Author Archives: gdewar

Paving the Road to Hell in Baghdad by the Bay

Posted on October 5, 2004 | Leave a comment

UPDATE: Read coverage at Savannah Blackwell’s column online which has new information from the SF Department of Elections regarding this issue. Looks like we may have made a difference on this one, gang!
The Road to Hell is not the only road paved with Good Intentions. The crazy-quilt of contradictory rules and regulations known as election “law” is paved with it too. How else to describe, or explain, how so many of these laws don’t make sense, or why every attempt to make things “better” ends up benefitting those with money and power, and disempowering anyone not on the inside.
There are many examples, big and small. Today, however, I’m going to share with you a medium-sized example that I’ve decided to take some direct action on in the hopes of illuminating the hazards of change when we don’t think it through. In this case, it’s the laws regulating campaign activity in San Francisco.
As I’ve indicated before, San Francisco is beginning a bold experiment in local elections using Ranked Choice Voting. (For a detailed explanation of the process, check out this excellent resource online).
More than one media report has commented on the new cooperative style of campaigning such a system allows. It’s definitely an interesting situation, one which no one really knows what the final outcome will be. We can make educated guesses, but that’s about it.
Today’s San Francisco Chronicle reports that many voters are still having a hard time adjusting to the new system, and realizing that they no longer just have one choice (i.e. who to vote for) but they now have the opportunity to indicate a “second” and “third” choice.
The city has spent a small amount of money doing some educational outreach, but it is becoming more and more clear it’s not enough. If this system is going to work, people need to know how to use it. Otherwise the point of spending the time and money to create and administer such a system will be wasted.
And now, the Road to Hell Paving Crew makes its appearance!
How so? Because no one thought to update election laws to accommodate the new system, specifically for the changes that have come about in how candidates are conducting themselves in their races for Supervisor, creating a situation that doesn’t allow candidates to fully engage the electorate under the new rules.
Whereas in the past, such elections were money-fueled death matches, with campaign conduct more like Mortal Kombat than anything resembling a civilized debate, now candidates are realizing that, if properly used, a ranked-choice voting system doesn’t reward such behavior.
Instead candidates are telling voters to not only support them for office, but to also support other candidates for the second and third spots on the ballot for the same office. Candidates are free to do so in public, when talking to a voter, and when speaking to the press or at a public debate.
The Paving Crew gets involved when a candidate tries to tell anyone that same information in a printed piece, a television ad, a radio ad, or a prepaid phone call. Currently, San Francisco law seems to indicate that such activity would be deemed “illegal” under current statute.
This makes no sense. Why would doing something be legal in once context, and totally illegal in another? More to the point, given that voters are clearly having trouble figuring out how to mark their ballots under the new system, why is the City preventing candidates from explaining the system and how to mark their ballots?
It didn’t make any sense to me, so I decided to take some action. While this would benefit the candidate I’ve been working with, progressive activist and leader Susan King, ultimately this isn’t about just helping “my” candidate or “my” side – it is about what makes the process fair to all, and about common sense.
I spoke with Mabel Ng, the director of San Francisco’s Ethics Commission and asked if it would be possible to indicate a candidate’s choice for second and third spot on the ballot in printed materials. Her answer, (which, as oral advice can’t be used as a shield should a campaign get into trouble), was “no”. However, she indicated that I should ask for a formal written ruling to best clarify the issue.
Today I sent off this letter to the Ethics Commission requesting a formal opinion on this issue. I’m hoping that by bringing this issue to the attention of the Ethics Commission, the City Attorney, and the District Attorney of San Francisco, that if nothing else, someone will acknowledge that we’ve got a situation where the rules regulating campaign conduct once again haven’t been updated to accommodate the new system voters approved in 2002.
In the grand scheme of things, this is not the biggest issue facing voters, elected officials and city bureaucrats. But it is important that the City at least acknowledge that it had two years to plan for this election and somehow managed to forget to take a look at existing election law and realize that some of those laws may not make as much sense as they do now.
In this case, not only is this restricting the First Amendment rights of candidates to indicate how they would want people to vote under this new system – it also denies them a chance to effectively explain to voters how this new system works. Given that there seems to be enough people confused by the system currently, why deny those putting themselves up for office a chance to help explain this to the voters on the candidate’s dime?
It’s time for those who call themselves “reformers” to spend the nickel, hire the Smart People, and start making laws that make sense for everybody. Right now no one’s interests are being served – except for the expensive lawyers and accountants one has to hire to avoid going to jail for elections law violations. It may be great for them – but ultimately it’s the public that loses in the end.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Politics of Political Reform

Of Democracy and Grunge Rock- An Evening with Krist Novoselic and the Center for Voting and Democracy

Posted on September 28, 2004 | Leave a comment

This past Thursday I had a chance to hear Krist Novoselic, former bassist for the band Nirvana discuss his new book, Of Grunge & Government: Let’s Fix This Broken Democracy! at the offices of the Foundation for a Feminist Majority in Beverly Hills.
Mr. Novoselic was accompanied by Rob Ritchie fo the Center for Voting and Democracy. Both discussed the perils and promise of meaningful electoral reform and managed to make a potentially dull topic quite interesting.
Novoselic’s book is part personal memoir, and part political polemic with some interesting suggestions to make our electoral system more competitive and more representative of the public at large. He is a big supporter of San Francisco’s experiment with Instant Runoff Voting and has made his own proposal to make the Washington State Legislature more representative of the voting public up there.
Novoselic’s proposal for Washington is actually quite simple. Rather than have 98 legislators elected in 49 districts (often times gerrymandered to favor one party over another), Novoselic proposes 9 “super districts” each electing a slate of 11 legislators, selected through a system of proportional representation. Thus each “super district’s” 11 legislators would be divided up amongst the parties based on the percentage of the vote received, and there would be no way to gerrymander seats for individual incumbent legislators.
Thus, you could have a district where 30% of the voters pull the lever for the Republican Party, 30% for the Democratic Party, 20% for the Green Party and 10% for the American Heritage Party. The seats would then be assigned to each party for their candidates, with each party getting a number of seats based on the percentage of the vote cast.
More people would have a chance to have their voice heard, and there’d be a chance for all parties to compete with their ideas and candidates on a level playing field – and the results would more accurately reflect what the public wants. Why not have a four party system that allows the electorate to tilt in whatever way it likes, and change its mind later on? What’s wrong with a little drama, and a little competition at the polls?
To be sure, there are several kinks to be worked out, but the concept is inherently a fair one. Why should a voter be reduced to voting in an effective one-party state because one party has gerrymandered that voter’s district, making other parties not even bother to compete? Novoselic decried the lack of competitiveness in legislative and Congressional seats as a big reason why people get so turned off of voting. “Competition makes our economy stronger – surely competition can make our democracy stronger too,” he commented.
It’s nice to see a celebrity get involved in politics that shuns the limelight in favor of the hard work and careful study needed to be truly effective in politics, and I certainly hope one day Washington voters will get a chance to vote on his proposals, if not for Novoselic himself, someday.
There was talk that he was thinking of running for Lieutenant Governor of Washington State, but he decided to focus his attention on issues instead of his own political ambitions. In the Age of Governor Doofinator, that’s something to be admired as well.
The group also heard from Roy Ulrich of California Common Cause speak briefly about the ill-conceived Proposition 62 which would limit the choices voters would have on their ballot through the introduction of a new “primary” system in California.
I’ve often said that this proposed law is the wrong cure for the wrong disease – it’s like trying to cure a stomach ulcer with Tabasco sauce. The only result we’re going to get with this is a big mess – just as you would if you drank a bottle of Tabasco after getting an ulcer.
In other words, it makes no sense. Plus when you read who’s spending the big money to support this initiative, it reads like a “Who’s Who” of special interests who have never show any interest in real reform – they just want the government to give them more goodies – and make you pay for the privilege.
All in all, an interesting evening for sure. I urge everyone to take a look at Krist’s book the next time you’re at the bookstore – it’s a fun read and worth your while.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Instant Runoff Voting FAIL, Politics of Political Reform

Myths of the Campaign Trail Revealed or Why Your Gig with Kerry or Bush Won’t Get You to DC

Posted on September 20, 2004 | Leave a comment

Presidential campaign years offer many opportunities for people, young and old (but mostly young) to get involved in the day-to-day operations of a political campaign. Every four years it seems the size of both incumbent and challenger presidential campaigns grows, and the affiliated positions available at “coordinated campaigns,” political parties, and other races for US Senate, Congress, Governor, Dog Catcher, etc. are all available to those who really want to get their hands dirty in the inner machinations of politics.
The catch is that most of the actual “work” on political operations like these have little to do with policy, politics, ideas, or Big Important Things. Instead, as the Deputy Assistant Political Director for the Very Big Wig Campaign for Whatever, one’s job is as likely to be about figuring out what one-horse town to have a rally at, or making sure enough baseball caps are available for assembled third-tier celebrities at a press conference, as they are about anything else. In other words, unless you’re at the very top of a campaign, your job is more about moving things around on time and under budget, than it is about “politics.”
It’s important that those considering a move into the “political business” understand this early, because every year the streets are littered with the burned out remnants of political operatives at the bottom rungs of the ladder disillusioned at their station in life, because they thought they were getting involved in something important and “meaningful.”
They did get involved with something important, if one accepts the idea that elections are, but what they didn’t’ realize is that for the most part, your job on a Big National Campaign is to make a big machine work, and most parts of a big machine are small. And replaceable. Cheaply.
If you accept that your job is that of a production-line employee, moving things and people around on time and under budget, you can take pride in a job well done and use those skills in politics, or in life. But if you don’t accept it, you’re setting yourself up for a nice run in with a brick wall known as Reality.
More importantly, to those who are working their fingers to the bone for Sen. Kerry or President Bush in the hopes of attaining some lofty position in a future Bush II administration or a Kerry Administration need to realize that while their hard work in service of electing said folks was duly noted and appreciated, it is no guarantee they’ll be getting anything more than a computer-signed photo of said candidate in the future. In fact, if history is any guide, working on a Big National Campaign almost ensures that one does not get a future gig with President Whomever.
That may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s been proven over and over again by both parties over many, many years. Unless you happen to be one of the few people at the highest levels of the campaign hierarchy, or you happen to have raised an incredible amount of money, the sad fact is that the future administration does not particularly care much about what happens to you once November 3rd rolls around. To be true, there are exceptions, but I’ve met too many people who gave up way too much for these big operations only to end up very disappointed when inauguration time comes around.
That’s why I can’t stand how so many of these people behave during the campaign. You find that unless you work with particularly mature, or intelligent people, many of the middle management types are particularly forceful when elbowing you or others perceived to be “in the way” of their ambitions to be in a future administration. I’ve often said the most dangerous place to be in a presidential year is between a mid-level position and an overly-ambitious political wannabe.
One can attempt to reason with said folk, and encourage them to work towards the common goal of electing Candidate Whomever, but it tends to fall on deaf ears. That elbowing and jockeying for position can create situations in even the best run campaigns where people are quibbling amongst themselves over perceived slights and perceived perks, forgetting that their job is not to help themselves, but get someone much more important than themselves a new job (or keep one).
There was a time when I found such behavior irritating, but nowadays I find it more amusing than anything else, since I know what happens next. No one believes me now, but come January 2005, I’ll be proven right, or at least sort of right, once again.
It’s nothing I take much delight in – I’d rather see people more realistically understand what it is they get into so they get the maximum out of it they can, but I find that with younger staffers these days, the only way they learn is the hard way. I suppose there’s some amusement in that, especially after you listen to some 22 year old who just got out of a training session at the DNC or RNC tell you why it is You Don’t Get It And They Do.
Indeed.
For those of you looking for a fun way to get involved with politics and potentially win $100,000, I strongly urge you to follow my link to VoteOrNot.Org and enter the contest. It’s really simple – you register to vote via the site (or if you’re already registered, just enter the contest) and you will be instantly entered into a contest to win $100,000!
Here’s the groovy part – by using my link, I get a chance to win too. So if you win $100,000, I win $100,000 too!
Think of the possibilities. With one click, you can enter and possibly win enough money to buy something really nice – or if the wrong guy wins election, a ticket to Amsterdam.
Either way, it’s a great deal and I encourage everyone to follow the link. If I win, I’m buying all of my loyal readers a drink at the Waterfront Cafe over by my place.
You win. I win. And America wins! Woo hoo!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Tactics & Analysis

“Bush’s Brain” or The Triumph of The Hair Splitting Lie

Posted on September 8, 2004 | Leave a comment

2004 has become the Year of The Documentary with an Axe to Grind. Mere mention of Farenheit 9/11, OutFoxed, The Corporation, Uncovered: The War in Iraq, The Hunting of the President and now Bush’s Brain is enough to send certain partisans into hissy fits that make the most emotional leftist seem calm by comparison. More interesting is the fact that with the exception of Fahrenheit 9/11, none of these films were slated for a theatrical release, but now almost all are seeing some basic distribution in movie theaters in advance of the November election.
Most recently, Bush’s Brain was released in the Los Angeles area, and a premiere held on September 3rd featured a Q & A session with the producers of the film, Joe Mealey and Michael Shoob. I missed the big event due to my extended trip to Pennsylvania on behalf of Progressive Majority, but I did manage to get ahold of a copy on DVD and checked out the film.
To be honest, I was not thrilled about this movie, not so much because of any concern as to whether it might hurt Karl Rove’s feelings, but because I tend to wince at the suggestion that political consultants have all that much power in our political system. It’s a nice media hype that makes reporters feel good when penning a half-researched piece on the election cycle, but the sad fact is that the “power” of political consulting is limited at best. (Just ask anyone who’s worked for a winning candidate who’s been stiffed on their paycheck! Yes, it really happens!)
That said, I still wanted to see the film and hear what the creators had to say. To my surprised it was not as much a film about the alleged “power” of Karl Rove, President Bush’s longtime campaign manager, but instead a recounting of the kinds of tactics Mr. Rove has been willing to use, be it running for the presidency of the Young Republicans in the 1970s, or running candidates for office in Texas, or for President.
The picture painted is not a very pleasant one, and even I, who knew who Karl Rove was long before most people even knew who George “W” Bush even was, learned some new things about the person the President puts his trust in to run his campaigns. None of it was particularly good. It’s worth seeing – to try and repeat the entire film in this space would take too long, and not have nearly the impact, that seeing the film has on the viewer.
For me, the message was simple: Rove is not a “genius” in the sense of a master strategist who has an intimate knowledge of public opinion and history. Rather, he’s an asshole. An asshole, who will do whatever it takes – lie, cheat, steal, attack, slander, and claw his way to the finish line. More to the point, he’s an asshole with over $500 million dollars and the leverage of the federal government’s executive branch to manipulate public opinion. Hooray for him.
To me that’s not a genius, and I regard him for what he truly is. Let’s be clear – give me 500 million dollars and deny me free access to Pabst Blue Ribbon  and I can get anyone elected President, too. Heck, cut off my access to my Netflix DVDs and you can ensure that your candidate of choice will get elected.
Why? Because you’ll have on your hands someone with the enmity and the overwhelming resources, to engage in every single sneaky, lying, underhanded tactic and whim needed to get your clown elected, ethics be damned. Anyone.
This may sound cynical, but it’s not – it’s more of an appreciation of the landscape we live in these days. This is the era that substitutes honesty and straight talk for lawyer-like obfuscations, the hair-splitting lie, and the wink and a nod when it comes to what is said versus what was meant. It’s what allows people to put things out in the media to create an impression, while at the same time giving themselves wiggle room Nixon could only dream of to avoid any accountability if someone tries to call them on their foolishness.
That’s why you can do a photo-op on an aircraft carrier with a banner that says “Mission Accomplished” and then say it wasn’t you who put it up there when you find out more people died in Iraq after “mission accomplished” than before. Don’t take responsibility, don’t fess up – make up some nonsense saying it wasn’t really your idea and you don’t really know who put that up in the first place, and oh by the way, didn’t they just say ketchup causes cancer today?
It’s also how you can have a sitting Vice President lie about a statement we all know he said and rather than just cop to a mistake and move on, have to weasel his way out with bluster and foolish rhetoric. In fact, I don’t know that any member of the current administration who has the ability to cop to a mistake or even admit they’re less than perfect – no matter how much they screw up.
But then I remembered this is a hallmark of the Rove style of campaign, and win or lose, we’ll be seeing more of this kind of nonsense from more than one side in the future. It’s unfortunate that most voters won’t call their own people on such foolish behavior. If they did, it might stop. Might.
PS: For another example of the kinds of sneaky, underhanded tactics being employed by self-styled Rove wannabes, the Attorney General race in Washington State has produced a truly nasty situation, one worth condemnation by good people of all parties and ideologies.
A rash of nasty TV ads attacking Deborah Senn, a former Insurance Commissioner and Democratic candidate in the September 14th primary, have popped up on the air, with no disclosure as to who is paying for the ads.
The group’s spokesman is engaging in classic lawyer doublespeak to try and evade any sort of disclosure as to who is doing this smear campaign and why, hoping that by the time anyone finds out who did what, the election will be over and the damage done. It’s not unlike those anonymous smear ads that hit Howard Dean during the primaries earlier this year.
Whatever it is, it’s disgusting, and I’m urging people to send Deborah Senn the support she needs to stand up to this kind of crap. She is not only someone I consider to be of unimpeachable character – she is also someone I consider a friend with whom I had the pleasure to work for during her re-election campaign in 1996. I often cite “the Commish’s” hard work and straight talk when I coach candidates around the country on how to be effective and thoughtful candidates on the campaign trail. Go get ’em, Commish!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Tactics & Analysis

Why I Like What I Do OR Some Good Folks in Pennsylvania….

Posted on September 1, 2004 | Leave a comment

Once again, I find myself on the road on behalf of Progressive Majority, this time on the road in Southeast Pennsylvania, one of those “swing states” you hear so much about. I’ve been so busy with my training sessions here I haven’t had a chance to update here as much as I’d like. However, I’m enjoying an evening at the West Chester Holiday Inn which features free high-speed internet access, so I can post updates once again.
I’ve been on the road seeing two targeted candidates a day, and it’s been a great (if busy) time out here. I’ve learned a lot about how things are really going down on the grass-roots level out here, and it’s been an interesting experience to say the least. As with my trip in Seattle, the best part (aside from sampling Yuengling Beer which I can’t get back home in L.A.) has been working with some really energetic and honest people who remind me why it is I like working in politics (as opposed to the four-day infomercials both parties have propped up like a dead guy on stilts under the guise of “party conventions”).
Rebecca Wall is running for Pennsylvania State Representative in the 150th Legislative District (yes you read that right, the 150th District!) Too often when you find a young person running for office, you find a wannabe politico more well-versed in shenanigans and smarminess instead of issues and substance.
Thankfully, Rebecca does not fit this sad cultural stereotype. Instead, I met with an enthusiastic and intelligent person who is interested in public service and helping her community – yes you heard that right. In an era when we immediately dismiss anyone involved in politics as a self-serving apparatchnik, it’s time to realize that some people put themselves in the arena because they want to stand up for something, not just against something.
More importantly, it was clear after my meeting with Rebecca that I was not dealing with someone who would tell me what I wanted to hear to earn my support – she was someone willing to tell the truth, regardless of the consequences, because she  has this idea that politicians should be honest.
In an era when too often we equate “honesty” with “being offensive”, Rebecca reminded me that there are people who can speak truth to our political system, and provide a voice of reason and compassion that can include respect and a sense of decorum we don’t usually get in politicos these days, and quite frankly, it was a nice change from politics as usual.
Many political pundits in Pennsylvania may accidentally overlook Rebecca’s candidacy, and it’s to their discredit that they do. Polling and the grassroots sense I get from talking to actual citizens indicate this is a race where a young, intelligent, and engaging person may just snatch a seat in the state House from an incumbent who barely won her seat in 2002 (by only 63 votes!) Pundits would be wise to keep an eye on this race, and people who profess to care about Democratic politics and progressive values would be wise to get involved. Now.
I also had the chance to meet with another great candidate, who is standing up for progressive values in a decidedly non-Californian region of the country, Christian Muniz, a veteran and legislative aide in Cumberland County, PA.
Those not intimate with the politics of Pennsylvania may not know just how non-Democratic Christian’s part of the world is. When “President” Bush made a TV appearance at the GOP convention earlier this week, it was in Christian’s district. To be an honest Democrat in this area takes more than political courage – it takes the will to win along with the courage of the convictions a Navy veteran and legislative aide to put oneself forth as a candidate. More importantly, he is a genuinely likable person, a rare quality in political candidates these days.
But best of all, it was his enthusiasm, unconfined by any sense of political “correctness” that infects Corporate Democrats these days that made Christian one of my favorite people to work with in politics, and more importantly someone who can win.  He is someone who I would gladly encourage readers to support, along with Rebecca Wall and others I’ll be talking about later this year.
I’ll have more commentary on “swing state” Pennsylvania and the Kerry campaign once I return to Los Angeles (and on my way to San Francisco and Wisconsin). Until then, stay tuned, and enjoy the myriad of fiction that is the GOP Convention. Especially the parts when Governor Doofinator claims to be a principled individual who does not engage in coin-op government!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Democratic Party Chatter

Reality Vs. Reality TV or “IRV me ASAP!”

Posted on August 21, 2004 | Leave a comment

“Truth is stranger than fiction” or so goes the old saying. In today’s world a new corollary follows that “reality is stranger than reality television.” Nowhere is this more apparent than with a comparison of Showtime’s reality TV series American Candidate and the the campaign season in San Francisco this year.
First, for those of you not familiar with American Candidate a brief summary: the program is a simulated presidential election, with candidates selected by the shows producers to go through a series of trials typical to a political campaign, with one contestant “voted off” each week.
Originally conceived as a political version of American Idol, the program is now more like “Survivor.” The winner of the program receives $200,000 and a chance to “address the American people” later this summer.
Overall it’s somewhat fun to watch, if only because I happen to know two of the participants, candidate Lisa Witter and campaign manager Dean Nielsen, who give the other candidates a real run for their money. Both are longtime professionals in politics and public affairs, and it’s interesting to see them apply real-world solutions to the many challenges created by the shows producers to simulate real-world elections.
Reality, however, is providing a tale of campaign challenges and intricate interaction between candidates far more complicated than a reality TV show could produce – San Francisco’s experiment with “instant runoff voting” in a myriad of open races for city office this fall.
No less than 100 candidates are running for a handful of offices this year, and the changes created by the new voting system have yet to be fully understood or absorbed by the city’s electorate or candidates. As such, the machinations and intensity usually associated with San Francisco’s unique brand of politics just got a lot more intense, with the results in November difficult to predict.
For those of you not familiar with Instant Runoff Voting, the Los Angeles Times featured an article recently that provided a general overview of the process and its implications for the election. A more comprehensive overview can be found at SFRCV.COM goes into far more detail (but be forewarned – it’s not a speedy read and those averse to long, detailed mathematical analyses and whatnot might want to stick with the Times article.
Suffice to say, it’s a different way of voting, one that attempts to do away with costly runoff races, and allows voters to note a “second” and “third” choice for a specific office, should their preferred candidate not get enough votes to win.
I’ve been in San Francisco all week meeting with various politicos and candidates and it has become apparent that the “reality” of city elections in San Francisco provides a far more interesting tale of alliances, plots, challenges, and good old fashioned politics in an era of “ranked voting.”
Because the system allows people to make more than one choice for the job in each election, there’s a new dynamic amongst “top tier” candidates for office – rather than ignore completely the more “longshot” candidates for office, there is an incentive to be the “second choice” of supporters of these smaller campaigns to build the majority they’ll need once the process goes through. And what a process it is.
Sound complex? It is. Sound like a recipe for intrigue and drama? Hell, yes! Let the games begin!
Let’s take a look at one of the most interesting races in the city – the race for County Supervisor in District 5. Encompassing neighborhoods such as the Haight-Ashbury, and probably one of the most liberal voting districts on Earth, no less than 22 candidates are running to replace retiring Green Party incumbent Matt Gonzalez. Making this battle royale more interesting is the fact that IRV has introduced a new dynamic in the race – a spirit of cooperation between competing candidates of different ideologies.
Yes, you read that right. An example: many candidates for the same office meet weekly to discuss issues amongst themselves and interested members of the public at a “Candidate’s Collaborative.” I had the opportunity to attend one earlier this week, and it was an interesting situation to observe.
In all the years I’ve worked in politics I’ve never been to an event where people who are competing against each other spend time helping each other out, sharing information about public events, and discussing issues and the campaign season so openly. More recently, two candidates for office took this a step further and held a fundraising event to benefit both their respective campaigns for the same office. I challenge anyone to show me when that’s occurred anywhere else in the United States.
How long this spirit of cooperation will last, and how this new order will affect candidates and their behavior when the race comes down to the wire, and the urge to win kicks in, remains to be seen. It will also be interesting to see how the voters react to the new system – will they fully embrace the opportunities it presents, or will the difficulty in explaining the system make it fall by the wayside? I am keeping close tabs on this race and will post additional columns as they warrant.
Documentary film company, American Beat is covering the campaign as it unfolds, attending events and following candidates around the city in this new political order, often unimpeded by PR people and candidate staff (as in the case of the “Candidate Collaborative” meeting earlier this week).
Although the task of covering so many candidates running at once is a challenge, they aim to document as best as they can the unique drama and interaction real life provides. Needless to say, I’ll be looking for the DVD of this film once it comes out, sometime in 2005, as an interesting contrast of real-world politics to reality TV. This election will be fun to follow, as the national elections degenerate into the ugly rumor mongering and vitriol that I’m beginning to get tired of. Stay tuned.
P.S.: While this article focused on the colorful candidacies and the impact of Instant Runoff Voting in ultra-liberal District 5, I want to take a moment to highlight another candidate in San Francisco’s more independent/conservative District 7 who deserves some special recognition.
Christine Linnenbach, an attorney and crusader for honest government, has been on the front lines challenging corruption and back-room deals at City Hall, in particular regarding the safety of Sutro Tower in San Francisco. Named a “Local Hero” by the San Francisco Bay Guardian, she would bring an intelligent and thoughtful voice to the Board of Supervisors.
Even for those of you who don’t live in San Francisco should consider sending her some support, as we need more people who are willing to stand up against civic corruption and be a voice for the people, not well-connected special interests. Go Christine!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Instant Runoff Voting FAIL, Politics of Political Reform

The Mudane Aspects of My Life Warrant a Script

Posted on August 13, 2004 | Leave a comment

Time to lighten the mood around here on a sunny Friday…
I’ve decided that it does not take an extraordinary life, necessarily, to find things to write about that will engage the Hollywood machine and get you paid. When I look at some of the odd, strange, and bewildering choices made for the “content” (gotta love that generic description of all things creative) in TV and movies, I realized that one does not have to live an extraordinary life to find inspiration that motivates one to write the works that get produced – one only has to take the mundane up a few notches. So I’ve decided my happy, yet uneventful existence warrants a film.
For the newer readers, a bit of background. Several months ago I wrote about my duel via cellphone and land line with the mysterious Lucky, Adam, and Adam’s friends to great comic effect.
I’d somehow ended up with a cell phone one digit off the mysterious Adam, and to this day still receive calls from wayward Friends of Adam, who have those new cellphones with the tiny buttons that allow one to hit the “4” instead of the “1” at a critical juncture. More recently, I had an entertaining conversation with “Adam’s” mother. Ha ha.
Today, however, I discovered that not unlike a bad Hollywood thriller starring Some Up and Coming Doofus, I and the mysterious “Adam” are no longer guys with similar phone numbers – we are, it seems, in a bizarre duel, possibly to the death in an array of plot twists and turns worthy of an Eszterhaus, in the System.
How, you ask, can I come up with such an over-dramatic and off topic premise? Simple. I went shopping at Von’s today. And there my descent into Hell (or at least Heck?) began…
Those who know me, know that I’m a value conscious consumer. Regardless of my financial status in life, I’m a perpetual bargain hunter. I’ve long ago conceded a part of my life to the maniacal folks who decide what things will be on sale when if, and only if, you have one of those precious discount cards issued by Von’s, Ralph’s, Albertson’s, etc. Sure, I know I’m being manipulated, and sure my purchases for the last 10 years have been recorded at a computer buried under Cheyenne Mountain, but I don’t care. Sometimes, a bargain’s a bargain, and even the most antidistablishmentarian hippie can’t pass it up.
Today was no exception. For those not in the Southern California area, Von’s has an incredible deal on pizza – only $5 gets you a pizza that will last a single guy like me a week, and it’s good quality too – not some putrid pile of toppings that makes you ill and regretful the next day.
So I headed on over to the Von’s in Santa Monica (the same one John Kerry visited during the strike to take advantage of that and other deals.
To make a long story short (too late!) I punched in my home telephone number and saw the savings roll in on my pizza and other items. Woo hoo! But then I got a strange jolt at the end when the kind woman at Von’s (who is required to be nice under company policy OR ELSE!) said “Thank you Mr. Feinberg and have a great day!”
What?
Not wanting to hold up the line, I didn’t want to say anything. After all, I did get my discount. So why rock the boat? I went home and took a look at the receipt. I saw the name on the receipt, thanking me for my patronage:
“Adam Feinberg.”
This was getting strange. Now, I knew that the Mysterious Adam and I had cell phone numbers one digit off each other – was it now possible that he and I also had home numbers one digit off too? That was just too strange. I could have sworn I punched in my home number properly (and no, I wasn’t “hepped up on goofballs” or anything to confuse said keypad entry). But there it was. Once again, Adam and I were linked in some bizarre Matrix-like way via the myriad of numbers that defines our existence.
Yes, that’s a tad dramatic. No, I am not making this up for the sake of filling column space. Really.
It was then and there as I sat at my desk, considering the situation, that I realized that in fact I had the basis for a really good “bad” movie – a timely tale of how The Man and The System can get to you via your Preferred Customer cards and such. It would be like that oh-so-timely and brilliant film The Net but this time, instead of Sandra Bullock and that “new” Internet thing to play off of, we could play off of Von’s Club cards, and have Jack Black star as me in this new, and wacky adventure?
It’s at this moment I decide a an ice cold Pabst is in order to get perspective.
But when you think about it, how mundane are most stories we see on TV and the movies today? How many ways can you see a murder decoded with quippy remarks about dead bodies before you start to wonder if perhaps things are getting a tad repetitive?
And when do you decide to cash in on said mundaneness with your own life and when do you decide that contributing to the decline and fall of culture isn’t worth the money?
All I know is the next time I got to Von’s I’m buying some seriously wacky stuff and have it blow poor “Adam’s” record with the Vons megalopolis. Let him explain why he buys Pabst Blue Ribbon and all sorts of weird party favors. Or something. At least it will make for good conversation with his friends when they call….
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in California Life

Let’s Analyze Today’s Doublespeak: A Primer

Posted on August 11, 2004 | Leave a comment

Just when you thought the wacky campaign of Ralph Nader could not get any wackier, today’s San Francisco Chronicle gave us a sample of the doublespeak the desperate politco, with a tenuous grip on reality, employs to mislead the public and the press.
While it would be easy to use this as a springboard for yet another example of the politically suicidal inadequacies of Ralph Nader & Co., instead it’s a better opportunity to take a look at slippery rhetoric, and see how easy it is for someone to put out “spin” that sounds good, and does not get questioned by the press.
After reading today’s accounts I had to say I was impressed by Kevin Zeese’s twisted-tongue logic. He has a future selling HMOs and Wal-Mart rezoning requests with the new heights he’s acheived in doubleplus ungood speak.
First, let’s take a trip in the Wayback Machine, for the background to this story not provided for in the San Francisco Chronicle. For those of you who have lives, and as such do not follow the pettiness and irrelevance of the Nader 2004 effort, Mr. Nader’s campaign has once again failed to get on a state ballot, in this case, California. Unable to get enough signatures from registered voters who live in Califronia, Nader will not apper as a presidential candidate choice this fall.
This is entirely due to the fact that Ralph Nader made a specific decision to run as an “independent” candidate, and not as a candidate of the Green Party, for many reasons, most of which made little to no sense. Instead he chose to “go it alone,” especially when many Green Party and Nader 2000 supporters indicated they would not support him this time. So he thought he could do it all himself.
Big mistake. Since then he’s had to throw in his lot with an odd mix of arch-conservative Republicans, and the half-dead remains of the old Reform Party, in an attempt to stitch together a semblance of a campaign. As this half-baked effort floundered, he asked for the endorsement of the Green Party at their Convention in Wisconsin this summer and lost, due mostly to his unwillingness to campaign for the support of assembled delegates – or even to attend the convention itself. Once again, Ralph’s political bumbling cost him more support, and the Green Party nominated someone else.
There’s our historical context. Basically Ralph Nader is entirely responsible for the decisions he made time and time again to get to where he is today. Had he been a better candidate, and perhaps had better advisors or at least had the political sensibilities of someone in the 21st century, he might be in a better position, but he’s not . Boo Hoo.
Now, let’s take another look at some of the spin in today’s Chronicle and see just how convoluted it is. The California Green Party chose not to invoke some (odd) rules to change their party’s nominee here in California for the sake of Saint Ralph, instead opting to go along with what its party members had decided earlier this year.
Upon hearing this news, Nader Spokes-bot Kevin Zeese pulled out a uniquely Orwellian piece of rhetoric:
“What you’re seeing is a lot of angry California Greens, that they’re  having David Cobb shoved down their throat,” Zeese said. “It’s become an  issue of basic democracy for the Green Party.”
So let me get this straight. The Greens elected someone else to be their nominee. Ralph Nader, who is not a Green, asked for a decision by executive fiat to overturn an election he lost, so that he could be the nominee and crash the party. And somehow we’re to accept the Green Party is “having David Cobb shoved down [the Green Party’s] throat?”
After ten-plus years in politics, I still don’t know how someone can get up in the morning and say something as patently false as this, and still have some respect for themselves, much less face the press and the public and think they’re going to have any credibility.
More bewilidering to me is why anyone in the press would listen to either the crybaby candidate or the crybaby spokes-bot after these, and many other duplicitous statements.
What’s also interesting is that Spokes-bot Zeese doesn’t get any of this half-baked nonsense challenged, or even questioned. You’d think that any political reporter, even half-aware of the historical context of the situation, would at least ask a few follow up questions to make this clown back up such a Stalin-esque statement. Instead the reporters put David Cobb on the defensive, and yet he’s done nothing wrong.
More interesting is the focus (clearly a byproduct of spin by the Nader campaign and allied Green activists) that somehow Nader’s attempts are part of a plan to get enough votes nationally to “get money” from the federal government as part of the public financing given to Presidential candidates. This is a new spin that’s popping up, both in this article, and in television coverage of a Nader appearance in Los Angeles a few weeks ago.
This is a more insidious lie, one that is harder to thwart. Unlike Spokes-bot Zeese’s earlier comments, these are more murky. But there are a few basic facts to consider:
1. “Funding” that comes as a result of a Nader candidacy (unlikely as that may be) would not help the Green Party of America in any way shape or form since he’s not a Green Party candidate this year.
2. It is unlikely we’ll be having public funding as we know it for any more presidential campaigns after this one, given the many challenges to the system as is, and the fact that it is under-funded. Also, Gov. Dean showed that it was possible to raise lots of money with small donations, and no financing – something Nader only dares dream of.
3. Cynical appeals to get public money need to be thoroughly investigated. Given Nader’s manipulative fundraising one has to wonder if these appeals are just meant to deceive good Greens who want to build their party to support Nader.
In fact it’s more likely that if on some weird off-chance Nader took control of any public money, it would more likely end up in the hands of Nader-allied consultants and groups as was the case with Pat Buchanan’s past campaigns for president.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Nader’s campaign is not nearly the threat it was to Democrats four years ago. Now that people are holding Nader to the same strict standards of conduct and the same level of political combat real candidates have to endure, he’s got neither the political sense, or the ability to take the heat a credible candidate for president needs to have to win.
It’s also becoming clear that his appeal does not extend past the handful of old-school leftists who would never cast a vote for John Kerry, and as such aren’t going to be the boon to Bush that Rove, Nader, and the gang were hoping for.
At the rate Nader and Company are going, they’ll be nothing more than an asterisk of history, and it’s time for good folks to finish this guy off politically so we won’t have to listen to any more his or Spokes-bot Zeese’s yammering and whining.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin

Politics and Music, Part XXVVII

Posted on August 5, 2004 | Leave a comment

This week a number of high profile organizations announced some equally high profile music concerts aimed squarely at the presidential race. In the past there have been celebrities on all sides who’ve helped out campaigns or causes, but this marks the first cycle where we’ve seen so many larger-scale events, with many musicisans who don’t usually do this sort of thing. It’s an interesting phenomenon, and it makes me wonder if in fact we’re seeing something permanent to the scene, or if politics is the “fashionable” thing to do this year.
In Los Angeles, the RedefeatBush.com team is putting together an all-acoustic show, entitled Unplug Bush at the El Rey Theater on August 10th.
The Redefeatbush.com folks seem to have a knack for organizing events that appeal to a younger, more alternative crowd – but they don’t just put on a good show, they also get people to actually do something while having fun. If you live in the greater LA area and are looking for something fun to do, buy a ticket online and you might even see me there lending a hand.
Also interesting was the announcement that Bruce Springsteen agreed to headline the Moveon.org PAC concert tour this fall. Springsteen has been asked by both parties to participate in elections since the 80s but he has always declined to do so for various reasons. Thus it was significant that he’s finally decided to come out of the woodwork, and has done so in support of a group like MoveOn.
I have to admit, I was rather surprised, not in a “good” way or a “bad” way, just surprised to see he was getting involved so publicly. I’ve seen this over and over again – people who never get involved in the process are voluntarily getting involved in the process like never before. It’s fortunate we have so many options and organizations for people to choose from to do so, because quite frankly, I don’t know that aging party apparatuses (apparatii?) have the ability to assimilate so many diverse people into their ranks and put them to work.
In an era of 527s, and other assorted organizations, we now finally have more and more ways for more and more people to get involved the way that is best for them. The whiners and killjoys in politics may bemoan so many new groups, but it’s safe to say that without ’em we’d be stuck with too much “politics as usual” (i.e. boring) – and that’s no fun for anyone!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Tactics & Analysis

We Recalled Gray Davis and Promptly Forgot Why

Posted on August 2, 2004 | Leave a comment

Reading coverage of Governor Doofinator is like reading something written by the lead guy in that movie Memento. Don’t remember that movie? Here’s a quick summary – a guy who gets total amnesia every 15 minutes stumbles through a series of misadventures, unable to place anyone or anything in any context, since he can’t remember anything for very long.
Which is what we get nowadays with all the “coverage” of “news” in Sacramento. People cover our fair Governor, usually giving him a free pass with every news conference, and the fallout from each little deal, each proposal, and every smiling photo op is chronicled. Yet we never, ever read any of this in any sort of historical context, and never once are we shown a comparison of why we were told we needed to recall our elected Governor, what was promised, and what we’re actually getting from Sunny Governor Doofinator.
Thus, our governor is allowed a free pass on breaking just about every promise he made to get there, and the end result is that we’re not getting anything different than if we’d kept Gray Davis in office – aside from an actor’s smile and popularity and a little “R” next to his name to make some folks happier than others. More to the point, our Governor gets a pass on a lack of ability we’ve attacked others for pretty quickly.
Fervent critics of Governor Davis and other Catholic Democrats for their stands on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues give a sitting GOP Governor with the same views a pass, in an odd and mysterious gap in otherwise consistent criticism (which is their right). The press and the political establishment give this guy more passes than any other governor in recent memory – which is great for the Governor, but no one else.
That’s why I coined the nickname “Doofinator” for him when he got into office – his image is significantly different than past politicos, but when you look inside, you see the same old hocus pocus that both parties have been dishing out for some time now – and the results to date haven’t been too great. He’s very funny to watch, and he comes up with clever lines – but when it comes to really putting in the time or effort or work to run the state, he’s just coming up short when we needed something a little more than a Republican Gray Davis in office.
Many early predictions seemed to come true, much to my dismay, and more recent analyses bear out my view – this guy is no more a reformer than any one of number of boring, groupthink politicos – he just has a better smile and a better image.
I’m not ashamed to admit that when I first heard of the concept of a Schwarzenegger candidacy, back in 2002, I’d wondered (and hoped) he’d be a good governor given his business acumen and an ability to chart a political course that did not require him to placate any particular party’s “goof-ball” wing. Heck, he could have run as non-partisan candidate and won outright, I’m convinced.
More to the point, I’d assumed that someone with his money and popularity could do an end run around the Usual Suspects and enact some real reforms that could undo the crazy-quilt of laws and contradictory legislation that makes California budgeting almost impossible. If nothing else, it would have been nice to see someone end the folly that we have now whereby local taxes are taken away by the state at will, screwing over local authorities because Sacramento’s politicos can’t get their act together.
That was then. Now we have a record to judge, and from my perspective, keeping in mind the promises of less than a year ago and avoiding the selective amnesia consultants, pundits, and reporters seem to enjoy, it looks like all we’ve done is trade in one short-term thinker for another, and the long term future of our state is once again being mortgaged by both parties for the sake of feel-good deals. Nothing has changed, not even the nonstop chase for campaign cash, maligned under Davis as “coin-op” government, but those very same practices are praised under Governor Doofinator. This is better HOW?
Unlike most partisan pundits, I hate it when I’m right about stuff like this because in the end I don’t really care anymore if there’s a D or an R next to someone’s name – I just want someone to not be a BS’er in office and to try and cut the Gordian Knot that is California State Government and restore some sense of balance and reason to the debate.
Thus, seeing the Governor fumble the ball with this great opportunity to set things right is no reason for me to cheer – as a Californian, it’s depressing to watch, especially after having gone through the high-priced recall spectacle, paid for by car alarm millionaires, special interests, and of course, we taxpayers.
Many people have called Gov. Doofinator a “strong leader,” but when you start reading about just how he’s conducted himself during his first budget negotiations, you quickly realize he’s a very thin-skinned Hollywood celebrity who is used to having people do what he says without question.
That’s fine when you’re a self-employed businessman and mega-movie star who consistently ensures box office revenues and DVD sales, but when you’re a Governor, you have to realize that you’re not the only one in charge, and we still live in a government of checks and balances. It’s all well and good to complain about how things aren’t always perfect when you’re a plain citizen – but when someone becomes Governor, the buck stops with them, and simply deciding that because people aren’t all bowing down in unison for the Governor, that means that it’s time to make them do so via constitutional changes, doesn’t say much about said Governor’s “leadership.”
It’s also clear that when anyone starts to demonstrate any opposition to his plans or challenges Our Tough Governor, he tends cuts and run, like he did when he caved into the all-powerful prison guards union (a move worthy of Gov. Gray!).
A more memorable capitulation was when heangered pet advocates after proposing to cut short the number of days strays got to stay in pet shelters to save a few bucks. The same governor who dished out some cute zingers about “girlie men” in the Legislature apparently was unable to stand up to a cute little puppy with a “Don’t Kill Me Arnold” sign?
Not exactly a “bold leader” when you can dish it out, but can’t take it. Surely the Doofinator can take a few bad jokes at his expense? Or maybe I’m assuming too much? Didn’t they used to say Gray Davis was thin skinned and humorless too? How is this better? Remind me?
So far, he’s made proposals to steer more power into the executive branch, for short term personal gain, as he has with his so-called legislative reforms, or his alleged reorganization of state government that’s nothing more than transferring more power to the executive branch in the name of efficency.
Great for the Governor in the short term, makes for great headlines, and Republicans get a short term boost, but once again, short term thinking could lead to some dangerous long term Unintended Consequences, which we see every time ill-thought out structural reforms compound the problems we’ve got today.
Think about it this way (especially my good friends in the Republican Party) – sure such reforms could help Gov. Doofinator today – but in the end the GOP will be kicking itself senseless when one day a Governor Democrat takes office and uses the office to do what they want – and they can’t stop them no matter what happens. And don’t say it can’t happen – remember how the GOP posthumously gave FDR the finger by limiting presidential terms – only to see it come to harm Republican incumbents ever since.
I’ll be honest – sure I nickname the Governor “Doofinator” and I’ve been critical of his administration so far. But unlike partisans who attack the governor for their own gain, I get nothing out of this. My criticism comes from another place – that of someone who started to actually believe in the promise that things might get better despite my misgivings, and being disappointed when another faux revolutionary is exposed as a Usual Suspect cloaked in Hollywood fabrications. It’s depressing to read and see another train wreck in slow motion when you realize that it doesn’t have to be this way. Especially with someone like the Governor.
Ultimately the big loser is not the Governor, it’s the people of California, who have passed on a chance to do something now, before it’s too late. When we’re paying higher taxes and seeing the results of deferred leadership in the next few years, ultimately we will have ourselves to blame for not demanding more than a sunny smile and a glib one liner from someone who had a moment in time to do something that was a challenge to the status quo – and not yet another bag of tricks to pass along today’s problems to tomorrow’s leaders. That’s easy to do in the “Memento” world of politics of today – but as we all know the easy thing isn’t always the right thing to do.
Maybe the Democrats need to recruit a Pound Puppy to run against the Governor in 2006 (hey, we can even get some ads up on TV right away!) Seems like either a pup or a prison guard seem to be the only ones that can beat this guy. That 80s revival is underway – by 2006 we’ll be seeing Pound Puppies: The Next Generation on TV…sounds like we have a plan?
For more fun and games, check out Arnold Watch, created by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. Also ,the LA Daily News has an assessment of Governor D’s tenure here, that’s interesting to read.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Gov. Doofinator's Follies