Monthly Archives: May 2005

Quick Hit- What LA Could Learn from San Francisco OR “Wild Night At City Hall!”

Now that our semi-acrimonious campaigns in Los Angeles are over, and now that the sniping at St. Tony has begun (can you even count how many people at the LA Times Blog are proclaiming Tony a “hopeless liberal” or the “Brown Menace” and he hasn’t even taken office yet???) it might be worth taking a look at what kinds of fun happen in a City Hall not dominated by “pay to play” or other nonsense.
This evening I was in San Francisco and stopped off at City Hall. Here’s what I found:
– County Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, continuing a precdedent set by his predecessor, hosted an art show at his Supervisorial offices in City Hall.
This month, the art was the artwork of the militant 60’s Black Panther Party, founded in Oakland, CA by Huey Newton. Regardless of your personal politics, the poster and newspaper art created by the party’s “Ministry of Information” was rather unique, and, in light of what we know now about all involved, quite interesting to look at.
The showing itself was a lively affair, with Supervisor Mirkarimi’s offices packed full of San Francisco’s political elite, and average citizens. They had free drinks, free food, and it was a relaxed way for people to socialize and talk about whatever was on their mind. No speeches, no pompous BS, just a fun Friday for people in the District, and in the City.
Politicians could learn from Supervisor Mirkarimi (and his predecessor Matt Gonzalez) about the value of such an event. Rather than emphasize the holder of the office, it emphasized people in the district the office is supposed to represent. More importantly, no one was there lobbying or networking. People were just there talking to each other, which, in an acrimonious setting, can really help knock down some of the walls we like to build around each other with labels, name calling and p.r. innuendo.
I’m looking around and wondering what politicos in L.A. might emulate this and adapt it for the good of their district and their city…Councilmember-elect Bill Rosendahl? Maybe you’d be willing to give something like this a shot?
-Mayor Gavin Newsom was hosting some Big Press Deal at City Hall as well. Now, I have to admit I dropped the ball on finding out exactly what this was, because just as I was walking up to talk to the Mayor’s staff, I got a call I had to take (darn work intruding on blogging! D’oh!) but the news cameras were there, and you could hear all the talking and laughing from Mirkarimi’s event echoing through the marble-lined halls.
(In fact, my colleague on the phone assumed I was at a bar, not at City Hall, due to the noise).
Still, given how famous this guy has become, and due to the job he’s doing as Mayor (a million times better that Jimi Hahn, that’s for sure!) it was kinda fun to see the guy in action. All on a Friday Night.
-Finally, there was a DJ and a disco ball being set up in the City Hall Main Lobby. I had to ask WHAT was going on, and it turns out Burlinagme High School (just 20 minutes south on the Peninsula) was having their prom…at City Hall.
Now, most of you probably do not know I grew up in Burlingame, so I got a laugh out of this. However, I did not attend Burlingame High (which is where 1/2 of Burlingame and all of Hillsborough’s kids went) – I went to Mills High School in Millbrae instead (and it was cooler anyway).
And, not to brag, but our Senior Prom was at the War Memorial Opera House (across from City Hall) in 1986, and even cooler, at Bimbo’s 365 Club, one of SF’s institutions, in 1985! In your FACE, BHS!
Ok, enough parochial vulgarities. Back to my point. Think about this, readers: Can you imagine an art show (with free drinks), a natiaonlly known Mayor doing Something Importnat, and a high school prom being held at LA City Hall?
More importantly, why aren’t they?
Why can’t we all lighten up a little and put aside the barbs and heavy handed BS once in a while and reminds ourselves…it’s OK to like each other, and OK to just relax and enjoy a Friday, regardless of labels?
I leave this to the Powers That Be. Meanwhile, I plan on going back out in a bit to hang out with some friends, have a cocktail and enjoy what I like best about my home town. When I return to LA, I sure would like it if someone in civic life by then had figured out how to do this without a gun to their head. Bob Hertzberg hosts some fun parties, I bet.
Anyone listening?
UPDATE: Here’s a link to a story that details how busy City Hall is getting these days.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Those Guys Who Run Campaigns, Mainstream Media Style

Every campaign cycle has the obligatory “guys who run campaigns” story, that usually is little more than a resume of each “guy” with anecdotes. From reading these kinds of stories, you’d think the reporters just buy a “Mad Libs” pad and insert (name of politico) in (year of story) and (write it like that).
The LA Times did its obligatory piece on Friday the 13th (ha!) While these are of mild interest, nothing in them tells the reader anything they ddid not already know, or hear, the last time these pieces were written.
Each “bigwig” got their name, their age, a paragraph about their past work, a few quippy lines, and that’s about it. Great. I read this and wonder just what it is I, the reader, am supposed to learn from this article? There’s no real questioning about what it is these guys have been doing this cycle, nor is there any real discussion about what their role is, and is not in this campaign cycle.
It serves to reinforce preconceived notions of these guys as something they’re not, and we don’t get any real examination of the role of people who play an important part in how and why we discuss the election in the terms we usually do.
It’d be far more informative if we had a reporter or two (or three) as a guy like Kam Kuwata how he can say some of the things he does with a straight face, and expect people to take him at his word based on what’s been said as Hahn’s spokesman this cycle, for example.
It might be interesting to talk to someone like Ace Smith, and as for a macro-level discussion on just what “opposition research” is and is not in a campaign like Villaraigosa’s. Or even better, ask some of these guys about the campaigns they’ve lose (i.e. Bill Carrick’s loss with Rep. Dick “Screamer” Gephardt” ) and what they’ve learned (if anything) from the experience. Even better, call up Sen. Dianne Feinstein and ask her what she thinks of some of Hahn’s tactics in 2005 – and how that’ll affect her decisions in 2006?
The biggest problem with the political consulting business is that for the most part it is a largely unexamined piece of the advertising business. True, there have been some excellent studies done by James Thurber at American University, and occasionally you read a decent article somewhere. But overall, it is an industry without much serious discussion, which is unfortunate.
Switching gears, there was another story, the obligatory “let’s do a piece about the underlings who work on these things” piece in the main Los Angeles papers. I’m surprised no one noticed how the Los Angeles Times article, which appeared on May 14th, was almost identical to one that the Los Angeles Daily News ran on May 8th.
More importantly, it raises a basic question – are so few people working on the respective campaigns of Jimi Hahn and Tony Villaraigosa that these are the only two underlings that were worth spending any ink on? Might there be some people, perhaps some actually from Los Angeles, the press could have talked to?
Personally, when I read accounts like this of why some young people get into politics, or talk to younger folks, I tend to wince when I hear someone describe themselves as a “political junkie,” and seem to thrive only on the game itself, and for no other reason.
Years ago, I met Tom Hayden at UC Santa Barbara, and he said something to a group of us assembled to learn more about getting involved in the political process. Basically he said (and please bear with the paraphrasing of an event I attended 16 years ago) that young people should pursue whatever it is they believe in or wish to advance, and use the Democratic Party and the political process to achieve their goals as they see fit, and not just become a party apparatchnik for the sake of “politics.”
It was a lesson worth learning, and one, I’m afraid did not reach too many people in the room. However, it’s something these young guns on the Hahn and Villairaigosa campaigns would be wise to heed. The “thrill of the game” ends quickly, and you have to decide on some level what it is you are trying to really accomplish.
It’s easy to become so consumed with polls, swing votes, percentages, and focus groups, forgetting in the process that if you’re not really focused on accomplishing something, you end up looking back at your “career” in politics and find you’ve spent a lot of money, done a lot of neat campaign tricks, but have little to show for it.
To me that’s not very satisfying, but then again, I’ve been in this line of work for a while. I suppose for some others, like the aforementioned Big Wigs of Politics, that’s all that seems to matter. I guess I’ll never know, since all I have to go on are those “Mad Libs” style puff pieces in the Times.
Anyone want to prove me wrong?
PS: Here’s a fun story for some enterprising reporter to consider: Take a look at the many talented people who got some of their early start with Tom Hayden’s Campaign for Economic Democracy in the late 70s and early 80s.
A quick review of the folks who got their start with Hayden and Jane Fonda’s organization would be a Who’s Who of some of the smartest people in politics today, many of whom have retained some sense of idealism or political leanings since their days with CED. I could print a partial list here, but I would not want to insult anyone by accidentally leaving them off the list. Still, it would be interesting.
I’ve often felt that the repeated demonization of Hayden by conservatives obscured many of his actual accomplishments in the public eye. Remember, it was Hayden, in retirement, who shut down Gov. Doofinator’s attempts to change pet rescue las by unleashing the power of a network of  pet owners and their army of Pound Puppies to smack down the Doofinator, and send him in full retreat.
I’ll be looking….Reporters, start your engines!

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Final LA Election Report- Does the LA Times read the LA Daily News? and How About a REAL Look at The Insiders?

Every campaign cycle has the obligatory “guys who run campaigns” story, that usually is little more than a resume of each “guy” with anecdotes. From reading these kinds of stories, you’d think the reporters just buy a “Mad Libs” pad and insert (name of politico) in (year of story) and (write it like that).
The LA Times did its obligatory piece on Friday the 13th (ha!) While these are of mild interest, nothing in them tells the reader anything they ddid not already know, or hear, the last time these pieces were written.
Each “bigwig” got their name, their age, a paragraph about their past work, a few quippy lines, and that’s about it. Great. I read this and wonder just what it is I, the reader, am supposed to learn from this article? There’s no real questioning about what it is these guys have been doing this cycle, nor is there any real discussion about what their role is, and is not in this campaign cycle.
It serves to reinforce preconceived notions of these guys as something they’re not, and we don’t get any real examination of the role of people who play an important part in how and why we discuss the election in the terms we usually do.
It’d be far more informative if we had a reporter or two (or three) as a guy like Kam Kuwata how he can say some of the things he does with a straight face, and expect people to take him at his word based on what’s been said as Hahn’s spokesman this cycle, for example.
It might be interesting to talk to someone like Ace Smith, and as for a macro-level discussion on just what “opposition research” is and is not in a campaign like Villaraigosa’s. Or even better, ask some of these guys about the campaigns they’ve lose (i.e. Bill Carrick’s loss with Rep. Dick “Screamer” Gephardt” ) and what they’ve learned (if anything) from the experience. Even better, call up Sen. Dianne Feinstein and ask her what she thinks of some of Hahn’s tactics in 2005 – and how that’ll affect her decisions in 2006?
The biggest problem with the political consulting business is that for the most part it is a largely unexamined piece of the advertising business. True, there have been some excellent studies done by James Thurber at American University, and occasionally you read a decent article somewhere. But overall, it is an industry without much serious discussion, which is unfortunate.
Switching gears, there was another story, the obligatory “let’s do a piece about the underlings who work on these things” piece in the main Los Angeles papers. I’m surprised no one noticed how the Los Angeles Times article, which appeared on May 14th, was almost identical to one that the Los Angeles Daily News ran on May 8th.
More importantly, it raises a basic question – are so few people working on the respective campaigns of Jimi Hahn and Tony Villaraigosa that these are the only two underlings that were worth spending any ink on? Might there be some people, perhaps some actually from Los Angeles, the press could have talked to?
Personally, when I read accounts like this of why some young people get into politics, or talk to younger folks, I tend to wince when I hear someone describe themselves as a “political junkie,” and seem to thrive only on the game itself, and for no other reason.
Years ago, I met Tom Hayden at UC Santa Barbara, and he said something to a group of us assembled to learn more about getting involved in the political process. Basically he said (and please bear with the paraphrasing of an event I attended 16 years ago) that young people should pursue whatever it is they believe in or wish to advance, and use the Democratic Party and the political process to achieve their goals as they see fit, and not just become a party apparatchnik for the sake of “politics.”
It was a lesson worth learning, and one, I’m afraid did not reach too many people in the room. However, it’s something these young guns on the Hahn and Villairaigosa campaigns would be wise to heed. The “thrill of the game” ends quickly, and you have to decide on some level what it is you are trying to really accomplish.
It’s easy to become so consumed with polls, swing votes, percentages, and focus groups, forgetting in the process that if you’re not really focused on accomplishing something, you end up looking back at your “career” in politics and find you’ve spent a lot of money, done a lot of neat campaign tricks, but have little to show for it.
To me that’s not very satisfying, but then again, I’ve been in this line of work for a while. I suppose for some others, like the aforementioned Big Wigs of Politics, that’s all that seems to matter. I guess I’ll never know, since all I have to go on are those “Mad Libs” style puff pieces in the Times.
Anyone want to prove me wrong?
PS: Here’s a fun story for some enterprising reporter to consider: Take a look at the many talented people who got some of their early start with Tom Hayden’s Campaign for Economic Democracy in the late 70s and early 80s.
A quick review of the folks who got their start with Hayden and Jane Fonda’s organization would be a Who’s Who of some of the smartest people in politics today, many of whom have retained some sense of idealism or political leanings since their days with CED. I could print a partial list here, but I would not want to insult anyone by accidentally leaving them off the list. Still, it would be interesting.
I’ve often felt that the repeated demonization of Hayden by conservatives obscured many of his actual accomplishments in the public eye. Remember, it was Hayden, in retirement, who shut down Gov. Doofinator’s attempts to change pet rescue las by unleashing the power of a network of  pet owners and their army of Pound Puppies to smack down the Doofinator, and send him in full retreat.
I’ll be looking….Reporters, start your engines!

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Final Thoughts on the L.A. Mayor’s Race or Time for Voters to Take Charge!

In about a week, the Los Angeles Mayor’s race will come to an end. Finally.
In the run-up to Election Day voting, there’s been a tremendous amount of political chaff being dropped by all sides. It’s time to cut through the day-to-day noise that’s passing for “political commentary” these days, and recap what we’ve seen for the past four years from our Mayor, and what we can hope to get out of next week’s vote
We have two candidates, who, by their own admission, and the attacks lobbed at them by their opponents, aren’t perfect. Both have qualities that make them at least somewhat qualified for the job, and both have faults, some bigger than others, as well. So how do we look at this race and come to a conclusion?
This election is by necessity a referendum on the tenure of Mayor Jim Hahn. The job of the voters is clear – they need to decide if the work he’s done so far merits him another four years in office, or if someone else needs to be given a chance to do better. Cutting through all the chatter of the PR team, as near as I can tell Incumbent Hahn’s primary focus has been:
1. Raising re-election cash
2. Rewarding donors who gave to him in a close race in 2001
3. (See #1)
4. Rewarding donors who gave to him in a close race in 2005
5. (See #1)
The fact is, we would not have even had a competitive race for Mayor if the myriad of challengers didn’t think that the incumbent hadn’t been doing his job. We’ve read too many stories about people paying for access to the Mayor’s office, problems with “PR” contracts between the City and Fleishman Hillard, and a lot of time and energy spent by the mayor raising money, giving government goodies to his friends, and the like. Any time he’s called on it, he responds with the “best defense is a good offense” rhetoric. Great politics, lousy policy, Jimi.
Now, it might be excusable if a Mayor had a less-than-perfect ethics rating if perhaps he had something to show for his four years in office. But aside from one good hiring decision (Cheif William Bratton), the Mayor has not been a bold leader on any major issues. The “Jimi come lately” to such issues as the County Seal, film production subsidies, and any other “issues” that he’s brought up in the past few weeks
The only time we get to see any big ideas is in the remaining weeks of a runoff campaign, when, in need of something to put on a targeted mail piece, we get some big talk at the end of the race. Perhaps Mayors oughta be limited to 6 months in office so we can get more “big ideas” out of them since they’ll always be in the death throes of a campaign cycle?
There’s no denying that Councilmember Tony Villaraigosa is not a perfect candidate, and has had some missteps of his own. Running for Mayor in the middle of his council term does not help, and he’s had to return some funny money of his own. The difference is that he’s not been afraid to stand up for what he’s done and take responsibility for his actions – and not hide behind PR consultants and taxpayer paid flacks.
More importantly, this is, as I said before, a referendum on The Mayor, first and foremost. And as I said before, it’s time to ask ourselves if we can do better than the guy in the job now. A huge number of people in government & business who have worked with the incumbent have chosen his opponent, flaws and all and the most Hahn’s PR time can do is denigrate these elected officials and trot out the endorsements of crank politicos like Walter “I Dislike Mexicans” Moore.
Which brings me to the thing that has bothered me the most about Jimi Hahn this time around – his campaigns sharp tilt to the right to try and scoop up a few votes and use covert racial appeals to drive up turnout amongst people he perceives Don’t Like Mexicans. It’s cynical, it’s wrong and I’m not the only one to say so.
Garry South, in the LA Daily News takes Mayor Hahn and his crew to task for their newfound interest in Tony Villaraigosa’s skin color, and he’s not too impressed, aiming his comments squarely at Bill Carrick and Kam Kuwata, who are running the Mayor’s race.
To me, it just shows me that should Mayor Hahn get re-elected with such a cynical campaign, he will have a much harder time leading the city than he does now. While now he only has the ethical cloud over his head, in a Second Jimi Administration, he’ll have both ethics and ethnic clouds for the rest of his political life. Certainly not something Daddy Ken would endorse. And certainly no way to run a major city.
So, I have this message for my Republican friends who are looking at their final choices and aren’t happy and offer this advice: I know this election sucks for you. I know you look at these guys and are wondering how to vote when they’re both liberal Democrats who are identical on most issues, and whom you disagree with.
It’s no fun when you’re put in this position because you want to vote your conscience but the ballot doesn’t allow it. So who does a good Republican vote for?
My advice: vote for Antonio Villaraigosa, the liberal Latino in the race. If you really support the Republican party, you’ll vote for Tony, even though this seems strange. Why? Because if you give your support to Tony, and he fails, it clears the way for a (real, intelligent, sane) Republican to run four years from now. If he succeeds and LA is a better place in four years, well then you’ll be livining in a better city. Either way, you win.
A vote for the phony “Republicanism” of Jimi Hahn is a vote for more City Hall corruption, more of your tax dollars spent on government goodies for his donors, and a city that will continue to slide downhill. Just because he’s a white guy in a boring suit does not make him anything close to being a Republican. Don’t be fooled. He will not do anything for you once he gets re-elected, and he will not care. That is, unless you give thousands of dollars for the campaign fund.
So, there you have it. It’s not pretty, but for now it’s what we’ve got. No more caterwauling about how negative the camapign was, no more whining about the guy or gal who didn’t make it. It’s time for us to step up and make a decision about the kind of person we want in the Mayor’s office. Go vote on May 17th, and start holding the winner accountable to their promises on May 18th. Good luck.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Fear and Loathing in Spokane, WA: Power Tripper and Hypocrite Jim West EXPOSED

So, Angelenos, you think you have it bad with your mayor?
Well then, take a look at the lovely saga unfolding in Spokane, Washington, where conservative Republican Mayor Jim West and his “hobby” of engaging in conversation with young men and boys on gay chatrooms (on city time and computers) has blown wide open, thanks to a lengthy piece of investigative journalism by the Spokesman-Review newspaper.
Folks, it ain’t a pretty sight. After using extremist language tarring his political oppoents, fanning the flames of anti-gay hysteria, and supporting extreme measures against citizens who were gays and lesbians, it turns out Jim West’s not the guy we thought he was.
Seems his idea of a good time is to go to online chatrooms, and try to date men less than half his age by luring them with taxpayer funded gifts, on city computers and time.
Check out the transcripts of the chat sessions – they are very startling – and very NC-17 rated, so kids, be careful, ok?
I knew of Jim West when I lived in Seattle and worked with people in the Legislature during West’s tenure, and I always thought the guy was a petty tyrant. You know, the kind of bellowing bully people are afraid to take on – but when they do they back down like the wimps they really are.
There were the rumors, of course, but personally I don’t care if someone is gay, nor do I want to see them punished simply for that fact.
This is not the case with Jim West. Mr. West is getting the political equivalent of a blowtorch and pliers because he’s an abusive, power-tripping individual, one who slammed political opponents with “gay” slurs, and one who used taxpayer money to try and have sex with young men.
He’s always been a thug and a bully, and if he is finally getting the political come-uppance he deserves for his behavior, which is the case here, then I’m not going to shed any tears for him, gay or not.
If you’re still unsure what kind of a guy he is, then check out this recording of a death threat made by West to Tom McCabe, the head of the homebuilder’s association in Washington state. He was prosecuted by the Thurston County prosecutor, and he ended up having to pay $500 fine, and apologize for his outburst.
(Special thanks go to Mike Sando, who posted the original files years ago on his former blog in 1998!)
Click here to hear the voice mail message!
Anyway, the next time you’re moaning about the behavior of Jimi Hahn, Tony Villaraigosa, or the rest of the crew in California, just remember: it could be worse. A lot worse.
PS: Another Journalspace blogger, “Punditz” offers a different view on the subject. Check it out and see what you think.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Hey! I got quoted in The Economist!

I’m trying to find some kind soul out there who subscribes to the Economist Magazine. It seems that I got quoted in this article about campaign paraphenalia in their April 28th issue.
However, I can’t read the web version because one has to subscribe to the magazine first to read it. So…if any of you kind readers out there already have a subscription and wouldn’t mind helping the Schädelmann out with a free look or something so I can read it, that would be cool.
AND…if you help me, I’ll reward you with…a free song from the Apple iTunes store as a thank-you.
I had spoken with their reporter a while back but hadn’t had a chance to track down a print issue before the local newsstand ran out.
I was not really sure if they’d even use my quote, until I heard about it from my friend Dr. O’Sullivan, a Fulbright Scholar in Amman, Jordan, who happened to read it and was quite surprised to see my name in print in that particular magazine.
All for the greater glory of my ego, I know. But it was some much-needed good news after what was kind of a crappy week.
UPDATE! My good friend Mark Rutherford, a subscriber to The Economist gave me a copy of the article, which I will reprint here for you…Thanks Mark!
HOT AIR
Apr 28th 2005
Why political accessories are changing
IN GENERAL elections past, the political temperature of a British street could be taken by looking at the windows. Candidates’ posters–blue for the Conservatives, red for Labour, orange for the Liberal Democrats–marked the positions of rival camps more precisely than any voter database. But allegiances are less obvious this year. Particularly in Labour-held areas, there is often little sign that an
election is about to take place.
“People don’t want to parade their political preferences any more,” says David Heyes, who is defending his seat in Ashton-under-Lyne. Political cynicism, unmoving opinion polls and flaccid national campaigns are partly to blame for the lack of colour in the constituencies. But a bigger reason is that the focus of campaigning
has moved from the street to the telephone and the letterbox.
Better data management by the major parties means that potential voters can be identified and targeted more accurately than in the past, and from a greater distance. Printing is cheaper and faster; more importantly, digital presses can run off messages aimed at specific voters. The results can appear devious. Humphrey Malins, a Conservative candidate in Surrey, produced one leaflet, in English and Urdu, that touted his record of helping with visas. But another leaflet advertised the party’s tough anti-immigrant line. “My local literature is intended to be very local,” Mr Malins explained.

Like so many political innovations, this is an American import. Greg Dewar, a political marketing consultant who has worked for several Democratic candidates, says that direct mail has become the best way of communicating with voters–a lesson that, as he admits, Republicans have learned especially well. The effect on old-style political paraphernalia has been the same as in Britain. As American campaigns have gone postal (and, much more tentatively, online), buttons and lawn
signs have disappeared.

Oddly, one traditional tool has survived the winnowing: the campaign balloon. Labour candidates, in particular, can often be found lurking outside school gates handing out balloons and “Dear Parent” letters to children. Lawrie Quinn, who is campaigning in Scarborough and Whitby, remembers organising only two such events during the 2001 election campaign. He has done 14 so far this year, and makes sure always to carry a few spare balloons in his back pocket, just in case. The idea is to reach young women–some of the main beneficiaries of Labour largesse, but also some of the greatest gripers against Tony Blair–through their less politically jaded offspring.
Such is the theory, anyway. At a recent school-gate event in Putney, a west London constituency, children were delighted to accept helium-filled propaganda. But the warmth of the day meant that the little nippers got only a few yards before a bang and a howl of anguish announced the beginnings of political discontent.

Straight Talk On So-Called “Instant Runoff Voting” or Why the “Cure” Is as Deadly as the “Disease”

Apparently someone at the LA Times Blog linked to this 3-year old article. You can see my response to the shenanigans here. For the record, in 2005 people were often using the terms “IRV” and “RCV” interchangeably, I guess since then people have settled on RCV. Whatever.
If it’s Tuesday, it must be Belgium, and if it’s runoff season, then it must be  time for Self Appointed Prophet Steven Hill of the “Center for Voting and Democracy” to be pimping the reform du jour of so-called “progressives” to “fix” our “elections” – the so-called “reform” of Instant Runoff Voting.
You can read his latest sales pitch in the Los Angeles Times for the most recent iteration of the ongoing drive to push “IRV.” (or whatever it is they want to call it these days).
Just don’t expect much debate – most people aren’t interested in a real discussion of the issue. Proponents have a Stalin-like objection to any discussion that does not sing the system’s hosannas in high tones, whereas opponents frankly don’t care, since they consider it something that belongs in the “tin hat crowd” file at the newspaper.
Having actually worked on a campaign in 2004 in San Francisco under said voting system, I’m taking a moment to write a column that I should have written in 2004, that gives you, the citizen, some straight talk on this issue.
I’m not ideologically invested in IRV one way or the other – instead I’m just someone who saw the real-world effects of a change to the election process. So, let’s take some of the basic assumptions of Prophet of Truth Hill’s piece and put them to the test.
We start with an oh-so-typical whining about the State of Affairs Our Election is In, the kind I took to task last week. It’s a great segue into the sales pitch. But it also misses a lot about the specific political history of Los Angeles as well. Perhaps such subtleties are worth papering over in pursuit of The One True Way.
Now, let’s pick apart the arguments and find a little truth, shall we?
Myth: San Francisco has an Instant Runoff System in Place
Put away that pillow, this isn’t devolving into BuzzwordSpeak just yet. Really.
Mr. Hill makes the argument that San Francisco has an Instant Runoff System. In fact it does not. They had to change the name to “Ranked Choice Voting” because, in the rush to implement the law, regardless of things like, oh I don’t know, the Constitution, they couldn’t implement a true IRV system. What’s the difference?
Well it’s simple. In a true “Instant Runoff Voting” system, you’d have a list of all the candidates for a particular office, and you’d rank each one according to preference. If there were, say, 15 candidates, you’d rank each candidate from 1 (the one you like, and want to win) to 15 (the one you like the least). Kind of like rating a song or something on the radio.
They count all the ballots, and if no one gets 50% +1, they cull out the lowest vote getter, look at the 2nd place votes those voters placed ,and keep counting until they get a winner.
The Big Idea is that if you voted for a dud, you still can have a voice in the outcome, since your 2nd, 3rd, or 11th choice could get counted. Blah blah blah. (For more detailed discussion of the system, read some of the articles I wrote last year during the election).
San Francisco does not do this. Instead, you only get to pick a “top three” – you pick the one you like best, your “2nd choice” and your “3rd choice.” If there’s 3 candidates , you rank all three (if you want). If there’s 20 (like there were in the race I worked on) you rank….3.
This is a critical difference, one that bears some examination. The article in the L.A. Times states that San Francisco has an IRV system, when it doesn’t. There’s a big difference in the effect it has on how people vote, and on the results therein. So when we read a piece in the L.A. Times  that asserts something that simply isn’t the case, it’s time to turn on our BS Microscope on said editorial.
Myth: Elections are too expensive. We need IRV to “save money” and avoid these runoff elections
This is possibly the most cynical, and the most dangerous argument I have heard for any election system, IRV or not. To me, a sound, safe, fair, and honest election system is the bedrock of any democracy. To try and do it “on the cheap” just because some limousine liberals (or whoever) have somehow deemed elections are “expensive” is bogus.
I don’t care if it costs the US Government a bazillion dollars to ensure our votes are fairly counted and administered. We spent a ton of money to ensure Iraqis have democracy – why the hell should we be pinching pennies here at home? People fought and died for our freedom in wars – why would we dishonor them by saying that we need to cut a few pennies off the voting process so we can fund more tax breaks for corporations, or other special interest groups?
I don’t think that the Republic is doomed, financially by having runoff elections. And let’s face facts – when have you ever heard a liberal make an argument about saving money? Rarely. So this is a red herring that I discard almost immediately. People paid for democracy for their lives – it’s priceless, and to try and play penny-pinching with our voting is just plain wrong.
Myth: People will run positive campaigns, because if they run campaigns that say bad things about their opponents, the supporters of Said Opponents will retaliate by not voting for them
The biggest lie in the IRV sales pitch. While it is true that this was an assumption many people chose to live by during the 2004 elections, it was based entirely on supposition and belief, not on the political culture and tradition most people make their decisions on.
In fact, all the candidates who engaged in all sorts of cutsey “buddy buddy” election gimmicks, such as holding joint fundraisers for the same office, or putting out mail pieces jointly paid for by more than one candidate, all got their asses kicked (my client included).
There is absolutely no empirical evidence at all that voters who support one particular fringe candidate, upon seeing a negative attack on said candidate by another, all as a block say “Oh, goodness I shan’t vote for that candidate who made such a naughty attack mailer!”.
In fact, most people don’t think or vote that way at all. More importantly, unless candidates specifically tell in their literature who they believe should be people’s 2nd and 3rd (or however many) choices on the ballot, most people fill the ballot out at random, or base it on criterion that have nothing to do with how the election was conducted.
More to the point, it’s wishful thinking on the part of lesser candidates to think they’ll have any real impact on the election if they don’t somehow quantify how they are “helping” front runners.
During the 2004 election, I discovered that San Francisco election law had a peculiarly foolish hole that forbade candidates from saying whom they supported for those 2nd and 3rd choice spots in paid media, yet did not do so when they spoke in person. I fought the Ethics Commission to develop new rules that would allow for us to do so on the campaign I worked on.
Now, you’d think that for doing so I’d get a big “thank you” from the Prophet of Truth who came up with this great idea. Instead, I was subjected to a screaming attack over the phone from Steven Hill for my efforts, followed by slanderous comments from him to my client. Class act, these ideologues. Watch how fast I rush to defend this system in the future.
More to the point, the eventual winner in all the races was the person who got the most votes on Election Day and all the bullshit scenarios whittled by consultants and others who somehow thought they could run a half-assed campaign and still win were out the door.
We all learned that night that if you want to win under IRV you need to kick ass and take names early and often – and endorsing groups figured that out too.
They didn’t bother with 2nd or 3rd place endorsements – they pushed aside such thoughts and went for the people with…the most money, the most endorsements, and the most volunteers earlier than usual, and stuck with them.
In our race, now-Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi was so far ahead of 2nd place finisher Robert Haaland, there was no way in Hell Robert was going to catch up to Ross, even if by some act of (God, Buddha, SpongeBob, whatever) every single 2nd and 3rd place pick of folks went to him (which it did not).
So after all the hassle, the talk, and the screaming matches on the phone, San Francisco saw results no different than if they’d’ just done things the Same Old Way.
Wait. That’s not true. In San Francisco’s 7th District, a weak appointed incumbent saw a better than expected challenger in candidate Christine Linnenbach.
Had they both gone to a one-on-one runoff, it is likely Linnenbach might have won. But under IRV, we never got the chance for a face-off that would have offered voters a clear choice, instead of one muddled by fringe candidates.
Other than that election, nothing changed. The one race where IRV “helped” end an “expensive” runoff and we ended up with a status quo appointed incumbent who outspent his rival 7-1. Whee! Can I sign up for this in my neighborhood?
Not a great endorsement of the system, which is always pitched to people who ca’nt win under our current system (usually “progressives”) as a cure, even though there’s no evidence it would do anything but strengthen the hand of strong candidates.
There is a legitimate discussion that should be held to figure out ways to ensure that all voices are accounted for and that our nation leads the way in providing citizens ways to express themselves in the electoral process. If we are to truly be in the vanguard of freedom, stifiling such a discussion at home when we amplifiy it abroad is hypocritical.
That said, we should also be wary of “solutions” that are packaged as the One True Answer to our problems, without putting said “solutions” through the intellectual wringer.
That may not fit the grand designes of Self Appointed Prophets. But we as citizens have not lost our right to speak out just yet, and should do so to ensure an honest discussion of many ways of voting, not just the ones that are designed to help one  side vs. another.
In the meantime, spare me the “IRV me ASAP” rhetoric. And pass me a Schlitz.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Emily’s List Points One Finger At Others, But Has Four Pointing At Itself!

A recent article in the Knight Ridder Chain reports that Emily’s List is worried about the prospect of “losing” women in state government, thanks in part to term limits.
They point the finger at all sorts of factors, but fail to realize as they point the finger at others, four more are pointing back…at Emily’s List, as well as the whole self-appointed Women’s Political Mafia that has evolved over the last 20 years.
Remember the “Year of the Woman” in 1992? We were supposed to ooh and ahh at all the women getting elected to office. Groups like Emily’s List, which once operated out of basements in Washington DC moved into the spotlight, as they helped underdog women candidates with early money, and provided support to their campaigns to try and “level the playing field” for (liberal) women candidates.
Which is fine. Many great people got elected to office, including my perennial favorite, Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn of Washington State (whom I count as a friend and former client). And I’m all for a level playing field so that the best candidate wins, based on merit, not on bullshit, even though I really tire of “identity politics” and the crap such phony baloney brings on in our system. That’s another column.
Back to the point: The problem is, after 1992, Emily’s List became as much a part of The Problem in Politics as it was once The Answer. Once the secret weapon of underdog candidates, it quickly evolved into an incumbent protection system for women elected in the early 1990s.
A few years in the corridors of power during that brief time in the Clinton Administration when “Democrats” (real and corporate) ran everything, and suddenly Emily’s List was no longer interested in taking chances with women running for Congress, or elsewhere. It was All About Protecting The Small Gains instead.
So while a wealthy Corporate Sponsored Democrat like Jane Harman (D-Venice Beach) or another millionaire, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) could count on Emily’s List to beat the drum for their candidacies, other women could not. And if two women ran against each other? They’d stay out. Rather than try and make a decision as to who the best candidate would be, they’d sit it out. Usually the corporate PAC money backed candidate won in those cases.
As the 1990s wore on and the GOP gains in 1994 clearly weren’t going away, Emily’s List and other similar “mainstream” women’s groups spent more time in Washington DC, still pretending to be in power, when in fact they were getting their asses kicked. Sure, Senator Boxer won in a landslide. But guess what? They’re passing all sorts of legislation these women’s groups claim to be against in the US Senate. And I didn’t see Emily’s List taking many chances in the Congressional or US Senate races this time around.
Most people don’t know that the majority of my clients have been women clients, primarily by accident or referral, but nonetheless I’ve ended up on the side of underdog women candidates more than once, mostly because I’m good at what I do and I’m not nearly as nasty as I seem in print.
So I’ve seen first hand the kind of shenanigans I describe, and there is nothing more sad than having to tell a client the reason they’re not going to get the support of some Big Women’s Political Group has nothing to do with their campaign’s strength, their stand on the issues, or the years of hard work volunteering for said causes, but instead a back door deal cut by interest group leaders and Corporate Democrat leadership types.
Even on a local level, “women’s political groups” often make decisions based more on the politics of accommodating power, instead of standing up for the people (women) and politics they claim to believe in. Last year, while working in San Francisco in the supervisorial races, I was astonished to watch local women’s political groups endorse men in races where supremely qualified women were running.
Here I was, in a supposed bastion of liberalism and feminism, with a plethora of well-qualified candidates running for office – people like Christine Linnenbach who came damn close to winning the election – lose out on endorsements to lesser qualified men, from women’s groups.
It was stunning. Here was an intelligent, thoughtful and highly qualified candidate with hundreds of endorsements, losing out to a no-name man, just because of some civic politicking that had nothing to do with helping women get elected, and more to do with sucking up to The Man. Great job, girls For an encore, why don’t they just give up, and put on some aprons and let all the men do the hard work?
Harsh? Yes, but so is seeing the cynicism of these kinds of groups at work. I like to make a note, and the next time I hear some local self designated Arbiter of What Women Think from these politicos, I take it about as seriously as a crank email from a nut like Hal Netkin or Jimi Hahn.
If Emily’s List, and the many other members of the Women’s Political Mafia are truly concerned about the status of liberal women in the political world, they’ll take their heads out of the sand, and their hands out of the pockets of corporate Democrat incumbents and go back to the reason they were founded in the first place.
Local and national women’s groups need to stop licking the boots of male corporate politicians and assert themselves a little more. Sure it may be risky, and they may have to go to some new sources of funding since the credit card PACS might not like them.
But if they don’t, they’re going to remain a part of the problem with the political system, and not a solution. I, for one, won’t take them too seriously when they make their latest complaint, knowing that when they’ve had the chance, too often they chose status quo power over real change.
UPDATE: Emerge, yet another groups that purports to be about helping women get elected had a big fundraiser in San Francisco with Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, who, apparently, used to live in the Bay Area.
Great PR for the group, and always a lot of talk, and the interviews with the up and coming “new leaders.” But of course, most of the talk at the event was How We Gotta Help Dianne Feinstein, and support the impossible prospect of a Granholm for President campiagn. (The Governor is unable to run for president, as she is not a native born US Citizen). But hey, it makes for good PR and makes people “feel good.”
But watch how fast the power-suited women in the room help their young charges when they run for office in the future. Funny how most of the people in that fundraiser were the same ones who time after time, hold back on helping women candidates when they don’t fit the  status quo.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Crashing The Party With John Kerry and Janet Reilly in San Francisco!

NOTE: This entry originally appeared at my old blog, schadelmann.com, but has been archived here.
I’m at the Apple Store on Stockton St. in San Francisco, where they’re releasing OS X Tiger for Macintosh. It’s about 7:30pm and I just left an event at the historic Merchant’s Exchange Building in downtown San Francisco where Sen. John Kerry came out in support for Janet Reilly’s bid for State Assembly on San Francisco’s west side.
Kerry’s presence helped with the attendance rate, to be sure, but the clear star of the evening was Janet Reilly, who gave a great (and not too long) speech. A virtual who’s who of past and present elected officials were on hand in support of her candidacy, including Supervsiors Jake Mc Goldrick and Gerardo Sandoval, and City Attorney Dennis Hererra. Former California Assembly Speaker Leo McCarthy was also in attendance (and serves as the campaign’s chair) and various other past elected officials were there to show their support. It was quite an impressive crowd.
While Kerry’ presence was certainly appreciated by those who attended, his remarks were short and the crowd’s enthusiasm for McCarthy and Reilly was a lot stronger. You got the impression pretty quickly that despite the attacks of the partisan SF Weekly and SF Chronicle, Janet’s campaign is a strong, credible campaign, with a great candidate and some solid ideas for California’s future.
Los Angeles residents on the Westside might remember Janet from one of her previous jobs, as a press and community relations aide to former Mayor Richard Riordan. No doubt we’ll see her in L.A. at some point to re-connect with friends in Southern California and enlist support for her campaign, which is focusing on the decrepit state of health care in this country.
I’m about to get kicked off the comptuers at the Apple store so I have to cut this short…and Journalspace will be going offline at 9pm for maintenance so I will post more.
Overall though, this event was one of the best organized events I’ve been to in a while. I could literally check off in my head my own “Steps to a Successful Large Fundraising Event” while observing the preparations and the crowd.
Watching the large number of volunteers, who were well trained and got people in the doors quickly, as well as the flow of the event (no speeches droned on and on, not even Kerry’s as he’s prone to do), made it clear that Janet’s campaign is a force to be reckoned with in 2006, despite partisan sniping from our friends at the San Francisco Chronicle (who insisted the ticket price was $250 instead of the actual $25 price.)