully lead to better governance in the future.

Still, don’t be surprised if we see another Ford running in 2010. The dynasty may be dying in Memphis, but it lives on in the minds of those who profited from it for so long throughout the state and the nation. Here’s to hoping we get a good primary candidate in that contest, or we could end up with another late Ford meltdown that hands the office of Governor to the Republicans.

Did Harold Ford Sr. Break the Law? Updated

Steve Ross — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:37:00 +0000

As I noted earlier today, and as the CA reported this morning, there are real questions as to whether Harold Ford Sr. broke the law when he voted in the Mayoral election last week.

Here are the requirements for the Homestead Exemption in the state of Florida that Ford reportedly used on his $2.5M home in Miami Beach, FL. Look at #3:

How long have you been a legal resident of the State of Florida? (A Declaration of Domicile or Voter's Registration will be proof of date before January 1.)

Here is an example of a Declaration of Domicile, for those of you who aren’t sure.

Here are the requirements for someone to maintain their voter registration in Tennessee.

So the question becomes, if Sr. did receive this Homestead Exemption, then he must have decided to make Florida his home by filing a Declaration of Domicile. This would, at first glance, make him ineligible to vote in Tennessee.

On the flip side, if Sr. is not a resident of Florida, did he break the law by applying for and receiving this Homestead Exemption in violation of the clearly stated regulations?

Hopefully these questions will be answered in the coming days.

Finally, a word about home and business ownership versus residency: An individual can own homes and businesses in any number of states, but that individual can only be a resident of one state at a time period. Utilizing the spoils of one state, spoils that require residency, while claiming residency in another to exercise your political power to affect an election is fishier than an Alaskan Crab boat.

If Harold Ford Sr. wants to vote in Memphis, he needs to give the State of Florida its $25k back. If he wants his money, he needs to remove himself from the voter rolls of Shelby County and finally bid us adieu. Either way is just fine with me, but this cake and eat it too scenario smacks of an air of entitlement that has spoiled the leadership of this city for far too long.

Update: Since posting this last night, the CA reports that Sr. is unsure of his eligibility and is exploring the details with his attorneys, reportedly willing to go so far as to refuse the $25k Homestead Exemption that he applied for to ensure his ability to screw with Memphis for years to come. Kudos to you HFS, but personally, I would've gone for the $25k.

31, 24, 19, 19 Remix

Steve Ross — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:01:00 +0000

In the interest of accuracy in indignation, the facts of this post are in dispute, and under official review. More to come later...

About the rest of the Election

Steve Ross — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:45:00 +0000

Despite my earlier post there were some bright spots in yesterday’s election as just about everyone has noted.

Congrats to Jim Strickland and Shea Flinn in particular. I know a bunch of people who are anxiously awaiting your insight on the council.

Looks like there’s still some work to do in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Get out there and pound the pavement for someone.

Herenton won, just like incumbents usually do in three way races. I hope he got all those haters off him, I’m sure they were itchy. I hope he likes the house he’s building in Mississippi. Maybe he was just building that to make some money off all the people moving away. In any case, it doesn’t seem to matter where the hell you live, you can still vote in Memphis.

Watch out Louisiana!

As Memphis braces for it’s fifth term of “healing” one has to wonder how this course will differ from the last one. My guess, this one will be shorter. I’ve said it for a couple of months now, Herenton just wanted to prove that he’s still the top dog. I think he resigns in a year or so and laughs all the way down to Mississippi. Or maybe not. Who knows?

In any case, we are for sure, guaranteed, at least one more year of priceless egomaniacal declarations from the 7th floor of City Hall. I just can’t wait for the State of the City address. Last year was a doozie and I missed it. This year, I’ve got TIVO!

Moving on to National Politics…

Steve Ross — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:46:00 +0000

So now that we know the city is fucked for sure, I can go back to my old standby, national politics. I’ve been neglecting you my sweet, but now that the lap dance that was the 2007 City Elections is over, I promise I’ll pay more attention to you.

SCHIP

Bush Vetoed it, as promised because it provided insurance too many children and some of them might have grown up to support the Democrat party. We’re some 29 votes shy of an override in the House (strangely we have it covered in the Senate) and only 6 Democrats voted against it the first time around so, looks like we lose again. There is no way in hell that Republicans in the Congress are going to give any kind of win to the Democratic Leadership.

FISA

At 1:30PM today Stenny Hoyer will introduce his shiny new FISA free pass for the Administration. He gives away the store. As noted here at Open Left. Hoyer and Rhambo seem to be trying to protect Freshmen Congressmen by making them look weak, which makes about as much sense as…well, it just makes no sense.

This is the kind of shit that gets Democrats beat in general elections. We should be on offense, but for some reason that is beyond my comprehension, we’re still running scared from the Bush administration. Note to Hoyer and Rhambo: Please wake the fuck up.

Iraq War

Representative David Obey has decided he’s had enough of the War in Iraq. Using his bully pulpit as chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee, Obey has declared that no funding request that maintains the status quo in Iraq policy will come out of his Committee. This of course, has Pelosi, Hoyer and Rhambo freaking out. Foolishly trumpeting “a sure win” that the SCHIP veto override (did you forget already?) was going to be, Obey has been painted as a spoiler. The reality is Pelosi and her pusillanimous pack of dems ruined that way back in May when they gave it all up for a box of Oreo’s and some warm milk.

That’s all for now folks!

Shaken Hater Syndrome

Steve Ross — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:45:00 +0000

A political condition, unique to Memphis, TN, that occurs after the will of 66% of the people is thwarted by a three-way race that continues the Administration of W.W. Herenton, despite widespread dissatisfaction with his job performance.

Herenton’s campaign slogan was “Shaking the Haters Off” for those of you out of towners. If anyone has a photo of his people at the polls in one of those shirts, I sure would like it.

After Further Review...

Steve Ross — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:25:00 +0000

The play on the field stands...1st &10, vibinc.

More Elections in Less than a Month

Steve Ross — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:12:00 +0000

On November 8th, the elections for City Council will be final. The runoff, with early voting running from October 19th – November 3rd, and election day on November 8th, will decide the four races that are still up for grabs in the Memphis City Council. They are:

District 1, Bill Morrison and Stephanie Gatewood
District 2, Bill Boyd and Brian Stephens
District 3, Harold Collins and Ike Griffith
District 6, Edmund Ford Jr. and James Catchings.

All of these districts are pretty far away from my home in midtown, but these four races comprise nearly 31% of the seats on the City Council. 31%, while not a majority is enough to sway a governing body one way or the other, making these races even more important.

Since I don’t live in any of the districts I won’t be able to vote in the election, but I will be writing about the candidates in the coming days.

Stay tuned!

Pelosi Gives Up

Steve Ross — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:35:00 +0000

As reported in The Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given up on legislation that would mandate the redeployment of troops from Iraq.

The article, from an exchange on Sunday’s Fox News Sunday, says that voters want the war to end and had an expectation that Congress had that power. “You know we can’t without a Presidential signature”, Pelosi concluded.

So ends a battle that has divided the Democratic Caucus in the House and has been further hamstrung by the slim Democratic majority in the Senate.

Since the May funding that included a timeline for withdrawal was vetoed, the Democratically controlled Congress has struggled to find a common strategy to withdraw or redeploy troops currently serving in Iraq. The May 24 supplemental, which was passed and signed by President Bush, but had no real teeth, was viewed by many on the left as a concession of defeat. Since that time there has been considerable debate and commentary on how the Democratic leadership of the Congress should proceed. Still, no consensus has emerged.

Proponents of a congressionally mandated withdrawal argue that the Congress should continue to hold a hard line on the Administration. Moderates fear the reprisals that any delay on funding might bring them in their 2008 campaigns. These circumstances have left conservative Democrats and Republicans who are content to continue funding the war with few conditions with the most power going forward.

Some 68% of the American people feel the war has been mishandled according to a recent poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post. In that same poll, 55% of respondents felt that the congress should do more, up from 53% in late August, and 67% feel that funding should be reduced in the upcoming supplemental. Clearly there’s widespread support for Congress to step up. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be what’s in the cards going forward.

Since the landmark election of last November, Pelosi has made statements that have diminished the power given her and her leadership team. It started in mid-December when she declared, “Impeachment was off the table”. While the intention of that statement was explained away as “Congress has too many things to deal with”, one never takes any option off the table when in a position to negotiate. In doing so, Pelosi weakened her position and may have hamstrung efforts to oversee departments within the executive branch, as is the duty of the Congress.

This was a tactical error on her part, one that she has repeated in various ways over the past 8 months. As these self-inflicted losses mount, elements within the party and independent organizations have mounted campaigns to highlight the failures of leadership in the Executive, with mixed results. One can only assume that these campaigns will continue, and perhaps become more frequent and fevered over the coming weeks and months.

It is unfortunate that Pelosi has chosen passivity over the rhetoric that helped hand the Congress over to the Democratic Party. By backing down now, she has effectively neutered any effort to check this administration policy, and that’s just sad.

Riffing on a Theme...Updated!!

Steve Ross — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:57:00 +0000

Update: Sean Braisted has audio of the interview with Lincoln Davis. And he talks about your early candidate Cracker. Go check it out.

I know I’m late on this. We’ve been dog hunting and I just wanted to put my two cents in. As GoldenI and LWC have already reported. There is a distinct possibility of a Davis-Ford primary in 2010. This is also reported in the CA this morning.

Let’s think about everything that’s going on that could affect who does and doesn’t get in the race.

Lincoln Davis:

Lincoln Davis is all the things that GoldenI said and more. In the profile I wrote about Davis for the Bush Dog campaign, I note that Davis has only voted with Democrats on 16 key votes in the 109th and 110th Congresses, or 46% of the time.

Davis has won his district since his initial election in 2002 by healthy margins. He is a good fundraiser, particularly with business. 43% of his total fundraising effort came from business PAC’s.

It’s unlikely that Davis would carry the traditionally conservative 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts, though he could garner pretty decent support from that end of the state considering his conservative disposition and the geographic location of his district.

District 5 would be a gimmie, as would District 9.

John Tanner, whose voting record in congress is only slightly more liberal than Davis’ and who is the Godfather of the Blue Dogs, of which Davis is a member, would be all about Davis, ensuring widespread support in the 8th.

In the grossly gerrymandered 7th, I doubt he would gain much traction from the Marshans, but if the Republican candidate was weak enough, he could alright.

As for the 6th, just depends what Bart Gordon wants I suppose, though I assume he and Davis would work well considering they are both Blue Dogs, and vote similarly, and live in similarly aligned districts.

Assuming the vote totals for Shelby, Davidson, Knox and Hamilton Counties turned up like they did for Bredesen in 2006, Davis could expect strong support from those four counties (507,000 votes or 28% of the total statewide vote, each county went 70% Dem or better). None of those counties are in TN-04, so if we expect that Davis would carry his district like he did in 2006 we see an additional 120,000 votes raising it to 35% of the total vote. Assuming that these conditions remain, with 35% of the vote coming from 28 full or partial counties, it presents a pretty strong case for Davis. He would be a conservative Democrat for sure, but in statewide elections, running a progressive Democrat would be a non-starter.

Davis, no doubt, has thought about this harder than I have in the 10 minutes that I’ve researched these numbers from the TN SOS, and sees this as an opportunity. Were I him, and I’m not, I’d be thinking about it now too. This is his chance to make a move into an executive position and he would be a fool to not try for it.

I would not support Davis in a primary, but like most good yellow dog democrats, I would hold my nose to keep a D on the door of the Governors office.

Harold Ford Jr.:

Harold Ford Jr. has a whole different set of issues and possibilities that come up when considering him for a Gubernatorial race.

First off, Ford may have residency in the state of Tennessee (he has a residence in Nashville and according to state law residency is defined as an intention to make Tennessee your home), but it is well known that after his loss to Corker that he never really moved back, accepting a job in New York as the head of the DLC and with Merrill Lynch. He does travel to Nashville for a class he conducts at Vanderbilt.

Second, should Hillary be elected to the Presidency, as head of the DLC, Ford could be up for an appointment. That could mean a lot of things. In all likelihood Ford would receive an offer to a second tier cabinet post or DNC chair to replace Howard Dean, who is disliked in the beltway circles that Clinton and Ford run in. Ford may decline, but this is so far out it’s still a possibility to keep him out of the Gov.’s race.

The third thing to consider is Jr.’s Senate race. In 2006 support for Jr. in the same counties that Bredesen easily carried was far weaker. In Hamilton and Knox counties, Jr. did not win a majority, which is not surprising considering where Corker is from. In Davidson and Shelby counties, the most Democratic counties in Tennessee, Ford’s support was still weak in comparison to Bredesen, carrying only 61% in Davidson and 63% in Shelby to Bredesen’s 77% and 76.5%.

These numbers illustrate Jr.’s weakness even in heavily Democratic areas. I don’t have the time, nor the inclination to go precinct by precinct to get a full picture of the vote, but the general idea is clear, Ford’s support is concentrated in urban areas which offers little opportunity for him to expand his base. This bodes well for Davis.

There are other issues that may have played a role in Ford’s weakness in the 3rd and 4th largest counties in Tennessee. I won’t speculate as to how much impact that had in the final tally, however, had Ford run stronger in the counties that Bredesen carried by more than 70%, including his “home” county, he could have easily gained the 50,000 votes needed to win the race.

Finally, with more than 3 years left in the term of our current Governor, Phil Bredesen, much of this speculation is nothing more than intellectual masturbation. There is plenty of time for things to change and while this has been a fun exercise, we have plenty to do here in Tennessee before we turn the Governor’s race into a four year affair, like the Presidential race has become.

Dear Hillary,

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:33:00 +0000

I don't mean to be a smartass, but if you're really "Rebuilding the Road to the Middle Class" don't you think your ride should reflect that? I mean, I know it's been done before, but really...a Prevo? Don't you thing a Winnebago would be more "middle classian"?

Just a thought...

Where was the SCDP?

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:13:00 +0000

In talking to candidates since the City elections last week, one thing was notably absent that many contend could have helped the chances of candidates across the ballot…the Shelby County Democratic Party.

Before early voting started, the Shelby County GOP released this little nugget that effectively informed their voters who was either a Republican, or in the absence of a Republican, someone they could live with.

By contrast, the SCDP did nothing…nothing at all. In fact, there is no evidence of the SCDP even thinking about the possibility of doing something, perhaps…maybe. The much maligned Memphis Democratic Club released a ballot, as did several other Democratic and non-partisan groups in the city, so why not the SCDP?

Some insiders would argue that in the contentious Mayoral race, the many interests that are represented in the SCDP could have never come to a consensus. I agree, which is why that race shouldn’t have been the focus. People went to the polls knowing who had their vote for Mayor and didn’t need any help from the SCDP. They didn’t necessarily know who to vote for in the Council races, and that’s where the SCGOP got ahead of the game.

This is not about endorsing any one candidate over another, this is simply about informing the voters. In the absence of any information or guidance from the SCDP, voters were left to their own devices in the heavily laden contests that were the 6 Super District positions. Had the SCDP chosen to merely highlight those candidates who have worked for Democratic causes, voters wouldn’t have had such an uphill battle in making an informed decision.

Secondly, the absence of anything from the SCDP, and the presence of guidance from elsewhere, reinforces the notion held by many that the SCDP is a fractious body, crippled by its inability to come together on something even as simple as taking a soft position on the vitally important, though non-partisan races that make up the city elections. Way to maintain that perception folks!

The worst thing is that this could have been an opportunity for the SCDP to raise funds for the body. The GOP Ballot featured 4 full color photographs of candidates. Surely those candidates paid for the right to be featured so prominently. Even if the SCDP couldn’t afford to mail these out to members, making a printable version, like the SCGOP did that could be emailed, would have been a viable option and would have cost virtually nothing to produce. Additionally, the candidates featured on this list, particularly those purchasing premium placement, would have had some motivation to promote the document, thus raising the profile of the SCDP to voters and possibly bringing more money into the organization.

Inaction is the occupation of defeatists. I don’t know if that’s a quote, but it is now. In making the choice to do nothing during the city elections, the SCDP lowered its profile, and missed an opportunity to help shape the future of Memphis.

New’-cue-lur

Steve Ross — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:45:00 +0000

I’ve long thought that President Bush and his “on-high”, appointed administration were a danger to the world, but his latest genius WWIII rant makes me feel that he is determined to FUBAR everything he can before some poor hapless member of the “Democrat” parte’ takes over. You’re doing a fine job Bushie…

His WWIII statement sounded very Republican President in his last 400 days. Looking back at Reagan and Bush Sr., it seems to me that Republican Presidents are only “good” for about 2/3 of their term, after that they turn into bumbling idiots. In this case it was less of a turn, and more of a face in hand, oh yeah, that’s what I did last night, recognition of abject failure.

I find it interesting, that with each passing day, our “President” seems more and more like a cornered animal, frightened at first, but ready to strike if necessary. It’s even more interesting considering that Democrats on the Hill have been largely ineffective at pushing his buttons on just about anything and he still exhibits this behavior. What’s going on? Have Laura and Condi issued an ultimatum? (Pick one or we both leave). Has Barney finally forsaken him? (Never did like the facon). Or is he going through that classic father mind-fuck that is “daughter getting married”-itis. Honestly, I don’t know, I just hope it’s not contagious.

Even if it is contagious and it infects the entire Administration (like Brownieitis did), we have our great veep to fall back on. He’s inoculated against such contagion because he has been “re-animated” so many times he’s hardly really alive. Hell he’s walking around the WH wondering why we haven’t nuked someone yet, and calling people out for being so chickenshitted. Just what America needs, a real cowboy with an alarm-clock heart.

So watch your ass Iran, and Turkey, no incurshing into Iraq until after Thanksgiving…heh, heh, suckers. North Korea, you have $2000 in late fees at the Blockbuster, and Afghanistan…who are you again?

459 days……and counting.

Spine Replacement Specialist Needed

Steve Ross — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:27:00 +0000

Urgent!!!!

Spine Replacement Specialist Needed in DC Metro area.

Must have experience with legislative bodies.

Qualified Candidates report to the Senate Majority Leader immediately.

Employment Code: FISA

Brilliant!

Steve Ross — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:39:00 +0000

I saw this video on Wonkette. It was too intriguing to ignore.

Then I actually watched it. And oh my God. Brilliant.

Go on, do it, go to Draft Katherine Harris.com.

The site is run by the Florida Democratic Party, and Kudos to them for having the stones to pull something like the off in such a fantastic way.

Outrage Fatigue

Steve Ross — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:33:00 +0000

I find myself suffering from outrage fatigue. Seems that I’m not the only one. With all the shenanigans that are currently going on in the national and local political sphere, finding something to focus my outrage on has been difficult, dishearteningly difficult. FISA, the Mukasey nomination, Torture, the DOJ scandal, SCHIP, Iraq, the local election results, and the general skullduggery that surrounds these and other issues have clouded my mind and left me feeling hollow. Anyone else know what I mean?

There’s just too much going on and not enough positive result. Sadly, it’s shaking my faith in not only the power of people to affect change in their world, but the people and organizations that we look to that help that change along.

Maybe I’m too impatient. Perhaps I’m being unrealistic. Certainly my standard for what constitutes “change” is very high. Still, I can’t help feeling that the principles and ideals that I hold dear are engaged in a death spiral, falling further and further away from fruition, at the hands of many I trusted to nurture and guide them into the conversation, and eventually, the law, or policy, of the land.

As a side note, I find it interesting that those who are on the flip side of the spectrum from my ideology are feeling the same thing, though that offers little comfort.

How does someone combat outrage fatigue? Certainly there’s no medical treatment, no pill, fluid, powder or combination of the three that can truly address the mix of emotional, intellectual and physical symptoms that it encompasses. For me, this has been a weeklong conundrum. Even just writing about it makes me tired.

I don’t have much more to say here except that as a born optimist living in a sardonic satirical shell this is making me nuts. I need a vaccine, and all the filibusters, press conferences ad veto override votes in the world won’t stop it now. Where to go, what to do, these are my questions. Hopefully, I’ll find some answers.

WWGWD"?

Steve Ross — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:02:00 +0000

Imagine, if you will, 200+ years of history gone. America in it’s infancy in our present day. The Constitution, in it’s current manifestation has just been ratified, and George Washington, our first President, is at the helm. What would George Washington do?

The man, who steadfastly worked to reject the idea of a constitutional monarchy, or even any idea of the “unitary executive”…WWGWD?

Would he seek to focus power on the executive branch with little regard for transparency in his surrogates?

Would the rule of law be utilized as a partisan tool, intent on quashing dissention?

Would he mortgage the future of a newly born nation for the expediency of political gain?

WWGWD?

Would sovereign nations be merely pawns in his foreign policy?

Would perceived dominance trump long term leadership?

Would talking points be the standard upon which his leadership was measured?

WWGWD?

Despite my ”Outrage fatigue”, I find these and other questions both comforting, and disturbing considering the events of the past 7 years.

WWGWD?

Chuck Likes Mike

Steve Ross — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:16:00 +0000

TPM Election Central reports that Walker, Texas Ranger star Chuck Norris has endorsed Mike Huckabee for the Republican nominee for President.

The man, who can slam a revolving door says in his post on World Net Daily that Huckabee, “will fight for the issues that lead us safely, and with prosperity, into the future.” One assumes a “or I’ll kick his ass” followed that statement.

Democratic candidates cowered in terror at the news. Clinton strategist Mark Penn, sporting a fresh black eye is reportedly assessing which nation with no extradition treaty he should retreat to in the face of the endorsement and Norris’ fist like chin.

The endorsement of the man who made the nation of France surrender “just in case” after watching only one episode of Walker, Texas Ranger will no doubt tip the balance of the Republican nomination, and the general election to Huckabee.

Stay tuned, I hope to have more on this after Chuck Norris gets finished kicking my ass.

Is this OUR Movement?

Steve Ross — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:12:00 +0000

I’ve been reading a lot about the origins and execution of “movement conservatism”. These are the people who brought us Reagan, both Bushes and the Republican stranglehold on the south. These are the people who have cowed the Democratic Party into the spinelessness that would allow us to let a nominee for the top spot at DOJ get out of committee for promising to “enforce any law that Congress passes”, which is the job of the Attorney General. What bullshit!

Democrats have bought into the “rise of movement conservatism” mythology and continue to operate as if those rules still apply well into their leadership of the Congress. It seems obvious that this is not what the American people want. In the face of massive voter dissatisfaction, and fundraising success by national Democratic candidates and committees (with the exception of the DNC) there is an air of inevitability surrounding the Democratic Party. So far, the only candidate who has seen this as a potential problem is the Hillary campaign, recognizing that front runner status as a potential target that can be hammered into the ground.

I’m not spouting some kind of concern troll bullshit, but a simple fact of life; act like a frontrunner and you’re a target that can be overwhelmed, act like an underdog and that drive, desire, and commitment can carry you to victory.

As we’ve learned in the past two Presidential cycles, there’s no such thing as inevitability, except in the eyes of the pundit class that relishes maintaining their storyline more than reporting on the candidate’s policies and positions. Indeed, stories of personality and physical ticks, from sighs and haircuts to cackles and clapping, have been the dominant feature in this and the past two Presidential campaigns. All of the manufactured “stories” have come from the “Very Important People” in the DC punditocracy.

These “stories” don’t even make for good television, much less good political reportage. They persist because the pundit class has become so marginal that it’s all they have. Nearly every political show on commercial television is nothing more than “Entertainment Tonight” for politics. The storylines follow in a style of rumor and innuendo that was once relegated to supermarket gossip rags.

So, the storyline for now may be the inevitability of a Democratic groundswell, but the reality of Democratic initiatives and the “process” of Democrats deferring to Republican talking points, bending instead of enforcing Democratic will, is the stuff of the impending storyline that will emerge in September of 2008, “What have they done?” Despite facts to the contrary, the answer will be “Nothing, they’re spineless”, and that’s something our Democratic leaders in the Congress need to be thinking about before making any more “deals” with Republicans.

We need to be acting like a movement, not the establishment. People are dissatisfied with the establishment more than any particular party. Establishment politicians are what allowed us to get into Iraq. Establishment politics maintain the status quo. Establishment politics are what ultimately killed the “movement conservatives” because they were no longer a movement. By tacitly maintaining “establishment” principles and process, Democrats make themselves vulnerable.

The truth of the matter is that Democratic candidates are going to get hammered in the press no matter what they do. Why not start off from a position of change, which is what the populace desires, than reinforcing current norms? At least then we can say unequivocally that we have tried to make a difference in the face of an establishment fighting against change, and gain more trust in the electorate regardless of what the noise machine cranks out.

The attitude of the electorate toward government is shifting from “get out of my pocketbook” to “where the hell are you guys”. This puts us in the enviable position of being able to soft sell Democratic principles to a ready and willing electorate. Responsible and effective government, financial security, and an end to unbridled war are what the people are longing for. By positioning ourselves as the “movement”, and the “movement conservatives” as the establishment, which they always have been, we attach them to the abject failure of the establishment over the past two Presidential cycles. This gives us an immediate leg up in nearly every contest nationwide.

In the past 9 months, the only people working the “movement” are those politicians in the “Progressive” and “Out of Iraq” caucuses, Edwards, and to a lesser degree, Dodd. The Blue Dogs, New Democrats, and other such establishment groups in Congress, as well as the leadership in the House and Senate, have been either fighting against this tooth and nail, or so ready to cave they’re passing out headlamps and dynamite to the Republicans. In doing so, they cut our potential off at the knees.

If we, as a party, want to build upon our gains in 2006 we need to act as change agents, not another flavor of the same old Kool-Aid. Unless we challenge the leadership and demand they do OUR work in Congress instead of giving people immunity and stroking the establishment, we can expect a November surprise, 4 more years of “drown the baby” policies that could come from establishment candidates in either party.

On My Recent Absence

Steve Ross — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:42:00 +0000

This morning was my first post in nearly 3 weeks. It’s seemed like an eternity to me. Writing is something I do, not because I’m particularly good, or because I have anything new or different to say but because it’s some thing I like. I write because it makes me feel connected to the community, despite my 200+ day a year travel/show schedule.

Being either out of town, or on a 14-hour show call for over half the year is one of the most disconnecting things that a person can experience. Not only are you away from your loved ones, your home, your community, but you are thrust into an alternate reality that is an organism unto itself, isolated from the outside world.

Time takes on new meaning in this environment. With just enough time to shower, get your work done, and sleep, the outside world seems to disappear. This effect is something that I have fought for the past 10 years, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

Still, I cherish my time at home as an opportunity to reconnect with “reality” as it were, to re-establish a sense of self, and to focus some attention on the policy and process of politics, a love of mine since a very young age.

This doesn’t make for a simple life. In fact, the sheer amount of time that I spend reading, thinking and writing, can only be described as obsessive for a person who has little or no interest in making politics a vocation. This is a hobby that requires a great deal of time for any level of competence and much dedication to make an impact. I claim neither competence nor impact, merely a continual quest for these characteristics.

My 3 week absence was as much about a heavy work schedule as it was about a re-examination of both my obsession and the role I want my writing to play in my life and the community at large. Blogging is inherently egotistical exercise. The idea that I have any impact on the minds of people in the community is laughable to me. Until about a month ago, I never really thought anything I had to say was even considered by anything more than a small group of like-minded individuals.

In the past month I have received an outpouring of support, venom and unsettling silence from true and would-be allies. Some of this reaction good and bad, I brought on myself for allowing emotion to overwhelm me. Still, that’s as close to a retraction or apology that you’ll ever read from me on this or any other past issue.

This reaction, particularly the silence, has caused me to re-evaluate the notion of a local, liberal “blogger community”. In that evaluation I have come to the conclusion that, at best, there exists a loose confederation of individuals whose self-interest far outweighs any notion of community. It is an unfortunate reality of politics in a larger political community that values social order over substance. Those seeking upward mobility in the clique often have to publicly step back from unpopular opinions to achieve their desires. I understand this reality and hold no grudge against those who would, for whatever reason, shy away from conflict in the face of the outlandish threats, or supposed dire consequences. For my part, I value the friendships I have made as well as the enemies and the generally indifferent parties that make up my life, however I have no desire to bow to the prevailing social order regardless of pressure, threats, long shrieking phone calls, or other schoolyard bullying. The social order is part of the problem, not the solution.

So, the question for me over the past three weeks has been, what to do about this? The answer came to me with the reports that the Commercial Appeal is auctioning off of column inches to business interests disguised as news. In the three+ years that I have lived here, our daily newspaper’s record of reporting local political news has gone from slim to virtually none. This presents us with a difficult question. How can a city, with less representation in the city council per person than in the state house, a retreating 4th estate, and a political class whose dedication to government transparency is transitory at best ever manage positive change?

The answer is ownership. Owning our successes and failures as a community, a state and a nation. Owning the consequences of our actions. Owning the circumstances that we empower through both action and inaction and working both as individuals and groups of people to retake a government that belongs to all of us but has been largely abandoned. That is the ultimate answer that we as a people have, at once, sought to attain and shied away from. Ownership is the only answer that can lead to a continued future of opportunity, equality, and the freedoms that have defined the American experience for over 200 years.

Really, it’s simple, requires little research, and even less time. Subscribe to your neighborhood newsletter AND READ IT. Talk to your neighbors about something other than getting your power tools back. Reconnect with the people in your local community in a way that doesn’t involve a traffic accident. Through even this small level of involvement you may find something that will motivate you to contribute further to your community or the greater discussion. It is in the absence of community dialogue that government stops representing the people and starts representing themselves. Dialogue is the most basic form of ownership, and the foundation for change. Most importantly, dialogue takes power away from those who would seek to concentrate it for personal gain, as has been the case here in the Bluff City since the days of Boss Crump.

For my part, it is my intention to make local issues a greater focus for this blog. With a largely rookie City Council coming in next year, there exists a great opportunity to have a more direct dialogue with our representatives. There is also the distinct possibility that the Mayor will use his political savvy to exploit some of these “greener” elements. This will require a lot of oversight, oversight that the local fish wrap seems unwilling to provide. I pledge to take a more direct role in both attending and reporting on the events that transpire at the Memphis City Council and other entities in the Memphis political sphere.

Finally, I would like to hear from you, the readers of this blog. What local issues are you most concerned about? What is going on in your neighborhood that needs to be addressed? I want to start a dialogue with you and maybe even play a role in bringing the issues that affect your everyday life to the attention of the greater community at large. I can be contacted by posting a comment or clicking on my profile to get my email address. I look forward to this goal/role that I have placed on myself, but most importantly the opportunity to have even a passing affect on the future of our community.

Thanks for reading, but more importantly, thanks for sticking with me.

Vast Right-Wing Lunch Date

Steve Ross — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:33:00 +0000

It seems Brother Bill had him some lunch with wing-nut/vast right wing conspiracy financier Richard Mellon Scaife and it didn't end up on WWE Smackdown. Newsweek has the story.

Missing the Bus

Steve Ross — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:43:00 +0000

Does the article in this morning’s Commercial Appeal about busing in the MCS exaggerate the “huge premium Memphis City Schools is paying to bus schoolchildren”?

Memphis City Schools busses over 10% of its student body and pays some $20,000,000 for it. That’s $1050/student bused per year, or about $5.60 a day for each of the 19,000 students that use the district’s bus contractor.

When you break it down to a daily cost per student, it doesn’t seem like much. It's more than a round trip on the city bus, but don't get me started on that whole thing.

When you consider at the total operating budget of the District, which is knocking on the door of one billion dollars ($879M), $20M is a drop in the bucket. In fact, that sum constitutes less than 2.3% of the total budget of the school system.

All of this said, the notion that a contract would not be bid out more than once in 21 years is EXACTLY what’s wrong with Memphis. That we are possibly paying more for busing than Knoxville and Nashville in light of these circumstances is no surprise. Both of these issues need to be addressed before the end of this year to ensure that both the students interests and the taxpayers money are being treated with the care that they both deserve.

What bothers me is that I can’t decide what this story is really about. Is this an attempt to build outrage over the other problems at the MCS, an opportunity to pile on Halbert in light the recent Grand Jury testimony, of is this just a pumped up tabloid piece disguised as investigative journalism?

I don’t really know the answers to these questions, and certainly don’t have a dog in this fight, when it comes to the interpersonal relationships of the School Board members. It would have been nice to see some real numbers contrasting to the cost per student here in Memphis, Nashville and Knoxville instead of the blanket numbers given early on in the article and the table at the end. There are other issues to consider, like trip length, route distance, and number of students per route that may have an impact driving up the cost of bus services in the school district.

For instance, if Nashville is busing some 50% of it’s students; there are many factors that could play into a lower cost per student ratio. However, with 30,000 fewer students, the Nashville school system is paying a higher percentage of its total budget than Memphis. Playing with numbers can serve many masters, and the article should have addressed this. In any case, this is to be expected considering the total number of students bused. It also follows that with a greater number of students bused, there is a greater opportunity to make those routes more cost effective. Did anyone think about this? Sure doesn’t seem like it.

Secondly, the question I will ask until the CA stops monetizing content…who paid for the article? How much does an article like that cost, and who do I talk to in sales to get one written? This is not meant as a slap to the author, whose work I have enjoyed in the past and look forward to in the future, but the publisher, who refuses to understand that his paper is not losing readers because of too much staff, but because of too little real local coverage. We can get an AP report anywhere dude, how’s about some more articles that address what’s going on in Memphis and less wire fill.

Finally, while I understand that all is not rosy in the world, I would really like to see some articles about something going right in Memphis. I’m not talking about saving kittens from trees or helping old ladies across streets or anything, but for the love of all that is holy, there HAS to be something good going on in this city. Sure there’s plenty wrong and it needs to be reported, but the sheer bulk of it all is just down right overwhelming.

Here's an idea, maybe you could trade up and have less Wendi Thomas, and more of something like a list of people who are screwing the city out of money or are general ne’er do wells. That would be good reference material for us bloggers and remove an annoying part of my week.

BTW, who pays for her column?

Recalls, Consolidation, and *@#!%^&!!!

Steve Ross — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:56:00 +0000

Ok, so I’m not trying to steal Mediaverse:Memphis’ gig or anything. If I’m going to get in the hang of writing more about Memphis politics from locales hither and fro (I’m in Columbus, OH today) I’m gonna need to read the local fishwrap and comment. So, sorry if I’m pissing on your Cheerios guys.

There are two items that caught my attention in this morning’s CA. The first is the effort to create a recall system for the removal of City Council Members. The second is an opinion piece about consolidation.

Recalls

How is there not already some remedy for this? I know that in the wake of the Edmund Ford and Rickey Peete bribery charges, the Council was incapable of doing ANYTHING. The recall would at least set in place a necessary check on Council members caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or who are just plain incompetent.

The problem with some recall efforts is that people who don’t necessarily have the best interest of the community at large can hijack them. Ask California how they feel about that. This is why the standard for a recall needs to be set high. 15% of the electorate seems like a good standard. However, 15% of ALL the voters in Memphis seems a bit out of hand. I’m not clear on the law in this case, but wouldn’t 15% of the represented area in question be a bit more within reason? In order to get 15% of the voters in the city to agree on anything one would need signatures from all the voters in one council district, and a good number from other districts (1/7 = 14.29%).

The second issue that must be dealt with is the elections. Who pays for them? It seems like a bank breaker. How many candidates are going to want to run when there are two questions on the ballot? Question 1. Remove this candidate, yes or no. Question 2. Vote for someone. Can the candidate in question 1 run again or is their candidacy merely an up or down vote? This needs to be clarified either in the proposed law or the article.

The third issue is the time limit. Waiting 2 years for someone whose competence comes into question after 6 months is like coming to work after the business closes. 9 months from swearing in seems like enough time for someone to establish competence or lack thereof. Anything more than that, and you might as well wait until the next election.

Consolidation

Let me state for the record that, as a general statement, I support consolidating all the various and sundry communities of Shelby County under one unified government. It seems to be working in Davidson County, and while they may have a deeper bench to draw upon, I see no reason that it wouldn’t work here, potentially saving millions of dollars, or at least streamlining some of the territorial pissing contests into a single unit.

With that said, I only support it if it includes more direct representation in the resulting legislative body. Davidson County has some 40+ council members. A unified Shelby County government should have no fewer.

I don’t know what Herenton and the rest of the “consolidation advocates” have in mind, and without seeing something solid on that end I can’t say I support “his” efforts, but it would seem that drafting a charter that unifies the government and sets forth the timeline and functions of government, while deauthorizing the current charters of the individual communities would be the way to go. As with most things, the devil is in the details, and until those emerge, any notion of consolidation is nothing more than talk, and talk is something that if we could bottle it, would be our greatest export.

I recently abandoned a post on my vision of an effective consolidated county government. If I have time before I have to pull a 24 hour shift, I’ll dust it off and post it.

The Charter Commission has been “working” on questions of consolidation. As of this writing, the last time minutes were updated was on the 11th of October, when leadership was challenged, though the vote was tabled until the 30th…two weeks ago. You can find out more about what the Charter Commission is doing here.

For my part, I sure wish they were better at keeping their information up to date. I’m not sure what the hold up is, but after reading the minutes, I can’t wait to see what happened. The CA has no more info about the Charter Commission meetings since then, but considering they have a hard time getting members to show up perhaps they didn’t have a quorum.

I think I’ll just leave it at that.

Just when I thought it was getting boring…

Steve Ross — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:00:00 +0000

Hat tip to MyDD.

What do you get when you give 4th tier Republican Presidential candidates access to a video camera, basic editing software, and a dream. Well, it ain’t the classic 1964 Lyndon Johnson Daisy ad, but it sure has plenty of crazy.

I know that Ton Tancredo really doesn’t have a chance, but seriously, everyone knows that Islamofascist Terrorists don’t wear hoodies. Homegrown American terrorists do. So the ad is misleading from the start.

Secondly, one must assume that these terrorists are streaming across the southern border. That’s funny because just about all of them that have been caught in the US either came through with real documents or crossed over from Canada.

Third, we have open borders? Really. I guess all that time I spent in Customs at the Houston Airport last week was just a ruse to make me feel more inconvenienced. What Kool-Aid is this guy drinking?

Fourth, there may be “Islamic terrorists freely roaming our soil”, but if they are it’s because Homeland Security is not doing their job, not because of open borders.

Finally, when did the number of illegals here to “steal our jobs” reach 20 million? Most estimates hover around 12 million. I guess when you’re channeling xenophobia as your primary platform plank, sticking to well established numbers is for suckers.

If marginal candidates like Tancredo want to spend their money like this, I say go for it. If anything it further marginalizes them to the point of irrelevance. Hell, he probably got the John Birch Society to chip in on some talent for the voice over.

I just hope Rahmbo doesn’t see this. Word on the street is he wants to weaken the Democratic Party by parroting Republican talking points on immigration. Sounds like a genius strategy to me Rahm, now go wash behind your ears, they're filthy!

$3.5 Trillion

Steve Ross — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:22:00 +0000

As reported in the AP via Yahoo! The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by 2017 could reach $3.5 by 2017.

If both occupations, because that’s what they are kiddies, not wars, last until 2017 someone’s getting an ass kicking.

The report states that $1.6 trillion has already been spent on the actions (war and occupations) since 2002. That constitutes exactly half of the new deficit spending since W got into office. My take is that $3.5 trillion by 2017 is a conservative estimate.

With the dollar trading around or below the Canadian Looney we can expect the cost of maintaining these actions to increase as our economy experiences the mass inflation that currency devaluation brings.

See because that’s what all the jingoistic dick wagging this administration has brought us, a weak dollar.

Our weak dollar, badly broken military, and Boltenized kindergarten foreign policy will inspire nations all over the world to revere us as the true leaders that we are.

A weak dollar is the thing I think of when considering upward mobility and economic freedom that has made our nation great.

A weak dollar is what the Republicans want, because they, with their internationalist nonchalance spent the 90’s buying cheap Euro’s. (I can’t confirm that, but it makes for some great tin foil conversations.)

And getting 3 Trillion bucks more in debt than we were when Bill got his $70 million blowjob, is what makes America great.

Ok, I gotta stop.

Look folks, when I can’t even get some enjoyment from my own snark that means something is horribly wrong. I find it maddening that when a Democrat is in the White House Republicans FREAK THE FUCK OUT at every dime that is spent in or out of the country, but when a Republican is in the White House we gotta go invade someone, damn the consequences, and the people at large don’t give it a thought. WHAT THE FUCK?

We can’t pull out of Iraq any more than we could superglue Ming Dynasty china back together and call it good. But we have to start easing ourselves out of the equation because pointing at someone else ain’t gonna work and what we’re doing now SURE THE FUCK ain’t working.

I’m glad that Pelosi and Reid are talking big finally, but Hoyer is waffling, and there’s lots of shit in that waffle, lots of power, lots of “not rounding up any votes” for the majority. With all of that, there is a failure that the mass media will lick up like ice cream on a warm summer day.

It’s making me feel like my head is about to asplode, though that could be the being up for 24 hours thing that work made me do this time around.

I think I’ll order pizza with my weak dollars and go to bed lest I make a mess with my head asploding and all in a Columbus Holiday Inn Express.

And I thought these hotels were supposed to make you smarter! Maybe I'll be better tomorrow.

Tanner and Cooper Vote Against Troop Drawdown

Steve Ross — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:02:00 +0000

Last night the US House voted to pass HR 4156, a bill that would provide $50 billion for emergency appropriations contingent on the coordinated drawdown of troop levels deployed in Iraq. 15 Democrats, including John Tanner (TN-08) and Jim Cooper (TN-05) voted against the measure.

Tanner and Cooper have consistently voted against measures that would put conditions on funding for the deployments. In the past, Bart Gordon (TN-06) and Lincoln Davis (TN-04) joined them in their opposition to conditional funding. This time around both Davis and Gordon sided with the majority.

Tanner and Cooper need to explain their positions. Back in September, the Commercial Appeal published a fluff piece about Tanner’s struggles with the Iraq question. In the piece, Tanner never backs down from his initial decision, but that decision doesn’t jibe with a statement in the article where he says:

“Yeah, it bothers me. It bothers me a lot because I told myself when I left active duty back in '72 that, if I ever had anything to say about it, I'd try to keep our country from getting involved in another war where the strategic victory that we sought was not attainable”

Basically, Tanner is saying he wouldn’t support something that we can’t win. The problem with this logic is that we are no longer in the “war” phase, we are occupiers, and have been since our flightsuited President declared “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003. The way you win an occupation is to leave, not stay as long as possible.

The current government of Iraq took office in May of 2006. A year and a half out, and few of the issues facing the country have been dealt with. Military leaders, both active and retired have testified again and again that the issue in Iraq now is a political one that cannot be resolved militarily yet the administration has taken no lead in creating a political environment in Iraq that would expedite negotiations. Our continued military presence in Iraq as it stands now is hindering negotiations and exacerbating the stalemate by providing a crutch for the Iraqi government to lean on instead of taking responsibility for the future of their nation, a task they were charged by their people to complete.

I understand that the issue of funding our soldiers in Iraq can seem complicated. I don’t think anyone wants to see a single soldier injured or killed due to lack of equipment or funding. This bill funds the troops, contingent on removing them from harms way. From my perspective it satisfies the troop safety requirement. This is not a rejection of the troops, but a rejection of administration policy that 70% of Americans believe has careened out of control.

Tanner and Cooper’s decision to vote against this bill puts them in a position of voting against troop safety. This position is untenable when considering the totality of the situation. Both members need to explain themselves, and soon. Voting against a bill because it will be vetoed is not a good enough reason. It is time for the Congress to represent the will of the American people.

In the spring of 2007 MTSU conducted a poll that showed that only 29% of Tennesseans support the current policy on Iraq. Since that time Tanner and Cooper have consistently voted against any funding bill that would call for troop withdrawal. I hope that Tanner and Cooper will reconsider their votes, or at least explain them so we might better understand, or elect someone who is more willing to represent the will of the people in their districts.

Ed Note: It may seem that my position on Iraq has been inconsistent. In truth, this is one of those things that is very difficult for me to put into words. Emotionally, I want our troops home yesterday. Intellectually, I know that a troop withdrawal is necessary, but will be a lengthy and costly process that may result in an explosion of violence in the Middle East.

Since the rhetorical buildup of the war in 2002, I have maintained my opposition to it. The reality that we would be responsible for the aftermath was one of my main strategic objections to the war, never mind the administration’s policy of pre-emption was both ill conceived and contrary to international law. Since the beginning of military action we have consistently failed to stabilize the situation politically and have executed a military plan, which can only be described as inconsistent and understaffed. Both of these situations have been brought on by an administration that is determined to choke any competence out of government for political reasons. I find it disgusting that this situation has manifested itself in this way, but can find blame only in those who would work to maintain it, namely the administration and it’s apologists on the hill. For now, Tanner, Cooper and those who voted against this conditional emergency spending have given themselves this dubious distinction.

Our service men and women have been held hostage to this political agenda, and I feel it is high time that we fight to get them the hell out of there. In doing so, we have to accept that we are leaving with the job half done and that there will be many more lives, American and Iraqi, lost. Additionally, the toll that this action will no doubt have on military morale will be steep. I feel that every bill calling for withdrawal should include language admonishing the Bush Administration for failing to live up to their responsibility, while commending our service members for their sacrifice, and dedication despite the impossible situation the Administration placed them in.

“Support the Troops, Bring Them Home” has been my mantra in the face of Administration rhetoric seeking to paint any opposition as heretical. Still, the part of the equation that needs to be addressed in any re-deployment or drawdown plan is the future of the Iraqi people. In liberating Iraqis from a dictator, we have shackled them to anarchy. It is our responsibility as a nation to correct this situation politically. That responsibility falls on an Administration loathe to admit fault or make any gesture that would expedite the political situation. This is, in my opinion, an attempt to pass on the problem to the next administration, on the backs of our soldiers.

Congress cannot make the Administration fulfill their obligation, but must hold a position that squarely places the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the Bush Administration, and for now Tanner, Cooper and the rest of those who would vote to maintain this Administration’s political agenda. In passing this bill, the House is once again on record. I hope the Senate can muster the intestinal fortitude to also pass this legislation despite the inevitable veto. By continuing to press forward with this agenda, the Congress can take solace in the fact that they have at least made an effort to correct the wrongs of this administration. I hope Tanner and Cooper will come around to this realization and vote for overturning the veto when it comes before the House.

Someone Needs an Attitude Adjustment

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:41:00 +0000

Yesterday, I wrote this little number on two of Tennessee’s safest Democrats voting against conditional funding for the troops in Iraq. Newscoma brought to my attention a quote from none other than one Representative John Tanner. In response to questions concerning his vote Tanner’s spokesman stated:

“Rep. Tanner had questions about the political viability of the bill because it may not be something that has the possibility of passing and making it all the way," said Randy Ford, spokesman for Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), who voted against the bill. "He really wants to continue working on it in a bipartisan way, so the House can insert itself not as one party or another but to have an oversight role."

Sounds like a winning attitude to me.

It takes bold moves to create positive change, and Tanner, like many southern Democrats just doesn’t seem to have the stomach for that. Had Tanner’s been the conventional wisdom in the 60’s, civil rights legislation may have never passed. Had Tanner been in office in the 20’s, women may still not have the right to vote. Not voting for something because it may not pass, is like not saving for retirement because you might lose money, stupid.

This defeatist attitude calls into question not only Tanner’s judgment, but also his leadership. Tenure does not equal leadership, but as a founding member of the conservative Blue Dog coalition, Tanner has the ear of center right Democrats in the House. Thankfully, nearly two-thirds of these Blue Dogs did not follow his lead this time around.

Last year, the Democratic caucus gained enough seats to take over the House, partly as a result of dissatisfaction with the handling of the Iraq military deployment (as I stated yesterday, it is no longer a war, but an occupation that the Congress has allowed to continue). While Tanner saw no real competition in his district, many Democrats around the country fought long and hard to gain or maintain their seats in the face of a rubber stamp Congress that had done nothing to check the power of the Executive.

Using Representative Tanner’s logic, we should use our new majority to “build bi-partisanship” instead of pursuing the agenda that put us in the majority.

This line of reasoning is utter nonsense.

We were entrusted with the majority because we offered something different. The notion that we should cave to pressure from the minority because it will not pass the Senate is the kind of “playing to not lose” bullshit that we have come to expect from both the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions. If we want to win, we have to play to win, and that means striking out once in a while, but if we don’t even swing we have no chance.

Representative Tanner, face the facts. You are afraid of the Administration and you are afraid of being in the majority, because being in the majority may bring too much attention to you. You either need to step down, or step it up, because your position of apologist for the Bush Administration is getting tiresome.

Senate Republicans Block Troop Funding

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:16:00 +0000

In a show of brazen partisanship, Senate Republicans voted against cloture on HR 4156, a bill that provides emergency spending for troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure, which would provide $50 billion of additional funding, failed on cloture by a vote of 53-45. 4 Republicans, Collins and Snowe of Maine, Hagel of Nebraska, and Smith of Oregon, joined the majority in support of the measure. Smith and Collins face tough re-election battles in 2008, which may have contributed to the break with their party.

In addition to the 44 Republicans, Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) also voted against the measure. Lieberman has long been a supporter of administration policy in Iraq, despite his decision to caucus with Democrats.

In response to the vote, White House Deputy Press Secretary, Tony Fratto said: (Source)

“DOD would have to eat into their annual budget and I believe that still presents difficulties in getting the troops in the field the resources they need to carry out their mission.”

"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers, rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field," Fratto said. "I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn't like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding."

In rejecting the emergency spending Senate Republicans have put the security of our military forces, deployed in harsh circumstances, at risk.

--

This is my attempt to show that news can be spun either way if one so desires. Cherry picking information is easy. Nowhere in the above article did I mention anything but troop funding. This places the Republican minority in a position of defense, which is exactly where they need to be. Our Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate need to get better at this.

In the same article, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are quoted as saying:

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," said Reid, D-Nev.

and:

"The days of a free lunch are over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

While I support both of these statements, they represent a poor use of the bully pulpit their leadership in the Senate provides. Both of these statements support the frame that we need to get out of Iraq, which we do, however, both need to be followed up with declarations supporting the troops over a disastrous administration policy.

By framing the Republican minority against troop funding we further marginalize the minority and exert pressure on them to change their votes in future conditional funding battles. No it ain’t pretty, but it’s past time that we start playing hard ball, both on the floor and in the media.

Until we start holding their feet to the fire, Republicans will continue their obstructionist maneuvering in the Senate, potentially hampering our ability to maintain the momentum we gained in the 2006 mid-terms.

Just Another Corruption Post

Steve Ross — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:54:00 +0000

Corruption is something that the people of Memphis have lived with for generations. Over the past several years, public officials from the statehouse down to the City Council have been caught with their hands in the proverbial “cookie jar”. With the recent indictment of former County Commissioner Bruce Thompson, one can only expect that more officials will be ensnared in the federal and state investigations that are currently taking place.

There may be a lot of reasons for these past and current problems facing our city and state, from pure greed, to a misguided sense of entitlement. Regardless of reason, corruption is one of the most destructive things that any democratic government can experience, disenchanting the public that the individuals were sworn to serve. From my perspective, focusing on the public servants who receive the money only deals with one side of the issue. Corruption is a problem of both supply and demand, and until both sides are addressed, we can expect the problem to continue.

In the recent and current investigations of corruption, some have suggested that the sting operations amounted to entrapment. This view only looks at the circumstances of the events, instead of recognizing the behavior. An official that would take money from an undercover agent, most likely has taken money from others. It is this pattern of behavior that the undercover operations wish to expose. Unfortunately, so far they have only served to show that the official in question engaged in corruption in this particular instance. While these revelations may be valuable in curbing corruption in the individuals involved, it doesn’t address the other side of the issue.

Dealing with the supply side of the issue, or the bribers, as it were, is a much more difficult problem to address. Investigators have had no trouble in finding officials that would willingly take money for favors. Finding those who would seek the favors has not yet happened. In order for the supply side to be addressed, a couple of things must happen; 1. Public officials must be willing to expose those who would seek favors, or 2. Those seeking favors must be so brazen and open about their quest that it cannot be ignored. Number 2 runs contrary to common sense. No one seeking to bribe an official would seek to do so “in the light of day”. Unfortunately, so far, none of those convicted seem willing to expose anyone on the supply side of equation.

Elected officials don’t really go out cold calling for bribes. The bribers come to them. Until the source of the money is addressed and the “bribers” are put behind bars, there is no chance that certain elements within the ranks of elected officials will straighten up their acts, the temptation is just too great, apparently. Unfortunately, none of the individuals who have either pled guilty, or been convicted, have shown any public willingness to work with prosecutors to deal with the supply side of the issue. This may be due to the possibility that revelations of further corruption that may lead to further charges on the individuals, though one would think that such revelations would be met with offers of immunity from conviction. On the flip side, it may be more a reflection of the desires of the prosecutors, though certainly they must recognize that, like the drug trade, public corruption relies on the cooperation of both sides. On this point, I cannot make any declarations, though it would be a refreshing sight if prosecutors were able to indict and convict a high powered individual seeking favor for cash. Until this happens, many throughout the city will view these efforts as half-hearted, or only partially successful.

Despite this partial success, I hope that federal and state investigators will continue to investigate those who would use their office or financial might, to usurp the honest functioning of government. These investigations may only net those who receive bribes for now, but eventually someone will roll over in exchange for leniency and expose those who would seek favor. Perhaps the already have.

From the “Unfortunate Choice of Words” Department.

Steve Ross — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:10:00 +0000

“It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush” – Hillary Clinton (Source)

Just don’t get any on the dress…

2 oz. Shy of a Beer

Steve Ross — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:26:00 +0000

I’ve been out of the loop for a while, with all the Turkey Day festivities and post Turkey Day work, so I thought I’d ease back into the blogoshpere with a cautionary tale of beer.

Today marks my first real day home since the Thanksgiving weekend. This afternoon Stacy and I went to the store to get some supplies. In doing so, I picked up some beer. Nothing unusual here folks, read on.

My beer of choice in most casual situations is Miller Lite. I find it provides the necessary comfort expected of a beer without any of the gut busting side effects of “better” beers. Also, it’s Union Made, which satisfies at least one of my ideological needs.

We made our way to the checkout, and then home. After finding homes for all of the foodstuffs that will be making up our meals for the next few days, I opened the beer container and plucked an ice cold one from the nest. Immediately I knew something was wrong.

The beer seemed smaller. It did not fit in my hand the way I have become accustomed to in my many years of enjoying beer. Upon further inspection, I found that the beer was merely 10 oz. instead of the normal 12. What evil bastard could have done such a thing?

Miller, that’s who.

I felt cheated, slighted, and generally annoyed at such a flagrant violation of the 12 oz. curl that I talked to the MTL Comish. He just snapped back with some stupid platitudes before I realized it was an automated script. Assholes.

Buyer beware. The 10 oz.ers are out there. Be not fooled by the shiny container, nor hasty in your selection lest ye be drawn into the den of 2 oz. shy beer.

Bring in the new Council

Steve Ross — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:47:00 +0000

On December 18th, the current incarnation of the Memphis City Council will hold it’s last meeting of the term. The agenda for the meeting is not yet available, nor are the minutes from the November 20th and December 4th meetings. This has been the case all year.

The Memphis City Council’s site has been at least 4 weeks behind on reporting the business of the council. Some of this may be due to a lack of staffing, or a need to approve the minutes of the meeting, but one would think that a 48 hour turnaround for publishing the proposed minutes would be more than enough time. The people of the City of Memphis have a right to know what has happened in their legislative body in a timely manner. In the absence of a news daily reporting the admittedly dry business of the council, it is invaluable to have a record of the meeting available as soon as possible. Here’s to hoping the new council will take this more seriously, or at least do something to reduce the amount of time between the meetings and the open reportage of the meeting.

Speaking of that local “news daily” that is slacking on it’s duty… today the CA published a fluff piece on the incoming council members and role of the Tennessee Sunshine Law on the way they do business, both officially and in their personal lives.

Next year, 70% of the council will be new faces…new to the council anyway. One of those nine members will enter their service under a cloud. This presents an early potential fight that could affect the future effectiveness of the council we elected to serve for the next four years. We should hope, for the sake of the city that Halbert has done no wrong and withhold judgment until any “potential” indictment is handed down.

The Council has a lot of business to attend to over the next four years. One major item is Mayoral Succession. The issue was brought up by outgoing Council member and former Mayoral candidate Carol Chumney. Currently, if the Mayor resigns or is incapacitated, the Council chair takes over for 20 days. The Council has 20 days to appoint a new mayor. If none is appointed the city CAO, an appointed position, takes the reigns. This may have been an acceptable situation at one point, but no longer. A real line of succession needs to be established for the position of Mayor that includes a special election. While the City Council has no say in charter changes, they need to go on record either individually or as a body on this important issue.

There are several other issues that the Council will need to take up, in one way or another that I’ll be discussing over the next few days. Unfortunately, because of the way our City Charter is written, some may be outside the realm of the Council. This is where advocacy leadership comes into play. I’ll talk more about that in upcoming posts.

All told, this stands to be an interesting year for the City of Memphis. I’m looking forward to it, and hope that our new council can come together to help address the many issues facing the community.

My Favorite Punching Bag

Steve Ross — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:54:00 +0000

I read this editorial last week while I was on the road, and thankfully though about it this afternoon to complete my trifecta of posts for the day.

The editorial details a question posed to Rep. John Tanner (TN-08) concerning Pakistan. From the Editorial:

Whom should we side with in the ongoing confrontation in Pakistan between the autocratic government of Pervez Musharraf and ostensible democratic reformer Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister freshly returned from exile? Not an easy question, and Tanner, after ruminating out loud over the pros and cons of the matter, finally came down, reluctantly but decisively, on the side of the status quo. What's at stake in the region is stability, the congressman said, and that's especially needful in the case of Pakistan, not only a de facto ally in the so-called war on terror but a country in possession of a decent-sized nuclear arsenal.

There are several things about the statement that Tanner and I can agree on, with some clarification. 1. Certainly stability is preferable to instability in Pakistan, unfortunately that stability should be rooted in Democratic institutions, not a government that rose to power as the result of a military coup. 2. Pakistan is an ally, though a reluctant one in the war on terror. Musharraf’s insistence on making peace treaties with Islamic militants on the Afghan border to concentrate power should be very concerning to the US. 3. Pakistan most certainly possesses nuclear weapons, and we should be working with them to put that genie back in the bottle. Acting like it’s not there is not working.

All of these “agreements with conditions” are well and good, but neglect the issue that should be front and center in the assessment; Pakistan should be able to decide their own fate democratically.

The editorial goes on to somehow relate our experience in Iraq to a potential experience in Pakistan:

…our experience in Iraq has surely taught us something about the dangers of overthrowing dictators. Saddam Hussein was no paragon, to say the least. But he was A) secular and B) strong enough to hold the festering parts of that country together against potential (now long since actualized) religious anarchy. Much the same can be said of Musharraf, and it has to be considered, as Tanner indicated, whether the cure for authoritarian regimes (which are surely to be preferred to totalitarian ones) can be worse than the illness.

Musharraf is no Saddam Hussein at this point. That could change at any moment and supporting him only compounds the problem. As we should have learned in our relationship with Saddam in the 80’s, a dictatorial ally for today can be a major dictatorial pain in the ass tomorrow. Like our relationship with Saddam in the 80’s we had a common enemy. Then it was Iran, today it is the specter of islamofascism, or whatever they’re calling it today. The similarities are disturbing.

While I understand and somewhat support efforts to keep us from the “don’t shit where you eat” politics that have dominated our foreign policy in this administration, I also reject the Reagan error politics of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This policy, started by Republicans and adopted by knee knocking Democrats seeking foreign policy credibility is a fuck up of grand proportions. If America is going to be the paragon of all that is “Liberty, Justice, and Freedom” on the planet, then we need to stop propping up dictators who are “Just us” without the Liberty or Freedom. As of this writing, Pakistan is no different, despite their strategic positioning.

It’s time to take the diplomatic high ground. That doesn’t mean icing Pakistan, but talking to them more to get more of what we want (democratic elections, demilitarizing the militants in the north, nuclear drawdown). That means showing them how beneficial a partnership with America can be. Regardless of our current foreign policy strategy (if you can call it that) they still need us more than we need them. Pakistan will make concessions, if it’s beneficial for them, and if they’re asked (I assume they’re not since the Bushies love friendly Dictators). Anything less is a waste of time, and a violation of all that America stands for. We can and should do better.

Sunshine in Tennessee

Steve Ross — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:06:00 +0000

I’ve been over this and over this. I’ve read blogs and news articles and even printed up some of the relevant sections of the law, and I just can’t understand some of the objections to the current law as it stands. Here is my understanding of the law in its current incarnation:

If two members of the same body (be they elected, or appointed to a public board/council) want to meet, it must be in public (a regularly scheduled meeting, or a meeting announced to the public and the press).

Seems simple enough, right? In Memphis, if two members of the City Council were to meet in private it would constitute 15% of the council. Hardly a quorum, but assuming that one or both of these members also met privately with other members, it could end up that a majority voting bloc were reached as a result of those meetings outside of the normal operation of the Council. That’s a big problem for me.

Citizens have a right to know the pros and cons of any business that comes before a public body. This is the nature of our democratic republic. Efforts to subvert this flow of information, regardless of whether the public uses it or not, also subvert the spirit of our representative form of government.

Considering all of the shenanigans that have taken place over the past several years, one would think that members of local boards would want to insulate themselves from any appearance of impropriety. Instead we have elected officials seeking to weaken the public meetings portion of the law by increasing the number of people that can meet privately to 2 or 3 or even more maddeningly, anything less than a quorum, to supposedly insulate themselves from potential prosecution. Here’s an idea, don’t meet in secret and you’re safe.

It baffles me that our public officials would want to exclude the public from decisions that affect the public. Surely they understand that there is already a strained trust between them and the people they represent. Why on God’s green earth would they seek to compound that strain by diminishing government transparency? It would seem that public officials, seeking to prove that their nose is clean, would advocate for more transparency instead of less. This is the foundation of my skepticism toward those who would seek to weaken the law.

Last week County Comissioner Steve Mulroy penned an editorial in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. In it, he brings up several hypothetical situations that could get someone in trouble. All three of these hypotheticals cite instances that seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law. From that perspective, these hypotheticals may need some looking into, or at least some clarification from the state AG or the Supreme Court.

For instance, if a member of a public board or commission emails his position as the result of an absence, and that position is read into the record, what’s the problem? The member is on record, and as long as there is no further correspondence back and forth, no harm no foul. Perhaps the solution, in this instance, would be to send the correspondence to the appropriate board reporter (whatever that individual’s title may be for the body) to be entered into the record for that item, as well as a press release to the media outlets serving the area. Seems like a simple solution, no?

How about Item 2, the drafting legislation scenario. If the public entity cannot draft the legislation at a regular meeting, would not an announced special meeting of the appropriate committee be in order? That meeting could be agreed upon and announced at the end of regular business for the primary meeting, and the deliberations would be out in the open. Methinks the Commissioner doth protest too much.

Finally, the silliest of the hypotheticals, Item 3, If two members of the same body are violating the law by appearing at the same PUBLIC event and answering questions from their constituents individually or together, then that is truly stupid. It’s a public freakin’ event, how much more open could it be? One would think that a simple audio or video recording (if not a transcript) of the event would be sufficient to show that nothing untoward was going down (the spirit of the law). If there is some prohibition on members of the same body appearing at a public forum, intent on informing the public of the issues that affect their community, then that needs to be addressed…but Commissioner Mulroy’s prescription seems a bit out in left field.

Under Mulroy’s suggestion, anything less than a quorum would be permitted. That’s way overboard. I’m cool with two members of a body discussing the people’s business in private, as long as there is a disclosure of the meeting to the body the members serve and those disclosures are publicly available. Three or more gets too close to a quorum in some areas, and as such is way too much. By requiring disclosure, it gives the media and the public the opportunity to question their representatives on what was discussed. They may not get a straight answer, but it provides an additional check that would keep some of the shenanigans down a little.

The tone of the debate is something else that I want to address. Members serving on public boards and commissions would do well to offer alternatives, as Mulroy did even though I disagree with him, rather than merely complain about the prohibitions in the law. If the items listed in Mulroy’s editorial and noted in the comments of this blog post are truly prohibited by the law, particularly Item 3, then that deserves some attention. Public officials should be allowed to voice their opinions at public meetings outside the normal functioning of their publicly elected or appointed boards/commissions. It’s a public meeting for chrissakes. From the sound of it, a debate on the issues would be illegal. I find it hard to believe that this is the case.

Finally, there is something that needs to be addressed with the law; the availability of public documents. This is something that I run into constantly, that pisses me off. The minutes of the last meeting available on the Memphis City Council site is from November 6th, 5 weeks ago. There have been 2 meetings since then, and a third will be held next week (12/18). Where are those minutes? Does it take 5-6 weeks to get minutes approved? By the time minutes are approved and posted on the web, a proposed ordinance could be read three times and passed. Is that open government? Do I have to Tivo City Council meetings and sift through all that dryness to keep up with city business?

That’s just stupid. If nothing else, the Council should be required to post proposed minutes to their site 48 hours after the meeting so the people can be informed of the Council’s business in a timely manner that gives them time to react and possibly organize in support or against a proposed ordinance. Minutes from the previous meeting should be approved at the next meeting and posted as final at that time, not 6 weeks later.

Further, finding anything about the functioning of executive appointees or the departments that they head in the Memphis City Government is comically difficult. If members of public boards and commissions want more freedom perhaps they should address these issues first, then come back to their constituents with requests for more leniency.

We’re living in a new era, and governments from the bottom up need to be willing to inform their people of government business in ways that just 10 years ago would have seemed out of reach. This is about trust, the public trust given to elected officials to execute the will of their constituents, and the trust that those officials will do so in a way that is accessible to the majority with as little real or perceived obfuscation as possible. It is a delicate balance, and perhaps some elements of the current law go overboard, but until someone can quote the sections of the law that are limiting the productivity or public debate of public servants, I think erring on the side of caution is a far better than the alternative.

Sunshine In Tennessee – Redux

Steve Ross — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:05:00 +0000

Before I go on I would suggest that you read two editorials from today’s Commercial Appeal here and here. Both provide a view from those who would seek to keep the law as it stands now…these articles, in addition to email and phone conversations I have had with people and elected officials, have helped me further shape my position from my original post.

Secondly, I would suggest reading the full Knox county deision (pdf). No one I have talked to disputes that the Knox County commissioners went well above and beyond the law. Additionally, the information provided in the decision gives some important insight into the legal ramifications of a violation of the law.

Finally, I feel it is valuable if people read the appropriate sections of the law. Both the open meetings and document sections can be found here by looking up sections 8-44-(101-108) (meetings) and 10-7-503,504 (records). The sections of the code follow a simple file method. First click on Tennessee code, then follow the numbers in the order they appear. This has been an invaluable tool to me.

Before I go on, I would like to put it out there that any disagreement I may have with those seeking to change the meetings portion of the law should not be construed as anything other than a disagreement with their position. I hold no grudges against those who disagree with me, and actually seek them out from time to time to keep my views in check, and help me strengthen my arguments. I am for this kind of frank discussion between public officeholders and their constituents, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no provision in any of the statutes listed above that prohibit any such conversation.

In my last post I spend some time with hypothetical situations that are outside the current “Sunshine Law” brought forth by Shelby County Commissioner Steve Mulroy in this editorial. Since that post, Commissioner Mulroy has graciously given of his time to respond via email to the post and to further questions that arose from that initial contact. I won’t republish the entirety of that exchange in this space, though there are some interesting bits that come to light as a result of the converstaion.

1. Item 3 – This item, you will remember, asserts that a meeting attended by two elected officials of the same elected body was illegal under the current law. What county Commissioner Mulroy fails to mention in this instance is that this meeting would be legal had the two individuals gone through the appropriate process;

48 hours' notice on the "sunshine bulletin board" in the basement of 160 N. Main (let alone our normal SOP of emailing all media)

Further, Commissioner Mulroy concedes in his email that there is little likelihood that any suit would be brought under this circumstance.

Granted, a lawsuit is unlikely to proceed based on that scenario, but the over breadth of the law and the resulting uncertainty has a chilling effect on dialogue among local legislators that I know, from personal experience, to be unhealthy and counterproductive.

With that, I call straw man. Technically this may be illegal, but it is hardly settled law as there has been no court ruling on an instance that involves a public event attended by two members of the same public body. Further, we should not blame the law for elected officials being unacquainted with the provisions held therein. For those of you keeping score, that’s one for keeping the law, none for changing it.

2. Lobbying – Another reason individuals cite for wanting to change the law is the adverse effect lobbying has on decisions. Under current law it is illegal for members of the same body to speak with each other outside of regular meetings. This provision does not exclude the efforts of professional lobbyists or members of the administration (Mayors, etc.). While there may be some merit to members of the same body “lobbying” each other privately, in that it is a safe environment that allows certain barriers or personas that the “lobbied” individual may have publicly to be less prevalent, one has to wonder why said individuals cannot do so in the light of the open meetings? If our elected representatives are so fragile that they cannot stand or be swayed by intelligent arguments, then why should they continue to represent us?

Further, it would seem that for issues that are of utmost import to the community served, that elected officials would seek comment from their constituents and use legislative maneuvers to lengthen the open period of a contentious question, to ensure the public interest is served. A tricp to the “sunshine bulletin board” may be in order. (Keep 2, Change 0)

3. Private Public Meetings - In Commissioner Mulroy’s editorial he advocates a “3 member” or “anything less than a quorum” standard for consultations between members of the same public body. In my last post on this issue, I was open to this idea. The thinking on my part was, despite how things and people “should” be, some individuals will only be swayed in private, their public personas getting in the way of progress. This position, of course, can work both for and against you. A section of the editorial I referenced above changed my mind:

Allowing up to three members of a public body to meet privately would be the same as allowing all of them to meet privately. It's not hard to imagine elected or appointed boards organizing themselves into three-member subcommittees that would relay messages back and forth without public scrutiny.

In this scenario, it would be easy to envision two and three members of public boards using a “round robin” strategy to decide things in private that should be deliberated in public. With that, I must rescind my support of the 2-3 member rule in favor of the existing standard. The public’s right to know all sides of the issue trumps the comfort level of ANY elected official…period. (Keep 3, Change 0)

The issue here seems to be “why can’t elected officials debate in public”? We’ve already seen, in the soon to be former Memphis city council, elected officials who couldn’t discern the difference between personal and rhetorical or positional attacks. This galvanized the council against certain individuals whose style trumped the substance of their arguments, often to their own detriment. This is a human condition that neither legislation, nor legal private meetings will fix. These challenges should not hold the public process hostage.

Elected officials should be self-actualized enough to be able to disagree without feeling personally attacked. They should also be able to debate without attacking personally. If people feel uncomfortable openly discussing issues in a public forum, perhaps they should not seek the office again. Holding public office is a personal decision to surrender a certain level of privacy. In my opinion, the current meetings law, which has stood since 1974, is not only appropriate, but hallmark legislation for the nation.

There has been a disturbing trend in recent years that has made it more difficult for Americans to know what is going on in the Federal government. This, in the face of constant media “scrutiny”, if that’s what you want to call it. Personally I call it “Paris chasing”, or the “style over substance” that dominates the cable news media. There is less scrutiny on state government, as there are fewer media resources (read: dollars, and interest) involved. Additionally, these bodies are often part time affairs that only meet for a few months during the year. City and County governments may be the most connected to the people in proximity, but have even fewer media resources available to inform the public and check the individuals bodies, particularly in the absence of real competition after the “newspaper wars” of the 80’s and 90’s.

It is for these and many other reasons that Tennesseeans (the people, not the paper in Nashville) should be proud of the sunshine laws as they stand. For over 30 years we have had the most open government, legally, in the nation. We should hold ourselves up as the standard for other states to mimic, not run away from our leadership position because “no one else is doing it”.

That said, the law as it stands is not perfect, as nothing is. There is always room for improvement, and there are many opinions on what is or isn’t improvement. Requiring Internet accessibility of transcripts, votes, meeting announcements and other business is a positive for open government. Further, it is now affordable, where it may not have been in 2004 when the law was last considered.

On the other hand, loosening our belts to be more in line with our less restrictive neighbors is a step in the wrong direction. It is through strict discipline that we can have local governments that are the above the national standard in openness. This is hard and may be uncomfortable to some, but necessary. We should appreciate the openness that we have instead of throwing it out with the bath water, because the bathwater is too cold for some. We have the law that should be the envy of other states, and unless we’re brave enough to keep it, we will see it fall away like so many other rights and privileges have in a political environment that has nurtured fear over vigilance.

It's time to strengthen, not weaken the law. For my part, I oppose private meetings, support more open records, and hope that local public officials will take this opportunity to communicate more with their constituents rather than seek private audience with their colleagues. This is the nature of a heathy democratic republic. We should support it, hold it dear, and be the standard that all other states aspire to.

P.S. I would like to thank my friends Left-Wing Cracker and Newscoma for their patience and input over the past few days. Their input has been invaluable. Additionally, I would like to thank Shelby County Commissioner, Steve Mulroy for corresponding with me on this issue. We may find ourselves on different sides of this issue, but I'm positive that there are plenty of other issues we agree on. Hell, I voted for him!

Audio of City Business Now Available

Steve Ross — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:32:00 +0000

Well, it's not all done, but we now have streaming audio archives of city business available online. You will need Windows Media Player to listen. If you're a Mac heathen like myself, Flip 4 Mac is a good alternative in the absence of MS support.

The archives go back to September, but I don't recall seeing this even just a few days ago when I checked it.

Also, on the same page is an rss feed subscription to the Agenda and Minutes, should you want those. They are, as far as I can tell, just WMV files of the meetings instead of a PDF of the minutes or the agendas, but it's better than nothing.

Still, the most recent minutes of the meetings are from November 6th, 6 weeks ago. It's a step in the right direction, now if they can just find the PDF button in the toolbar of word....

Agenda feed - feed://memphis.granicus.com/ViewPublisherRSS.php?view_id=2&mode=agendas

Minutes feed - feed://memphis.granicus.com/ViewPublisherRSS.php?view_id=2&mode=minutes

The War on Kwanzaa

Steve Ross — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:24:00 +0000

I’m sure Bill-O is peeing in his pants right now.

As reported in today’s CA Probate Court Clerk Chris Thomas has filed a suit to stop the celebration of Kwanzaa on County property. The full text of the article can be found here.

Read the article, then read the wiki on Kwanzaa.

First of all, the celebration of Kwanzaa was not founded on any religion that I know of. It’s basis is cultural, though it’s creation was in response to Ron Karenga’s desire to:

… give a Black alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society.

Based on that knowledge, one must assume that Mr. Thomas takes issue with the cultural message of Kwanzaa, or just wants to make headlines around Christmas so he can get some interview time on Faux News. His assertion of separation of church and state has no basis.

Secondly, one must wonder, WWJD? Would Jesus, in this time of the celebration of his “birth” (though many argue that he was born in spring, and that Christmas is merely a replacement for the pagan Winter Solstice) sue to keep a cultural celebration out of a public building? It’s just a question…

On the other hand, Commissioner Brooks certainly knew, at least on some level, that moving the celebration she has sponsored for the past 12 years from the Pink Palace to a county owned building would create an uproar. Is there an ulterior motive in this change?

Finally, I gotta say that this is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen and hope that Thomas drops his suit.

Happy Christmakwanzikahnavidad folks!

Pre, Post, and During Late, Late Xmas Post

Steve Ross — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:40:00 +0000

Xmas is a time for traveling. After traveling 900 miles in a mere 60 hours to Illinois and back, I find myself longing for some non-car oriented time. Thankfully, I don’t have to work, unlike the lovely and talented s.mac, however, I find myself reflecting on the gifts that Santa couldn’t fit into his mighty sleigh. So, without getting too far ahead of myself on the “wishes for the New Year” tip, here is my belated “wish list” of gifts for those who help keep the train derailed.

Congress – With all the toys, gifts, and other consumerist delights of this holiday season loading down his sleigh, delivering 535 spines to our representatives in Congress was probably too tall an order for Santa. Of course, merely delivering spines does not guarantee that they will be used any more than the treadmill collecting dust in the corner. I’m sure there are plenty of Congresscritters that are perfectly content with their current state of amorphousness. So, I’m wishing for an Xmas miracle that would be the envy of bio-tech firms worldwide. For 2008 I’m hoping our Congresscritters will grow a spine and come together to do what they were elected to do, clean up the government and get us out of Iraq. I’m not betting the farm or anything, but a lowly blogger can hope, no?

Self-Righteous Christians – This has been a bad year for you guys. First, your Congress got kicked out in a landslide, then a litany of your leaders got caught with their…um, privates in the, um, well, you know. Can’t you see you bring this on yourselves? My wish for you is that you will read the parts of the bible that you can’t recite from memory. You know, the parts of the bible that talk about humility, unconditional love, and charity. Who smote/begat whom, Leviticus and the ever-popular Deuteronomy are fun reads, but last time I checked, those recount what happened BEFORE CHRIST. As believers in the “post Christ era” perhaps you would be better studying the gospels and trying to emulate Him rather than parrot those who would use you as a blunt instrument to hurl the world back into the dark ages. Just sayin’.

The Punditocracy – Hurtling towards irrelevance, this group of “opinion makers” has taken the once noble art of political reportage and turned it into a collection of elite blowhards who focus on stories better fit for the pages of the National Enquirer than an honest discussion of the issues that confront our nation and our world. $400 haircuts, Obama-Osama who ha, Joe Klein’s admission of ignorance and muscle flexing malevolence toward the blogosphere has marked your steady decline. Whaddya say you take your ego and self-interest out of the equation and start REPORTING on something of substance. Your jobs may depend on it.

Thanks for reading. I hope all of you had a great Festivus – Solstice – Christmas – Hannukah – Ramadan - Kwanzaa…etc.

Those Wacky Polls

Steve Ross — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:38:00 +0000

The Iowa Caucuses are just a day away (thank God!), and the polls are flying out faster than you can say “likely caucuser”. Seems like every day I wake up to some blowhard on the TV quoting a new poll showing candidate X doing this or that or the other. This is followed by a lot of “Beltway Conventional Wisdom™” spouted by some guy or gal whose opinion I neither care about, nor care to hear.

Since 12/1/07, 25 polls have been released out into the wild speculation echo chamber that is most of the TV political reportage. All of these polls have offered up similar results. Generally speaking the results they report all fall within the margin of error, making them, for my money, inconclusive. What’s disconcerting is that they are reported, day after day, as gospel truth.

I’m no pollster, but I know enough about math, statistics and sampling to know that minor inconsistencies, choice of questions, wording of questions, the pollster’s definition of “likely voter” and the time of contact (assuming it’s a phone based poll) can swing a poll in one direction or another. Further, participating in a poll requires the pollee to answer the phone. I don’t know about you, but if my caller ID comes up with anything other than a name I know, I just don’t answer. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one out there that does this.

There are a lot of things that can affect the result of a poll, and few if any of these circumstances are regularly addressed by the media. That’s what I have a problem with. In the 5 most recent Iowa Democratic polls listed on pollster.com there are 5 completely different results. The only thing that all of these have in common are the 3 leaders, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all in the top 3. I’m pretty sure we all already knew that.

What we don’t know, without doing a good bit of digging, is how the poll was conducted, who paid for it, or why we should give a rat’s ass about their inconclusive conclusions.

Give the polls a rest folks. I know turning the Presidential race into a 4 year affair is something the newsies want more than a new puppy, but for the love of all that is Holy take it down a notch. Using your bully pulpit on the idiot box to teach people about the process instead of making it seem like the insider crap fest that it has been just might be a better use of your time.

Oh yeah, Happy New Year!

Iowa Ca-cusses

Steve Ross — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:40:00 +0000

Okay, so here's what's going to happen tonight, no matter what the blowhards on the Teevee say.

Republicans

In 8 and a half short hours, Mike Huckabee will be caucused as the first Republican winner in Iowa. This will be followed by some serious grave spinning by our founding fathers, and a collective "Oh Fuck" from the entire state of Arkansas, and the great orange devil. Janet Huckabee will begin ordering drapes for the Oval Office depicting her gutting a snake (There's a picture of it out there somewhere, I just can't find it!).

Mitt Romney, the second place finisher, will "see" his father marching with the Music Man, and his entire staff will break into song, probably "Gary, Indiana".

John McCain, will take third place and will give a Howard Dean scream that will be played over and over again to lure members of the quiverfull movement to his cause. It will not work, and McCain will be sad.

Rudi 9ui11ani didn't give a rats ass about those hicks in Iowa anyway, just like he won't care about the hicks in the Florida Panhandle, upstate New York, or rural California.

Fred Thompson and his wife will reveal themselves as aliens and go back to planet Quandor in the "Slow as Fuck" galaxy.

No one cares about the rest of them, if they even exist.

That's the Republicans, not that anyone, even their own, give a shit.

Democrats

Edbaton will win in a mass slaughter of the second tier candidates by some 90%-10%. As for the actual breakdown of the Edbaton votes, well, despite my preferences...

Clinton - yeah she's been dropping, but Kerry was somewhere between nowhere and nothing coming into Iowa, and he won. I think the "electability" conventional wisdom wins over actual wisdom.

Edwards - takes second again. He has the organization and the fiery rhetoric. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

Obama will take thrid, because EVERYONE KNOWS that college students can't get ANYWHERE on time. Further, they're out following his lead takin' the pots.

The rest of the Democrat's campaings will die in a hilarious cage match, with Bill Richardson making a return appearance as Veep, or Sec. State.

Enjoy the hot air from your Teevee tonight, I'm gonna get sauced and drunk dial all of you!

It’s a Crazy Way to Select a Candidate

Steve Ross — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:55:00 +0000

So, you’ve read my predictions, you’ve probably been following the candidates. We’re a month away from the primary here in Tennessee, and you’re probably asking yourself, “What does it matter, Iowa and New Hampshire will decide it”. And you have a point. Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest states in the union, whose electoral college total come to 1.8% of the 538 available. Why should we care what they think?

I don’t know, but for as long as I can remember it’s been this way.

America has a history of giving disproportionate power to small states. There are 29 states and DC that have fewer than 10 electoral votes. Their total Electoral College count is less than 30% of all the electoral votes out there (158). Yet without the support of at least half of these states no constitutional amendment can ever go anywhere. Don’t even get me started about Senate representation; we’ll be here all day.

In reality, amending the Constitution and Senate Representation have nothing to do with the primary calendar, but these two Constitutional idiosyncrasies may give us some clues as to why it is the way it is. It goes to our founding.

The United States, as we know it, would never have existed were it not for the disproportional representation that the Electoral College and the Senate provide. Small states, worried about the “tyranny of the majority” needed these “leveling” provisions to make sure they didn’t get swept away in a wave of irrelevancy. That value has carried over into opening Presidential contests in small states.

But why are Iowa and New Hampshire first? Why not Mississippi and Montana, or North Dakota and Louisiana, of any other iteration of the less than 10 states? On the flip side, why not the two states with the most Electoral College votes, Texas and California?

If large states had their primaries first, the contest would be largely over before it even began. Lesser-known candidates would have NO chance of even showing there, and it would make for a really short primary season (perhaps the only real benefit, from my perspective).

So, large states are out, but what about those 27 other smaller states? That’s been my question since 1992.

I think there should be a lottery to decide the first two contests…one East of the Mississippi and one west of the Mississippi. That way, states like Alaska and Montana, and North Dakota, where the weather REALLY sucks ass, can have a say in selecting the candidates.

Of course there are dangers, a Mississippi/Arkansas first two would be some boring assed stuff. Who cares what those hicks think anyway?

WELL, WHO CARES WHAT THE HICKS IN IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE THINK? HELL, IN IOWA THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS A RELIC OF THE OLD PARTY MACHINERY THAT THE BELTWAY LOVES SO MUCH! UGH!!!!

There are lots of solutions out there that will never happen, from national primaries (bad idea), regional primaries (slightly better), or a lottery system (good). None of these will happen until the primary calendar is federalized, and that ain’t gonna happen for the same reason that regional Senators will never happen, the Electoral College will never go away, and I won’t get a grant for .1% of the Defense budget to keep from having to work any more. Aside from the Representative and electoral College distributions, and the day we vote for federal government, the Feds have no control over any of this, it goes to the states, and the states (Iowa and New Hampshire) have no inclination to change.

Individual states may try to correct this, like Florida and Michigan did, and will just be head off at the pass by Iowa and New Hampshire until someone steps in and brings some sense to the selection process…and then gets voted out of office.

So, there you have it, a long post about nothing. Hope you’re happy with how you spent your time. You can get another 12 hours of this by turning on your tv to any of the all blather stations. Happy “Who Gives a Crap about Iowa” Day!

Live Blogging the Iowa Caucuses from Drinking Liberally Memphis - UPDATED!

Steve Ross — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:36:00 +0000

Since firedoglake got so much press from Live Blogging the Scooter Libby thing, I though I would jump on the bandwagon and liveblog the Iowa Caucus from the Memphis meeting of Drinking Liberally.

Updates in "Reverse Chronological®" order...per Steve Jones (see the 7:55 update)

Update 9:18 PM: Has 9ui11ani lost his fucking mind? He like the idea of Cheney or a proto-Cheney as Veep? What a fuck nut! I guess that's why he's only beating Duncan Hunter with the hicks in Iowa. Wonder what the hicks in Florida think...Probably that 9ui11ani is some kind of hoity toity pasta dish!

Update 9:03 PM: Can I just say how much joy it brings my heart that "Uninevitable®" keeps losing ground? Believe me, if she ends up the nominee, which is waaayyyy possible, I'll support her. But she needed to get her "dick dropped in the dirt" to bring her back to earth. Fo shizzle!

Update 8:45 PM: Okay, I'm calling it for the cold fish. My man John Edwards is 2nd, and "Uninevitable®" is third.

I want to give a shout out to that douchebag that messed with me about Huckabee being viable on Open Left. Suck it dude!

Update 8:23 PM: I just realized that I haven't spoken on the Republicans. Huckabee is winning and if some kind news person will tell me how to find an image from Newsweek back in 1998ish, I can sink his campaign with a picture of his wife gutting a snake. I've already been mean enough to his wife in my head, so I won't do that here. Romulan is 2nd despite his toothy hair and Sleepy Freddy is third.

Also, as I looked for that fucking link, NBC, the station that brought you all the WB characters, Tweety and all, has called it for cold fish. He's at 36%, 31.25% Edwards, 30.96 "Uninevitable®".

Update 8:21PM: Cold fish. is pulling ahead, and I'm not sure that Edwards can overtake. Still happy to see that "Uninevitable®" is in third. For all the bullshit that we heard about her for the three years running up to this clusterfuck, one would think she hung the moon. Whatevir. Still 40% more to tally...

Update 8:04PM: DAMMIT!!! Edwards is in second like last time with 33% reporting. GAWD I hope Obama isn't as cold a fish.as Kerry was. Still time to move back into the from, but at least "Uninevitable®" is still in 3rd.

Update 7:55 PM: Steve Jones, who is sitting next to me, doesn't like the way the updates are showing up, so I'll do them in reverse order for him, even though it's a pain in the ass.

Update 7:38PM: Ok Edwards, don't go fucking this thing up. I know it's only 8% of the vote, but I've got an audience here now and I need to be somewhat dramatic. GO EDWARDS! PROVE ME WRONG. Once again, ht to TPM and Apple for making the Control+shift+4 function to capture a specific portion of the screen!!!! I'm a geek!

Update 7:22PM: Edwards is winning!!!!! YAY! I'm glad when I'm wrong...now if I can just be wrong for a couple more hours. Stolen from TPM:...

Update 7:05 PM: Apparently there are like twice as many people showing up to the Westridge elementary school in West Des Moines, like 200 as opposed to 86 in 2004. That's a lot of numbers that mean absolutely nothing. Like 114 more people is gonna make them run out of corn muffins or something.

Update 6:52 PM: We made it here and GLENR is here. Gots me a tasty beverage. Now I'm just waiting for some results on the plasma that got ripped off the wall at Dish...ummm yeah. Guess I'll be hitting refresh a lot...

About Last Night…

Steve Ross — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:09:00 +0000

Please don’t tell your parents.

Ok, so about last night’s liveblogging experience…let me say it was awesome. I notice that I get meaner the more I write so I’ll try to make it brief.

1. Congrats to Obama and Huckabee – You both are change agents for your respective parties, and change won big last night. As a member of the “just change it” caucus, I applaud you. Further, Obama’s speech was powerful stuff.

2. Congrats to Edwards and Huckabee – Both you guys were outspent like mad. By some estimates Romney spent like $10 million bucks to come in second. Man that must suck! Further, Edwards hasen’t benefited from the kind media exposure that the Huckster has, so good going Edwards. Good luck to both of you in New Hampshire.

3. “I’m sorry” to Obama and Clinton – in my youthful exuberance I called you guys names. I won’t do that again, because even though I won’t vote for either of you in the primary on Feb. 5th, I will support you if you end up being the nominee. It won’t happen again, until the next time.

4. “Sleepy Fred” is pissed – I guess you’re gonna have to put those vacation plans on hold. Coming in 3rd effectively keeps your campaign alive, much to the dismay of you and your staffers. You’re doing a “heckuva job” Sleepy.

5. The rest of the Republican field aside from Huckabee – You guys suck! How could you let that bumpkin beat you guys? HAHA, the Republican Party is crumbling. I hope you enjoy your internal clusterfuck as much as we Democrats have enjoyed ours over the past 14 years.

6. Also rans no longer running – Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel, and Kucinich…Thanks for providing fodder for jokes. Actually, you guys added to the conversation. Unfortunately, you didn’t even gain 3% between the 5 of you. Go back to the House and the Senate, and Alaska, and New Mexico, and wait for that call to join the cabinet. Gravel, you’ll be waiting for a loooonnnnggg time.

That’s all for now. I’m going out to discover the beauty of the Memphis Public Library’s research area, for purely scientific purposes.

Cheers and Congrats to everyone, even the losers!

Snakes on a Campaign...The Huckabee Enigma

Steve Ross — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:46:00 +0000

Ok, I know it's a strange headline, but bear with me for a second.

Huckabee won last night, and as I've been saying for more than a year now, Mike Huckabee is the most competitive candidate on the Republican side of the campaign. When thinking about such things, I go to people who have been following Huckabee more closely than I. One of those people would be Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times.

In a blog post that went up today, Brantley says this:

Arkansas is a microcosm of the national electorate. Win Arkansas -- with its blend of blue dog Democrats in the east and south, yellow dog Republicans in the Northwest, yellow dog Democrats in some locations and many swing independents -- and you are likely to win it all. That's been true for about four decades.

Huckabee has demonstrated appeal here. He's the prototype of a candidate able to replicate a winning Southern strategy -- government-friendly, gun-toting, gay bashing, abortion hating. Democrats best be careful what they wish for. And Republicans need not fear Huckabee. He'll be very happy to keep the Wall Street greedheads happy. After all, he yearns for nothing so much as to be one of those rich guys he currenty decries.

Source HT LWC

Huckabee won't win New Hampshire on Tuesday, but if he comes in second or third, he's still in the top tier. South Carolina follows, and we all know how McCain did there in 2000. Further, we know that the evangelicals that are abundant in S. Carolina don't trust Romney any further than he can throw him.

A few weeks later we go into Super Tuesday. 23 states are having a primary of some sort on Feb 5th. Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia are chock full of evangelicals. Huckabee can carry all of them. He won't do well in California or New York, but the picture could be so muddled by then with Romney and 9ui11ani taking the majority of delegates in those states that he could end up with the most delegates overall.

Do not misunderstand me, I do not fear the Huckster, contrary to comments by some of the doubters out there. That said, no one has won the Presidency since 1932 without at least 1 southern state regardless of what the "Whistling Past Dixie" people say. A Huckabee nomination sets up a potential sweep of the south, and sets in motion another 4 years of an authoritarian in the White House.

Ok, so to the snakes part. Here is your moment of zen...

This is from the July 27, 1998 issue of Sports Illustrated. Pictured is Janet Huckabee and the former First Lady of Oklahoma cutting the head off a snake. Do you want this lady as your FIRST Lady?

Consolidation Conundrum

Steve Ross — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:00:00 +0000

When I moved to Memphis some three and a half years ago I had little knowledge of the communities that lie on the outskirts of the city proper, but within the confines of Shelby County. Arlington, Bartlett, Germantown, Lakeland…to me they were all just “Memphis”. I’ve spent a good long time thinking about these “Burbs” and have come to the conclusion that they are content to be lumped in with “Memphis” for outsiders or for the perks that living so close to a large city provides. On the flip side, they’re damn sure not going to take that label from locals, and for all of those “perks” there are problems that they don’t want anything to do with.

Several months ago I wrote a piece here called The Cycle of Flight. In it, I talk about how “flight” from the cities damages both the city and the communities that spring up from the exodus. I stand by that general indictment of the whole flight issue.

Consolidation, however, brings up a whole host of things that both revolve around flight, and choice. The way that consolidation is presented is vital to it’s success. There is a lot of distrust out there. People moved into these communities for a reason, flimsy though it may be, and any attempt to revoke that decision without their approval will be met with resistance.

In every community that I have lived in, consolidation issues have been contentious battles. When Jonesboro started consolidating large swaths of Craighead County, back in the late 80’s early 90’s, many of the county folk were less than enthused. Luckily for Jonesboro, there were few of the challenges that currently face any move to consolidate here in Shelby County. Ultimately, Jonesboro got what they wanted, even if the end result wasn’t exactly what they expected.

I agree with those who are in favor of consolidation, as a general statement. Memphis and Shelby County would certainly benefit financially by getting rid of some of the overlap that currently exists in the two governments. But consolidation is more than a practical issue. All at once it can be both practical and irrational.

Mayor Herenton brought the specter of consolidation once again in his “State of the City” speech. In that address, Herenton seemed to be threatening the citizens that live out in the county with a “Consolidate, or else” type plan to lobby the State Legislature for a Constitutional amendment that would make consolidating city and county governments easier. I simply can’t think of a sales pitch that could be any worse for consolidation advocates.

In order for consolidation to work, particularly in a place with lots of objections, like Shelby County, there has to be more carrot than stick. Aside from the potential financial benefits, what can county residents gain from consolidation? Will the Police, Fire, and Ambulance services be improved? How will the quality of the Schools be affected? What about trash and recycling? What is the plan for the actual government that would emerge? Property values and taxes of course would be high on the list. What’s the plan for that? All of these questions have to be answered through dialogue, not diatribes or demands. Unfortunately, dialogue is not one of Mayor Herenton’s strengths.

Yesterday LeftWingCracker touched on this. In it, he linked to a quote from a Memphis Flyer article. Here’s the quote he was referencing:

Businessman Calvin Anderson is also for it and says it "can happen" if Herenton can take himself out of the equation, recruit allies, and present a reasonably united Shelby County legislative delegation in Nashville. Greg Duckett, former city chief administrative officer under Dick Hackett, said consolidation needs to happen but he stopped short of saying it will.

Recruit allies, what a concept! Present a reasonably united Shelby County legislative delegation, wha????? Seems like common sense, but common sense is also not necessarily a strength of Memphis’ municipal executives.

I agree with Mr. Anderson, but I also think that there’s another way to do this that will quell some of the fears of county communities. Make a plan that benefits both sides, and present it to them. I mean a real plan, not an outline with grey areas. Then we can debate about that, instead of reacting to the unknown, or worse, pure fear.

The plan will need to address all of the questions that I listed above and more. It will need to acknowledge those who disagree in a respectful manner. It will need to show both the pluses and minuses in a no-nonsense “nuts and bolts” manner. Finally, and most importantly, it will need to include more direct representation, so that the consolidated communities can maintain some of their identity while reaping the benefits of the budget savings that would result from consolidation.

Unfortunately, even the best laid plans cannot address the emotional and irrational fears that will most certainly be present in any discussion of consolidation. As Mediaverse:Memphis notes, every article that has appeared about consolidation since Herenton’s speech has left out a key element. From the article:

It's also worthwhile to note the rather pointed non-examination of race in this story, which is a quintessential race story for Memphis and Shelby County. Nor any mention of the deeply divisive and racially polarised election just a few months ago. Not a mention, anywhere. It's as though there is no racial animus, which is simply not true…

The harsh reality for Memphis and Shelby County to reconcile is that the growth of Memphis’ surrounding communities, including those to the south in Mississippi, can be attributed to, at best, a closeted racism. If the prevalence of that latent racism becomes an issue in the current consolidation discussion, all bets are off.

Memphis and Shelby County cannot be expected to agree to the shotgun wedding that Herenton seems to be proposing. Further, it’s not as if Memphis can secede from Shelby County to force their hand. Ultimately, the county holds all the cards. It’s up to us, here in Memphis, to make the case. Holding a gun to their head just exacerbates the problem.

Cooper Implicates Ware

Steve Ross — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:35:00 +0000

This does not bode well for the new City Council...

From the Memphis Daily News

Specifically, Cooper alleged such relationships with council members including E.C. Jones and Barbara Swearengen Ware, as well as unnamed members of the Shelby County Commission.

Since the election, one of my big fears was that a member of the City Council would be implicated in some kind of shenanigans, causing a racial split that screws up the climate for the next four years.

I'm not saying this is it, but naming a member of the new council (admittedly a hold-over from the last council) is a bad sign.

If the allegations against Ware are true, she needs to resign now. As for E.C. Jones, well I don't know.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT NO INDICTMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT OUT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

Still, this is something to think about at the new City Council starts their business on the 8th.

Stay tuned...

(ht Mediaverse)

More on the Cooper Allegations

Steve Ross — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:13:00 +0000

It took a couple of days for our daily to notice, but this morning the CA finally had something on the Joe Cooper Testimony.

The article is a sight longer than the one referenced yesterday, but ultimately, no new information...except for this exoneration of two former council members...

"There were a couple of people that we never really could build a relationship with. But in terms of people that we were close with ... Rickey Peete was an example, Barbara Swearengen (Ware), E.C. Jones. We were never close with John Vergos, Carol Chumney.''

Cooper brings up the specter of a culture of favors, not surprising in and of itself, that has a hold on both the City and County governments here in Shelby County. From the article...

Working for real estate developers, Cooper claimed to have nurtured that relationship with a smattering of local bureaucrats and elected members of the Memphis City Council and Shelby County Commission -- perhaps as many as 20 to 25 officials in all, he said.

"It was all part of the overall umbrella of building relationships and solidifying a way to help us be successful in our zoning applications ... There's favors done every day down there. And sometimes it's done in a legal way, but it's a psychological thing.

"If I'm on your fund-raising committee and I raise you $50,000, you're not going to vote against me unless there's 500 people down there raising hell about it.''

That relationship, wether built on favors or merely friendships that arise as the result of contact, could bring down many of those 20-25 "officials, or at least taint their public personas. Certainly, none of them want their name mentioned by Cooper, but Cooper is singing like a bird.

As damaging as these investigations have been to both the Council and some of it's members, it is vitally important that those who would accept favors in exchange for votes be routed out of our governing institutions. Personally, I am glad that Cooper is playing the role of snitch. Someone had to, and it's about time. I can't speak to Cooper's reliability, nor his motives, aside from trying to stay out of the pokey, but it's about time that someone is shining a light on those who prefer to operate in the shadows.

What happens next is the big question. One would think that if the prosecutors had something solid on the people Cooper named, Jones and Swearengen Ware, they would have indicted them by now. This may be a calculated risk on the part of the prosecutor, to get Jones and Ware to come to the table. It seems unlikely, but considering the Government's track record of convictions in this case, it just might work.

Who gets indicted next depends on who else is singing. I think more indictments are a sure thing. I just hope it doesn't derail the new Council, or create more strife in the city. With Primary and General elections coming up in August and November, the manner in which any new indictments arrive could play a role in the climate out there. Do your gig guys, but don't screw it up for the rest of us.

Consolidation – What’s the Real Agenda?

Steve Ross — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:52:00 +0000

I’m no conspiracy theorist, though I have been known to come up with some pretty funny stuff to keep the Tin Foil Hat Club busy, but Herenton’s doomed strategy to force county residents into consolidation seems not only destined to fail, but designed to fail.

Herenton’s been beating this drum since the mid-90’s, and he has some compelling arguments in his favor. Unfortunately, at least this time around, he brings up consolidation with no plan, other than the tyranny of the majority, in the form of a state constitutional amendment. A sales pitch like that will have the starving running away from free food.

There are a lot of reasons that the six other cities of Shelby County might not want to be consolidated. Consolidation, particularly in the manner proposed by Herenton, is more like some Star Trek, Borg assimilation than annexing or merging…words that imply a certain level of mutual agreement. Who, in their right mind would think getting “taken over” was a good idea?

Aside from the linguistic intricacies there are some structural issues that could also be a barrier to a unified County government. Currently, the cities of Arlington, Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown, Lakeland and Millington, cities that would be consolidated, have 32 Aldermen between them. If there are some 250,000 people in those 6 communities that amounts to a representation rate of 1:7800, far better than the current rate in the City of Memphis, 1:50000. Would you give up that level of direct representation without some guarantee that what you were getting was either as good, or better? I didn’t think so.

Then there’s the rhetoric of our “beloved” Mayor. Herenton seems to believe that he can negotiate this like a boxer, pounding away until the other side gives in. Unfortunately, the Mayor is missing the mark with his punches, effectively killing the idea of unification, instead of the objections. Unifying groups of people with a litany of social, economic and “other” differences into a workable government requires dialogue not dictation. All of the six cities have a right to exist. Until the Mayor’s words acknowledge this right, and bring forth a powerful and compelling argument for unification, there is no chance, period.

And that’s what I’m getting to. Mayor Herenton’s words seem destined…or designed to fail. Why would someone put forth an idea about a constitutional amendment to end-around the cities of Shelby County into a unified government, without first talking to some of the more vocal elements, or even some leaders of the state legislative delegation, only to be shot down the VERY NEXT DAY? What is the purpose of talking about unifying Shelby County with no starting point other than “We’re coming to get you”? There’s only one purpose, and that’s failure. Somewhere in that failure Herenton is gaining something. I’m not sure what it is, but even the dumbest person stops banging their head against a brick wall eventually.

Mayor Herenton, if you want a unified Shelby County, stop hitting and start negotiating…or just shut up, some of us actually do want this to happen.

Delegate Counter

Steve Ross — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:56:00 +0000

Want to keep up with the Presidential Race. MYDD has a handy dandy deelgate counter, for both the Democrats and the Republicans here

Add it to your favorite website.

I only wanted the Democratic one, because I couldn't stand seeing Huckabee on top.

Cheers and Good morning!

Wharton Comes out For Consolidation

Steve Ross — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:55:00 +0000

From the CA

Mayor Wharton announced today, in his state of the county, that he supports consolidating the governments of Shelby County under one roof.

That's good for the discussion...a reasoned voice that, perhaps, can lead the way.

I just have one questions though...why not the schools? Sure Memphis City Schools are as much of a mess as the County finances, but just as the county can benefit from streamlining the services, so can the schools.

The article is just a quick hit. From the speech:

I believe strongly that it is time to seriously study the prospect of consolidation. State law has structured County governments to operate in rural settings. Shelby County is an urban county, much more suited to a metropolitan form of government than our current structure allows. We need to determine whether a change to our form of government will provide us with more progressive, comprehensive, and equitable means for financing our needs. And while a very preliminary assessment reveals that that in the long term we could achieve an annual savings of over $20 million under a consolidated government, we need to also carefully assess the costs and increases avoided as a direct result of the elimination of the inefficiencies and fragmentation which occur because of the existence of two governments.

Accordingly, I have asked my staff to move forward with reviewing the legal, financial, and procedural aspects of the various consolidation options which are available to us as a county with a charter form of government. I want to hear from all of the citizens in the county and the municipalities; I have already spoken to a number of the suburban Mayors to initiate discussions on this topic that is of vital importance to all of us.

There you have it folks! I'll have my proposal for consolidation in the coming days.

What I Want in a President

Steve Ross — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:52:00 +0000

I spent a good deal of time trying to come up with something “profound” about the state of the Democratic Nominating process for President. Some of these “profound” thoughts were better than others, but in reading other things that have been written, I came to the conclusion that anything I might say would just be repetition. So, instead of talking about the candidates, or even the constituencies that they supposedly represent, I think it’s more important to start a conversation on what we want out of a Presidential nominee rather than who we want. The pundits and conventional “wise men” have taken their records and rhetoric and what their advisors have done, and to whom. It’s been played out a million times on TV and in print and on the blogs. While all this information may be useful, it still doesn’t really tell us what kind of President they’ll be. Further, with the media wrapped up in “narrative” instead of “reportage”, the rainbow of colored lenses that make up the punditocracy taints the majority of the information we have received. I think the Presidency of George W. Bush is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. From the day he got the nomination, I was sure that he would be a crappy President, but never in my wildest dreams did I think that we would be where we are today. I mean seriously, who would have thunk it? The reality of the situation is that we don’t know how any of these people are going to govern if they won. We have no assurances, just assumptions based on the information we have today. Since I won’t claim to speak for anyone but myself, here’s what I want from a President. I want a President that will lead the conversation to the left. Someone who will vigorously debunk the right wing conventional wisdom that has trapped us in the spiral of stagnation. Who will fight like hell to make sure that America is living up to the grand ideals that make America great. I want a President who will inspire people around the world to be better. Who will challenge us to do the hard things that we’ve been unable to accomplish. Who will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to frame the debate in a way that comforts those of us resistant to change and inspires those of us ready for change into action. I want a President who represents the people of the United States. Who will challenge corporate interests to serve the greater good over the allure of short-term scorched earth profits. Who will put an end to the madness of corporate welfare and hold those corporate interests accountable when they exceed their authority. I want a President, who will put an end to our nonsensical foreign policy of arbitrarily favoring one dictator over another. Who will restore our honor in international affairs. Who will use their power effectively without trampling on the Constitution or the sovereignty of other nations. There are a lot of other things I want in a President, but I think you get the idea. We all have different ideas about who we would like to be President, but for me, it’s more about the what I want than it is about the who I want. All three of the Democratic frontrunners exhibit the qualities that I list above, to one degree or another. Certainly, I’ve decided on who I believe exhibits those qualities best for me, but if my candidate doesn’t get the nomination you won’t see me huffin’ and puffin’. I’m married to the what, not the who, and that just means I have to work my ass off to get the nominee to represent my what more fully. My point: What we want, as Democrats, is more important than who we want as the nominee. It kills me to see supporters of the three main candidates trashing each other over stupid technical crap for no good reason other than one-uppance. If we keep fighting for what we want, we will find who we want. If we keep fighting over who we want, we may never get what we want.

Something to Consider...

Steve Ross — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:20:00 +0000

First, I would like to credit this comment for reminding me of this issue.

Forget the speeches, the position papers, for a moment, and remember last years Democratic Senatorial Primary in Connecticut. Upstart candidate Ned Lamont challenged and eventually defeated Joe Lieberman (I) in the Democratic Primary. Hillary may have hedged her bets, but Bill and Obama actively campaigned for him. In the end, Republicans rallied and voted 3:1 for Lieberman over the Republican nominee (who had no chance of winning). (Source)

To his credit, once Lamont won the primary, Obama fell in line behind him, as did the rest of the Democratic Senators. Still, it calls into question both Clinton's and Obama's dedication to anything other than politics as usual...and that's just something that, in a primary, I cannot deal with.

As a Progressive, I am acutely aware that there are interests both inside and outside of the Democratic Party who look at my views as important only up to election day. Once my vote is counted, I can be assured that Blue Dogs and New Dems, and all those "just barely Democratic" clubs will use right-wing talking points to undermine many of the very things that I hold dear. I'm not sure why, but I keep on voting for them because the alternative (GOP) is just too far outside of my comfort level.

Then we have this candidate, who won a Primary for the Democratic nominee with a more Progressive campaign than his opponent (Lieberman), and there's a question, a pause, a hesitation before the endorsements come rolling in. It makes me question wether the members of the Senate are more interested in keeping a Democratic agenda moving forward, or keeping their friends in office.

I don't fault Obama for his fundraising speech way back in March of that contest, that's what colleagues do for each other, I guess.I do question his sincerity in the face of it. Is Joe Lieberman the kind of Democrat you want in the Senate? Joe Lieberman isn't even the kind of Republican I want in the Senate!

Hillary didn't really go out on the stump for Lieberman, but Bill did, and that amounts to tacit support. I hope Bill thwacked him good on the head for that stupid assed speech on the Senate floor back during the Impeachment debacle...

So that begs the question, why are Progressives so enamored with Obama, or even Hillary? I've said before that I would vote for either of them in the General, but the Primary is not the general, it is our chance to speak out and move the conversation to the left. Why the hell aren't we doing it?

With only 4 candidates still in the race, there is only one voice moving the debate to the left. Obama and Hillary ain't it. Kucinich doesn't have a chance. John Edwards is the only candidate that is driving the debate to the left. That's what I want. Four years of bare knuckle boxing against the people who are screwing up this country.

To fight these people we don't need another Democratic nominee with an "I'm OK, You're OK" attitude that has been the hallmark of so many losing Democratic candidates nationwide. We need someone willing to take a stand and hold their ground. That someone is John Edwards.

We have an opportunity to vote for REAL change in the coming days. Real change doesn't come in a race or a gender, it comes in a conviction to make America all it can be. John Edwards is that candidate above all others, but you have to be willing to take a chance on your convictions. Are you willing to vote for your values, or are you content to vote for who the media seems ready to coronate? That's a question for you to answer, for me the answer is clear.

A Disturbance in the Force

Steve Ross — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:45:00 +0000

As commenter joshua notes, it has been a long 10 days since my last irritation driven screed. I have no excuses, life happens. Would I have liked to use the blog pimping provided by the lovely and talented Newscoma to entertain, inform and enrage a whole new populace of people in the "sphere"? You betcha. The work keeps getting in the way.

As an independent contractor, I enjoy both large swaths of free time where I can research, read, write and even purposely ignore things at will. The flip side is extended hell ridden weeks of uninterrupted client driven bullshit. The past 10 days have been the latter. Further, there is no end in sight. Unless we can move to a barter economy soon, which would probably be better for the economy than that stupid economic stimulus pron passed by the House with the President's blessing, I fear that the forecast is more soulless work with sprinkles of unnecessary bullshit and intellectual decay.

And so, because I am one of those people who throws themselves headlong into anything that I have in front of me, and I enjoy the comforts of mortgage ownership, the work has been the center of my attention at the exclusion of all others. Still, the 'sphere, like a jilted lover intent on exacting revenge, or at least gaining attention, brings me back as I head off to the land of Mickey in the service of exciting a group of superficial marketing punks about overpriced highly polished pieces of glass. It is teh joyz of my life...

But fear not gentile reader, once I return from the world of the shiny knick knacks that adorn the walls of our grandparents, there is still much much more to take the time and suck the soul. I could go into detail, but why?

My most political thought of the day...

"If Pat Buchanan can talk on television, uninterrupted, and spout his bullshit for money, why the hell can't I? What has he done other than show himself as a bigoted sack of dog shit since he wrote speeches for the devil? Nothing."

Now I'll probably get attacked by that Donoghue fucktard from the Catholic League because Buchanan is Catholic.

FUCK PATRICK BUCHANAN....

More later maybe, but probably not...

John, You're Breaking My Heart

Steve Ross — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:40:00 +0000

I just don't get it. Why is it that the Democratic Party can't walk the walk? From the failures of the Congressional leadership, to the ugly averageness of the two Presidential frontrunners, Democrats, for as long as I can remember, have been too chickenshitted to field candidates with a progressive agenda in most major races.

Now, the one guy who had a truly progressive agenda is getting out of the race leaving us with two bickering sides of the same coin...a coin that has brought us losses in the past two Presidential election cycles. That's just fucking great guys.

I'm sick about it. I'm mad about it, and not because I just sent him 250 bucks either. I'm mad because, regardless of wether he got the nomination or not, John Edwards spoke to issues that are in dire need of real attention. John was driving the debate to the left. John and Elizabeth are inspirational figures to me and many others. People I want to learn from and emulate. People that this country desperately need in the forefront of politics to bring the conversation back from the edge of insanity, where it has lingered since the days of the Whitewater investigations.

We may never know what kind of President John Edwards would be, but if he had been elected, and done just one quarter of what he hoped to accomplish, he would be heralded as one of America's greatest leaders. Now we're left with just the lemon, and the meringue, no pie...fluff and pucker.

I echo the sentiments of LWC, I'm voting for him anyway, damn the consequences.

I hope, for the sake of the Party that Clinton, Obama, and their rabid obnoxious fans will take this opportunity to start talking about issues and stop talking shit about each other.

I won't hold my breath.

More thoughts, observations, and baseless accusations UPDATED

Steve Ross — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:56:00 +0000

First of all, Marek over at West Tennessee is on to something. In both 2004 and 2008, Democrats have voted safe. Instead of voting to win (winning being putting forth a candidate that best reflected our core values and had the soul of a fighter) we voted to not lose. We lost 2004, and unless Obama and Hillary suddenly stop trying to kill each other, we will lose again in 2008.

I'm not saying that because Edwards left the race today, though he did poll better against any Republican for whatever that's worth, I'm saying that because if we allow our candidates to beat the hell out of each other unchecked, we're doing the work of the Republicans. It's time for a come to Jesus. Are Hillary and Obama running for the Democratic nominee or for President? John McCain is running for President, he just happens to be a frontrunner for the Republican nominee. It is a fundamental difference...a difference that could make him the oldest first term President in the history of the US.

Now, I'm going to talk about something that just kills me.

I've been a Democrat since I became politically aware sometime back in the mid 80's. I think I was about 13 at the time. I saw what was happening around me nationally (as the youngest wonk ever) and decided that while the Democratic Party certainly wasn't perfect, it was closer to my sense of what is right than the Republicans. To put it into perspective, I was a Democrat before I was confirmed into the Methodist Church, which says something about me, draw your own conclusions.

This was just after Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas, after one term of Frank White. Walter Mondale was the Presidential candidate, and he got his ass handed to him, for reasons that we don't need to get into just yet.

At this time in Clinton's political life, he was a progressive. Clinton set in motion a series of events that allowed Mike Huckabee to take credit for Arkansas' schools performance gains of the 90's through the present.

Clinton was also very pragmatic. He knew what could and couldn't be done in Arkansas. He put forth soft challenges, that were attainable. But like most small southern states, there was no real challenging progressive voice in the dialogue. Clinton was the best we had.

In 1992, after his election to President, my infatuation with politics was revitalized. Unfortunately, Clinton got scared. He got scared when the DC press started beating the hell out of him, and that just got worse in '94 when they lost the Congress.

To this day, I still believe that Clinton was the best Republican President of my lifetime. He was a master of taking his opponents issues away from them, and that drove the Republicans crazy.

Unfortunately it also drove Progressives crazy, and led to a lot of disenchantment in 2000, which hurt Gore. People tell me I should stop blaming Nader supporters for Gore's loss in 2000. Maybe so, I don't guess it really matters all that much now, but the stage is set, and unless something drastic happens, we're looking at 2000 all over again.

Nader is getting in. I attribute this to the abject lack of any real progressive voice in the Democratic race. Maybe it would have happened had Edwards stayed in, maybe not, but the reality is that, unlike a Bloomberg candidacy, Nader hurts both Obama and Hillary because some progressives will vote for him for some unknown fucking idiot assed reason.

1. I never voted for Nader, and never would because...
2. I'm such a Yellow Dog Democrat that I would vote for the rotting corpse of Orval Faubus before ANY Repulican.

And I guess that makes me part of the problem.

Ya see, come November I will vote for Hillary or Obama, no matter what. And while that makes me a loyal Democrat, that also makes me easy to be taken for granted. It puts me, and my core values, in a position of weakness, a position that can be disregarded, a position without any leverage. Leverage is exactly what progressives need.

It is because I will vote for a Democrat, no matter what that the Democratic candidate will give me and my values the big "fuck you" and run even further to the right hoping to score a landslide. Because of this, the values that should be at the core of any Democratic candidate will fall further away, blurring the distinctions, and diluting the impact that any Democratic administration could possibly have.

It makes me sick.

Look, I know I'm waaaayyyy off the reservation on this, but we need to consider our choices, and I'm a big part of the we. If we're left with a corporatist and the "Un-Partisan" then we're left with a party that has left us.

It's enough to make me reconsider that Yellow Dog status.

It's enough to, at best, keep me at home...at worst, well, I think I've said enough.

Update: Matt Stoller over at Open Left sums it up for me...
"These people are not on our side, they only align with us more than the Republicans do."

Couldn't have said it better.

Federalize the Primary System

Steve Ross — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:44:00 +0000

I give credit to this post from Digby for reminding me of a post I started and didn’t finish.

Currently, states determine the date of their primary, just like they always have. Up until about 12 years ago, they all played nice and everything was hunky dory. Then the advent of the 24 hour primary coverage and all the money and influence that came with it got other states to thinking that they wanted their say sooner in the process. Over the years this has led us to the full on cluster fuck that we have today, with Michigan and Florida giving up delegates in the Democratic contest just to get the media coverage.

None of this will change as long as Presidential primaries are run by the states. One state will always try and leapfrog another, Iowa and New Hampshire will keep moving their contests to earlier dates, before you know it, the Iowa caucus will be in November of an even, but non-presidential year. The only way to bring some sanity into the mix is to standardize the system in a way that is fair. However, giving permanent 1st in the nation status to any state is fundamentally screwed up. There needs to be some mechanism for selecting the order of states contests…Here’s my idea.

Start Small

One of the things that I do like about the current set up of the primary/caucus calendar is that small states get a voice early. This provides an opportunity for lesser known candidates to get out and get some national press without having to come up with the money that would be required to run in California, New York, or some other large state. There are 30 states in that have fewer than 10 electoral college votes. These states would have priority in setting up the first 4 primary contests.

Lottery for Position

In order to keep it fair, and ensure that over the course of several election cycles no one state had more of an impact than any other, a lottery system would be employed to choose the order and participants of all the contests. States included in the lottery would be drawn from these 30 states. Once a state has been picked for the top spot, they are ineligible for that spot in the next presidential primary season, though they would be in the mix for 2-4.

Dates and Weights

This campaign has been going on for over a year now, and I think just about everyone is sick of it. Making the first contest happen in mid-February would allow for plenty of time for the candidates to get their organizations together for the early contests, but would keep the process out of the holidays, by and large. Contests would continue every other week from there and would include more states as they went along. My thoughts go something like this:

1. 1 state
2. 2 states
3. 4 states
4. 7 states

By this time we would be coming up to May. The primaries that followed would be regionalized to maximize the ability of the candidates to cover the areas. These regions would be weighted based on where the majority of the first contests were. If most of them happened in the south, the first regional would go north or west. If they happened in the Mountain West, they would move east. If they were fairly dispersed the regions would be in a lottery for position with 4 contests going through June.

Conclusion

I’m not saying this is a perfect set up either, but it’s a process that would allow us to get the primary season under control without doing a national primary that ultimately hurts lesser known candidates.

As much as I love politics, I don’t want to see campaigns last any longer than they need to, nor do I want them to start any earlier than is reasonable. By taking the wild card of states jockeying for position out of the mix we can standardize the process, and make the whole thing more representative of more people.

Cheers.

Quit Pau-ting

Steve Ross — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:06:00 +0000

I know I don’t really write about sports that much, if at all, but the Pau trade to the Lakers gives me an opportunity to talk about one of the other loves of my life…sports.

There are a slew of issues wrapped up in this trade, some that are evident, and some that are under the radar. I’ll try and to touch on all of them as I see them.

Pau is not a Leader

Pau Gasol is a good player, but he has never been the kind of dominant force that you would want to build a team around, despite what the front office pukes would have tried to tell you. He’s good, not great. He will be a great role player behind Kobe in LA. We may or may not have given away the store on this trade, and who really cares with our record? At this point we should be working to further develop the young talent we have now into leaders instead of forcing a reluctant leader into a role for which they are ill suited. I think the Fizz accomplished that.

We traded our soul last year

I had a big problem with the Shane Battier trade last year. Shane may have never put up mad numbers consistently, but he had that intangible leadership ability that made the whole team better. Further, he was a positive force in the community. The city lost a great voice with that trade.

I think he’s done a great job since the trade. We got the rights to Rudy Gay, who I think is poised to be a great leader, someday. I think, under the steady hand of someone like Battier, he would be even better. We’ll never know.

Southwest is Strong

The Southwest division is the strongest division in Pro Basketball, with 4 teams over .500. Every team in the Southwest, with the exception of Memphis, has two players that could either lead or assist in leading any other team in the NBA. Memphis has never had that luxury. Even when we had “Fast break 3” (Jason Williams), and Shane, the streaky Miller (who remains in Memphis), and Gasol it was more of a team effort than one or more people leading the club to victory. That “team” concept can work in the East, where they play a bit slower, more defense-minded ball. In the Southwest, you better bring you’re A game every night.

You can’t buy strength

When the Grizzlies hired Jerry West, it looked like we were on the way to our first playoff win. It never happened. In order for a professional team to be strong, there has to be balanced strength between the front office, the basketball staff, and the players. That never happened. Heisley and West’s insistence on keeping Gasol, damn the consequences led us to where we are today, trading a player, who has had multiple injuries, and is best suited in a support role, for the hope of a better future. This highlights the weakness of the Front Office operation, never mind all the problems we’ve had with coaching since Hubie left. You can’t buy tradition any more than you can buy a strong organization, you have to build it. Until that happens, we can expect little change with the Grizz.

Starting over, is sometimes easier than changing direction

Sometimes it’s just better to start over than trying to fix the problem internally. That’s really what this trade is all about. Gasol was ill-suited to lead the team. This puts Miller, Gay and a new acquisition in the position to take over the reigns and running with it. How well this works out, depends on how well the coaching and front office staff evaluate their strengths and trade or draft to support those strengths. If this trade is a serious attempt to start over then we should applaud it. If it’s just a “punt until next year” then the Grizz will have a lot of empty box seats next year.

Sports and Politics

Steve Ross — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:33:00 +0000

In writing my previous post, I came to the conclusion that there are a lot of parallels between sports and politics. The most important is the notion that you can’t buy your way out of a problem; you have to develop a bench for the team, with members ready to step up when needed. That’s one of the problems the Democratic Party experienced after the election of Bill in ’92, and one of the reasons we got our asses kicked in House and Senate elections from ’94-’04. We forgot about the places that got us elected, because we were just too focused on the big picture to the exclusion of all the little pictures that made the big picture possible.

In 2006 we saw, what a little bit of attention to local party outfits from the DNC could do and now have a majority. Both the 50 state strategy, brought forth by the DNC, and the outpouring of money from the DCCC and DSCC gave candidates that may have not had much of a chance a leg up. Circumstance didn’t hurt us either.

The Democratic majority in Congress is poised to expand this year, assuming that the Presidential candidates don’t put the kibosh on DNC efforts due to their personal problems with DNC head, Howard Dean., or raid the Congress for appointees in a Democratic White House.

The DNC is the only arm of the party that is well behind the Republicans in fund raising. Some of that is due to successful DCCC and DSCC attempts to raise early money. Some of it is because the big money donors don’t like Dean. Some of it is because the Presidentials have been trying to raise the funds necessary to defeat a Republican candidate and the Democratic faithful has been more than ready to make that happen.

Now that the field is down to two, I expect to see more efforts by the DNC to get those dollars in their coffers to help support the eventual nominee, and it’s vital that these efforts are successful. Regardless of who wins the nomination, there will be a full on frontal attack from the right. In order for the DNC to help the eventual nominee it will need money, and that’s just not happening right now.

The difference between a national party and a sports organization is that we are the stockholders of the organization. That position gives us more influence in the party than in any sports organization. Our support of the activities of the party comes from the money we give to the organization as well as all the grass-roots activities that political organizations need to survive and build depth. Depth is the thing that will drive the Democratic party forward. Depth is the thing that will help bring us new Democratic Representatives and Senators in locations that were simply not possible in the past. That depth comes as the result of supporting with your time AND money, the national, state, and local arms of the party.

We may not be able to bring sanity into the Grizzlies organization, but we can have a role in making sure the Democratic Party gets stronger. Follow the links below and give a little to the local, state, and national arms of the party. Together we can strengthen our majority in the Congress, and ensure a Democratic President in 2009.

Thanks.

Ed. Note: These links go directly to the contribution pages of the respective parties. I have no interest or desire in taking credit for any contribution, so don’t let that stop you.

DNC
TN Democratic Party
Shelby Co. Democratic Party

The War on Krugman

Steve Ross — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:37:00 +0000

For the unacquainted, Paul Krugman is a New York Times op-ed writer, and award-winning economist. He is also one of the most liberal voices we have in the MSM. His two books, The Great Unraveling, a collection of columns put together by topic and timeframe, and his most recent, The Conscience of a Liberal, are important works that should be read by progressives regardless of where they fall in the candidate wars.

Unfortunately, Krugman has found himself on the wrong side of the Obama campaign. As highlighted in this post from Open Left and more comprehensively in this post at MYDD Krugman has been roundly attacked by the Obama campaign and its supporters, including this hit piece by the campaign. One need only follow the links to see the holes in the Obama Campaign’s logic.

The first linked article, the campaign selectively highlights the praise without showing the flip side of the coin:

The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they’re doing.

From there, they use a later article to question Krugman’s credibility.

"The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning."

Unfortunately, they selectively sourced the original quote. From Later in the first article:

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t — a point Mr. Edwards made in last night’s debate. The Obama plan doesn’t mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances — and then end up receiving treatment at other people’s expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

Krugman was referencing his original article from June that the Obama campaign quoted selectively. Fortunately for them, few of their more vitriolic followers actually bothered to follow the links.

The Obama Campaign continues to harp on this, the reality is that Obama’s response is, at best, Rovian-lite. When questioned, attack, attack, attack, damn the consequences. Obama could have just as easily responded in an adult fashion to these critiques, and both Obama and Krugman could have agreed to disagree.

The hallmark of a political campaign based on hope, optimism, and “Post-Partisanship” should be one’s ability to agree to disagree, not attack due to disagreement. Further, if Obama is truly “Post-Partisan” any criticism from someone who is patently partisan should be acknowledged for what it is, partisan criticism and left there to live or die on the merits.

Finally, Krugman is a columnist, not a candidate. Krugman isn’t running for anything, nor has he endorsed anyone. The decision by the Obama Campaign to go after a columnist is a misappropriation of their time and energy. Working to discredit one of the only consistent liberal voices in the MSM is counterproductive to progressives, and ultimately counterproductive to Obama. Take it down a notch Barak, between this and your rabid fan-boys, you’re not winning any friends, you’re pissing a bunch of us off.

Back on the Leadership Train

Steve Ross — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:24:00 +0000

When I wrote this post on Leadership back in April of last year, I had a couple of people specifically in mind. None of them are Presidential candidates.

Going back to that post, well, it reminds me of just one more reason that the Democratic race post Edwards, is about as exciting as a sardine sandwich.

When you look up “Leader” in the Dictionary, you come back with:

1 the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country : the leader of a protest group.
• a person followed by others : he is a leader among his classmates.
• an organization or company that is the most advanced or successful in a particular area : a leader in the use of video conferencing.
• the horse placed at the front in a team or pair.
• (also Leader of the House) Brit. a member of the government officially responsible for initiating business in Parliament.

Now, it’s not hard to say that the remaining Democratic candidates are leaders in one way or another. Together, they’ve raised over $200m! They’re neck and neck in the polls. That’s “leading” to some degree. But the notion of a “leader”, the qualities that define that “leadership”, the way that “leader” reacts in the face of criticism, justified or not, and the people that a “leader” surround themselves with, also defines what kind of “leader” that individual would be.

Taking all of these things into account, and applying them in the only way I can, with statements from the campaigns and individual voting records, leaves me with an empty feeling on the leadership front. Neither candidate has really put themselves in front of an issue in a way that made me happy with them in their time in the Senate, or in the campaign for that matter.

Certainly, Hillary has more negatives than Obama. She’s been in the public eye longer, and for me, since I was about 8 as First Lady of Arkansas. But Hillary also has some positives. One of those is that I feel like I know what she will do. There is little question with her. She has been on the record for longer. That’s a plus for me. I know she’ll fuck me, and I know how, I’m just not sure when.

For those of us on the “Change” tip, Obama has many positives. I don’t think his version of “Change®” is as much change as some of his supporters think it is, but, in reality, ANY Democratic candidate would be “change” from the current administration. I’m not saying this to take anything away from Obama. America needs a change…we just need to make sure it’s a positive one. Bush brought on all kinds of change, and it was anything but positive. And that’s the foundation or my skepticism about Obama.

In 2000, Bush ran on change, that change was restoring integrity to the White House (what a joke!). He ran as a “uniter:, not a divider…WOW! We see how that worked out. That whole “Compassionate Conservative” thing was a great marketing ploy, and a complete crock of shit. Ultimately, Bush didn’t have much real policy in his campaign, and he didn’t need it. He ran with his strengths, which was communicating to the public in a way that made them feel comfortable, and playing on deep seated fears that had been planted in the public psyche long ago.

From my perspective, when you look at the campaigns, there are striking similarities. Obama is running a “Post-Partisan®” campaign…sounds like a uniter. He wants to “Change Washington” which just about every politician says but never does. Finally, until recently, his proposals have been amorphous at best. That’s a good way to not get criticized for not having a position even though your position is not really a position (got that?).

Now, I’m not comparing Barak Obama to W. In truth, every political campaign I can remember hit on these themes in some way. What bothers me, is that Obama has been given a pass by just about everyone for not really nailing down some of the more important proposals in his platform, and when people do have the gall to call him on something, they are dismissed as an example of insiders being resistant to “Change®”, or partisan hacks.

If that’s what “Post-Partisanship” is, then “Post-Partisanship” is not change, it’s what we’ve had for the past 8 years.

No Thank You.

Look people, I’m a RED MEAT Democrat. I don’t want no chicken or fish or even pork, unless it’s slow smoked Bar-B-Cue, I want RED MEAT! I’ll take my blatant partisanship with a heavy dose of lefty hollerin’, sir. I want bare-knuckled boxing, not my ass tickled with a feather, and I have no problem admitting that I may be the only person on the planet that wants that.

It’s not that I look at my values VS. Republican values as a race to be won. I look at the contrast as the most critical moral, social, and ethical issue of our time…period. Every four years we have the opportunity to chose a leader, one that the world will look to, one that has an impact far outside our borders. Here we are, at a critical point in our history, and the Democratic nominees that are left are the political equivalent of Justin and Brittany. GREAT!

Exxxcccuuuussssseeeee me if I’m not excited by the diversity thing, be it sex or race. If the level of diversity was matched by the level of lefty cred, then you’d have me throwing my panties on the stage screamin’ for more like I was at the Foo Fighters show on the 25th. That ain’t happening so I’ ain’t throwin’.

I’m not picking sides until after the 5th because I ALREADY PICKED MY GUY AND HE WITHDREW. But that doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for him anyway. Until someone shows me something better, I’m content to sit here and bitch about the fucked up mess that I FEEL WE’RE LEFT WITH. After that, I’ll play nice…

….maybe.

Super Tuesday – Go Vote or Else

Steve Ross — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:11:00 +0000

So, it’s Super Tuesday, and if you’re one of those people, like myself, who hasn’t taken the time to get your early vote on, you need to shake your hiney off to the polls and get yourself some good votin’.

Still not sure how to vote? Well, our beloved blogfather has his suggestions. Remember, in Shelby Co., there are other contests on the ballot. You can see the entire ballot, for Democrats and Republicans.

I’m still voting for Edwards, even though he suspended his campaign last week. Some people have suggested I’m throwing my vote away because he can’t win, but by that logic, so is just about every Democrat in Wyoming or Utah, so suck it!

Pollster.com has Hillary up in Tennessee by as few as 10 points, but considering how wrong some of the polls have been lately, I don’t put much stock in that. Further, it seems that the Obama campaign has a good deal of momentum right now. We’ll see how that will play out here in Tennessee tonight.

All in all, on the Democratic side, we’re looking at a tight race through the convention. To be honest, I can’t remember the last time this happened. For my part, I hope that both Clinton and Obama decide to start beating up Republicans instead of each other after this week. We know for damn sure one of them is going to be in the general. They might as well start running like they already are.

Happy voting, result watching, and whatever other activities go with that for you!

Voting in Memphis

Steve Ross — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:35:00 +0000

So, I got my vote on. Really, it was lighter than expected, there were about 4 people there (12:30). I don’t know if people in my precinct (16-01) tend to vote early or what, but there are about 3000 people in my precinct (Source) and 4 machines, even with a short ballot, doesn’t seem like a lot. There are probably a lot of early voters, realistically.

In any case, it was a breeze, took about 5 min. and it’s close enough to my house that I could walk home, which was nice in this unseasonable weather that we’re having.

Tonight I will grace the interwebs with my very own liveblogging of the results, and the results of the blowhards on the TV from the world famous P&H right here in Memphis, TN, between rounds of Trivia, and 12oz. curls (gotta keep my figure up ya know).

Enjoy yourselves tonight folks, and remember, if your candidate doesn’t win, you’ll have another chance in just 7 short days!

Super Tornado Tuesday - Live Blog, now from Home!

Steve Ross — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:23:00 +0000

Ummm, yeah, so Super Tuesday may not be the big story here in Memphis tonight. Seems like Mother Nature may have something else in mind. Either way, from home or P&H the liveblogging will continue until I pass out, or get really bored.

9:42PM - Huckabee wins the south, and the Republican field is set, McCain/Huckleberry Hound. Once again the Romulans are left in the cold. On the Dem side, well, it's nutty. Until California and Alaska (kidding) decide, we won't know shit. Lots of people are talking about Obama doing well in states that Republicans normally carry (and vice-versa for the Republicans and McCain). Not sure what to think about that, but Haley Barbour just said "Wig-wam" and I'm trying not to laugh.

In weather news the sirens just turned off again, but that doesn't mean anything if there's a tornado like 5 feet from my house...which there isn't yet. Ok, between the polling and reach Haley Barbour is showing his metro-sexual side.

9:00PM - Huckabee pulls ahead of McCain in TN! Vote still close, with 42% reporting, Huckabee 85,150, McCain 84,645. This is only really interesting to me because of a rare moment of clarity from Chris Matthews, as reported by TPM here.

Update 8:50PM - Hickory Ridge Mall is destroyed, $500,000 of merchandise looted already. Happy Super Tornado Tuesday. We have another big squall line coming across the river in a few minutes, so umm, I may be in the basement.
In election news, we're waiting for a new state to call too soon. Luckily for the networks, with the possible exception of OK, as of about an hour ago, though it seems to be a lock for Clinton now. Happy Delegate hunting!

Update 8:10 - Soooo, that ABC delegate counter thing that HuffPo linked sucks my balls. This one from MicroYahoo! is much better. Between jumping from MSNBC for the politics and Dave Brown on Channel 5 for the weather, I'm suffering from information overload. Maybe I need some coffee.

Update 7:35PM AR for Hill and Huck, sounds like a Hannah Barberra cartoon. Considering both of them spent time in the Governors mansion, even though Huck spent a good deal of time in the Gubernatorial "triple wide", it's not surprising.

- Update 7:16PM - MSNBC just called TN for Clinton, with 0% reporting (16k to 14k). Are you serious? Obviously not. Ugh, it's gonna be a long nite, unless I start drinking more.

Update 7:11PM - Obama called winner by MSNBC and other "smart people" in these states (GA, IL - No shit), all with less than 10% of the vote counted. This is not a bitch on Obama, but the MSM. Can we please at least wait until like 20% or something before we start the whole acting like we know who's winning thing. They already had to retract OK for Clinton. Just fucking stop it guys!!! You're killing me.

Update 6:51PM - Well, the Mapco on the corner of Cooper and Central still has some beer, if you were wondering. I bought all the cheese dip, so don't even think about going there for that. It seems that the 2000 block of Harbert is without power, so if you know someone over there give 'em a call.

Update: 6:34PM - Howard Dean on MSNBC "Time to shut up and listen to the voters". source. Special thanks to TennViews

Other TN Liveblogs:
GoldnI

Live Delegate Counter:
Yahoo Dashboard Counter
ABC News

It seemed appropriate...

Steve Ross — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:54:00 +0000

Remember to Burp it to Seal in the Freshness

Steve Ross — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:08:00 +0000

I'm in Dallas doing an event for Tupperware. In the past week I've done a show for an agricultural fiber, a hotel with a base in Memphis and THE Original Food Storage in Plasticware company. It's been as long however long it's been.

In that time I've started and abandoned many a post. Time just doesn't permit such luxuries. But, since I don't have to be at work until 9am tomorrow, I thought I'd squeeze one out.

Item 1 - Hate Speech

I haven't really had time to read all the blog posts and news items on the antisemetic-antiCohen-TonyAlamolike flyer, but let me just say that people that put shit like that out need to be the subject of an intensive intervention that includes some kind of "getting them out of circulation" (psychological evaluation) or at least revoking their keyboard and Kinko's card.

As sad as it sounds, I guess something like this was bound to happen. The seeds were planted in 2006 though it never really came to fruition, at least to this extent. If Tinker's hands aren't clean, she better be ready to move back to 'Bama, cos it' gonna get real uncomfortable for her in the 9th.

Ugh, makes me sick.

Item 2 -M-Obam-emtum

For fuck's sake dude, you're kicking some serious ass.

I started this post a couple of days ago about how he's won mostly caucuses and whatnot. Whatevir. He's running neck and neck with "uninevitable" and I give him props for that. Furthermore, I think that, while Obama may or may not be as progressive as we want him to be, it bodes well to have an organizer as the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party. That would help some of the outreach that the DNC is involved in now and hopefully strengthen it in states that are shifting blue. I know Hillary won New Mexico yesterday or whatever, that's fine. Considering how far Bill Richardson's nose was up her ass in Iowa (smelling tomorrow's poop today), it's no wonder. Can I just say it... Hillary excites me as much as a retread sandwich. At least Obama has a potential upside, and getting screwed over by him will be a constant surprise (my inner optimist shines through).

What else....

Hell, I haven't been paying attention, I've had my head down in a video switcher or Final Cut for over two weeks.

Oh yeah..

Item 3 - Punk ass Congress

Immunity? Really? Ok dipshits, I'm moving to north Memphis so I can vote against one of you (any guesses?). For the love of all that is Holy, are you guys that spineless. It makes me sad that such suck ass punks could represent anyone other than the douche squad.

Item 4 - VD

Today was Valentine's Day, and yeah I got my sweetie SMac a little somethin' somethin', but I just wanted to take this opportunity to let her know just how much I love, cherish and appreciate all that she brings to the relationship.

I love you sweetie!

Ok, that is all, until I figure out who to piss off next.

Kisses!

This Conversation is Dead to me

Steve Ross — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:18:00 +0000

In our latest installment of “The Hillary Clinton Campaign’s Continuing Efforts to Make Their Candidate Look More Like the Problem than the Solution”, TPM reports that long time Clinton supporter Harold Ickes

…acknowledged that it would be possible for Clinton to lose pledged delegates but control a majority of the credentials committee, which ultimately decides if and how Florida’s and Michigan’s disputed delegations would be dealt with.

Stuff like this is what turns people off to politics, and makes them feel powerless. Why the hell would the Camp Clinton even want to speak to this in any way? Giving away strategy is not a winning strategy. Neither is putting forth a red herring strategy that is sure to piss off a lot of people.

Further, statements like this, made by surrogates, only reinforce many of the “Right Wing talking points” about “the Clintons”.

I can’t blame the Clinton Campaign for wanting to fight for delegates from Michigan and Florida. I’m sure that if the tables were turned, the Obama camp would be fighting just as hard for those delegates in this close race. Ultimately, I blame the state parties in MI and FL for breaking party rules and creating an artificial clusterfuck in a year that, by all accounts, should be ours to lose.

On the other hand, I CAN blame the Clinton camp for going about their fighting for delegates in a way that is both elitist and that highlights the worst characteristics of the party system in general.

Back in January, I wrote about federalizing the primary system and now, more than ever, that seems like the solution, even if the specifics of my idea are a pipe dream or just plain unworkable.

In any case, the whole conversation about how the Clinton Camp is going to game the system to make sure that x or y happens is dead to me. The more I hear about it from Clinton surrogates the more I am convinced that the Clinton camp has no faith in their ability to win this thing outright without some kind of shenanigans.

That kind of mentality doesn’t bode well for the rest of the nomination process or the general. Hillary, get it together or get out of the way, and stop letting your henchmen out of their cages to say stupid shit in public. This includes family members.

Kisses…

Delegate-ometer

Steve Ross — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:25:00 +0000

So, the M-Obam-emtum rolls on. By my unscientific count, I find 12 states left to dole out the delegates on the Democratic side for a total of 1062 delegates (VT, RI, OH, TX, MS, PA, IN, NC, KY, OR, SD, MT). Unfortunately, that's the only thing for sure right now, is how many delegates are left on calendar. No one seems to be able to figure out how many delegates anyone has with any level of consistency.

I looked at 7 sites that aren't liberal blogs, but "news-ish" places, and all 6 have different totals, even for pledged delegates.

Yahoo puts the race at 1146 to 1004, Obama.

CNN says it stands at 1154-1011, Obama.

Real Clear Politics muddies the water by putting the totals at 1185-1024, Obama.

MSNBC gives us 4 differing totals with their 1168-1018, Obama.

CBS calls it at 1188-1028, Obama.

Fox New's coverage is as disjointed as the party they represent. I don't think they want you to know who's really ahead in pledged delegates, but just in case they post the AP totals so they can bash the libural media again when they come back wrong...or something.

And finally, ABC News, from the land of Disney, is just as chickenshitted as Fox, which makes ABC and FOX the only two major networks that seem to agree on the delegate totals.

All the totals listed are "Pre-Superdelegate" totals because they can decide to go with whomever they want to at any time they want to, and despite the whining of some folks that's their right since they're either currently or have in the past been actively working for the party, all 796 of them (sheesh).

So if we've got 1062 delegates left to get, and somewhere between a 142 and 161 point spread between the candidates there's still plenty of things to fight about, at least until the 3/4 primaries. The March 4 primary accounts for 444 or the 1062 left or 42% of the remaining delegates.

If Obama performs as he has in the past few weeks, getting an average of 60% of the vote, that increases his lead by a net 88 delegates to somewhere around 230-249, depending on the voodoo that the locals use to calculate the totals.

If Clinton holds strong in Texas and Ohio, this thing will drag on until June 3rd, when South Dakota and Montana finally take their turn.

In either case, neither of them is gonna get the 2000+ needed to win without the benefit of some "Supers"or 80% of the vote for the remaining contests (unlikely).

Estimates show that about half of them are currently pledged to someone (234-161 Clinton). Obama needs to get at least half of the remaining 400 to keep the margin close enough to win.

All of this stuff is up in the air. Supers can change their minds just like anyone else, though Bill Clinton would probably spit on them if they moved from Hillary. The real task is to wait another 2 weeks to see what happens in OH and TX. If Obama holds strong, Clinton needs to get out of the way, because no number of supers can win it for her...unless they seat MI and FL...

Makes my brain hurt.

Even Clinton Agrees

Steve Ross — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:14:00 +0000

MSNBC is reporting that former President Bill Clinton has put out the call...

If she wins in Texas and Ohio, she'll be the nominee. If she doesn't, I don't think she can be. It's all on you.

I'll bet money the people of Texas and Ohio will be blamed long before Mark Penn or any of the other Camp Clinton elitists.

Here's to hoping we (the Democratic Party) can start running for the general in early March.

As a side note, I set up a fundraising thingy for the DNC. As I noted several posts ago,the DNC is down to about $750,000 after debts (according to the End of year disclusure filed 1/31/08).

Today, at long last, I made good on my words and made a contribution (though I made it before I set up the thingy). Also, I'm doing the Democracy Bond thing that I thought I had done years ago, but probably got screwed up when I changed banks and email addresses.

If you have an extra 10 spot or something, send some love to your national party. You don't have to use the thingy on the right (though that would be cool), but give 'em a little extra somethin' somethin' to help win the White House in November.

Thanks.

Mr. Salazar, Please, Just Don't

Steve Ross — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:06:00 +0000

ABC reported this morning that a new "Pro-Hillary" 527 called the "American Leadership Project" was being launched by Clinton loyalists to swift boat the Obama campaign.

This is their first ad.

Here is the IRS 527 form.

Here is a profile of Mr. Salazar.

Folks, we don't need this shit. I understand that some are upset with Hillary's performance. Blame the candidate and the organization that she built for that failure, don't flog everyone in sight because you're pissed.

Open Left has this and this to say about it.

I suggest that Mr. Salazar hold off until we have a nominee so we can get to the business of winning the White House for a unified Democratic Party.

I haven't forgot you, faithful reader

Steve Ross — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:51:00 +0000

Ok folks, I know it's been a long time since I updated. Believe me, if it were up to me I'd be blogging like a sonuvabitch. Unfortunately, I've been on the road almost non-stop since the 11th, and it ain't looking any better until the 7th of March. In the mean time, have a drink and get ready. I'm planning my escape from blogger, I've found my new calling in life (more details later) and I've got a business (my current one) to get launched.

The blogging will resume shortly, sorry for the interruption.

Cheers,

v.

Motivational Waterboarding

Steve Ross — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:14:00 +0000

As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune and TPM

A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.

I do a fair amount of work with and for Motivational speakers, and the companies that employ them to speak, and I've heard of some seriously stupid shit, but this takes the cake. It has been an interesting study, over the past 10 years of my time in the Corporate Theater business to see just how fucked up some of these people who make money speaking about self-fulfillment or business advancement. Most of them are great at the talk, the walk, not so much. But in all that time, through all the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual warfare that I have witnessed these people perpetuate against both their employees, attendees, and contractors, I have NEVER seen or heard of anything like this.

Disgusting

Stupid Experience

Steve Ross — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:07:00 +0000

So the Hillary camp thinks that highlighting the experience of the presumptive Republican nominee somehow bolsters their claim to being "ready on day one". This is the stupidest of stupid arguments, particularly in light of Hillary's claim that there is more bias against women than men in elections. Hillary's campaign has become a sad shadow, a caricature of what it should have been , and Hillary is solely to blame.

She has been out fundraised, out spent, out organized, and out thought on virtually every front. She took too much for granted and in light of a front loaded primary season, fell victim to her own arrogance. Denial is the first stage of grief. Hillary, the chances of you actually winning are slim at best. You may think you deserve it, but if the way you've run your campaign is any indication of your governance, then no thank you.

Obama, on the other hand has this whole Canadian meddling thing to deal with. I haven't been following it closely, but it seems that it's taken a little bit of shine off his campaign. We'll see tomorrow.

As for McCain, he's destined to fail, unless we win it for him. McCain was compelling in 2000, from a momentum perspective, but McCain has a lot of baggage. That baggage will come out full bore in the general, and that combined with his cold fundraising will hurt him. I just hope he gives up his Senate seat so we can try and be competitive in AZ too.

Ultimately, it comes down to who ends up with the Congress. If we keep control and get the white house, it's still gonna be hard to get shit done, if we lose either it's gonna be a serious bitch to get it done. We have to nominate someone who will help our local tickets, and right now, I'll put my money with the campaign that can organize over the one that seems disorganized.

My prediction, Obama in Texas by 4 %, Obama in OH by a hairs breath. The other two are basically decided. If all this rings true, Philly and Pittsburgh will start turning for Obama in PA which will ultimately decide the state. This gives Obama a leg up to the nomination, but Clinton will keep it going until the convention, which will hurt, a lot.

We can win in November if we don't beat ourselves. For right now, I'm holding out hope that cooler heads will prevail, not much hope, but some.

Baby, Bath Water, and Throw

Steve Ross — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:00:00 +0000

Last night's grand delegate split did exactly nothing to help add some clarity to the 2008 Democratic nomination process. With just over 600 state delegates left to divvy up I have to wonder if any of this will come into focus before the convention in August. RIght now it's not looking so good. Now, TPM and other outlets are reporting that both the Clinton and Obama camps are ready to go nuclear on each other. That doesn't bode well for a Democratic victory in November. The Republican Party would like nothing better than for the Democratic nominating process to do their dirty work before the general even starts. In light of their fund raising problems, it certainly makes life a little easier for them.

MIchigan, Florida, and Why I Don't Care

Steve Ross — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:30:00 +0000

So, this morning I get my sleep interrupted by Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, bitching about Howard Dean "disenfranchising" voters in FLorida by not seating their delegates. You've got to be kidding me. The Republican led Florida legislature, and the Republican Governor, none other than Mr. Crist himself, approved the legislation last May that eventually moved the primary from it's original place, on or after Super Tuesday. If Governor Crist was so interested in not disenfranchising these voters, he would have vetoed the legislation. And all the ink being spilled today, largely making Dean look like the bad guy for not folding, is exactly why that legislation was passed in the first place, to make Democrats look bad. Michigan is a whole nother issue. I'm not sure what got up their asses, but

They Did it to Themselves

Steve Ross — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:12:00 +0000

Note: I wrote this on the 6th, but just got around to posting it.

Early this morning (5am Mountain) I was awakened from my restful slumber by the racket of some CNN anchor raking DNC Chair Howard Dean over the coals for enforcing rules the state parties passed in regard to their presidential primaries/caucuses for selecting delegates to the convention. What kind of bass ackward world do we live in when someone is getting messed with for enforcing the rules.

Florida and Michigan knew what they were doing. They had been warned, and disagreeing with the primary set up is not an excuse for going freelance. There are rules for a reason, and like it or not, they exist to keep us from starting the 2012 primary next month.

So Florida and Michigan decided to break the rules. That should be what we’re hearing, not Howard Dean is a hard ass. Or Dean doesn’t care about Michigan and Florida, which was essentially what I was hearing from the CNN. Or even more ridiculously, that the DNC should pay for new elections in Florida, even though it was the decision of a Republican controlled state congress, which I heard from FL Gov. Crist.

On the Florida front this has to be one of the most asinine demands ever. Florida can’t go out and have their general whenever the hell they want to, so why would they go out of their way to break the rules of BOTH parties for their primary? Seems to me that the people of Florida should be calling their state representatives out for screwing with the system, rather than blaming Dean for doing his job, enforcing the rules. That’s not something the MSM is interested in though.

This seems like a setup to me. Back in May of last year when Florida moved it’s primary back, they were told of the consequences. So, why is no one talking about Republican delegates getting seated? Are they? Aren’t they? I honestly don’t know, but if they are, one has to think that there are some shenanigans going on with the Republican dominated government of Florida. After 2000, this should be of no surprise to anyone.

Then there’s Michigan. I’m not sure what got up their asses to change their primary, but it didn’t happen until, say, August/September of last year. The measure, approved by the state legde and signed by Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, is a slap in the face to the rules decided upon by the several states just months before. Those rules made it clear that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would go first, then the rest would follow.

Michigan is harder to understand. Why would a Democratic governor put their state’s delegates at risk, when the candidate supported by that governor, is poised to win easily? Makes no sense to me. Hell, in September, Hillary was still way in the lead, both in the polls and with money. What was the motivation? I just don’t get it.

The sad irony of the whole affair is that had Florida and Michigan moved their primaries later into they year, they would have actually achieved the result they were looking for, relevance. Now that the race is close, and everyone seems to be trying to find their ass in a dark closet, Michigan and Florida, and their legislatures, have no one to blame but themselves. That’ll never happen. Seems like a caucus is in order, but until then both states seem ready to make Dean the fall guy for enforcing the rules. Classic. The rules apply until they’re inconvenient, then all bets are off. Just one more reason to federalize the primary system. Ok, now back to my nap.

Sometimes a “Pile On” is Both Appropriate and Necessary

Steve Ross — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:36:00 +0000

I haven’t seen the photos posted on the blog of “The South’s Greatest Grammar-tist”. I don’t want to. I like horror movies because they’re fake in their realism. Seeing a real live murdered person is of no interest to me.

I would imagine that a lot of people are going over there, just like he wanted. I also imagine that had he posted this on a Monday rather than a Friday, it would be all over the national news. So far, it’s only made it to WREG and WBIR in Knoxville. I hope it makes it no further, and I’m glad he’s too stupid to understand news cycles.

Lots of folks have said what he did may be illegal. I don’t know if it is or not, but he at least deserves an ass whuppin from the family of the deceased for being insensitive at best, and at worst, engaging in self-promotion from a tragedy.

At this point, I just won’t say his name. I won’t link to him. I don’t even want to go to his blog. He needs to be frozen out (though I doubt that anyone on my list was ever really close to him). PNG as they say in the Foreign Service (persona non-grata).

I haven’t really read what everyone else is saying, so I may just be parroting what’s already been said, but for me, “he, who shall not be named” is not welcome in my little corner of the interwebs.

The CA Steps Up

Steve Ross — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:37:00 +0000

I’ve been pretty hard on the CA over the years, but in this morning’s edition there are two really great columns by two of my favorite punching bags.

The first comes from the often annoying Wendi Thomas. In her article, she talks about the conditions that perpetuate the cycle of violence in our society. The highly simplistic, but apt, declaration that, “Hurt people, hurt people”.

It’s taboo in our society to acknowledge that individuals who commit violence are anything more than animals. Indeed, our entire judicial system has become more a means or classifying people and isolating them from society than anything else. Breaking them down instead of building them up.

The harsh reality is that we can’t keep all of these people locked up forever. Some of them are released, as was the gentleman arrested for the Lester St. murders back on January 24th. If the criminal justice system hasn’t done anything to help them change their behavior, one can only assume that the behavior will continue, and, considering the environment of many prisons, the behavior will probably be worse.

We, as a society, have to be fully invested in the mental, and physical health and well being of all the people of our society. Our society has been fractionalized by individuals whose intent is the creation of nothing more than a collection of socio-economic fiefdoms. Dividing us to weaken our ability, as the citizens of this nation, to assert control.

It’s time to take that control back, but to do it, we have to look inside ourselves for the trust and hope for a better tomorrow that we’ve given up on. We have to get involved in our communities, not just the neighborhood association we belong to, but the one down the street, and the ones across town. In order to make it better we need a dialogue. Which leads me to the next column.

In the Viewpoint section of the paper, Chris Peck sums it up nicely:

When Memphis TV stations turned to the ubiquitous man-on-the-street interviews asking residents what to do about crime, the answer most often cited was simply, "Pray more."

That suggests that many people simply don't believe the power of men and women is able to change much about the city. We just pray, and put a teddy bear on a light pole in honor of the dead.

We need more than prayers and teddy bears at a time like this.

We need brutal honesty about what works to change lives -- and what doesn't.

We need accountability, not platitudes, from leaders.

We need courage to say ''enough'' -- and mean it.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. We, as citizens of this city, hell, region for that matter, cannot sit back and wait for the people who are our “leaders” or the people causing the “problems” to give us control, we have to take it, own it, and run with it. In the four years that I have lived here, any suggestion of a different way, something other than maintaining the status quo, has been met with a shrug. That’s seriously fucked up.

This is our city, and if nothing else, we have to own it, warts and all, and work like hell to fix it. We’re way past due for a makeover, but stadiums and buildings and whatnot are not the answer, a shift in perspective is. Until there is a commitment from our people to change the environment, nothing will happen. That’s been my mantra since I started this blog over a year ago. It’s nice to see that message relayed in a forum with more reach. Hopefully more eyes will open, more action will be spurred, and we can start the process of building something great here instead of watching idly as it crumbles around us.

Rep. Abercrombie gets Craiged

Steve Ross — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:34:00 +0000

As reported by By Betsy Rothstein in the gossip section of The Hill

While reporters were hovering outside a Capitol Hill conclave of the Michigan and Florida delegations last Wednesday night, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) just happened to come by to use the restroom, which he did.

But when he emerged, flashing lights surprised him as several cameramen pointed their lenses at Abercrombie. They had been given instructions to shoot any live bodies they could see.

Being from Hawaii, Abercrombie doesn’t have a dog in the Michigan-Florida delegation fight, but there he was, caught in the glare of the cameras like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

Momentarily stunned by the three cameras staring him in the face, Abercrombie decided to have a little Aloha State fun when he looked back toward the restroom and shouted:

“Come on, Larry, it’s all over!”

To be clear, there was no one else in the restroom at the time, including Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) — the obvious Larry in question.

Seriously funny stuff.

Please Just Shut Up

Steve Ross — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:36:00 +0000

As I wrote a couple of days ago, Michigan and Florida, for whatever reasons, screwed themselves out of delegates, not the other way around. Calls from the Clinton camp, who “won” those delegates without any real campaigning to seat the delegates as they are, are starting to piss me off. Then I saw this yesterday.

It seems that Clinton Campaign Chair, Terry McAuliffe had the same problem back in 2004 with Michigan, except he was singing a different tune then. From the post:

"The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television," McAuliffe vowed. "I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."

Ahh the exhuberance of youth…McAuliffe seems to have changed his tune now, in his new role, ready to throw the baby, bathwater and bath basin out for a return to that old “uninevitable” place in history.

Then there’s Geraldine Ferraro, who seems to think that it’s harder being a White woman than an African-American man, and I’m not apologizing for it dammit. Are Democrats REALLY GOING THERE? JESUS!

The two or three Obama people who got the axe last week, may have said some dumb shit, but nothing as dumb as some of the things that come out of the mouths of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Harold Ickes, or any other Clinton surrogate. This lady called Clinton a “monster”. Monster can mean a lot of things, like in baseball, a monster hitter, or whatever (though that clearly wasn’t her intent). It doesn’t have to mean that she’s the thing under the bed that scares children, and it certainly doesn’t seem like a firing offense, but in Obama land I guess it is.

So that raises the question, if someone in Obamaland can get fired for using a word in the vocabulary of the average 5 year old to describe an opponent, what is the standard for Clinton land? Apparently, anything goes.

Since Iowa, the Clinton campaign has levied a series of ever-escalating attacks against Obama, some legitimate, many not. From the early policy questions (legit) to Bill’s S. Carolina whoopsie (poor judgement), to the more recent declarations of not ready for primetime, but ok for number 2 bullshit, which has been called out as exactly that. The Hillary campaign stays just inside the lines of what may be acceptable, leaving the really dirty work to outsiders that can’t be fired like Ferraro.

Clinton says that the MSM is harder on her, than Obama. I say that her “experience” is one of the reasons. She has been front and center in the national public eye since 1991. That’s 17 years. Not to mention the 12 or 15 as first lady of Arkansas. So her experience is 20 odd years as first lady/corporate lawyer, and 8 years as Senator. Clinton’s claims to foreign policy experience seem to focus on her time as First Lady, rather than her time in the Senate. That’s unfortunate considering this rundown of her foreign policy experience as First Lady.

As Hillary has exaggerated her role in Bill's Administration, she’s minimized her Senatorial experience. Why? Because she hasn’t done much in the Senate either. Clinton regularly votes with her party, but rarely uses her position to get out in front of an issue for the party. Hillary has had the opportunity to get out in front, but has made a conscious decision to stay in the shadows. That’s leadership!

Many will say I’m being unfair. Obama hasn’t really gotten out in front of anything either. Obama has also been in the Senate less than half the time of Clinton, and does not have the luxury of being a former First Lady, and all the media pull that her former position brings. Until the past year, Obama was just another Freshman Senator, navigating his way through his first term.

The final analysis is that while Democrats may be longing for another Clinton and a redo of the fiscal security of the 90’s, we’re in a much more difficult state now. Neither Obama nor Clinton will have an easy go at revaluing our currency, one of the biggest fiscal issues facing the nation, nor fixing the borrow and spend policies that have been the hallmark of the Bush administration.

This borrow and spend mentality has carried over to every single segment of the population and righting that ship will take a lot more the economic stimulus packages and leveling out the tax situation. It will require a whole new way of dealing with the problem.

My point, Hillary’s campaign is based on a fairy tale, built on the deeds of her Husband’s administration, and supported by a slew of exaggerations and carefully worded “stories”. In nearly every sentence of her rhetoric she has propped up right wing talking points that will surely come back to bite her in the ass should she make it to the general. If Hillary truly wanted to lead, she would have been leading all this time rather than staying out of the public eye to re-invent herself. Further, if she were a true Democratic leader she would have never begun taking plays out of the Republican handbook, as she baselessly accused Obama of doing back in December.

Hillary Campaign, stop talking about how everyone is out to get you. It sounds like whining. If you’re really a leader then lead. If not, then just shut up.

Apologizing to Ferraro

Steve Ross — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:07:00 +0000

h/t MissLaura

Yesterday, Geraldine Ferraro resigned her post on the Clinton finance committee. This follows several days of noise concerning a “racist remark” that she made about how Barak Obama wouldn’t be in the lead for the Democratic nomination if he weren’t black. Now apparently, she wants an apology from the Obama campaign.

Are you serious?

I don’t know what got in to Ferraro. Seriously, regardless of what you may or may not think, saying that someone attained their position because of ANYTHING other than will, drive, desire, and possible dumb luck is insulting. Ferraro’s statement has opened up that old, and false, affirmative-action lie that SOMEHOW blacks are favored over whites in the hiring process.

Folks, save 1 year in Michigan, I’ve lived in the south my entire life, and I’ve NEVER experienced this mythical situation. However, I have heard people talk about not getting a job because of some “affirmative-action” right wing talking point, and in each instance I have found at least one of the following:

1. The African-American job seeker interviewed better than the other candidates.
2. The job seeker who did not get the job lacked some necessary skills to perform the job (over-reach).
3. The job seeker who was passed over felt some level of entitlement (justified or not) to the job, and ultimately did not prepare as well as the others.

That’s just three possibilities. Many of these “mythical” situations have come from my own family members and close friends. This makes it harder to tell them they’re just plain wrong, and makes the ensuing argument more contentious.

I would submit, that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has been guilty of all three of the above listed items. The harsh reality is, that despite readying herself since 2000, Mrs. Clinton, and her campaign were neither ready nor able to fight off an upstart campaign, felt a sense of entitlement to the nomination, and just isn’t interviewing as well. Sorry kids, get a better schtick.

Oh yeah, and there’s Obama’s reply:

"The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public.”

Brilliant!

So, Ms. Ferraro, let this serve as an apology to you, the one that you asked for. No, I am not a member of the Obama campaign, nor any campaign, but maybe it will be good enough…

Ms. Ferraro,

I’m sorry that you’re bitter, that your candidate’s campaign has been in a tailspin for over 4 months now with little chance of a recovery. It must be disorienting and disturbing to work so hard hustling big money donors for, what has so far been, a second place finish. I’m sorry that Barak Obama’s electoral success, financial success and melanin content caused you to completely and totally lose your head and say something stupid. I’ll chalk it up to being disoriented. But most of all, I’m sorry that you’re too proud to admit a mistake. Pride has been the downfall of many people throughout history. I’m sorry that you were unable to remove yourself from the situation enough to see the error of your comments.

Sincerely,

-me.

Is there an Echo in here?

Steve Ross — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:47:00 +0000

This is more of a response to a comment than anything else. Since blogger doesn't allow threaded comments, it's often easier than trying to keep a conversation going in the comments section.

Reader Echo posted a comment in this post. I wanted to address some of the items directly.

Geraldine Ferraro merely said that Barak Obama wouldn’t be in the LEAD for the Democratic nomination if he weren’t black.

Simply stating facts is not racism. When CNN maps voter turn out and reports that Obama has a strong lead with African American communities, does it surprise anyone? FACT: By and large, African Americans vote for African Americans. Is that a racist statement? If Obama was white, do you think maybe Hilary might get more support from African American women? Is that a racist statement? Hey, maybe it’s a sexist statement too!

Certainly, the African American community has come out to support Barak Obama, much as women have turned out for Hillary Clinton. I don't deny that, nor do I believe it is racist for people to identify with a candidate that they perceive have more things in common with them, race and gender among them. However, to say that Barak Obama is in the lead because he is black is both silly and racist.

Nationally, African Americans account for 12.8% of the population. Hardly a big enough percentage to hold a 160 point delegate lead without some participation from other races. Further, looking at the states that Obama has won the majority of the delegates, few of them have African American populations over 20%.

MS - 37%, TX - 12%, WI - 6%, HI - 2.5%, VA - 20%, MD - 29.5%, DC - 56%, ME - .8%, WA - 3.6%, LA - 32%, NE - 4.4%, IL - 15%, MN - 4.5%, MO - 11.5%, CO - 4.1%...shall I go on?

The total number of states that Obama has won with an African American community greater than 20% is 5. Obama's wins from those states alone account for 62 of the 160 pledged delegates in his lead right now. Certainly they made a valuable contribution, but so did states like WI, HI and WA, where he led by double digits in delegates as well.

My point is that Ferraro used a right wing talking point to make something that shouldn't be solely about race, racial. By saying

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

By characterizing Obama's campaign as some kind of, I don't even know what...Affirmative-Action candidacy, which is how that reads to me, Ferraro discounts the path and hard work that Obama has taken to achieve his role in society. That's my point, that's why it's racist. That's why it has to stop.

Here's more from the comment:

Just what part of the South have you lived in “all your life”, Vib? Are you sure it wasn’t Kansas? In Memphis, the African American people stick together. If given the opportunity they will most likely hire their own and vote for their own. From their vantage point, why shouldn’t they? Steve Cohen is in office on a wing and a prayer. The African American community decided as a collective whole to put him in office to represent THEIR issues.

Wake up and smell the racism.

Echo, I smell the racism. I've smelled it since my childhood in Osceola, AR, where it was as thick as the humidity. I've smelled it all through my High School and college years in Little Rock, where they still can't figure out how to desegregate the schools. I smelled it for that long assed year in Michigan. And I still smell it. It's thick here in Memphis, and it's coming from every direction.

I think we can both agree that electing an African-American to the White House, or even as the Democratic Nominee is not going to stop racism. But maybe, through the themes of Obama's campaign, and the idealism of some of his supporters we can make a new start. We have to stop fractionalizing our society. We (and yes I mean all of us) have participated in some way by creating barriers on the basis of race, class, neighborhood, religion, and God knows what else. These barriers keep us from reaching our potential, and until we, and again I mean all of us, are willing to let go of some of them, we're stuck right where we are.

I'm not talking about some Kum-Ba-Yah bullshit, and it won't happen overnight, but someone has to make a move in a positive direction to instill trust. That's what I'm interested in. Call me a "rabid idealist", but just because racism, like so many other things, won't ever really go away, we should all be working to marginalize it to near extinction. Calling people out on their racial frame to marginalize a candidate is one of the ways to do that.

Thanks for reading.

Wooo PiG!!!

Steve Ross — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:20:00 +0000

Congrats to my ARKANSAS RAZORBACKS!!!

It was a great game, that came down to the last basket...Steven Hill, the only points he scored the whole game.

Can't wait until tomorrow!

Does He Know It’s an Election Year?

Steve Ross — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:23:00 +0000

Ho boy…Umm bad choice of words, considering the subject….

State Representative G.A. Hardaway (D-92) of Memphis seems to have opened up a can of worms that he may not be able to shut. The bill in question… HB2964/SB3717. Sponsored by Hardaway and State Senator Reginald Tate (D-33) the bill would require a paternity test to be administered before a man’s name could be included on a birth certificate.

Needless to say, this set off a firestorm. In a widely forwarded email that I received Friday, the original author (whose name was removed from the forwarded email) writes:

This bill presumes that every woman in the state is so immoral that she can not be trusted to confirm the father of her child. For a woman who delivers a child while her husband is serving in Iraq, the child's birth certificate will not state the father's name. Should that father be killed while serving this country in Iraq, the child would not receive any benefits due a child of military personnel killed in action.

among other potential problems the bill may create.

Let me just say, this is not an election year bill, if you want to get elected in Memphis, where women make up a majority of the electorate. In fact, in just about every way, politically and practically, this bill is stupid unless you want to piss off all the wrong people.

If the goal is to provide some kind of legal remedy for men to contest the paternity of a child, there are many better ways to deal with it, rather than making it mandatory for every child born in Tennessee. Had the bill sought to provide some better legal remedy for that instance, there would still be resistance, but the tone of the bill would not have such a decidedly anti-woman flair.

I seriously doubt that this bill makes it anywhere. It’s plutonium. While there may be some need to provide legal and financial help for individuals seeking to prove, or disprove as the case may be, paternity, by introducing this bill, Rep. Hardaway has ensured that it will not be dealt with in this session.

Finally, an aside…

Last night was Nikki Tinker’s campaign kickoff. Rep. Hardaway was on the list of Hosts of the event. It makes me wonder, what does Ms. Tinker think of this legislation. Considering the lack of an issues page on her site…the world may never know.

Credit Where Credit is Due – the Foreclosure

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:29:00 +0000

I'm no high finance guy. In fact, until a few years ago, my grasp of financial issues was tenuous at best, particularly in the macro-economic stew that is our current global economy.

One thing that I've always understood is the basic balance of input to output. Simply put, you output more than you input and you owe money, vise-versa and you're saving. The hard task is translating that basic truth to the complicated world of economic policy. That's one of the reasons I read the bondad blog for quite some time.

Today, the topic is debt. If you have a moment go read this post over at the Orange Devil.

In the past couple of days there have been a lot of posts around the interwebs about the economic clusterfuck that we find ourselves in. This quote sums it up pretty well for me:

The central problems started when the Republicans began their "supply-side revolution."…Under Reagan's tenure, total federal debt outstanding increased from a little over 30% of GDP to over 60% of GDP. While Bush inherited a surplus, he again increase total debt outstanding from about 57% to 64%. In short, we have Republican economic policy to thank for this problem at the national level.

The “economic credibility” that the Republican party has enjoyed in the conventional wisdom club that dominates the punditocracy has been laid bare. Destroyed by their disastrous “borrow and spend” policies, put in place in the 80’s, and now further marginalized by the new “socialized risk, privatized profit” scenario noted in brief here, and in more detail here and here, the notion of “supply side economics” seems even more akin to Geroge H.W. Bush’s characterization in the primary fight of 1980…voodoo economics.

They couldn’t have done it alone, however. In his diary from earlier this morning, Chris Bowers of Open Left notes, on the emergence of the progressive blogosphere

After the 2002 elections, conservative Republicans held the White House, both branches of the U.S. Congress, the majority of Governorships, and the majority of state legislatures. Republican self-identification equaled Democratic self-identification for the first time in the history of public polling. Further, as wars were started, as unregulated trade agreements were passed into law, as tax breaks for the wealthy hit record levels, as executive power reached new heights, many Democrats actively helped to pass a new wave of conservative public and foreign policy.

The phrase many Democrats actively helped to pass a new wave of conservative public and foreign policy is both accurate and disturbing. Without the complicity of many Democrats in Congress during this time period, the agenda brought forth by this administration may have still gone into effect, but with far less ease.

The complicity of conservative Democrats in Congress over the past 20 odd years has strengthened the case of Republicans “fiscal discipline” to voters. The very people, middle class Americans, most likely to suffer at the hands Republican fiscal and foreign policy, shouldering the brunt of the responsibility, but little if any of the gains that have been borne out of the wholesale discounting of the dollar over the past 8 years.

It is this “coat tailing” of policy that has made it so difficult for Democrats to distinguish themselves from Republicans and show the true competitive advantage that Democratic policies give middle class Americans. It is this fear of distinguishing the differences and highlighting the truths of Republican “classist” foreign and economic policy that has sustained the conventional wisdom, and ultimately hurt Democratic positions on economic and foreign policy issues.

The truth of the matter is, the Republican Party is bankrupt. They are practically financially bankrupt from a fundraising perspective (except for the RNC), their fiscal policy is bankrupting both the nation and the populace, and their imaginary moral high ground has been lost to a symphony of corruption and extra-constitutional scandal. Now more than ever, it is critical that those Democrats who have gone out of their way to ride the coat tails, jump off before they are sucked down the drain.

With 10 more months of a Bush presidency, there is no telling what fiscal challenges our next President will face. The harsh reality is that there is little chance that any future president will be able to undo all that has been done, even in two terms, even with a full economic turnaround. But that undoing should be the centerpiece of the campaign.

Our financial world is full of uncertainty. By providing some level of certainty for the future, the job, once it becomes their job, will most certainly become easier. Further, by highlighting Democratic fiscal policy as the solution to the Republican created problem, there are many other issues that can be tackled with more ease.

It’s time we took control of our destiny, reject the failed policies of this, and past administrations, and differentiate the future we will provide from the multi-national fiefdoms that the Republican party wishes to sustain.

The Return of the Punch Line

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:31:00 +0000

As reported by Jackson Baker, Jake Ford has chosen to run against Representative Steve Cohen and Nikki Tinker in the Democratic Primary for TN-09.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Does Jake really think he can win?

In last year’s general election (Ford was not a candidate on the heavily contested primary ballot) Ford garnered 22% of the vote. While more than the Republican candidate, it was still far behind the winner Steve Cohen (59.85%).

Translated to a Primary election, that could mean formidable numbers in a three way race. Unfortunately, Jake Ford represented himself poorly, often flying off the handle for little or no reason. In short, Jake, or Joke Ford as many dubbed him, was his own worst enemy.

As the April 4th filing deadline will soon pass, and the August 7th primary approaches, I intend to take a closer look at all the candidates in the TN-09 primary race. Obviously, I have my choice, but I think it’s important to take a careful and considered look at the other candidates before mercilessly mocking them. Fair and balanced has always been my motto.

Carry on Jake, and thanks for giving us something to keep the jokes flowing for at your expense for a few more months.

A More Perfect Union...Updated with video

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:12:00 +0000

Full text of the speech by Barak Obama, here.

After reading the text of the speech, I'm inspired. This is what I've been talking about. Do we have severe social challenges, racism being one of them? You betcha. Is there long standing hurt and distrust stemming from these and other challenges? Absolutely. Is this something we can address and move beyond? A resounding yes.

Obama hit on all of the themes that I have personally held dear for years, though much more eloquently and succinctly. His unique ability to take these challenges head on distinguishes him from those, who through the years have sought to exploit our divisions instead of heal them.

Congratulations Senator Obama. I may not have been a true believer before, but I am now.

Here's the video:

Great line from the text:

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Maybe the Best Line:

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

Why Is This News?

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:56:00 +0000

The Beer V. Wine Vote

From the "article":

As some Americans recover from hangovers induced by St. Patrick’s Day, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday suggests a voter’s drinking preferences may also reveal their political preferences.

Beer drinkers appear more likely to vote for Sen. John McCain in November, while those who enjoy wine say they’re more likely to vote Democratic in the fall. Among registered voters who prefer beer to wine, McCain has a 53 percent-46 percent edge over Sen. Hillary Clinton while McCain winds up in a virtual tie with Sen. Barack Obama among beer drinkers. In the head-to-head match-ups with McCain, Sens. Obama and Clinton each win a majority among registered voters who prefer wine to beer.

It's as if nothing happened today. Nothing, just some hung over journalists trying to make it through, cold towels over their heads, slugging back coffee, hoping the day will be over soon.

Give me a break for chrissakes!

I put this right up there with the John Kerry looks French bullshit.

Every election season there is some stupid assed poll put out like this. Maybe it was supposed to be fun, but I'm not in the mood for distractions right now.

Report, quit creating, the news, or just shut up.

Herenton Resigns

Steve Ross — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:53:00 +0000

As of right now, no one knows why, but he did it.

From the CA

Update:
One has to wonder how Herman Morris and Carol Chumney feel right now.

Rumor has it he wants to go back to the MCS...We'll see.

If anyone has any input on succession...that would be just dandy. Currently researching.

Update:So when will we elect a new Mayor? The answer from the City Charter

In the case of the death, resignation, inability for any reason to serve, or recall of the Mayor or his removal from the City, his office shall be occupied by the Chairman of the Council for a period not exceeding twenty (20) calendar days, during which period the Council shall elect a successor to the Mayor from among qualified persons not members of the Council at the time of such elections. Such elected person shall take office as Mayor immediately on election and shall hold office until his successor is elected or qualified, which office shall thereupon be filled in the same manner as heretofore provided for vacancies on the Council. In the event the Council shall fail to act within the twenty (20) day period, the Director of Administration [Chief Administrative Officer] * shall fill said office until such time as the members of the Council shall have elected a successor or until the next general or municipal election.

Based on this, and other portions of the Charter that I have read, the Mayoral election should be in November...like we didn't have anything else to do.

Thanks, But No Thanks

Steve Ross — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:56:00 +0000

Those of you on Cracker’s email list probably already saw the article in today’s CA about the reason Herenton decided to run in last year’s Mayoral race. All I can say is wow. The school system was in disarray when Herenton decided to run. If he really felt that he needed to go in that direction, then he should have sought out those possibilities at the time and moved on from there. On the flip side, if he was truly worried about what the other candidates for Mayor would do to Memphis, then he should have articulated that in a manner other than his normal vitriolic rhetoric, that serves no purpose than to aggrandize himself at the expense of others, including the people of Memphis. Now that Herenton has decided that his efforts may be better spent at the schools, one has to wonder what will happen to city government without his “leadership”. Who does the mayor deem fit to see the rest of his “vision” to fruition? What happens when Chumney or Morris enter the Mayoral race? Will he be forced to run again? If they were so “dangerous” last year, would he not be duty bound, by his own reasoning to enter the race again? Ultimately, this is just a more of the same from the mayor. His mantra since I move here in ’04 has been, “I’m important, I know what I’m doing, and the rest of you stupid fucks will just have to deal with it. If you don’t like it, leave.” And leaving is exactly what’s happening. We can’t tax increase our way out of the problems that face Memphis. We can’t talk our way out of them. We have to organize as a community of concerned citizens, engaged in the future, seeking new answers, and sensitive to the desires of the several communities that make up our city. Until that happens, we’ll just keep fighting, killing, not educating, and moving away, either emotionally of physically, from our city as it falls down around us. Thanks for your “leadership” Mr. Mayor, but no thanks. Methinks you’ve done quite enough already.

Lack of Vision and Strategic Planning

Steve Ross — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:41:00 +0000

Mayor Herenton’s re-election, resignation threats, and other shenanigans aside, at least we know we have a Mayor, who just yesterday proclaimed:

"I want to tell you I had no other choice but to run for re-election. I had to run for office to protect what I had invested in this city in 16 years as mayor.”
"I had to protect the progress of this particular city from individuals who I thought did not have any wherewithal or ability to take this city to the next level."

That’s all well and good. I’m glad that the Mayor feels responsible for the “investment” he has in Memphis. It’s too bad that his investment seems to have no direction or vision.

From the article:

"The library system's lack of strategic direction on issues such as locations, facilities and service offerings is symptomatic of the lack of overall city strategies and priorities for the delivery of services to its citizens," said the report, commissioned in August 2006, conducted by Deloitte Consulting LLP and delivered a year ago at a cost of $700,000.

Ahh, that’s what I like to hear about a guy who went out of his way to make sure that the city wouldn’t move too far away from his legacy of blindly driving this city…umm, forward?. Ugh! This stuff drives me nuts.

I’m sure there will be more on this…there always is.

Leading Memphis…

Steve Ross — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:24:00 +0000

In light of our city’s distorted sense of what leadership is, and despite my attempts to highlight this distortion over the past few years, I thought I would condescendingly link to the Wikipedia definition of leadership.

One of the differentiating factors between Management and Leadership is the ability or even necessity to inspire. A Leader, one who can instill passion and direction to an individual or group of individuals, will be using psychology to affect that group either consciously or subconsciously.
Those who seem to be "Natural Leaders" and effectively inspire groups without really knowing the strategies or tactics used are considered Charismatic Leaders. The conscious Leader on the other hand applies a variety of psychological tactics that affect the "reactions" of a group to the environment they exist in.

Leadership is not about you, it’s about the people you are leading. It’s about inspiring them to do better, not thriving in the spotlight. Charismatic leaders can get a lot done, if they are willing to take the hard medicine that is sometimes necessary.

That is not happening right now. In fact, NOTHING is happening right now from the top floor of City Hall.

More than anything Memphis needs a conscious leader, someone who is purposely driving the conversation in a positive We do not need a rhetorical bully, calling those who disagree with him stupid, or racist.

In reading the initial recommendation from the $700,000 “efficiency” study the problem didn’t start with Willie Herenton, but goes back 50 years in some cases. Still you don’t have to pay someone $700,000 to come to it’s initial conclusion:

The City does not have a well-documented set of strategies and objectives to guide its future plans and ongoing operations. This situation results in a lack of direction and clear priorities to guide management and align services with operational and financial goals.

No Shit.

The reason that crime is high in Memphis is that we don’t have a comprehensive strategy. We may have a strategy to catch criminals, but we don’t have a strategy to head crime off at the pass. We aren’t educating our kids, offering opportunities to our citizens, or providing any career training that people aren’t laughing at. We have some of the highest levels of infant mortality and teen pregnancy in the nation. WHAT IS THE STRATEGY?

What is the strategy to beautify Memphis? There are parts of Memphis that are absolutely stunning…and then there are the other parts. What’s the city strategy for dealing with the blight that exists in just about every corner of the city?

Go down the list, and I guaran-damn-tee you will not find any strategy from Mr. Mayor on anything but staying in power. Let’s fill the city with cronies, sit back and enjoy the ride. That’s vision.

Maybe the people of Memphis, you know, you guys who have lived here longer than me and as such, know soooo much more than I do, are just too fucking tired to do anything about it. Maybe you’re content to just sit back and watch as it keeps crumbling around you. Maybe you like living in a city that is becoming more and more toxic with each passing day. Maybe that’s ok with you, but it’s not ok with me.

Quite frankly, it pisses me off that so many people in Memphis just think that nothing can change. Everything is permanently fucked in their worldview. As long as we, as Memphians, are content to take that attitude, we have fucked ourselves. The reality is that Herenton has no vision for the city outside of his ego, so it’s time for us, the citizens, to take over.

No one is going to heal the divisions, fix the crime, educate our kids, stop the cycle of poverty, or lower teen pregnancy and infant mortality for us Memphis, we have to do it for ourselves. As soon as we start taking ownership of our city, all of us from Whitehaven to Cordova and everywhere in between, the solutions will become self-evident. Until we start thinking about the benefit of the whole instead of the benefit of our neighborhood, or group, or whatever, the solutions will continue to elude us. Until we stop relying on people intent on upholding or worse, exploiting the mistakes of the past, we’re stuck. Until we agree that we are better working together as a community, nothing will change.

It’s way past time Memphis. Whaddya say?

Still Born Conspiracy

Steve Ross — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:12:00 +0000

Some of you may remember the “vast white wing” conspiracy against Mayor Herenton that came out last June. If you don’t remember it, good for you. It seems, aside from some free publicity, that it was a non-event. Now, 9 months later, I’m left wondering how this baby’s gonna come out.

According to today’s Commercial Appeal, the independent prosecutor on the case says Nick Clark did nothing illegal. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement, but it doesn’t bode well for the accusations set forth by the Mayor and Ms.Smith.

Further, the article notes that political martyr and subject of ire from nearly every corner of the political spectrum, Richard Fields. From the article:

Also on Friday, Fields' attorney, Randy Pierce, said, "I've been in touch with Baugh the last few days and I'm left feeling positive about it as far as (Fields) is concerned. My sense is we're bringing this thing to a conclusion and I feel positive about it."

My question is, are we ever really gonna know what happened with this thing or is it going to be swept away and forgotten? At this point, if Ms. Smith played the Mayor, we have a right to know. If there was a plot of some sort, we have a right to know. If this was just some bullshit event that was hatched up for political gain, we have a right to know.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out, but right now, looks like we got played.

They Aren’t Going Anywhere

Steve Ross — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:15:00 +0000

That’s what the headline said at the top of Huff Post this morning. The headline, which could have more than one meaning, was in response to calls yesterday that Democrats should tone down the rhetoric or are facing devastaing consequences, or that the solution was for Clinton to drop out of the race.

That’s an awful lot of “hatin’ on” for one day, and that’s from people in her party. Peggy Noonan, never one to miss a Hillary hating moment, used the opportunity to cut clean to the bone in her WSJ screed.

Damn, that’s a rough day.

By the end of it, Todd Beaton from MyDD had enough. To be honest, so had I. I scrapped my 1000 word screed and started thinking about this in a different slightly way.

Quit is not a word that is in the Clinton vocabulary. It just isn’t. Sometimes that works for them, sometimes against. Either way, it’s a lifestyle choice, and once it’s a part of you, it isn’t going away.

This behavior pattern has played out throughout their time in the public eye. From Hillary’s refusal to back down on her Iraq vote, all the way back to Bill’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” moment, or the “Hillcare” debacle and that’s just the bad stuff. The Clinton family’s refusal to quit also made sure that the Republican controlled Congress in the 90’s didn’t run roughshod over the will of the will President. Bill consistently got the better of a bad deal by skillfully maneuvering, and it worked, by and large, at least in the media.

It is the refusal to quit that has made the Clintons a force in our political discourse for the past 30 years. And like so many things that involve the Clintons, it is this tenacity that has been at once an asset and a liability.

Looking at the contests ahead, there is little chance that the current lead enjoyed by the Obama camp will be significantly diminished. There just aren’t enough states out there, with enough delegates to make the difference. However, in the mind of a Clinton, this is not a reason to back down, this is a reason to fight even harder, think outside of the box, work like hell to make it happen, damn the consequences. That’s where we’re at right now.

Calls for Hillary to give up the ghost will only serve to make her hold on even tighter. She’ll fight harder, and the wounds suffered by the eventual Democratic nominee will just be deeper. Like it or not, right or wrong, that’s the reality. From my perspective, the task is not to try and get her to bow out, but to motivate her to stop attacking her nomination opponent in a way that ultimately hurts the party.

Hillary is under the false impression that she is running for the Democratic nomination. While this is technically correct, in all reality, she is running for office of the President of the United States. By focusing primarily on the nomination battle, she actually diminishes her campaign. Both Obama and Hillary should be focusing on the campaign through November, instead of making the end game in August. By making the end game August, the resulting standoff will create the mutually assured destruction that is the only way John McCain can win in November.

It’s not mathematically impossible for Clinton to get the nomination, and until it is, she will fight with every fiber of her being to make sure that she doesn’t get marginalized by anyone, be they media, other politicians, or the party apparatus. By shifting her campaign to a full on presidential fight, she has three weeks to see how her electability against McCain fares in the umpteen polls that will certainly come out before and after the PA primary. Further, in the four contests that come after PA, just two weeks later, she has the opportunity to shift her rhetoric from beating the party up, to taking John McCain down. Ultimately, defeating John McCain is the goal of both the Democratic candidates in the long term. It’s way past time for both of them to adopt that strategy.

I don’t think this will happen, because I don’t think Clinton is really running for President. She’s running to be the head of the Democratic Party. She’s running to regain some of that standing that the Clintons lost when they left the White House under a cloud. On some level, I think she feels cheated that she couldn’t run in 2000. It’s a psychologically messed up place to operate from, but that’s basically what she’s been doing since her campaign for Senate in 2000.

Nope, the Clintons aren’t going anywhere folks. We can’t make them give up either. We do have a responsibility to our party and the country to express, in a way that is basically tough love, our displeasure with her rhetoric against her nomination opponent. It is our duty to put pressure on her to stop raising up John McCain over Barak Obama. It’s hurtful for our party, regardless of who wins the nomination. This isn’t a zero sum game. What is said now has a huge impact on what happens in November.

The time to ratchet up the pressure to drop out may or may not come on May 7th. In any case, the way to get a Clinton to disengage is not with a stick, but a carrot. It’s time for the party to start thinking about what those solutions might be now, so they’re ready when and if the time comes. I hope it comes soon.

Paying the Bills

Steve Ross — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:16:00 +0000

I’ve been self-employed for more than half of my life. At age 15, I was one of the only delivery carriers in North Little Rock for the now defunct Arkansas Gazette, that consistently delivered my 450 paper routes on time, and stayed in good standing (not in debt) with the paper. At age 23 I opened a retail art gallery in Little Rock, not an easy market, that 13 years later is the place for new and exciting art in Little Rock. After selling my portion of the art gallery to my partner, I went into event production, spent 9 years freelancing and working full time for several companies in the Mid-South, and now, for the past 3 years have been working in the industry on a full-time freelance basis.

I may not have an MBA, but I know what it’s like to run a small (tiny) business. I know what it’s like when market conditions turn sour, expectations are not met, or worse, people don’t pay their bills. That’s why this article from the not so friendly Politico bothers me a lot.

From the article:

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Folks, this is my industry. This is a low profit, highly competitive industry. Payroll is by far the largest annual expense, and that means cash flow is key. Holding off on payment for 30 days is one thing, but some of these events were held in February, that 30 days have past.

In looking at the Clinton Campaign’s most recent disclosure, filed on 3/20/08, I count $418,487 in outstanding debts for the item Event Expense: Equipment, or about 4.8% of her total outstanding debt ($8,733,603) for that report. Of the companies listed, I found seven that I either have, or regularly do business with. They are owed a total of nearly $81,000 (19.4% of the total owed for production expenses). Additionally, the campaign owes a total of $7650 to two I.A.T.S.E locals. I.A.T.S.E. is the stagehand union. This sum represents money that would go to union member payroll.

These are, by and large, small businesses, in some cases family businesses, that compete nationally for work in an industry that has to be one of the most competitive service oriented industries you’ve never heard much about. While $80K may seem like a lot spread over seven companies, one company is owed nearly ¾ of that total for events held in the March 4th primary.

I’ve contacted the owner of that company to find out the status of the invoice. Obviously, if the balance has been paid I will amend the numbers. Still I cannot stress just how important it is, for both the companies as well as the full time and freelance people they employ.

Often freelancers are held hostage by the payment of event invoices in order to receive their pay. This happens in just about every industry that employs freelance employees. As a freelancer, I know just how financially damaging and stressful it can be, having to wait 30+ days for payment on a job. Unlike some industries, you cannot get your product back (your time) and many individuals have not had the good fortune I have and are basically living paycheck to paycheck.

If the Hillary Campaign is really looking out for the little guy, as they have consistently claimed, they need to pay up now. Being small business friendly means paying your bills on time. Get the checkbook out and get it done.

Have You Lost your F**ing Mind?

Steve Ross — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:01:00 +0000

There are two items in the news, not related to the MLK remembrances, that I want to address in this post. The first has to do with the suspension of on air personality Randi Rhodes.

Ms. Rhodes has been suspended for calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro “f***ing whores” at an affiliate event in San Francisco. Since we don’t have an Air America affiliate here in Memphis, I doubt anyone will be seriously effected by this. Still this kind of attack does not help people who identify themselves as liberals. If anything, this reinforces the right-wing talking points that paint us as rabid nut-jobs.

Further, her comments to CNN just make her look as crazy as her right wing counterparts. From the article:

"They are in breach of my contract and have damaged my hard won excellent reputation in the broadcast industry…"

I think you damaged your reputation all on your own Ms. Rhodes.

There are all sorts of attacks against Senator Clinton, and her campaign that could be launched, and perhaps should be launched, but calling her a whore is way out of bounds. Further, should most of the laws of probability be broken in the next 5 months, Senator Clinton could lead the Democratic ticket. By espousing such rhetoric, such a situation would put Ms. Rhodes in a potentially uncomfortable position.

The second item comes from the Clinton Campaign. Several sources have chronicled the apparent disconnect between Clinton Campaign Strategist Mark Penn and progressive policy (Starting with The Nation about a year ago and several more since then). The most brazen, and possibly stupid came earlier this week when he met with the Columbian ambassador to discuss a trade deal that Clinton Opposes.

To be perfectly honest, Mark Penn is the single largest reason that I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter. His presence on the campaign calls all that Hillary stands for into question. After this mess, and all the other screwball things he has done throughout the campaign he should be dismissed. It’ won’t happen, probably because the campaign still owes him $3M.

As an aside, Hillary was in town this morning to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the passing of Dr. King.

Did Anyone Get the Gun Out of His Cold Dead Hand?

Steve Ross — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:29:00 +0000

Charleton Heston dead at 84.

You can say what you want about Heston. Certainly, his final role as figurehead for the NRA has colored my opinion of him, but I guarantee that there is at least one movie he starred in that you really like. Mine is The Omega Man.

A proper obit can be foundhere.

Trouble on Ford Mountain

Steve Ross — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:53:00 +0000

No, no one else got indicted...yet. It seems that someone didn't get the new family hymnal and now there is some dissent in the Ford family. Let's start from the beginning.

As reported in the Commercial Appeal on Friday, Jake Ford, independent candidate for TN-09, laid out some racially divisive words on the eve of the commemoration of MLK's assassination. Here's a sample:

We only have one district in the state of Tennessee where we can elect African-Americans. I would think for diversity purposes ... we would at least want to have one black in Congress representing the state."

Nice. Or how about this one:

"He's just not for the money for blacks, he is for Jews, but not for blacks,"

Oooh, spicy! Team that up with brother Isaac's little ditty:

"Jake Ford is a black candidate, it's a black district and we need black representation -- say that Isaac Ford said that,"

and you've got a nice recipe for some home-grown stupid.

It would seem that the more intelligent elements of the Ford family want to distance themselves from such talk.

On Saturday, Ford Sr. said that even if his sons' statements were taken out of context, "that type of message going out is not good for the city or the Ninth District."

"The article and editorial disturbed me. He certainly does not speak for me, and that's not representative of this family," Ford Sr. said.

Followed by Jr.'s

"It's beyond concern. I want to make clear my brothers' comments are not mine. I reject them. ... I don't believe any candidate's fitness for office should be measured or determined by race or gender."

Interesting...but nowhere near as interesting as the next few words...

Ford Jr. also said he had encouraged his brother not to run for the Ninth Congressional District seat. When asked why, he said, "A variety of reasons," but declined to elaborate.

to which Jake replied

"That's not true," Jake Ford said later.

Well that sure looks like a shitstorm now, doesn't it.

The latter comments are from an article this morning in the Sunday Commercial Appeal.

All of these comments fly in the face of the words delivered yesterday by speakers at the Town Hall Meeting at Rhodes. While the quotes listed in the paper are mere stick sketches of the 2 hour event, I have the video, and the discussion goes far deeper.

Sorry for the bad audio. The event suffered from a bad PA.

Free Ride

Steve Ross — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:57:00 +0000

The filing deadline in Tennessee has come and gone, and now we know who’s running, and in some cases, who’s not. The Tennessee Bush Dogs are on their way to re-election, some with less opposition than others. Lincoln Davis has drawn a Democratic Primary opponent. I’ll be keeping an eye on that race. Jim Cooper and Bart Gordon face some opposition in the general, but nothing insurmountable. John Tanner is the luckiest, drawing no opponent period.

Way to send a message TN-08. I guess that’s one safe “Democratic” seat in Tennessee.

Tanner’s lack of an opponent is annoying, but not surprising. He’s relatively popular in the 8th. He’s never had much opposition EVER. I guess that means he can use his reported $1.2m on getting other Democrats elected. I hope that’s what he does with it.

Will Joe Pull a Zell?

Steve Ross — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:47:00 +0000

From The Hill

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.

Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.

As soon as Lieberman has completed his speech, Harry Reid should relieve Joementum from his post as the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and re-assign him to some shitty committee like the Senate Bathroom Washer Committee or something.

Let's win lots of Senate races this fall so we can put this no talent ass clown out to pasture.

“Bitter” Pill to Swallow

Steve Ross — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:20:00 +0000

Ed. Note: So, I’m like a week late on the Obama “bitter” thingy, but now that it’s had time to settle, and there’s evidence to suggest that Obama isn’t taking the hit some predicted, I feel it’s appropriate to say something.

If you live in the rust belt, you’ve had a front row seat in the summary destruction of America’s manufacturing capacity. Since long before the passage of NAFTA, middle class workers, primarily in the Mid-West and South-East have been held captive to a trade policy that favors overseas development to job security at home. In the classic Washington, and largely Republican nearsighted fashion, good paying jobs for hard working people have gone the way of the Dodo, leaving the rural communities that relied on the jobs with little choice than to beg and borrow their way into oblivion.

But see, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Voting on the promise of security, these poor saps have also been voting for the very people that have been bending them over and giving it to them, and not all of them are Republicans. The harsh reality is that while rural Republican representatives may screw over the little guys, conservative Democrats are just as bad by half.

Free Trade Democrats, or Blue Dogs, or whatever other stupid assed name you want to call them, are singularly responsible for Democratic candidates accepting bullshit Republican conventional wisdom. This is the same bullshit Republican conventional wisdom that has worked against working people for years. The difference is in the rhetoric. Republican candidates are masterful at feeding poison to the very people they have vowed to protect, something Democrats, even the most conservative, may not have the stomach for. Still, this race to the bottom, led by Republicans, has been sustained by Democrats too chicken shitted to stake their claim and tell the truth…but that’s another post.

So, it follows that after years of being bent over the barrel by just about every economic and trade policy by nearly every administration in the past 30 years, rural voters would be “bitter”. And that’s exactly why Obama’s comment hasn’t elicited a backlash. In one dose of truth, albeit uncharacteristically clumsy truth, Obama told rural voters across the country that they’ve been had. Truth is a bitch isn’t it?

What astounds me, more than anything else is that Clinton’s “We Want Change Too” campaign didn’t seize on this as an opportunity to lambaste McCain. Are you kidding me? No, Hillary’s camp decided it would be a better idea to support the status quo that has been working oh so very well for her main constituents, the wealthy elites. In doing so, along with her hapless assertions of Obama’s “elitism”, Clinton has sustained a right wing talking point that only serves to help McCain in the general…again.

Through all of this, several suspicions have been confirmed:

1. The media is so out of touch with the general populace that there’s not enough $4/gallon gas in the world to get them to reality.

2. Hillary’s campaign is even further away, somewhere past the outer extremities of Pluto’s orbit.

3. McCain is loving this shit, even though he’s too dotty to really capitalize on it.

4. Obama was right, and, if he knows what’s good for him, will find a way to continue saying this, though less clumsily, summarily dismissing any claims that his name at the top of the ticket will hurt down ticket Democrats.

On April 22, we’ll find out the real outcome, and I suspect it will be a narrow Clinton victory that, after the delegates are selected, will end up in a push. If that is the outcome, the slate is set, and while there is no doubt that she will stay in through June 3, Obama should start ignoring her like the irrelevant sore loser that she is.

Good riddance.

Whiners and Hand Wringers

Steve Ross — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:44:00 +0000

It’s been weeks and weeks of calls for the primary season to end because it’s destroying the party. The whole scene, Democratic legislators, commentators, and the general hand wringing lot seems determined to characterize the current campaign as some kind of party wide political suicide pact. Puhleeze! Go change your diapers people!

Since the Reagan-esque drumming of Democratic presidential candidates, the Democratic Party has come off as “The party most likely to be scared of it’s shadow”. This has manifested itself in a whole bunch of ways, but one of the most destructive was the formation and prominence the DLC had in the party throughout the late 80’s and 90’s. By packaging right wing talking points, in a way that seemed somehow “Democratic”, Democratic candidates affirmed the validity of many of these bullshit right wing positions to the voters.

The DLC method of co-opting “palatable” Republican ideals, to better compete with Republicans is the worst kind of “Can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” stupid shit. This pushed the party to the right, and in some cases made it indistinguishable from the Republican Party. Now, if you can’t see the difference in candidate A or Candidate B, why on earth would you give a rip about party identity or any of the other things that might drive a decision. They’re all the same, so I’ll go with the guy with the most guns. From that vantage point, it’s not hard to see how we got our asses handed to us in Congressional races from ’94-’04, the years the DLC had the most power in the party.

So here we are, in 2008. Two years after our big wins in the House and Senate. Over the past several months, many of our leaders in Congress have started becoming vertebrates instead of the mushy goo they were when they took their leadership positions in early ‘07. And there’s a backlash against the people who have made their career about minimizing the importance of a true progressive agenda. In fact, if you look at the “Bush Dog” campaign at Open Left, the Donna Edwards primary election in Maryland, and the potentially powerful “Responsible Plan”ers, a caucus a group of more progressive Democrats is emerging in the wake of the DLC’s lack of “Leadership”. (Thank God!)

These candidates understand that the “Same as the other Guy” tactic employed by the DLC is a losing proposition. They understand that empowering all those “bitter” people is the way to regain control. I love it, but it’s pissing the elites off.

In the past several months, report after report has been filed on the gasbag shows stating that “the big money people” in the Democratic Party will “flee en masse” if Hillary isn’t the nominee. They’ve threatened Nancy Pelosi for her comments, and been front and center in their adoption of Mark Penn style talking points, all because they might lose. That’s funny, they’ve been losing for 14 years, you would think they’d be used to it by now.

These guys have invested millions in campaigns featuring the Clintons and the Clintonesque. It’s understandable that watching someone you’ve cultivated a relationship with over the past 20 or so years lose is a heartbreaking experience. Still, that’s politics. No one is assured victory unless you’re John Tanner (TN-08) and running unopposed with $1.3M in the bank! (share the love John!) So yeah, people get invested, both emotionally and financially, in candidates and they get pissed if they don’t win. That’s no reason to take your toys and leave. Even making that threat is illustrative of their commitment to the Democratic Party…suspect.

Then there’s the supposed rift in the platforms of the two candidates. I don’t know how much you’ve been paying attention, but there ain’t that much difference on the issues. The biggest differences seem to be on “mandated” versus “voluntary” healthcare, neither of which will ever make it out of the House if Jim Cooper (TN-05) has anything to say about it. The rest is all about style points, and that’s where Hillary is losing…but she’s doing it to herself.

In 1989, I met Hillary Clinton for the first time. She had been my first lady since I was about 6 (except for those two years of Frank White), and everyone had a pretty high opinion of her. My girlfriend’s little sister and Chelsea were friends and took ballet (I think, it was 20 years ago) together. Clinton was friendly and easy to talk to. I immediately felt like I had known her for years. It was, very much like my first meeting with Bill just a few months before. I haven’t had any real exposure to the former First Lady since then, but by all accounts she is the same likable personality in person. Where has that been on the campaign trail?

The “Tough Operator” persona that Hillary has chosen as her staple, has served her poorly since the Clinton’s time in the White House. Now, some eight years since, like a tragic character from a Shakespeare play, she insists on reinforcing this negative stereotype laid upon her by Right Wing sexists, with every move she makes. Why is this? Everyone wants a strong leader, but Hillary has painted herself in the bully corner. That’s just mad! Perhaps she’s realized this with her comments yesterday. Too bad it’s too late.

Still, by and large Democrats like Hillary. I like Hillary, but her campaign pisses me off. And that’s the crux of much of the criticism, and ire from Obama supporters. Hillary’s insistence on using similar tactics to the ones used against her by the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” over the past 20 years is tantamount to the abused becoming the abuser. Her narrow view, an all or nothing approach, is not necessarily damaging to the party, as some assert, but diminishes all the things that she has accomplished over her time in the public eye. Hillary is making herself irrelevant, and that’s the saddest part of it all.

That’s not to say that there aren’t people on the Obama side that are happy to bash Hillary. As noted at MYDD:

"Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

I’m sure that’s out there, but I haven’t seen it all that much outside of blog commenters, who, are just about as relevant as my little left toe.

Over the past several months, I’ve found myself inundated with blog posts on both sides chiding the other for launching right wing style attacks. To be honest, I just haven’t seen it from the Obama side. Has Obama said that only he and McCain have the experience to lead the nation? No, but Clinton has. Has Obama launched ANY attack invoking the name of a Republican to discredit the Hillary campaign, or Hillary as a public figure? I don’t think so. Have his supporters? You betcha, but to claim that Obama supporters are somehow more abusive than Hillary supporters is beyond the pale. Both have been horrible to each other, and I hope like hell there’s some damn good makeup sex in Denver.

The hard truth of the matter is that this is a tectonic shift in Democratic Party politics that has been a long time coming. In 2000, 97,488 people voted for Nader instead of Al Gore in Florida (Source). Nearly 8 years later I have found it in my heart to forgive these people, and have come to a level of understanding about their rationale for their vote. There were a lot of factors in play. Clinton fatigue, Gore’s inability to distinguish himself yet take credit for the successes of the administration, and Joe Lieberman (remember him?) led many on the left to distrust Gore. Factor in the shenanigans that went down in Florida (not to mention the Supreme Court) and you have a symphony of circumstances that stacked just right against him. I find it interesting that now Gore is a poster boy for lefty politics, but whatever. Was the election stolen from Gore, absolutely, but Gore had a hand in his demise and that needs to be acknowledged as well.

In 2004, there was an explosion of activity by grass-roots activists in the Democratic Party. This was looked on with suspicion by the elites in the party. They felt their power challenged and did everything they could to stop it. Somehow, Kerry managed to win Iowa (still not sure how that happened) and the media added 12db in the edit bay to a “scream” to discredit Dean. It worked, W won (this time without the help of the Supremes, but with the help of a compliant Kerry and the voter suppression techniques of Kenneth Blackwell). This taught many of us, on the left, a valuable lesson. The elites are ill suited to manage the party, it’s time for us to take this into our own hands.

2006 saw the beginning of that shift coming to fruition. Bloggers, activists, and new fundraising tools came together at once to form a powerful, though highly independent, coalition. By God it worked. The culmination of money, boots on the ground, and voices echoing a Democratic agenda led to the election of the first two body Democratic majority since 1994.

This movement is in an emotional stage that I would call it’s early 20’s. Lots of fire, lots of energy. We’re itching for something new, something transformative. Something that we can be proud of, that we helped build, that makes the nation, and the world around us, not just a better place, but the kind of place that we all want to live in.

This kind of drive and desire is cool to be a part of, but it’s also a bit uncomfortable for those who have lived through the era immediately preceding it. It can feel threatening to some, even though they may share the same ultimate goals. People get dismissed as upstarts, or “not understanding the world” or any number of bullshit excuses for maintaining the status quo. These things are the ingredients for the challenges we face going forward. It’s growth…it’s uncomfortable…it’s necessary.

For my part, it’s been a joy and a struggle to be a part of this, from my early days at Live Journal and Daily Kos, to my current, and ill kempt blog. It’s a struggle to balance the 3rd party clarity that is sometimes necessary to get a point across with the visceral, emotional bond that I have to politics in general and the policies that affect all of us.

And that’s really the point, some 1700 words later. It’s hard to be that third party arbiter when you’re emotionally invested, but we all have to find a way to make it happen. I’ve stated before and will again, my aim is to have a part in the election of a Democratic President in November, period. Who that candidate turns out to be is less important than the resolve of the Democratic base. We are the masters of our destiny, and the benefactors of some seriously positive numbers going into November. The only thing that can stop us is our will to win, our rejection or fear, and our resolve to do what is right for the country. Whiners and Hand Wringers, I understand your pain, I’ve felt it and shared it at various times in my life, but now is not the time to instill, or even avail fear the luxury of our energy. Now is the time to act, in a positive way, to right the wrongs that have been done both in our names, and us, for the future of our great nation.

Peace…

Harrowing Healthcare Hedge

Steve Ross — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:44:00 +0000

Since everyone’s bored to death with the Presidential contest that will never end, Democrats in Congress have decided to make some news. As reported in The Hill, some Democrats are not so sure how possible it will be to enact the healthcare plans proposed by our Presidential contenders.

“We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions.”

Fair enough. I think most people can agree that whoever wins the Presidency, their current plan will merely be a roadmap, not the gospel.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.”
“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said.
Schumer said he would focus “on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan.”

Prevention? Because that’s working so well in everything else we do. That’s great Chuck. And what do you mean we don’t have the “plan” on healthcare? Have you read your candidate’s position? Why would you do anything to cast a doubt? Don’t you know she’s “winning” again? /snark

Still, the best quote comes from Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.):

“I hear on the campaign trail, ‘This is what I’m going to do,’ as if there is not a Congress here with feelings and experience on this issue,” Meek said. “I think it’s important that everyone takes that into consideration and that this is not a kingdom, this is a democracy.”

Are you serious? Feelings? Like whoooaaa, whoooaaaa, whooaaaa, feelings? Give me a break! And where has all that high falutin’ “Not a Monarchy” crap been for the last 8 years Mr. Votes for unrestricted funding man.

The only Democrat that seemed to have a positive position on this was, surprisingly Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter

…made the case that voters would be giving them a mandate to enact healthcare reform if either Democrat wins in November.

There’s the spirit DIFI.

Look people, we’re still in the primary season, and now’s not the time to start casting doubt on our ability to do what just about every American wants us to do, unfuck the healthcare system, that’s a job for the Republicans. Let’s not announce a defeat before we even try. Let’s not try to lower expectations because we’re afraid it might not work. For the love of all that is Holy, how’s about some optimism?: Sheesh!

Frustration, and a Lack of Motivation

Steve Ross — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:36:00 +0000

I haven't written much lately. In fact, I haven't been following much since Super Tuesday. I still do my normal rss read through, and visit the places I always did, but lately, nothing has moved me to write much. There are a lot of reasons for this. I've been chalking it up to my work/travel schedule, but that's just an easy excuse. I've never had much problem taking time to write when something moved me. Lately, as I read, I've found all I can do is shake my head and sigh. The source of my frustration is complex. It doesn't begin or end with the Democratic Presidential quagmire, though that certainly plays a role. It doesn't really have much to do with Congress' lack of backbone, though that is irritating. It doesn't even have much to do with the direction that our idiot President has taken us, though I have to tell you that I never could have imagined we'd be where we are today 8 years ago. No, it goes both deeper and longer than any of these things. In my 36 years on this Earth, I've watched lots of things happen, but perhaps the most disturbing, and discouraging has been the summary destruction of our independence as individuals. I'm not talking about government intervention, per se, I'm talking about our day to day lives as people. I'm talking about our willingness to be force fed "reality" instead of making our own. We have slipped into a semi-conscious state, as a people. A doughy mess of indifference and surrender, brought on by paternalistic leaders, both in and outside of government, who consistently dupe us into believing that they, and they only, own the mantle of what is in our collective best interest. In that time we've been fattened up, bred into submission, and surrendered our power for "security" or what ever the buzz word of the day happened to be. We've given permission to these select few to tilt the game against us, for "our best interest". We've ceded responsibility for comfort and in the process, ensured that any fight to regain control will both be an uphill battle and have many casualties. All of this sounds bad enough. Sounds pretty bleak. That's not the worst of it. We, as the citizens of this nation, have given up our will to fight for ourselves. We have bought, hook line and sinker, the notion that we are powerless, victims of circumstance. We sustain this with every resigned head shake, every election we ignore, every bogus media report that we don't call bullshit on. We are the only ones that have the power to allow this to happen, but instead of stopping the foolishness, we look at each other, dumbstruck, then point in ANY other direction. We have no one to blame but ourselves. If you feel like I'm blaming the victim, I'm not. We're not the victims, we're the perpetrators. The future of our nation, and every future citizen we train to act as irresponsibly as we have is the victim until they join the game. There are a lot of metaphors that I could employ here that I just don't give a fuck about using. I'm stone cold sober and serious. We are the problem, not the government or the wealthy, we are. The government is an ugly reflection of us. Were it not for our tacit approval, neither group would have been able to do what they have done to stack the deck. So what's the solution Captian Negative? The solution is not taking things for granted. The solution is becoming more involved as a group.

We Admitted We Had a Problem...

Steve Ross — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:45:00 +0000

Considering President Bush's history, this shouldn't have been so hard...

White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner

1. We admitted we were powerless over reality—that our lives had become unmanageable due to our media message and really bad policy.

From the twelve steps of policy screw ups.

Being Grumpy

Steve Ross — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:38:00 +0000

I’ve been grumpy for the past few weeks, and not posting in protest to my grumpiness. That doesn’t mean I haven’t been writing, I just haven’t been sharing. I don’t know if there’s something up with the moon phase or something altering my precious bodily fluids, but apparently it’s spreading.

Stoller over at Open Left is sick of the double standards and whiny bullshit from the thin skinned. Welcome to the club Matt. I want to slap people for whining about every undotted I or uncrossed T, but I’m like that.

In all reality, I’m sick of the Presidential race. Over it. Want to vote for November now, so I don’t have to listen to any more of the bullshit from, around or about any of them. I’ve resigned my self that I will be disappointed by whomever wins, and I just don’t want any more part of it. There’s more important things to deal with.

Tennessee's "most progressive Congressman" is facing a re-election primary challenge from, what amounts to a corporate shill, and a couple other folks. Tinker ran closest to Cohen in the Primary last time, and signs are already springing up on Airways. It’s time to get on the Cohen train and donate some money or some time to the campaign.

Ok, that’s it. I’m still grumpy, but I expect to see you guys out there knocking on doors with me…if they’ll let me out of the house.

Peace Terrorist

Steve Ross — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:38:00 +0000

If you ever had any doubt of just how screwed up this Administration is, Nelson Mandela is on the terrorist watch list.

What's better is that Condoleeza Rice is embarrassed about it, but has done nothing to correct it!

Tools...

Beware the Terrible Simplifiers

Steve Ross — Sat, 03 May 2008 23:19:00 +0000

There are several blogs with this video, but I saw it here first.

It's a MUST WATCH.

Just Make it Stop

Steve Ross — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:17:00 +0000

Tomorrow is another couple of primaries in a nominating campaign that will never end. I'm sure, even after the convention, should Obama finally make it official, Hillary Clinton will be hootin' and hollerin' about how she is more electable, more vetted, more experienced and more pantsuity. I'm sick of it. So tomorrow, after we crap out the 187 odd delegates in some manner that will only really just offer more ad revenue for the TV gasbags, I officially check out of the process. I'm done with it. I don't care if we nominate Skippy the Squirrel, so long as it's over and done.

Going Nuclear Will be a Dud

Steve Ross — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:57:00 +0000

It was reported this morning that the Clinton campaign has decided to go nuclear.

The thing about this is, that just like every other "end game" put up by the Clinton camp, it has so many conditions that it's virtually unworkable. Here's a peek at this masterful strategery:

1. Win big both places tomorrow. (possible)
2. Convince the world she's better than Obama. (unlikely, but possible)
3. Get the activists to doubt Obama and go for her (loud screeching sound...)

That's about where the plan gets derailed. Remember, she doesn't agree with the activists:

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Audio is here.

They, they, they. As long as we are "they" we'll never think you can, or want you to.

Even though I know I'm part of the problem, simply by writing this post, I'm sick of this. I want this to be over, and THERE ARE OFFICIALLY NO MORE METAPHORS TO DESCRIBE THIS RACE THAT AREN'T TIRED AND OLD, SO DON'T EVEN TRY.

Love ya, mean it.

PRIMARY THAT WILL NEVER END - liveblog - Updated with Cookies

Steve Ross — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:12:00 +0000

Hi all,

Watching MSNBC. Been watching for an hour or so, and noticed that the numbers in Indiana (actual vote count) hasn't been shown in some time.

Indiana SOS has it 49k(C) 38K(O).

North Carolina has a really nice results site that doesn't update nearly regularly enough.

TPM has the Indy vote spread at 55k (C)votes (39% reporting), and the NC spread at 62K (O) (6% reporting).

I hate it when the media calls a race with 0% reporting no matter how obvious it is. And they wonder why people question their credibility.

More after these messages...

Update 12:15:Waiting for room service.... Just called IN for Clinton. Talked to two Michiganders this evening. Good friends, who don't and never did support my candidate. Their message...DON'T SEAT THE DELEGATES. We broke the rules, don't fuck it all up. My sentiments exactly.

Update Midnite: 51-49. Damn. Could it be? Could it be? Probably not. It's gonna be a messed up day tomorrow. Too bad I'm working and will miss most of it.

Update 7:45PM: Indiana vote spread has not changed, still 55k votes. NC has, BO has a 135k vote lead in NC (all per TPM). David Axelrod is talking on the Teeve. And he's having satellite problems. Ok, go back to your cookies people. I'll update after tweety or Pat Buch says something else stupid.

Update 7:30 Harold Ickes warns of Obama October Surprise. His argument is that we just don't know enough about Obama, but Hillary has been out there for years and is safe. Puhhhhleeeze! Hang it up Harry. Chances are, you're not getting paid either.

These Dogs Won’t Hunt

Steve Ross — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:32:00 +0000

Stoller, at Open Left and Newscoma mentioned this earlier, but I wanted to talk a little about the Blue Dogs potential block of veterans funding.

So, here’s the situation, as I see it. Bush wants more war funding, with no oversight. 159 Democrats in Congress including Steve Cohen (TN-09) and Bart Gordon (TN-06) have co-sponsored a bill that would right the wrongs done to veterans as the result of less GI Bill funding. Put these two wants together in one bill and everyone gets something they want, right?

Not for the Blue Dogs. The Blue Dogs want to fund the war, WITH NO TAX INCREASES or any kind of budget balancing, but are sketchy on funding education for our veterans, WITHOUT SOME TAX INCREASE or maintaining the rules of pay-go.

Numbers:
Veterans Education: $720 M/year
Bush’s War: $1 Trillion/ so far
Veterans Education: Must have tax increases to pay for.
Bush’s War: Lower taxes on the wealthy.

What does this tell you? Blue Dogs despite their high falutin’ talk, don’t give two shits about the troops after they come home, they care about some bastardized Republican ideal of looking strong to the rest of the world or “winning” with no metric to define a “win”. (Even using language like that makes my stomach turn)

WAKE UP CALL, we ain’t strong without the troops.

In an economic downturn, the Army is still missing it’s recruiting goals. That means that people don’t want to go over there and possibly get shot up for something that they both, don’t agree with, and then when they get back, won’t get anything in return for their service.

We’ve already seen how the military is taking care of the wounded at Walter Reid. Remember that? Shouldn’t we do everything in our power to reassure those who might want to join, in the service of our nation, that they will have an opportunity to succeed when they leave the service?

Our service members have made the sacrifice to put their life on the line. They are willing to give up everything, and WE should be willing to do MORE THAN EVERYTHING to ensure that they have the care and the opportunity to succeed when they return.

Shame on you Blue Dogs, SHAME!

Here are some quick facts about the veterans funding portion of the bill (S. 22/ HR 2707).

Here is a PDF of the Bill.

Completely Unrelated, yet related

Steve Ross — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:33:00 +0000

Something Stinky in the Air - Part 1

Steve Ross — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:13:00 +0000

As many of you know, I travel a lot. Most of this travel is by air, due to the long distances that I have to make in a short period of time. This year alone I’ve been on over 30 flights into and out of Memphis, as well as other locales. Most of this travel is on NWA because it’s a hub out of Memphis, and I like to consolidate my travel to one airline if possible. Many of these flights out of Memphis end up being regional jets either operated by, or like those operated by Memphis carrier, Pinnacle Airlines. Several days ago I read an article in the CA about stalled contract negotiations with Pinnacle that, understandably, piques my interest.

First of all, the notion that the person responsible for my life is getting paid as little as $18,000/year is disturbing. Assuming that this person is single and has no children that is just under twice the 2006 poverty level.I don’t know anyone who can live on $10k a year (poverty). I have no doubt that the effective poverty rate is actually higher than that because we all know our current administration would never screw with numbers to make themselves look better, would they (/snark)? Still, $1500/mo. 50 people’s lives in your care several times a week seems disturbingly low.

Another disturbing fact, brought out in the CA is that Pinnacle seems willing to absorb revenue losses from NWA, their largest client, as a result of their inability to settle this contract dispute. As reported:

Pinnacle has taken several blows for not having a pilot contract. Last year, NWA, its biggest customer, said it would withdraw planes if there wasn't a contract by March 31.
NWA began subtracting planes last fall, dealing Pinnacle a revenue blow. When the process is finished, Pinnacle will have 124 50-seat regional jets on its contract for Northwest, instead of 139.
NWA also penalized Pinnacle for canceling flights last year because it did not have pilots to fly them. In all, NWA withheld $4.5 million in the first and second quarters.

This tells us several things. 1. Pinnacle probably has high turnover as a result of the low pay. 2. They are willing to absorb losses as a result of this.

There are lots of reasons to pass on extra business, particularly if the revenue the business generates is less than the cost, but 15 additional aircraft flying in an environment where the airlines are running at near capacity levels doesn’t pass the smell test. This action, or inaction as it may be, implies that the leadership of Pinnacle is more willing to maintain an adversarial relationship with labor than build their business. It’s a condition that alarms employees, and is a cause for concern for investors.

Pinnacle Airlines (PNCL) has seen a steady decline in stock value since it’s peak at $19.84 in February of 2007. In the year and three months that have past, the stock has lost more than half of it’s value, closing yesterday at $7.68. Certainly, some of this is due to the increasing cost of fuel, but the willful loss of revenue from NWA as mentioned above, and the acquisition of the fledgling Colgan Airlines have also been a strain on the company’s bottom line.

In my next post, we’ll talk to a member of the ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) to find out more about this adversarial relationship, how the current administration has complicated the matter, and the role a certain challenger in the TN-09 Democratic primary plays in the mix.

Stay Tuned...

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Something Stinky in the Air – Part 2

Steve Ross — Sun, 11 May 2008 07:45:00 +0000

Last time, we learned about the willingness of Pinnacle to lose business for the sake of maintaining an adversarial relationship with their employees. Below is a response from a source at the ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) to some questions I submitted about the negotiations and general conditions at Pinnacle.

Q. The current contract with Pinnacle has been amendable since May 1, 2005. What actions have the APLA engaged in to improve both working conditions and increase pay from near poverty levels at Pinnacle?

A. ALPA and the company have been engaged in negotiations for a new pilot agreement since August of 2004. The company broke off from these early negotiations soon after then after it became apparent that we were not inclined to engage in a zero sum or regressionary contract. We reentered formal negotiations (under the requirements of section 6 of the U.S. Railway Labor Act) the following February and the rules of section 6 still apply to our negotiations today.

Much progress has been made to address many of the archaic working conditions of our current agreement but disagreement on financial issues blocks the implementation of these enhancements to both safety and our working environment. Our financial goals include improved pay for all of our pilots and especially the ones fighting to stay off food stamps. Maintaining affordable health care and getting improved company contributions to our retirement accounts so that our golden years are not entirely self funded are also big issues.

Q. Based on industry standards, what is the average pay of pilots at other regional carriers like Pinnacle (Comair, SkyWest, MESABA, etc.) for new pilots and contrast that pay differential across different levels of experience (5, 10, 15 years).

A. This is an infinitely complex question. Speaking generally, Pinnacle pilots are paid from 8%-30% behind industry standards in just wage rates alone. Considering other work rule factors, retirement contributions, and benefits the gap widens even more from there.

Q. In general, characterize the current contract negotiations with Pinnacle. We know about entering into mediation, but is nearly 2 years of mediation typical? Is Pinnacle holding firm despite mediation? Does the Pinnacle management have a generally "anti-
labor" position?

A. As you know our contract became amendable (contracts under the railway labor act never expire) on May 1st, 2005. And we entered Mediated talks in the summer of 2006. The amount of time that has elapsed since our amendable date has unfortunately become expected at least under the Bush administration. In nearly all prior administrations a one year period of direct negotiations was normal and another year of mediation may have been necessary before the parties were released into self help.

Pinnacle’s attitude toward labor is hostile to give them the benefit of any doubt. Phil Trenary and Doug Shockey are well known for their hatred of organized labor or anyone who dare defy their authority. Just a short number years ago Pinnacle management was found to be on the “ill” side of legal in an organizing drive by our ground service agents. The subsequent revote was successful in organizing that group.

Q. Why haven't the pilots gone on strike? Is there some legal barrier to a strike? Is there some practical barrier to a strike (TN is a right to work state, etc.)?

A. Negotiations, including work stoppages, at airlines and railroads are governed by the railway labor act. The act was intended to stabilize the transportation industry back at the turn of the century (the 19th century). The lynchpin in the Act is the historically unbiased nature of the National Mediation Board. The Bush administration has politicized the makeup of the NMB hence unprecedented elapsed time of recent contract negotiations. [Atlantic Southeast Airlines recently went five years past their amendable date and the Amtrak engineers recently went about seven years after their amendable date.]

Q. The CA article notes that NWA has withheld some 15 RJ's from the Pinnacle contract due to the stalled negotiations with ALPA. Any detail of other poor, or financially unsound managerial decisions would be helpful.

A. I guess the highlight of the poor decision making from our management recently would have to be the acquisition of Colgan Airlines. Currently Pinnacle has invested over $80,000,000 (and lost another $10,000,000 in operational losses) with Colgan and they don’t anticipate an operational profit until the end of the year, if ever. Historically, Colgan was a money losing airline flying an antiquated fleet over very thin routes that don’t have a history of making money. I believe they were motivated by the Union free employee group and the belief that they could turn the airline around to make money.

Since their acquisition a couple of the work groups have Unionized and the pilots are getting ready for another drive as we speak. They are also finding out that it takes massive amounts of money and management talent to turn an airline around. They are in short supply of both.

So, what we’re left with is a picture of a company intent on maintaining a discordant relationship with their workforce despite potential revenue loss from their largest customer. Attempts by management to end around labor in the acquisition of a failing airline, with money losing routes, not to mention “union busting” tactics from the highest quarters in the management team. Sounds like managerial brilliance huh? I had one more question that needed to be answered.

Q. What role has Nikki Tinker, VP, Labor Relations and General Counsel, and candidate for Democratic nomination to the US House, played in the contract negotiations?

A. Nikki Tinker has had little involvement with the pilot group since her hiring. Initially, she sat in contract negotiating sessions but was she was so anti-productive at the table the company asked her to step down. She also had a small period of involvement in the grievance process but once again her general disdain of reasonability and completely foreign concept of “organized” labor and contractual rights rendered her input worthless and the company once again asked her to step down. The past year or two she has had almost no contact with any labor group at Pinnacle. It seems that she is retained as a political hedge for the airline and to curry favorable public opinion. She certainly has the physical qualifications to fill such a job but by and large she is an empty shell. It’s distasteful that she calls herself a democrat.

Damn. When a company, with a history of strained relations with labor, asks their VP of Labor Relations to step away from contract negotiations, it speaks volumes about the effectiveness of said management, but this story isn’t about Nikki Tinker, it’s about a corporate culture hell bent on maintaining a class war against it’s employees. Nikki Tinker just happens to be a wobbly cog in this machine of disenfranchisement.

So, what’s the end game? Tune in tomorrow and we’ll both find out!

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Something Stinky in the Air – Part 3

Steve Ross — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:27:00 +0000

In the last two posts, we’ve talked about Pinnacle in general, some of the things going on with their labor negotiations, and how that has affected the business at large. We’ve heard from a member from the ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association), and gained some insight about the negotiations and some business practices at the airline. Today, we’re wrapping it up and putting a bow on it.

There are a whole lot of ways to manage a business and achieve financial success. Management styles run the gambit from adversarial, to a true partnership with the workforce. It’s not a requirement that management gets along with the workforce, but it would seem to make the experience for both groups, and most importantly, the consumer, more pleasant.

The airline business has a long history of an adversarial relationship between the workforce, their consumers, and management. One part of this relationship was discussed at a recent hearing of the House Judiciary Antitrust Task Force. Video of that event can be found here(Real Player only). The real topic of discussion was the NWA/Delta merger, but there are some pearls in there that apply to this discussion.

You can watch the whole 3 hour affair, if you want to, or you can start at 2:14:50 and hear Clifford Winston from Brookings speak (from a decidedly business standpoint) about the relationship problems between management and workers, and how this adversarial relationship ultimately hurts everyone.

…I can understand that the, what we call legacy carriers, Delta and Northwest are among them but certainly United, American, others are included, have this rent-sharing mentality that leads to this bitterness, but it’s ultimately self-destructive…unless you can find ways to productively work out your relationships, lead to efficiencies but also have a contented workforce, the legacy carriers will just to lose more marketshare.

So, what is Pinnacle doing to avoid that self-destructive relationship that Mr. Winston laid out? Apparently nothing.

We are told, with incessant frequency from Republicans and executive “smart guys”, that the workforce is disconnected from the financial success of the company. This lie has been told so many times that many in the workforce have begun to believe it. As a result, workers, particularly in the airline industry, have been willing to make concessions to protect their jobs. Disturbingly, few executives have taken on the responsibility to decrease their impact on the bottom line of a company. If anything they move on to greener pastures, leaving the problem to some other poor sap, golden parachute in hand.

The truth of the matter is that the financial success of the company is vitally important to the employees regardless of the adversarial relationship they may or may not have with management. As Veda Shook, International Vice President, Association of Flight Attendants – CWA said in the same video mentioned above (2:09:50)

…Sometimes what we see with these carriers, these CEO’s and these executives is they’re short timers. They’ll come in. They’ll come out. They’ll hop from carrier to carrier, and I personally don’t stand to gain anything here, but the flight attendants, this is their chosen career, it’s not just a job, it’s their chosen career, and they’re in it for the long haul….

So, it’s not as if these workers have divested themselves from the success of the company, the company has divested THEMSELVES from the success (financial security) of their workers.

On the Pinnacle web site there’s a whole section on how much they value their people. If that’s the case, then why are Pinnacle pilots paid less than pilots at other airlines flying similar planes? Why would the airline not voluntarily improve working conditions, one of the few things they and ALPA agree on in the current negotiations? Why not just do it to increase good will? The morale gains alone could be the difference in rectifying some of the other issues on which they differ.

Unfortunately, Pinnacle has chosen to do none of these things. The reward for this inaction is a very high pilot turnover rate, in an industry that is growing more competitive for young talent. Last year Pinnacle had to discontinue service to three locations for a time, and was penalized $2.4M in the first half of the year by Northwest for failing to meet contractual benchmarks (Source, Source) as the result of staffing shortages. Pilot shortages lead to fatigue which was the topic of an article in USAToday about fatigue and regional pilots.

As these realities illustrate, by continuing to stall the process, management at Pinnacle is only hurting the company. Since 2005, total revenue at Pinnacle has dropped some $50M(Source). The purchase of Colgan Air, which flies 19, 34, and 74 seat turboprop planes out of Houston, Newark, Washington Dulles, and New York LaGuardia under the banner of 3 different carriers (Continental Express, United Express and U.S. Airways Express) seems to have had no positive effect on the company’s bottom line. The continued loss of planes in the NWA system, reported up to 17, brought on by the lack of a contract with ALPA will only bleed more money away from the company.

Despite losing business from NWA, Pinnacle is still making money, $34M last year. That profit hasn’t translated to added value to investors. The lack of an ALPA contract could have institutional money spooked. Pinnacle can expect more contraction from NWA until they sign a contract with ALPA and stabilize their resulting turnover situation. So why don't they just pull the trigger? Because they don’t have to.

As mentioned in yesterday’s post, the National Mediation Board has been stacked with Bush appointees. This has further stalled the process. But most important for top managers at Pinnacle, as long as they post a profit, why should they care? They’re making their money,according to the AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch CEO Phillip Trenary made $1.2M last year, despite declining top line revenue for the airline.

So, how will this story end? It seems that, eventually, it has to end in a contract, lest Pinnacle suffer more concessions from NWA. Republicans won’t be in charge of the NMB forever, and we’re in the last 8 months of the GWB experience. Barring a McCain win in November, pressure to resolve this situation may come before 1.20.09. Further, with the potential merger of NWA and Delta, two airlines where Pinnacle provides RJ service, Pinnacle would do well to make sure they don’t run afoul of their current situation and possibly lose more routes to their wholly owned regional subsidiaries, MESABA, and Comair. Ultimately, the ball is in Pinnacle’s court. They can choose to do the same thing they’ve been doing, blocking agreement, playing hardball with employees, but it can only last so long. Here’s to hoping it’s not too much longer.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Clinton Backers Lose it

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:51:00 +0000

From Politico:

An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.

Is this really what Hillary would want? Don't answer that.

I get it. A lot of people, particularly of a certain age group (boomers), are pissed that no woman has served as President yet. On a certain level, they have a right to be. Sure there's sexism involved, but from the party? Are you serious? Was sexism involved in the hiring of Mark Penn? Was sexism involved in all the stupid little mistakes that led to his firing? Was sexism involved in her post-Super Tuesday staff turnover (that should have included Mark Penn but didn't)? No, your candidate made some bad choices. Pair that with a charismatic opponent, and a highly motivated grass roots staff, and it's a tough road.

Now, on the other hand, the media has been 8 kinds of wrong to Hillary. They've called her just about everything this side of the C word (yeah, THAT C word). If you want to fight the media, I say go for it. They need fighting. Corner Tweety in some DC bar and slap the snot outta him, or make him very afraid. Whatever makes you happy. Smack O'Reily down with his own Loofah. Videotape Charlie Gibson and John Stossel express their unrequited love for themselves, through each other (EWWWWW), then post it on YouTube. Whatever it takes!

Just don't take it out, on a party that ultimately stands for all the things you've been fighting for, all your life. That's just plain stupid. If you really want to piss off the media, drop the internal fight, and start fighting to elect a Democrat.

A Little Presumptuous Methinks

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:04:00 +0000

h/t Kleinheider (link)

So Mike Padgett thinks that talking about the "elimination" of a man "from his own party" to get nuclear energy pushed through is an acceptable option. Really? Are we really talking about this? Running off the Majority Leader? HOY VEY!

Look, I know this is Primary season, and candidates have to distinguish themselves from each other, but is this the way to do it? Why would Mike Padgett go straight from zero to "elimination"?

Sure Harry Reid hasn't been all that I had hoped, but with a slim majority and Lieberman to contend with, I think we all knew this would be a rough ride. Still, lots of positive things have been done, despite the tight voting margins and an adversarial President. Talking "elimination" over one issue seems a bit much.

Further, new nuclear plants would take 5-8 years from approval. It's not as if we'd just blink and they'd appear and fix all our problems.

Think before your speak Padgett. It's okay to sound tough, just don't sound stupid in the process.

BTW, that's Strike One.

TN Senate Picture

Steve Ross — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:45:00 +0000

With just under 40 days to the Tennessee Senate Primary (8/7/08) the race is starting to see signs of life. Candidates Mike Padgett and Bob Tuke have their online presence going. Both are actually sending emails out, every other day or so. That's good stuff. As far as issues go, well, I haven't been able to get that far into the sites, but I'm getting there.

One thing is for sure, if Tennessee Democrats hope to even have a chance at taking THIS Senate seat, we better get off our checkbooks.

(Source)

It doesn't matter how favorable the circumstances are for us in November if we get outspent 6:1.

Money's not the only issue here. Lamar! is a generally popular statewide candidate, though his popularity has been slipping as the Republican brand has taken on some tarnish...but where has he been? Maybe I read the wrong paper (probably) but aside from a speech back on the 9th about an "Energy Manhattan Project" Lamar!'s been pretty quiet.

As far as I'm concerned, Lamar!'s got some splainin' to do. Tennessee ranks 11th per capita in home foreclosures. In 2007 nearly 46,000 households were displaced as the result of foreclosure, that's a 65% increase from 2005. (Source)

Transportation is a huge industry in Tennessee. I-40 is one of the busiest corridors for coast to coast travel. The Tennessee portion of I-40 accounts for 18% of it's total distance (Source). Unusually high Diesel prices threaten the economic security of not only the owner-operators traveling I-40 and other highways, but the communities that serve the trucking industry, farmers, and consumers who are now paying significantly higher prices for goods.

Diesel, which until Hurricane Katrina, enjoyed parity, if not lower prices than Unleaded, now costs anywhere from $4.25-$4.50/gal. Oil companies like Exxon Mobil are returning profits of 10%/quarter on the backs of these small business people. What has Lamar! done, called for increased fuel economy by 2020, plug-in hybrids, and propose more drilling (Source). All three of these are real, long term solutions (though I don't agree with the Alaska portion of the drilling), but don't address the immediate problem of price gouging by big oil, particularly on Diesel. Lamar! says that falls on the state Attorney Generals, not the Federal Government. Ever heard of the FTC? Thanks.

Then there's the healthcare cluster. For folks living in rural areas, access to healthcare is getting further out of reach. Rural healthcare givers have huge hurdles, from increased medicare reporting with decreased federal contributions to a dwindling population that can no longer afford care until it's an emergency. The Lamar! solution, Tort reform. Genius!

Folks, that's just the beginning. I'll have more on Lamar! later, but the truth of the matter is that Tennessee can't afford 6 more years of Lamar!. I'll announce my pick for the Democratic nomination (not that any of you really care) in the next week or so.

What Else Could We Have Bought for $500 Billion

Steve Ross — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:44:00 +0000

As the election season heats up, and the collective consciousness of the electorate here at home shifts it’s focus toward the ongoing litany of financial crises, the war in Iraq rolls on. This week’s votes on additional funding, ending the war, and extending the GI Bill in the House and the Senate Appropriations committee saw a victory in the House by defeating the supplemental funding thanks to 132 Republicans voting “present”.

While no one wants to see our troops suffer in the field due to a lack of funding, something must be done to reign in the Administration’s irresponsible handling of the war, and the funding needed to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Since 2003, this Administration has received over $500 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq alone. Half a trillion dollars spent on a war that, by all accounts, has not only made us less safe, but also diminished our ability to engage in diplomatic relations with other nations. Further, the strain on our economy, including higher energy prices partially due to increased military consumption, is breaking the financial backs of average Americans.

For years people, including the President, have been talking about the development of alternative fuels/energy as a hedge against the cartels that have supplied much of the raw material that makes up our energy consumption. President Bush noted the importance of this in his 2003 State of the Union. At the time he proposed $1.2B for the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. As of this writing several major companies have come up with solutions for a hydrogen powered vehicle, but only one vehicle from a major manufacturer is retail ready, and only in Southern California.

In 2008 the total amount requested in President Bush’s budget to research alternative energy was only $2.7 billion. With energy now squarely both a national security and fiscal security issue, two questions must be asked: Why so little Mr. President? and Just how much energy security (in the form of R&D) would even half of the $500 billion spent on your failing war in Iraq buy?

Perhaps what’s most disturbing is that even supporters of the war agree that our continued presence in Iraq is about oil. With this revelation McCain’s insistence on continued support of the war, taints anything he might have to say about creating an economy based on something other than oil dependence. We’ve been fed a line of bullshit from this administration and it’s apologists (surprised?) about energy independence. Not only do they have no intention of making any real strides to remove us, the American people, from the crack dealer relationship that we’re currently suffering with the OPEC cartel but they and their sponsors have been reaping the rewards of their inaction, at the hands of both the National and fiscal security of our county and citizens.

To be fair, 5 years is hardly enough time to transition a country as large as ours from oil dependence to something more sustainable. It would take hundreds of billions of dollars to create the infrastructure to support an economy that was less dependent on oil. Ultimately, that’s what needs to happen.

Since long before the dawn of the industrial revolution, ours has been a world of burning shit for energy. Until we stop looking at merely burning shit for energy, we’re destined for a future of both increasing temperatures and unsustainable energy prices…but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Seeing what’s happening to people in this time of tenuous supply and increasing demand, it’s important that going forward we look to new technologies to supply the energy we demand. This demand is unrealistic, but again I’m getting ahead of myself.

I doubt that America, in my lifetime, will ever be totally fossil fuel independent, but we need to be working harder to that end. Be it wind, solar, hydro-electric, or hydrogen, that work needs to move faster and harder. As long as we have an oil man in the White House, or a potential sympathizer (McCain), that ain’t gonna happen.

Cluster**** to the Nomination - A Liveblog Extravaganza!

Steve Ross — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:12:00 +0000

Greetings and welcome to the liveblogging extravaganza that will or won't be one or the other. Last time I did one of these I fell asleep from sheer boredom. We've all been so inundated with "insightful punditry" to the point that I know I'm ready to pimp slap Chris Matthews (except he'd like it), that said, people keep watching, so why not put in my two cents.

Update 9:30: 30 min until something relevant happens...order a pizza or something.

Update 9:15:That was a good nap. Barry O'Bama is talking about Ted. We're all thinking about ya Ted! On with the speech...and TV camera with Triax problems....Lots of rah, rah...inspiring....yawn...I win, but I don't, but I did, but I can't say it because she'll come up from Kentucky and eat my children, but I did win, kinda. Says Hillary has never given up on the American people, and she doesn't give up tonight, even though she's running a $5 Million/month deficit and need 105% of the remaining pledged delegates to win. Damn sexist math! Get out there and do some speeches Bill, she's gonna do it again in 2012.

Update 8:30: Harold Ford Jr., just admitted that he did it wrong in 2006, and pledges to get it right another time. ***Holding breath***

Update 8:13 Tweety asks the pertinent question to Claire McCaskell....why doesn't he contest these areas...Kentucky, VW, etc. She answers pretty well, but still I'm tired of this race, which is why I'm liveblogging it (/snark).

Update 8:00:Post Errand Update: Ok, had to go and get SMac from the Downtown Monkey, but I'm back, and Obama got a Kentucky smackdown. 65-30...really? It's just fuel to the fire man. You know, it's bad when a Democrat can't even win THEIR OWN PRIMARIES!! 4 more hours of stupid bullshit from all those named after animals (wolf, tweety, pat). You people are killing me!

Update 7:20:Hillary Speaks after winning Kentucky. Nice tribute to Brotha Teddy K. That's good stuff. He's an Obama super, BTW. "You've never given up on me, because you know I'll never give up on you", Sen. Hillary Clinton...maybe the fatal attraction thing wasn't so far off...Nevermind, she's talking about uniting the party. Pimp the site...ugh! 17 Million votes...there's that damn sexist math again! We now return to the stum speech...snore. Wha? never give up? No shit. That's why she's still running...she needs a Puerto Rico vacation! Every shot of Bill I see shows him looking ready for this to be over, except for that "She" comment. And now she panders to Kentucky. As Kentucky goes, so goes the nation...so we're all married to our cousin? It's going to the convention folks. Oh for the love of all that is holy, please don't let this happen, please?

Update 6:50:It's 58%-39% with 43% reporting and that damned sexist math is still screwing up EVERYTHING! I 'm watching the MSNBC on my computer because I'm running out of offensive things to say. Always gotta be on the lookout for new material is what I say, cos stealing is flattery, or something like that. I'm out of smokes and beer so if you got my number give me a ringy dingy and bring me some of my vices stat!

Update 6:35:Something to piss of the Clinton supporters for sure: Obama avoided WV and Kentucky like the plague, why? He knew he was going to win NC and OR so why spend resources and time in those places? Wouldn't it have been better to get as many votes as possible EVERYWHERE? Well, I think I have the answer, saving face. We all know that Hillary won't quit. She just won't right or wrong. Even though the math is all against her (damned sexist math) she soldiers on like she has a chance, all the while confirming all those sexist things your granddad said about your women when you were out fishing back when you were 6, but swore to never repeat. Not really, but I'm crafting a false narrative so go with me here... Here's my take...Obama let her have them. He could have worked his ass off to take more, but why? The math (that damned-able sexist math again!) is in his favor! Why not just let her win and save some face so those people in Ohio that are gonna vote for McCain don't keep sending him the mean letters. I dunno, maybe I'm all wrong, but as a pundit, I don't have to admit that, unless I want to. It's the Tweety way!

Update 6:25:Clinton wins Kentucky. Surprise, surprise, surprise! right now it's 58%-41% Clinton (30% reporting), there's plenty of time for this to get interesting, though there's little doubt it won't. As for Kentucky, I guess all that bluegrass is getting to their heads. They like the local brand over the stuff they smoke in Oregon! Okay folks, don't shoot your wad of Obama thong loaded party favors just yet. We have a while until Oregon closes (It's only 4:25 there) so hold on to your britches, remember "NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN!"

It's 6:20 here in Memphis. The polls are closed in Kentucky and as of right now HRC is up 57%-40% (26% reporting). This should surprise no one. If you are surprised, get a baseball bat, put the fat end on the ground so it stands vertically, place your head on the upper end, and walk in circles until you vomit or need a beer.

I've decided that I don't need to actually listen to what the gasbags on TV are saying, my deck is more comfortable and far less annoying. I can invent it and it will be close enough and possibly more entertaining, until Terry McCauliffe gets on, then I have to TIVO it or someone's getting an ass kicking (the dog is fascinated by TMac!)". So sit back and crack open a PBR, it's gonna be an eventless night thanks to the people who made it less interesting than the Windows XP fish screen saver, the pundits.

Truly, This is Just Annoying

Steve Ross — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:03:00 +0000

It’s an Anniversary of Sorts

Steve Ross — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:52:00 +0000

Four years ago this week, my beloved Smac and I moved to Memphis. We came here, after years of living in a city we loved, Little Rock. It was an opportunity, a new job, a new place, a chance to meet new people and gain new experiences. It was an opportunity to grow, professionally, as individuals, and as a couple.

In that time, we’ve had plenty of ups and downs. I moved on to freelance, she is currently opening a new restaurant, but we steadfastly stood by our decision, and through that perseverance we’ve met some really great people, and grown a lot as well.

In coming here, Smac has sacrificed a whole lot more than I have. She gave up a good job for what turned out to be no job, then a job that wasn’t really what she was looking for. Still, through all the frustration, she’s stood by me and I can’t tell you how much I cherish, both her trust in me, and the love and support that she’s given me since that fateful day when I ran over her cell phone with the rental truck (oops!).

So, I raise a glass to you, my fellow Memphians, Tennesseans, and blogger friends scattered hither and fro, but most importantly to Smac. I couldn’t have done it without you. I love you, and I can’t wait to see where the years ahead, take us.

Imagine What the Signs Will Say

Steve Ross — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:35:00 +0000

Senator Hillary Clinton is willing to take her fight to the convention

"Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

Last night in my liveblog I asked the question

Obama avoided WV and Kentucky like the plague, why? He knew he was going to win NC and OR so why spend resources and time in those places? Wouldn't it have been better to get as many votes as possible EVERYWHERE?

Well, now we know the answer to that question was a resounding “YES”!

Since Pennsylvania, the Obama campaign has been coasting. They knew where they were going to win, and have won those contests, but for some reason they haven’t been willing to maybe take 1% less in a safe state for 3-5% more in a contested state. Why is this? Last night I only half jokingly said it was Obama letting her save face, “…[he] let her have them” as a peace offering, so that once he had the delegates to win the thing, she could go to her supporters and say they tried. Unfortunately, that’s really not going to happen.

Hillary is going to fight this thing tooth and nail. She feels entitled, and she’s not going to let it go. Considering the circumstances, I kind of can’t blame her. This is the closest primary battle in my lifetime (that I remember) and it’s understandable that, for all she’s invested, she expects something, and that something is a shot at the Presidency.

If that “gentlemen’s agreement” that I spoke of above is the case, more than anything else, this shows the Obama camp’s naiveté. There may have been an agreement of sorts, but the thought that such an agreement would be honored when so much is on the line is not only naive, but shows a gross misunderstanding of the mind of a Clinton. Clintons will fight even when they cannot win, to show the world they’re a fighter. Any number of consolation prizes may be offered, to no avail, they fight on. Even when the fight is against their best interest, they continue to fight, they’re political pit bulls and Obama should have recognized that from the beginning.

Should this fight go on to the convention, and we really won’t know until June 4th, it is a gift to the Republican Party. The break they’ve been waiting for. Imagine what the signs will say in the "free speech area" outside the convention. Imagine the news coverage, and Tweety's giddy snickering. It sickens me to even think about it.

On the upside, this may expose more people to the party. Throughout the continued primary fight, Obama and Clinton have been showing better numbers against McCain. Perhaps that will continue should she choose to fight the rules she agreed to. All in all, I’m tired. I’m ready for the general. I’m ready to bury McCain, and look forward to 4 years of positive leadership. I hope Hillary is ok with that too.

You've Gotta Be Kidding Me

Steve Ross — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:00:00 +0000

TPM has offered up the following video to help you with your morning poop...

That's right, Clinton staffers serving as fluffers to Faux Noise. I wonder if they wore kneepads?

How many more reasons do you need?

TN Superdelegates

Steve Ross — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:19:00 +0000

Undeclared
Lincoln Davis
Bart Gordon
Phil Bredesen
Jerry Lee (Add On)
Gray Sasser
Dr. Inez Crutchfield
Al Gore

Clinton
Rep. John Tanner
DNC Bill Owen
DNC Elisa Parker
DNC Hon. Myron Lowery
DNC Jimmie Farris
Vicky Harwell (Add On)

Obama
Rep. Jim Cooper
Rep. Steve Cohen
DNC Lois DeBerry
DNC Will Cheek

Hey, undeclareds...time to choose sides.

Two Things that Sum Up the Hillary Flap

Steve Ross — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:51:00 +0000

Followed by The Rude One

Anyone Remember This Post?

Steve Ross — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:29:00 +0000

Polar Donkey, May 28, 2007

In 2007, it took 10 calories of oil based energy (pesticide, fertilizer, machinery operation) to produce 1 calorie of food and that’s not including the energy needed to transport the food. As oil production continued to decline and prices rose, the world simply could not feed itself.

I've been trying to write something about the current energy crisis for a week now, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around all the facets of the issue. Truly, it's a super deep, wide, and long topic that is so deeply woven in the inner workings of our society that it's hard to fathom.

This "worst case scenario" concerning Peak Oil is happening, and unless we stop pointing fingers and start coming up with new and real solutions...we're in big trouble.

Buffet's Reality

Steve Ross — Sat, 24 May 2008 21:47:00 +0000

Warren Buffett is one of the worlds most respected experts in the realm of "high finance". He's made himself, and his investors a whole lot of money over the years, and in a manner that is perhaps more responsible than any other money man in history. So when Buffett says the current recession will be "longer and deeper than many may think", his words carry a weight unparalleled, except, perhaps, for those of the former FED chairman, Greenspan.

Here is the article. There are no specifics, but it's harrowing considering who it comes from, and looking at the reality of consumer prices shooting through the roof.

More Sexist Math

Steve Ross — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:51:00 +0000

(Source)

The fuzzy screen grab tells a story. The story it tells is one of woe, unhappiness and further illustrates the latent sexism that math embodies. As you can see, by mangling the numbers appropriately, thanks to the brilliant decisions of MI and FL, the national popular vote tally, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON ANYTHING IN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION OR THE GENERAL ELECTION, sets up a scenario where either Obama is up by 568k votes, or Hillary is up by as much as 164k. Math is hard, selective math is sexist.

There have been all manner of sexist math examples on the intertoobs the past several days. On the 25th, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD posted this little gem that includes the graph below.

Now, if you just look at this graph, it seems like Hillary, the red bar, is way ahead of Obama in SOMETHING. At this point it doesn't matter what, just something. Unfortunately, when you look at the scale on the side, you see that there is actually less than 1000 units separating the two.

This is why graphs, as a function of math, are the sexy sexist. They have pretty colors and seem so simple on the face, until you see the gawd awful scale on the side and realize they signify very little.

There is going to be a lot more talk about math, and it's inherent sexist properties in the coming days. There are people on all sides of the equation that will try to lure you away with seemingly simple scenarios that prove some presumptive presumers personal prophecy of politically potent proportions. It's all just sexist math. Pay it no mind. Do not hook yourself to it's lure. No spinner bait is that special.

Ultimately, it, all of it, is for one simple goal. Keeping Pat Buchanan employed. That's what the lengthy Democratic nomination is all about, that's the goal. Now as June approaches, goal realized, he can enjoy his vacation, only to come back and scream at us again in August.

Enjoy your Thursday.

What Happened? I lied a lot...but not on purpose...kinda

Steve Ross — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:20:00 +0000

McClellan is making the rounds today on NBC. Below is his interview with Meredith on the Today Show. Tonight, he appears with KO on Countdown.

NBC White House Corespondent David Gregory is surprised. But considering the exchanges that Gregory had with McClellan, that surprises me. McClellan, in every exchange, did everything he could to NEVER answer contentious questions. From my perspective, he was clearly annoyed by his inability to answer questions asked, and I think this book is both a reaction and a reflection of that internal conflict. Below is video of Gregory talking about his perspective on the book as White House corespondent.

Ultimately, if this is McClellan trying to get some of his credibility back it's a step, but only one, in a long walk. McClellan had to know what he was getting into, after seeing Ari Fleisher's performances from the podium. His unwillingness to break with the President publicly before this book makes him seem more like a jilted lover than any kind of expert insider.

As Gregory says in the video above, the diminished role of the White House Press Office may have left McClellan out of the loop, perhaps for his own good, but that takes some wind out of his sails.

Another allegation from the book is that the media was too soft on the administration. Below is a video from Anderson Cooper, followed by Tom Brokaw.

I was looking for video from yesterday on the Today show but they seem to have removed that part from the interview. Here is a transcript of that exchange, in the absence of the video.

There's little doubt that the assertions laid forth in the book have some truth to them, unfortunately, the administration only has about 8 months to weather that storm, and the atmospheric pressure has moved beyond battering the Bush administration. If any charges were to be levied against administration officials, we'll probably have to wait until 1/20/09, there's simply not the time, or the willingness to do anything at this point.

The issue at this point is using the revelations contained in the book to further discredit those who have suckled this administrations teat since the beginning (ugly visual). That includes John McCain. I can't wait to do that!

Meltdown

Steve Ross — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:57:00 +0000

I know I keep saying that I won’t write about this anymore, and if you don’t want to read it, then just stop now.

The more I watch the clusterfuck that is playing out in the Democratic Presidential nomination, the more transfixed I am by the terrifying slow motion apocalypse that is happening before our eyes. The ever shifting “win”. The attempts at pacifying through praise. The ever-lengthening display of surrogate after surrogate paraded across the stage, pleading the case of a candidate who has obviously thrown everything from finances to self-worth into what is quickly becoming a tragic loss. If there is has ever, on such a public stage, been performed a more thorough example of a Greek Tragedy, I do not know what it is. This is the most public, drawn out, and heart wrenching personal and political meltdown in the history of modern politics.

I’m watching this display of desperation, and trying to identify, both emotionally and intellectually, with both sides.

On the Obama side, this has to be the best preparation for dealing with the diplomatic madness that is Iran and North Korea that any Presidential candidate could possibly experience. Unfortunately for them, they are not dealing with a despot. They are dealing with a person who shares many of their same beliefs. They are dealing with a person who has held massive sway in the party that they both claim. It’s an impossible situation for the Obama camp. They have to do everything in their power to pacify, all the while trying to hold on to their momentum through the convention. That no one on their side has publicly lost their temper is a testimony to their discipline.

On the Clinton side, they see a candidate that had her mantle, the hopes and dreams of literally millions of Americans, stolen by a man they see as unfit to govern. Further, they see a candidate who represents the long hard fight of a generation of women. A promise, stolen once again, by a system stacked against them. There is no way to do this kind of anger and disappointment justice. It is an anger, thrust on a candidate (Obama) who just happened to be in the way.

The Clinton campaign has traveled the breadth of emotions over the past several months. From the early inevitability, to the stunning defeats in Iowa, S. Carolina, and Super Tuesday, to the desperate, yet slipping clutch on reality that they have today. I cannot imagine what she, and her most fervent supporters are going through, but I know the anger is real. Hillary and her supporters have chased the ever-changing promise of victory as bait, from worms and crickets to floaters and spinners. They have gladly altered their diet to suit the needs of the campaign, and each time, their dinner has been snatched away from them by a campaign that was better organized and funded. Now they are hungry, and angry, and disoriented, and any food will do (with maps from Karl Rove & Co. on page 5, nice touch).

The Clinton camp sent out letters to all the Super (or automatic) delegates. That letter can be read here. As she argues that the “will of the people should not be overturned by Superdelegates” she is pleading with supers to overturn the will of the people. It’s a classic “win by any means, even if they compete against each other” strategy that illustrates the depth of desperation.

No matter what happens on Saturday, Clinton’s supporters will not be satisfied. Satisfaction only comes from ultimate victory…a victory that is fleeting with nearly all the best-case scenarios. The question is, what will happen from there.

Back in January, I, and many other Edwards as well as Clinton supporters, accused the Obama campaign of being a cult of personality, a phase that would pass and garner no traction in the larger campaign. I was certain that Obama would suffer, as Howard Dean had before him, from something that would mortally wound his campaign, giving the nomination to someone else. I was right, just about the wrong candidate.

Hillary’s supporters have taken the early ugliness put forth by some of the less savory supporters of Obama and taken it to a level that I have not seen in any nominating process in my life. They have chosen to make this so personal, to the possible detriment of the party and it’s eventual nominee, to see their victory through. It is the Clinton campaign that is the cult of personality, intent on her victory at the expense of all else, whether it be shifting the metric for winning or blindly swinging to hopefully land the blow that will cripple the Obama campaign and ensure their success.

The endgame will not come on Saturday, or Sunday, or the Tuesday after. The endgame will not come for the fervent supporters of Hillary Clinton (as opposed to the Democratic party) until she is declared the winner of all. There is no concession that will be enough to satisfy them. There is no other solution, in their view. She must win.

The onus now falls on the candidate. Can she divorce herself of her ambition, in the face of a nearly impossible situation, to unite the party behind it’s eventual nominee…not her. That’s really the only question left. The answer will most certainly be long and tortured, it will be fraught with anger and dismay, it may or may not come quickly, but eventually, reality will sink in, and the public meltdown that was the 2008 Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign will have to come to an end.

That end may not be quick or pretty. There are a lot of different ways that end can play out. Some that take us well past the convention, and into the realm of another broken promise…that she will support the Democratic nominee. My biggest hope is that the nominating process doesn’t end like the 2006 Senate race in Connecticut with two “Democrats” on the general election ballot. The end result, in this instance, will be 4 more years of Republicans in the White House.

Thank you Senator Reid

Steve Ross — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:19:00 +0000

I've had some issues with the leadership in the Congress since they took control last January. Eventually, they figured out a way to work their respective legislative bodies in a way that is mostly in tune with the sentiment of Democrats, but it has, at times been a struggle, as Senator Harry Reid points out in this article at HuffPo. My favorite quote from the article:

"People think she [Pelosi] has a large margin, she doesn't," he said. "You add in the so-called Blue Dogs [conservative Democrats], she has trouble passing anything, because they are a pain in the wrong part of your body."

That they are sir...that they are.

I just want to say to all those people who have busted my chops for being hard on Tanner, Cooper, and some of the other "Bush Dogs", here's your evidence. Certainly, we want Democrats whenever possible, but we also want the best Democrats we can get. To that end, give this a looksee, and if you can, drop Ed Fallon some coin to help build a more progressive Democratic Congress.

While you're at it, give Steve Cohen some love too. He's been great, both in the Congress and for Memphis the past 18 months. A truly progressive voice. If any Freshman Democrat deserves re-election, it's him.

Update: Braisted beat me to the punch on this (by 11 min.) and has some commentary from John Spragens, spokesman for Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper.

DNC RBC LIVEBLOG!

Steve Ross — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:15:00 +0000

This is it ladies and gentlemen, the famed DNC Rules and Bylaws Liveblog. If you would like to watch it live, MSNBC, and CSPAN have coverage.

UPDATE 9:30: Just saw on CNN that someone in FL is suing the DNC. Didn't get to see the segment. If I do get to see it, I'll add it to the coverage. I want to thank the 200 odd people that stuck with me through the day. If there's more, I'll post a new post with a link to this one. Finally, tomorrow I have two posts on the primary process. One dealing with making the process more fair to more states (the MI argument) and another talking about legislation that was never voted on, that would federalize the primary system. For the newbies, I have a post about that from January here.

Good night all. I think it's been a good day for the party, despite some of the rancor, and I think we have a nominee. Cheers!

TIMESTAMP 6:25: Some parliamentary crappola...then Elizabeth Smith, HRC supporter. Will not support the position of the MIDP, as far as the allocation of the delegates. Mark Brewer "if the Michigan motion passes we will do everything we can to carry MI for the Dem nominee". On to the vote... Ayes - 19, Nays - 8, motion carries. Big win for BHO today. Now the crowd is getting angry. Recognizes Dan Fowler, may be the Del Gill of the committee, but he's a team player when it comes right down to it. Standing O. Closing business....blah, blah, blah. That's all I'm writing about this.

TIMESTAMP 6:15: Everett Ward, BHO supporter, talking about the rules...lots of stuff that's not relevant. I won't go into detail. Now he gets to the meat, attacking Ickes..."Now, there has been some propaganda, and some words used by one of my colleagues, that seem to suggest that the motion made by my colleague Mrs. Reiley hijacks the process. This motion, puts an opportunity for the people of MI supported by the MIDp to have an opportunity to participate in this process. Not anywhere in this motion does it say that the unpledged delegates will go for Senator Obama. So for a colleague, who excercises selective amnesia conveniently, too often, to sit at this table, and try to suggest that we are doing something that blocks voters and hijacks the process, I find it somewhat subjective. And I would try to encourage my colleagues, as we continue this process, to continue to do it with honesty...and I hope that you will support this motion"

Timestamp 6:05: On to MI, opens the floor to motions. Mame Reiley, HRC supporter, proposes the 69-59 split at 1/2 power ending up with a final tally of HRC -34.5, BHO-29.5. All unpledged delegates get .5 vote too. Delegate selection follows normal rules, and seconded. Dan Fowler, HRC supporter. says resolution was not first choice, or his candidate, but concedes that everyone support the resolution, and calls Harold Ickes out. Ickes speaks..."I rise in opposition...though I sit" classy. "We find it inexplicable that, this body that is supposedly devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of other than our AA rules, the single more important rule in the election, and that is fair reflection." "This motion will hijack, hijack, remove 4 delegates won by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 MI voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they're going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters. That's what I call democracy." (noise) There's been a lot of rhetoric in this meeting about democracy and on and on and on. I am stunned that we have the gall and chutzpa to substitute our judgement for 600,000 voters. Was the process flawed? You bet your ass it was flawed. It's hard to find an election in the US that isn't flawed. Did a lot of people not vote, you bet your ass a lot of people didn't vote. Look at the voting stats. This country has one of the lowest participation rates of any country in this world. That is not an excuse...Hell I don't think one election would stand to the standard set down here." Ickes goes on for a long time here. His point is valid, but the panel doesn't have the will to do anything about it. Ickes throws down the gauntlet. "I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, that hijacking 4 delegates...is not the way to start down the path of party unity. One final word, Ms. Clinton has instructed me to take this to the Credentials committee." There you have it, just as I predicted. Thomas Hynes, BHO supporter is good with the motion. I won't go into the details, see what I wrote about Levin to find out what Haynes is saying.

This update is getting long. Another to come

TIMESTAMP 5:45: Ralph Dawson, uncommitted, makes a motion to seat all of the pledged delegates to a 50% vote. Additionally, Dawson allocates the pledged delegates as follows: HRC-52.5, JRE-6.5 , BHO-33.5. Unpledged delegates will be allocated by the call and able to vote .5 vote at the convention. Alice Huffman, HRC supporter, who brought up the first motion, seems inclined to go with this. "The world is not perfect, but it's good. And when you can come here and leave with unity, it's what this party needs is unity...and you're about to see the best of this party in action." "When we get this vote, we will leave here more united than we came. This is not about each other's campaigns..." interrupted by hecklers...asks for an aye vote. Ickes disappointed...no surprise there. Ready to vote to restore entire delegation, pledged and unpledged, entitled to a 1/2 vote. Ausman challenge speaks to difference in pledged and unpledged delegates, but panel will make all FL delegates the same, 1/2 vote. Ayes - 27 that's unanimous for the eligible voters.

Update 8:00: CSPAN has video on the front page of it's site, I'm moving on to record the proceedings from there. My updates will change from updates to "timestamp" updates. This will make the time stamps look weird, but will follow the actual timeline as if I were blogging it live for the sake of the record. Again, I'm sorry I wasn't able to see the proceedings all the way through. Thanks to all the people who followed this today, I appreciate your trust in my ability to report the proceedings.

Update 7:50: So, I missed the end. I'm going to try and catch it online so I have a record of the meeting in this space. I have no idea how much longer the meeting lasted at this point. Sorry.

UPDATE 5:30: James Roosevelt gavels the meeting back to order, and it looks like they're moving on to motions. 1st FL motion, the Ausman challenge. Motion by Alice Huffman, HRC supporter, to fully seat FL and give full voting rights. On to discussion of the motion - Argues that Democrats shouldn't be penalized for something they didn't instigate. Somewhat fair argument, particularly considering that I don't care about the outcome of this meeting anymore. Now she's talking about how the rules committee continues after rule breakers break rules in the future. That's a good question. David McDonald, uncommitted, is now rebutting the motion. Basically, thinks FL should be punished, somehow, without punishing the voters. FLDP tried to revote, couldn't make it happen. Says we have to take a stand but also have to welcome people back after they have recognized their mistake. Yvonne Gates, uncomitted, will not support the motion. Says we have to support the rules. "When you have rules, they have to be follow, otherwise you have chaos". Tina Flournoy, HRC supporter, says that this motion has no chance of passing...Alice Germond, uncommitted, says "the rules make 50% losses automatic for folks who break the rules." Must respect all 50 states, including the 48 who followed the rules. Will vote against the motion. Mona Pasquil, understand respecting the rules, but also the reality that sometimes those rules are unfair. Time to vote on this motion - Full vote for FL - 12 yay, 15 nay. does not pass. Have to head out for a while, I'll have more around 6:30.

UPDATE 5:15: Chuck Todd says FL will be fully seated (Pledged Delegates) with half votes. That's a net 19 for HRC. 9 FL Edwards Del. have moved to BHO, making HRC's net 14.5. That's the proposed deal FL. MI is looking like the 69-59 solution proposed by the MIDP, fully seated with half votes. They're speculating that if Harold Ickes is unhappy he will make it known today at this meeting. In other news Barak Obama has quit his church in Chicago. Not sure how that impacts the race, if at all.

UPDATE 5:05: Okay, some of the committee members are filing into the room now. May not be long now. ChuckyT is saying they've come up with a compromise. Don't have details yet. We'll know soon.

Update 4:35: ChuckyT says they're in there yelling at each other about Michigan. I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea. For all the time that we've been sitting here wondering what the heck is going on, I could have been doing something else, like, well, I don't know what, but something other than listening to Tweety on a weekend! Going out to smoke, call me if they show up!

Update 4:20: Still not sure what's up with the delay. Tweety's getting restless, so am I.

Update 3:45: Not really sure what's going on right now. Not a single RBC member is in the chamber. I bet they're making the deal right now.

UPDATE 3:25: Hunter at Daily Kos has a great suggestion for states that are dissatisfied with DNC rules for 2012. Also, Pesky has some good commentary on pigeon holing candidates to one demographic or another.

UPDATE 1:45: Questions for Blanchard...Asked if he supports the MIDP solution. Answer - No. Speaking as HRC they want 73-55. Speaking as a member of MIDP, agrees with Levin that there was a lot opf deliberation to come up with a solution. Does not agree that the primary was flawed. Asked if DNC should have rules about timing...Says DNC needs a schedule, but must rotate. Agrees with Levin on the timing issue. Says rules disenfranchise voters, and gets hit back by RBC member. One RBC member says being at the end of the primary schedule has it's benefits...at least this time. Don Fowler, RBC member laying out rule that MIDP broke, but argues that primary was not flawed. Says everyone is suggestion a delegate allocation that is different from the popular vote. All are wrong according to Fowler. I think Fowler is the DNC's Del Gill. Allan Katz says that RBC created the situation that the vote allocation would not follow the popular vote when they sanctioned MIDP. Says RBC will not penalize candidates for not participating in a primary that DNC didn't sanction. Goes on to say that what happened in FL in 2000, is not equivalent to the 2008 primary. This is a dispute on how we measure the vote. Martha Fuller Clark asks about write-ins and uncommitted voting. Apparently MI has some weird thing about write-ins. Blanchard says no one said votes wouldn't count. Clinton did. Now Donna Brazille has some questions. I like the way she attacks. Asks if Blanchard believes that the process that made the formula (69-59) was fair, Blanchard says no official HRC person was on the committee, but that it was an honest effort, even though he disagrees with the outcome. Brazille starts talking about "her momma", says "Play by the rules and respect the rules", and then goes on "When you decide to change the rules at the middle of the game, that is cheating". Upset about uncounted write-ins and people who didn't show up because Clinton said it wouldn't count. She is uncommitted BTW. Blanchard says HRC did play by the rules. Says HRC took no position and tried to honor the timing by not campaigning in MI. Says he just wants to pick up the paper in the morning and feel that the voters were treated fairly. Harold Ickes has a question now...about to make comments, but gets shut down by the chair. Looks like they're wrapping for lunch. I'm about to do the same thing. We'll start back up when they come back at 3:15 CST.

UPDATE 1:30: Jim Blanchard, from the Hillary Clinton Campaign is up now. States, the issue is, how do we honor the voters? Calls candidates pulling their names off the ballot a flawed strategy. This may or may not play with the RBC, since Michigan was in violation. RBC may see it as a sign of unity from BHO. Blanchard says there was a strong "Uncommitted Campaign" throughout the state. Asserts BHO, JE, and BR sent out joint flyers to voters to vote uncommitted if they supported them. HRC position is that the tally needs to stay the same as the vote %. Says party leaders have already been punished, do not punish the voters. Says the MIDP and BHO proposals disenfranchise voters. I think he's going to end with a threat. MI is all about threats...and there it is. Basic point is respect the voters, party leaders have been spanked.

UPDATE 1:15: Now it's question time...Elizabeth Smith, an RBC member and HRC supporter wants to know why BHO took his name off the ballot. Arguing that the MIDP and BHO solutions override the will of the voters in MI. Bonior's response is that the understanding was that the vote wouldn't count, so removing his name would not hurt because it was invalid. Obama never put his name on the ballot in MI (Source). Lots of questions from HRC supporters. They're, obviously, trying to discredit anything that is not 73 for HRC and 55 for uncommitted. Tina Flournoy, a HRC supporter is toeing that line. Question: Does Obama camp advocate for a full seating? Answer: Full number of delegates, up to committee to decide the weighting.

UPDATE 1:00: David Bonior is representing the Obama campaign for the MI question. Bonior says Obama had nothing to do with challenging a second MI primary. Calling, as Levin predicted, for a 50-50 split of the delegates. I think the Obama people would do well to take the 69-59 and leave it alone. However, as the gentlelady from FL mentioned earlier, if you don't ask, you don't get. This satellite problem is really pissing me off. Not having the same problem on CSPAN, and less blowhard bullshit.

UPDATE 12:45: Harold Ickes is questioning Levin. He's laying out the Clinton line. His argument is technically correct, as I understand it, though it is a position that will not unify the party. Ickes is basically arguing that all the uncommitted should stay uncommitted, that uncommitted is a legitimate choice and that the candidates should try and win those delegates over as if they were superdelegates. That taking any delegates away from HRC or uncommitted does a disservice to the process. Ickes doesn't think that the RBC has the power to deal with the question. Levin turns it around on him and says they are calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary by awarding uncommitted to Obama through some mysterious formula. Then the damn satellite crapped out right when he was about to answer whether MI will go to the credential committee.

UPDATE 12:25: Carl Levin lays it down. I don't know if his chronology is correct, but if it is, then he's got a compelling argument right up to the point where MI decided to take the law into their own hands. Really, the argument is if you won't follow your own rules, then why should we. Unfortunately for his argument, the RBC gave the NHSOS a waiver, within the rules and MI's decision to jump ahead got no waiver. It was a gamble, and MI knew it.

UPDATE 12:10: Carl Levin is up there arguing for a full seating of the delegates in MI. The MIDP chair spoke before him. I say, just seat everyone and get it over with, I'm tired of the discussion.

UPDATE 11:30: I'm taking a little break to go get some groceries. They just started talking about Michigan. I'm still listening, but I won't update for another 30 min.

UPDATE 11:10: Ok, so on a 50% vote, as set up in the Ausman petition, that increases the number of votes Obama needs to 54 from 41. HRC would need 235, opposed to her current 244. Wexler is getting a little out of hand with an RBC member. All in all, I'm pretty sure that all the delegates are going to get seated for both states. They can't do one and not the other. Whatever happens with one state, will also happen in the other state.

UPDATE 11:00: Obama campaign has Robert Wexler to speak about the Florida cluster. Arguing that the FL primary was flawed. Candidates were told any delegate selection by the state was non-binding due to RBC sanction. Obama campaign asks for Ausman solution. That changes the math a bit. I'll have that math in the next update.

UPDATE 10:38: As I note in the 10:15 update, if the RBC seats all the FL and MI delegates according to the vote percentages, HRC gets 162, Obama gets 124 (if you give him the "uncommitted" count in MI). That is not necessarily what HRC wants. I'm sure she wants those 58 odd MI delegates to stay in play, raising the remaining delegate count to 335 and giving her a chance. That's simply not realistic at all. If Clinton really wants all of the delegates seated, she needs to agree to giving Obama the 58 uncommitted delegates. As I stated below, that means that Obama has a virtual majority in pledged delegates, and a lead in super delegates. It also means that if Obama just wins 12 or 13 delegates, he makes it mathematically impossible for HRC to win. I think that's the way to go. Remove the objections, let them do it, and let's get on with the general election.

UPDATE 10:20: Newscoma notes in the comments that they're selling WIFI at the event for $6/20min. I travel a WHOLE lot, but I've never seen such highway robbery! The Marriott should be ashamed.

UPDATE 10:15: Next up, FL Sen. Bill Nelson. His challenge asserts that all the delegates should be re-seated. It seems that this challenge and the previous challenge are a bit at odds. The Ausman challenge seems more legit. Nelson is basically toeing the Clinton line. For my part, I say what the hell, seat them all, give 'em full votes, but that makes the path for Obama a little more difficult raising his threshold to 103 delegates instead of the current 41. It also makes Hillary's path nearly impossible, raising her threshold to 266. There are only 277 total delegates left. Nelson mentioned the video below. He's busting on the Republican controlled state government. Nelson is impassioned, kind of fun to watch, for a nerd like me.

UPDATE 9:50: FL- The Ausman Challenge Part 3 - Don Fowler, RBC member, asserts that Supers have no special privilege. Allan Katz asks for some clarification from Ausman. Aussman has CHARTS! Hoy vey. I was hoping this would be funnier. There's nothing funny about some technicalities. Ugg, I'm fading.

UPDATE 9:40: FL - The Ausman Challenge...continued - Aussman contends that people in FL worked to have some other delegate selection process. That may be the case, but the argument that Democrats worked hard against a Republican Governor and Legislative body to keep from breaking DNC rules doesn't fly. This video seems to refute one of his arguments, but what do I know...

UPDATE 9:30: FL - The Ausman Challenge - Argues that Superdelegates cannot be taken away. ChuckyT calls this the one challenge that is not candidate related. Recognizes that FL broke the rules. States that total delegation should be 50% of pledged delegates, but all of the Supers. Goes through a lot of technical mumbo jumbo. Seems persuasive to me, but what do I know? RBC doesn't want this stick taken away, but I think Ausman is going to win this one.

UPDATE 9:20: Co-Chair James Roosevelt Jr. Talking about Florida. Florida asked to have it's delegates maintained, but was denied. RBC ruled last August that FL would lose 100% of delegates do to non-compliance. Decision was made to help stabilize the situation, give candidates an opportunity to better prepare etc. FL was urged that it "could and should conduct it's own party event to restore delegation". DNC had discussions with FL, and that state party could avoid all this back in March '07, before the legislation was passed. DNC offered to help defer cost of state event. State party concluded an alternate event would be impossible.

UPDATE 9:15: Alexis Herman, Co-Chair of the Rules and Bylaws committee is talking about how we got to where we are today. How the primary calendar was decided, and the rationale for the 4 states that served as the official early states (IA, NH, SC, NV). In 2006, 12 states lobbied the RBC for the two additional early slots. Michigan was one of them. RBC decided to move SC and NV into the pre window. Of course, FL and MI violated the window. Herman goes on to say they need to "revisit" it's discretion to impose the sanctions of 100% on FL and MI. States that a signal had to be sent to other states intent on breaking the rules to ensure no more states made it more of a cluster by moving their primary.

UPDATE 9:00: Dean just spoke. Hit some really great points, alluding to the 50 state strategy. Talked about the Congressional victories, though I think they missed one. Also set up some interesting stats that have come out of the primary process. Record numbers of people voting in the primaries around the nation. Then he pled for perseverance continued action to push us over the top in November. Tells a nice story about the 2004 campaign. Slams the Supremes for 2000, NICE! "This is not about our candidates, this is about our country." 3 Points to remember as we go forward with this meeting; 1. Respect the voters of Florida and Michigan. 2. Respect the candidates and their campaigns who followed the rules. 3. Respect the 48 states who played by the rules. Wraps it up, puts a bow on it, and receives a standing ovation...More after the melee calms down.

UPDATE 8:45: Still a lot of milling around. I don't know if this thing was scheduled for 8:30 or 9:00. Dean looks like he's ready, just waiting for the stragglers...and...here we go if the gasbags will shut the hell up. It's gavel time!

UPDATE 8:30: I'm watching MSNBC, and I'm glad to see that Rachel Maddow is providing color commentary this morning. I doubt that anything will be resolved today, but the process is REALLY interesting to me. Hope it doesn't go past 10, I want to go to the Cohen open house.

UPDATE 8:20: DNC Chairman Howard Dean is scheduled to open up the meeting with some comments. Apparently, 28 of the 30 committee members met from 8-1am last night in private. CNN had some coverage of that this morning, I'll try to link to video when I find it.

I'll have more in a few minutes after the meeting gets started...

Fixing the Presidential Primary System – Part 1

Steve Ross — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:48:00 +0000

After spending my Saturday, transfixed by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws committee, I have a new respect for the work the DNC and other parties engage in to make the process appear more seamless than it actually is to the normal folk out there. Apparently, things like timing and order are a big damn deal to a lot of people, and the RBC proceedings were a prime example of what happens when people break, follow, interpret and ignore the rules.

Of the speakers yesterday, MI Senator Carl Levin told a story about the promise of opening up the early contests to states other than Iowa and New Hampshire. That promise, both technically and through the will of the NH SOS was broken. The decision by NH to break from the DNC timing angered Michigan and led to their decision to move their primary.

Yesterday I called that the “you don’t follow the rules, why should we”, gamble.

So timing is important, and at least 48 states would like to have a crack at being the first in the nation. Unfortunately right now there is no mechanism in place to do that.

In order to bring some level of order to the process, the federal government would have to get involved. Right now, primary dates are set in agreements between the state SOS and party officials. These dates are subject to changes in members and personal priority on both sides, and the whole thing can seem chaotic, as we witnessed at the beginning of the primary season when there was talk of an Iowa caucus being held right after Christmas dinner.

So, if you agree that the Presidential Primary system is broken, then what is the remedy?

One remedy would be to totally federalize the process. In March, and May of 2007 four bills were introduced into Congress (2 in the House, 2 in the senate) HR1523, HR 3487, S 1905, and S 2024. All of these measures (HR 3487 and S 1905 are the same piece of legislation in each body) basically set out a way that would normalize the Presidential Primary system through arranging the states into regional “Super regions” (one calls for 4, the others for 6).

The voting procedures of these “Super Regions” would be handled in a couple of different proposed ways. Some call for the large regional “Super Primary” on the first Tuesday of every month from February to June. Others call for states to be selected from different regions, through a random selection, and scattered about.

In January, I wrote a post about Federalizing the Primary System. Since that post I’ve reconsidered some of the remedy, though the basic strategy is the same, however, that’s another post.

I’m interested in the discussion, and I hope you are too. Over the next few days I’ll be writing posts about these proposals, my newer ideas, and whether such a system is both feasible and legal. Feel free to chime in, I’m really interested in ideas from all over.

Thanks for reading!

Fixing the Presidential Primary System – Part 2

Steve Ross — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:29:00 +0000

In my last post I talked about some of the bills that have been introduced that attempt to address the mess that our Presidential nominating contests have become. All of these pieces of legislation would seek to federalize the system in one way or another standardizing the process. There is some question as to legality of these remedies. In this post, we’ll look at some of the legal issues that complicate a purely federal solution to the Presidential nominating process.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any specific mention of the Presidential nominating process as it pertains to political parties. Article II, Section 1 gives Congress the power to determine the time for the selection of “Electors”, but this applies to the general, further, this same section states that State Legislatures have the power to determine “Electors”, however, this applies to the selection of “Electoral College” delegates, who determine the outcome of the general election, not the nominating process. At the time of the Constitution’s adoption, organized political parties, as we know them today, did not exist. Certainly there were factions, but there was no organized party structure.

States and the respective parties currently control all facets of the primary system. States and state parties conduct primaries and caucuses in accordance with state law and the customs of the state party. No federal body currently has any authority over these proceedings, other than laws that ensure voting rights, accessibility and federal campaign finance law.

State law and agreements between the state and national parties determine the timing of Presidential nominating contests. The federal government has no role in the timing of these contests. As we saw at the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws meeting on Saturday, timing has been a difficult point of contention for several cycles. Many states, though Michigan has been leading the charge, feel that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on the system, and too little diversity to play that decisive role. The DNC’s efforts to add South Carolina and Nevada to the “early states”, was an attempt to mitigate this discontent. New Hampshire’s decision to move to the second spot, instead of it’s originally scheduled third spot and the DNC’s decision to not sanction New Hampshire was seen as breaking the compromise and led to Michigan’s decision to move it’s primary.

While states may have the power to set nominating contest dates, they do so with the approval of the parties who then select the delegates in accordance with party rules. States attempting to regulate primaries, or the resulting delegations have been met with court challenges from state and national political parties. The Supreme Court has ruled that such regulation violates their 1st Amendment rights of association. Any attempt at federal regulation may meet with a similar fate.

Turning away from election powers mentioned in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power to pass all legislation "necessary and proper" for the effective operation of the government. One could argue that federally regulating the Presidential nominating process is the only way to ensure stability and fairness in the system and that such circumstances are “necessary and proper” to ensure the integrity of the process. This argument is a slippery slope however, because the federal government has NEVER controlled the Presidential nomination process, not to mention the arguments I’ve previously detailed.

In summary, any attempt by the federal government to take control of the nominating process would most certainly be met with great resistance from state governments. There is no precedent for federal regulation of the timing or execution of Presidential nominating procedures. Further, because the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of parties against state governments, any attempt by the federal government to wrest control without the benefit of a constitutional amendment, may be challenged by the individual parties themselves, making it less likely that such a remedy is possible.

Regulating the Presidential nominating process through the federal government is a complicated issue. There are many competing interests, legal challenges, and attitudes that pose stiff barriers to such a solution. Further, there are questions if such a solution would actually fix the problem or just make it more complicated, discouraging candidates or constituents from participating. Despite the challenges, I feel that examining possible solutions is the best way to come up with a process that is fairer to more people.

Coming up next time, I’ll go through my new and improved solution for the nominating process. Many of the questions that I have discussed in this post will remain, however, I feel that solutions should be presented despite potential challenges.

Thanks for reading!

Ed Note: Special thanks to Steve Mulroy for providing insight into the constitutional issues. I hope I represented your analysis correctly.

It's Official, THEY LIED

Steve Ross — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:23:00 +0000

TPM is reporting that the Senate Intelligence committee has released their Phase II report on pre-war intelligence. The report confirms what has long been suspected by the "unpatriotic" liberal blogoshpere, that many of the assertions of the administration were not consistent with intelligence data. Here's a sample from the Senator Jay Rockefeller's press release:

--Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

--Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

--Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

--Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

--The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

--The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed

Can we start the indictments now?

The Reports:
Wether Public Statements by US Government Officials were substantiated by Intelligence Information
Intelligence Activities related to Iraq Conducted by the Policy Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Don't Poke the Bear

Steve Ross — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:15:00 +0000

That's the party line Harry Reid is spouting after coming to the rescue of IDINO Joe Lieberman (Douche-CT).

Basically, Reid is saying, don't poke the bear. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, despite his man crush on John McCain. With a 51-49 majority, Lieberman is important even though everyone knows he's a douchenozzle. Leave him alone for the next few months until we have enough seats in the Senate to make him irrelevant then we can really fuck with him.

If Joe doesn't get that this is what's REALLY happening here, he's really fucking stupid. If he's not that stupid and Democrats win big in November, expect him to switch sides so he can do a lot of damage before he's irrelevant sometime after the election.

Bill Nelson vs. Electoral College

Steve Ross — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:35:00 +0000

I swear, I'm liking Bill Nelson (D-FL) more and more every day. This afternoon he introduced a constitutional amendment that would abolish the electoral college.

Thank you Bill!

The reality is that there is little hope that such an amendment would pass since the Electoral College gives the 30 odd states with 9 or less Electoral Votes disproportionate per vote power, but it's something that I've been pushing for since 2000.

Here is the release from his office.

Primary Challenges: More and Better Democrats

Steve Ross — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:59:00 +0000

Ed Note: Just so there’s no confusion, if you can’t see the button to the right of this post, let me express my unequivocal support for Steve Cohen’s campaign. The discussion that follows expresses my opinions on primary contests in general and is targeted at no specific candidate.

Many moons ago, the folks over at Open Left started the ”Bush Dog” campaign. The idea behind this campaign is to highlight those Democratic Representatives that consistently vote against Democratic positions, particularly in regard to issues involving Iraq and FISA.

There has been some acceptance, a great deal of hand wringing and more than a little disdain for this campaign. It should be noted, that the stated goal of this campaign is “More and Better Democrats”. To briefly explain what that means to the hand wringers out there, more means that in heavily Republican districts (MS-01 for instance) we want a Democrat, any Democrat. However, in districts that lean more Democratic, we want the best Democrat that we can get.

Neither goal is necessarily easy. It can take a lot of time and money to get a competitive Democrat in heavily Republican leaning districts. For the most part, the DCCC, DSCC, and local party operatives have done a good job of recruiting candidates, particularly in the past 3 special elections that brought us the formerly strong Republican seats of Denny Hastert (IL), Roger Wicker (MS) and Richard Baker (LA). Further, the current state of the Republican brand, and their fundraising problems for their congressional committees, may make getting “more” easier for Democrats for now.

While “more” Democrats is one element of building a strong caucus in the House and Senate, electing better Democrats is the key to passing more progressive legislation.

This is one area that makes people nervous, but there’s really no reason. Nowhere on the progressive or liberal left is anyone seriously suggesting that a liberal Republican would be better than a conservative Democrat. As Progressive Punch Scores indicate, there is a full 30 point difference between the highest rated Republican and the lowest rated Democrat in the House. There is a nearly identical result in the Senate when one looks at lifetime scores. Looking at these scores makes it clear that there is no realistic rationale for any Democratic leaning voter to support any Republican over any Democrat. This argument has been put forth over and over again by largely conservative Democrats and is a straw man.

The real reason for the FUD about primary challenges is that it represents a challenge to the established power. Even in many Democratic circles, challenging the system is frowned upon. People challenging the system are treated as ungrateful or turncoats. The truth of the matter is that challenging the system is something that is deeply coded in our nation’s DNA.

The Challenge

Challenging established powers is one of the things that gave birth to our nation. Had the patriots who led us into the Revolutionary War been quashed, the promise, set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of a new kind of governance may have never come to fruition. Following that logic, if established powers that vote against the Democratic Party, or key interests in their districts in Congress are not challenged, the promise of a more progressive nation may never be realized. The effort is one of fine-tuning. By challenging elected officials in solidly Democratic districts, who vote against the party, even if only on specific issues, we can either correct the bad behavior, or put someone in who will better reflect the will of the people in that district.

A common complaint by those who fear the threat of a primary challenge is that such an effort represents outside interference in the district in question. This is also a straw man. If outside interference is the reality, then the Representative being primaried need not worry. Successful primary campaigns, such as the one mounted by Donna Edwards in Maryland, require serious effort by locals to have any hope of succeeding. The truth of the matter is that incumbents have a huge advantage over their primary and general challengers. Over 90% of incumbents won re-election in House races over the past several cycles.

Indeed, this year alone the primary challengers of “Bush Dog” Democrats Dan Lipinski in Illinois and Leonard Boswell in Iowa were soundly defeated. Both districts are safe Democratic districts, and while the candidates themselves may be irritated about being “primaried” the truth of the matter is that this result may have been avoided had the representatives been more in touch with their districts.

The Upside

As we have seen over the past several months of the Presidential Primary contest, there is an upside to a vigorous primary challenge. Record numbers of new voters have been pulled from the sidelines and involved themselves in the process. Estimates indicate that upwards of 36,000,000 people participated in the Democratic Presidential Nominating process. If a national contest can generate that kind of excitement, then, it follows that a spirited local contest may also generate similar results on a smaller scale.

It has long been the goal of the Democratic Party to involve as many in the process as possible. Traditional turnout numbers seem to indicate that high voter turnout benefits Democratic candidates in the general. That interest can be cultivated in the primary season where the debate is focused on the sometime subtle differences between the candidates. Primary challenges provide an opportunity to involve groups of people who may or may not have the ear of the current elected official. It is vital to bring these people into the process and keep them involved because, as many examples have proven, once the politics bug bites people, they tend to remain active and bring more people with them.

Once the primary is over, it’s the job of the winner and the loser to work together to unify the locals behind the nominee. We are, after all, Democrats. As we’re seeing in the Presidential race, this can be a difficult task. It is important that incumbents not take primary challenges personally (it’s business, not personal) and that both challengers and incumbents work to keep the campaign about policy and away from unnecessary personal attacks. The reality of most primary challenges is that on most issues the respective candidates agree. Taking those points of agreement to heal any divisions that may have been exposed is the key for achieving unity. Again, I think the Presidential Nominating process may prove to be an excellent model for this.

The Downside

There are some potential downsides to advocating for primary contests…your favorite progressive representative might face one. This is the reality of politics. If you are willing to call for someone to get primaried, you have to be willing to accept that your candidate may get primaried as well. In such an instance, just like for the candidates, it’s important that the supporters don’t get out of hand with the rhetoric. We are all still Democrats, and there has to be recognition that if someone is willing to dedicate the time and money to mount a primary campaign, they must have some supporters who feel strongly about it, even if that candidate’s strongest supporters are pro-business Republicans.

Another potential problem is that a close primary can suck the resources out of the eventual winner’s campaign, paving the way for an insurgent Republican. This is where you just have to exercise some caution. If you’re serious about mounting a primary campaign, then you probably have some connections in the community (you better have some connections). Taking the temperature around your district to make sure you aren’t paving the way to an insurgent Republican victory is a wise choice, lest you get egged at the next party meeting.

The Wretched

Still, sometimes people just gotta get primaried. Either they’ve been there too long (an arbitrary but sometimes relevant metric), grown unresponsive, or have intellectually or emotionally left the district behind. Maybe they haven’t had a serious opponent since they got elected (was that subtle enough?) and are just coasting. Maybe they’ve turned into Joe Lieberman and have left the party behind. There are all kinds of reasons. Just remember, should a candidate choose to primary a sitting Congressman, you’re on your own as far as Party support is concerned, until you win, and even after that, depending on the temperature of the local party structure, you could still be on your own.

In past cycles, Democratic groups focused on Congressional races have involved themselves in the primary process. The DCCC and DSCC are there to support Democratic Congressional candidates. Getting involved in primaries should be left to the locals, lest we end up with that outside interference argument. We saw this happen in the 2006 Democratic Senate Primary here in Tennessee. The truth of the matter is, the fallout of a national Democratic organization like DCCC and DSCC involving themselves in the primary may not be felt by the national party, but will most certainly be felt locally. Many speculate that Kurita’s vote against the party for control of the State Senate may have been prompted by this interference. It’s speculation, I know, but it’s something to consider, particularly as we move forward to redistricting in 2010. Remember, More and Better applies to state contests too.

Conclusion

Primaries are like a trip to the doctor, something everyone wants to avoid, but that’s necessary from time to time, to ensure the health of the party. We need the excitement, the fresh blood, and the new ideas to keep the Democratic Party’s brand fresh. Over the next few months, the primary season (congressional and local primaries) will come to a close. If you had or have a primary candidate, I encourage you to get behind the eventual winner of the primary, regardless of who you originally backed. If we remember the ultimate goal, More and Better Democrats, we can expect to see a robust Democratic caucus in the House, Senate, and state bodies, that will last for years to come.

Thank You Hillary

Steve Ross — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Senator Clinton,

I know I've been hard on you. I know I said some things that, perhaps cross the margins of polite discussion. Still, despite it all, we are Democrats, and I thank you for your unequivocal support for the Democratic nominee.

I think this contest has been great for the party, as a whole, though there are certainly some problems, and I think we will see Barak Obama take the oath of office on January 1st, 2009. I look forward to your continued and vocal support of Senator Obama's campaign for President, so we can reverse the tragic policies that have dominated 6 of the 9 Presidential terms in my life.

We may not agree on everything, but we are Democrats. I thank you for emphasizing that point in your speech today, and look forward to your continued efforts to bring the party together, and put a Democrat in the White House.

Sincerely,

-v.

Fixing the Presidential Primary System – Part 3

Steve Ross — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:27:00 +0000

In the last two posts I’ve concentrated on the current proposals to remedy the problems with the Presidential Nominating process and the potential legal and constitutional challenges of implementing such remedies nationally. At the end of my last post I promised to include my solution. Since that time, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, and institute his proposals for fixing the process, and mandate many voting reforms that are key to maintaining faith in the system, particularly as the voting systems becomes more computer oriented.

A PDF of his proposal can be found here.

News coverage from The Hill.

In researching the proposals and their pitfalls, it would seem that short of a constitutional amendment, there is no remedy to the solution. Amendments to the Constitution are very difficult to pass, particularly when they address issues surrounding the selection of the President. I applaud Senator Nelson, despite my disagreements with him on other issues, for spearheading these efforts. While much of this issue may have been borne out of the dissatisfaction of Clinton supporters, it’s an important discussion that needs to happen in our nation going forward.

I’ve separated my proposal out into five sections: The Regions, Selection, Timing, Process, and Party Control. These sections detail the rules, as I envision them, for future Presidential Nominating procedures to ensure fairness and that as many people, and parties, as possible are included in the process. So, without further ado, here goes.

The Regions

Like Senator Nelson’s proposal, my idea calls for the establishment of regions. Unlike Senator Nelson’s proposal, the states included in the regions would vote on the same day. This does several things, but most importantly, provides for smaller states to have an impact in the process, without being overshadowed by a larger state far, far away, as could happen with the inter-regional system set up by Senator Nelson.

In establishing the regions that I detail below, I took great pains to respect the geographic and cultural commonalities of the states included in the regions. Additionally, an attempt has been made to split the regions up proportionally to current Electoral College distributions (6 regions of as close to 90 electoral college votes per region) as is geographically and culturally possible. Due to these considerations, some regions have more, some considerably less. There are many ways to distribute the states, and this is one of them.

Here are the regions:

Northeast – Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, DC

Southeast – Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi

Southwest – Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona

Midwest – Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio

Mountain West – North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho

Pacific – California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii

Selection Process

The first presidential election year that this solution was available, there would be a simple lottery to determine the order. Once that order was selected, a weighted lottery would be in effect, to ensure that regions near the end of the contest had a greater chance of getting closer to the beginning of the contest. The selection process should be held no later than 18 months before the general election date.

Timing

Once the order is set, the contests would begin on the 1st Tuesday after the 15th of Jan, and continue every 4 weeks following, the last one ending the first week of June. This, in no way shortens the process, though in lightly contested years, as in past years with our current system, the final contests may be irrelevant.

Process

All contests are to be open primaries for all parties involved. Because, under this proposal the system is federalized, the quaint, but outdated, caucus system would be gone for everything but the purpose of nominating and selecting convention delegates. In other words, there must be a verifiable popular vote count, period.

Just like states with open primaries, a voter declares what ballot they wish to vote on, and then votes that party’s ballot only.

Because the primary system is federalized, great pains must be taken to include other parties in the primary process. For all practical purposes, the top five parties in each state (for instance, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and at least one more) should be included in the primary. This way, all parties have a franchise, and perhaps the discussion can move from the artificial monochromatic scheme that we have in the country today.

Party Control

This may be the area of greatest importance to insure the 1st amendment right of association. All rules that nominate the candidates still fall on the individual party. The federal government has no right to involve itself in the functioning of a political party, only the right to determine order and timing of contests, and general rules that maintain a level of fairness throughout the process. Parties have the right to control the distribution of delegates to their nominating conventions. Parties have the right to hold caucuses after the primaries to elect delegates to the convention.

In order for any substantial change to happen, there would have to be a constitutional amendment. I personally like piggybacking on the Electoral College idea, because it seems to be gaining some traction, and it’s been the bane of my existence since 1988.

No solution that I have seen is perfect. Certainly, this one has it’s flaws, but its important to have the discussion going forward. No matter what, the discussion needs to start now. Two thirds of the Congress (House and Senate) must approve a constitutional amendment, followed by three fourths of the states. That’s a pretty tall order that has only been accomplished 27 times, and failed thousands. There are plenty of states out there to screw this up. It only takes 12 states to stop it. There are 16 states with 4 or fewer Electoral College votes (one of which is New Hampshire), more than enough in other words.

It’s a long hard road, and a lot of discussions ahead, but it needs to happen for the good of the country, and the sanctity of one person, one vote.

Consider the SCOTUS

Steve Ross — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:57:00 +0000

Consider the SCOTUS

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

This is a significant victory for those of us who believe that justice must take precedent over contemporary conditions. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said,

”The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.

This decision spurred me to take a look at the makeup of the court today. What I found, disturbed me…

Roberts – 53 years old – GWB – Votes R
Stevens – 88 years old – Ford – Votes L
Scalia – 72 years old – Reagan – Votes R
Kennedy – 72 years old – Reagan - Swing
Souter – 69 years old – GHWB – Votes L
Thomas – 60 years old – GHWB – Votes R
Ginsburg – 75 years old – Clinton – Votes L
Breyer – 70 years old – Clinton – Votes L
Alito – 58 years old – GWB – Votes R

There are 5 justices age 70 or older. Of them, 3 are solid left leaning justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer), one is a swing (Kennedy) and one is Scalia, who will never die because he is not really a human.

The condition of the court presents a serious threat to the current stalemate. Should a justice retire, or God forbid, pass away, before the end of President Bush’s term, there is a greater probability that it would be on our side of the bench, changing the makeup of the court, and making it virtually impossible to affect that makeup in any tangible way for quite some time.

I know this is morbid, but the reality is that the makeup of the court has serious implications for the future of the nation. If the Democratic Party can win and hold the Presidency for 8 years, there is a distinct possibility that as many as 6 seats on the court could open up. This turnover would represent a complete flip of all of the “liberal” justices. Basically, we have to win to hold our 4 seats on the court, with the possibility of picking up 2 seats. This makes the task of electing a Democrat this November of critical importance.

In looking at the breakdown, one thing that I find quite disturbing is the way that Republican administrations have been able to stack the court with younger appointees. Clarence Thomas is only 60? He’s been in the court since 1991. He was 43 when he took the bench. By contrast, Ginsberg was 60 when she was appointed in 1993 and Breyer was 56 on his appointment in 1994. Republican administrations have had a lot more opportunity to appoint to the bench, having won 5 of the last 7 terms in the White House. It’s amazing that they don’t have a total lock on the SCOTUS. To be sure, were it not for Souter and Stevens, both Republican appointees who regularly vote with Democratic appointees, the state of the federal judiciary may be very different.

There are a lot of issues to consider, particularly for those who are undecided, or feel hurt as a result of the nominating process, but for me, this is one of the biggest. We are teetering on the brink of a conservative Supreme Court, that could completely remake US case law in a way that that would take generations to undo. As the process goes forward (we’re still nearly 5 months away from election day) this should be in the forefront of our minds, and a motivating force to make sure the Democratic party wins the White House.

Contrasting the Tax Plans

Steve Ross — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:02:00 +0000

Talking Points Memo has some interesting coverage on the differences between the McCain and Obama tax plans. Watch the video below then we’ll consider some numbers on the back side.

The distributions that were used were obviously tailored to the CNN audience, but there are some things that should be noted in terms of households served

$38k - $66k income level constitutes about 25% of the US households
$66k - $112k income level constitutes about 15% of US Households
$112k - $166k income level constitutes about 11% of US Households
$2.9M or more income level constitutes less than 2% of US households (2% of US Households make $250,000 or more, US Census has not published data for incomes above that threshold).(Source)

Here’s the part that CNN doesn’t talk about. Households that make 0-$38k constitute over 42% of all US Households. These households would effectively pay little or no taxes, depending on what makes up the household (marital status, children, etc.)

I’m still reading on this but the report is here for your serious geeking out enjoyment.

Pup Blogging

Steve Ross — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:50:00 +0000

I have, for quite some time, felt that I have the cutest pup in all the land. So, I submit to you...Bruiser...

As you can see, he's about to turn into the incredible bruiser...soon after he destroyed the camera.

Profiteering from our Oil Dependence

Steve Ross — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:05:00 +0000

If you travel a lot, like me, you've been hit as hard, if not harder by the massive increase in fuel prices. Nearly everything I do, from flying to shipping thousands of pounds of equipment from one end of the country to the other, to driving all over the Mid-South, has been negatively affected by this increase. Thanks to the following report from Countdown this evening, now I know why Oil has been rising through the roof, and it all goes back to Enron.

Watch the clip...

Essentially, we're getting gamed the same way California did by Enron. The difference is that the effects of this deregulation condition are now spread not only throughout the US, but the world, all in the name of profit for a few people. Here's an article from the 11/10/2001 edition of theNY Times about deregulation in energy markets and the administrations inability to keep up with the challenges it presents. My favorite quote:

Earlier this year, the federal energy commission asked for comments on whether it should tighten scrutiny of dealings between natural gas pipelines and energy-trading shops owned by the same company.

Enron wondered what all the bother was. ''Would stricter rules prevent real affiliate abuse that current rules do not,'' it wrote in a regulatory filing, ''or would they instead merely restrict the activities of some of the more successful participants in the marketplace?''

Stricter rules? How would that help?/snicker

So now that we know who is fucking us and how they're doing it, will anything happen? I doubt it. This is not a topic that the news media knows how to report to the regular folk. It doesn't involve anyone's wife, or some kind of personality dispute, or any kind of candidate back and forth. It's not something pulled from the pages of a supermarket tabloid, or from the mouth of a felon, on the lamb that has rented space in DC.

Even the path to enacting this horrible clusterfuck is more than a little sketchy.

The original bill from the 106th Congress HR5660 failed, but was included in a conference report to HR 4577. This bill passed by a large margin with every Democratic member of Congress from the Tennessee delegation; Tanner, Clement, Gordon and Ford voting for it's passage. In their defense, HR 4577 was an appropriations bill for the Dept. of Labor and HHS, and was supported by nearly all of the Democratic delegation (vote). Only 9 Democrats voted against the measure with 42 not voting. The bill was signed by President Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.

The hard truth of the matter is that even though we know how we're getting screwed, it doesn't mean we can easily stop getting screwed, or that the reversal of this portion of the law will end up with the instant lowering of prices, as mentioned in the Countdown piece. Further, should Congress take this up, it would most certainly get vetoed by the President, who seems hell bent on drilling from here to Narnia and back for all the oil that may or may not be there, selling us a bag of beans for all our possessions and maybe even our soul in the process.

The solution, for this and most of the other problems that face America financial services is re-regulation of areas that we gave up to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's for the hope that we Democrats would not get eviscerated in the next election by looking more Republican. It is a hard left turn away from the litany of capitulations that set this condition up, a left turn that is long past due.

Change™

Steve Ross — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:11:00 +0000

There’s been a lot of noise today about Change™. Some are disappointed that Obama has chosen to endorse Barrow in GA-12, some feel he’s shifting to the right, still others are getting the idea that we may not be able to believe in his version of change as much as we originally thought.

The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what Change™ is. To many, Change™ may be anything other than what we have now. To others, Change™ is a more specific brand of transformative policies and positions that, when married together in the right quantities, make the perfect stew of Progressivism or whatever particular ideology that you hold dear. The truth of the matter is that Change™ is such a vague idea that nearly everyone is for it, until their sacred cow is up for the slaughter.

There seems to be an idea out there on the interwebs that Change™ is somehow easy. Certainly, to the people who know what kind of Change™ they want and have their specific hills to die on, it is. The reality is that Change™ is a messy exercise that instantly pleases and pisses off large groups of people with one stroke of the pen, one bill, one gesture. My idea of Change™ is probably not what you had in mind, and your idea of Change™ is likely something that I wouldn’t agree to in a million years.

So, with this in mind, how does a person, a candidate, or a party, manage Change™ in a way that neither alienates them from their core values and supporters, but doesn’t scare away all the other people that are vital for achieving even on tenth of the Change™ that they propose? They take it down a notch.

You see, the big problem with Change™ is that no one is really happy with how things are going, but they are also strangely, frighteningly, comfortable with the status quo. There’s a level of comfort that comes from the knowns and the known unknowns, to borrow a phrase from Rummy. It is the genuine unknowns that scare the hell out of people, (unknown knowns are fictional figments or Rummy’s circulation socks) and the only way to quell that fear is to work to somehow make those unknowns impact people less. That also means less Change™.

In Presidential politics Change™ is even sketchier. Not only to you have to ease the fears of your constituents, but also those who you will rely on to push your agenda through the legislative process. Like it or not, legislators are in the business of getting re-elected, not legislating. As a result, legislators are far more reluctant to Change™ because Change™ is messy, and they don’t want to be blamed for a potential adverse outcome. This reluctance puts the onus for Change™ on the people who should ultimately be in charge of it, the constituents.

Ahh, but constituents aren’t good at Change™ either. They want to balance their household budgets while owning the biggest big screen HDTV with 4 picture in pictures and total immersion surround sound. They want rock solid abs after a mere 20 minute workout and to eat that carton of Twinkies in one sitting. It’s a startling contradiction. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want some kind of Change™ in their life. I hardly know anyone who is willing to do everything, or even anything it takes to make that Change™ happen, myself included. Are we lazy? Are we stupid? Nope, we’re scared…all of us.

We’re scared that all we’ve worked for might magically disappear. We’re scared that all we’ve bitched about may be resolved with no appreciable positive impact, leaving us searching for something new to bitch about. We are, at once, infatuated and terrified of Change™, because that very Change™ may, or may not be, the thing that puts us over the top. Either way, we’re content the way we are because in the absence of Change™ we have a scapegoat to blame for all that ails us.

Sound negative? Then get your fat ass on an ab machine for 20 minutes and tell me how it works out.

The truth of the matter is that Lasting Change™ doesn’t happen overnight, it happens in stages. The trick to Lasting Change™ is that in order for it to work there has to be enough institutional memory to avoid the bad ideas and implement the good ones, lest we see saw back and forth ultimately achieving no Change™, which is exactly what’s happened in America for the last 40 years. We have to put our blood, sweat and tears into every contest that can affect the kind of Lasting Change™ we want, all the while knowing that making that Lasting Change™ happen will take the sheer effort and will of a large group of people for a sustained period of time. We have to be dogged, diligent, and determined, all while lovingly shepherding those who are more reluctant, and carefully culling those who just plain won’t. It’s a tall order, and two years ain’t enough time to make it happen.

The key is continued drive and saintly patience. At some point we have to recognize that politics isn’t Burger King, we can’t always, immediately, have it our way.

Sure John Tanner’s continued suckling of the corporate teat pisses me off to no end. Sure I have dreams at night of moving to Northwest Tennessee and beating his ass in a primary contest. Sure that stunning defeat comes with an admission on his part that he has been horribly wrong for way too long, ultimately resulting in his transformation from corporate doucebag to man of the people. But I’m also realistic.

I know that Northwest Tennessee will not go for a crazy, wild eyed radical, but a person that understands the trials and tribulations of the average guy, and will work to shepherd them through their fear of Change™ instead of using that fear as a means to crush all opposition. In doing that, some of my more fervent supporters will perceive a shift to the right, and that may well be. No one understands Algebra in 1st grade, and it follows that the “average guy” will not understand or be comfortable with Change™ until they have learned to add and subtract and multiply and divide.

And that’s our challenge. If we want to implement Change™, we have to be willing to educate the people with the long term in mind, to quell the fear, gain confidence, and make it happen. It’s a long road, and it’s irritating for the faithful, but unlike religion, it’s not just a leap of faith, it’s a recognition of a national condition that has brought a blight on the American people.

It’s the realization that we can only rise up, by lifting other people up from the darkness of misinformation and fear. It’s the determination to keep working for the BIG YESSES despite the little no’s that we could focus on to undermine our efforts. It’s the drive to make a nation in the image of it’s Constitution and Declaration of Independence, maintaining a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most importantly, it’s the dogged idealism of people like you and me that push the envelope of possibility to realize the promise of a nation.

This version of Change™ may not be all we thought it was cracked up to be, but it’s a step. Should we push the envelope? You better believe it. But we have to realize, at the same time, that not everyone is ready for the change that we are, and we still have to work like hell to educate the “everyman” to the benefits instead of beating them over the head with rhetoric and insults. We are talking about a transformation, and it will take some time to realize it. We can do it, as long as we don’t start eating our young to spite our future.

In an unrelated note, to step into the Feel Good Friday set, here’s a song by David Bowie.

Thin Skinned Politicians

Steve Ross — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:40:00 +0000

Nobody likes to be criticized. It’s uncomfortable. It can be troubling, discouraging and disappointing. But criticism, constructive and otherwise, is a part of life, particularly for those who serve an elected office.

With a few exceptions, I have tried to base my criticism of politicians or aspiring politicians to issues of policy or strategy. Those topics are fair game in my mind. People seeking an office should be comfortable enough with themselves and their positions to take criticism of these topics constructively. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Looking back to the 2006 CT-Senate race, Joe Lieberman took criticisms of his position on the war personally and eventually lost the Democratic nomination. His reaction to these criticisms as personal attacks led to his nomination loss. Quite simply, he got defensive, bunkered down, and got beat.

When politicians take criticism personally it raises questions. Are they taking it personally because they are so invested in their positions, or their position in office?

See, it takes a special kind of crazy to put yourself out there in front of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who, by and large, don’t trust the thing you’re about to go serve in (the gubament). It takes an ego, and egos are fragile things when the ego is wrapped around the office instead of positions.

When egos are wrapped around the office, criticisms suddenly take a personal turn for the worst. It becomes an attack on one’s livelihood. It endangers the power that one has amassed. It’s a threat that sends a candidate down a long line of irrational conclusions and decisions that, on their own, can take them down.

That’s what happened to Lieberman in 2006. Had Connecticut law not allowed him to add his name to the ballot after the primary, we might be talking about Senator Ned Lamont, but thanks to that weird bit of election law, and a whole lot of Republicans abandoning their party’s candidate, Lieberman managed to win. Next time he may not be so lucky.

The point of all this is, politicians are supposed to be criticized, compared and contrasted, that’s how they get the job. When suddenly, the politician translates these core principles of the election process as personal attacks, you gotta ask yourself why. Are they more married to their positions, or their position in office?

It’s just a question.

Pilots and Presidents

Steve Ross — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:15:00 +0000

There's a whole lot of buzz around the MSM and the interwebs about Wes Clark's statements on Face the Nation yesterday. Here's a clip from the show.

Clark honored McCain's service. As a former military man himself, it would be foolish to think he wouldn't. Hell, I appreciate McCain's military service and I wasn't even alive for most of it. The simple truth is that military service, of any kind, does not make you ready to be President any more than anything else. That's what Clark said, though not in the most concise way.

Clark did nothing to demean the service, he tried to put the service into focus. McCain can't run for President on his service alone and expect it to go unchecked. Military service doesn't necessarily make someone a good President, just look at our current President, or even Ulysses S. Grant. Both served in the military, both were bad Presidents, but that's the bulk of what McCain is running on.

If the Obama campaign wants to concede that military service alone is an unquestionable asset that makes McCain uniquely qualified to be President, then they need to roll up the carpets now and save us all a lot of punditry. I suspect they're not quite ready to do that, but are reacting to shabby media analysis. A new kind of politics eh?

In the process, they're screwing over a man who has done more for the Democratic Party since 2004 than a whole lot of other potential surrogates. It' a sad state of affairs.

If you want to stand up to the media noise machine, Vote Vets has a petition drive.

Joementum Sinking

Steve Ross — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:57:00 +0000

On Sunday I wrote a post about Thin Skinned Politicians. In that post I told the story of Joe Lieberman's dead weight fall from the good graces of Connecticut Democrats, as well as Democrats nationwide.

Today Quinnipiac University released a poll of Connecticut voters. The poll shows a seven point drop in approval and an eight point rise in disapproval of Senator Lieberman. Two thirds of Connecticut Democrats give him low marks.

Joe has four more years on his term. Connecticut has no procedure to recall elected officials, so Joe is safe in that regard, but it reinforces my original idea, particularly about the party he started to maintain his office, Connecticut for Lieberman. Just for kicks, go take a look at the CFL site. CFL has been taken over by people who oppose Lieberman. Ahh, poetic justice!

Tough Financial Medicine

Steve Ross — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:39:00 +0000

Over at Big Orange, front pager Devilstower has an interesting article about a letter to "President Obama" from PIMCO CEO Bill Gross. You can read the whole letter here.

It's some interesting commentary on the state of high finance in America. Here are some snippets:

You have inherited a mess. Your predecessor, fixated on emulating a former Republican icon from a far different economic era, chose to emphasize tax cuts for the rich and excessive consumption for all Americans. He promoted deregulation and free markets when, in fact, the markets and their institutions needed tough love. Over eight years, he failed to put forth a coherent energy policy. He needlessly invaded Iraq and lowered worldwide esteem for this nation as a symbol of freedom and benevolence.

...Granted, you’re going to raise tax rates on the rich, give a break to the lower/middle class and rebalance the scales of economic justice somewhat. I myself won’t enjoy paying that near 50 percent marginal tax rate after you remove the current cap on the payroll tax, but my wealthy neighbors and I in Newport Beach should just look at it this way: we’ve had an eight-year lease extension on the “high life.” Now it’s time to give something back...

...While the Republicans will blame you for years and label you “Trillion Dollar Obama” in future campaigns, there is in fact not much that you or any other President can do. You’ve inherited an asset-based economy whose well has been pumped nearly dry with lower and lower interest rates and lender of last resort liquidity provisions that have managed to support Ponzi-style prosperity in recent years...

He goes on and on. The thing that makes me happy about this is the realism. Our farts are not going to magically smell like roses once Obama is elected. Our financial mess ain't gonna be fixed overnight. Hell, by the time he takes the oath of office, we'll be at the end of the 4th month of President Bush's last budget. Not much he can do with that, huh?

Seeing any positive movement by the mid-terms is unlikely too. On election day in 2010, we'll be in the 1st month of the second Obama budget, and the HUGE tax increase on the ultra wealthy, will motivate them in a way we haven't seen since 1994. To make matters worse, the financial state of the nation will probably actually be worse than it is today. We had better be ready.

If you've ever seen the Kill Bill movies you know it takes a long time to punch your way out of a grave. That's the reality that about 2/3rds of Americans are potentially facing as the currency continues to devalue and interest on savings goes into the negative. And once you're out, you're still not done. You've gotta kick the asses of two trained killers, damn it's hard out there for a pimp (to quote from a movie made by a neighbor)! But that's what has to be done, we can't renew the lease on the "high life" forever.

So while you're out there bitching about trials and triangulations, I know I will be, don't forget the harsh reality that gas has surpassed the price of milk, which will most certainly start rising faster. That means everything else gets more expensive, and I need to start lobbying to allow farm animals in the city with all my backyard space. I should probably fix the fence first...

Mock Outrage...Media Continues McCain Fluffery, Will Not Wipe Chin

Steve Ross — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:43:00 +0000

h/t Americablog

It must be really nice being an on air gasbag. I mean you can say just about anything you want, it floats off into the ether, and tomorrow, you get to do it again. BRILLIANT!

Sure I guess there are rules and all that, but since the line between journalist and pundit/gasbag/opinion turd, has been smeared all over the place leaving no perceptible trace of journalist, just shit all over the place. Maintaining any level of journalistic standards is probably too time consuming.

I'm still pissed about the way the media, and Obama, have been treating General Clark. Now the Columbia Journalism Review is critiquing the coverage and the phrase "mock outrage" is in first sentence. Nice!

The article points out the ways the media has mis-reported the Clark comments. Here are some snippets

He [Clark] had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

But many in the press have been unable to.

[snip]

Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain’s particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he’ll have to make as president?

[snip]

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

Quite frequently I hear people say that the American people aren't smart enough to pick a good President, an assertion that I vehemently disagree with. However, with shitty media coverage like this, it's no wonder we've had 8 years of the imaginary executive and 4th branch. Get your act together people! sheesh!

Internal Polling - Updated

Steve Ross — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:24:00 +0000

Yesterday the Tuke campaign sent out a couple of emails detailing the results of some internal polling in the TN Senate Democratic primary race. The first asserted they were leading Mike Padgett by 30 some points. The second, a correction, they lead their nearest opponent by 24 points.

I'm not a big fan of releasing internal polls. From my perspective it's like tipping your hand in a poker game. Why let anyone else know you have a hand? But releasing this poll was a really bad idea, particularly since Tuke is losing to undecided by 25 points. Here are the corrected numbers they published:

Undecided - 57%
Tuke - 32%
Padgett - 8%
Others - 4%

That's hardly a win for the Tuke campaign. More people haven't made a decision on this race than support Tuke by a nearly 2-1 margin. How is this good news for the campaign?

I'd be more interested in how Tuke, and the rest of the field stacks up against Lamar!. I bet that's not a rosy picture for any of the Democratic candidates.

If the intent of releasing the poll was to get people to line up behind him as the frontrunner, he might be successful. It could also cause Padgett to nose down and go for broke. There's plenty of undecideds out there for Padgett to pick off and make this a competitive race.

The harsh reality is what this means for the general election. If 60ish% of Democrats aren't sure who they support, just imagine where all the independents are falling in the race. The eventual Democratic nominee will have a huge hill to climb starting August 8th. Name recognition, public appearances, you name it, they better be ready to beat the hell out of the bushes and close the gap.

Hill number 2 is campaign cash. As of the April disclosure Lamar! has about $2.8M in the bank. Tuke was at $224k (the next disclosure is on the 20th). If Tuke wins the primary, Democrats will have to come up with about $3M more to be marginally competitive. Further, since no Democrat in the race has previously run or won a statewide election, it raises the bar that much more...add $1.5M. Finally, since the state legislature didn't put that flanel ban on campaign appearances, add another $500k for good measure (I'm still convinced that people recognize the shirt more than the man).

We have a long way to go before this race becomes competitive, and an even longer one to convince the DSCC and party activists around the country that any Democrat in TN has a chance against Lamar! Showing weakness among Democrats some 30 days out from the Primary election isn't the way to do it.

Update: An email commenter notes that the release of internal polls can sometimes dissuade people from contributing to their opponent. I agree with this assessment, and think this is particularly effective in primary contests. Still, it's too bad that the Tuke campaign didn't either have it, or release it before the 6/30 reporting deadline.

Kleinheider posted an anonymous comment calling the methodology into question. This too is a valid point.

Finally, if this was a poll of Tennessee Democrats one would think there would be enough familiarity with Tuke, a former TNDP chair, to push him over the 50% mark. Maybe people just aren't paying that much attention to down-ticket races right now, I honestly don't know. I do know that the national media and bloggers have written this race off. I sure hope Tennesseans haven't.

Larry Godwin v. MPD Enforcer

Steve Ross — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:21:00 +0000

I just got back in town, and see that our Police Director has sued AOL to find out the identity of the bloggers at MPD Enforcer.

Up to this point, I had never heard of the blog, though it seems to get some pretty heavy traffic, particularly from Law Enforcement. I just went back and read several months of posts, and I don’t see ANYTHING that would justify such an action. As far as I can tell, MPD Enforcer is just a blog by a single, or group of current or former cops who vehemently disagree with the direction the MPD is on. So Larry, what’s the rub?

Squashing dissention is just going to lead to more and louder dissention. Whoever is running this blog has a right to say what they want to, even if some feel it’s unfair. That’s their perspective, so be it. You can either ignore it or act on it, but as a public official, you should be ready for such public disagreement. If you can’t handle it, get out of the business.

To my way of thinking, this is a horrible waste of MPD resources, and court time. Further, the precedent that could be set would be damaging for whistleblowers and the 1st amendment.

If Godwin has a legitimate legal argument, he should present it now, if he’s just on a witch-hunt, I think the City Council may have a problem with this. In any case, the identity of the operators should be allowed to remain anonymous until there’s some legitimate reason to pursue them, or they decide to go public. Make your case in public Larry, or learn to take your lumps like the rest of us.

Sell the Pyramid

Steve Ross — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:33:00 +0000

Fox 13 reported last night that Cummings Street Missionary Baptist Church wants to buy the Pyramid for $12 million.

It’s believed that the City and County currently owe $12 million for the now abandoned building, so why not? It takes the debt load off the city, it puts an iconic building to use, and it will finally end the incessant cat and mouse game that has been the Bass Pro Shops courtship. Further, it will mean that a lot of money could be spent in the community readying the building for worship services. Sounds like a win to me.

As arenas go, The Pyramid is a piece of shit. Every touring roadie I know shudders at the mention of it. I’m sure there would be loud cries of happiness at its departure from the production scene.

Additionally, the city has managed to take an icon and mismanage it into the ground. From the “right of first refusal” deal with the Forum, to the actual construction of the building, absolutely nothing has been done right. Maybe a church can do better.

Still, one has to wonder about the conflict of iconography. Pyramids are buildings built by slaves to house wealthy dead Egyptians into the afterlife. Christian churches are communities that are supposed to shepherd people through life. That’s an interesting difference. Then there’s the whole conflict of mythology.

In any case, if someone is dumb enough to want to buy it, I say let it go. At least it will be used for SOMETHING. That’s a lot better than the NOTHING we have going for us now.

America First – A Response

Steve Ross — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:13:00 +0000

In this week’s Memphis Flyer there is an opinion piece called America first. Bound by the constraints of print media, it is far from comprehensive, but brings up an important conversation; What should our foreign aid look like? Should we even have any foreign aid?

On a certain level, I agree with the author. In a world where we only need look just beyond many of our neighborhoods to find poverty, disease and all other manners of societal dysfunction, we should be spending our time, effort, and money fixing the problems in America rather than propping up Pakistan’s military with new F-16 parts, or working to maintain Egypt’s tenuous grasp on 20th century style government.

Unfortunately, the world just isn’t that simple, and Mr. Reese seems to be engaging in the same type of hyperbolic rhetoric that demonized the mythical Cadillac driving “Welfare Queens” from the 80’s and 90’s, which led to the dismantling of welfare without having any real positive impact on the rate of poverty. Since 1980 the poverty level in America has ranged from about 12% to as high as 15% (Source). Putting limits on the safety net didn’t fix anything. Taking away foreign aid won’t fix anything either.

Foreign Affairs spending constitutes about 1.5% of the total budget. In the 2006 budget, $13b went to the State Department and $18b went to humanitarian and military aid. That $18b pales in comparison to the $500+b of requested funds to the DoD that doesn’t include war spending, or the $545b that was spent on Social Security. Hell, that $18b doesn’t even put a dent in the $500b of deficit spending or the $211b of debt service we pay each year. Could that $18b help people here at home, certainly, but let’s not act as if we’re giving away the farm.

The truth of the matter is we may give more money, but that money is far less humanitarian aid than other countries as a percentage of their GDP. In 2007 the Brookings Institution reported that the US consistently ranks 26th or 27th out of the top 28 giving nations as a percentage of GDP (Source).

The solution is a shade of grey that most pundits, writers and readers are unwilling to acknowledge. We have to get past our Cold War era funding of foreign military. That world no longer exists. We have to invest more in educating and insuring people. We have to invest more in sustainability through new methods of powering transportation, and the infrastructure to support these new methods. We have to help our own people in these ways, as well as people abroad. This means redirecting our foreign appropriations from military projects to educational, infrastructural, and health care projects. We have to take the long-term goal of creating opportunity abroad in order to create more opportunities here at home. It’s the rising tide analogy. Most importantly, we have to get past the myth that foreign and domestic spending are somehow mutually exclusive.

Just Something Funny

Steve Ross — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:12:00 +0000

I Stumbled Upon this clip this morning....

Pickin' apart the Pickens Plan

Steve Ross — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:39:00 +0000

Over the past few days I’ve been seeing a lot of ads featuring Swift Boat financier/apologist T. Boone Pickens. Here’s the ad:

His site and the plan that he lays out, is an interesting, though hardly comprehensive, take on energy independence. The long and the short of it is, lets build a bunch of wind capacity to displace the role of Natural Gas in electricity generation, then take that natural gas and make it the primary fuel for transportation. It is by far, the most concrete, and doable plan I’ve seen put forth by any conservative in the US.

Pickens has been investing in wind. He’s in the process of building a 4000 turbine wind farm in Texas that should start going on line in 2010. But Pickens is known as an oil man. He currently sits on the board of two natural gas outfits, Exco Resources and Clean Energy Fuels Corp., so it’s not as if he doesn’t stand to gain something by moving Natural Gas from electricity production to transportation. He has been mostly selling his Natural gas holdings, as reflected in his insider trading profile, but I’m still suspicious.

I’m suspicious because of a lot of things, but mostly because of his Swift Boat activities. Why would any Democrat embrace anything this guy has to say, when he’s engaged in once of the most reckless smear jobs of the new century? Is this an attempt at redemption, or seizing an opportunity to drive the debate in a direction that benefits his bottom line at the exclusion of other emerging plans?

According to the DOE (Source), 25% of all US Natural Gas consumption is used for electricity generation, 22% for home heating, and a paltry .1% for vehicle fuel. Natural Gas for vehicle fuel just happens to be Clean Energy Fuels Corp.’s main business.

The US imports 20% of it’s annual Natural Gas consumption. 83% of that is imported from Canada and Mexico. Displacing the role of Natural Gas in energy consumption may free up enough to put a dent in our current foreign oil consumption, but it would hardly replace it. Further, converting existing vehicles to Natural Gas, and building the infrastructure to support those vehicles would be an expensive enterprise. That’s not a reason to dismiss Natural Gas as an option, it just shouldn’t be the only option.

The Pickens plan isn’t totally off the mark, but it’s not a real solution either. Despite reports to the contrary, Natural Gas won’t last forever. Natural Gas prices fluctuate wildly as winter comes around. On the other hand, Natural Gas engines are currently in service, and available in some areas of the country, but it’s not as if you can just hook your car up to your home gas service and refill. Natural Gas for automobiles need about 3000 psi to work in converted engines.

Natural Gas is part of the solution, but like corn, increasing demand for Natural Gas will ultimately hurt poor people in states with longer winters than we have here in the south by increasing prices to keep their homes heated. The real solution is a lot more complicated than replacing one fossil fuel for another. It's a multi-tiered approach that includes Natural Gas, electrics, hybrids, oil, and emerging technologies all at once. The first step is reducing consumption through promoting efficiency, increasing the availability of public transportation, and changing public perceptions of energy use.

The biggest problem with the Pickens Plan is that it does nothing to address the prevalence of coal in electricity generation (50% of all electricity is generated by coal), another resource that is currently abundant, but hardly renewable. In short, the Pickens Plan is a transitional strategy more than a long term solution. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the dialogue, but we should consider the source before hitching our wagon to another oil man's plan, who seems to be more invested in his own interests than a comprehensive solution.

Panning the Pyramid Sale

Steve Ross — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:30:00 +0000

Last week I wrote this post advocating for the sale of the Pyramid to an interested local church. This morning, I found this post in my rss feed from Smart City Memphis panning the idea of selling the Pyramid.

We’re all entitled to our own opinions. Certainly, selling an icon of the city skyline shouldn’t be the first option, but in the absence of any other concrete plan, selling the building, or a long term lease, ought to be considered, lest the building remain a powerful reminder of just how poorly City and County management has fared.

Why is Smart City so opposed to the proposed sale? What future does Smart City see in the Pyramid? What is Smart City’s prescription for making the Pyramid a vital and useful part of Memphis? Is it Bass Pro Shops…the suitor who keeps making us do their homework, but won’t take us to the prom? What about the mythical park that won’t ever happen? Or even that old people flea market idea that some idiot proposed in last year’s election? Maybe they just want to blow it up a magnificent, though fleeting demonstration of the ultimate failure.

The truth of the matter is that:

1. No one thought about what would happen to the Pyramid when the Forum was proposed.
2. Memphis has a history of building things it has no idea what to do with, and won’t look to outside help to make successful, choosing cronies over competence.
3. The Pyramid stands as a continual reminder of just how much, we as Memphians love candy more than we hate being fat. (If you don’t understand that, think consequences)
4. If there is some plan out there that will make the Pyramid bring positive economic impact to the Pinch area it should be put front and center so if can be considered.

I’ve proposed all kinds of things for the Pyramid to become, from convention space to an aquarium, to an expansion to the county jail (just kidding). There is one idea that I haven’t put forward though, and that’s a museum. The theme; Poor City Management Through the Ages. Memphis is a prime candidate, and just think of how many exhibits could come from local resources. Now that would spur the economy! /snark

Systemic in Nature

Steve Ross — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:03:00 +0000

The DOJ has just released it’s findings in the US Attorney firing investigation. For those of you who don’t remember Monica Goodling, she was the DOJ official who testified to Congress that political considerations were made in hiring non-political attorneys in the DOJ.

You may also remember Ms. Goodling from this exchange with our Congressman, Steve Cohen.

I haven’t read the entire 100+ pages, but on page 115, the verdict:

The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Monica Goodling each violated Department of Justice policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in soliciting and evaluating candidates for IJs, which are Schedule A career positions, not political appointments. Further, the evidence demonstrates that their violations were not isolated instances but were systematic in nature.

Thanks for making my day kiddos!

I'm not bragging or anything....

Steve Ross — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:49:00 +0000

Seriously, I'm not sure I agree with this at all, but here goes...

ht goldeni

Karaoke Mishaps I Have Known

Steve Ross — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:53:00 +0000

One of my dark secrets is that I am a Karaoke whore. I don't really know what else to say about it. I just am. So, when a client suggested that the entertainment for their event might be a karaoke night I thought that, with enough booze, it could be pretty fun.

What I didn't expect was the song selection. To be honest, it's been haunting me for the past few days. I mean, there was the usual Patsy Cline, and some douchie Creedesque guy and a bunch of pop country, but there was one song that really stuck with me for it's strangeness. That song is "Behind Closed Doors", by Charlie Rich.

You may not be familiar with the song, and if you are, you know what I'm talking about. Just so we're all on the same page, here are the lyrics to the chorus.

And when we get behind closed doors
Then she lets her hair hang down
And she makes me glad that I'm a man
Oh, no-one knows what goes on behind closed doors

I don't know what that says to you, but to me it screams CREEPY.

Click the link above to read all the lyrics if you want, but I just have one question....WHY THE FUCK WOULD SOMEONE, ANYONE sing that song?

Maybe I'm missing some context, in any case, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Now that I can post again after the "Great Blogger Clusterfuck" expect more silliness in this long suffering, dearth of media coverage they call August.

The GOP Whine Fest

Steve Ross — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:20:00 +0000

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been reading article after article about the GOP whine fest that’s going on in the House chambers right now. Essentially, this is a last ditch attempt by a small group of GOP faithful to put forth the impression that by not voting to allow additional drilling the Democratic leadership is somehow derelict. This small group of Representatives has decided that they will not leave until something is done to make their Big oil donors happy.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the hallmark of the “more of the same” offered by the GOP. We can no more drill our way out of high energy prices than we could fuck our way to virginity. It’s telling that even the White House has poo pooed the idea of a special session of Congress on energy. This is a hissy fit and that’s all. Maybe this is the GOP’s attempt at “differentiating” itself from the Bush White House. Good luck with that one!

The House GOP could be taking a tip (on the hissy fit front) from their presumptive nominee. McCain has been throwing one hissy after another about Obama’s “celebrity”, often going right to the edge of coherence. Hell, he’s acting like some of the girls on Rock of Love pouty lip out and all! Now that’s Presidential!

Will Americans fall for it? Why wouldn’t we? Since 1980 Americans have been just a wrapper and a stick away from a sucker. We want our GOP candy coated non-solution so we can go about doing things the same way we’ve been doing them all the while bitching about the way everything’s all screwed up. We won’t buy compact fluorescent bulbs because they cost too much. Turning the air up a couple of degrees makes our fat rolls stick together. Recycling means we may have to think for more than .5 seconds about what we’re throwing away, and then there’s that extra trip to the curb! Fuel efficient cars don’t pack enough punch, or have enough room for our single person, 15 mile commute from our gated community in ‘burbs. I could go on and on…

What happened to our “Can do” attitude? What happened to American ingenuity? What happened to confronting a problem head on and beating it to death with persistence and elbow grease? That’s the America that I know, not this whiny, entitled, America that John McCain and his GOP lackeys are touting.

This is our moment…our chance to take America back from the soft-serve sycophants that have been doggedly destroying American know how, for PAC donations and cushy lobbying jobs. This is an opportunity to take back a portion of a government that is supposed to be of, for, and by the people, not corporations. This is our time, to take back what is ours, enforce accountability, and once again lead the world with honor, dignity, and ingenuity instead of whining about what we’ve given up. Opportunities like this don’t come around every day, or even every four years. Don’t fall for the easy trap of reality show rhetoric that has taken over the McCain camp and the GOP at large. This campaign is too important to turn it into a High School popularity contest. We shouldn’t allow the media, or McCain, to degrade the process, and by extension, our nation, by turning it into the reality show flavor of the month.

Cashing in at MCS

Steve Ross — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:29:00 +0000

In an editorial over a the CA newly installed Superintendent, Kriner Cash lays out his plan to help the districts most at risk students find success. The prescription, 2000 college aged tutors.

I have to say, this is a brilliant idea. It does a lot of things; 1. It gives young people, who may have just recently left the MCS, an opportunity to immediately contribute to the community, 2. It removes the idea that has surrounded MCS, that no solutions have been offered, and 3. With the help of local foundations, it could provide an inspiration for those young tutors to pursue a career in education. We need young people who are committed to educating future generations. Cash has seized on this future need by dealing with a current need, lifting up the most at risk kids in the system.

There are other ideas that need to be explored or expanded as well. In the Little Rock School District, retired volunteers have been brought in to help strengthen basic reading and math skills in elementary school. This strategy works particularly well with younger children, who have high regard for grandparently figures.

Older students may be more resistant to older authority figures. By pairing these students with tutors only a few years their senior, you create a direct mentorship, a situation where the reward seems more direct to a population who may need more instant gratification.

While this is a good idea, it is highly dependent on financing from private foundations. College students have little time to dedicate to tutoring others without some kind of financial help, be it a stipend, or a tuition credit. Further, MCS will have to spend money to provide material support and implement standards by which the tutors can be evaluated. These steps are vitally important and should be open to public comment, and criticism by those who would contribute to the program and the community at large.

Despite a difficult start in the wake of the funding crisis, Cash has shown a good deal of leadership in suggesting this simple, but important program. How Cash implements the program will be a telling example of how he intends to run the district going forward. It’s important that he not fumble early on, lest he loose momentum, or worse, the trust of the community.

There’s still a lot to be done at MCS, and while this olive branch is a step in the right direction, there’s a lot of accountability in the district that needs to be laid down to maintain or gain the trust of Memphians. The fastest way to gain trust is to remove barriers to information. At this stage in his administration, transparency is an opportunity to shine, exposing waste or graft not associated with his new administration. The key is maintaining this openness…something that has proved difficult as administrations become more entrenched. Here’s to hoping Cash is successful, the future of the MCS, Memphis, and the Mid-South at large is counting on it.

Smearing in Absentia – The Tinker Campaign Strategy

Steve Ross — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:29:00 +0000

Until about a month ago, the TN-09 Congressional primary has been a quiet affair. Since Nikki Tinker’s announcement in March, she has been strangely absent, often avoiding any statement on her positions and comment to local reporters. Even so, in the past two months Tinker has demurred more often than not when asked to comment to the local press.

For the length of this campaign, Tinker has been vague when asked about her positions. In looking at her issues page, the substance is still quite thin, interesting considering that early voting has been underway for two weeks now. Clearly, Tinker feels that her positions are less important than “other issues”.

By contrast, the Cohen campaign boasts 11 major issues with subcategories on nearly every topic.

Tinker’s lackluster performance in focusing on the issues, and her self-imposed absence from commenting to the media has resulted little interest from the community, as evidenced by her low fundraising totals. Now suddenly, hours away from the closing of the polls, Tinker wants to go all in, and all ugly.

Certainly, TN-09 deserves a spirited campaign, but Tinker’s recent efforts, from the Forrest ad that premiered last week to her latest effort, using religion as a political wedge a la the Rovian tactics employed against Democrats nation wide over the past decade, paint an ugly picture of a candidate who has run out of options.

All of this is interesting considering that Tinker vowed to keep race and religion out of the campaign…

"This is not about my race, it's not about my religion. I'm concerned about where these young people are going to be 20 years from now." (Source)

Below is a transcript of the ad. I will not dignify this attack with a link, or the traffic that it would bring.

Child: Now I lay me down to sleep,
VO: Who is the real Steve Cohen anyway?
Child: I pray the Lord my soul to keep,
VO: While he’s in our churches clapping his hands and tapping his feet…
Child: If I should die before I wake,
VO: He is the only Senator who thought our kids shouldn’t be allowed to pray in school.
Child: I pray the Lord my soul to take
VO: Congressman, sometimes apologies just aren’t enough.

Based on this, and the previous ad, I guess everything is negotiable to Tinker, including her word.

A response from the Cohen Campaign is forthcoming and will be posted in a future update.

Nikki Tinker - Worst Person in the World

Steve Ross — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:35:00 +0000

Assassination Ain't a Joke Dude

Steve Ross — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:51:00 +0000

Apparently, some bonehead in Florida was charged with threatening to assassinate Barack Obama. CNN has the story.

What an asshat.

During an interview with the Secret Service, Geisel denied threatening Obama, but told agents that "if he wanted to kill Senator Obama he would simply shoot him with a sniper rifle."

He later said that comment was a joke, the agent said in the document.

I thought everyone knew the Secret Service has like, no sense of humor...

Double asshat for you sir...

Getting in a Wreck Teh Suk

Steve Ross — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:37:00 +0000

Today was eventful. The image you see here is my beloved 2006 Element, Jerome. He is dead due to a lady with neither insurance, nor brakes, nor common sense or decency.

Yes, we rolled 450 and killed a street light in the process. Smac wants a memorial cone in the place the street light once stood.

The lady tried to make it all about her, which is interesting considering that it was she that was at fault per the MPD.

Lots of people stopped to help me and Smac out of the car. We had to pull her through the windshield. Thank you kind Memphis people.

In other news, I pulled a petition to run for City Council, District 9, Position 1.

That is all.

Meh.

Take Ice Cream off the Menu

Steve Ross — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:20:00 +0000

It was turning out to be a great day. I got upgraded to First Class on the entire trip from Green Bay. We landed here in Memphis early, the cab ride to the Downtown Blue Monkey was nice. It was a beautiful day outside. Came home and got cleaned up, then headed off to the Shelby County Election Commission to pick up my petition. I was feeling good.

From there I headed back to the Downtown Monkey to pick up SMac. There was an extreme ice cream shortage that needed to be corrected, as well as some other errands. SMac's been working crazy hours the past week covering for vacations and such. We were hoping to get done with everything a little early, then head to to house for some chill time before our dinner date with Miss Dabney, in celebration of her birthday.

We loaded up the car and headed down to the ONLY grocery store within spitting distance of downtown, Miss Cordelia's. I'm still not sure why that's the only grocery store downtown, or why the city hasn't tried to get another one on the south side of downtown, or even why people would want to live so far away from a grocery store, but that's inconsequential.

We were driving down Riverside Dr., a four lane road that leads to Mud Island, the Pyramid and an on ramp for I-40, when out of nowhere we were hit on the rear quarter-panel of the vehicle. According to people who had a better vantage point of the accident than I, the back end of the car flew up in the air, then landed and sent the car into a roll. We stopped rolling probably more because of a light pole than anything else.

The whole thing was really quite surreal. I never saw the car, but heard the impact. Instinctively, I closed my eyes, but sometime between the beginning of the roll and stopping I opened and closed my eyes. Not exactly sure why.

When the car finally came to a stop, I opened my eyes to see SMac's side of the car on the ground. That left me suspended in a state that I can only compare to being suspended in mid-air by a fall arrest system...somewhat helpless. I managed to get myself unbuckled and SMac unbuckled and opened the driver side door with help from people who had witnessed the accident. I pulled myself out of the car and started trying to help SMac out. By then, witnesses had knocked the front window out and she was climbing out of the resulting hole.

What followed from there was extreme slow motion. MFD showed up on the scene, followed by a bike cop. Lots of witnesses and general onlookers, and an absolutely hysterical lady that hit us. I know she was sorry, but the drama was over the top. An hour after the accident she was still going. It wasn't her fault her brakes didn't work, even though she suspected they were faulty. She wasn't trying to hurt anyone. Really, after the first five minutes, everyone got it.

After about 30 minutes, I started to get irritated. The MPD was done with the witnesses statements, so I thought I'd ask about what they saw. "So, just how Hollywood did the crash look?", I asked. One witness, surprised by my general good humor and the very strange question answered, "I'll tell you what, it was pretty spectacular. I thought you were going to go end over end, then all of the sudden, you started rolling." Hollywood take note, my small focus group has confirmed that this is a neat looking car wreck. I suggest you use it in the next "Die Hard" film.

PawPaw showed up to give us a ride back to Midtown. We stopped at the Midtown Monkey to hug some necks and prove that we were ok to folks. About that time Butch showed up and I told him to take that damn ice cream off the menu, it's just not worth it. I don't think he got it.

Obviously, everyone's fine, though the soreness is starting to set in, and I don't have much of an appetite. Now it's insurance adjusters and car shopping, some 4 years before I had any intention of doing so.

We missed Miss Dabney's birthday, but we're gonna make it up to her at some point.

I want to thank all the people who stopped and helped, the MPD and MFD, the people who designed the roll bar on the Honda Element, all the friends who called and emailed and made sure we were ok, and anyone I missed in the process.

I still think they need to take ice cream off the menu.

Change Memphis

Steve Ross — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:08:00 +0000

I'm not much of one to pimp blogs, but this is one that I really believe in, Change Memphis the blog for Change Memphis coalition. This coalition of Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, New Path Memphis, and Concerned Memphians United is providing real information to Memphians about the charter changes that are being put on the November ballot.

This is important stuff that will affect the way government works here in the Bluff City for some time to come. Give them a look-see and get yourself educated on the issues that are going to be included on the November ballot.

Oversight, or Not?

Steve Ross — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:07:00 +0000

This morning’s CA reports that the Memphis City Council will be considering two charter proposals this afternoon for the November ballot. One proposal would give the Council the authority to approve Deputy Division Directors. The other would put contracts valued over $100,000 before the Council for approval. The Charter Commission addressed then dropped the contract proposal after former Mayor Hackett joined Mayor Herenton in opposition to the increased contract oversight. As for the appointment issue, that seems to be less of a matter of debate. Appointments How is openly discussing the qualifications of a high level appointed official in City government a bad thing? If anything, it increases the perception of openness in government and should remove some objections, such as charges of cronyism. From my perspective this is a no-brainer no matter who the Mayor is. I want qualified people in appointed positions, and I want the opportunity to go back and review that process even if I never use it. Contracts Council oversight of contracts over $100,000 creates a new problem, the possibility of gaming the system. Just how long do you think it would take for shadier vendors to split up their contracts into a series of $99,999.99 contracts? No time. The truth of the matter is that placing an arbitrary threshold on oversight is a bad idea. The second issue is the sheer volume of contracts that cross that arbitrary threshold may create a situation where other Council business is held hostage to the approval process. I would imagine that the contract that covers janitorial supplies for the city gets up near $100,000 a year. Is that really what we want the Council to be dealing with? The third issue is that none of this would allow the Council to deal with contracts that may need to be looked at. Remember this article from the 10th. Some oversight may have saved the City thousands of dollars. Fourth, contracts that deal with city owned buildings or public amenities should, without question, always be brought up before the Council for approval. This means sale and re-development of city land, management of Beale St., convention space, museums, all of that. These Yes, we need oversight, but we also have to strike a balance between the time constraints of a part-time Council as well as the civic interests of oversight and openness. Arbitrary thresholds are not the answer. The answer is complete openness that allows concerned citizens as well as Council Members easy access to information that can then be brought before the Council for further oversight. How this would look is also something that needs to be debated, however, until the question gets asked under the correct frame; that all city contracts should be open to easy public inspection and Council oversight, any specifics are just pissing in the wind.

Promises, Promises…

Steve Ross — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:38:00 +0000

You made me promises promises,
Knowing I'd believe,
Promises promises,
You knew you'd never keep – Naked Eyes

Yesterday, the Memphis City Council decided against bringing two charter proposals up for vote in the November 4th election. Some of the details can be found here.

Basically, there were two items up for a vote. One would give the Council power to approve or deny Deputy Division Directors, the other would give the Council oversight of City contracts totaling $100,000 or more.

Because the minutes of yesterday’s proceedings aren’t yet available, I’m not sure where the individual members came down on either issue, ultimately it’s not important at this point.

Appointment Oversight

On the first issue, the Council chose to take the Mayor at his word that he would provide copies of appointee’s resumes rather than put a Chartered solution that would carry no matter who the Mayor is, in front of the voters. I’m not questioning Mayor Herenton’s word at all. In fact, I see no reason why the Mayor wouldn’t do this, if for no other reason, to remove allegations of cronyism. I’m questioning the logic of a verbal contract that would cease to exist under a new administration rather than a charter amendment that would mandate more oversight.

On this particular matter, there is a great deal of opportunity for cronyism in this and future administrations. Mandating oversight protects the citizens of Memphis from paying for an unqualified person both during the course of the administration in question, and later through pensions, etc. This particular question needs to be brought back up and put before the people. Aside from more work for the Council, I don’t see a down side, though I’m sure someone will provide one for me.

Contracts

The second question is more complicated. This measure would have mandated that the City Council approve contracts valued greater than $100,000. This measure was also set aside in favor of a future resolution that would require the Mayor to provide a quarterly report of contracts over $100,000, recurring contracts, and contracts exceeding 5 years. This future resolution has the potential to be more comprehensive than the question that would have been put before voters, but suffers from many of the same problems.

Problem 1 - Gaming the System: Just how long do you think it would take for vendors seeking no oversight to split up their contracts into a series of $99,999.99 contracts? No time. The truth of the matter is that placing an arbitrary threshold on oversight is a bad idea.

Problem 2 – Volume: The sheer volume of contracts that cross that arbitrary threshold may create a situation where other Council business is held hostage to the approval process. I would imagine that the contract that covers janitorial supplies for the city gets up near $100,000 a year. Is that really what we want the Council to be dealing with?

Problem 3 – Real Oversight: This proposal doesn’t allow the Council to address smaller contracts that may need to be reviewed. Remember this article from the 10th. Some oversight may have saved the City thousands of dollars.

Yes, we need oversight, but we also have to strike a balance between the time constraints of a part-time Council as well as the civic interests of oversight and openness. Arbitrary thresholds are not the answer. The answer is complete openness that allows concerned citizens as well as Council Members easy access to information that can then be brought before the Council for further oversight. How this would look is also something that needs to be debated, however, until the question gets asked under the correct frame; that all city contracts should be open to easy public inspection and Council oversight, any specifics are just pissing in the wind.

And now for your listening pleasure, the song I quoted above…

District 9, Position 1 - Who's in and Who's Out

Steve Ross — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:42:00 +0000

Filed Petitions (Alpha by date filed)
Kemp Conrad, Jimmy Ogle, Mary Wilder, Lester Lit, Arnett Montague III, Richard Stringer, Regina Morrison Newman

Pulled But Not Filed - Deadline to File Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:00PM
Maria Newman, Brian Stephens, Mike Karel, Nicholas Ayers, Steve Ross, Antonio Parkinson, John Willingham

People We Know Won't Be Running
Steve Ross - More on that later...
Carol Chumney - The text of her statement follows (ht LWC)

As you know, I've been devoted to serving Memphis for over 17 years. I will always be grateful for the public's confidence by electing me 7 times as State Representative and 1 time as City Council member, District 5. It was a true honor and will always mean a lot to me.

I put my 17 year career in public service on the line to run for Mayor of Memphis last year because I believe strongly that we can do better in this city. I stand by that decision.

I'm glad to see several good candidates pulling petitions to run for the soon to be vacant City Council At-Large District who can continue to bring needed reforms to the Council. It's good to have some new faces with new ideas on how to make Memphis better.

I thank the many supporters who have called asking me to run for that position. I've had calls from the press and media, and am making this statement in response to those questions.

After prayerful consideration, I have decided not to run for the vacant City Council seat.

I do love and want to serve the people of Memphis, and very much want to be part of bringing the change we need. When the right opportunity presents itself for public service, I'll be ready to again offer my 17 years of state and local government experience, my platform of positive change, my passion, drive and dedication to making this a world-class city, for consideration by the voters.

In the meantime, I'll continue my 21 year private practice as an attorney, volunteering in the community, and spending time with my family and friends.

Why I’m Not Running

Steve Ross — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:32:00 +0000

I’ve been avoiding this post for a week now.

Even though I pulled a petition for City Council District 9, Position 1, I’m not running. This decision came with a lot of hand wringing and hair pulling. While I would like to put the blame on the recent wreck I had, that only played a partial role.

The truth of the matter is, the suddenness of the race, the shortened time frame, the money required, and my travel schedule, all conspired against any hope of a run. Two months is a short time to come from nowhere with no money and half the time on the road. If I had won the lottery or had a mysterious rich uncle, maybe, unfortunately, I don’t.

It was an interesting exercise, even though I probably did everything backwards. I was told over and over that local races are about name recognition first, positions second. I don’t doubt that this is true, but it’s kind of sad.

Over the next few days, while we wait for the Olympics to end, and the newsies to get back from their August slumber, I may publish some of the positions I worked out just for fun. Maybe it’ll inspire someone to take them on, or maybe it’ll be an opportunity for people to point and laugh. In any case, it was a fun exercise and something I’d like to do again. Next time, I’ll stay in.

- Steve Ross

Meet Your Candidates!

Steve Ross — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:18:00 +0000

The filing deadline has passed, and even though we still have a week for people to change their minds (pull out), here are the candidates that have qualified for the ballot. These names started out in a particular order, but ended up all crazy. Order should not be taken as any kind of endorsement or anything else, it just is what it is.

First, lets look as some familiar faces…

Kemp Conrad – Probably the strongest of the “losers” from last year’s election. Conrad lost to Shea Flinn, mostly because he and Joe Saino split the conservative vote. Despite that split, Conrad won one third of the precincts, and came in a close second in nearly every other. 9-2, like 9-3 was a crowded field with no one garnering more that 31% in either contest. If Conrad doesn’t have a challenger on the right, he could take this thing.

Mary Wilder – After last year’s campaign, Wilder was reviled by many, including myself, for “losing runner up Desi Franklin the race”. Whether this is, or is not the case is inconsequential…it’s another year, and another election, time to move on. Wilder’s third place finish in the 9-3 race was somewhat stronger that it appeared at first blush, but will still need a lot of improvement to win. The name recognition that last year’s contest brings may put her within striking distance.

Lester Lit – Lester had an interesting campaign tactic last year. Basically, he implored people who couldn’t vote for his campaign to vote for Desi or Mary. It didn’t work; Lit came in 4th place and neither Desi, nor Mary won. If the ballot ends up looking like it does now, we could have a repeat of that very race on our hands.

Regina Morrison Newman – In 2006 Regina came in second in a crowded field of candidates for General Sessions Judge. In that race, her vote total was greater than any of the 3 previously mentioned candidates. I know, apples and oranges… Still, if her name recognition hasn’t faded from memory in two years, it puts her in a stronger position than this stacked ballot may indicate.

Brian Stephens – Competing against a crowded field in Council District 2, Stephens looked strong. He came in second in the general, sending the race into a run-off. Turn-out, which was low, ultimately decided the fate of Stephens, but the contacts he made, and his strong endorsement from Coalition for a Better Memphis have had people talking since last year.

Antonio Parkinson – “2-Shay”, the 3rd place finisher in the race for District 1, Parkinson made a name for himself. To be honest, I don’t remember anything about him but the “2-Shay” part, but name recognition’s a big part of this game, so he’s got a good start.

John Willingham – Everyone’s favorite grumpy old man of Memphis politics. An election without Willingham on the ballot is like a day without sunshine. Willingham may have only received less than 1% of the vote in last year’s Mayoral race, but that’s 1% he can take off Conrad’s total, so I’m all for it!

Paul Shaffer – Business manager of the IBEW, so we can assume he has the support of labor. Not sure how that translates to votes in the more conservative areas of District 9, but stranger things have, and do, happen…almost daily. Shaffer ran for the Charter Commission, position 6 in 2006 and came in 5th.

There are some newish faces here too. To my limited knowledge, none of these people have run for anything. That doesn’t mean they haven’t, that just means I don’t know about it.

Jim Ogle – The VP of Operations for the Erickson Group recently led a Tour of Downtown Manhole Covers. Interesting platform sir!

Richard Stringer – He retired last year from his long time business. This year, he’s “re-fired” throwing his hat into the ring. Yeah, I know it was cheesy, I’m running out of material here.

Arnett Montague III – If you’re reading, email me with some info, you’re a ghost on the Tubes.

Obviously, there’s a week before the last date to withdraw. I’m sure some of these people will choose to defer, but I’m willing to put some money on some surprise hold-outs. One thing’s for sure, I doubt it will be boring.

Also check out the article from this morning’s CA.

The Second Chance Club

Steve Ross — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:57:00 +0000

I’ve never taken the time to hang out at the Election Commission right around the filing deadline, but I did today. Not only was it educational, but drama filled.

I’m calling this race “The Second Chance Club”. Five former candidates for City Council; Conrad, Lit, Parkinson, Stephens, and Wilder, none of whom should come as a surprise to anyone. There are several other familiar faces as I noted in my previous post, The John Willingham Experience™, and then a few newcomers.

Of all the candidates, Conrad, Lit, Newman, Wilder, and The John Willingham Experience™ have run races that are larger than a single City Council district. That’s potentially a big advantage. Still, none of them won. The lessons learned from that experience are the key to victory. I predict that doing it the way it’s always been done will not be enough to win with the shortened campaign calendar, and that bags of money will be thrown at this from the right like they’re trying to put out a fire (that how Republicans put out fires, right?).

Stephens ran a really good race that landed him in 2nd place in District 2. By some accounts, Stephens never really stopped campaigning. Further, there are rumblings by some Democrats that they may support Stephens. I’ll let them out themselves, but if this is the case it will hurt Wilder and Newman the most.

Right after the John Willingham Experience™ filed he sought out Memphis Daily News reporter Bill Dries to tell his tale. In the article Dries quotes Willingham as saying

“I’m running because of Kemp Conrad,”

The discussion, which was happening nearby, went a good deal longer than that, but that was the gist of his comments. As the article notes, Conrad was standing about 40 feet away. It was hard to maintain any level of decorum. Really, it was funny as hell.

Before the bluster of grumpiness that is The John Willingham Experience™ there were rumblings of Sidney Chism’s support of Antonio “2-Shay” Parkinson. I can’t say for sure, but considering the depth of the field on the left side of the ballot and the demographic breakdown of District 9, it would take a far deeper field on the right for “2-Shay” to have “A Chance”. It’s too early to call for anyone to withdraw, but right now, besides The John Willingham Experience™, I think he’s least likely to win.

In the comments of my earlier post, there’s already been the obligatory allegation of Uptonian influence in Mary Wilder’s decision to join the campaign. I can’t say one way or the other, but considering how fervently Upton defended Wilder’s campaign from charges of ballot stacking it would be hard to believe that he doesn’t support her.

Ultimately, this isn’t about David Upton, it’s about Mary Wilder. Wilder should be judged on her merits as a candidate and potential Council Member, not on personal feelings some may have about her supporters. Wilder has to distinguish herself outside of her base of support in order to win. That’s a tall order considering the shortened time frame, the money required to stay competitive, and her previous outings in last year’s election and the 2006 Charter Commission District 5 election where she lost by 12,000 votes to Joe Brown Jr. You know what they say, three strikes and you’re out!

Other candidates on the left side of the ledger have been contacted about the possibility of withdrawing and rallying behind a consensus candidate. This is the natural order of things. I don’t have any specifics yet, but it would do everyone some good to spend some time researching the past campaigns of their opposition. Strengths and weakness can be revealed very quickly, with very little digging.

From my end, who I ultimately choose to support will come from two things, positions and electability, in that order. This may be a “popularity contest” as those who cautioned me about getting in described it, but for my support, for whatever that’s worth, you gotta have substance.

I’m waiting, and if you don’t have my email, click my profile to the right, it’s right there.

Changing the Charter - Updated

Steve Ross — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:19:00 +0000

Update: New information about Instant Run-off Voting below that section...

Last night, the Memphis Charter Commission wrapped up it’s business before the November 4th election. The Commission is proposing 6 changes on a range of topics. If you want to read the specific language that was adopted, go to the ChangeMemphis site and click on the items to the right of the main column.

MLGW – MLGW is this community’s greatest asset. People here in Memphis don’t know just how good they have it. When I lived in Little Rock I got 3 bills for utilities; Water, Gas and Electric. For my 600 sf ,1br apartment in Little Rock, these bills could add up to $150 - $200. Mind you, during that time I was on the road 225 days a year, and always turned everything off. That’s a lot.

In the 4 and a half years that I’ve lived in Memphis, my utilities bills have averaged 20%-30% less than the ones I had in Little Rock, plus it’s one bill. This is a huge advantage for Memphis. Anyone who thinks selling MLGW is a good idea is nuts. I’m glad to see this on the ballot, and support it fully. I only wish that they had included other assets that shouldn’t be sold off willy nilly to developers…the Fairgrounds and Pyramid come immediately to mind. Maybe next time.

Mayoral Vacancy – This would straighten up the Mayoral Succession problem that Memphis has lived with for some time. Basically, if the Mayor quits or dies, or in any other way vacates the office, it gives the City more time to schedule an election (up to 180 days) and provides for the City Council Chair to become interim Mayor until a new Mayor is elected. Really, this is a no-brainer.

Ethics Amendment – This proposal is probably in direct response to the corruption charges that haunted City Government last year. The amendment states that “Any elected or appointed official charged with official malfeasance shall be suspended with pay pending resolution of the charge.” Simple and easy. Another no-brainer.

Staggered Terms – Under the terms of this proposal we would vote for the entire City Council, Mayor, and other elected city officials in 2011. Then in 2012 we would vote again for districts 1-7 for a 4 year term. In 2014 we vote for the 6 Super District seats, Mayor and other elected city officials for a four year term. Wash, rinse and repeat.

This is smart. Setting our municipal races with normal federal elections is a good idea to keep turnout high. There will need to be a good deal of voter education, to ensure they actually vote the entire ballot, but the savings to the City will pay off in the future.

Instant Run-Off Voting – This is an idea whose time has come. Basically, on City elections voters will rank their choices. If no one gets a majority of the vote, the lowest person in the results is taken off the ballot, and those who voted for him get their second choice. This process continues until someone gets 50%+1. The result is one election and a whole lot of money saved for the city in limiting special and run-off elections.

It may take a little voter education to get people to embrace this idea, but the technology is out there to make this easy. It will be interesting to see how Memphians react to this amendment.

Update: Brad at ChangeMemphis sent this information about IRV

Sadly, the implimentation of Instant Runoff Voting would NOT effect the plurality rules system used in Mayoral or Super district elections. I will see to it that this is explained on the website.

I'm not sure about the rationale for this, but I've asked the question and will post the information as soon as I have it.

Term Limits – By and large, I’m not a big fan of Term Limits. When Term Limits were instituted in Arkansas back in the 90’s, it turned the State House into a sideshow. People like Jim Bob Duggar got elected and took the opportunity to introduce some 12 bills criminalizing abortion in the State House. None of them got far, but it was really over the top.

Another indictment of Term Limits is that it arbitrarily turns away good leaders. If people think someone sucks, they should put them out in the next election.

Finally, this amendment will not stop people from running in a single member district, then once term limited in that district they could run for a super seat. If staggered terms are approved, it would give us 2 years without that individual, but that’s little comfort. I’m on the fence with this one, until someone comes up with a really good argument. Just wanting troubling people out after a specific period of time isn’t good enough.

That’s all folks! The Memphis Charter Commission is planning a 3pm presser to answer questions and officially announce and answer questions about the amendments.

The Veep-Stakes Fiasco

Steve Ross — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:40:00 +0000

Ok, this is starting to irritate me. All the speculation, the wall to wall TV coverage, the waiting. I understand trying to dominate news cycles, but this is bordering on stupid.

Technically, it's not Obama's fault. He's just using the media's flaws to his advantage. This is really a good thing. One has to wonder how long they will allow this to go on.

I disagree with the conventional wisdom. I don't think Veeps necessarily bring much to the table. You can't guarantee that their state will come, once they're in office they're forgotten, except for Darth Cheney. All in all I'm just not loving it.

As for the people supposedly on the short list, I'm not too thrilled.

Biden - I like Biden ok, but he's a media whore. He got no traction in the Presidential race, and I don't know how he helps Obama in anything other than some Foreign Policy stuff. Even still, I'm not sure that he really helps anyone at all. In short, Joe Biden is all about Joe Biden and that bothers me.

Bayh - Bayh is my least favorite of the current media frontrunners. Really, I don't know where to start except that I don't like him at all.

Kaine - The current Governor of Virginia is anti-choice. Way to win over Democratic women! For Coal, there go the environmentalists...ugh, please say it ain't so.

Kathleen Sebelius - She's been mentioned less and less over the past few weeks. I think her lackluster performance in the SOTU response is partially to blame. Too vanilla in my view.

Others who haven't been mentioned in a while...

Bill Richardson - I like him, but he's a loose cannon. No one knows what will come out of his mouth. He's good on the Foreign Policy though, and as a former Governor from a western state it could be a real possibility.

Tom Daschle - Ummm, no. Really, just no

Chris Dodd - If it's Dodd, I'm cool with that. No one's been talking about him, and I don't think it's likely, but weirder things have happened.

And finally...

Hillary Clinton - I just about don't see how this could happen, but it would shut up the "protesters" at the convention. They weren't going to vote D anyway. They're just mad that their Right Wing Attack Machine had to retool after spending all that time coming up with material. Hillary would be alright, so long as she and Bill stay on message.

Now that I've helped make the situation worse, I think it's time for some breakfast.

More Second Chance Club – Past Performance

Steve Ross — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:17:00 +0000

For the purposes of this post, we’re going to look at the three candidates that ran in Super Districts last year. These three just did it, and with Election Day just over a year from the last contest they ran, this can be an inside look at their strengths and weaknesses.

To get a more complete picture of support base, I looked at the precinct-by-precinct totals of each contest. These are located here. The precinct-by-precinct totals for Districts 9-2 and 9-3 can be found on pages 561-640. It’s a long and inefficiently laid out document that I had to print to read, but it’s data.

Since I like picking on him so much, we’ll start with Kemp Conrad.

Kemp Conrad

Conrad is strong in all the areas that one would suspect, east Memphis and Cordova. In last year’s election Joe Saino played spoiler. Had Saino stayed out of the race Conrad could have won.

In this year’s race, Conrad has more opposition but it is spread across the spectrum.

Brian Stephens has the potential to take a good deal of Conrad’s support, particularly in Cordova. Further his marginal support by some east Memphis Democrats won’t necessarily hurt a leftist candidate as much as the possibility of losing Cordova.

The John Willingham Experience™ may have only garnered less that .75% of the vote in last year’s mayoral race, but he’s got a bone to pick and plenty of money to pick it with. I suspect he’ll run an “Anybody but Kemp” style race. This will, far and away, be the most entertaining part of the race.

For Conrad, getting hammered from the left and the right is going to make life a little more difficult. He may have his substantial wealth to fund his campaign, but if he gets hit early and often enough he may just get punch drunk enough to screw up. Right now that’s the best strategy to defeat him.

Below is a map detailing the precincts that Conrad carried. He ran strong in many others, but these are the ones he won outright. I know they’re not as pretty as Polar Donkey’s, but it’s all I have right now. If nothing else, it illustrates the areas that Stephens and The John Willingham Experience™ need to target to take him down a notch.

Lester Lit

To be honest with you, I’m not sure what Lit expects to accomplish by running. Sure, he has plenty of money, name recognition and friends to mount a campaign, but his last outing left much to be desired. Everyone may like Lester as a person, but I’m not sure if that applies as a candidate.

Last year he placed 4th behind Hedgepeth, Frankin, and Wilder, in that order. His core base of support is concentrated in just 3 precincts, though he drew well from other areas. Lit draws from both sides of the spectrum, so knowing just how steadfast his support is, or where they would fall if he withdrew, will be hard to figure. His withdrawal from the race seems unlikely, but if he did, three precincts with some of the highest voter turnout (3.6% of the total vote but only 2.8% of precincts) would be up for grabs.

Tread lightly on Lester. If he stays in, he might be able to siphon off support from Conrad. If he gets out, he could be an effective advocate for Newman or Wilder.

Mary Wilder

Mary Wilder’s decision to run again is, on one level surprising. Conversations with some of her more fervent supporters after last year’s election gave the impression that she amassed a good deal of debt to achieve her third place finish in the District 9 Position 3 race. To be honest, I haven’t had the chance to check disclosures, so I can neither confirm nor deny that. If this is true, it could hamper her prospects. As I said the other day, traditional campaigning will not be enough to win this one, lots of money will need to be spent on TV and other media to overcome with the shortened time frame.

From a campaign standpoint, there seemed to be a distinct lack of presence on major corridors throughout the district and at early voting polling stations. 9 is large district, and sticking to traditional support areas just plain isn’t enough. This may be perception versus reality, but while her signs were distinctive, I don’t remember seeing many of them around.

There were some bright spots. Wilder won precincts, as noted on the image below, in and around the Volentine-Evergreen District, as well as several others. Unfortunately, her margin of victory was never more that 45 votes over the second place finish in any one district. Further, these districts accounted for less than 20% of the total vote (18.5%) on this race. Now certainly, this math is a bit fuzzy, but in order for Wilder to win the race, she has to win in her area by a lot more than the 40ish votes she bested Desi Franklin by in her home precinct, as well as pick up some key support throughout the district to push her over the top.

Okay, these are the three people who ran for Super-Districts. Unfortunately, using any data on Stephens in 2 or “2-Shay” in 1 is scientifically flawed. They ran for those districts, not the whole enchilada. Information garnered may show signs of strength, but are not necessarily indicative of how they would draw in all of 9. As for Newman and Shaffer, none of the detail of their races from 2006 is available on the Election Commission site at this time. I’m working on getting that data as well as financial disclosures, but until I return from Seattle, and get to the Election Commission, this is what I’ve got.

Have a Bidenrific weekend!

So Pundits, Where are the Fireworks?

Steve Ross — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:30:00 +0000

I'm listening to the roll call on CSPAN online. We're up to Montana at this point. So far, the only fireworks have been the surprise unanimous allottment of delegates from Arkansas to Barack Obama. I'll write more in a few...

Update 6:30: Okay pundits, I know that you're not going to have anything to talk about once this happens, but if you think Bill Clinton will deliver anything less that a barn burner, enthusiastically endorsing Obama, and beating the hell out of McCain and Bush, you're high. Drop the disunity bullshit, and start talking about policy. I know, it's harder. Stop being punks and do your job!

Update 6:16: Ya didn't have to tell anyone! Apparently Arkansas' unanimity was a clerical error.

Update 5:50: Hillary moves to suspend vote, and blahdy blahdy blah. Where's your divided party now MSM? SUCKIT!

Update 5:40: Yeah, way to gin up some conflict MSM. Punks! New Hampshire just gave all their delegates to Obama, even though Clinton won the state. Not to be outdone, so did Jersey...

The Crowd Thins, the Plot Thickens - Updatedx2

Steve Ross — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:52:00 +0000

Update 3:10PM: So I go out to run some errands and what happens? Lit and Parkinson get out, as did Ogle. Now it's a four man race, Kemp Conrad, The John Willingham Experience™, Paul Shaffer, and Arnett Montague III. Memphis Democrats, it's time to get behind Paul. I hope to have more soon.

Update 9:18am: Just got an email that Mary Wilder has withdrawn from the race. This is very surprising, but considering the mountain of cash she faced, a very good move on her part. The original text of this post follows.

As reported in this morning's CA, three people have decided to drop out of the City Council District 9 Seat 1 race; Brian Stephens, the second place finisher from District 2, Regina Morrison Newman, and Robert Stringer. This brings the count down to 8, but only 4 or 5 candidates will probably bring anything to the table.

There are rumors flying around that some of these candidates will spend a couple hundred thousand bucks to get elected. In order to stay competitive, the following 5 are either going to have to rob a bank, win the lottery, find that long lost rich uncle, mortgage their homes, tap into the bags of money they've been hiding all these years, or run an absolutely brilliant campaign with no mistakes, sleep, food, and probably a bunch of other necessities.

Here's the list, in order of Money to burn:

1. Kemp Conrad - I've heard he's putting his house up to pay for the campaign. Watch out for shady lenders Kemp! I'm working on something really entertaining to call the former chair of the Shelby County Republican party, but I'm waiting for the censors in DC to clear it. Damnable bureaucracy! In the meantime, here's his questionnaire from last year's race, courtesy of The Coalition for a Better Memphis

2. The John Willingham Experience™ - Who loves ya baby? You know he has bags of money, that's all well and good, but The John Willingham Experience™ has something even better, a true, deep, resentment for Kemp Conrad. Hate may be too strong a word, but you get the distinct feeling that The John Willingham Experience™ would rather not trifle with the likes of Mr. Conrad. Hit him hard and over and over! The John Willingham Experience™ did return a questionnaire in last year's Mayoral race, so have at it, if you aren't just following him to watch him beat Conrad bloody.

3. Lester Lit - The other day I said I didn't know why Lit was in the race. Since then, I've come to the conclusion that Lester just really wants to win. He really really wants to win, like, really bad wants to. Looking at his handwritten answers to last years' questions, he may not be a bad choice. He'd be a helluva lot better than the first two jokers mentioned. I'm sure he'll join The John Willingham Experience™ in taking some of the shine off Mr. Conrad, and I hope to be in the general vicinity when that happens.

4. Mary Wilder - She may be fourth in the money race, but don't let that fool ya. The top three guys have A LOT of cash to throw around, I'm not sure Mary does. Money is important in politics but policy is what it's all about...unless you're up against a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, then no one gives a shit what you think. This is the candidate that would have to run that "absolutely brilliant campaign with no mistakes, sleep, food, and probably a bunch of other necessities".

5. Antonio "2-Shay" Parkinson - I know you're in Denver, and aren't going to withdraw, but you should at least think about just sitting this one out, or campaigning with someone who has a chance. I agree that it's wrong that, between all the frontrunners almost a quarter a million dollars will be blown on a race for a job that pays about $30k, in a city that has declining wages and rampant poverty. I'm with ya on that one. Seriously, it's beyond criminal. But you have a lot of potential, and you shouldn't blow it on this one. Here's your questionnaire from last year. I don't know what else to say.

6-8. I don't know about Montague or Ogle. Shaffer doesn't have piles or money hanging around. I'm withholding any rankings from this point down, because, well, what's the point? (No offense intended guys). The timeframe for this race is so short that fundraising will be nearly impossible, counting out both money and time for these guys. Ideas are great, but they don't put food on the table, unless you invent something that's really cool and have enough money and time to promote it...get where I'm going here? Yeah.

Democrats of Memphis, it's time to pick your consensus candidate if you want to win. I'm taking nominations at this time. You know what they say, " a house divided ensures some Republican punk from east Memphis wins".

City Council Race Comes into Focus

Steve Ross — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:29:00 +0000

Well, it's been an interesting day, and I missed the best part. As I noted this morning several people dropped out leaving the field at four: Kemp Conrad, The John Willingham Experience™, IBEW BA, Paul Shaffer, and Arnett Montague III.

This is the opportunity we longed for last year in the District 9 Position 3 race, one Democrat against a divided Republican field. The only way this could have been better is if Stephens could have stayed in and only drawn support from Conrad. As it stands right now, the math has shifted dramatically in Shaffer's favor.

Despite all this "feel good" there's a good bit of work ahead. Money is going to be a big issue in this campaign. Shaffer will be fighting for name recognition against two well known, well funded opponents. Boots on the ground are going to be critical, both canvassing neighborhoods, and outside the polls. People don't volunteer for City candidates in the same numbers that they do for State and Federal races, but this one is so close to home and so important for our future. We need to get out there and make it happen.

Congratulations Paul, and thank you to all the people who worked together to thin the field and make this possible. As Holt says over at WTL

Let's come together and elect a great labor leader to the City Council!

Pre Speech Feel Good Friday Post

Steve Ross — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:26:00 +0000

I'm planning on sleeping in tomorrow, so in honor of Stevie's appearance at the Convention tonight, here's one of my favorite songs by Stevie...

Playing for the PUMA's - Updated

Steve Ross — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:51:00 +0000

Update: Older Updates are below. I just found this article from a native Alaskan about Palin. Go check it out.

Since I slept in late, I haven't had a chance to write about Obama's amazing speech last night. Just moments ago, I was awakened by the screeching of Pat Buchanan about John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sara Palin.

This is an interesting move on several fronts. First, Palin is from a small state, whose Republican Party is in disarray, between the investigations of Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young. Second, Palin is under investigation herself, as noted in this post from Talking Points Memo. Third, and what will be the most talked about by the MSM, is the bald faced play for PUMA's, angry that Hillary was not selected, and ready to vote for McCain because of it. If he solidifies the PUMA base, he's on tap to win states he already held by a margin that's 20-30 votes greater.

This is a poke in the eye to some Clinton supporters, fresh off their new found unity. I don't have much more to say about this right now, but if I were going to try and steal Obama's thunder, I think this pick would do it.

Now, WWELD?

Update 12:25PM: Sara Palin on CNBC questioning what the VP actually does (2:00 in) (h/t JohnnyNYC

Palin: "[A]s for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that V.P .slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Governor Palin, I suggest you figure out what the Office of Vice President does, and quick. This sounds like an ad to me! I can't believe that the McCain campaign didn't see this as a negative.

First read has three articles about Palin up at this time: Pro's and Con's, Reaction, and Praises Obama's Energy Plan.

Once the draft or a video of her speech is up, I will post it here.

Text of Speech

Video. Palin starts talking around 10:50.

Media Culture Wars

Steve Ross — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:37:00 +0000

Roger Simon over at The Politico apologizes for being meansies to Palin.

Give it a look.

Change Republican Style

Steve Ross — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:34:00 +0000

I watched as much as I could stomach of the speeches at the Republican National Convention. Admittedly, I didn’t watch as much as I probably should have, because some of the speakers make my skin crawl.

I listened to Giuliani, and Huckabee and Fred Thompson. I caught most of Sara Palin’s Speech that sounded like a Mad Lib Mix-up of past Republican speeches. Last night I’d had enough and chose football over convention coverage. Then came McCain. I listened to the whole damn thing, and still don’t know anything about what he wants to do except “change too” and that he’ll fight me.

Change is something anyone can agree to as long as that change is ill defined, or something environmental that does little to nothing. Speaker after speaker harkened back to the ideas of the Reagan years. Over and over the attendees were peppered with old ideas, old skewed reality, old logical fallacies, and outright lies. Apparently, Republican change is something that means a new person dolling out the favors. I guess that’s the easiest kind of change to accomplish.

As a person who makes a living doing events such as these, though with a decidedly smaller audience (the media doesn’t usually dedicate 4 days of broadcast time to my events), the Republican Convention lacked cohesion with the message of the candidate whose message is less about us and more about him (Maverick, POW, etc.). This event was homage to the past, thrown for a guy that has occasionally stuck his finger in the eye of the establishment dead set on maintaining that past. Seriously, the Kool-Aid must have been strong in St. Paul.

McCain will get a slight popularity bump from the coverage, but in the end people need to ask themselves if they learned anything more about his campaign than they new before…that he’s a Maverick, a former POW, and dislikes the status quo so much that he hopes to be the one to help maintain it.

Now I need a shower, because even talking about this has made me feel dirty.

Joementum to Educate Palin

Steve Ross — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:21:00 +0000

It would appear that our good friend Joe Lieberman has volunteered his services to help Sara Palin with her lack of foreign policy experience, even though her state is right next to Russia.

Palin will also not be available to the media for an undetermined time while she gets her affairs in order back in Alaska. I guess they’re going to use some of that time to get her up to speed on their Cold War era worldview of foreign policy. Personally, I don’t think she needs it.

Palin is an expert at repeating long bellowed Republican talking points that are neither reflective of reality, or reflective of what the US has actually done in foreign policy under Republican Presidents, much like that of the person she would replace, George W. Bush (we all know Cheney runs the place over there for Christ’s sake). What more does she need?

On the flip side, why not have a VP also ran educate the current VP pick. Makes perfect sense to me. I mean, no hard feelings right?

Questioning Patriotism

Steve Ross — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:42:00 +0000

One theme that has reared its ugly head since the beginning of the Presidential cycle is that of questioning the patriotism of particular candidates. More often than not, the subject of this theme has been Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

The most recent example of this was brought forward by Senator Jim Inhofe (R – OK). While it should not be surprising that Inhofe, a Global Warming denier and serial legislation blocker, would attack a Democrat in such a brazenly partisan way, it illustrates one of the hurdles that Obama faces in the last 57 days of the campaign.

One thing that both McCain and Obama have stressed for weeks now is that neither questions the other’s love of America. There has been, from the principals in both campaigns, a certain level of reverence reserved for each other in terms of the other’s love of country. Yet, it seems that Republican surrogates for McCain have, and will continue to try to call into question, Obama’s devotion to a nation that has given him the opportunities, probably unavailable anywhere else in the world.

This line of attack illustrates a disconnect, that no one in the media seems willing to acknowledge; How can one spend two years of their life running for the top job in the nation without loving their country? Would someone dedicate themselves and their future to a campaign to lead the United States without a certain level of patriotism?

This is the most ridiculous line of attack out there, and one that the media could and should debunk easily with this simple line of logic…one that seems fleeting in an environment that has the media on it’s heels, defending itself from attacks of bias from the right, despite it’s continual exultation of McCain as the consummate patriot.

Questioning patriotism, like calls of media bias, are distractions from the real issues of the campaign. As voters, it’s time to reject these distractions and focus on where the candidates intend to take us if they are elected. Without that focus, electing a President who is accountable to us, the electorate, is virtually impossible.

The Flood

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:02:00 +0000

The past couple of days have been a flood of analogies, metaphors and other devices that neither fully express my frustration, not illustrate the situation with the Presidential race as I see it.

The Republicans spent the last week pulling every old tired rabbit out of their hat; liberal media, tax and spend, family values, you name it. From my perspective it was a truly pathetic display of desperation.

During that time, the Obama camp opened, and closed, and opened it’s war room, which got absolutely NO PLAY in the national media. I don’t want to fall into that category of the Chicken Little, but the response has been flaccid to say the least.

This is a “fool me twice” election in my mind, except it’s the third time. In the past 8 years we’ve fallen victim to jingoism, deception, criminal partisanship, and a litany of other abuses of power that I just don’t have the time or the inclination to get into.

Both candidates have taken on the mantle of change, McCain more recently than Obama.

Obama has chosen to refuse money from lobbyists, has held back supportive 527’s, much to the disappointment of many on the left, and generally run a transparent campaign…more than would normally be expected anyway. Honestly, it’s been a pretty clean campaign on his side of the fence, and I don’t just say that because I support him, I don’t think you can find a successful national candidate in the modern age that has as little financial support from K street as Barack Obama. Please try and prove me wrong.

On the other hand, McCain is taking money from anyone who will write him a check and some who didn’t. 527’s are a big part of his campaign, even though they can’t officially coordinate. Seriously? McCain’s brand of change is like wiping the shit out of the diaper then re-applying it to the baby…Good as new!

It’s time to start a fight.

The harsh reality is that we don’t live in a fact-based world. We live in a world where empty rhetoric and prejudicial buzzwords drive the emotions of the electorate at large and color their decision making process. After 1992, with Clinton’s brilliant question, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” political rhetoric has shifted from some semblance of reality to a fantasyland of bullshit. Right now, the McCain campaign is engaged in bullshitting the “average” guys and gals of this nation with a story that has been both oft told and successful. Truly, it is the clarion call of our time, “Government wants to take your money, liberty, hot button issues of the time, etc.”

It’s bullshit. It’s been bullshit and it will always be bullshit, and the Obama campaign should call it what it is, bullshit.

If Obama really wants to strike a chord he’s got to get out of the fact-based world and to the world of emotion, not a World of Magic. Americans don’t want aloof leaders we want passionate leaders. If they’re fuck-nuts, so be it. If they’re not, it’s a bonus. Show some passion Obama, like not that crazy passion, but the kind that makes us remember just how boring McCain is and all his fucking bullshit liar stories. Or vote for this kitten.

One more thing, don’t remind us that we’re stupid. We’re dumb as a pallet of bricks on the bottom of the ocean with a stack of 1040 forms on top. They don’t think we’re stupid, they know we are.

How about calling them stupid? That works for me. That’s a change that we can all believe in.

More Fun with Finance

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:07:00 +0000

In the wake of the big Fannie, Freddie bail out, announced Sunday, you would think that few companies would want to jump on the bandwagon. You’d be wrong.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally thinks Washington is ready to give the big three $50 billion bucks. Apparently, willful incompetence does have it’s rewards.

Now, this is a big political football. The big three employ hundreds of thousands of workers, mostly union workers. Not giving them the money means a lot of these people will get laid off. Giving them the money means that the douchenozzles at the top, who have been bleeding the company dry for years, will derive benefit from their incompetence. Honestly, I don’t want to see either thing happen, but I don’t have much faith in Congress’ ability to hold GM, Ford, and Chrysler accountable.

In all honesty, this is the perfect time for the big three to punt, politically. We’re 2 months from an election. It’s a Presidential election. If it comes up before the election and fails we will hear, “Democrats hate business” followed by one of the largest layoffs in US history. If it succeeds before the election we’ll hear from “The Maverick” that it’s the same old Washington politics, even though his policy would be to do the same. If it gets tabled, we’ll see a slowly increasing tide of layoff announcements from now until November followed by a chorus of “Why won’t Washington help you?”.

My sense is that it will pass with 80% support.

There is one thing that differentiates this from what’s going on at Fannie and Freddie…this is a loan, not a gift. It’s a gifty loan for sure, but it’s still a loan.

Ultimately, I don’t know where I stand on this particular bailout. I’m very much against the “Privatize Profit, Socialize Losses” crowd we have in DC, though I know it’s more complicated than that, now that we’ve created the regulatory equivalent of the Wild Wild West in our financial markets. On the flip side, I’d like to see these folks have some criminal accountability for playing fast and loose with sensible decision-making. Unfortunately, the big three bailout ain’t that. They’ve made one bad decision after another, don’t get me wrong, but bad decisions and criminal mischief, or outright fraud, are two different things.

We’ll see what Congress has to say about all this. My hope would be that McCain would oppose it, and Bush would Veto it, but I’m sure they’ve coordinated this much better than that. Nope, we’ll have some hearings and call the CEO’s of the big three in and slap their hands, then hand them the cash and pretend like something happened. That will be that, and we’ll still probably see massive layoffs.

The key to this is how the money is offered. Will the money come with any strings or not? If it’s just free money, it’s like give a fifth of vodka to a drunk and asking them to not drink it. If it comes with strings, they’ll whine and figure out ways to avoid whatever regulation imposed. That’s the culture of George W. Bush’s America.

My Story is Better than Your Issues

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:38:00 +0000

The Politico has front-paged a story that illustrates just how stupid John McCain and Sara Palin think we are. In McCain, Palin push biography, not issues we learn of the McCain campaign’s brazen strategy of “aiming for the gut, not the heads, of voters.”

This can be a good strategy for a campaign that is suffering from “brand fatigue”. Republicans across the country are running from their damaged brand like rats from a fire, and it’s working to some extent. Oregon Senator, Gordon Smith has endorsed Obama in the Presidential race, despite being a Republican. Unlike Democratic turncoat, Joe Lieberman, Smith has enjoyed little pressure to change his endorsement. In the world of the Republican Party, they’d rather win than be right.

McCain intends to win by appealing to voter’s emotions rather than their minds. McCain hopes to extend the courtship long enough to get their name on the marriage license. That’ll be a big task, 56 days can seem like an eternity in campaigns…the past 18 months sure have! The key for McCain is to keep that good feeling going until the first debate on the 26th. If he can keep the emotional momentum going and pepper in some facts for flavor, that’s a tough combination to beat. On the other hand, the McCain campaign has the message discipline of a rambunctious puppy. You can only stay at Disney World so long before your feet hurt and your wallet is empty. They’ll find a way to fuck it up, probably by pushing it too long.

Obama, on the other hand, needs to keep hammering the issues home, just like he’s doing now. Issues, unlike puppy love, don’t go away until they’re solved. If people get tired of hearing about one issue, give ‘em another! Still, this doesn’t change the fact that people make more decisions with their gut than their heads. So the task is to personalize issues, bring them home. Obama is doing this in smaller, less visible settings, where he can address actual questions from actual voters if he wishes. Obama is on task, hitting back when he needs to, and keeping on message with the voters, despite the chickenlittling of some in the blogoshpere.

The polls and the media will eventually equalize. National tracking polls are nothing more than distractions from reality. It’s the state-by-state polls that matter. The media is getting annoyed with the sequestering of Sara, the honeymoon will soon be over. (h/t Paul Anderson at DailyKos)

McCain is trying to double down by introducing Palin again to the American people with a Charlie Gibson interview later this week. How that plays out will be interesting to watch, but I’ve got my money on a bunch of leading questions that ultimately tell us nothing. Gibson was no doubt chosen because he's already in the bag. One need only remember the loaded questions and tabloid style from the Democratic debate in the spring to come to that conclusion. Reports are saying nothing's off the table...of course we won't know what's ON the table until the interviews hit the airwaves.

If Gibson actually questions Palin on anything even mildly controversial or substantive, expect that liberal media line of attack to come back big time which will ignite the base, but alienate many of the people who are just now getting involved in the race and want some answers. If he doesn’t, the McCain camp will call this a fair interview, and it will become the standard across the media. Crossing the imaginary threshold will result in loud protests from the McCain camp. Considering the spinelessness of some of the networks, I doubt any threshold, real or imaginary will be crossed.

The media’s handling of the campaign going forward represents the greatest challenge facing the Obama campaign. Obama’s strategy is sound, but apparently, didn’t take into account a rehashing of old worn out talking points like the mythical “liberal media”. If the media stays on the sidelines, it will fall to the ground game and other messaging devices to debunk the false messaging of the McCain campaign.

It’ll be interesting to see what shakes out.

Answers on the Copyright Flap

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:36:00 +0000

Last week there were several articles and blog posts alleging the McCain campaign was using artist’s intellectual property in violation of copyright protections. I decided to ask the people who would know, BMI and ASCAP. So far, ASCAP has not responded, but this morning I got a response from Jerry W. Bailey, BMI Senior Director, Media Relations & Business Communications. First, the question I asked:

I have a question about licensing music to be played at live events, such as political or corporate events. It is my understanding that if the producer of the event secures a license with BMI or ASCAP for the event, they can use any music they want (within the limits of the license) at the live event, so long as it is not synched to any edited video.

Assuming that this is true, what is your organization's position on calls from artists for the McCain Campaign to stop using their songs as reported in the link below?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/heart-van-halen-orleans-j_n_124264.html

Mr. Bailey responded:

The Republican National Convention and Sen. McCain are licensed to perform the 6.5 million musical works in the BMI repertoire at their campaign events. Songwriters and artists are free to protest if they don't want their songs used in such a way at these events. When music is synchronized to video, or when songs are played to the extent that they become identified with a person or product, additional copyright questions may arise that don't involve BMI. It appears to me that your understanding of these copyright issues is generally accurate.

So, there it is, McCain is doing nothing wrong or illegal with respect to the copyright as it pertains to the interests protected by BMI.

If the McCain campaign doesn’t abide by the artist’s requests to not use a song, they may sue the RNC or McCain’s campaign. This doesn’t have anything to do with the BMI license; it goes to people identifying the song with McCain, or vise-versa.

It would take multiple viewings of events, coupled with the same song being played over and over to identify a song with a person or vise-versa. This is where Broadcast complicates matters. Broadcast takes this “more intimate” situation of the live event, and sends it to potentially millions of people around the world on a seemingly endless loop, that, can eventually lead to a song being identified with a candidate, and possibly pissing off the artist in question.

The solution is two-fold: 1. Immediately stop using songs by artists who have requested that you stop. The last thing you want to have to do is have any kind of conversation with the likes of Lars Ulrich of Metallica, that petulant prick who is probably a McCain supporter anyway. 2. Before you do another round of big ass events contact the artists’ whose songs you want to use and find one that likes you. This may be hard for the McCain campaign, as there is no national organization of musicians that shows any support for McCain except for this tool. Maybe he has some songs. If not, I suggest a royalty free library.

For my part, I’m torn. On the one hand, I want McCain to keep pissing off musicians, and those musicians to band together to start thumping him on the head publicly and frequently. It would be cool to see someone say, “John McCain doesn’t respect my property, what makes you think he’ll respect yours?” On the flip side, I don’t want even the douchiest musicians to suffer any loss of intellectual property, or worse, have their song associated with someone that they don’t want it to be associated with. Whether you like the song or not, it belongs to someone, and they’re well within their rights to protect it.

So, there ya go. The only way McCain fucks this up is by continuing to play the songs by artists that have asked him to stop. Sounds simple enough…we’ll see.

Alaska Knows Palin

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:37:00 +0000

(h/t TPM)

Ok, so Alaska's not afraid to call Palin out, why is the MSM? Just questions.

About

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:03:38 +0000

My name is Steve Ross and I am the author of this little blog. Most of what I write concerns politics, politicians and policy, but occasionally I diverge from these topics to talk about something that's on my mind that may or may not have anything to do with anything. I'm not a politician, or a paid consultant or anything in the political realm, I'm a concerned citizen with an opinion and, perhaps, too much time on my hands. I believe that good government is an open government, and that for the majority of my life on this planet, the Untied States has suffered from not only poor leadership, but also policies that have hindered us from realizing our full potential. In short, I'm one of those damnable liberals. I won't apologize for this. In fact, I'd more likely dog cuss you than apologize for anything I have to say as it relates to the 3 p's mentioned above. I can be blunt and rude, but it's not for sport. I say what I say because I believe it needs to be said. If you don't happen to agree with me, you are more than welcome to tell me about it. Enjoy your time poking around my little piece of the web. You can be nice if you want to, but I'd prefer that you skip the bullshit and just be honest, it'll be better for all of us. Cheers, Steve Ross (aka vibinc)

Moving the Bar

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:20:11 +0000

Since the end of the Republican National Convention, national poll after poll has shown John McCain with a growing lead. These numbers have left many, particularly those on the liberal blogs, in a state of shock. The worry expressed by many in the liberal blogoshpere has been met by cool confidence from the Obama campaign. Perhaps they have something to be confident about. Earlier this evening, Huffington Post contributor Seth Walls offered this assessment of what’s going on and why these polls are, as suspected, at least “outliers” if not statistical fabrications. Since the beginning of September, polling outfits have shifted the weighting of their polls to reflect more Republicans than previous polls. In a year that saw record Democratic turnout throughout the Primary season, and huge gains in Democratic identification and Democratic voter registration, polling outfits have decided, suddenly, to increase the number of self identified Repulicans in their samples by up to 6%. Further, in a poll taken by Gallup, not only did they increase the number of Republicans sampled, but they decreased the number of Democrats. Now, this tells us something about polling. As the old saying goes, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Political polls are a statistical sample of the electorate based on a special kind of voodoo. Sometimes they poll “registered voters” other, the more fluid “likely voter”. The difference in a poll of “Registered” and “Likely” may not be much, probably within the margin of error, but adding an arbitrary number of one flavor of party identification or another will obviously net a more favorable result for the party that benefited from the gain. Look, I’m not a big poll watcher. I pay attention to them, because they’re there. If they weren’t, I probably wouldn’t miss them. Hell, the daily tracking polls are just about useless. We’re not watching the frickin’ stock market here. On the flip side, from a news standpoint, polls seem to be the only indicator that gets any play, and that’s where it gets dicey. If news organizations are going to focus on polls then they need to inform the public about the dirty secrets they hold. If we’re going to elect a President on something other than issues, like “story” or “popularity”, then at least tell the real story behind the sudden shifts in polling. I know facts turn people off, but they’re necessary, no matter what the McCain campaign says. Further, nothing pisses me off more than something that brings the concern trolls or the “I told ya so’s” out from under the bridge. Yeah, I know we need them to get out and vote as much as anyone else, so I won’t go off and call them a dirty name, but these folks are unstable. You’re messing with their mental health here. The last thing we need is a bunch of depressed manic-depressives out there freaking the fuck out about something that they have made a conscious decision to not understand. Finally, there’s a smell in the air of shenanigans. All of the polls mentioned in the article are either paid for by, or in cooperation with a news media outlet. Now I know boring assed politics can’t be driving eyeballs to their newscasts, but nothing excites Americans like watching an underdog rise up, or some smarty-pants pol fall from grace. What’s going on here smells a lot like national media outlets ginning up a horse race to drive ratings. I know, it’s out there, but remember, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

John McCain: BS that’s Unbelievable!

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:55:19 +0000

I gotta tell you, the McCain campaign has some balls. Way back in April, McCain pledged to run a respectful campaign. Notice the date on that report…APRIL FOOLS! McCain’s campaign has gotten so mired in the mud that even his greatest former fanboys are turning their nose up at the Senator. I know, I know, it’s just that “liberal media” again. The fact of the matter is that the McCain campaign has shown in the past few weeks that it will leave no distortion unturned, no bullshit charge untrumped, no dog whistle issue unexploited. Don’t even get me started about the lies. When the DC punditocracy starts asking if the truth matters, you have to wonder if the world has turned upside down. As I said the other day, John McCain and the Republican Party is more interested in winning than what the distortions, flip-flops, and outright lies that have become the foundation of their campaign rhetoric do to the country. That’s the kind of patriotism no one should believe in. Joe Klein, Joe Klein! That guy that liberal blogs eviscerated several months ago, called yesterday’s attack ad ”one of the sleaziest ads I’ve ever seen in Presidential politics”. Way to go Joe. I hope John McCain finds his honor again. It’s sad to see a man who once garnered the respect of so many on both sides of the aisle, fall to this level of sleaze. But if winning is all you’ve got, then I guess anything goes.

McCain Campaign Running Off the Tracks

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:25:19 +0000

So, today makes day three of the McCain campaign driving the news cycle with a bunch of manufactured, irrelevant drama. I’m sure the students of Rove are basking in their own personal brilliance at their ability to take over the airwaves with their baseless drivel. The fake lipstick flap, sex ed ad, and the stunning lack of a narrative focused on the issues that face America going forward is what the McCain camp has become, and in doing so they not only damage their own campaign, but also the brand that John McCain has worked so hard to nurture. Simply put, the McCain camp may be attracting some attention, but it’s not the attention that will elevate him from the deadlock in the polls. Further, by going all in with the gutter politics that he himself has been victim to, and railed against, John McCain is playing fast and loose with his credibility. This may not hurt him today, or tomorrow, or next week even, but there’s little doubt that the American people will not like 55 more days of gutter politics, and if that’s all McCain’s got, he’s got a big problem in the most important place to his campaign, with independents. Independents are the most fickle of voters. They have the same problems as Republicans and Democrats, but they don’t necessarily have any allegiance to either. They want solutions. So what will independent voters do when they see the McCain camp waste two weeks of news cycles on rhetorical rubbish? Some of them will start to wonder why there’s only one person talking about the issues. Some of them will get mad a John McCain for not being serious. If it keeps up, many of them will get tired of it and stop listening to McCain. This means that even if he did change his messaging, once people have checked out, they won’t hear it. Now, I know that there’s this conventional wisdom out there that negative attacks, or other devices that distract from real issues work. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. My question to that conventional wisdom is, when was the last time there was such a negative opinion of one party or the other as this year? I can’t think of one. So while McCain may try to do everything he can to distract from the fact that he is a Republican with Republican positions, when voters go into the booths, as soon as a month from now, what’s going to be on their minds? Lipstick on a pig, or their friend who just got their house foreclosed? Are they going to remember an ad that ran for a day distorting Obama’s record, or that their kid is overseas fighting a war that they no longer understand or support? Whaddya think it’ll be? I’m putting my money on issues, and that’s precisely why I’m glad that the Democrats have a candidate who is both keenly focused on the issues, and still willing to call the McCain campaign and their surrogates out as serial distorters, liars and the very same people responsible for the mess we’re in right now. There’s another line of conventional wisdom that says that if Obama doesn’t attack in the same way that he’s attacked he’ll look weak. I reject that line of reasoning also. It doesn’t matter how you attack, it’s the effectiveness of the attack within the framework of your overall messaging. Obama would look like a fool out there gettin’ all mad at people and callin’ people names, just like the McCain campaign looks foolish right now doing the very same thing. Just because someone takes a swing at you doesn’t mean you have to swing back. How you react determines whether a punch was landed or not. I’ve seen more than my fair share of people beat their own ass while trying to beat someone else’s. It’s a beautiful thing. This is exactly what John McCain is doing to the brand he has so steadfastly sought to build over his time in Congress. In less than a week he’s taken his image turned it upside down and started emptying the contents on the ground so his campaign people can stomp all over it. He’s taken his public image from that of a reformer to a conformer. He’s done a complete 180. Earlier today, I linked to several people who’s opinion of McCain has shifted over the past week. I’d like to add one more. Andrew Sullivan, an Obama supporter who has held McCain in high regard over the years, said today,

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States.

That’s good enough for me. When the guy who helped torpedo universal healthcare in the 90’s, and argued against affirmative action, both conservative hot button issues, leaves you, you’re on the way to being all alone. It’s disappointing really. I wanted Obama to be able to dismantle many of the right-wing talking points that have been the focus of so many campaigns in my life. John McCain, and his diversional line of attack won’t give him that chance. But Obama will have the chance to strike down some of the conventional wisdom that has become so pervasive in our political culture by beating McCain with one of the cleanest campaigns in my lifetime. That’s change I can believe in.

Yes, They Think You’re Stupid – Day 3

Steve Ross — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:09:38 +0000

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign released an ad so inaccurate it was pulled from YouTube. The ad, which can be seen here not only misrepresented the words of Senator Obama, but also those of CBS News Anchor Katie Couric. I guess that’s one way to get the “liberal media” to work for you. This comes on the same day that the site Factcheck.org released a statement calling McCain’s representation of their analysis in his TV ad, Fact Check“Less than Honest”. In fact, the header at the top of the page says, “McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding - Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.” I can’t wait to see what they have on tap for today, the 7th anniversary of 9/11. I’m sure it’ll be a gem. P.S. Yes, I am linking directly to McCain’s site for the videos for 2 reasons. 1. Linking to YouTube is perilous at this point. These videos are so inaccurate and scurrilous there’s no guarantee that they will keep them up. 2. I’m hoping to cost him money on bandwidth, why the hell not?

Bureaucrats Gone Wild!

Steve Ross — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:28:32 +0000

Maybe I should go for a job with the at Interior Department Employees, charged with overseeing our mineral rights out west partying like it’s Spring Break in Daytona Beach. Here are a couple of my favorite passages:

…Their alleged improprieties include influencing contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants and having sexual relationships with _ and accepting golf and ski trips, snowboarding lessons and concert tickets from _ oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday…

Intriguing…tell me more.

"During the course of our investigation, we learned that some RIK employees frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives," the report said. Two government employees who had to spend the night after a daytime industry function because they were too intoxicated to drive home were commonly referred to by energy traders as the "MMS Chicks."

Naughty Naughty…What else?

One worker admitted having a one-night-stand with a Shell employee. That same individual allegedly passed out business cards for her sex toy business, Passion Parties Inc., at work, and bragged that her income from that business exceeded her salary at the Interior Department.

That’s entrepreneurship for ya, play to your strengths Ms. Sex Toy seller!

One of the reports claims that the former head of the Denver royalty-in-kind office, Gregory W. Smith, purchased cocaine from a co-worker, and one occasion had it delivered to the office. He also allegedly had oral sex with subordinates.

Cocaine huh, so that’s why gas is so “high”. Looks like there might be some positions opening up out there. Get your resume’s in early and often. Hell, a donation to a key Republican might help in getting the job as well.

Seven

Steve Ross — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:59:05 +0000

On my way in to DC from Memphis today, we flew past the Pentagon. I don’t know how many times I’ve been here, but I don’t ever remember flying past the Pentagon, of course normally I’m asleep during final approach. Looking at it from the window of the A320 I was in, I tried to imagine what it must have looked like for a plane, nearly the same size as the one I was on, to slam into the building at over 500 mph. I thought about what must have been going through the heads of the passengers. Even just trying to imagine what they experienced sent me down a line of thought that I haven’t considered for a very long time. Seven years ago today, I was in Tallahassee, FL doing a show. Zig Ziglar was on stage when the private speaker security lead for the show, and former Green Beret, came to me and told me he had heard on the radio a plane hit the WTC. Tom had always been a joker, and because we were completely cut off from any media (this was before everyone had a crackberry, or laptop cards, or WIFI was everywhere) I though he was pulling my leg. Emphatic, I eventually believed him, but since we had no TV, I just assumed it was a single prop Cessna or something. 5 minutes later he came back and said another one had hit the other tower. His words were haunting, “This is no accident, this is an act of war”. That’s a lot to digest before 10am. Within minutes cell phones in the audience of the Florida State basketball arena started going off en masse. People were hurriedly collecting their belongings and leaving. By the end of Zig’s presentation only 800 of the original 5000 people remained. The rest of the day is a blur. For some reason, the promoters of the event chose to continue, even though nearly everyone had left. By the end of the day there were just 200 people left in the audience. We loaded the show out, crammed the entire crew, all of whom had flown in to Tallahassee, into the cab of the truck, and started driving back to Little Rock. In the past seven years, we have seen one thing after another justified by the attacks of 9/11; two wars, domestic spying, torture, and a full frontal attack on the civil liberties that are the foundation of our nation. All of these things slipped by a nation rapt in a feverish nationalism masquerading as patriotism. It does no dishonor to the memories of those who lost their lives on 9/11, or the people who have lost their lives representing America in Afghanistan and Iraq, to point these things out. We honor the dead by using this day as a moment of reflection, an opportunity to look at where we are and what we, as a nation, have done. How have our actions impacted, not only the “War on Terror”, but the future of our nation? What avenues have these actions opened, what avenues are no longer available? Where is America now, and where do we want it to go? It is just in the past 18 months or so that a growing majority of Americans are coming around to see the things we tacitly surrendered in the name of nationalism. It’s a slow awakening from a deep slumber, but those whose eyes are opening are seeing a nation that looks very different from the America that was on September 10th, 2001. Some wake up angry, some sad, and some just want to know what the hell happened. For me, the question is not, “What Happened?” but “How do we honor the memories of the dead and move into the next chapter in American history?”. For seven years our nation has been consumed by this event, partially because of the horror, partially because it has been a politically expedient device for this administration. Every lie, every justification, every time they invoke this day for political gain they do dishonor not only to the nation, but to the people who died on this fateful day and those who have died since. How do we honor the memories of the dead? By turning back the clock on summary destruction that has been laid on our nation by an administration only interested in winning politically. We honor the dead by rejecting the emotional rhetoric that has highlighted the past seven years of political discourse, and turned these poor souls into a political hot potato used to spread fear and disinformation from the highest corridors of our nation to the hearts of our brothers and sisters. We honor the dead by remembering them with reverence, correcting the ills that have been done to this nation and letting them rest in peace, knowing that no harm has been done to America in their names. The way America looks at the world was changed on this day seven years ago, of this there is no doubt. Our challenge, our opportunity now is to honor the dead by taking what we’ve learned in these seven long years, taking our new perspective and using it as an agent for change, not only in our nation, but throughout the world. Not by force, but by reclaiming our mantle of leadership and dignity from the people who traded them off for jingoism and political ploys. This is how a nation honors it’s dead. That’s how a nation that has been in mourning for seven years, moves on, never forgetting what happened, but working for a better future for everyone.

Let's Talk Convention Centers

Steve Ross — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:12:19 +0000

As my good friend LeftWingCracker has alerted you, and the CA reported this morning, the city has put together a panel to study a new convention center. This is an interesting development indeed. As some of you know, I spend a lot of time in convention centers, Arenas and Ballrooms all over the country. In July I was at the America’s Center in St. Louis managing an event for 10,000, for two weeks. Until recently, I had worked in every primary arena in the top 100 markets in the US. I’m not bragging, that’s just what I do. I know a thing or two about convention centers and I work the one here in Memphis just about every month of the year in one capacity or another. Convention Centers are a tricky thing. This is no Field of Dreams, just because you build it doesn’t mean they’ll come. In order for a city to compete with premiere convention cities like Orlando and Vegas, there has to be a level of coordination that Memphis has yet to demonstrate in my experience. But, before I go too far too soon, let’s look at the idea from all the angles, what we have, what we want, and what needs to happen to make it work. Size and Layout Despite the renovations at the Cook, the space is limited to an event in an end stage arrangement of about 8000 people in the Expo area (NW Hall, SW Hall, East Hall 124k sq. ft.). This is including the bleachers, and additional chairs rented in because the chairs in the Expo Hall at the Cook are as old the building, are wider than current standards, and are in a sad, sad, sad state of repair. You may be able to get more people in, depending on your level of production, but I’m not sure that anyone has tried in the past 4 years or so. The web site says you can do 10,000, but that’s just if you grease up the last 1000 or so. These estimates are notoriously incorrect at EVERY CONVENTION CENTER IN AMERICA. Really, it doesn’t matter. There’s not enough parking to support 10,000 people anyway without spreading it all over downtown. The other rooms in the Cook are the new Ballroom (28k sq. ft), which is nice and does banquets of 1500 or theater of about 2500 with any kind of stage. The site says it’ll do more but that’s gotta be without a stage. There are also all the little rooms on the Mez and Lobby levels. For larger events, these are breakout rooms, for smaller local stuff they make good meeting rooms even though they look like they were designed by Blanche from Golden Girls. So, the answer to your question is yes, the Cook is limited by space. The Cook is also a HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS TO GET INTO. Every room of ANY size is, for some stupid reason, on the top floor. This means unloading hundreds of cases into a freight elevator, and then pushing them some 200’-300’ to wherever they need to be. For the Expo Hall, should you have a full tractor trailer or two of gear, you have to put it on a TRAILER ELEVATOR that requires a special guy from Chicago to bless it, then if it doesn’t get stuck, you can unload it and do that as many times as you have trucks. Sounds like fun huh? So the next answer is yes, the Cook is…antiquated. However, the Cook is PAID FOR, and while it’s got some not so darling quirks, to my knowledge the building itself hasn’t kept anyone from coming back…usually that task is handled by the management. What would I want, as a guy that will have to work in this proposed building? 1. Big assed rooms on the ground floor with dock access, easy rigging (no drop ceiling) and lots of power options. This makes your boat shows and expos, and big conventions easier. Keep the airwalls to a minimum folks, that just gets in the way of rigging and provides more opportunity for failure. Low steel should be no lower than 35’ on 30’ or less centers (that means a 30’ box made by the beams overhead), high steel should be free of as many obstructions as possible to allow for bridles so people can put things where they need to go instead of where they have to go. 2. Smaller rooms close by for breakouts, perhaps on an upper level ala the America’s Center in St. Louis or the George R. Brown in Houston. America’s Center requires an elevator push to get your gear there, but aside from 1 large room, most of the rooms are for less than 100 people, so it’s manageable. At GRB, you have the convenience of an elevated drive that has plenty of dock space for even the largest truck. GRB also has many room options, though I would advise against the theater…it’s just a weird room. 3. Fixtures that are consistent with current industry standards. Don’t go out and buy the wide assed chairs, even though we know Memphians are a little wider than people that don’t have food as good as ours. That 19” standard chair will work just fine. I know, I know. Now I’m just dreaming. I don’t care what the rooms look like inside, that’s not my concern. Pretty them up all you want, but the space has to be laid out in a way that makes sense and gives us the opportunity to run two or three BIG shows at once without having people bumping all in to each other. Location If anyone is thinking about putting this thing anywhere other than as close to the FedEx Forum as codes allow, they need to have their head examined. Dock access needs to be on the part of Danny Thomas that isn’t completely and totally stupid for a big truck to get into. When you’re planning this part, go to Diesel Driving Academy and get the dumbest guy in the class to try and make the turn, or, I know a guy your can fly in from Florida. Seriously though, the largest event I do is somewhere between 10 and 15k people for a week. They need an arena, or else it just gets unmanageable. We’ve done this event at indoor football stadiums, but arenas work too. The key is getting that convention space for breakouts as close to the arena as possible so the client doesn’t have to pay for bussing to and from the venues. That can be a deal breaker. One more thing, in the article Lee Jackson mentions a space across from AutoZone Park. Unless you’re going to buy out the bus station and move it somewhere REALLY FAR AWAY FROM DOWNTOWN LIKE WEST MEMPHIS, and you’re willing to tangle with Lester Lit, and you want lose 4th street between Union and Beale you may need to reconsider. Also, they just built all those apartments right there, are those people going to want a convention center across the street? Just askin’. Ok, so there are some technical things that have to happen in order to make this proposed new building even marginally better than the Cook. Unfortunately, that’s not all you have to do to make this thing work. Nope, that was the easy part. Memphis the Destination Orlando is a Destination, as is Las Vegas. Atlanta is even a destination in many ways. Hell, Nashville is a destination. What has Memphis done to create and reinforce the idea that it is a place to COME? Seriously what. CVB, what are you guys doing to get people to come here? Is there an ad campaign? Is there…anything? Do we have a slogan that I should know? I mean what? What are we doing to get people here. I travel all over the country and the ONLY PLACE I EVER SEE ANYTHING ABOUT MEMPHIS IS IN MEMPHIS. Are we marketing to ourselves? What are we doing? For YEARS the state of Arkansas has been advertising on national TV (CNN, ESPN, Travel Channel) to get people to come CAMPING…CAMPING. C-A-M-P-I-N-G. What are we doing? We’ve got Elvis, we’ve got the Blues, we’ve got Beale St. we’ve got more frickin museums than we know what to do with, we’ve got a BIG ASSED RIVER. Seriously, I want to know what we are doing? In order for Memphis to be able to even marginally compete with the convention powerhouses in the nation, we have to stop thinking about Memphis the way locals think about Memphis and start thinking about Memphis the way we want other people to think about Memphis so maybe they’ll decide to come here. We have to have amenities close to the Convention area that are nice things to do. Not every convention turns into a Beale Street Bender. Ugh, this part is pissing me off. Before a dime is spent on a single drink at a single committee meeting someone needs to explain what the hell we’re doing even talking about this when we’re either not EFFECTIVELY marketing ourselves to the scary outside world, or worse, we’re not doing ANYTHING. Just sayin’, now, on to the next topic. Hotels One thing is for sure, we do need more beds downtown. That’s just undeniable, and so far the only thing that makes any sense right now is getting more beds in downtown Memphis. The new Westin is nice, the expansion to the Peabody will be cool, but why is it we have a Hilton corporate headquarters here in Memphis, and there ain’t no downtown Hilton? Huh? Any answers? Anyone ever approach them? I mean, we’ve got a DoubleTree, and a Hampton, but no Hilton. Ok just wondering. Memphis loses thousands of dollars in taxes every year to W. Memphis Hotels. Make some rooms. Seriously, so far this is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Conclusion Actually I have more but 2000 words is my self-imposed limit, so once I get my ass handed to me for this post, I’ll put that one up. The point is that yes, I know this is just a panel to study stuff. I get it. This is your first assignment. If you can answer all of this with something other than “but I want it” then I’m sold. If not, once again the allure of a big old building that’s all shiny and new, and sure to cure all the ills in this city will get built and nothing will happen but higher taxes and a lot of developers laughing all the way to the bank with our money. We’ve had big plans before, and just because they didn’t work out doesn’t mean this one won’t, but we’ve had big plans before that got shoved in a closet because someone didn’t get paid or we just lost the faith. Seriously, I’m just sayin’.

Welcome to the New vibinc blog!

Steve Ross — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:23:16 +0000

If you just arrived from the old blogger site, thanks for coming over. If you just stumbled upon me, take a look around. Cheers, V.

Every Trick in the Book to Suppress the Vote

Steve Ross — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:00:41 +0000

Over the past several days there have been many stories about attempts by State Republican Parties to use every available option available, and some whose viability is in question. Foreclosing the Vote On Wednesday, an article in the Michigan Messenger detailed one such plan. The Michigan Republican Party in Macomb Co. is using foreclosure lists to challenge voter registrations. There is some question as to whether this method is legal, there’s no question it is unsavory. Different states have different laws governing how up to date voter registrations have to be. However, as the article points out, a foreclosure notice is not necessarily an indication that a person has moved to another location. Foreclosures can be resolved before the foreclosed buyer has to leave the property. This “insult to injury” tactic smacks of class warfare. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the weeks to come. Indiana ID Imbroglio As pointed out in this article by Jonathan Alter (h/t LWC), State Republican Parties all over the country are gearing up to contest voters based on the Supreme Court ruling Crawford vs. Marion County. The ruling affirms Indiana voter ID laws that require a valid state issued photo ID or US Passport. Read the entire article, it lays out the strategies and efforts of State Republican Parties in many key states to disenfranchise voters, including…wait for it…Florida. Florida has some of the most ridiculous election policies in the US. Alter points out

Even after the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and worldwide attention, the Florida software is still flawed. It requires only an 80 percent match to the name of a convicted felon. "So if there's a murderous John Peterson, the software disenfranchises everyone named John Peters," Andrew Hacker writes in a recent New York Review of Books.

Brilliant! Voting is a fundamental right that segments of the population have tried to take away from other segments of the population since the beginning of our nation. First, you had to be a white male landowner. Over the years, it’s become less and less restrictive, opening up the process to all citizens. Still, there are those who wish to disenfranchise some for political gain. Alter asserts that this effort is “…political, not racial…”. In one respect, he’s right. These efforts may just be outwardly motivated for a desired political outcome. Regardless of the intent, the effect in elections past has been to disenfranchise more African-American voters than those of other ethnicities. You can call that what you want, but if it looks and smells like a racist, it probably is.

Clusterf**k in Clarksville

Steve Ross — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:44:06 +0000

I’m not going to go into any of the details. I want to talk about something that both Newscoma, Goldni and LWC touched on, as well as just some common sense that doesn’t seem to be very common in just about every corner of Tennessee Democratic Party. First, three truths that EVERYONE can agree on: 1. Rosalind Kurita betrayed the Democratic Party by voting for a Republican for Lt. Governor. 2. She was challenged in a primary, probably (definitely) as a direct result of item 1. 3. She won the primary within the bounds of the rules as they stood at the time of the election. I’m as pissed off at Rosalind Kurita for what she did as anyone. However, the simple fact remains that no matter how much people are pissed at her, she won the damn election. Since when did Democrats start using party unity as a test for being the nominee for anything? Come on, we’re Democrats! We’ve had one side of the party screaming bloody murder for some 20 odd years that we have to act more like Republicans and another hootin’ and hollerin’ that we’re not acting like Democrats. Where did this sudden call for party purity come from? If the powers that be on the in the TNDP and throughout the state wanted to “take her down” they should have used their connections and influence to organize an unbeatable campaign behind Barnes. I have seen no evidence of anything resembling coordination from any of the party functionaries. I certainly never got an email from ANYONE associated with the Party asking me to give him my support. Had this been solved in this manner, we all would have been giving each other high fives back in August when the election happened. If her disunity disqualified her from the Democratic ballot, then that should have been dealt with BEFORE the election. Once the votes are cast, it does more of a disservice to the communities in question than it does any benefit to the party to have her removed from the ballot. In case I haven’t made myself clear, I’m still mad at Kurita and don’t think she deserves to be the Democratic candidate for State Senate, but this smacks of sour grapes. Removing her from the ballot almost certainly assures that her supporters will turn on the State party and vote for the Republican (ed note: I guess I should have checked the race first, there are no other individuals in this race besides the Democratic candidate). Further, should she be allowed to stay on the ballot, you’ve created the Tennessee equivalent of a Lieberman, except this one will continue the charade of being a Democrat. What has happened here is someone in the party, or a group of someone’s, have decided out of the blue that the party has to grow a pair. They’ve chosen a hill to die on, and I feel confident that they will get their wish. Should Kurita get pulled from the ballot, a seat that was probably safely Democratic will probably fall to a Republican (ed note. again there are no Republicans or independents on the ballot for this election, however that doesn't exclude this possibility in the future). Despite Kurita’s actions in the last session, I believe that when it came to brass tacks she would have done the right thing and made sure a Democrat was the Lt. Governor (her problem with Wilder now solved). Now that is far less certain. There is one thing for sure, the party does need to grow a pair. But that doesn’t mean using technicalities or smoke filled rooms to get the desired result. That means BUILDING A PARTY that is competitive in as many counties as possible instead of just focusing on the urban areas. Tennessee is a rural state. There are a lot more voters in the rest of Tennessee than in Shelby and Davidson Counties. The failure here is on the apparatus of the state party and their seemingly stubborn determination to maintain a paternalistic oligarchy in its affairs. If you want to build a party, you have to go for a groundswell. That means bringing in all types and allowing them the opportunity to own a piece of the party through some other means than giving money. This means having get-togethers and functions and stuff and things more than just asking for a vote and some money now and again. If you want to build a party, you have to address their needs like you want their vote. That means not budgeting an arbitrary number of signs for a county, or just abandoning an area because it’s too hard or you’re too whatever. If you want to build a party, you have to take these first two things, and use them to build a relationship with people, build their trust, so when you do have to do the occasional unpleasant thing, they, at the very least, don’t turn against you. Right now, all the TNDP seems to be is an ugly web site and a couple of high falutin’ dill weeds that couldn’t organize themselves out of a shoe box. It’s way past time to step up folks. Give us a reason to trust you and we will. Give us a reason to support you, and we will. Keep doing what you’re doing and you’ll eventually lose everyone. I’d say you’re well on your way.

The Coming Financial Disaster

Steve Ross — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:42:00 +0000

So far this year 11 banks have failed. 14 since February of 2007. In the past 2 years 27 banks have closed. Some of those came under FDIC control long ago. (Source) Back in March, Bear Stearns, one of the largest investment banks in the world was sold to JPMorgan Chase for $10 a share. Its 52-week high had been $133. Just last week, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got rescued by the federal government. This weekend, we learned that Merrill Lynch will be purchased by Bank of America, who also purchased the troubled Countrywide Financial back in January. To add insult to injury, Lehman Brothers may file for bankruptcy tomorrow. This news has led to the dollar falling in international trading. John McCain thinks the ”fundamentals of the economy are strong”, even though he has said he doesn’t know much about the economy, and his economic advisors have called the American people a nation of whiners. I’m not trying to whine, but if the fundamentals of our economy are strong, why has unemployment risen to 6.1%? Why are banks failing at the highest rate since 1986? What does this mean for the rest of the economy? Ian Welsh at firedoglake says that a lot more bankruptcies may be on the way due to these failures, but not all of them in the financial markets.

…The banks and the remaining brokers have a lot of this toxic waste on their books, and they don't have it on the books at market prices, because there is no market price. A market price is about to be created for a ton of it, as Lehman is forced to sell during its bankruptcy liquidation. That will force banks and brokerages and other holders of this crap (like municipalities, States and pension funds) to also have to value it. A lot of them are going to find out that they're bankrupt….

The fundamentals of our economy are strong? Really? That’s interesting, because what I’m hearing is that our cities could go bankrupt because these million dollar douchebags have stacked and gamed the system for big money, but gambled and lost? Strong? I think I need a drink. How much longer can this go on? How much longer can we borrow from other nations to support our wild flung fantasies? How much longer will the American people allow our nation to be run into the ditch by people who have nothing more than self-interest in mind? Remember, just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t effect you.

The Blog, and Other Such Concerns

Steve Ross — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:46:15 +0000

I know I've been MIA for a long time. Let me just say that this past 17 days has been long and trying. Hopefully, the next several days at home will prove to be fruitful here at the blog. Unfortunately, traveling for weeks on end, working long hours, and being largely cut off from any news is the nature of the business that I'm engaged in. Ideally, I'd prefer to do something that forces me deeper into the news, but as of yet, I've not found anything that can replace my salary doing that, so, expect posting to be spotty over the next several months as I build up my savings to deal with the slow months that will follow Thanksgiving. It's the nature of the business. Despite all this, I have been working on several things here at the blog. I'm trying out a new twitter plug-in, and have a couple of posts rattling around in my head. I hope to have these out soon. The financial crisis has been the primary focus of the news, and for good reason. I'm not economist. In fact, macroeconomics is not something that my education in Music prepared me for. There are several places that I go for more information; Bonddad and Calculated Risk are just two sources. I also rely on advisorjim a Memphian, for occasional Q&A sessions. These are always enlightening. Later today, I'll have a post that is the result of our discussions earlier this week. Thanks for sticking around, I'll have more later in the day.

It Worked

Steve Ross — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:17:49 +0000

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." – Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist may have not been able to fully realize his homicidal dream that is the cornerstone of movement conservatism, but the effect, at the hands of his adherents, is that no one trusts government to do anything anymore, which, is almost the same result. Americans are angry. We’re angry that government isn’t working for us. We don’t understand why someone, or a group of someone’s with so much, would ask for, and get a bailout when there are so many that have been left behind. The whole tenor of this “crisis” has been fevered, but no one has bothered to explain it to the average person. Why, after 28 years of economic policy that has favored the wealthy, should anyone want to go further into debt to help those very people? No one wants to answer that question, and so, many people are even angrier than they were that they have been seemingly forgotten for people who have gained so much. If you look at the long string of government failure, much that begins before Katrina, which was the grand awakening for most Americans, it’s easy to understand why people are angry. At every turn, the 80% of us that make up middle and lower income earners have been given the shaft. We’ve been fed a shit sandwich with different condiments, told to eat it, and like it. Some of us have. Others have been shouting from the mountaintops that tilting the balance of government oversight and intervention to unbridled “free market” reforms places greed over community. Suddenly, those pushing for the very same “free market” reforms are asking for a safety net. The winner is greed. This crisis has been building. National unemployment is up to 6.1%. That’s nine months of consistent job loss. New numbers are expected tomorrow, and will no doubt be worse. Hell, the southeast lost 2500 jobs just last week with the closing of Bill Heard Auto. Despite this condition, nothing has been done to help workers. Nothing has been done period. We’re an afterthought. That’s reality. I’ve been reading about this “crisis” for two weeks and still don’t understand it. I’ve asked people in the business, I’ve asked policy wonks, I’ve asked economists, and no one can seem to get to the crux of the problem. No one has an answer. More importantly, no one knows if the bill passed by the Senate last night will do anything more than expand the debt at the fastest rate in my lifetime. If our elected officials want us to stand behind legislation, they need to break it down in a way that we can understand instead of resorting to “end times” rhetoric to scare us into supporting something we don’t understand. They need to treat us like adults, instead of a group of anonymous children at some overcrowded day care. Tell us what’s up and why we should care. Listen to us when we say we don’t understand, and try to explain it to our feeble little minds. We want to know. Do you want us to know? The answer to this is no. They want us to be stupid. They want us to jump at their rhetoric rather than be a part of the solution. We want to be part of the solution. We want to be a part of something greater than ourselves. It’s your job to help motivate, inform, and mobilize us. Most importantly, we want to know that we can trust you. We don’t anymore. None of you. Prove yourself, and we will stand behind you. Fail, and you will wonder where all your support went. Make us part of the solution, in some way other than asking for our vote. Inform us of the conditions and situations that made this happen so we can understand. Most importantly, if you want our continued support, you have to include us in the discussion, make us a part of the process. Norquist and his buddies may not have killed government, but he helped kill our faith in it. The only way I see that faith being restored is to engage us. It's way past time.

Crisis of Confidence

Steve Ross — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:28:07 +0000

Bonddad reports that the Federal Reserve is considering an interest rate cut…

Rates are currently at 2%. Rates have dropped from 5.25% to 2% and we are currently in a credit crunch. The interest rate isn't the problem. The problem is is confidence in whoever you're lending to. If you think a borrower is about to go bankrupt -- or may be bankrupt between the time you lend him money and the time he pays it back -- you're not going to make the loan.

Our whole financial and governmental system is based on confidence. Right now there’s not much of it in either. The question becomes, how do we increase confidence? Accountability. Accountability, through regulation, open and honest accounting, and by using the good parts of the free market to value things at their actual value, and knowing that based on market forces that value is fluid, rather than some imaginary value that the Treasury Department may divine. This means that some people are going to lose and some are going to win, but that’s the free market remember? This is the thing that the Republicans have been selling you for 28 years. This is the thing that’s better than government until it fails and asks government to fix it. The key here is to make sure that the people who were used as cannon fodder for this implosion, people whose credit should have prohibited them from buying houses outside their means, get hurt as little as possible. They did what they have been told to do by the “masters of the Republican free market”, and they wouldn’t have if no one would have been willing to lend to them. Remember, these guys have been taken advantage of. While some would rather blame the victim. The people to blame are the ones who allowed this condition to persist for so long, and that falls squarely on the President and the Republicans in Congress who, up ‘til now, refused to do anything. We’ve been in a foreclosure clusterfuck for at least 3 years. When I bought my home just over 2 years ago, getting a loan was hard. It took a lot of arm-wringing and leg work to get it done, and I’ve got better than average credit. Lenders were already feeling snake-bit. Now that people are losing their jobs left and right, it’s even harder. Two weeks ago, I bought a car to replace the one that was totaled for me. Financing wasn’t a problem, because my old car got totaled and paid off, but the interest rate was high. When I asked about it, I was basically told the old sad break-up tale of, “it’s not you, it’s me”. The Finance guy at the lot told me that the finance company was tightening because of all the people defaulting and that my good credit and payment history meant little in the face of the number of repo’s. Two weeks later, we have this crisis pop up that no one was warning about. I mean no one was warning about any of it. We’ve been told for like 9 months now that this is just an economic slowdown, not a crippling financial crisis. We thought it was an economic cold, not financial polio. None of the doctors said shit about financial polio, why would we think it was that bad? Like I said in my last post, we want to know what the hell is going on, and if the government doesn’t tell us what’s up, then act like there’s some emergency, we’re going to get pissed.

Palindrome v. O’Biden

Steve Ross — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:30:25 +0000

I watched the debate last night, and I gotta say that the whole thing was bizarre. Palin exceeded her expectations, but that’s a pretty low bar considering that my expectation was for her to be a complete and total blithering idiot. If you chose to watch the debate, ignoring the questions, Palin performed pretty well. If, like the format dictated, you wanted to see how the candidates performed when asked questions, this was culmination of two bad interviews (Gibson and Couric) with no commercial interruptions or editing. Palin’s stated refusal to answer Ifill’s questions struck a chord in me and many other observers. Basically, this was a reflection of Palin’s participation in the “Troopergate” investigation back home in Alaska, “If the questions don’t fit, just talk some shit”. Palin called Joe Biden, “O’Biden” at one point, which made me want to see him run off with his “Lucky Charms”. Actually, Biden did exactly what Obama wasn’t able to do last week, state, chapter and verse, McCain’s positions and past voting record. Sure there were some mistakes, and factcheck has them, but on substance, Biden actually answered the questions asked instead of trailing off into some cue card, talking point babble. The highlight for me was when Palin called for sweeping new powers for the OVP. As if Cheney hadn’t already muddied the waters enough, the last thing we need is another veep making a run on power. Everyone’s calling this a win for Biden. I don’t know if I totally agree, but one thing is for sure, nothing good happened for the McCain campaign last night. They made no headway whatsoever. With 32 days until the election McCain’s fortunes are going to have to change drastically if he has any hopes of winning. Pulling out of Michigan may be the tip of the iceberg for McCain’s bad news, the Troopergate report comes out in 7 days. I can’t wait to see that!

How Dare You Get Involved

Steve Ross — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:23:23 +0000

The RNC announced it will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the Obama campaign. (Source) The complaint centers around all those small donors that have given nearly half a billion dollars to the campaign. The RNC asserts that there’s no way to prove these donors are legit, because they fall under the $200 disclosure limit. According to the FEC website:

The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor.

In essence, any donor that contributes a total of $200 over the course of the campaign must be disclosed. This rule seems to refute part of the claim by the RNC that “little is known about many of Obama's donors because the campaign is not required to disclose detailed information about people who give less than $200.” The small donor explosion started back in December of 2007. From Q4 2007 to his disclosure covering the month of January, Obama’s fundraising jumped dramatically. The Q4 disclosure shows $23.5m for the months of Oct.-Dec. Obama’s January disclosure shows $36.7m in one month, a huge explosion of donations. This trend has continued since. His last disclosure reports some $57m of donations. (Source) Newsweek reported on Saturday about two donors that donated more than the federal limit allows, and under false names. The money from both donors has been returned. "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," said Ben Lablot an Obama Spokesman. McCain has had his own fundraising problems. Back in August the Washington Post reported that bundlers may have used names of people who, in fact, did not donate any money to the campaign. The McCain campaign returned the money. The RNC is well within their rights to raise questions about Obama’s donors, but in doing so, they also raise questions about themselves. Considering the Republican Party’s history of voter suppression tactics and Tom DeLay style attacks based on unsubstantiated rumors (I don’ know if candidate x is a {list of rumors}, but I can’t prove he/she’s not.) this attack on small donors seems to fit their modus operandi nicely. Of course, when you’re getting your ass kicked in the polls I guess anything goes.

Belmont Debate - LIVEBLOG!

Steve Ross — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:11:45 +0000

And it opens...Before I go further, let me say HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Newscoma. 29? I thought 25 at the most! All questions that are asked will be paraphrased... Question 1 - How will you fix the economy for people who are about to retire? Obama does the obligatory opening thingy, then goes into his general plan. I think people want specifics, though Obama looks better on this first question than I thought he would. McCain didn't say anything. On the follow-up, McCain talks about corruption and cronyism...I'm sure you know where I stand on that. Obama starts off good with teh Buffett thing, and states that opportunity isn't going to trickle down. Goes on to his middle class tax cut. Question 2 - What about the bailout will actually help people? McCain - Hammers Obama on fannie Mae contributions. Then gets to the answer, which he states is to buy up bad loans that are somehow Obama's fault. Obama - Talks about freeing up credit for small businesses. Blames deregulation. Slams McCain campaign chair for lobbying for Fannie and Freddie. Talks about keeping people in their homes. ---aside - I know they're trying to stay civil, but just two questions in, I feel like McCain is about to lose it. Question 3 - How can we trust either of you, when both parties got us into this mess? Obama - I understand your frustration, and there's a lot of blame to go around. Pre-Bush there was a surpluss, not a deficit. Debt almost doubled. Calls McCain out on voting for Bush Budgets. blah blah blah Ok, this isn't working for me...time to try and bring the funny. The camera work on C-Span is weird. McCain is talking about pork barrel stuff. I think he's gone over time, but I feel pretty sure Brokaw isn't going to cut him off. McCain "I don't know much about the economy" says he knows how to fix the economy. brilliant! Did McCain just say that some of the 700b ends up in the hands of terrorists? huh? I was drifting off there...in the shower of "my friends". A question about sacrifice? Americans don't sacrifice anything but education! McCain brings up the 767/EADS tanker thing. I don't know that this is really a winner for him....

Seven Top McCain Aides And Fundraisers Helped Air Bus Secure Multi-Billion Air Force Contract Over Boeing. At least seven top McCain advisers and fundraisers - Thomas Loeffler, Susan Nelson, John Green, Kirsten Chadwick, Kirk Blalock, Aleix Jarvis and William Ball III - have all lobbied for EADS, the parent company of European airplane manufacturer Air Bus. McCain's EADS lobbyists were influential in steering a multi-billion Air Force contract to Air Bus instead of Boeing. [Senate Lobbying Disclosure Records, accessed 5/30/08] (Source)

Obama is going after the class war. This is good. "It's hard for a teacher making 30, 35,000 dollars to tighten her belt, when so many others are living high on the hog." McCain goes off on tax increases...oh somebody just shoot me in the head. What McCain is saying about small business tax increases is BULLSHIT. That only counts if you're a sole proprietor, and making more than $250k. If you're a sole proprietor making that much cash your a complete and total dipshit! STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS LOST A WHEEL! McCain is a broken record with this maverick thing. I never knew McCain had a bald spot. Interesting... McCain is a broken record with EVERY FUCKING THING HE SAYS. Here's my question, does Senator have a new, original thought in his head? Hell, does he have on old original thought? Ahhh, the opportunity, is that anything like the rusty trombone? Why is Obama talking like Captain James T. Kirk Should we fund a Manhattan Project for energy, can someone make a joke about Manhattan Transfer? Please? Healthcare as a commodity? interesting... Let's see...Declaration of Independence, Life...AWWW DAMMIT. I guess healthcare as a commodity is unAmerican, but we'll try it anyway. And that's what we've done. I still don't think that we should have to "buy" healthcare, but in the current environment, a huge expense on the federal government is out of the question. I'm glad Obama is beating McCain up on the whole 5000 dollar healthcare bullshit thing. As a side note, I just wish someone would say the word "bullshit" on this debate. It would make me less sleepy. Let me give a shout out to the D'San Corporation, provider of the timers that the candidates are TOTALLY IGNORING. Healthcare - McCain says "responsibility" and puts the responsibility on business. Obama says healthcare is a right. Good deal. I think it's funny that Obama is working against the camera director. I fucking fight that shit every damn event I do! All this talk about healthcare makes me wanna smoke. bbiab. Peacemaker v. warfighter...I'll get to that in a minute In every DOD, or DOD related event that I've done over the past several years, our soldiers are called warfighters, not peacekeepers. This is a huge difference. When military leaders talk about supporting our "warfighters" it's code for avoiding all those "peacekeeping" missions that were largely successful in the 90's. It's a lot easier to rally the organizations that support the military like the VFW, etc. behind the notion of the warfighter, than the peacekeeper, but the difference should not be ignored. The military establishment over the past 8 years has been working toward a warfighting footing, or an aggressive posture rather than the defensive posture that should be the posture of a nation that is the "last remaining 'superpower'". BTW, this whole "We will kill bin Laden" thing is really disturbing. Are we really going to dedicate the full force of the US military against a single man who will be looked upon by his followers as a martyr upon his death, emboldening his followers? That's FUCKING STUPID. Capture the fucker and put his ass to trial, and let him rot slowly in a supermax prison. Remove the martyr thing. At this point I would just about love for this to devolve into an "Ultimate Fighting" thing. I wanna see who bites who first. McCain is wetting his pants at the prospect of a new Cold War. He's using all the code words. Unfortunately, in a world, partially sustained by McCain's penchant for deregulation, Russia is in the catbird seat. They have more upside with energy than we do unless we start becoming more independent. Questions about Russia Russia hates being in the position they're in post USSR. They want to be in contention for the top dog. Bringing these old protectorates back into the fold is a big deal for them. Further, McCain is right about the whole KGB thing. Putin is all about the old Russia. He is pissed about former states trying to join NATO. It's a tightrope act. WWIIIsrael How the hell are either of them going to deal with this question in 2 minutes? League of Democracies? Wha? Isn't that NATO? WTF? Okay last question. sorry but at this point I'm worn out. Sorry about the funny too. Funny's harder when the anger is boiling over. This will be the longest 28 days of my life. Thank God it's over...that was painful. I have no idea who won, but I know it wasn't America. Cheers.

The Only Poll That Matters

Steve Ross — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:08:09 +0000

On Wednesday, early voting in Shelby County will begin. The dates, times, and locations of early voting can be found here. This election will be history making, but despite all the hoopla surrounding the Presidential election there are several races and questions here in Shelby County that every voter needs to record their decision on. City Council District 9-1 I don’t want to take anything away from any of the races, but if there is one race that’s buried at the bottom of the ballot that will directly affect Memphis more than any of the others, it’s this one. Four candidates are vying for the seat; Kemp Conrad, Paul Shaffer, John Willingham, and Arnette Montague III. I won’t go into any great detail now, but suffice it to say, Paul Shaffer is my choice. I’ll write more about this race soon, I promise. Memphis and Shelby County Charter Amendments You’ll find these just under the litany of unopposed State house and Senate races. Here in Memphis we have 10, count ‘em, 10 amendments to vote on, 2 for the County and 8 for the city. Here’s a brief rundown… County Amendments… Ordinance 364 – Makes the offices of Sherriff, Trustee, Register, County Clerk and Assessor charter positions, and insulates the county government from the problems that happened in Knox county. VOTE YES. Ordinance 365 – Institutes term limits on all county elected officials. I’m no fan of term limits, so I’m voting no on this one. Memphis Amendments Ordinance 5232 – Recall Amendment – This gives the people of the city of Memphis the opportunity to recall a member of the City Council. Unfortunately, it establishes arbitrary time lines (no recall before 2 years into term), still, there needs to be a way to remove Council Members if necessary. VOTE YES Ordinance 5265 – Residency Requirements – In short, if you’re going to work for the Mayor, or the City Council, as well as some other areas, you have to live in the City. Seems like a no brainer. Does not apply to emergency response like police and fire department. VOTE YES Amendment 1 – Terms Limits – Puts a two term limit on all elected city officials. Again, I hate term limits, I think it puts good people who know what they’re doing out of office prematurely. If your Council Member is a dickweed, don’t wait for him/her to be term limited, elect someone else. It’s simple. I’m voting no. Amendment 2 – Staggered Terms – This would allow for more consistency on the Council by electing the single member districts in one election, and the super districts 2 years later in another. If you’re voting for Term Limits, you need to vote for this one too. We don’t need 13 new council members trying to figure out how to legislate all at once. If you’re not voting for term limits, this is still a good idea. VOTE YES Amendment 3 – MLGW Sale – Makes the sale of the utility dependent on a referendum. Voting yes doesn’t mean there will be a referendum, or that we are selling MLGW, it means that if someone wants to sell MLGW, they have to ask us first. VOTE YES Amendment 4 – Ethics – If you are an elected official in Memphis and you are indicted, you will be suspended from duty until the legal case is resolved. VOTE YES. Amendment 5 – Instant Run-off Voting – This may seem a little complicated, but it’s really quite simple. Rank the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and redistributed using those voters 2nd choice. If there is still no majority, the process is repeated until there is a majority. VOTE YES Amendment 6 – Mayoral Vacancies – This amendment cleans up the process of Mayoral succession. VOTE YES If you want more in-depth analysis of the Charter Amendments, go to Change Memphis they have the actual text of the amendments and everything. There are more races on the ballot, but in the interest of space, I’ll have to get to them later. Remember vote early and often!

An Argument Against Term Limits

Steve Ross — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:45:15 +0000

In my last post, I talked a lot about the Charter Amendments that are included on this year’s ballot. In that post, I came out against Term Limits. The position I stated in that post was really just a “quick hit” on my overall position as I noted in this comment. In this post I intend to clarify my position further, and dispel some persistent talking points that are the foundational arguments of Term Limit supporters. First and foremost, my opposition to Term Limits centers around legislative positions such as City Council, County Commission, or State Legislature. Legislators in these positions are the most direct link between constituents and the government bodies on which they serve. While this link may not be utilized to it’s fullest potential by legislators, placing arbitrary limits on service runs counter to the fluid functioning of legislative bodies. Term limits cripple legislative bodies, undermining the institutional memory that enables these government bodies function properly. Good legislators don’t grow on trees, they are built through experience. Much of this can comes from their campaigns, but no campaign can truly prepare an aspiring legislator for actually operating in a legislative environment, or the way the body actually works. This is further complicated by the “part time” nature of nearly all the legislative bodies in Tennessee. Executive Term Limits By contrast, I have fewer problems with Executive term limits for offices like Governor, or Mayor. Executive positions are full time affairs in many instances. Further, executive positions wield far greater power than legislative positions. Placing a time horizon on service in an executive position makes it less likely that the official can get “dug in” to the office. While it is true that Executives have as much or more of a learning curve upon taking office, the full time nature of the office gives them the opportunity to become effective and build a greater understanding of all the circumstances more quickly than legislators. Skill Positions In the comment I posted on my last piece, I noted my opposition to Term Limits for positions like Trustee, Assessor, Sheriff and other positions. I call these “skill” positions because they are focused on a single function of government that requires certain skills to accomplish them effectively. I should add to these positions elected judgeships. With the exception of Sheriff and Judge, most people have little or no understanding of what people in these positions do, or the qualifications necessary to be effective in their positions. Placing arbitrary limits on these positions is misguided for many of the same reasons that term limiting legislators is misguided. We need continuity in these positions, and in order to maintain continuity, putting these officials out of office simply because they have reached a certain level of tenure is counterintuitive to maintaining the consistency of service necessary in their positions. Dissecting the Arguments There are several arguments that are consistently floated in support of Term Limits. Here are some of the most common. Getting it Done in 8 This argument goes something like the last line of an email I received several days ago…

“If after eight years, a politician can't get the job done for his constituents, common sense would say, it's time for him to move on, and let someone else give it a try.”

From an emotional perspective, I understand why this argument resonates with people, but from an intellectual standpoint, it’s just counterintuitive. If after 8 years a politician hasn’t done the job for his or her constituents, then the constituents should vote him or her out of office. Period. If they don’t, shame on the voters for not voting their interests. What this argument doesn’t address is if the politician is actually doing the job their constituents want them to do. What happens to these politicians? Under this logic they get put out just like the bad ones. How does this serve the interests of the constituents in question? It doesn’t. The Corrupting Influence of Government This argument relies on the notion that government is inherently corrupting. Unfortunately, just as not all people who consume alcohol become alcoholics, not all elected officials become corrupt. Government, in and of itself is no more corrupt than any other large institution. Corruption is more the result of failed individuals than the fabled shadowy hand of a corrupt system. That is not to say that there aren’t corrupt elements of government, but that officials who fall prey to corruption are the ones who enable corruption rather than the other way around. This argument plays on the actions of certain “bad apples” and the fear of constituents who are either disengaged from the process, or have ideological objections to the influence of government in people’s lives. The Power of the Incumbency It is true that unseating an incumbent is far more difficult than vying for an open seat. Incumbents have networks of donors and name recognition that upstart candidates do not. Further, incumbents in federal elections enjoy a 95% re-election rate. It’s hard to believe that this figure is much less for local elections. Incumbency, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. You probably don’t go to a different place every time you get your hair cut, you go to the guy or girl that does it the way you like it. What if you were forced to go to a different barbershop or stylist every other time? You might be happy with the results, you might not, ultimately, you’ll never know until it’s too late. If your incumbent politician is doing the job you want them to do, why should you be forced to vote for someone else? You shouldn’t. While challengers may have a higher bar to cross in getting their name and message out, there’s nothing inherently unfair about that. They may be largely unknown quantities to the general public who should have to prove themselves to assure the public that they will work in their interests in the absence of an established record. The reality is, if an incumbent politician isn’t doing the job their constituents want, the voters will term limit them with their vote. That’s America, that’s the way it should be. Conclusion While I’m sure I’ve left some arguments out on both sides of the Term Limit issue, I think I’ve, at the very least, clarified my position. As always, I encourage discussion. Post a comment or drop me an email.

Shenanigans at the SCDP

Steve Ross — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:34:49 +0000

There have been a flurry of posts concerning the ballot printed by the SCDP. While I cannot speak to the specifics of what actually happened, and don’t want to get involved in the speculation or finger pointing, what is clear is that the SCDP, like many other state and local party organizations, is suffering from a crisis of leadership throughout the organization. Really, it’s a sad state of affairs, and it speaks to why people feel disillusioned with political parties in general. If, for instance, this was the result of an individual bad actor that used their position to push an agenda, then it illustrates why people feel disconnected from and suspicious of political parties. If, as some noted in private conversations, it was the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding, then it gives people the perception that the party apparatus is either covering it’s ass for the previous hypothetical, or so dysfunctional that they can’t even get one of the most basic jobs it has right, informing the electorate of it’s positions. I’ve been critical of the Democratic Party apparatus at all levels from time to time. Recently, I haven’t had much to say about the SCDP, because the SCDP hasn’t done anything that I’ve seen. The current Exec. Com. seems to believe that if they don’t do anything no one will criticize them. Maybe they were right, first thing out of the gate and people are screaming bloody murder. As Brad at WTL and LWC note, there is most certainly something fishy about the whole scene. Even if it was a mistake, at this point it’s going to be a tough sell for Keith Norman to come out at 11:30 and plead incompetence, but that’s probably EXACTLY what he’ll do. The reality is, perhaps incompetence is really to blame. The party has been stunningly absent throughout the entire campaign. If the SCDP is doing anything, the members of the Exec. Com. are the only ones that know, and many of them don’t even know. By all accounts, the whole County Party apparatus has ground to a halt. This election season is almost over, so doing anything to make a big change at the SCDP right now seems impractical. Going forward, the members of the Exec. Com. need to think about how the past two years have gone. From the very first meeting of this group back in May of last year (where Richard Fields’ membership was called into question) there has been controversy and strife. Rank and file Democrats need to ask themselves about the role of the party going forward, and ask themselves if the same old people that have been involved for so long, need to stay involved or if there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul. Personally, I believe that an overhaul is in order and the most important part of this overhaul needs to be communicating to rank and file Democrats in a manner other than back channels. There is a wealth of options out there, if the SCDP is willing to use them. All of the funding challenges that the SCDP was experiencing at the beginning of this term could be dealt with if rank and file Democrats felt engaged in the process, even if that engagement is merely as an audience member (audience meaning, email recipient, or blog reader, etc.). It’s time for the SCDP to take charge of its destiny instead of falling prey to the factionalism and discord that has marked the organization. Finally, I want to make sure people understand that I respect and admire the individuals who dedicate their time to the local party apparatus. Despite the challenges and the screw-ups many of these people are dedicated to making Shelby County as well as the surrounding areas better. It’s easy to beat these people up on a blog, or in the paper, but the majority of them are really trying to make the party better for everyone. I wish my schedule would permit me to serve along side them on the SCDP Exec. Com., unfortunately, at this point that is not the case. In any case I hope that Norman can come out today and level with the people of Shelby County. I hope that the Democratic Party apparatus will learn from this mistake and move forward in a positive direction. Most importantly, I hope that in the coming years the many factions that make up the SCDP can unite under a common cause, and realize their potential as a strong and thriving local party organization.

The SCDP’s New Clothes

Steve Ross — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:57:58 +0000

So, this morning I mentioned a press conference that was to be held and attended by SCDP Chairman Keith Norman. What happens when the one person everyone wants to talk to fails to show up? They schedule a super secret meeting at the Whitehaven Branch of the Memphis Public Library for 6pm tonight, that’s what. I was fairly nice to the folks that created this debacle in my last post, but that niceness is running thin. Rank and file Shelby County Democrats want answers, and we want them RIGHT NOW. This is your chance to come clean. This is your chance for redemption. This is your chance to beg forgiveness and pray like hell that these foolish actions don’t harm the candidates who will surely suffer from the clusterfuck that has been created at the hands of certain individuals on the SCDP Steering Committee. Will you swallow your pride, take your lumps and deal with the circumstances or will you puff out your chest and proclaim your innocence, or lack of assistance, or a printer error, or any number of bullshit excuses I’ve heard so far? The cat is out of the bag folks, and it’s pissing all over the new carpet. Every move that has been made since the unveiling of these ballots has led to the conclusion that there is a cover-up going on, whether there is one or not. You’re fighting public perception at this point. Basically, by Norman not showing up today, you further fed the perception that something underhanded is going on, so even if this was an honest mistake, any charity that might have been given is gone. Someone’s head has to roll now, that’s the only solution. This is what secrecy gets you. Look at how well it’s served our current President. Secrecy ≠ Democratic values. It’s time for the process to be wide open, anything less is simply inadequate. So the SCDP is running balls out in the street searching for cover now that the perception has shifted from hapless buffoonery to naked, backroom maneuvering. Enjoy your new clothes, but as it gets colder, and any cover you might have found before is quickly disappearing.

I See a Blame Storm on the Horizon

Steve Ross — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:04:09 +0000

The fun with the SCDP ballot power grab, just keeps getting funner. Jackson Baker reports this morning on the “bash-Mulroy” session that was last night’s SCDP Super Secret Honeycomb Hideout Steering Committee meeting. For those just joining us, the meeting was called in the wake of SCDP Chairman Keith Norman’s failure to show at a press conference he called to address the ballot faux pas. Classy. So, last night the Steering Committee got together in Whitehaven, to “address the issue” which looks more like it means, get their story straight, and find a person outside of their little club to blame. Some on the committee are none too pleased that ANYONE voiced some dissent, much less an elected official, on the now illustrious ballots printed and distributed by the SCDP, but it seems they doth protest too much. Commissioner Mulroy is the victim of the committee’s ineptitude. He has championed IRV (Instant run-off voting), something that would save the city thousands of dollars in run-off elections each cycle, which just happens to be one of the “referendums” that the “Officially not approved by the full Execom of the SCDP, ballot” says to vote no on. Blaming Mulroy on this is like blaming a robbery victim for their house just being too nice to resist. Let there be no mistake, Mulroy’s protests, and the protests of people like me who just want to understand why this was done without the consent of the full SCDP Execom didn’t cause the problem, the Steering Committee, who printed the ballots without full consent did. So, it would seem, we’re right in the same spot we were yesterday. No answers, a bunch of stonewalling, and a committee committed to covering their ass at every turn. Ain’t that Democracy! If you want to read more about the most current foibles of the SCDP, take a look at my previous post which links to many of the other concerned bloggers. They’ve written new stuff since then, so give their blogs’ front page a looksee while you’re at it. If you’re pissed at the SCDP for operating in an undemocratic manner, give the Chairman a call, I’m sure he’d love to hear your concerns. His information follows below. KEITH NORMAN, CHAIR 751-7154 (home) 830-0601 (cell) 751-0156 (fax) keithnorman65@aol.com PS. Before you fly off the handle about publishing someone's phone numbers, this information is also located at the the SCDP website location, so it’s not like it’s not public information.

Paul Shaffer for City Council

Steve Ross — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:23:54 +0000

Here is the commercial that Paul Shaffer is running in support of his City Council Bid. Feel free to distribute.

Smells like Leadership

Steve Ross — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:28:05 +0000

We’re up to day 8 of the screwed up ballot mess. Keith Norman released the following statement:

I have been in contact with Commissioner Mulroy as of about 9PM on Tuesday night and I have left 1 message for him as of 8 AM Wednesday morning. I have charge of the ballots (i.e., with respect to their location) and I am waiting for his team to set the date for the press conference so that any misleading statements regarding the ACTIONS of members of the Party can be clarified. However if I have not heard from him by a reasonable hour I will proceed with releasing the ballots as they are with a written statement on our position to the media. (h/t WTL)

Apparently, with the SCDP, you only get solutions on their timeframe. If that doesn’t jive with your timeframe, you must be okay with it. Last night I heard that the ballots have been taken back to the printer to have the offending section blotted out. The kicker is that the SCDP would not pay to have the ballot run through again, someone else had to. Yeah, that’s right, the SCDP didn’t have the sense of responsibility, nor the common decency to correct something that was never approved by the body’s Execom. Smells like Leadership, really bad leadership. Situations like this throw organizations into some weird finger pointing, groupthink, and “hardening of the attitudes”. These reactions illustrate why there is a growing distrust in this country of political parties. How hard is it to just publicly admit a mistake, work to fix it, and move on…very hard, apparently. This thing still looks like shenanigans, and until there’s some plausible explanation, in the public eye, it is shenanigans. SCDP, you are a Democratic organization, but democracy (little d democracy) is not the way you operate. There is no transparency anywhere in the SCDP. Information, no matter how benign, is held in strict confidence. A party cannot operate as an exclusive club AND expect regular people to give it money and time. What big secret has the SCDP been cooking up for the past 18 months that no one could know about? Is this it? What great idea, that if exposed, would damage the future of Democratic candidates, has to be so guarded? Why won’t you even tell your delegates what the heck is going on with your organization? We actually took the time to get selected and all that. It’s not as if we’re not interested. It’s almost as if you don’t want anyone to know you’re not really doing anything! I know there are a lot of good people who are actually working hard for the SCDP. As much as I want to insulate them from my criticism, I can’t. Objections have been internalized, and summarily pushed under the rug. Where’s the public outrage and indignation? Why are no current members of the SCDP Execom screaming bloody murder publicly at this in the wake of inaction from the Chair? Why is it that, other than some email traffic at the beginning of this screw up, it seems to be just an accepted reality, and that nothing can be done about it? I guess I’m just naïve, or overly emotional, or any of those other dismissive things that people call people when they get mad at something they have every right to get mad at but it doesn’t suit the agenda of the maker of the mistake, but I’m tired of the SCDP treating Democrats like they’re part of the problem when they get upset with the actions of the SCDP. Remember Ececom members; you’re there to represent us, the Democratic voters of your districts, the Democratic voters of Shelby County. It’s unfortunate that several of you just don’t see it that way. SCDP, I’ll be glad when this election is over so I can get back to ignoring you again. It’s unfortunate that I feel that way, really. The SCDP has the potential and the general support to be the second biggest and powerful Democratic Party organ in the state. Some of you are so paralyzed by potential success that you just won’t let yourselves, or the party succeed. As we approach the Convention next year, I suggest that those of you who fear success examine whether your involvement in the party has been a net positive or a negative, if you can stomach that kind of close introspection, and give someone else a shot at it. In all honesty, after watching the performance that’s been going on the past 8 days, I doubt you have it in ya.

Blame vs. Flaw

Steve Ross — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:34:12 +0000

Following the trend that has led so many Americans to further distrust public officials and the “gubament” in general, Alan Greenspan said yesterday that the current financial crisis is not his fault, but merely a flaw. If there’s one thing about Americans, it’s that we want someone to take responsibility for their actions.. Someone needs to be blamed in the eyes of Americans, and when the somebody responsible does everything in their power to deflect that responsibility, it angers people even more. Really this is simple stuff. I don’t understand why people won’t own their actions and just move on. It’s so much easier than the long extended dance mix of finger pointing. The “blamers” seem to forget that every time they point the finger at someone else, there are three more fingers on that hand pointing back at them. Further, people that point out mistakes are not to blame for the mistakes. The mistake was there before anyone pointed it out. There’s been a lot of noise about the SCDP ballot thing that they refused to fix on their own, and how it’s the people, like myself, who deserve blame for publicizing the mistake. It’s unfortunate that we have leaders who are so wrapped up in being right that they cannot accept their responsibility for something even if it was a subordinate, or subordinate body that actually made the error. As Chairman of the SCDP, Keith Norman is responsible for everything the SCDP does. If he doesn’t like that, he should step down. Finally, I think it’s important that people who are not to blame, not accept it out of convenience or attempted consensus building. If accepting blame is the sole condition for consensus, walk away. You do not need them. They have failed not you, and hopefully you have learned a valuable lesson in the process. People who wish to deflect blame to create a false consensus are not your ally, they are the enemy of the change this City, County, State and Nation so desperately need. Ultimately, they have a personal need for you to take the blame more than you need anything they have to offer. My final word on the Ballotgate imbroglio…I’m glad the ballots are fixed, I’m sad the situation that created the problem was left unresolved.

Incompetence

Steve Ross — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:14:50 +0000

incompetent |inˈkämpətənt; i ng-| adjective: not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.

Sometimes, things just don’t work out the way they were planned. Sometimes they work out exactly as planned, returning surprising results. Brad at WTL alerts us that the SCDP is still distributing the incorrect ballots to potential voters, despite a press conference last week stating that they were to be collected, corrected and redistributed. Way to follow through folks. What first looked like hapless incompetence has shifted to willful negligence, or worse, pushing an agenda. Regardless of which is actually the case, there is no doubt that no one will be held accountable. The SCDP Execom meets on November 6th, two days after the election. By then, either the joy of a Democratic President-elect will overpower any calls for accountability, or another stunning loss will leave the body defeated and deflated, perhaps pointing fingers at each other, perhaps not, with nothing to hold on to, retreating to the little fiefdoms of power that have helped sustain the SCDP’s dysfunction for so long. I’ve never been much of a joiner, but I’ve never seen an organization of supposedly like-minded people work so hard against their own organization for their personal self-interest, or the interests of their faction leaders. In fact, it is this kind of factionalism that turns me off. Still, as a Democrat, and a delegate to the last county party convention (even though I was unable to attend the convention), it saddens me that the party is in this pathetic state. One thing is clear from this whole imbroglio, the SCDP Execom has chosen to be and remain broken. Somewhere, somehow, it is in someone’s interest that the SCDP be a marginalized body, pliable enough to be manipulated when deemed necessary. But let’s not marginalize what’s going on in the SCDP by calling it a conspiracy. Allegations of a conspiracy put us in the “tin foil hat” category that has marginalized activists for years. From selecting a weak, disinterested leader, to stacking the steering committee with devotees of a single faction, this is an organized and public effort to marginalize the party. There is no shadowy hand, or Carliyle Group, or Illuminati manipulating this thing. There is a group of people either more motivated, or just louder than the rest who have successfully worked the system to the advantage of their faction, period. My hope going forward is that those who currently serve on the Execom will voice their outrage, and demand accountability from the Steering Committee and the Chair, but I’m not counting on it. Consensus building is not something that comes easily in the SCDP, and there are plenty of people who have more to gain from maintaining the current ineptitude of the party than from doing anything to make it everything it could be.

Schadenfreude, Stevens Style

Steve Ross — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:13:17 +0000

schadenfreude |ˈ sh ädənˌfroidə| - noun - pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

Senator Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens (R-AK) was convicted today on seven counts of false statements related to his Senate disclosure forms. In this case, the cover-up was the crime. Stevens will most certainly appeal, though he will likely lose his seat to Democratic challenger Mark Begich, ending his run as the longest serving Republican in the Senate. As a side note, just how screwed up is it that Alaska may elect a Democratic Senator, and Tennessee probably will not? Very screwed up, that’s how.

Chairman Norman, It Was Not a Printer Error

Steve Ross — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:11:28 +0000

So the Ballotgate thing finally his the pages of the Commercial Appeal, some 10 days later. Unfortunately, the paper continues to spread, what is the defining fallacy of this whole affair; that the printer made an error. Having worked in print, though back in the days before digital presses, I know for a fact that NO SINGLE PRINTER IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD PRINT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE FILE GIVEN TO THEM. That’s right, no one. Several years ago, I sent a printer a pamphlet that had a couple of typographical errors. The printer called me to tell me there were errors, but would not fix them, without me being there. His reasoning, “I don’t want to do something that blows the job”. In other words, he wanted to make sure I was happy with everything so he couldn’t be blamed for any other mistakes. When printers go freelance, they don’t get paid, PERIOD. The printing business is a competitive business. There is plenty of competition here in Memphis, and with Nashville and Little Rock so close, there are a wealth of other options. So why does the printer keep getting blamed, and, if the printer is to blame, why did ANYONE have to pay to have the ballots run through the press again? And that’s where this bullshit lie that Chairman Norman is using to deflect blame off the people who used their position in the SCDP without authorization, falls apart. By placing blame on the printer, Chairman Norman seeks to deflect blame from the people who most certainly had an agenda, from the Chism devotees on Steering Committee to himself. In doing so, he is tarnishing the reputation of a local business that has received accolades in the past for their work. In the printing business, as in so many other businesses, your reputation affects your ability to get future work. You have to wonder how the printer feels about taking the blame for something he did not do. Chairman Norman, perhaps you believe that this was a mistake. Perhaps you believe that no harm was intended. Perhaps you believe that whomever put that little box on the ballot was doing so thinking they reflected the views of the SCDP. If you believe these things, then fine, just say so, but don’t besmirch the reputation of a local businessman to cover up what can only be described as an abject lack of leadership on your part. Most importantly, accept responsibility for your role, whether it be action or inaction in this situation. Like it or not, you are the Chairman, the face of the SCDP, and everything that the SCDP does comes back on you. Remember, forgiveness comes with repentance:

I am warning you! If another believer sins, rebuke him; then if he repents, forgive him. Even if he wrongs you seven times a day and each time turns again and asks forgiveness, forgive him, Luke 17:3-4

Freedom Awards

Steve Ross — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:21:37 +0000

I don’t talk about work much here on the blog, mostly because the majority of the events that I do don’t move me in any spiritual or intellectual way. Just like most of you, I go to work, and do the best I can to my ability even when I’m not particularly interested in the content of the event or the overall message. Occasionally I get to do an event that is both intellectually and spiritually engaging. Last night was one of those occasions. Last night the National Civil Rights Museum held it’s annual Freedom Awards Banquet at the Convention Center Grand Ballroom. It was the culmination of a day full of events. I was fortunate enough to be working the event and it was an inspiring occasion. The honorees were Vice-President Al Gore, Dianne Nash, and BB King. All three of the honorees were entertaining and engaging, but the message of Dianne Nash has stuck with me more than anything anyone else had to say. Paraphrasing part of her message;

The oppressor and the oppressed are co-dependent. Until the oppressed rise up and challenge the supremacy of the oppressor, the oppressed are an active participant in the oppression.

Ms. Nash acknowledged that many people view this as blaming the victim, but I get where she’s coming from; We have no control of our destiny until we TAKE control. Until that happens, we are the victim of our own inaction. Hopefully, in the coming days, the NCRM will post some of the video from the event, but in lieu of that, here is CA video coverage of some of the events leading up to the evening. Video from The Commercial Appeal

Early Voting is Over

Steve Ross — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:43:35 +0000

Yesterday was the last day of early voting here in Memphis. While yesterday’s numbers haven’t been released, the total number of votes recorded as of yesterday morning was 226,929, 60% of the total votes recorded in the Presidential election here in Shelby County in 2004. Looking at the trend lines of participation, we could see 67% to 70% of all the Shelby County votes cast in the 2004 election, cast before Election Day. That’s pretty impressive. 31 states have some form of “No Cause” early voting, be it absentee, mail in ballots, or the Tennessee style early voting. I early voted for the first time in Little Rock back in 2000, and have been early voting since. Elections in the US have been held during the workweek since the beginning of the nation. While other countries vote on Saturdays or Sundays, we chose Tuesday. This may have been more manageable back in the early days of our nation, when there were fewer people who could vote, but now some 232 years later, it’s a logistical nightmare. Few States and Counties can support the cost of distributing and maintaining the number of voting machines required to keep the lines flowing smoothly for the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of potential voters in one day. This is one of the key reasons early voting was adopted in Ohio. 2004’s legal challenges and voting machine shenanigans (several areas, populated largely by African-Americans got far fewer machines than more sparsely populated areas with a different demography) showed a weakness in their system and was an embarrassment to the state. Giving people two weeks to vote gives them an opportunity to make sure they have time to do so without the last second “whoops I forgot my ID” (something I just can’t imagine. I carry my ID everywhere, who doesn’t carry a DL or something with them everywhere they go?), or arriving at the wrong polling station, etc. Further EV takes pressure off local election commissions, by spreading the turnout over two weeks rather than concentrating it in one day. Most importantly, early voting equalizes the playing field for thousands of workers who, for whatever reason, may not have been able to make it to, or wait in long lines at the polls next Tuesday. I know there are plenty of people, including a large number of Republicans, who feel that early voting tips the playing field against them. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I do know that any party or ideology that works to exclude anyone from the process, overtly or covertly, is working counter to the ideals, many of which are still not fully realized, that make this nation great. For my part, I’m glad we have early voting here, and hope that it increases participation, even if that new participation comes from people who are my ideological opposite. The more people get involved, the better our nation can be.

Innocent Until Out of Appeals

Steve Ross — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:06:02 +0000

Oh the irony. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) contends that he is not a convicted felon until he exhausts his appeals process. Nice. This is an interesting standard from a guy who voted to restrict the number of appeals that death row inmates can utilize. Does the Senator believe that a convicted sex offender, murder, or other unseemly character appealing his or her conviction, is not a convict? I doubt it, but under the standard espoused by the Senator, that would be the case. Stevens may not be in federal custody, or in jail, or anything else, but that doesn’t make him any less a convict. The long hard truth of the matter is that Ted Stevens has been convicted, and until that conviction is overturned, he is a convict, period. I love the way Republicans will do just about anything to keep from being held accountable for their misdeeds, or from being labeled something that they would have no problem labeling someone else facing the same circumstances. Senator Stevens, you’re a convict, whether Alaska has let you vote or not. Get used to it.

Wherein I Reconsider my Career Choices and Other Options

Steve Ross — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:59:22 +0000

I don’t write about myself a lot. This is due to a lot of things, but today I’m feeling introspective, so, as with Newscoma’s Annoying Autobiographical Pauses, if you don’t want to read me writing about me, enjoy these stories about former Darwin Award winners. I’m a 36 year old college drop out. I left college the first time almost exactly 16 years ago. The reasons aren’t really that important right now, but let’s just say that financial and personal problems led me to believe that college was no longer a priority for me. I moved back home and began working odd jobs, I worked in Fast Food, and as a tuxedo inspector at one of the largest tux rental facilities in the US, and then, as a fulfillment manager at a local book publishing company. All three of these jobs occurred between 1993 and 1995. Somewhere in 1994 I met up with some kindred spirits in the theater world, this led to an 8 year working relationship that eventually brought me into the industry that I now work in. I opened a business with one member of that troupe, and wrote and performed in all kinds of productions. There were a lot of good things in that time that engaged me personally, and helped make me who I am today, but the abject poverty that I experienced at that time eventually became too much to bear. By the end of the 90’s I had decided that poverty just wasn’t working for me, so I took a job in the event production industry, which is the industry I work in today. As with any job, there are trade-offs. I find myself out of town for long stretches of time, which puts pressure on relationships of all kinds, and makes it difficult for me to be involved in many of the civic activities that I was involved in during my more impoverished days. On the flip side, I’ve been able to buy a home, and live a fairly comfortable, even slackful life when I am at home. Because my “office” is someplace new nearly every week, there are few of the long term, or deep seeded internal struggles that make up many work environments. Now, some ten years into this career, I’m starting to question what I’m missing. I’ve lived in Memphis for nearly 4 and a half years, and in many ways, still feel like an alien. Part of this comes from the logistical challenges of cultivating new friendships while maintaining a schedule that keeps me out of town some 200+ days a year. Part of it comes from the cliquish nature of Memphis. Still another part comes from having the social graces of a wood chipper. I like what I do, by and large, but I don’t like not being able to immerse myself in the local political culture, warts and all. Despite my long-term fascination with politics, I haven’t found myself to be any more or less jaded than most people. I believe that, while some may involve themselves in politics for personal gain, that most people get involved because they feel they can have a positive impact. I still believe in the positive potential of political involvement and activism, and that is, in large part why I write this blog. If I can’t be here, perhaps I can, at least, add something to the conversation. So now I want to be here more. I want to get physically involved in the process. My intellectual involvement, but physical detachment from local politics is no longer satisfying my desire to try and make a difference in the community. I want to get down in the trenches…there’s just this one problem; how do I do that, and maintain a travel schedule that I can barely keep up with? Or, if I ditch much of my travel work, how do I maintain even a portion of the financial security that I’ve worked for the past 10 years to achieve? It seems like a Catch 22 that makes me nervous. So, I don’t guess I’m writing this for any kind of advice or anything, but to flesh out the balance between what my wallet, brain and heart think I should do. All three of these “internal entities” are in varying degrees of conflict, to a point that I may just have to do something, and deal with the consequences, or do nothing, and enjoy the financial gains, while feeling that my desire to be a part of building transformative change here in Memphis is hamstrung by my inability to fully integrate word and deed. Anyway, if you managed to read this “poor little rich boy” (I am by no means rich) story and not make a mocking tiny violin gesture in my general direction, I guess you’re either sympathetic, or not used to mocking people nearly enough. I would be mocking the hell out of me right now if this weren’t bugging me so much. So yeah, that’s it. Thanks for dragging yourself through my miniature string quartet of self-pity. Have a good Halloween.

It’s the Accountability, Stupid

Steve Ross — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:14:07 +0000

Tomorrow is election day, though you could argue election day has been happening here in Tennessee for weeks, and no matter who wins or loses, there are going to be some general conditions, particularly here in Shelby County, that won’t change one bit. The biggest thing is access to information about our representatives in City and County Governments and what they are doing in our name. What’s Goin’ On? The Memphis City Council has made great strides over the past year in distributing the minutes to their meetings. Now there is an rss feed that you can subscribe to, as well as the relatively timely publishing of minutes. Unfortunately these are distributed in a manner that requires Microsoft Word instead of a simple PDF that could be more easily viewable. The Shelby County Commission has a more detailed information system located here, but the system doesn’t seem to record any voting information for the individual members. I called the County Commission to find out, and, as of this writing, no one immediately knew. This information is vital in finding out what the City and County government is doing, particularly in the absence of detailed coverage by the local media. What there isn’t, is a searchable database of votes and voting records. I don’t know if this is a financial consideration, or if there is the sense that there is insufficient interest. In any case, this may meet, or even exceed the current open meetings/records standards, but as a resource for constituents, it’s not all that helpful in finding a vote on a particular issue. Of course, the business conducted by the legislative branches of City and County Government is only one part of the story. The executive branches have all kinds of things going on that few people know about, and even less is available on the Internet, particularly for City government. Follow The Money There are all kinds of resources out there for tracking down campaign contributions to candidates and organizations. OpenSecrets has a database for federal candidates, Follow The Money has a less comprehensive, but useful database of state candidates throughout the nation. Considering the scope of the latter project, it’s no wonder it lags a bit behind. Currently, there is no way to “follow the money” for local candidates in Shelby County. All financial disclosures are filed on paper. Viewing these disclosures requires a trip downtown to the Election Commission, filling out a form, and paying for scads of photocopies. Tennessee state law allows for electronic filing of financial disclosures in local and county races, but according to the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, no county election commissions in the state of Tennessee currently have such a filing mechanism. Connecting the Dots From my perspective, these two issues, easy access to voting records and campaign finance disclosures are critical to connecting the dots between the influence of money and politics, or conversely, disproving any fabled connection. Further, having such resources at the fingertips of voters, whether they use them or not, is a critical component in keeping constituents informed and a part of the process. In short, while the legislative bodies of the two largest governments in West Tennessee may be doing all that is required of them legally to inform the voters, they are hardly doing all they could to make that information accessible. As we close out this national election, and move back into the now unfamiliar grind of talking heads talking about something other than the election, governing, something the wind bags on TV aren’t so good at talking about, I think it’s a good time to refocus ourselves to the governments that affect us most, local and state government. These are the less sexy, but vitally important positions that we will be voting on, again in some cases, in just two short years. It’s time to start thinking about that future now, how it should look, and what information will be readily available when that time comes. That’s my focus. In the coming weeks I hope to have information about projects coming down the pike. Until then, get out and vote, if you haven’t already, and enjoy election night.

Results Thread

Steve Ross — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:35:51 +0000

We Need to Make it a Right Now Project

Steve Ross — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:28:33 +0000

Several Days ago Kos wrote this post:TN-Pres: Worse than Kerry. Kos made a call for Tennessee to be a long-term project. I think it needs to be a “Right Now” project. I’m half a world away from Tennessee right now (Hawai’I, I feel your crocodile tears), and haven’t had a chance to look deeper into the results yet, but from what I’ve seen happen in the state races, I’m sure it’s ugly. Someone needs to take Tennessee under it’s wing and teach it’s Democratic institutions how to function, because all our Democratic leaders are doing is pointing the finger at the Obama campaign for not spending enough money in the state. I call bullshit. It’s not Obama’s job to flood every state with money that thinks it needs it. Obama was trying to win the Presidency, and did a pretty damn good job of it. It’s the local and state party’s job to keep the state competitive and make a case for spending money in the state. Look at the money spent in Georgia, there was a case made, and they took a shot. We made no such case to the Obama campaign. Right now, I’m not sure if they boys at the helm of the TNDP can even tie their shoes, much less make a compelling case for anything other than their ouster. But I’m not pointing fingers, really, just pointing out realities. So, what happened to the TNDP? When did it happen? Has the TNDP always been spinning in a circle desperate to find its ass, or is this a new condition? Honestly, I’m new(ish) here, I’m asking. I don’t know how incompetent the party was before 2006, but it just seems like something happened, and 2006, from what I’m hearing, seems like about when it happened. What pissed off Kurita in 2007 so bad to hand the State Senate over to the Republicans? Could it be the combination of the way she was booted out of the US Senate Primary, only to be rebuffed by the Democratic establishment once again in the State Senate? Or was she just a single bad apple that saw nothing but her own future? I’m not defending her, I’m wondering aloud. As a partisan, I’m glad the TNDP stepped up to the plate and removed Kurita, but they screwed themselves by waiting until after the primary as I’ve stated before. They had to take their eye off other races to deal with something that should have been dealt with before a single vote was cast, and that left a bad taste in the mouths of many Tennesseans. I sent money to Barnes up in 22 (I think, hard to remember now) before the primary at the urging of LWC not the TNDP, or any other Democratic functionary. I probably would have sent money to more if I’d been asked. I never was. In fact, I have not received one single email from the TNDP this entire cycle. I checked. Still the TNDP had some pretty good fundraising as far as I can tell. The TNDP started out 2008 with $195k in the bank. In it’s pre-primary disclosure, the TNDP had $12k in disbursements, in support of Shelby County Trustee Paul Mattila. In the October Disclosure we find $33k of in-kind for Randy Camp, $33k for Becky Ruppe, $37k transferred to the federal account and $70k spent on voter ID calls, and ended the period with $330k in the bank. Between 10/1 and 10/29 the TNDP raised $1.5m, and spent $1.66m on scads of candidates throughout the state. Question: If the TNDP could raise all that money and do all that stuff in the last month of the campaign, why couldn’t they have spread that same effort out over some time to build up the candidates they knew were at risk to build them up over time? I know that a lot of money gets raised/spent in the last month of a campaign, but last-ditch efforts do not make up for long term planning. The TNDP should be engaged in candidate building, not wild, last second ass covering. So now, in the wake of our defeat in the state legislature, and I call it our defeat because we, as Democrats have to own it to move past it, we have some critical decisions to make: 1. Who is the future face of the party? Bredesen is done in 2010, and has never seemed too interested in anything but his own ass. Who will take over his role as the highest Democratic figure in the state? Who will emerge to make the case for Democratic ideals? What are the unifying issues that make our ideals compelling to Tennesseans? How do we communicate these ideals to Tennesseans in a way that moves them to vote against newly installed Republican incumbents? 2. What do we want the party to look like? We have to start right now, positioning ourselves as the underdog, exposing any shenanigans from the Republican Party. But we also have to examine our local and state operations, and make strategic decisions on how to strengthen them instead of tactical decisions on how to not fail. 3. How will we be structured? Will we continue to operate as a top down organization, or will we exploit our natural resources, our passion, our resolve, and move into the uncharted territory of a groundswell type of organization that values local issues and activists, and utilizes their passion, under the umbrella of a statewide framework, to bring more people in, rather than keep people out? This is our challenge going forward. It’s easy to blame, it’s hard to work for a better party and a better future, but right now is the time to start doing that. We have one year to turn it around before the next cycle starts up. We have no time to waste.

A Message From an Anonymous Blogger

Steve Ross — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:28:14 +0000

Chairman Sasser: It’s been a tough couple of days for Democrats here in Tennessee. We lost the State House and Senate. Our US Senate candidate was soundly trounced. Our Presidential candidate lost the state by a greater margin than John Kerry in 2004. I’ve pointed all the fingers I’m going to point on this thing, but he buck stops with you sir, that’s not meant to assess blame, that’s the reality of leadership responsibility. But maybe I come on too strong, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Steve Ross. I live in Memphis, TN. I grew up in Little Rock, and Osceola, Arkansas, and have been involved in Democratic politics on some level since I was 16 when I walked the picket lines in 1988 with my mother and her fellow LRCTA teachers. In recent years (the past 10) my level of direct involvement with the party and campaigns in general has been far less than I would like it to be. I travel some 200-250 days a year. This has relegated me to the role of a simple donor, rather than the boots on the ground guy I would like to be. Still, despite the challenges, I remain a faithful and loyal Democrat. I suppose if I was doing something more that just “sitting on the sidelines” as you suggest, I would find some way to emerge from my business travel and immediately thrust myself into an activity that would somehow support the party, other than merely financially supporting Democratic candidates here in Tennessee and across the country. Instead, I sit here in front of this computer screen, some 5000 miles from Memphis, anonymously (well not anymore) engaging in a conversation, via my blog, with you and Democrats throughout Tennessee, in search of a strategy to return a Democratic majority to the Tennessee Legislature in 2010. I write this blog, not because I want to anonymously attack people, but because I care deeply about Democratic ideals. My hope is that perhaps my words can inspire people to action in my absence. I can be critical, even brutal at times, but that criticism is rooted in a “tough love” that I have for institutions that support my ideals, but are, for whatever reason, underperforming. The TNDP, and my local SCDP are underperforming in my view, and I feel that this is evidenced by the losses we experienced statewide on Tuesday. Candidates in Shelby County often win despite the SCDP, not because of it. There is a lack of strategic vision from both institutions. There is a lack of communication to the base from both institutions. Just this morning, I subscribed, again, to your email newsletter, and, as of yet, have not received even a confirmation email. I even checked my spam box to make sure it didn’t get misplaced. At this point it’s too late to undo the losses we experienced on Tuesday, but it’s not too early to start working on a strategic plan for 2010. So let me make this pledge to you. I will give the TNDP 50 days over the next year, that’s over $15,000 out of my pocket, if you will give me something to do. I don’t want any payment for this, I just want to help make a difference. Here are the conditions, I need regular updates, I don’t do toilets, if there is travel involved, a per diem to cover my expenses and a place to stay overnight would be necessary (if it requires an overnight stay), and finally, because my business schedule is somewhat crazy, some flexibility on my assignments may be required. Chairman Sasser, I’m serious about this and I hope you will take me up on my offer. You can contact me here, on my anonymous blog via the open comments section. From there I will reply to your email address with my upcoming schedule. I look forward to your reply, and to working together to turn Tennessee blue. Sincerely, A Formerly Anonymous Blogger

PAC’d

Steve Ross — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:07:08 +0000

Kleinheider links to a post from the Knoxville News Sentinel detailing the lengths the State Republican members have gone to, to build the newly minted majority they will enjoy in the next session through the use of leadership PAC’s. I have my own personal, moral and ethical views on leadership PAC’s, as I’m sure most of you can imagine, but I’m not writing the rules. If leadership PACs are fair game, then they should be exploited as a tool to win elections. Period. I haven’t done any research on who has one and who doesn’t. Frankly, finding that out right now is more time than I have to dedicate to the subject, but as the article details, there are far fewer Democratic members with Leadership PAC’s than Republican Members. So, I‘m just wondering, what’s the deal here? Why aren’t Democrats utilizing this tool? They most certainly knew about, and probably wrote into law to help maintain their majority. Do most state Democrats have the same personal, moral, and ethical problems with PAC’s that I do? If so, why hasn’t there been a push to restrict them in some way? This is what I do, I ask annoying questions! Anyway, now that Democrats are in the minority, I guess it’s going to be harder to get the cash, PAC’s or no PAC’s, to win back the State House and Senate by the next term. Still, if we want to hang on to 3 of the 5 US House seats we have right now, we better get started.

Blog Notes

Steve Ross — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:31:56 +0000

Hey faithful readers, a couple of things to note: 1. If you posted a comment and it hasn't shown up, please use this thread to post one again. I'm tweaking out my comment spam filter, and well, it's less than perfect right now. Post here, and if it doesn't show up, post one on the old site so I know to check my spam filter. 2. I'm working on my blogroll. Back when I first launched the WP blog, I didn't take the time to organize and add all the blogs out there that I read regularly, or that I feel have something to add to the conversation. If your blog isn't included in the blogroll right now, just know I'm working on it. I may even put a place for conservative blogs...way at the bottom. /snark 3. I'm looking for help with an online database. If anyone out there has some real life experience with mysql (I have plenty of theoretical experience, just like I'm a theoretical astronaut), or knows someone, I'd love to hear from you. Projects and stuff and things coming down the pike. Thanks for reading. Steve Ross

The Lieberman Imbroglio

Steve Ross — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:44:54 +0000

Josh Marshall at TPM is reporting that President-Elect Obama wants to keep Joe Lieberman in the Senate Democratic Caucus. I can hear the screaming from Hawaii. To be honest, I dislike Lieberman as much if not more than most people on this planet. I didn’t like him during the Clinton Impeachment, nor during the 2000 campaign, and since then, he’s done just about everything he could to continue to piss me off. I say kick his ass out, but it’s not up to me, really. From the perspective of Obama, it may be hard for him to push for any kind of sanction against Lieberman when he’s calling for a “post-partisan” political climate. Political retribution and “post-partisanship” don’t really go hand in hand. Further, this could be an example of “keeping your enemies closer”. Lieberman hasn’t demonstrated much government oversight in his role as the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, perhaps Obama thinks this trend will continue if he cuts him some slack. On the flip side, Lieberman is a cutthroat MF, for all his public posturing as the Senate’s own Droopy Dog. I doubt that Lieberman would feel any sense of loyalty to Obama’s olive branch. I’m sure he wants to kick the asses of the people who are even thinking about putting him out on his ass, and that may include Obama, despite any posturing. So the reality goes like this. Obama has done his part to posture in Lieberman’s favor. “Post-Partisanship” saved. The Democrats would do well to just shut the hell up about this until the new Congress is sworn, lest Lieberman jump ship now allowing all kinds of hell in the Senate. Once the new Congress is sworn in, they can rat fuck him all day long, and he can jump ship if he wants to, or get in line and try to redeem himself. For now, we need to let this one go. We need to have something to be pissed about in January. /snark

120k Well Spent?

Steve Ross — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:16:27 +0000

If you’re a political party that is already experiencing challenges communicating to your constituents, what’s the first thing you do? Let you Communications Director go of course. Kleinheider says he has an explanation for the personnel move, but I don’t think it passes the smell test, and I’m not sure that Munday was part of the 50 state strategy thing anyway. Don’t all party organizations need some kind of media and outreach liaison? One would think so. Anyway, in the absence of any transparency, or even an explanation of any sort, it gets people to wondering, which is what I do more often than not. So with the help of Al Gore’s internet, I did a little digging into the federal disclosures of the TNDP at the FEC. I’m no Campaign finance expert, but the disbursement portion of the federal filings is telling. Since the beginning of the year, Chairman Sasser, and several other staffers have received compensation from the TNDP. No surprise there, though Wade Munday does not appear on the federal disclosures as an employee, which is interesting to me. Another thing that’s interesting is the amount of money disclosed. Sasser receives $3646.67 twice a month. Simple math tells you that this adds up to $87k/year, but that’s the income he actually sees. Further in the disclosures we find that individual payments to the US Treasury for payroll taxes go out at the same time. That would make his gross around $10k/month, for around $120k/year. Now, I believe that people serving as the chairman for a medium sized state party should be compensated. And even the compensation amount isn’t completely outlandish, if there was some real progress to show for it, but right now, I’m not seeing it. So the question has to be asked…how can the TNDP afford to pay Sasser this amount, but not be able to keep a communications director on staff? It defies logic. Even if Munday is a DNC staffer, wouldn’t it make sense to put him on the state party payroll, to at least aid in the transition, and provide us little folk out here wondering what the hell is going on with some information? Again, I ask annoying questions, it’s what I do. Deal with it. I’m not sure who all the potential candidates for TNDP chair are, but I suggest they campaign as if they were running for public office, instead of a secretive and dysfunctional organization. Spend some time out in the state. Come talk to Democratic organizations, do something other than just lobby TNDP Execom members. Regular Democrats like me want answers and solutions. We want to know how a future chair will handle the party and what role we will play in the party. In short, we want to know if we will be treated as potential partners, or if we’ll be treated with scorn, the unwashed masses to be ignored. Mostly, we want to be inspired. We want to know that someone out there is doing something and interested in involving us in the process. We want to help build something great here in Tennessee. Doing what we’re doing now isn’t working. It’s time to flip the script and turn the TNDP into the grassroots organization that it should have been to begin with.

The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Steve Ross — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:31:20 +0000

I know I’m pissing some people off, and others think I’m bitching prematurely, but this is easy. We want to be talked to. We want to be told it’s going to be ok, and be shown some kind of ANYTHING that leads us to believe we’re not just going to get our asses handed to us again in 2 years. The truth of the matter is that the TNDP’s actions have done nothing to quell the discontent. The email that was sent to a few select bloggers was a start. Then the rug got pulled out from under us (for the record, I didn’t even get the forwarded email…/pout). How is this supposed to be in any way reassuring? It’s not that hard. You want people to get off your ass, do something to achieve that result. I understand that with the selection of a new Chair just weeks away the TNDP can’t start working on a transformational strategy to win back the state House and Senate right now. I don’t understand why it’s apparently so mystifying that Tennessee Democrats might want some reassurance in the wake of our losses last week. Is that so hard? We don’t want our version of Bill Hobbs, putting out dumb assed press releases every time his name drops from the top of the Google search for ”Right wing nutjob”, we want someone who will be honest with us, not create a blame storm, and give us hope for the future. It’s that simple. The lesson to be learned here is that inclusion and information are the solutions not the problems. This solution is easily handled, but has yet to appear. No matter who the Chair is going forward, he or she is going to need some help, we stand ready to provide some of that help if asked. By not addressing the problem now, it will just get worse going forward making it even harder in 2010. We don’t need a new Chair to start talking to state Democrats, we need our current Chair to lay the groundwork for some communication so we can be successful in the future.

Start Now

Steve Ross — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:17:34 +0000

It may only be 9 days since the election, but despite what some think there’s plenty that can be done now to begin the process of reclaiming a Democratic Majority in the Tennessee State House and Senate. First of all, this ain’t gonna be easy. It’s a pretty steep uphill battle, particularly in the State Senate. In 2010 there will be 9 Republican Seats and 8 Democratic seats up for grabs. Picking up the 3 seats necessary to flip the Senate is going to take a huge statewide effort, but it’s not impossible. Get involved in your local party - If you don’t know anything about your local party, the TNDP has this handy search tool. Go out of your way to find out what your local party is doing. Go to a meeting. Contact your State Execom members. Most importantly get and stay involved and informed. Support Democratic Organizations - I’ve been pretty damn critical of the TNDP over the past several days, but despite my unhappiness with what’s happened, or hasn’t happened in the past, I’m still a Democrat. Politicking is an expensive business, and if we want the state and local party to be something more than a dependent of the national party we have to give time and money. So I’m putting my money where my blog is. On the right side there are links to the TNDP, the House Democratic Caucus, the Senate Democratic Caucus and the Shelby County Democratic Party. We can’t expect these organizations to be strong if they’re lagging behind in the funding department. Do Some Research - Finding out information about what your government is doing can be difficult. While Tennessee has open meetings/records laws on the books, the rules governing, or the processes by which the information is made available can be…interesting. Start on this now, so later on in the process you don’t get caught behind a lengthy process. Consider Running for Office - Making the decision to run for office, even in a smaller market, is a big commitment. There are lots of things to think about and even more work to be done to build a viable campaign. Right now, when you basically have a year to do some of the legwork and soul searching you’ll need to be successful, is the best time to get started. Contact your local Election Commission to find out what is necessary to run. Be nice, because you’ll be dealing with these folks a lot if you throw your hat in the ring. Stay Involved - Just like everything else in life, from the diet you gave up on months ago, to any other new activity you introduce into your life, keeping the faith is harder than initially “feeling the spirit”. It’s easy to feel discouraged, but don’t let that discouragement stop you from staying engaged in the process. Make it a habit to do the little things, and the bigger things will get easier and easier. This list is hardly comprehensive, but it’s a start. If we can get people involved throughout the state now, we will have a much better chance of winning back the State House, the Senate, and retaining the Governorship in 2010.

What Happens When Lieberman Keeps His Gavel?

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:28:41 +0000

I know I've already said my piece on Lieberman, but I'm just wondering. It's 3:30 and going through my rss reader right now, I see some 15-20 odd things about Lieberman, and how he's going to keep his gavel, and how that's unacceptable and all that stuff. Obviously, I agree, but is there really anything we can do about it? The 110th Congress has voted against the will of the Liberal Blogosphere over and over and over. From unconditional funding, to FISA, to you name it. I'm not trying to belittle the blogs, or anything like that, but the reality is that Senators and Congressmen are going to do whatever they damn well please, and apparently, keeping a backstabbing, whiny, self-absorbed, douchenozzle in charge of the Senate's version of an executive oversight committee is what they want to do! This has less to do with the blogs than it does with the Senators themselves. If they slap Lieberman around for disloyalty, they're opening themselves up to the same fate, or so the excuses go. The reality is that I can only think of a few Senators who would have the gall to go Lieberman on the caucus; Bill Nelson (FL), Mark Pryor (AR), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Jay Rockafeller (WV). Notice where almost all of them are from? The thing here is that they haven't. They may have voted from time to time against certain things, but they haven't gone out on the stump for Republican candidates. They haven't called or associated with those who have called the Democratic President-Elect a "terrorist sympathizer". They haven't colluded to immediately undermine this incoming administration...unless you call being part of the Lieberman Whip team collusion. Lieberman made a choice. He chose the losing candidate, something he should be familiar with. Lieberman chose the candidate that votes against his values 80% of the time. Because Lieberman is not a Democrat (remember he's an independent), that's ok, but actually going out on the stump for the opposition candidate AND expecting to keep your plumb chairmanship? That's asking an awful lot. In most other countries that'd get your ass booted to the back bench. And that's what needs to happen here. Lieberman can vote with the Democrats all he wants, he can caucus with them if he chooses, he can keep his subcommittee crap if they let him, but he needs to be put out of the Chair of Homeland Security, if for no other reason than to regain a certain sense of party loyalty within the caucus. If people don't think there are consequences to their actions, this would be a sharp signal that there are, and if that pisses Lieberman off so much that he leaves the caucus, then so be it. Will it happen? Probably not. Senators are just too damn collegial to kick someone out of the bed for crapping on it. I don't know if this is spinelessness, or what, because I've personally never had a problem calling someone out when I felt they had demonstrated disloyalty, or done something contrary to the values that they purport to hold. In short, if the Senate Democratic Caucus votes to keep Lieberman in his seat, then they are voting to absolve Lieberman of any accountability for his actions, which is dangerous to the long-term viability of the caucus. So what happens when Lieberman keeps his gavel? I think you end up seeing a leadership challenge, if not this year, in 2010. I think Lieberman apologists like Ken Salazar (CO) get primaried. I think you see a Senate Majority that splinters along the lines of the vote. I know you'll hear all sorts of loud and angry hollerin' from the liberal blogosphere, but we should know better. The Senate will do what it thinks is best for the majority of it's Senators, not the party, not the country. That's the reality. That's really sad.

Is Memphis Ready For Another Indictment?

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:15:11 +0000

I’m not saying it will happen, or that anyone’s guilty, or anything like that. To be sure, I don’t know enough of the facts surrounding the Mayor’s personal and professional doings to speak intelligently on the matter. I am pretty sure that Memphis isn’t ready for another indictment. The Feds here in Memphis have a mixed record when it comes to political indictments. On the one hand you’ve got John Ford. He and his other Tennessee Waltzers are either in jail, or on their way out of jail. On the other hand, you’ve got Edmund Ford Sr., who was found not guilty. I’m not going to make any judgments on the quality of the indictments, but it is interesting that former U.S. Attorney Kustoff left the office (May 16th was his last day) before the Edmund Ford Sr. case concluded (May 21st). I’m not saying it had anything to do with any weakness in the case, because I don’t know that and I recognize that US Attorneys are political appointees and do not actually present the cases. I just find it interesting. The latter trial involving Edmund Ford left a bad taste in the mouths of many Memphians. A lot of people, including some who initially thought he was guilty, felt the Government’s case looked like entrapment, even if it didn’t meet the legal standard of entrapment. Many people in Memphis looked at the latter indictments as a witch hunt. Perception vs. Reality being what it is, there is a perception in the community that because the majority of the Memphians indicted in both Tennessee Waltz and Main Street Sweeper were African-American, that this amounted to a racially driven hit job on African-American civic leaders. Remember, in the battle between perception vs. reality, perception often wins. So now the Memphis US Attorney’s office has a perception problem, and while the Grand Jury is still out on the Mayor, the Mayor most certainly understands this and will use this perception problem in his upcoming campaign to turn any potential indictment into a racial, rather than legal issue. The Mayor has plenty of public perception to back him up. 1. The perception that only African-Americans were targeted in both operations as I mentioned above. The reality is that this is not the case. That said, the fact that so much of the media coverage in Memphis centered on the Fords ultimately reinforces this perception. 2. Neither Tennessee Waltz, nor any other operation, uncovered individuals who may have sought to buy influence. Certainly, people seeking to buy influence don’t advertise in the classifieds, but while it’s easier to investigate the demand side, the supply side is usually where it begins. 3. There is a perception in Memphis, right or wrong, that wealthy whites consistently buy influence in the city or use their influence to discredit African-American leaders. Herenton effectively planted this seed back in June of 2007. Remember this?

"I think the city of Memphis should know what so-called powerful businessmen are doing to their leaders," Smith told The Commercial Appeal on Wednesday. "I think it should upset not only the African-American community, but the whole city.''

4. The Mayor, who has fought off charges of corruption for as long as I’ve lived here, knows how to work a situation. He’s doing it right now. In yesterday’s CA we learned that the Mayor had summoned people to serve as character witnesses on his behalf. Publicly, this looks like solidarity between the Mayor and his current and former appointees. Publicly, this discredits any impression of wrongdoing on the Mayor’s part. It will be interesting to see how many people actually sign the affidavits, but from a PR standpoint, the Mayor has won this round. So, aside from the evidentiary challenges the government faces, there are some pretty significant PR challenges. Now, that doesn’t seal the deal against the government’s case, but it does raise the standard for them. If the government presents a case rife with circumstantial evidence, they will lose, and be called out by just about every quarter of Memphis as racially driven partisan hacks. If the government can dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s and create a narrative of corruption, they may still lose. The reason, this case will be tried in the court of public opinion more than any other corruption trial in recent memory. The Mayor has a platform, and he’ll damn well use it. It will be difficult for the US Attorney’s office to counter the Mayor, without giving away the store. So, where to go from here? The US Attorney’s office has a duty to investigate and prosecute individuals who break the law, regardless of the public perception. I’m sure if they feel they have a case, they’ll go with it despite any PR challenges they may face. At the same time, a great deal of caution needs to be exercised so they don’t further diminish the public faith in the local office. If this one gets screwed up, any attempts to reel in corruption could be devastatingly crippled in the future.

To Protect and Serve, But Not Necessarily Reside

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:26:09 +0000

God love Twitter, I got this update in my feed this morning.

The debate continues over whether Memphis Police Officers should be allowed to live 20 miles outside Shelby County. The Memphis City Council is divided over the matter, but is holding a meeting Tuesday, November 18, 2008, to vote on a resolution.

I don’t want to start a law enforcement debate, but I’m not positive that “more cops” = “less crime”. Washington DC has a whole lotta cops and a whole lotta crime. Do does Detroit. What do these two cities have in common? A whole lotta poverty. That’s not to say that poverty causes crime, or that the impoverished are criminals, but that poverty reinforces conditions that allow criminal behavior to flourish. Memphis, like DC and Detroit, has a whole lotta both too. So will hiring more cops really lower the crime rate in Memphis? Probably not. Still, that’s what politicians do, hire more cops to try and stop more crime because fixing the conditions that make crime more likely (like lack of education, opportunity, hope, etc.) is just too damn hard to sell to the voting public. But this debate is about whether to open up residency restrictions, not whether hiring more cops is necessary. Personally, I’d rather the cops here in Memphis at least live in Shelby County. I think people are more likely to stay cops in a community that they share a stake in. It costs a lot of money to train a cop, and I would hate to see Memphis put all that money into training just to have an officer leave after a couple of years to someplace else, taking all that training, and training dollars with them. At the same time, I don’t want to lower the bar any further on who can or cannot be a cop, because I think it’s plenty low right now, so maybe looking outside our borders is an answer. If Memphis wants to look outside our borders for the current or future law enforcement professionals necessary, we need to create a system where we reward them for eventually moving into the city. I’m not sure how to do this structurally, but it’s something to think about. Ultimately, Memphis needs to think about why we consistently rank so high in violent and property crime, and what current conditions exist to maintain that circumstance. Most people don’t turn to crime because it has any great upside, or for the benefits package, or any of the other reasons people make career choices. Maybe, just maybe, we’re thinking about this all wrong. I don’t know what happened here in Memphis, but in the mid to late 1990’s in Little Rock, after years and years of some of the highest murder rates in history, something happened. Everything slowed down. Strangely, the unemployment rate also went down. It’s funny. People who have relatively good jobs with some hope for the future don’t rob people or businesses, or try to kill each other, by and large. Sure Little Rock had more cops on the street, but not significantly more. Not enough to cause the decline in crime. Over the past several years, as the unemployment rate in Little Rock has climbed, so has the crime rate…could there be a connection? Surely not. /snark Another thing, I’ve never really understood how more cops on the streets magically prevents crime from happening. The immediate presence of law enforcement officers may motivate some ne’er do well to move elsewhere, or wait ‘til the coast is clear to commit a crime, but it doesn’t necessarily stop the crime. Cops can’t just pick people up because they look like criminals. Can you imagine how many lawsuits the city would face if law enforcement just started detaining people who “looked like” criminals? Hell, what does a criminal “look like” anyway, if they’re not carrying a plasma TV down the street at 2 am, what is the distinguishing characteristic of a “criminal”? My point here is not that we don’t need more cops. I don’t know if we do or don’t. My point is that if we really want to reduce crime in Memphis and Shelby County, we have to look at the root. Smart City has a good post on this too. Until we stop ignoring the conditions that maintain the status quo, we’ll never deal with our crime rate.

EPIC FAIL - Lieberman Keeps Chairmanship - UPDATED

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:13:26 +0000

Yeah, that's right. The vote was 42-13. Since Twitter is down right now, I'll post it here. Wimps. Update: On the bright side, today is "International Laugh at Joe Lieberman Day! You can participate by calling his office, and laughing. If you have a video camera, tape yourself doing this and share it with your friends! Lieberman's office number is (202) 224-4041. Enjoy!

What We Have in Common

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:01:47 +0000

I’m probably going to get yelled at for saying this, but I’ve been thinking about it off and on for a long time. Hell, I may have said it before and I just don’t remember, but today’s events brought it back up in my mind, so here we go. What do the liberal left and the religious right have in common? Frustration. The religious right worked for years to attain a majority for the Republican Party in the House and Senate, spending countless hours working for people that purported to share their views, giving money and all that stuff. They did this to get rid of “activist judges” so they could get their own “activist judges” that reflected their views. They were faithful warriors in the “Cluture Wars”, fighting for their long-held beliefs. What did they get in return? Nothing. The majority of conservative legislation that passed had more to do with the real power holders of the Republican Party, the Club for Growth guys than anything the Religious Right ever really pushed for. Gays are still in the military, abortion is still legal, and the 10 commandments still can’t be displayed in courthouses. If the Republican Party is wondering why they lost their asses the past two elections, blowing off their “boots on the ground” base may, just may have something to do with it. On the flip side, since 2001 liberal activists have been working to help build a Democratic Majority. The loss of the White House under dubious circumstances in 2000 ignited the liberal left. While the party may have taken a hard right turn in the post-911 environment, by the end of 2003 the liberal left was working it’s way back into the hearts and minds of Democrats, still fearful of the term “liberal” but willing to use us when it benefited getting the Party back into the majority. While our gains in 2006 were largely attributed to dissatisfaction with the Bush administration’s handling of the war, it was the liberal left that led the charge on that front. Criticizing the Bush Administration was something that struck fear in the hearts of rank and file Democratic candidates. By September of 2006, the chorus was growing, and it was fashionable to be critical, finally. Since 2006, with a majority in the House and a slim majority in the Senate, Democrats have flipped and flopped their way on issues of great concern to the liberal left. By and large, we on the liberal left, while unhappy, have still gone out of our way to make sure that Democrats get elected. In some cases we worked to primary candidates deemed too far to the right. Still ultimately, we worked for Democrats. Liberals aren’t exactly getting what we want either, but we’re still working for Democrats, for now. Eventually, we’ll get tired of not getting what we want, or getting mocked, and once again the Democratic Party will be wondering where their base went, just like the Republican Party is doing right now. Religious Right, we may disagree on just about everything, particularly as it relates to policy, but we know how you feel. It sucks, but the reality is, it’s not gonna change for either of us anytime soon.

Revenge Vs. Reward vs. Accountability

Steve Ross — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:59:52 +0000

This is my third and last Lieberman post of the day. On the Big Orange Devil there’s a post by Argyrios that argues the Lieberman vote is the “Change We Need”. I get what the author is saying. I argued about a week ago that Obama may want Lieberman to keep his post for many of these very reasons. But let’s not confuse what this vote is about. This vote is not about revenge, it’s about accountability. Instead of holding Lieberman accountable for his actions, Senate Democrats have chosen to reward Lieberman for working for Republican candidates in the elections. As I said earlier this morning, he would have been booted from the party in just about any other country in the world for his actions. So, Democrats have chosen to not hold their members accountable for working against the party. What does this say about Democrats’ dedication to Democratic principles? Sure Lieberman has been a democrat for 45 years, but his actions in the past several years have effectively undermined Democratic Principles. We’re supposed to feel good about rewarding that? We’re supposed to feel good about not holding someone accountable for their actions? Are you kidding me? Here’s the real question going forward. How will Lieberman act toward his detractors? Sanders and Leahy spoke out against him in the caucus meeting. Anyone want to be Lieberman works against those three? See, if Lieberman actually feels bad about any of this, other than that fake “politically” bad, he’ll go out of his way to work with those three in particular. In reality, I think we’ll see Senator Lieberman go out of his way to obstruct these Senators, and anyone else he deems to be on his “enemies list”. That’s “Change we can Believe in”. Below is the press conference after the vote.

It’s About the Plan

Steve Ross — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:47:33 +0000

Last night GoldnI posted about the NCDP’s Plan of Organization. GoldnI notes:

At the top of the page, in one of the drop-down menus, are links to the contact info for every single county party.

The TNDP has it’s problems, but getting someone’s contact information isn’t one of them. In fact, I downloaded just about every single Democratic Official’s contact info to an Excel spreadsheet this morning. Be warned, I just might use it! That said, knowing anything about what the state party or any of the various county parties are doing or how they’re structured or any of that, yeah, you’re better off asking someone, the TNDP site doesn’t even have an “about” page. How the hell do you make a web site without an “about” page? GoldnI’s overall point is spot on about having a plan, and making it known. How can an organization that relies on people getting involved expect people to get excited about said organization without communicating an overall strategy? I’m not saying give anyone and everyone every single tactic you may or may not employ, not that those tactics are any real secret either, I’m talking about an overall strategy that gives people something to do and keeps them involved for the long term. This is, perhaps, the single greatest failing of the TNDP in the last election cycle. More than anything else, the TNDP did a crappy job of communicating a plan. I don’t put this responsibility on Communications Director Wade Munday as it was his job to communicate the message, not craft it from the bottom up. I put it on the entire governing apparatus of the TNDP, and the general belief in old school “Trickle Down” politicking. “Trickle Down” or “Top Down” politicking is just like it sounds; people at the top make decisions, those decisions “trickle down” through the ranks to the people. Just like “Trickle Down Economics”, few at the bottom of the information stream ever get wet. At some point, the information gets soaked up closer to the top and never makes it to the rest of the people. Elected officials and political parties have used this method for years, and to a certain degree it’s worked. It can work, as long as people never age, have any personal crisis, or organized opposition. The problem with “top down” is that you never build any bench players to step in should the starter have to step out. The people at the top hold all the cards. When that person leaves, he/she leaves a vacuum in their wake, a prime target to be exploited by the opposition, which is exactly what happened. The “Groundswell” method addresses the issue in a very different way. Groundswell campaigns actively enlist as many people as possible, making those people stakeholders in the campaign. Groundswell campaigns give people activities and information to keep them a part of the process. We saw this, on a national level, with the Obama campaign. They had scads of volunteers working, building an organization all over the country. They built this network by informing, and in some cases, bugging the shit out of donors and volunteers with email and print marketing. But this method can’t originate in a vacuum. There has to be some kind of organization to build from, and the Tennessee had several strikes against it from the beginning; being a traditional “Red State”, a weak state party largely organized around personalities rather than principles, and a largely rural population made it impossible for the Obama campaign to sink enough resources throughout the state to really make a dent in the state. Add to that the effective attacks of the TNGOP, coupled with a decidedly anemic response from the TNDP and well, Gov. Bredesen, Chairman Sasser, you have no one to blame but yourselves. So, how do we correct this? We start with a plan from the state party that includes training and outreach, consistent communication, coherent organization, and activation of the field. We build an organization around principles rather than politicians. We spread the field and give as many people as possible a voice so that collective voice will carry the party forward instead of a single voice, or a group of single voices dragging the party along. Here’s how it works: 1. Build a Curriculum – In order to build an organization you have to be willing to train them. Put together a curriculum that teaches people how to organize their neighborhoods/communities into smaller community groups. 2. Go out and Train – Start with areas that have been traditionally competitive, as well as old standby’s like Shelby and Davidson Counties. These areas probably already have more of a bench that can be utilized than anywhere else. Use this opportunity to connect people with their Execom members and other local party functionaries. Building this relationship now will pay off big time come election day. 2.5 – Go Local – In areas that Democratic candidates sometimes have more difficulty, or areas that are VERY rural, train up the county party. Give them tools to help organize people, encourage activities that engage others. Visibility is key. Visibility breaks down barriers and minimizes objections. 3. Communicate to the Masses – Using the mailing list that you have collected through these training exercises, communicate frequently to your new army. Give them somewhere to go or something to do that’s trackable (a page on the site, a general activity). Encourage them to forward the email to new people, offering a means for these new people to get on the list and sign up for eventual training. ALWAYS ask for money. If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Encourage small or recurring donations. 4. Expand the Field – Once you have your core group, team them up with a State Execom member or two and send them into less “blue” counties to train up the base. Remember, you’re building constituents not candidates. The candidates will come, and if they’re smart they’ll see what’s going on an work to duplicate. 5. Keep the Mo – Once you get this started, you can’t stop. Any interruption in this plan will yank the foundation out from under the base you’re creating. Don’t let personalities get in the way of progress. Remember, this is about expanding the field not concentrating power. Some old timers may have a hard time with this. Newbies will sense this and react negatively. Keeping it about the constituents is the key. 6. Mine for Gold – Use the resources you’ve built to find out what concerns your constituents most. That’s your platform, and many of these new people will eventually be your candidates. 7. Build Candidates/Organizations – Start training people to be good candidates and build good organizations that further support Democratic ideals and principles. Remember, this isn’t about creating a specific line of succession, it’s about building a bench of potential candidates, from local office up, any of whom could step in and move the ball down the field. 8. Encourage Constructive Primary Contests – This will probably piss more people off than anything, but it’s vital. No team can win without competition. No team can grow without opportunity. The current system of discouraging primary contests thins the bench, and leads to people checking out. If a primary contest weakens a candidate they were weak to begin with. Primary contests should be focused on the issues and be civil. People who break this rule should be called out. Some feel that they should be given a pass because they have been serving a community for a long time, but how can we build a great party organization and stifle competition? It defies logic. 9. Rinse and Repeat – After each election, bring people together, on a statewide and a county level. Talk about what worked and what needs work. Be honest and open. Listen to people who feel disenfranchised and talk openly and honestly about how to better include them. There will always be people who fall through the cracks, your goal is to minimize the number as much as possible. As we move forward to the selection of a new TNDP chair, we need the potential candidates to talk about their plan. If I was chair, this would be my plan, but different people may have differed worldviews/priorities. In any case “A PLAN” is better than the “NO COMMUNICATED PLAN” we seem to have been operating under. If candidates for TNDP chair can’t lay out a plan then they will suffer the same fate of the current chair, and the state will suffer along with them. No matter what, doing what we’ve always been doing isn’t working, it’s time to try something new. Hopefully the candidates for Chair see this, and will respond accordingly. Update: I recognize that my site does not have an "About" page either. The irony is not lost on me. I'm working to correct it, so no one can say I'm just another "Annonymous Blogger".

Winning Where No Democrat has Won Before

Steve Ross — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:33:25 +0000

We have less than 2 years. 2 years to contest 10 Republican held Senate seats, and defend 7. Think it’s too early to start on this? Think again. That plan I posted yesterday is just one part of a prescription for the party that includes a seismic shift, from being the party of here and there, to EVERYWHERE in Tennessee. In 2006 we fielded NO candidates for State Senate in Districts 3,5,7, and 9. In districts 1,11,13,17, 23 and 31 we did field candidates, but lost, despite a hotly contested and close statewide election for US Senate, and a runaway win by Governor Bredesen. In 2008 we actually did a good deal better in terms of fielding candidates, leaving only one seat uncontested (32) and two others with no Democratic challenger (4 and 8). On the House side, we have a lot of challenges. This year we left at least 26 seats uncontested, or with no Democrat in the race to Republicans. That’s a lot of seats left on the table. Democrats have to do better at putting people out there, even if the chances are long. If we don’t compete, we can’t win. I want to thank those candidates who chose to contest those red seats for putting yourself out there. I’m interested in your experience, what support you received from the state and local party, and some key insights about the districts and any other information that might be helpful for a campaign in 2010. If you’re interested in making a go at it again, I’d like to know about that too. In 2010, we may not have the benefit of a sitting Governor running for office, or a Senate campaign, but we still have to work to contest all of these seats. I understand that east Tennessee is Ruby Red. I understand that there’s a very good chance we won’t win. I also know for damn sure that if you don’t play you can’t win. Tennessee Democrats have to start working now, to be able to play everywhere. Believe it or not, there are Democrats in East Tennessee. State House District 2 used to be held by a Democrat, and Democrats hold House Districts 10 and 11. That may not seem like much, but it’s a start. As red as East TN is, there have to be Democrats in City or County Government somewhere out there. These are the people who we need to approach to run first. Ultimately, this is a trust building exercise. The TNDP and County Parties have to put a good faith effort forward well in advance to convince our friends in the east of the state that they can compete and will be supported by the party at all levels. In some cases, the local party may be suffering from malaise or lack of leadership. While the State party can’t necessarily directly fix this problem, it can work to create conditions where the problem can fix itself by training up motivated and interested area Democrats. Ultimately, that’s the root of my criticism for the TNDP. I understand that a state party can’t go into every county and make the local parties better, but it is the job of the state party to create conditions and opportunities where the local parties can make themselves better, involve more people, and ultimately play a role in bringing the party back to a majority in the state House, Senate, as well as in the local contests. We can build a strong and inclusive party apparatus here in Tennessee. It may take a while in some areas, but if we focus on building from the ground up, we’ll build a foundation that can help turn all of Tennessee bluer. Ultimately that’s the goal of Democrats throughout the state. That’s what we should be working for. I’m glad to see that one of the candidates for chair is thinking this way. I can’t wait to learn more of the details as of his and other candidates’ plans as we go forward.

A Thanksgiving Message from Vibinc

Steve Ross — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:31:48 +0000

Thanksgiving is, perhaps, my favorite cold holiday besides New Years. It involves two of my favorite “deadly sins” sloth and gluttony, and ultimately leads to a great deal of imbibing once the family finally leaves. This year, will be the third year my mother and uncle have come over for Thanksgiving. I like this because I get to cook, which is one of my secret loves. In fact, I’ve been preparing for this for about two weeks (in my head), coming up with side items, thinking about my grocery list, etc. As is the usual case with Thanksgiving, we are having turkey, though ours will be slow smoked over hickory and charcoal. I’m making my Grandmother’s dressing, which ultimately ends up with a couple dozen “stuffin muffins” (dressing poured into muffin tins that make great TCS (Turkey, Cranberry and “Stuffin”) sandwiches. We don’t do actual “stuffing”. I’ve never understood “stuffing”, possibly because it was never something my family ever engaged in. I also don’t do stuffing because there’s only so many times I can stick my hand up a birds ass before it stops being “special”. I’ll save that for retrieving the giblets and turkey neck. We’re also having “green bean glop” (S.Mac’s specialty), garlicy mashed potatoes, and asparagus. I love asparagus, as a general statement. Add this to my mom’s deviled eggs (her best dish), the pie we didn’t make because we’re lazy, and whatever Uncle Frankie brings and well, we’ll be asleep by 2pm. There are a lot of things that I’m thankful for this year; S.Mac, and the Bruiser pup, and all the friends I’ve made in the past several years. My health which keeps holding on despite all the dumb things (like smoking) I do. All in all, we’re pretty lucky, and I’m thankful for that too. Happy Thanksgiving folks, enjoy this special time with family. I intend to, and remember, they drive you crazy because they’re just like you…unless they’re not.

Somebody Gets It

Steve Ross — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:57:53 +0000

I’ve been suffering from the “post-Turkey Day” blues, and a whole lot of stuff to do, so I apologize for the lack of content. Right now I’m in Anaheim, CA, spitting distance from Mickey Mouse, and well, I can honestly say I’d rather be at home, but I can’t be so, it is what it is. Normally, I wouldn’t get into this right now, my mind when I’m traveling usually has to stay focused on the task at hand, but David Oatney wrote something this morning about one of my posts that really just hit the nail on the head more directly than I did:

However, I do understand from a raw political point of view why Democrats-especially liberal Democrats-do not want to write East Tennessee off. As someone who has been involved in several political campaigns and who has even run for public office himself, I believe it to be an insult to the voters to simply write anyone off.

I couldn’t have, and didn’t say it better myself. This is the key, in my mind, to a Democratic resurgence in Tennessee. We have to put people out there to represent Democratic values in unfriendly places in order to ultimately get Democrats elected. This won’t be quick or easy. We have a lot of things going against us in East TN, as well as the much of rural TN, but if we act like TN is just Shelby and Davidson Counties, we’re screwed. This means a lot of things, but mostly it means being ready to work for and support a candidate like Travis Childers in MS to get a D seat. Many West Tennesseans did, and now our bedroom community, North Mississippi, has a Democratic Representative. We need to be willing to do the same in rural TN. It won’t immediately pay off. In fact, it may not pay off for quite some time, but we have to do something. The way to turning TN blue is not by ignoring districts deemed “too hard” to contest. The way to win is by vigorously contesting those “hard” districts, as well as the soft ones, and that may mean we have to get behind Democrats who may not be the fullest expression of our personal definitions of “Democrats”. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not arguing for pragmatism over principle, I’m arguing against surrender. When we surrender districts we surrender our values to a bully pulpit that ultimately undermines our values. By running someone who represents the Democratic platform, we affirm our values, even if the candidate in question may have certain contrary positions. I would rather have a part-time ally than a consistent adversary. And while I’ve been hard on the Blue Dogs and other groups in the US Congress, I know that without them, we would have no majority to speak of. The truth of the matter, as Newscoma so often details is that rural America is losing so much so fast. They’re losing jobs and people and the richness of their community to forces that are hard to understand. To add insult to injury, by not contesting the 26 State House seats we left open in the last election they are losing one of the foundations of our Republic, debate. We are duty bound, as Americans, to rectify this situation. This is my deep thought for the week. As a guy who grew up in rural Arkansas, and moved to the city, once external forces out of our control crippled my hometown, I get it. It is insulting to write off ANYONE. We need everyone, to keep our towns, and cities, and counties, and state, and nation strong. That’s what being a Democrat is all about. That’s what America is all about.

Put this Punk Away

Steve Ross — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:13:05 +0000

The news is buzzing with the arrest of Illinios Governor Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff John Harris for trying to sell the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. Let me echo LWC’s sentiment. Blago has been under a microscope for a long time. Still, this dipshit had the temerity to try and profit personally from the selection of Obama’s successor in the Senate. What an idiot. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was on TV this morning talking about the indictment, and he’s right, this is a sad day for government. It doesn’t matter what party a person is a member of, if they are trying to personally profit from their position they have no business being anywhere but in the pokey. There is a belief by some in positions of power, that they can act with little or no regard for the rule of law, for their personal enrichment. This belief is not limited to public officials, but also people in the private sector. I think we’ve seen a lot of this recently with corporate executive’s actions and reactions to calls for the return of unearned or questionable income in the face of massive losses. All forms of corruption, no matter how hard they are to investigate, should be pursued in order to maintain faith in the rule of law by holding those with little or no regard for the law, accountable. I have a great deal of faith in Patrick Fitzgerald’s ability to remove his personal political views, whatever those may be, from executing his duty as a US Attorney. Even though he didn’t give me everything I wanted for Fitzmas several years ago, I hold him in the highest regard. However, this administration has a history of using the US Attorney’s office for political gain. The prosecution of Former Gov. Don Siegelman in Alabama, the US Attorney controversy featuringMonica Goodling, and several other situations involving former AG Alberto Gonzales, have left a stain on the department that needs to be corrected. This means holding those who have damaged our justice system accountable, something Obama may not want to spend political capitol on.

"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama said, but added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve." (Source)

Obama may be right that there are a lot of “problems to solve”, but restoring faith in the Federal Government is one that must happen, and must happen soon, if Obama is to accomplish even half of the things on his agenda. This means returning the DOJ from the grip of the political arm-twisting that it has engaged in for the past 8 years. Other institutions, the VA, CIA, and FEMA come to mind, need to be freed of the taint that this administration, and that’s going to take some tough admissions of wrongdoing and active efforts to change in a very public way. It may be uncomfortable for Obama, and may, in the minds of some, run contrary to his “post-partisan” rhetoric, but prosecuting people who have behaved badly in the course of the past 8 years will probably also be the only way to really restore public faith in the rule of law. None of this, of course, has anything directly to do with the Blago-gate scam, but for Obama to not get caught up, even tangentially, in the scandals of those in or outside his sphere of influence, rebuilding our mantle of “A Nation of Laws” internally is the first step, no matter how uncomfortable it might be.

Feeling Dirty…

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:53:16 +0000

Apparently “Joe the Plumber” said in an interview with Right Wing nutjob Glen Beck”felt dirty” during and after campaigning for Senator John McCain. (snickers) I guess “good old Joe” is having some seller’s remorse. Whoring yourself out like he did is only fun until you realize that; they’re not really that interested in you, and…you’re just a whore to them. Sorry dude. He’s still all rainbows and unicorns on Sara Palin. I wish this douche would go away. Huffpost has the audio that I don’t have the stomach to listen to.

Chip’s Vision

Steve Ross — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:25:21 +0000

Kleinheider posts on a letter from TNDP candidate for Chair, and current Treasurer, Chip Forrester. The letter gives scant new details on how Forrester plans to turn the party around, but does give just enough to make one want more, an appetizer or general vision, if you will, giving Democrats a tantalizing taste of what Chip wants to do for the Party. Last week while I was out of town, Forrester met with several Memphis Democrats, and let some of his plans be known, though still in a very general way, for the party. All in all, I think most people came away from it with a pretty good feeling. Since I couldn’t attend, much to my displeasure, I didn’t benefit from this “feel good”. In fact, just moments before Kleinheider posted his report I was wondering just what was going on with our current Treasurer’s campaign for TNDP Chair. I’m glad to see he’s making inroads with several constituencies. Unfortunately, as is my nature, I’m still not convinced. At this point, I may be the only one in the state, but I’ve seen the good, bad and ugly of party politics both here and in Arkansas for some 20 years and I’m skeptical. To be fair, I’m a perpetual skeptic, and I’m unrealistically hard on everyone, including myself. That said, I’m one of the most optimistic skeptics you’ll ever find anywhere. I want to believe that things will get better, but have lived through the reality that it rarely does. We can talk about broad ideas and gimmicks to turn the party around, and some, hell many, of them may work. But the devil’s in the details. Many of us want to know specifics. I don’t have a vote in this thing. I’m not a state Execom member. I am a stakeholder, as is everyone in Tennessee. As much as conventional wisdom would like to say that nothing happens in Nashville, really quite a bit happens there that affects our daily lives. Who our representatives will be, will shape unseen details of life in Tennessee for years, perhaps decades to come. Ultimately, that’s why this is important, that’s why we need more than a vision. I hope that whoever becomes the chair of the TNDP, most likely Mr. Forrester, can turn that vision into a plan, and coordinate that plan with the county parties throughout the state. Still, I’d like to see a detailed plan, and soon. I don’t think I’m being melodramatic in saying that the position is of great importance to the future of the state of Tennessee, and the TNDP. As for Mr. Forrester, should you be selected Chair, remember, we are your soldiers and we are ready to fight. Let us know your plan.

Bredesen’s Bone to Pick

Steve Ross — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:36:24 +0000

Apparently, there was some action on the race for the TNDP while I was in a full-scale internet blackout late last week. Over at Post Politics, we saw our Governor exhibit his traditional “no position taken” position in endorsing Charles Robert Bone. Another post, quoting a Democratic insider with a very lively comments thread, and a litany of other posts about and around the subject. At this point, I’m not ready to come out swinging for anyone. Forrester is saying the right things, but without a solid action plan, I’m still not sold. Mr. Bone, on the other hand, sufferers from the support of our Governor, whose Democratic credentials become more questionable every time he opens his mouth. Further, Mr. Bone hasn’t released ANYTHING to my knowledge detailing anything he intends to do at the TNDP, so that isn’t very reassuring. One comment from this post really stands out in my mind

Frankly, I don’t think any of you people have a clue. Campaigns and caucuses run elections, not freaking parties. I have friends that are Democratic political operatives in North Carolina. They told me that the campaigns in that state are completely separate from the state party because the state party is run by a bunch of worthless crazies.

First, the commenter is generally correct, state parties cannot “work” every campaign. It’s just impossible. The state party can help tie campaigns together, or provide an overarching framework for campaigns to piggy back on. Secondly, I’m not sure what he means by “crazies”, but if “crazies” means minimizing your role to somehow create success, well, that sounds like crazy to me. Has the TNDP been run by crazies all this time? Maybe. And didn’t North Carolina get a new Democratic Senator and go for Obama? Well maybe a state party being run by crazies isn’t so bad after all! I don’t think anyone is calling for the TNDP to work like the Politburo, expelling, or otherwise disciplining those who veer from its vision. I do think most Tennessee Democrats would like a party that seems outwardly engaged, something that was not evident in the last election cycle. Selecting an insider for the chair of the TNDP would seem to be a contrary position to that circumstance. The reality is that no one will get the chair of the TNDP without being an insider. Insiders run politics at all levels. Even newcomers have to have some inside support to be successful. So the question for the TNDP may be, “What kind of insider do we want?” In order to answer that question, it may be helpful to determine what kind of insider we don’t want. I don’t want a whiner who spends the bulk of their time blaming the top of the ticket, or tossing around straw men to somehow strengthen their diminishing position, I want a fighter. I don’t want a person that relies solely on their inside ties to run the party, I want someone with a broad vision willing to include people from all walks of life in innovative ways. I don’t want someone who views the role of the TNDP as that of a fiscal parasite, leeching off the national party for existence, I want someone who will make the party strong and sustainable. Of the two announced candidates, I don’t know if either are the right choice for the party, but I do know that the party is not in a strong enough position to provide the support necessary to bring a Democratic majority back to the state ledge. Another comment that I thought was interesting came from Nate de Salvo

By the logic you people throw around, Howard Dean and the DNC won the presidency, not Barack Obama. And I guess the RNC and whoever their chairman is lost. How ignorant is that?

I would submit that the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC DID lose over the past two cycles. They had a President that was relatively popular until he proved himself utterly incompetent to the rest of the nation (most Democrats were painfully aware of this long before) in 2005. The result was losing the majority of the Congress, as well as the White House. That seems like a failure on a party level to me. I would also argue that, while Howard Dean may not deserve all the credit for the gains that Democrats have made nationally, he does deserve some credit for setting up a system that works to involve as many people as possible in the process. Dean’s 50 state strategy laid the groundwork for Obama’s fundraising and organizing bonanza. I credit Dean for opening our eyes to a new potential that doesn’t deny the effectiveness of old campaign methods, but incorporates new ways of communicating into them. Ultimately, that’s the same type of role the TNDP should work toward; laying the groundwork for campaigns to be successful. Finally, I want to talk about our Governor. I don’t blame him for the losses in 2008 any more than I credit him for anything in 2006. He’s the Governor. I understand the impact top of ticket races can have on down ticket contests, but unlike the Governor, I don’t blame the top of the ticket for the problems at the bottom of the ticket. Every race is unique, with unique opportunities and challenges. Still, as the head of state, and the highest elected Democratic politician in the state, he has a leadership role. Being an effective leader requires a lot of skills, accountability is one of them. Blaming the top of the ticket for problems down the ballot is childish. Each contest stands on its own, and the individual campaigns, including the coordinating campaigns of the Democratic Party and Caucus apparatus should be nimble enough to provide support in this challenging year for the state. Perhaps the top of the ticket created additional challenges for down ballot contests, but we knew who the Democratic Presidential nominee was going to be by state primary day here in Tennessee, and some of the challenges that had to be overcome. That left plenty of time for the individual candidates, and the Democratic leadership to adjust their strategy. Blaming Obama for the losses in the state is like blaming Toyota for the broken car you never maintained. Had the powers that be spent as much time building the party as they have taken credit or passed blame, depending on the situation, the party would be in a position to weather these storms. Unfortunately, the Governor chose to focus on "sage advise" to the President-elect, like visiting a Waffle House, or Wal-Mart. In doing so, Bredesen "accidentally" reinforced right wing talking points that Obama was somehow an elitist. Now, I'm no strategy guru, but it seems like if someone is calling you an "elitist" the last thing you want is your "friends" saying anything that might reinforce that message, particularly if that "friend" is freelancing a message on a level that's just way out of this world. Maybe the Governor should have followed his own advise with State candidates, showing up at Wal-Marts and Waffle Houses in hotly contested areas instead of providing material for Bill Hobbs. Just a thought.

Rumors of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated…

Steve Ross — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:29:36 +0000

The Wall Street Journal reports on a Russian foreign policy analyst that predicts the end of the United States sometime in 2010. Funny thing is, he’s been predicting this for some 10 years. Further he predicts that the nation will split up into 6 “regional nations”. Igor Panarin isn’t considered a crackpot in Russia. In fact, he’s the Dean of the Foreign Ministry Academy that trains future diplomats, and a former KGB agent, which is just one of the areas where his theory (aside from the general crackpottiness as a whole) falls apart. For some reason, the career foreign analyst is looking at the US through a lens skewed by the disintegration of the former USSR. Panarin’s analysis ignores our national identity as a whole. Unlike Russia, the states that make up the US were never nations with hundreds of years of history and unique cultural identities, unlike many of the states that once made up the USSR. As such, most Americans view themselves as Americans first, and natives of their states second. Few people, with the possible exception of Texans, view themselves as Tennessean-Americans, or Illinois-Americans. In fact, state identity rarely comes up when Americans talk about their American-ness. Strike 1. Strike 2 comes from the “economic and moral collapse” that Panarin describes. Certainly, the current financial crisis is a blow to the nation, but it still hasn’t proven to be anywhere as deep or wide as the “Great Depression” of the 1930’s. Unemployment is nowhere near 25%. Vast wealth has been lost, but by and large, the wealthy are still wealthy, and even though the working class is suffering the bulk of the hurt, there is little chance that enough of them are willing to take up arms and fight a government that they generally identify with. Nationalism in the US is still high, though far lower than in the initial post-911 environment. If no one shows up for the 4th of July, I’ll worry. Until then, not so much. As for the moral collapse, well, that ends on 1/20/09 when we replace our despotic President through a peaceful Presidential transition. Russia, on the other hand, can’t even seem to get rid of their despot (Putin). Strike 3 comes when the actual purpose of the whole theory is revealed. From the article:

He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S.

Does any of this sound familiar? Sounds an awful lot like US characterizations of the USSR throughout my childhood. During the Cold War the US used characterizations similar to this (long bread lines, etc.) to instill a level of national pride as a hedge against anyone who would seek to nationalize anything, and as a propaganda tactic for those living behind the “Iron Curtain” that had access to western media. I was too young to know if any of these reports were true at the time, or if the scope of the food shortages in the USSR were as widespread as they were reported to be, but it doesn’t really matter. This was a tool in the execution of the Cold War, just as it is a tool in the execution of Russian nationalism right now. Since the ascension of Putin, the Russian Federation has sought to reclaim the “glory” of its former incarnation. Once the oligarchs in Russia had divvied up all they could for themselves, leaving many ordinary Russians in the lurch, they faced a great deal of internal challenges. Building nationalism is one way to distract a population that has largely been poorly served from the problems they face. That is all this theory is about. Enjoy your fame Mr. Panarin. I imagine in 18 months, when your theory doesn’t come to pass, that the crow you eat will be might tasty. Hopefully by then you’ll be relegated to the sidelines like all those apocalypse predictors from times past.

Purity Pledges – A Policy of Ignorance

Steve Ross — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:16:52 +0000

In a new study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health the truth about Purity Pledges and Abstinence Only Education is revealed… They don’t work. Of the individuals studied, a full 82% had reneged on their promise to refrain from sexual activity (this includes the full spectrum of sexual activity). Further, comdom usage by those who made purity pledges is 10% less than those who never made such a pledge. The study attributes this to, “negative views about condoms”, by those who participate in Abstinence only education. Ever since the first report of the Purity Ball, and the increased reliance of Abstinence Only Sex Ed that has dominated the Bush Administration’s policy, I’ve had a sinking feeling about the fate of teens who are largely being used as political pawns in a game that has their future at stake. The notion that somehow telling a teenager to “Just Say No” when their body is saying just the opposite is mad, but that’s exactly what Abstinence only and these Purity Pledges are unsuccessfully trying to achieve. To be fair, I haven’t explored the entire curriculum that is employed in Abstinence Only Sex-Ed. Different places likely have different versions of the program, but in polling my family members, nearly all of whom are current or former educators from elementary to secondary schools, they report that abstinence only education is a foul joke being played on the youth of America at the hands of those who are more interested in scoring political points, or bringing back some nostalgic religious fantasy of days gone by, than the health of the teens. The truth of the matter is that people make better decisions when they are better informed. By giving in to the false notion that abstinence is the only way to protect against teen pregnancy we are effectively arming our teens with a hammer and calling the problem a nail, but it’s not that simple. Arming our teens with as much information as possible, from condoms to other contraception, as well as abstinence, is the best way to prevent teen pregnancy. Short of locking them up from age 13 until they graduate, nothing is going to stop teenagers from having sex, nothing. The feelings are too complicated, and new. Emotion and “the heat of the moment” will almost always trump any rational decision-making. Abstinence only education ignores this completely, making it a “Good person/Bad person” situation. The long-term consequences of this false choice are detrimental to the individual. The message should be, “You’re not a bad person if you have sex before marriage, but you are putting yourself at risk. Here’s how to better protect yourself.” Abstinence only presents a problem for those who subscribe to the “Family statement” from the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” There is no doubt that teen couples are not married, but the relationship can mirror “marriage” on an emotional level that complicates the issue. By telling young women that they are to “submit” to their spouses, then telling them to “Just say no” fundamentalist Christians have created a conflict that most teens are ill-equipped to solve. Finally, abstinence-only proponents should be required to disclose that even abstinence isn’t foolproof, unless they deny the Immaculate Conception. Seriously folks, you have to be consistent. The truth of the matter is that we, as a people, have to stop relying on ignorance to shape attitudes and drive debate, and work to make the best information possible, available to all our people, including teens. This means not relying on abstinence as the “only way”, but also informing them of the full menu of protections against pregnancy. It has been proven we can’t stop the behavior, so it is our duty to give our teens the tools to protect themselves from the worst consequences of sexual activity. When ignorance fails…educate!

"Stunningly Superficial"

Steve Ross — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:10:09 +0000

It's the phrase of the day...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

JoeScar sets 'em up, ZBig knocks em down. I love it.

Contact

Steve Ross — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:30:06 +0000

[contact-form 1 "Contact form 1"] All communications will be held in the strictest confidence, but please use your real email address or I'll just dismiss you as a crackpot.

When Bloggers Attack

Steve Ross — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:49:11 +0000

A long, long time ago, BC (Before Clinton was President) I was a college student. During that time a well-respected member of the faculty was removed for reasons that were, at best, suspect. In reaction to this removal, I and several other students from the department took it upon ourselves to talk to the Dean of Student Affairs, to express our dissatisfaction with the removal, and seek some plausible explanation to help stop the swirling rumors. None was forthcoming, which merely compounded the anger and dismay. Despite our good faith efforts to peacefully and politely express our opinion, pressure was put on the faculty of the department to shut us up. This, along with statements I and other students made in the school paper made many members of the faculty angry…at us. In the midst of the emotion and drama that almost always follows issues that one feels passionate about, one faculty member asked me, “We know what you’re against, but what do you stand for?” Well, that shut me up for a while, but it didn’t, ultimately, solve the problem. To this day, I do not really know what happened or why. From time to time I think about this event, now some 16 years later, and wonder both how we as concerned students could have acted more effectively and how the administration could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by proactively communicating to us at least some of the issues of concern so we could better understand and inform ourselves. Once again, this question, “We know what you’re against, but what do you stand for?””, has come up to the blogging community. The question gets asked a lot by people who end up on the wrong side of bloggers, the intent often being more about “getting the hell off my lawn” than anything truly constructive. It takes on certain significance, particularly in the wake of the fairly recent criticism of the TNDP and losses that spawned that criticism. So maybe, just maybe it’s time to clarify some things. First, there are some things you should know about me. I don’t do this because I’m paid to do it. In fact, I don’t even have advertising of any kind on my blog. Truth is, most TN bloggers don’t make a dime off their blogs. This is due to laziness on my part, and that I want to keep my “loves” separate from a “job”. I tried to “monetize” my love of performing music throughout the early 90’s and burned myself out. Making this a job is not something I’m interested in at this point. Secondly, I truly want what is best for the people of our nation, state, counties and cities. My worldview may be further to the left than most in the state, but that doesn’t change the reality that when I write something about policy, I’m thinking about the political ramifications and the personal ramifications that will touch all the citizens of those respective jurisdictions. Third, and most importantly, I work with the best information I have available, but sometimes that information doesn’t reach the standard that I would like. As newspapers pull back coverage and lay off reporters, and broadcast media becomes more like Extra!, focusing on the more sensational aspects of politics than the steady and staid Evening News with Walter Cronkite, getting good and accurate information about what is going on anywhere other than national politics is getting harder. This is a bad thing for Tennessee and every other state outside of the top 20 media markets. Finally, I am not a journalist. I’ve never claimed to be. I’m a guy with enough time to bang out 3-4 posts on a good week with a lot of passion and a great deal of interest in politics. Saying this is my passion understates the reality. I read upwards of 500 posts and news articles a day. For me, this is an obsession. Now, I can’t really speak for anyone else, because they would probably snatch my head off my neck and use it to bowl a 37, but speaking for myself, I can say with no reservations that much of my criticism of Democratic politicians and institutions is rooted in the frustration that comes from said politicians and institutions doing generally dumb or lazy things, such as; voting against long-held Democratic ideals, using Right-Wing talking points under the guise of conventional wisdom, calling our Presidential Candidate a terrorist, (as some elected Democratic officials and their surrogates chose to do earlier this year). Let it be known, that people who call themselves Democrats and do these kinds of stupid things will incur my wrath, and the wrath of others…you don’t get rewarded for stupid. At the same time, I’m not looking for a fight with Democrats, I want to affirm Democrats and Democratic principles and discredit Republicans, which isn’t that hard because they damn near do it for me. I want to react to the “Press Release Pornography” (I’ve never seen someone exploit a press release quite like him) that Bill Hobbs engages in. But when Mr. Hobbs lets loose one of his ridiculous screeds and I hear nothing from the Democratic establishment, I wonder if anyone is listening, and that’s frustrating. Further, when I don’t hear anything from anyone in the Democratic establishment for months on end, even though there’s a lot going on (like an election), questions of competence invariably come up, leading to a general belief that members of the establishment are coasting and all the other things that make people frustrated when they are feeling ill served by people who are supposed to be representing their views, even if that’s in the broadest sense of the word. The key thing to take away from this is that old quote by Benjamin Franklin, An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The prevention is basic communication. I don’t want to be catered to, I want to know that I’m not living in a vacuum. I want to know that elected officials and party organizations are paying attention and proactively working to defend against Republican attacks on our values, and move the ball down the field with our values. So, there you have it. It’s really quite simple. There are times when we (me or the “lefty blogosphere” and members of the Democratic Party Establishment) will agree, and there are times we won’t, but that’s not a reason to not communicate. If anything it’s more of a reason TO communicate. Communication will help get us past some of the miscues and misunderstandings. Communication will ensure that the message reaches more people. Communication, not just with bloggers and activist, but with regular constituents, is how we win in 2010. Thanks, and Happy New Year.

Automatic for the People

Steve Ross — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:36:43 +0000

The TN State legislature debuted a new website today. The CA has the story. I haven’t had the chance to check it out fully, but if it does all that it says it does it’s a huge boon for the people of Tennessee and the cause of transparency in general. One of my chief complaints over the past two sessions is the difficulty in tracking the “real” bills and the bills that will never see the light of day. Under the old site, you could search a topic and come up with more bills than could ever be considered. Maybe now we’ll see something that makes the process a little easier. Perhaps the best improvement is the prospect of setting up a personalized rss feed for bills or subjects that are of personal interest. If this actually works its good stuff, a great tool for bloggers, activists and concerned citizens alike. One of the best things about it is the ability to make lists of interests. These lists populate the three rss feeds that users can customize. Each list can have multiple keywords or subjects. You can set up a local feed (select your city and county and surrounding counties) or a budgeting feed (budget and appropriations) of any number of personalized feeds. It’s also easier to see the bills that your legislators have sponsored or their voting record. All in all, this is a positive step for the state. I’m looking forward to seeing it in action. Tomorrow is the first organizational session, according to the House Schedule. Streaming video support for sessions should be pretty interesting too. Mac people may need the Flip 4 Mac plugin to view the WMV streams in Safari (the free one should work, but I’ll know more tomorrow). I’ll report my experience with the site throughout the session. This could make my life a lot easier, particularly considering my stupid travel schedule. Can’t wait to watch TN-Span.

Ninety-One Thousand Dollars

Steve Ross — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:46:22 +0000

Over at the CA Marc Perrusquia’s been doing some digging. You’ll have to go read the article yourself for all the gory details, but here’s the gist, from the article’s timeline:

April 9, 2002: Greyhound CEO Craig Lentzsch tells Mayor Willie Herenton in a letter that his proposal to move the bus firm's Downtown Memphis station is too expensive. Herenton proposed a land swap that would move Greyhound to Airways and Winchester. Instead, Lentzsch suggested getting federal or state grant funds to build an "intermodal station'' to be shared by Greyhound and the city bus agency, Memphis Area Transit Authority. Oct. 2, 2002: Herenton meets with MATA officials to discuss the intermodal station. June 2004: Memphis attorney Florence Johnson pays Greyhound $10,000 for an option to buy its Greyhound property -- an option then held by Herenton. May 17, 2005: The city buys 8.8 acres near the airport as a site to build an intermodal station. The deed says the land is for "the use and benefit of Memphis Area Transit Authority.'' MATA later repays the city. September 2005: The option to purchase the Greyhound site is transferred to the mayor's friend, Elvin Moon. May 2006: Moon sells the option. The buyer pays $116,000. Moon keeps $25,000 and passes the rest -- $91,000 -- to Herenton's private real estate firm, Herenton Investment. Nov. 12, 2008: A federal grand jury hears testimony from Moon and the mayor's special assistant, Pete Aviotti, who helped negotiate discussions to move Greyhound from Downtown.

Just looking at the timeline alone, it seems evident that the Mayor is treading on the margins of ethical behavior. He personally financially benefitted from “inside information” relating to the possible sale of some prime property (Remember his new Convention Center Committiee from last September?) If this were a stock trade, the SEC might have investigated…back in the day when they did such things. Instead, the Memphis US Attorney’s office is investigating, and hopefully crafting a better case than their last major outing, lest they further damage their reputation. Memphis, you deserve better, but you’re not going to “get” anything better until you “demand” something better. I’m not saying anything Herenton has allegedly done is illegal, but it sure stinks to high heaven. Memphis deserves leadership whose motives aren’t constantly in question. That’s part of a big nasty pie of issues that keep Memphis divided, but it’s a big part. I may have more on this later after I consume some piping hot coffee product.

Shenanigans in the State House

Steve Ross — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:23:34 +0000

My internet died right about 11:30am yesterday, so I didn’t get to see the streaming coverage of the bloodless coup in the TN State House. The written reports were plenty descriptive for me, and the Republican response was, well, priceless! For those of you living under a rock, or nowhere near a Republican, the TN State House elected the first Republican Speaker in 40 years…unfortunately for the Republican Party, it wasn’t the speaker they nominated, it was the one the Democrats nominated, Kent Williams of Elizabethtown. For those of you even deeper under said rock, or perhaps buried under a quarry, the Democrats nominated a Republican because they lost the majority 50-49. They new they probably couldn’t win with a Democrat, so why not shoot the moon? Really, it’s a brilliant play…a “Flea Flicker” that hasn’t fully developed yet. We’re still waiting for the “pass down field”. Hopefully it won’t be intercepted, but it probably will. Williams will be thrown out of the Republican Party, Kurita style, without all the last second asshattery that marked that action. I doubt that he’ll care considering he was primaried by a devotee of the same man he defeated for the Speaker’s chair. What goes around comes around. I think the Republicans are overreacting, I mean, they got their damn speaker, why not take advantage of the opportunity? This is like complaining about the position of engagement during the sex act. You’re getting laid, shut up! Oh, you didn’t want to be on bottom? Sucks to be you! I suggest you relax, it’ll make it easier for everyone, but mostly you. I know I’m being flip about this whole thing, but there are two truths that are undeniable: 1. I agree with Roger Abramson, this is not necessarily a boon for Progressives. The progressive agenda will not be served by ANY Republican speaker, period. 2. The Republicans still have the majority, and can still use it to bludgeon us with their agenda. I’m not taking off my helmet until there’s more evidence the coast is clear. Still, it’s funny stuff that I’ll be giggling about for weeks. My internet is spotty right now as I wait for our local monopoly to find the time to come out and fix it, yet still charge me for it. I’ll be looking for reports from the hill today, but mostly, I’ll be giggling like a schoolgirl. Good going TN State House Democrats. You won the battle, keep pushing to win the war. Republican sour grapes will be your biggest ally for a couple of days. Use that to your benefit now, because I’m sure there are plenty of ugly fights coming down the pike.

Andy’s Choice

Steve Ross — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:13:04 +0000

Update: I've been having internet problems, and apparently this post didn't quite make it all the way up earlier. Below is the full version, sorry about that. With all the news from the TN State House yesterday, one story didn’t get the coverage that it might have under different circumstances. Zach Wamp (R-TN03) announced he would surrender his seat in the 2010 election. This presents an interesting choice for Democratic up and comer Andy Berke (D TNS-10) from Chattanooga. Berke has been mentioned as a potential Gubernatorial candidate in the 2010 election. In an email blast to supporters last week, Berke confirmed that he was exploring a run for Governor. Wamp’s decision to abandon his seat in the US House to run for the Governor’s office in 2010 creates two opportunities that Berke could explore. Advancing in politics is not something that necessarily comes on your schedule. Opportunities often arise at the whim of the current office holder, or as the result of Term Limits (in the case of the Governor). Unseating incumbents, while more common in the past two cycles, is still a huge undertaking. The opportunity to run for an open seat in either position in the same year is something to carefully consider. Since the Civil War, the 3rd District of TN has been represented by Republicans about 1/3 of the time. However, the 3rd has been strong Republican territory since Wamp’s election in 1994. Looking at the voting consistency in the 3rd district for statewide elections, only one Democrat in the past two cycles has won any of the counties that make up the district, Phil Bredesen who won all of them handily. The margin of victory for candidates in the counties that make up TN-03 over the past two cycles has been pretty daunting. Aside from Bredesen’s win, the closest contender was Harold Ford Jr., who lost those counties by just under 29,000 votes. The counties that make up TN-03 constitute about 12.2% of all the votes cast in Tennessee in the 2006 Gubernatorial election and 11.74% in the 2008 election Presidential election (Shelby was 15.4% to 15.5% in the two elections and Davidson was 9.7% to 10.1% for comparison). Despite assertions that Barack Obama was a drag on Tennessee Democratic Candidates, Obama lost the district by 32,000 fewer votes than the Democratic challenger for the TN-03 seat, Doug Vandagriff. Still, in both cases it was a Republican landslide. Running for the US House seat represents a challenge, but in a year with an open seat, it may be an easier hurdle than the Governor’s race. Berke already has strong support in Hamilton County, which represents half of the total vote in TN-03. Determining the strength of Berke’s potential opposition would be the biggest factor, and is probably an unknown for weeks at the very least. On the Governor’s race side, Berke’s potential Primary opposition is already taking shape. Kim McMillan from Clarksville is in. Lincoln Davis, from the neighboring 4th District has been rumored to be seeking the position, as well as and a whole bunch of other Democrats including Harold Ford Jr. and Jim Kyle from Memphis (or wherever Ford claims to live now), Roy Herron of Dresden and Doug Horne of Knoxville. If the Primary race is this thick, Berke will have a steep hill to climb in the Gubernatorial Primary. Davis and Ford will be strong statewide. McMillan and Herron will be fighting for supremacy in the TN-07, and 08, Ford and Kyle will be strong in TN-05, 07, 08, and 09. Berke and Horne would be competing for dominance in TN-01 through 03 and parts of TN-04 and 06. Davis and Ford have the most statewide name recognition of any of the candidates mentioned, and by extension, and instant leg up on everyone else with Kyle a very distant third. If any of these big name people (Davis or Ford) jump in, Berke probably doesn’t have a chance. If they don’t, it’s 50-50 at best. Berke doesn’t really have anything to lose, but money, should unknowns dominate the field. Berke isn’t up for re-election in his State Senate seat until 2012. On the flip side, if Davis gets in the Governor’s race, it may behoove Berke to go for the TN-03 seat. As much as I dislike Davis, he could be a powerful ally in the rural areas of TN-03 that shares a border with the 4th. By thinning the field, Burke could have a campaign partner for the general, and one that has the look and feel of a good old country boy. I’m not sure about Davis’ popularity in the 3rd, but he keeps winning the 4th, which is decidedly more rural. Doing this could also set Berke up for higher office in the future. If Davis or another Democrat is successful in his bid for Governor, Burke could have a long term and powerful ally. 2012 could pit him against Corker for Senate, 2014 against an open seat left by Alexander, or Governor (should a Democrat lose in 2010) or Governor in 2018 (should a Democrat win in 2010 and 14). The opportunities are endless. Berke is young (40) and has a lot of upside, as well as plenty of time to cultivate a greater statewide presence. Chattanoogans have dominated TN-03 since Reconstruction, winning 68% of the time. Democratic candidates (James Fraizer Jr. of Chattanooga and Marilyn Lloyd of Winchester) held the seat 24 of the last 50 years. On the flip side, timing is everything, and if Berke thinks it’s his time to run for Governor, then he has a duty to himself and the state to make a go at it. No one said it would be easy, but having so many options is a good thing for Andy Berke. Right now he has to choose between running for Governor, Representative, or staying put. It’s his choice to make, and I don’t think any of them are bad ones for him, or the state.

Whereupon I Break My Longtime Self-Censorship and Duck for Cover

Steve Ross — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:21:33 +0000

I haven’t written anything about what’s going on in Israel for years. Mostly this is because there’s so much emotion, both of my own, and by all parties concerned, that the issue gets muddled and bogged down. Further, I don’t spend a lot of time following Israeli internal politics, so for divorcing myself from that emotion is difficult. I do read a lot of people who follow such things in far more detail than I. One is Juan Cole. Several days ago he posted this letter which was printed in the Times of London. I agree with a lot of what this letter argues, particularly the last paragraph:

We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.

Then there’s this article in today’s New York Times. You should really read the whole thing because it lays bare the one of the most useless, yet long-held beliefs of American foreign policy. From the article

Ever since Hamas began its one-party rule of Gaza, in the summer of 2007, Israel and the West have tried to turn Gazans against Hamas through an economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. While there is certainly anger at Hamas among Gazans, it pales beside the anger at Israel, the West and what some see as Fatah’s collusion with those enemies.

Does that sound familiar? It should, that’s exactly what we’ve been doing with Cuba since Castro took over. Castro may be “gone” now, but it’s not because of anything we did, it’s because he got old. The point here actually has to do with the way we handle “rogue states” in general, but what’s going on in Israel is a good case study for our failures throughout the Middle East. If we want secular moderates in power throughout the Middle East, we have to work to create conditions that would help support such governments. This means working diligently with Fatah in Palestinian controlled areas, and strengthening their institutions so they can build and maintain a foothold in Gaza. This means removing one of Hamas’ rally cries by not carpet-bombing Gaza. This means marginalizing Hamas not through blockading Gaza economically, but by supporting moderate groups in building economic development and prosperity. I’m not saying any of this is easy, I’m saying it has to be done. People who have a bright future don’t strap a bomb to their body and blow up busses. They just don’t. Hamas’ rocket attacks into Israel are a political/strategic action to maintain the status quo, which is where Hamas’ power lies. Attacking all of Gaza reinforces Hamas’ power on several levels, leading to a never-ending downward spiral, or maintaining the status quo. The key here is acting in the best interest of humanity, rather than the perceived best interest of Israel, the US, Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other political/ideological division. If we act in the best interest of humanity, humanity will show us it’s best. Of course, the converse is true in this scenario. It’s time for the people of the world to stop thinking in terms of “us vs. them”, and more in terms of “all of us”.

That Sound You Hear is the Quiet Before the Storm

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:09:19 +0000

So yesterday, the state House recessed until February 9th. I hope they enjoy their time on the jungle gym, because I have no doubt that once they reconvene all hell is going to break loose. I have to say, the events of the past week have been pretty amusing to watch, but happy fun time is just about over. Come February 9th, the business of legislating will come falling down like a bag of hammers. I suggest the new Speaker take this time to get fitted for some kind of protective gear. Pretty soon there’s gonna be more poop flying in the House chamber than at a monkey display at the zoo, or more preaching…whichever. Working out the committee assignments might be nice too. Back in November, our state, turned out in far higher numbers than just about any other state to elect Republicans to state government. I don’t know why, but I have my suspicions. Now we’ve got Republicans in charge of the legislature, even if it’s not the Republicans that Republicans wanted. They ran on a 3G platform; Guns, Gays, and God. Why this playbook was more successful here in Tennessee than in the rest of the nation says more about Tennessee than it does about the Republican Party, but I won’t go there right now. Republicans, how are you going to make Tennessee better? How do you intend to use these three planks to benefit the people of the state of Tennessee? How will your 3G platform provide economic development and jobs to the thousands of Tennesseans who are either out of work or underemployed? How will the platform you ran on ensure that Tennesseans are safe in their homes from the predatory lending practices that have contributed to these unstable economic times? What will your platform do to educate our children, not only for the jobs of the 21st Century, but a job market that is contracting? An increase in violent crime almost always follows uncertain economic times, what does your 3g platform do to keep our communities safe? Seriously, I want to know. From a practical standpoint, your 3G platform doesn’t say anything about these issues. Nothing. If we go beyond the 3G platform, we find that it gets even thinner. As a general statement, Republicans want to reduce taxes, and government spending to keep the budget in balance. We don’t have an income tax, we have a consumption tax (sales). We also have a deficit staring down our throats. Some might argue that reducing the consumption tax would spur spending. This of course assumes that people have money to spend. People have to have stable good paying jobs to have money to spend. If no one’s spending money, employers can’t hire people. Do you see the Catch 22 yet? Maybe the 3G platform does answer these issues…Pray you keep or get a job, arm yourself heavily to protect against those who don’t have jobs, and don’t worry about decorating your home tastefully…strike that…you already don’t do that…ummm, be suspicious of anyone that tries to get in your foxhole? I dunno, I’m still working on that. The point is, you may have won on old dumb ideas, but you won’t stay in power long with those old dumb ideas, which suits me just fine. Unfortunately, I have to deal with you bozos for at least two years, so try not to wreck the place, even though I know that’s what you guys do best. Until then, I’m wearing a poncho whenever I go to Nashville to protect against the poop you guys’ll be throwing all over the place. Cheers!

Hobbsian Economic Stimulus

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:53:48 +0000

As GoldnI and Kate Granju point out, TNGOP mouthpiece Bill Hobbs has suggested people send 30 pieces of silver to new House Speaker Kent Williams, as a sign of his disloyalty, selling out the TNGOP. Nice, but couldn’t Hobbs have found a company from TN to supply his childish fantasy? The link eventually leads to a company based out of Livonia, MI. I’m sure they’re nice people, but should the mouthpiece of the TNGOP be sending our hard earned money out of state, particularly a ROYAL BLUE ONE? Party City has 11 stores statewide in every major city in TN, and look they have coins too, though they are gold, not silver. I guess you’ll have to go to your local hardware store to get some silver paint or something. Still, think of all the sales tax the state is losing sending that business out of state, 27 cents an order. I mean seriously, with all the pull Mr. Hobbs has nationwide, that could add up to I dunno, 15 bucks or something. Mr. Hobbs, you have a duty to your party and your state to keep this business local. I’ll let this one slide, but the next time you come up with some dumb idea, I expect you to make sure as many Tennesseans as possible can reap the rewards of your all powerful reach. vibincblog has no affiliation with Party City, other than shopping there from time to time for random goofy things.

Check Out This Poll

Steve Ross — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:32:06 +0000

I just got an interesting email. It's interesting because it's the first email I've received from any state political party. It is not from my party of choice. In the email, there is a link to a poll. I call on all my fellow liberals and other malcontents to vote in this poll and let your voice be heard. Let the giggling re-commence!

2.3 million Forclosures, Thank God He’s Almost Gone

Steve Ross — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:23:18 +0000

Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture posts the state by state foreclosure stats. Currently, Tennessee ranks 12th nationally in foreclosures. The rate of foreclosures in Tennessee has increased 127% since 2006. Looking at surrounding states, only Georgia ranks higher at 8th. There is no question that the housing market was deeply flawed. There’s no question that some people got into homes and mortgages that they probably couldn’t afford. How they got there is a matter of debate. One thing is for sure, no one in their right mind would have entered into an agreement of this magnitude knowing they would be hung out to dry by the terms of the deal or the economy. Compounding this issue is unemployment, which has increased almost 2% in Tennessee between November 2007 and 2008. Tennessee lost 19,500 jobs in that time. Considering the number of seasonal jobs that are in place in November, I feel certain that once the January numbers come out (in mid-February) we’ll see unemployment rise further. Back in October, or whenever it was, that Congress authorized the first $350 billion of the TARP, the idea was that the government would buy up bad assets to help the balance sheets of the affected institutions. That soon shifted to, purchasing stock in the institutions because buying paper assets that were not worth the paper they were written on wasn’t making any sense. Now the talk is doing some of what we should have been doing in the first place, using the TARP to directly help people in need. In a Daily Kos Diary newly elected Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley talks about why he voted for the TARP, while opposing it in the campaign. Merkley is taking some heat over his vote, but he explains the rationale nicely.

…I spent the last several days arguing this case at the highest levels of the Obama team, meeting with and calling repeatedly Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, and talking once directly to our incoming President, as well as consulting with mortgage guru Professor Blinder and the Center for Responsible Lending. I asked for a strong multi-dimensional program to directly address families in troubled mortgages. Several other freshman senators, including Tom and Mark Udall, joined in this effort and made an impact on the administration’s outlook. The Obama team heard us. Mostly. You saw an evolution from the FDIC $25 billion plan to the possibility of doing $40-50 billion to the final commitment in writing to a minimum of $50 billion and up to $100 billion.

This means at a minimum 250,000 households will not be put out of their homes. That is a drop in the bucket considering over 2.3 million properties had foreclosure filings in 2008, but it’s better than what the Bush Administration ever did. Bush put all his TARP money into companies that would rather not pay taxes in the US. Hell, they can’t even figure out where the money went! Strong work there Bushie! The key for the Government right now needs to be helping those who are paying taxes, not helping multi-national companies that can shift money in creative ways to far away places that make things look better or worse depending on who they’re talking to. If they want our tax money going forward to help them through their managerial mistakes they need to pledge to play a fair game.

Put on Your Boxing Gloves

Steve Ross — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:10:05 +0000

So today the Tennessee Democratic Party selected a new chair. The race wasn’t mean spirited or contentious or anything like that, from my perspective. It featured two longtime Democrats who are genuinely concerned for the future of the party. I had the opportunity to speak with both candidates, and honestly, I felt both were adept at expressing what was needed, and the challenges that the party faces. Some of my cohorts out here in the boonies of the left expressed more than a little distaste for some of Mr. Bone’s supporters. Ultimately, supporters are like family, you can’t always pick them. In reading over the coverage, there are a lot of “anonymous bloggers” commenting at Kleinheider as if the selection of Forrester was giving the party over to an Ogre like, power hungry, scorned and angry baby eater (sing that to the Purple People eater song). Get over yourself people. I don’t know what objections certain elements in the “status quo” component of the party had to Forrester’s candidacy, but the status quo helped us lose majorities in both houses, asked our Presidential candidate to stay out of the state or thought he might just be a terrorist. I could go on, I won’t. The point is, the status quo is what got us here. I don’t give two shits what they have to say. I’m reminded of a post from days of yore… Still, what’s done is done, now it’s off to the races to win elections people. You remember doing that right? Back to the positive stuff…I’m still waiting for text or video of the speech Forrester gave to emerge, but Braisted says it was a barnburner, and I believe him. We need passionate leadership in the party and I hope that Forrester can provide that passion to reignite Democrats throughout the state. Passion is nothing without a plan, but passion is more than we’ve had since I moved to Memphis in 2004. How the plan takes shape depends on how much support, financial and otherwise, the party receives. This means that if you’re a Tennessee Democrat, it’s time to crack open your wallet and start clearing out time in your calendar. For the record, my offer still stands Chairman Forrester. We’ve got a long road ahead of us, it’s time to get to work. I look forward to finally getting an email from the TNDP, but I’m still waiting. (The TNGOP sends me an email weekly, fyi).

Madoff Takes Down the ACLU

Steve Ross — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:11:22 +0000

As reported by the Huffington Post, the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme has crippled the ACLU. Several prominent donors to the organization have suffered huge losses as the result of both the economic downturn and Madoff’s shenanigans. Say what you will about the ACLU, it is one of the primary defenders of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I urge you to donate to the organization now. Just because we have Democratic majorities in 2/3 of the federal government, doesn’t mean we don’t need an ACLU. The ACLU does all kinds of good work in state courts as well. Take a minute and give to the ACLU. Democracy depends on it.

Patronage and Privilege

Steve Ross — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:41:34 +0000

Today I want to discuss two elements of society that are eating us away at the core; Patronage and Privelege. By “Patronage” I mean “the power to control appointments to office or the right to privileges”. By “Privilege” I mean “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.” In the US we have seen, quite recently, the manner in which these two intertwined cancers have divided us as a nation, multiplied our suffering, subtracted from our opportunity, and added a great deal of distrust in the institutions that make up our great nation. Perhaps the most universal example is that of the former Administration. Using it’s power, largely unchecked by the other two branches, it allowed institutions to profit at the peril of the American people, riding a tide of unregulated bets that companies and individuals would fail, and somehow believing that said bets would in no way damage their long-term viability or the viability of the economy upon which their ultimate success depended. These and a whole host of other actions have led us down a path of economic and social destruction, not only in America, but in the global economy, that will take years for us to fully recover from. In 2006 and 2008 We saw the beginning of an uprising. Republicans lost seats at a rate that dwarfed the 1994 “Contract on America” revolution they are so proud of. This was borne of a strengthening DNC and a populace that was sick of being screwed. The comedian Chris Rock joked after the 2008 election, “George Bush has messed everything up so bad a white man can’t even get elected President.” Perhaps not his exact words, but you get the idea. What we have seen over the past two cycles nationally is the definition of an uprising. An electorate, whose needs have been sorely ignored, rose up to remove the elements of stagnation that have been hampering their ability to secure, or maintain, their collective definition of the American Dream. But these things aren’t new. These cycles of unbridled selfishness have taken down empires, and humbled even the most self-assured individuals throughout human history. Sometimes the result is like the current economic crisis where the guilty fall on the sword of their arrogance. Sometimes, is the beginning of a new idea. Once upon a time, there was a young upstart politician who challenged an unretired former Governor, and the current millionaire Governor. While the current and former Governors of this state fought with each other over whom had installed this young upstart, said upstart embarked on the most media savvy campaign in state history at the time, and ultimately defeated them both. Change Governor to Senator, and you would think I was talking about the current President, but I’m actually talking about Dale Bumpers. Bumpers moved beyond the conventional wisdom and beat Orval Faubus in the primary, and Winthrop Rockafeller in the general because he saw a new way, a new technology, and rejected the politics of the past by igniting a populace once again with ideas. Bumpers turned out to be one of the most respected Senators from any southern state in his time, which was too short. The birth of ideas and the recognition of injustice are the things that fuel and fire the uprising. They are also the very things that strike fear in the hearts of those who benefit from patronage and privilege. Here in Tennessee, we are seeing the beginning of an uprising of our own. A resurgent TNGOP has gained a majority in the state legislature, however tenuous over the past several cycles. This surge in seats has no relation to the uprising. This has more to do with an incongruous state Democratic Party than any great organizing feature that the TNGOP has come up with. For instance, the Senate would not have fallen to the Republicans in the last session had Kurita not voted for Ramsey. Understand, Kurita deserved what she eventually got, but her frustration with the entrenched elements of the party should be noted. A strong state Democratic Party would have never allowed something like this to happen. A strong state Democratic Party would have helped make opportunities for Kurita. In the absence of opportunity, she made her own. On the flip side, the TNGOP’s arrogance that a one seat advantage would somehow wipe away any hurt feelings of a twice primaried Sophomore Representative, and their ultimate lack of creativity, led to the dashing of hopes to a man who would be, but never was Speaker. Williams will eventually suffer the same fate as Kurita. The culprit in both cases, a long held sense on the part of individuals in both parties that Patronage and Privilege somehow in some way protected them from the unwashed masses that ultimately hold the key to their success. The uprising isn’t party specific, it’s specifically a reaction to the privilege and patronage that follows an organization that has lost its way. Tennessee has the pleasure of being served by two such organizations, both political parties. How this plays out depends on how the “Just Us” club reacts to the influx of the uprising. Right now they’re whining like a bunch of babies. The people of Tennessee are tired of the bullshit and ready for action. It’s time for a new day in Tennessee. The people of Tennessee are ready for the kind of leadership that has ideas and will fight the injustice that is sustained by those who seek a leg up thanks to the benefits of status or class. I’m sorry that your era of patronage may be over in the TNDP. I say may, because I don’t know for sure if it is, but you sure seem to. I suggest you heed the words of Ice Cube Check yourself before you wreck yourself. All this hollerin’ won’t be good for business…but I guess you’ve realized that you’re losing your patronage…and the privilege that has come with it. No wonder you’re so scared.

Wait a Minute Mr. Postman

Steve Ross — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:20:25 +0000

As reported by Yahoo!, the Postmaster General has asked Congress to remove a rider from the appropriations bill for the USPS requiring 6 days of mail delivery. Last year alone, the USPS lost $2.8b due to declining volume and increasing costs. By cutting delivery by one day, they argue they could save a bundle. Unfortunately, the day mentioned in the Article is Tuesday, which just doesn’t make any damn sense to me, unless the American work week is split up similarly…which would be fine with me. Let’s think about this from a economic stability standpoint for a minute. If mail delivery, or worse, all mail operations, get cut by one day a week, how many man-hours are lost? How many people are laid off, or lose a percentage (one would assume 17%) of their wages? This proposal may help the USPS trim their deficit, and keep rates from climbing, but doesn’t it hurt the economy at large? Isn’t the overall effect for the nation more of a negative than a positive? Governments and government agencies nationwide are talking about doing this very same thing. Back in December the City of Memphis offered buyouts to employees to trim costs. The savings, $6 million dollars, or ¼ of the projected budget shortfall for the current year. At the time, I wondered if they were opening it up to anyone, or just targeting people near retirement. That would make sense. But apparently it’s up for anyone who’s worked for the city for 5 years. That seems dumb. No one wants a budget shortfall, but we shouldn’t make the “perfect be the enemy of the good”. So the question is, what impact on a city, outside of more output than input financially, does a 4% budget shortfall have? If you have reserves, you decrease them, if you don’t, you have to borrow, which is a bad idea right now…I get that part. Finally, back to the USPS thing…Can’t we just cover the shortfall to keep as many people employed as possible? I mean hell, we’ve given some $2t in bailouts and loans and security away already, $3b seems like small potatoes. Just askin’.

The Audacity of Rush

Steve Ross — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:40:55 +0000

So Rush has this Op-Ed in the WSJ detailing HIS plan for a bailout. The long and the short of it is that Rush wants to split the money up along the lines of the Presidential election results…54-46. That works out to $486b for infrastructure, and $414b for tax cuts (Rush, as usual, uses a fake number, $900b for his breakdown instead of the actual $819b in the House bill). What’s interesting is that Mr. Limbaugh’s plan is not that different from the ACTUAL plan. According to USAToday, the money breakdown gives $544b to spending and $275b to tax cuts. This works out to a 66% for spending and 34% for tax cuts. The difference, Mr. Limbaugh, between your plan and the actual plan is the difference between victory and defeat. You guys lost. You barely supported your own candidate. You have no one to blame but yourself for the position you’re in, but your feeble attempt to grasp any little bit of attention is almost as entertaining as watching Humpty Dumpty hold on by his fingertips just before the big fall. When it comes right down to it, Limbaugh really wants his Republicans in Congress to be in control of who gets the tax cuts. See, if regular people get a tax cut, that would shift the proportional burden to the upper class. Further, they are also about to see their Bush tax cut expire in 2010 further shifting the burden up. When it comes right down to it, just like it always does, Rush is advocating for class warfare: the rich against the poor, the privileged against the regular folk…all while playing that regular folk line, at the expense of regular folk. It’s worked over and over again since 1980, and I’m sure he thinks it’ll work again. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Yeah, I suggest Rush stick to the kind of stimulus that he actually knows something about...importing illegal viagra and pain pills.

“Post-Partisanship” or “Can’t Buy Me Love”?

Steve Ross — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:16:46 +0000

Partisan:a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person. So what is “Post-Partisanship”? Is it a coming together? Is it an attempt to blur the traditional lines or roles of our current two-party system? What is the effect of pursuing “Post-Partisanship”? Is it compromise? Is it holding the hand of the opposition party to appear less partisan? Apparently, it’s all of those things. I don’t want to jump out of the gate too soon and call President Obama’s attempt to heal some of the divisions in our country a failure, but certainly he must realize that for this “Post-Partisanship” to work, both sides must be willing to give something, and right now it appears that the only side giving anything is the President. This puts the President in a position far weaker than the one his landslide victory should afford him. Take a look at this video from The Rachel Maddow Show

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For all the Republican attacks on infrastructure spending, in order for our nation to compete globally and protect its citizen’s vital interests, our infrastructure, much of it built in the 60’s and 70’s, must be updated to meet the needs of the 21st century. Further, this infrastructure spending creates jobs, that puts that money right back into the hands of the people who most desperately need it, the American worker. As Maddow rightly points out, the President gave Republicans just about everything they wanted in an effort to win some votes from their side. This did not happen. In fact, the President couldn’t even keep some of his own party members (12, including Jim Cooper (TN-05)) from voting against the bill. So what has President Obama gained from this exercise? Nothing, in fact he may have lost quite a bit. By spending the majority of his time courting Republicans, he has ignored his own party, much to their chagrin, and gained nothing. The question has to be asked; does courting an unwilling partner really gain you anything? I’m all for dialogue, but not at the expense of party unity. President Obama is starting down the path of some bizarre, upended Can’t Buy Me Love scenario. It is a fine and noble cause to try and bring as many people as possible into the solution, but there has to be some willingness on their part to be a part of the solution. If you’re just bribing them, they’re not your friends they’re using you. And if you’re forgetting about your REAL FRIENDS in the process, you may find that you have fewer REAL FRIENDS in the long run. Post-Partisanship is fine, collaboration is fine, but not at the expense of the ideas and values that we elected you to represent. President Obama, don’t give away the farm so soon. You have a lot of political capitol at your disposal, but perhaps, not quite as much as you think you do. Update:TPM has the Republican definition of Bi-Partisanship

Fiscally Conservative when it’s Convenient

Steve Ross — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:34:54 +0000

Bonddad has a fun post at the Orange Devil about the Republican Party’s dedication to “fiscal dicipline”. The long and the short of it is that since 2000 the national debt has increased by over $4.4t. While the Republicans had control of the White House and the Congress, not to mention the budgeting process, the national debt increased some $3.2t. The final $1.2t came largely in the last year or so of an administration that was hell bent on destroying any stability in the US economy over its 8 years in office. The truth of the matter is that fiscal conservatives, this includes ALL Republicans, and many of the Blue Dog/New Democrat folks, are only interested in being fiscally conservative when it suits them. If they like spending on the Military, then all that PAYGO nonsense is out the window until someone asks for healthcare for children, then it’s back to PAYGO. We need to start calling things what they are. Either you are unconditionally a fiscal conservative, or you have some other motive that moves you to play a fiscal conservative when it suits you politically or socially, or whatever. That conservativeness may be rooted in assisting corporate interests, maintaining class structures, or in a level of true fiscal discipline that we haven’t seen since the Clinton years, and didn’t see before the Clinton years in any Republican administration from their hey day (back to the 1981 Reagan years). But you either are or you’re something else. That something else may make you feel uncomfortable when you get called it. Just saying.

Bonus – From the Latin, to Bone…Us

Steve Ross — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:40:30 +0000

So, by now you’ve probably heard about the shameful bonus situation on Wall Street. The TARP bailout, which may or may not have been necessary, or effective, or even what it was originally sold as, looks to regular folks, like corporate patronage at it’s worst. The long hard truth of the matter is that you can look at a long list of corporations who have been hit hard this year, and see a whole lot of executive bonuses in the face of layoffs and regular folk pain. So why is it that these guys, who are either running their companies into the ground, or victims of their cohorts actions in other companies, getting bonuses when everyone else is getting the shaft? They think they deserve it. Performance only matters when it’s a good performance. When it’s bad, well, “we need more because without it we can’t meet expectations”. Of course, “expectations” doesn’t have anything to do with shareholder expetations…no that’s code for executive expectations. They don’t believe in suffering or accountability. It’s a sad state of affairs. I know I’m generalizing. There are a lot of great executives out there who are really interested in the success of the company, and their employees, but it seems like there are fewer and fewer examples of such people. I’m tired of hearing about this shit. I look around me and see neighbors and friends and acquaintances either getting laid off, or losing shifts, which means losing money. These are blue collar and white collar people, all working hard to stay afloat. Then, there are these douchenozzles running our financial system into the ground, begging for money, acting like they’ve done nothing wrong, and then, the gall of it all, giving themselves BONUSES! Are you frickin’ kidding me? The lack of accountability, or even a sense of responsibility is sociopathic. It’s time to clean up corporate America. It’s time for shareholders to rise up and demand accountability. That’s right, I’m advocating a grassroots shareholder revolt. When corporate America says “Let them eat cake”, it may be time for corporate America to get their heads handed to them.

Hurt Feelings…

Steve Ross — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:39:40 +0000

Yesterday, in my long day of travel from the left coast back to Memphis, I was watching, with some interest the events unfolding with the RNC Chairman’s race. Most intriguing to me was the fact that Katon Dawson, who until recently was a member of a Whites Only Country Club stayed in the balloting and eventually came in second. If you’re interested in how the balloting played out, you can read some “after the fact” play by play here. Once Michael Steele, the former Lt. Gov. of Maryland, and the RNC’s first African-American chairman, was selected, I wrote a tweet that may have been offensive to some of my “twitterpeeps”.

I guess Republicans are finally abandoning all that old school racism that helped make them so successful over the past 28 years.

followed by

It will be harder for the GOP PR people to produce coded dog whistle messages for the class war that will most certainly ensue.

These two tweets, but probably the first one most, set some people off, and caused them to challenge my assertion. Unfortunately, since I was following along on my phone, where copy/paste isn’t really possible, and, I was sitting on the tarmac at Houston International Airport, waiting to take off, defending my assertions wasn’t an option at that point. Now it is. Case in point 1, The Southern Strategy: Here’s a darling little quote from the man who popularized this tactic Kevin Phillips of Connecticut:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Harnesing ill-will held by segregationist Democrats from the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Republicans flipped the script on the previously dominant party of the south, the Democratic Party. This alone does not make a political party “racist”…I guess…but it sure makes them look like they are. As former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman noted in speeches during his term “Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions” and “[B]y the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” (bold emphasis mine (Source)) In apologizing for the use of racism in politics, the former RNC chair affirms that it was indeed part of the strategy. Certainly, during the 20th century, there have been Democratic officials who have used racism as a tool to elevate themselves to office. No one denies that. However, the modern Democratic Party has never used such a tactic in a national campaign. Case 2, Adopting the Language of Segregation: States’ Rights has been called a “code word” for the segregationist positions of Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. From Wikipedia:

The term "states' rights," some have argued,[who?] was used as a code word by defenders of segregation, and was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. George Wallace, the Alabama governor—who famously declared in his inaugural address, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!" Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[7]

Clarification or euphemism, when coupled with the “Southern Strategy” euphemism seems the far more appropriate conclusion. This was further affirmed by the comments of former Senator Trent Lott during the 100th birthday celebration of Strom Thurmond where he declared, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.” Coupling this sentiment with the voting records of southern Republicans since the advent of the CRA of ’64 and the VRA of ’65, one could conclude that, even if the Republican Party at large was not seeking to affirm racists or racially insensitive goals, that many of their party members were throughout the latter part of the 20th century. Case 3 Policies that Affirm Exclusionary Goals: There are several instances of Republican Party policies that affirm exclusionary goals. The effect of these goals is the disenfranchisement, or disempowerment of a populace still struggling for equal opportunity. More often than not, throughout the recent history of the US, this has disproportionately affected African-Americans. Here are just a few of them: The Myth of the Cadillac Driving Welfare Queen: One of the oft repeated myths of the Reagan era, the former President asserted that Welfare fraud was so pervasive that the entire program should be scrapped, leaving millions of poor Americans, with no safety net. The media was never able to uncover this “Welfare Cheat” and eventually discovered that she didn’t exist, however, the folklore of this person lived on and became a part of the prevailing “Conventional Wisdom” as originally defined by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith. This myth became so pervasive that it eventually led to former President Clinton, using studies promoted by Conservatives, to agree to cut welfare benefits, despite several scholarly studies to the contrary. Affirmative Action: Affirmative Action was originally implemented by Executive Order 10925 during the Kennedy Administration for Federal Employees. President Lyndon Johnson took up the cause after Kennedy’s death. In explaining his support for the policy Johnson noted:

…You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair...This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result. (Source)

Affirmative Action sought to level the playing field, giving those who had suffered at the hands of racial, religious, gender and class discrimination. Since the release of the Philadelphia Plan under Richard Nixon in 1969, Affirmative Action opponents have asserted that the policy discriminates against more qualified Caucasian candidates for jobs and University admissions. Once again, this is an example of the conventional wisdom overtaking fact. Affirmative Action is, and always has been a guideline for hiring. Nowhere in Affirmative Action law or policy does it state that quotas are to be maintained throughout the entire system. Organizations under review are given a benchmark to achieve based on a series of local data that includes racial breakdown and estimations of qualified candidates. As an example, if a city has a racial breakdown of 15/85, but only 5% of the total the benchmark is set at 5%. Assuming the company makes a good faith effort to reach the stated goal, no penalty is assessed. Only after multiple years of repeated failure stemming from blatant discrimination are quotas applied by the courts. Unfortunately, the Conventional Wisdom often spouted by Conservative opponents of Affirmative Action, denies this fact, and has used this conventional wisdom over the years to smear and distort Affirmative Action. More recent arguments against Affirmative Action state that it benefits middle and upper class minorities at the expense of lower-class Caucasians, or that the policy serves as a detriment to reconciliation, replacing old wrongs with new wrongs. To once again quote President Johnson:

Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.

In this statement, President Johnson affirms the imperfection of Affirmative Action as a vehicle for universal social justice. Race, gender, creed, and other social divisions are imperfect benchmarks for attaining equality in a diverse society. That said, making the perfect the enemy of the good, to paraphrase Voltaire, is not really a solution, but compounding of the problem. In order for the inequity of class to be adequately addressed, other more readily recognizable benchmarks may need to be attained. Conservatives actually weaken the plight of Americans, regardless of the social divisions outlined in the policy of Affirmative Action, to rise above the conditions of poverty; be they financial, educational, or any other measure. The goal of Affirmative Action is to create an “equality of possibility” for all who suffer external challenges to their ultimate success. That benchmarks or attributes are currently focused on more recognizable attributes, such as race or gender, speaks more to a condition of American society that has not evolved to recognize such issues rather than any failing of a policy whose ultimate goal is to erase inequity. Further to that point, by pushing to remove protections based on these attributes, Conservatives ultimately do a disservice to the very people they claim to fighting for, as well as all those included in Affirmative Action protections. Vote Suppression: From photo-ID laws and random purges, to the less blatant, but just as effective tactic of sending less or less reliable equipment to areas with large minority representation, voter suppression has long been a tactic of the Republican Party. Back in the 80’s the RNC signed a consent decree in response to a lawsuit that alleged the party violated the Voting Rights Act by using tens of thousands of returned mail pieces, mostly targeting minority or Democratic areas, and using those as a justification to challenge, or remove voters from the rolls. Despite the prohibition by the RNC to engage in this tactic, other Republican organizations and candidates continue to use the practice. In 2004, a document generated at the RNC surfaced detailing their caging plans

At whatever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive voters. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the voter rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to vote.

If you would like a list of all the most recent work of the Republican Party to disenfranchise voters by “caging”, take a look at this page which details their “Greatest Hits” more than the whole catalog. A simple search of “Voter Suppression” nets hundreds of instances of Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters nationwide. A simple look at the Voter Suppression Wiki page, gives us only one instance of Democratic efforts at said tactic

in 2004, 4 Kerry staffers, slashed the tires of 25 vans used to transport vote monitors and voters to the polls.

As this was not a widespread problem in 2004 one could conclude that this was the act of individuals who should have known better, more than something ginned up by the campaign or any Democratic Party institution. I think I’ve made my point. In closing I want to make a couple points about my original statement, which I will now repeat:

I guess Republicans are finally abandoning all that old school racism that helped make them so successful over the past 28 years.

First, I think for a party that has engaged in so much divisiveness and racially motivated tactics, to elect a man whose ethnicity is that of their targets in the past, is either one of the most positive things in American politics in some time, or one of the most mindlessly manipulative things. I’m hoping for the positive, because even though I disagree with Republicans on just about every issue of substance the faces America, I still believe that we are stronger with a diversity of opinion. Secondly, I didn’t call Republicans racists. I called the actions of the party, racist. Calling 30 odd percent of America, including some people I consider friends and colleagues racists is just plain stupid. However, the racially motivated actions of certain Republican candidates and party organs must not be ignored. Certainly, there have been, and probably are Democrats who have engaged in similar tactics, particularly during segregationist times. Because I limited my claim to 28 years (though in truth it should have been 40) I acknowledge that I was able to avoid some of the ugliness that took place in my party…and eventually moved to yours. Doctor, heal thy self. Finally, if my arguments aren’t compelling, or you just want to get yourself up in a lather about my initial statement or no matter what I say you don’t care because your feelings are hurt and I’m an asshole, please fill out the following form. Thanks, and have a nice weekend.