Grains of Salt (v36): JPW for... Whom?

Grains of Salt

Juanita Perez Williams, who lost to Independent Ben Walsh to be mayor of Syracuse, was a late entry into the NY-24 Congressional race to replace Republican John Katko.

Perez Williams (JPW) initially supported SU professor Dana Balter to represent the party, but then entered the race herself, with considerable outside support (and what she just described in a televised debate as something of a groundswell of support from local friends and strangers encouraging her run).

She and Balter have the same positions on just about every issue, so what distinguishes them for voters? Where Balter is building her campaign on her grassroot support as well as the support of all of the party folks in the district, and she's been working on this since last September, meeting voters and listening to them, and she had a ton of signatures,  JPW says she's the one who's most able to beat Katko in November, and our district has national attention and that can only help us. Plus, she's battle-tested.

I've been getting at least a couple mailings a week from her or from her supporting organizations for a while now. They all have the same tone - beating Trump, fighting Trump, supporting a woman's right to choose and Medicare for all - but I don't recall a single one really talking about our district. You know, us?  The people she's fighting to represent in Washington? I mean, shouldn't we be front and center, or at least in the lower left-hand corner? And are abortion and universal health care really the most important issues for us?

The latest campaign piece I received was actually paid for by her committee - Juanita for Congress - which lists a Syracuse street address and a local PO box for donations. Per her website, her priorities are:

• Health care: quality, affordable care; guaranteed access to coverage for all; lower drug prices; protecting the ACA, no 'age tax' in premiums, and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, as well as full funding for Planned Parenthood and defending a woman's right to choose.
• Education: full resources for public schools; technical apprenticeships as an alternative to college prep; no funneling tax dollars to private schools; advocating for teachers.
• Jobs and wages: smart infrastructure investments; skills training to help diversify the economy and keep young people close to home; sensible tax policies; wage protections; innovation.
• Environment: passing policies to ensure a vibrant planet for future generations; clean energy initiatives here in CNY to provide meaningful jobs.

However, per the fancy mailing (which speaks in the third person except for the one statement show in the picture below), here's what's important:

And here are the priorities for that mission, as described in the piece:

• Taking Back Congress: Trump distracts/divides; Republicans in DC tried to take our healthcare, gave tax breaks to Wall Street, ended environmental protections. 
• Protecting the Right to Choose: Trump & Washington Rs are waging a war on women;  protect the right to choose; full funding for PP; ending gender discrimination; harsh penalties for sexual harassment.
• Fighting for Medicare for All: affordable healthcare is a right; universal health care is Medicare for All; stopping measures to repeal the ACA.
• Keeping our Families Safe: gun violence must end; common sense gun reform including universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole; keeping assault weapons off the streets and out of schools. 

If you flip the campaign piece over, you'll find a list of her endorsements, none of which are local.  Here's a little about the organizations listed, which are shown at right:

• VoteVets.org, a group with the mission of using public issue campaigns to give a voice to veterans on national security, veterans' care, and other issues affecting those who served and their families. Neither JPW mentions vets.
• Latino Victory: this progressive group seeks to empower Latino voters, develop a pipeline of Latino donors, and develop Latino candidates. JPW does not appear in the list of candidates or any press releases from this organization.
• Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBCPAC): you can find her here, including reference to what she's fighting for. In addition to what's on her own website, we find equal pay for women and citizenship for Dreamers, plus overturning the Trump tax plan.
• Red to Blue, an arm of the DCCC, which aims to turn Republican districts to Democratic districts by arming diverse 'top-tier' candidates with organizational and fundraising support. Here, JPW's bio includes her children, grandchildren, career, and charitable work.
• RWDSU, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store union, part of the UFCW.  The website for this organization is months out of date, listing candidates they had endorsed for 2017, nothing more current, and I don't find a local of this union anywhere near the 24th district.
• Bold Action (BoldPAC), which says is the fastest growing Democratic PAC and is dedicated to increasing diversity in Congressional leadership. It champions progressive candidates. Here, her bio emphasizes her immigrant grandparents and her activist parents who worked with the farm workers movement.

My concern is this: which JPW would I be voting for on Tuesday?  

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)

Wondering, on Wednesday (v9)

I'm on of those old fogies who still watches the evening news, both a local version and a national version. And I live in the NY24 congressional district, which puts me smack dab in the Big Pharma demographic from January to the end of August and then in the thick of political campaign ad season, which runs from roughly Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November.

It feels like the local news broadcast has gotten about two or three minutes shorter in the past couple of weeks, as the political ads really ramp up. And then I read that, in one week there were around 4,500 ads tied to the US Senate races in Michigan and Iowa alone -- one ad every two minutes -- and I thank my lucky stars that we don't live where anything like that will ever happen.

We have our share of negative ads here, whether the candidates want to admit it or not, on both sides. And that got me wondering, on Wednesday, what if all of our ads were like that?  I mean, think about it: everywhere we shop, the restaurants where we eat, the cars we drive -- they're all just votes we make, the same as we vote for one politician over another.

What would it look like, if everyone did the same thing as the pols?  Here are a few examples, just for fun:

• Price Lower says the have the lowest prices, but that's a lie. They lower prices on crap no one even buys, and then the use those numbers to screw up the calculation and make you think all their prices are lower. Plus, their fish smells funny.  Price Lower? They're not good for you, or your wallet. This ad was paid for by the consortium for expensive grocery stores.

• Mama's Kitchen likes to say they have the best food, the best atmosphere, and they even pretend that Mama, who's now 87 years old and only has one leg, is there doing the cooking every day. Well, Mama's Kitchen is nothing like your mother's kitchen -- it failed their health inspection this year.  I wouldn't let Mama wash the dishes in my restaurant!  Come to Papa, and leave Mama behind. Papa's BarBeCue is responsible for the content of this advertisement. 

• I'm Mr Green Jeans, and I'm the owner of The Grass is Greener Sod and Turf.  My competitor, The Auld Sod, likes to say that his sod is the best in town.  But we know better. He uses dyes on his sod to make it look greener.  His sod dies if you don't water it for hours each day, but you won't know about that unless you read the really fine print in your contract. He used to be a lawyer in the big city, so he's really good at writing contracts. And he hires undocumented aliens to mow his sod. So remember, on our side of the fence, the grass is always greener.  Paid for by the Grass is Greener Sod and Turf, locally owned and operated since well, forever. No undocumented migrant workers were used in the filming of this ad.

• FastFill gas? That's not American gas, that's Muslim gas. The gas from their pumps comes straight from terrorist countries, countries that are just here to take our money and bomb our buildings and destroy the American Dream. If you're buying FastFill gas, you're just as bad as they are. Think about that before you put it in your tank and drive it. North American Tar Sands Petroleum Stations Franchising Company is responsible for the content of this advertising. 

So, how long would it take for you to stop doing business with the advertisers, to be completely turned off by them?  How long before you complained to the businesses or organizations behind the ads?  Or would you fall hook line and sinker for the content, without even trying to find out the truth? 

And would television stations even accept ads like that?  I seriously doubt it.

And one more thing I'm wondering tonight: would it be possible to quarantine the word Pelosi?

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?