Wondering, on Wednesday (v10)

Everyone's still talking about the election, how few people participated in it, what will happen in what's left of this illustrious Congress, and oh, about the stupidity of the American voter.

Several of the ads that were run in support of Republican John Katko in his defeat of incumbent Democrat Dan Maffei in the NY-24 talked about "Pelosi" and it wasn't until the very last week that one of the ads appeared to have been changed to refer to Nancy Pelosi. In states with actual races for Senate, Harry Reid was the one taking the hits. Almost none of the local ads mentioned President Obama, except in passing (as in 'Obamacare').

I'm wondering, on Wednesday, whether the rank and file in Washington will turn Reid and Pelosi out of their leadership positions. I think it's time now for the Democratic Party to turn to the future, to someone who might have a snowball's chance of working with the Republicans, and more importantly, of lighting a fire under the voters (and the President).

Speaking of voting, it appears the epic failure of the Dems in the races was topped only by the epic failure of Americans to vote: turnout was the lowest in decades, with fewer than 37% actually bothered. There are many schools of thought on this; on the one hand, Republicans have more 'passion for the cause' so they are more reliable than Dems, who are more complacent and only turn out during Presidential years (presumably for the Obama phones?).

I heard two actual registered voters express their opinions on this today on the radio. The first pointed out that it's too hard to vote in her state; her husband had to work twelve hours on Election Day, and the polls were only open for twelve hours, so he missed out. The second caller pointed out that he's registered but hasn't voted in some time; he's lived in multiple places and his issue isn't with having time to vote, it's all about having candidates worth voting for.

I'm not sure how to solve the problem for the second guy, but maybe there's a solution for the first one. I'm wondering why we don't have Election Day coincide with Veterans Day? It's already a government holiday and perhaps if we spent time focusing on the country, our veterans, and our future, it might make a difference.

And then there was the comment about "the stupidity of the American voter" which was made by the 'architect' of the Affordable Care Act. Supposedly the bill was written in an opaque way, rather than a transparent way, to fool voters into thinking it was a good thing, that the individual mandate was not a tax, and so on. Call me crazy but I'm wondering how many bills aren't written as obtusely as possible to hide one truth or another?

Take voter ID laws for example, or bills that say once you're in line to vote, you can't leave even to go to the bathroom.  If the bills were actually written to say that the intent was "to make it harder for people who tend to vote for Democrats to vote at all", would they pass?

Or redistricting bills: if they were written to say "we're carving up the state into districts that are almost unrecognizable, to make it nearly impossible to get us out of office once we get in" would people be in favor of them?

Or 'birther' bills, or gambling legislation, or ethics committees, or economic development programs.or gun laws.. There's nothing new here, folks. The big news is that people think we're stupid enough to think that politicians will ever be transparent and honest about anything of any significance.

The Election Eve Post, 2014

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to encourage you to vote.

We don't have a Presidential race this year; we know there is a President, because his name is all over the political ads, even if he's not making the scene most of the time. Dems are OK with that; they don't want a whole lot to do with him, it seems. In Kentucky, the Democratic senate candidate won't even say whether she voted for him (not that there's anything wrong with that).  

In New York, every seat is up for grabs, even those where no one would face the incumbent. Some newcomers are making quite a bit of noise in the Assembly races, which is nice to see. Our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo is running on his record as a tax-cutting, union-antagonizing Republican er I mean Democrat in his race against Rob Astorino.  Howie Hawkins, our perennial Green Party candidate, is looking to improve on his performance of four years ago, and will likely do just that. 

And of course, we have the NY-24, always a hot mess, and this year is no different. Another Republican newcomer in a bare-knuckles fight against the Dem, a guy that people either love or hate, there's not a lot of middle ground with him.  Tons of money, tons of negativity.  And the robo calls -- good lord, ten calls so far today (many of them asking for my vote for people not even running in my district or even my part of New York). 

And yet, I still plan on voting.  And I want you to vote, too.  Not because I say it's important; you should vote because it IS important. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you need it: 

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” (1) Actually “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.” (2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”? (3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote” (4), and that “A citizen of American will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.” (5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy. 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll  probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;” (15) “voting is a civic sacrament;” (16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.” (17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. If you need information on where to vote, or other assistance, visit Vote411.org or contact your local Board of Elections. 

  (Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles DeGaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch)

Look No Further, Media Outlets

In yesterday's post, I offered up five things that political candidates can do to help get some of the money, particularly outside money, out of campaigns.

They say they want to do this, but struggle with how to go about it, or can only offer up putting more money - our tax dollars - into the process. However, if the goals are to empower voters in the district up for grabs, and reduce the stranglehold that special interest and political parties have on our elective process, we need less money in the mix, not more.

While a courageous candidate should be able to do the five things, they have to want to be honest and ethical and accountable more than they want to be elected.  They have to be willing to buck the system, and I appreciate that's not easy, particularly if their opponent doesn't take the same path.

It also won't be easy without some significant cooperation from the media. Republican John Katko, who's in a close battle against incumbent Dan Maffei in my district, put it in perspective when he allowed that

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage.

Katko is absolutely right. It's particularly hard for challengers, whether they're newcomers to politics or veterans, to raise enough money from within the district to pay for ads, signs, billboards, and the rest. That's why it's so easy to take help from the special interests, party committees, unions, PACs and deep-pocketed individual donors.

I'm convinced that a level playing field that favors the voters but does not hinder either of the candidates is possible; here are four things that television and radio stations, newspapers and outdoor advertising companies, and online outlets can do:

(1) Set aside free time or space during the primary and the general election season for political advertising. TV and radio stations would determine the number of minutes that will be available for each candidate, and let the candidates determine how to use their minutes. It could be 15 second spots, 30 second spots, 30 minute spots - however they want to use the time, all of which  must be during prime time.  For print, it's equally prominent space on equally prominent pages, again with the candidates determining how to use their allotment.  Billboards could be allocated to each team, equally visible locations, up for equal time, with a drawing or coin toss to determine who ends up where.  Heck, they could even play Rock, Paper, Scissors to determine the placement. Online ads could be managed the same way, I would think; might take some doing but there are plenty of really good local ad agencies who can help figure it out.

(2) Make time available for individual and joint sessions with the candidates, using different formats (town hall style, formal debates, single issue sessions, online chats, and so on). Post videos and transcripts from the sessions quickly and prominently on your websites and through social media. On your news broadcasts, mention the information is available, show the links on the screen when you go to commercial, that kind of thing. Present these sessions with limited commercial interruption (none for 30-minute segments, one commercial block for hour-long segments). Establish these as collaborations with your partner stations, including cable news and public television, rotating them so that no one station bears the burden of the lost revenue. Radio stations can do the same, particularly the ones that have local shows already. Some of the local papers already offer the Q&A chats, and should continue to do so. They can also 'black box' notices on their web pages, and in print, letting people know the transcripts are available.

(3) Manage the sessions. Solicit questions from residents of the district for the sessions outlined above. The reasoning behind this is simple: the sessions are for the benefit of the voters, not for the promotion of the hosts, anchors and reporters, or stations or newspapers that participate.  And when the hosts, anchors and reporters do ask questions, keep them short and to the point. We are not interested in learning about how well you ask  questions, we're interested in getting answers from the candidates. When the candidates don't answer the question(s), respectfully point that out. And fact-check their statements, and post that information along with the transcripts and videos.

(4) Refuse all ads that are not expressly approved by candidates. Regardless of how much money is dangled in front of you. If we're asking the candidates to disavow the money, we can't have you taking it behind their backs.  Serve the public interest, and just say no.

With these options and guidelines in place, and with commitment to abide by the five suggestions from yesterday's post, challengers like Katko can be less reliant on outside money, outside endorsements, and 'support' from interest groups which frequently comes in the from of less-than-truthful advertising crammed down everyone's throats, and can instead focus on getting out, meeting voters, (from all parties, not just their base) and putting their positions front and center.

Incumbents like Maffei would have the opportunity to do their own talking, defend their own record, and show us why we should give them another chance, without all the noise, name-calling, and mud-slinging that seems to be a benefit of incumbency.

This is a challenge for our local media companies - I get that. And I hope it's the kind of challenge they'd be willing to tackle.  I like to think that they'd rather be doing this kind of reporting, this kind of broadcasting, and being associated with this kind of advertising, than what they're faced with today.

And if the candidates have these opportunities, and choose to waste them by slamming the other guy, going negative, slinging mud, refusing to talk about their own positions, their own plans, well, so be it. We'll know for sure then what they stand for.

And isn't that the point?

Look No Further, Candidates

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what's wrong with our system.

• Dan Maffei, Democrat running for re-election my district (the NY-24), has received over 83% of his campaign contributions from outside the district; 54% of his money comes from political action committees (PACS), those god-awful ATMs that candidates rely on so desperately.

• John Katko, Maffei's Republican challenger, has received significantly less money across the board than Maffei, but has also taken 30% from outside the district, all the while complaining about Maffei's outside-the-district money. (Should Katko win in November, he can rest assured the big money will swing his way come 2016 when we have to do this all over again.) 

While they both participate in the big-money process, they both think it's wrong, and think it should be fixed. Maffei, like most Democrats, wants some kind of public financing of campaigns. Katko, like many Republicans, doesn't have any answers, other than just saying no to public financing.

For example, here's what one Republican, Oneida County's Richard Hanna, said in 2013 (emphasis added):

I am loathe to see public financing because it's just one more big bill for the public. Clearly the system is broken, but I don't know how to fix it. I don't see an easy solution. But I do recognize there is too much money in campaigns. I have friends in Washington who spend way too much time raising money. 

And here's newcomer Katko, this past Friday:

I fully support campaign finance reform. Far too much money is spent on these races. But, I don't think that American taxpayers should be required to use their hard-earned dollars to fund negative attack ads like the ones Dan Maffei is running.  The big difference between me and my opponent is that Dan Maffei wants taxpayers to pay for his mudslinging and I don't.  

Back in July, this is what he said (again, emphasis added):

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage. Our Founding Fathers probably never envisioned anything like this. It's clear everyone is sick of it. But that being said, I think it will be difficult to limit this (campaign spending) going forward because the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. 

I love that everyone's unhappy with the money and think it's wrong and all that, but I'm boggled by why they can't figure out what to do, can't even put anything forward to help. And it's not just here in my district, not just here in New York with our voracious 'anything that's legal' political fundraising rules.  It's everywhere, it's pervasive, and no one is leading.

Like the Republicans, I don't want public financing for campaigns - interjecting more money into the mix doesn't seem like the way to solve the problem, even if it's different money. And we've already seen how candidates will leave public dollars on the table and instead take the unlimited support that is available under our current big money system.

So, if public financing is not the answer, what is?  Well, I've done lots of posts on this subject, and (unlike the Republicans) I continue to try and come up with ways that things could be different.

Today, I'm suggesting five things the candidates can do, most of which require them to look no further than the mirror and ask themselves if they really want to get the money out of politics. If the answer is yes, the five suggestions below are easy:

1. Publicly state your intention, at the beginning of your campaign and frequently throughout your campaign, that you are refusing all outside money, regardless of the source, and that you are refusing any money that does not come from an actual living breathing person, and that you will disavow and return any of this support if it comes your way.
2. Do not accept more than three contributions from any one individual, and limit the total you accept from any one person, even if legally they can contribute more. Limits are different in different races and jurisdictions, but you should be able to come up with a percentage of the legal limit for the race you're in that you can stomach, that doesn't make you beholden to the donor, and then stick to it.
3. Specifically reach out to your party's traditional supporters within the district and advise them you will not be taking their money. Instead, seek their support as boots on the ground, knocking on doors, handing out literature that your campaign paid for, helping register voters, painting signs, running phone banks, and so on - anything they want to do that doesn't cost anything, or that can be paid for using campaign contributions you have accepted from living breathing people residing in the district. 
4. Make frequent open appearances in the district (not the pay-per-view kind) to educate voters on your positions. You see, we voters understand what the money wants you to do; it's harder for us to understand what you want to do. Your obligation is to tell us, for free, in person, early and often. If we like you, maybe we'll drop some money in a bucket on the way out, or hop on your website and donate when we get home. 
5. Publicly commit to joint appearances with your opponents, as painful as that may be. Don't fight over the rules, talk about the issues. Certainly once the rosters are set, we voters are entitled to at least one joint discussion a month, preferably more. During primaries, we also need at least one of these sessions.

There's more that can be done by folks once they're in office, by media companies, and by us, the voters. I'll talk more on that in upcoming posts. In the meantime, let me know what you think of these ideas.  Are they completely crazy?

Is it too much to ask that our candidates refuse to participate in a system they think is broken?

Is it too much to ask that our candidates stop short of doing whatever is legal, and instead do what they think is right?  

John Katko: Let's Talk Health Care Reform

Former prosecutor John Katko is the Republican running for New York's 24th district House seat, currently held by Dan Maffei, who took the seat back from Ann Marie Buerkle after she took it from him in their first battle.

Katko has a few of his own ads running; he's also got a boatload of outside-the-district money behind him, hammering away at Maffei on positions both real and imagined. (Maffei and his supporters are doing the same, by the way.)

I've made the case repeatedly about how the politicians we need are the ones who are more interested in talking about what they stand for and believe in, instead of those who simply badmouth their opponent. I know from Katko's ads that his wife loves him, that he's a great mentor, and that as a prosecutor he was strong on crime and helped get rid of several of the gangs that used to hang about a mile or so up the block from where I live.

For that last part, I offer my thanks, but I'm not sure how that equates to representing our district, unless his intention is to go to DC and break up the gangs that are holding Congress (and the country) hostage?

To find out what he believes, I checked out his website, where he posts issues videos called Katko Comments. I started with the one on health care, and after watching it I have some questions.

(1) Like most Republicans, you talk about people who lost their coverage after being told by President Obama they could keep it. Since most people with insurance have it through their jobs, and since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did not force companies to drop coverage, reduce employee hours, change carriers (and provider networks), etc. have you talked with any business owners or company benefit reps to find out if they've changed their employee health insurance plans, and if yes, why? Will you share those details?

(2) You  note that you spoke recently with a person from Auburn who pays, between premiums and out of pocket, close to $25,000 per year for insurance. We don't know his specific situation, so all we can do is respond emotionally to that number. I wonder, what would you consider a reasonable annual cost for health insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses? $1,000? $5,000? $10,000? $15,000? And in general, do you support or oppose consumer-driven health care options, commonly referred to as high deductible health plans?

(3) You mentioned you don't want Washington bureaucrats coming between patients and their doctors. I've heard this several times from Republicans. Which specific provisions of the ACA put bureaucrats in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship?

(4) Like most Republicans, you support the wellness (preventive?) provisions of the ACA, keeping kids on the parents' policies until they're old enough to leave the basement and the elimination of preexisting conditions. I'm curious whether you support or oppose these other provisions:

• Coverage for essential benefits? 
• Elimination of annual and lifetime benefit limits? 
• Subscriber refunds, if administrative costs eat up too high a percentage of the premiums paid?

(5) You favor allowing insurers to sell across state lines.Why are you so willing to sacrifice me and my several hundred co-workers by inviting deep-pocketed national carriers into New York, carriers against which it would be nearly impossible for local/regional health insurers like my employer to compete? If you're successful in getting this 'nationalization' of health insurance approved, what steps would you take to assist us if we all lose our jobs?

(6) You speak about the ACA taking hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. Disregard for a moment that this same argument was debunked back in 2012, and that the ACA did not actually take money from Medicare, but instead reduced the proposed increases in Medicare spending over the next decade, by the same $700 billion that the Republican budget plan would have. If elected, would you ever vote for a budget that reduces actual or proposed Medicare spending?

(7) Finally, please identify at least three things you would propose to change in the ACA  to reduce health care costs - not health insurance costs, which are different -  for Central New York individuals and families, and explain specifically how you would work across the aisle to gain bipartisan support for these measures.

Thanks for clarifying your positions on this critical issue.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v6)

If you're a New Yorker and you want to be registered to vote in the general election come November, you need to have your application postmarked no later than Friday October 10th. Two days from now. And then I had a couple of simple little conversations, and that got me wondering, on Wednesday, about our power as voters.

My Sweet Baboo and I were watching the national news tonight, and of course we were smacked upside the head by the Dan Maffei/John Katko ads. Maffei and Katko are the players in the race for NY's 24th District. Before that, it was Ann Marie Buerkle vs Dan Maffei, and before that it was Dan Maffei vs Ann Marie Buerkle. Over the past six years, we've gotten more than our share of negative ads on both sides, the majority of which in the past three elections are brought to us by the national party committees and other organizations, people who don't live here but who think that they have a right to mess with our local politics. I hate that, by the way.

So we're trying our best to ignore the commercials and My Sweet Baboo says to me, wouldn't it be great if just one of these guys would say screw that, I'm not going to have any of this junk in my campaign, I'm only going to talk about what I'm going to do instead of how the other guy's a loser and all that other nonsense?

An hour or so later, I was talking with my Mom, who was once an elected official herself (Town Board; she couldn't stand the political nonsense and so did not run for a second term). Her senior citizens group was having a luncheon and a few candidates showed up, including John Katko. She and a couple of her friends thought he was interesting, sounded intelligent, and liked him - until he started bad-mouthing Dan Maffei and his record, at which point they completely turned him off and tuned him out. My mom said to me "Don't they know how much we hate hearing them talk about the other guy? Don't they get it we want to know what they stand for rather than all this negative stuff?"

Two simple conversations, happening on the same day, don't make a groundswell.  But if we all had these conversations with our friends, family, co-workers, social media contacts, and all of the other people we talk to, could we get a groundswell?

And if we took that groundswell, and told the candidates that we will not vote for them if they don't knock off the mudslinging, and if they don't stop taking outside money, and if they didn't start paying attention to us?

Imagine the power of that, the force of that groundswell, and how cool it would be to be a part of it? And then, think of how foolish you'd feel if you really wanted to participate, but couldn't, because you didn't do the one thing that would make it possible.

Put it on your to-do list. Put it in your electronic calendar. Tape a sign on the mirror. Put a note on the steering wheel. Do whatever you have to do to remember, and then do what you have to do.

Register. And then vote. Be a part of something really cool.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v2)

In his current campaign ad, which lets us know that he supported a bill to withhold Congressional paychecks if a budget is not passed, why at the end does incumbent Dan Maffei say he supports the message because "we've gotta hold them accountable?"

Please say it's guaranteed that Matt Park will be The Voice of the Orange, now that Syracuse University has agreed to "maximize (their) interests" by renewing their agreement with IMG for broadcasting and multimedia rights?

Do you wonder how our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, is sleeping these days now that he's lost yet another attempt to keep Zephyr Teachout off the primary ballot, and union support for his candidacy is wavering?

How did all of the thirty-something, passionate, extremely articulate blacks who are commenting on Ferguson manage to become so successful in the face of hopelessness and hate, and why isn't anyone asking them how they did it?

How can they legitimately call it Sav-On Gas when the price was as much as 40 cents per gallon higher than lots of other stations last Saturday?

Will this be the year that New York State Fair finally tops the 1,000,000 attendance threshold again?

It's All Over - and it's Just Beginning

The results from Florida are in, and we now 'officially' have a winner, if there was any doubt outside Fox News headquarters that President Obama has won the election.

The final tally, shows Obama winning the popular vote, 61 million and change to Romney's 58 million and change. The electoral vote count, with Florida's 29 in the Blue column, stands at 332 - 206.

In his concession speech on Tuesday, Mitt Romney offered the following:

The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to occasion.

Pundits and historians are trying to figure out why, when as Romney indicates we need leaders to reach across the aisle, we chose to maintain the status quo in Washington -- Republicans entrenched in the House, Democrats in the Senate, and Obama in the White House.  I think it's really pretty easy to understand -- just ask Tip O'Neill:  All politics is local.

When we vote for our representatives and senators, we're voting to have them do good things for us back home, to bring money back in return for the taxes we pay. For the most part, we have a very narrow focus on our own backyards first, then the larger issues of state government and finally Washington, in ever-expanding circles around us. 

And when we're asked if we have a positive or negative view of those we have elected, we like to think that 'our' representative is doing a good job, but it's the rest of them - particularly the leadership -that are horrible.  To me this is obvious; we saw it in the ads in the race for the NY-24.  Ads run in support of Ann Marie Buerkle mentioned Nancy Pelosi, as if any one in this district gives a hoot about her.  Ads in support of Dan Maffei, who won, sometimes showed John Boehner and others in the House leadership.  Regardless of which side it was, when mentioning any of these names, it was obligatory to sneer.

Rather than worrying about why we did what we did, why people voted the way they did, we would be better serviced if we focused on something else Mitt Romney said in his farewell:

We look to job-creators of all kinds. We're counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward, and we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.

Hear, hear.   We need people to get with the program, as Americans defined it on Tuesday, and put people before politics. I have never agreed with Mitt Romney more.

Point/Counterpoint: Outside-the-District Contributions

Ellen M. Blalock/The Post-Standard photo

So, at a debate yesterday, all three candidates for Congress in NY-24 were present, a departure from some others where only Ann Marie Buerkle, the incumbent Republican and Ursula Rozum, the long-shot Green Party designate were in attendance.  Dan Maffei, the Dem who lost last time by about as many votes as I have bottles of wine, appeared on stage with them.

(It's off-point, but how uncomfortable does he look in this photo?)

Among the topics discussed was the huge influx of outside money in this race, something that I've long opposed - candidates should not be able to accept outside money, whether from two-legged people or those other 'people' most of us outside the US Supreme Court refer to as businesses, PACs, charitable organizations, and the like.  And yes, I include unions in that last category too.

We're in the middle of a Congressional race with spending reaching the $8 million level, $4.7 million from outside the district, according to published reports.  One reason we're being flooded may be that, according to The Fix, a political blog, this race is the 11th most likely to flip , out of 60 House races the blog identifies as being 'most important' to which party ends up with control.

So when the topic of outside money flooding the district came up, the reported responses were a riot. Maffei, for instance, indicated not to worry, the money has 'no influence' on him, noting:

I am answerable to one group of people, and it's the voters of this district... I do think it's deplorable the amount of money that has come into politics... We've got to get the money out of politics.

Buerkle, for her part, defended the money she's received from 'like-minded organizations she supports', and offered this in reference to those who have supported her:

It's free speech.

And this, regarding outside money for Maffei:

I think the bigger concern should be Michael Bloomberg and the investment he is making in this race.

And finally, this, in response to the question of how the money might influence her:

I think my record speaks for itself.

Ursula Rozum does not accept outside money -- none of the Green Party candidates do.  Rozum recently donated scam contributions from Buerkle supporters to charity. 

I can't picture any of the major party candidates doing that -- if they did, they'd no longer be major party candidates.  But can you imagine the impact these millions of dollars could have in the hands of people focused on doing good work?

Please Don't Take My Vote for Granted

If you are a Democrat running for office, and your district includes my little slice of heaven in Syracuse NY, please don't take my vote for granted.

Obviously we have a tough race at the top of the ticket this year, and I've talked enough about the messy race that's happening in my district, NY's newly created 24th, but there are other races on the ballot next Tuesday, for positions in Albany, Onondaga County and the city of Syracuse as well. If you had been picking up my mail in the past month or so, or hanging out on my fronch porch, you'd never know we were in the thick of election season. I've been basically ignored by all but a couple of people who running for office.

Here are some illustrations:

• I've received more mail since September from Habitat for Humanity, the Heifer Project, and the ASPCA -  several from each -  than I have from all of the candidates, at every level, combined. 
• I've received more offers for life insurance and long term care insurance from AARP - close to a dozen, I think -  than I have solicitations from candidates.
• I've had more knocks on the door from neighbors looking for lost pets  - two - than I've had from politicians looking for my vote; that would be none.
• I've answered three telephone surveys in the past four days - but have not received a single call from a candidate since the general election season began.
• I've been invited to more town halls than Dan Maffei -- and have probably attended more of them than he has.

Compare this to the daily pile of mail that My Sweet Baboo receives; as a registered Independent, he's apparently a much more appetizing target. He's gotten several lovely pieces from Ann Marie Buerkle, from candidates for the State Assembly and a handful of the local races.  Neither of us recall seeing anything for him from Maffei, which is surprising given how close that race is.  

So I have to ask you, Dan Maffei and the rest of the Dems, are you all really so confident I'm in your corner that you won't even ask me for your vote?

Green Party to GOP: Don't Mess with Us

I've talked before about the race for Congress in my district, the newly created NY-24.  The two major party candidates, Republican Ann Marie Buerkle and Democrat Dan Maffei, are fighting it out again, Buerkle having captured the seat by less than 700 votes in 2010. 

The negative ads, from both sides and from their various support groups, have been bombarding us for weeks.  Three or four in a row now, during the dinner hour -- and then a couple minutes later, there are more.  We have 'DC Dan'  and (with a big sigh) 'that Ann Marie Buerkle'; we have Buerkle's 95% party line votes compared to Maffei's 96% party lines votes from 2008 - 2010.  We have 'Nancy Pelosi's health care bill', which I thought the Republicans were supposed to be calling Obamacare, which is what their standard-bearer call is (because calling it Romneycare would be boastful).

But we also have Ursula Rozum, the Green Party candidate, who may in fact be the second most dangerous woman in the district -- Buerkle being the first, of course -- because in some people's eyes, a vote for Rozum is a vote for Buerkle.

Clearly, local Democrats are concerned about that. And apparently some Republicans think it's a good possibility, and so have recently pumped money into Rozum's campaign. Members of the Grace family, who are from Florida and have no connection with our district other than their money (having already donated to Buerkle), are behind the contributions. 

Rather than just taking the money, as most would have done, Rozum's camp did some digging into the donors, and discovered the Buerkle connection.  Said the candidate:

Given their previous maximum donations to the Buerkle campaign, it is apparent that these donations are intended to help me win votes that might otherwise go to Dan Maffei and help Ann Marie Buerkle win the election.

So, what to do with the $4250?  Rozum chose to give it away, to local charities and to groups that support fair elections and election reform, stating

These donations should be very worrisome to everyone because it just shows that the rich in this country are really trying to game the electoral system. Giving to candidates that are polar opposites just shows that there are interests in this country that think that they can buy the electoral system. So, it really underscores the need for electoral reform.

Shame on you, out of state donors -- you have no business interjecting yourselves here.  I didn't like President Obama sticking his nose in our governor's race a while back and I don't like or want your money or your meddling in the race for my congressional representative.

And good for Ursula Rozum, for having the courage of her convictions; I wish more candidates had her mettle. You can view Rozum's press conference here.

What is Dan Maffei afraid of?

Right off the bat, let me say that I'm not a fan of Ann Marie Buerkle. I'm also not really much of a Dan Maffei fan, and here's one more, er four more, reasons why.

Buerkle, to her credit, has offered to meet with both Maffei and Green Party candidate Ursula Rozum in a series of town hall get-togethers, one in each of the four counties in the new NY-24th.  The town halls would have a moderator, audience questions would be thrown into a hat, and the candidates would all have a chance to respond to the question, and to each other's position. 

As a voter, I'm in favor of this approach; it seems like a pretty good deal for me. The candidates go head to head, including Rozum who deserves to be in the mix; they don't know necessarily know all of the questions in advance (there's always a chance that some 'out-there' question will come up), and we get to see them live, rather than in some studio under much more controlled circumstances.

Rozum, to her credit, has agreed to the sessions. She has nothing to lose, really, and has the opportunity to gain some ground on the other two. Buerkle's obviously in; she loves the town hall format.

Maffei's camp, however, has called Buerkle's offer a 'political scheme', stating that she uses the town hall format to lie to us,  and to hide her true Tea Party colors; they think that the two debates that have been scheduled on local TV stations are sufficient.  Heck, that's not even one debate in each county.

Dan, what are you afraid of?  Why aren't you willing to stand on a stage with AMB and Ursula and go toe to toe with them? 

Why aren't you willing to look me in the eye at an open forum with your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you this time? 

Poll Watch: NY’s 24th District (part 2)

Siena College Research warned me. 

“Voters in the 24^th congressional district should brace themselves for an eight week barrage of television and radio commercials – positive and negative – paid for by the candidates, the parties, and independent expenditure groups.” 

After seeing at least five, possibly six ads during the last half-hour of the local news tonight, I can assure you the barrage has begun.  And here’s why.

Democrat Dan Maffei and Republican incumbent Ann Marie Buerkle are in a dead heat to represent the district in the House. That’s right: a dead heat for two candidates who fought long, hard and ugly in 2010, only to have Buerkle declared the winner by fewer than 700 votes.  Both candidates are carrying baggage from that fight, from Maffei’s one term before being unseated, and from Buerkle’s first term – and that baggage shows in the poll results.

Consider these numbers:

Favorability: Maffei leads this one, with a 49% favorable/37% unfavorable, compared to Buerkle’s 44/44.  Maffei had a higher don’t know/no opinion number, 14% to 11%.

Reach: Both candidates have reached out – a lot. 63% of those polled had seen a Maffei ad, been contacted by the Maffei campaign, or both. On the other side, it was 65% who had seen a Buerkle ad, been contacted by her campaign, or both.  This number is sure to increase.  

Issues:  On health care (44% to 41%), education (46% to 38%), jobs (43% to 40%), taxes (45% to 40%) the Afghan war (38% to 36%), and representing the needs of our community in Washington (44% to 42%), Maffei leads. On only one issue – the federal deficit – does Buerkle lead, 43% to 41%. Education and taxes are the only issues where the gap is not covered by the survey's 3.9% margin of error.

Strength of support: Democrats more strongly support Maffei (73%) than Republicans do Buerkle (66%), but Independents lean much more heavily toward Buerkle, by a 45% -36% margin. And only 13% of folks polled said they ‘may very well’ change their minds (9%), or there’s a ‘good chance’ (4%) that they’re going to change their minds.

So all these ads we’re seeing – twice as many this week as last week, by my estimate – are all looking to sway a very small percentage of the district’s population.  I almost wish those folks would all go to the Carrier Dome, watch the ads and listen to the propaganda together, then talk amongst themselves. Once they made up their minds, they could wave a white flag, and security could escort them out and let them go home.

Meanwhile, back in The Valley, I could enjoy television the way it was intended, with commercials for miracle kitchen supplies, car dealerships, personal injury law firms,  fast food restaurants, and prescription drug companies.