2008: A "surprise" turn in Iowa's Republican race

I don't want to say I told you so...

Huckabee suddenly appears poised to challenge Romney to win the first GOP presidential contest. (LATimes, 2007-11-30)

But I told you so.

The rest of the story: The Los Angeles Times
See also, Mike Huckabee, Our Favorite Right-Wing Nut Job by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone, 2007-11-14)

Political Action: Taking Unions Out of the Workplace

The AFL-CIO's unconventional — and surprisingly successful — strategy to make American organized labor politically powerful again.

by Nelson Lichtenstein (AlterNet, 2007-11-29)

Despite all the high-profile sniping between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in advance of the Iowa primary, there seems a good chance - knock on wood - that the Democrats are going to win big in November 2008. But there is a historically consequential issue that remains entirely up for grabs. Will the Democratic party's presumptive electoral success merely represent a "throw the bums out" repudiation of Bush administration excesses? Or are we on the verge of a historic remobilization of American liberalism that will usher in a generation of progressive statecraft?

The answer may come from the ranks of American labour - not just the 12% of all working Americans who are now enrolled in unions, but the vastly larger segment of the working population who support universal healthcare, oppose the war in Iraq and want a voice in their workplace. While de-industrialization and management hostility have slashed union membership during the last three decades, pro-union sentiment has actually increased in the American heartland. More than half of all wage earners have told pollsters that they would like to join a union.

You know what I think: Unless the victory goes to Edwards, there is zero chance of fundamental change, and even with an Edwards victory, without a powerful movement to counteract the incredible pressure that the corporatist forces will apply to an Edwards administration, reaction will prevail. Is Labor's new activism an early manifestation of such a movement?

The rest of the story: AlterNet

Labor: Writers' Strike as seen on YouTube

Ask a Ninja explains it all for you:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qabTVV2wqLU>
The Comedy Channel without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBetgXhSPg>
Star Wars without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s04LlhlEIk>
Television without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbOwC0SwSmI>
Hollywood without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtKteRTA-8>
Life without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RW1w2dTVSc>
Writers Strike Dance:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jl3clcLSBY>

Public Access: NYC's Biggest Hotspot

Just when it seemed like citywide Wi-Fi was kaput, the wireless Internet technology has come to New York City.

On Thursday, CBS announced the creation of a 20-block wireless high-speed network in Manhattan. Dubbed the "CBS Mobile Zone," it stretches from Times Square to the southern portion of Central Park. Within the zone, people with Wi-Fi-enabled cell phones, laptops or PDAs will be able to access the Internet and make calls over the Internet for free. CBS has committed to a six-month trial of the technology.

The experiment should provide hope for boosters of municipal Wi-Fi following the recent bust-up of Wi-Fi projects in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and St. Louis. EarthLink, once a high-profile backer of the technology, is grappling with a restructuring that has left planned projects in Chicago and Houston in the lurch. Projects in San Francisco and St. Louis have been delayed and downsized, due to technical issues and city politics.

The rest of the story: Forbes

2008: CNN's Bogus Debate

Hillary Clinton did a great job handling the ridiculous “diamonds or pearls” question that finished the fracas in Las Vegas.

But you won't be entirely surprised to learn that there have been many complaints that the question was frivolous, trivial, stupid and sexist.

And, it turns out, premeditated.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reported that “Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred ‘diamonds or pearls’ at last night’s debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.” Ambinder writes:

“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.”

Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

“When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understand[ing] is that the [diamond v. pearls] [question] was her other question,” Feist said. “She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate.”

Why is this a surprise? As a for-profit entertainment company, CNN's mission is to please viewers in an effort to please advertisers. Just as all television news shows are required to conclude on an up note, with a humorous human interest story, an uplifting anecdote or, as Charles Gibson did the other night, a tip o' the hat to God, CNN can't be expected to go into a block of drug commercials after, say, a sour question about the 282,600 Americans who have died since the beginning of Desert Storm because they were denied access to health care.

Although CNN may have set the lowest standard yet, it's the Democrats themselves, by putting the debates in the hands of commercial broadcasters, who are to blame for what has turned out to be a nearly unmitigated disaster.

Wolf Blitzer began this round by trying to goad Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama into a slug fest, in the process not only shutting out, for the most part, the other candidates, but also shutting down entirely any serious discussion of issues for the first half hour of the show.

CNN would have been pleased if substance had never been allowed interrupt the proceedings at all. Blitzer announced sternly at the opening that the candidates would not be permitted to stray off the topic of the specific question they were asked, and during the debate it was hard not to see why: Most of the best moments came when the candidates resisted or ignored the rigid attempt to hold them to the network's agenda.

During the first segment, for example, John Edwards veered off from Blitzer's obsession with the Clinton-Obama catfight to talk about what is to be done about poverty. Bill Richardson expressed his annoyance with not being permitted to speak until nearly a half an hour into the evening by taking the opportunity when it came to introduce himself to the audience. Later in the program, Richardson slipped his shackles again, this time to talk about renewable energy. Near the end of the show, Biden got applause for refusing to answer a CNN-crafted question -- by now the audience was siding with the candidates against the network -- and insisting that he would answer an audience query instead.

Dennis Kucinich was the least intimidated by CNN's bullying, but ignored and diminished as he was by the network, he had little choice but to be aggressive if he was to be heard at all. The congressman was completely blocked out of the opening segment until the very end, when all the candidates were asked whether they would support the party's nominee in the general election. The rest of the panel allowed that, yes, they would, but Kucinich said, "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy." Unusually prolix for a politician who is noted usually for being admirably direct. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

Kucinich was ignored by the moderator throughout most of the evening, it's hard not to think because of his tendency to speak bluntly about real issues. For example, during a run of questions on education, Blitzer asked Kucinich on what issues he disagreed with organized labor, then moved back to education with the next candidate. On the singularly stupid question of licenses for undocumented immigrants, Kucinich shifted the topic to the far more important question of what to do about NAFTA. Kucinich did get a direct question on trade with China, and his answer included the point that maybe the country would do well to elect officials, like himself, who are right on crucial matters such as war and trade from the start, instead of having to clean up mistakes later.

The first question to the panel from the public asked what the candidates would do to prevent an attack on Iran, but CNN let answer only the aspirants who are "reliable" on the issue -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden. Not Kucinich, of course, the candidate who is the most forthright on the topic of imperial aggression, but also not Richardson, who has a thoughtful position on dealing with Iran.

Contrast the amount of attention CNN gave to the Clinton-Obama tiff with the network's attempt to limit the debate on Iran.

Best laid plans, though: Joe Biden injected an untoward element into the discussion with an answer that probably surprised even him:

"If Bush takes the country to war in Iran without an act of Congress," Biden said, "then he should be impeached!"

On Iraq, Richardson was allowed to say he would end the occupation by 2010, but Kucinich was not given the opportunity to state his position (he'd get us out before the end of next year). At one point, Blitzer began to address Kucinich: "You were the only one who voted against the Patriot Act..."

"That's because I read it," Kucinich interjected, to huge applause.

After talking about the legislation, the Ohio representative turned to the topic of preventing an attack on Iran. As Blitzer tried to cut him off, Kucinich said, "Impeach them now!," the only time he was permitted to speak during the debate's entire second hour.

Despite CNN's hostility to ideas, the debate in the desert did shed some light on the campaign. Resisting as best she could her inclination to bob-and-weave, Hillary Clinton reestablished herself as the candidate to beat, though when she does answer substantively, as on Iraq, Iran and health care, she raises a question in the mind of a Democrat whether she is a suitable nominee for his party. Obama once again demonstrated that, despite his occasional eloquence, he is not ready for prime time. And Edwards, though he delivered another solid performance in the debates, failed again to show the fiery idealism that inspired so many in 2004. Solid is only a letter away from stolid.

The big winners this time were Richardson and Kucinich. New Mexico's governor continues to give common sense a good name. With his self-deprecating humor, reasonableness, and wealth of experience, you'd want him for vice president if that wouldn't keep him from being secretary of state. Kucinich, who can come off a little self-righteous, was right on the money this time. And it didn't hurt his performance that the audience in the room turned against CNN as the evening wore on. I'm told that when you listen to the debate on the radio, Kucinich wins every time.

Chris Dodd continued to be a solid presence in this campaign, not the lightweight his career as a journeyman Senator might have led you to expect. And Biden, while not living up to his promise in the comic relief department, has delivered some of the best lines of the campaign.

It is to be hoped that the Democrats will learn from this debacle. Against the Republicans, a format that permits "journalists" to confine the candidates to sound bites and "Lightning Rounds" about documents for the undocumented and false choices between freedom and security, the Democrats will lose every time.

On AfterDowningStreet after the debate the other night, anti-war activist David Swanson wrote:

A serious debate would begin by asking each candidate (including Mike Gravel, who was locked out of the room) what he or she would do if elected president. Thursday's debate in the opening 30 minutes had me longing for even the level of honesty and substance of the MSNBC debate hosted by Keith Olbermann in Soldier Field some months back, at which Olbermann managed the superhuman feat of asking things like "Would you cancel NAFTA?"

Swanson points out that "Biden also said he had a plan to end the war that could begin the day he becomes president, a promise made by most of the candidates on the stage." Any journalist worth his salt might have been moved to ask what that plan is.

If an intelligent moderator were asking the questions at these debates, the fact that the Senate now faces a vote on another $50 billion for the occupation would have come up, and the fact that neither Biden nor Obama nor Clinton nor Dodd is willing to filibuster it would have been brought up. Instead, the entire debate included no mention of Wednesday's vote in the House or the upcoming vote in the Senate. A moderator who loves to catch candidates in even the most trivial contradictions had not one word to say about the topic of funding an occupation they all claim to want to end.

Instead, it's "diamond and pearls." The only up side comes from contemplating the staff meeting at which CNN is planning the upcoming debate between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Wouldn't fairness require, someone will argue, that the cross-dressing former New York mayor, who knows more than a little about accessorizing, get the same opportunity as Sen. Clinton to weigh in on this important issue?

See also, Some debate advice: How to survive the political season by Martin Schram (Capitol Hill Blue, 2007-11-21).

Activism: Our Tattered Bill of Rights

Here is a timely new action:

The Campaign for Our Constitution is a coalition of Southern Californians working to bring attention to our country’s Constitutional crisis and restore America’s values....

What We Want:

Revive habeas corpus, the basic right to hear the charges against you
Restore FISA, the check on warrantless wiretapping
Close Guantanamo
Bring back checks and balances

Read more about our goals

How We'll Get It

Expand the Community: Meet others online and at events
Refine the Message: Talk strategy with other activists, bloggers and
Constitutional experts
Make Some Noise: Get the word out to local media
Take Direct Action: Put pressure on California’s members of
Congress to restore our civil liberties

Read more about our strategy -- from the website.

<http://aclu-sc.org/ourconstitution/>

Hot Air: Which walnut shell hides the pea?

Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer are so strongly opposed to torture they plan to consume weeks of Senate time making it illegaler.

Electoral Reform: Instant Runoff Wins by a Landslide

Proportional representation and instant runoffs would go a long way toward making our electoral system more democratic. See Election Reform: Instant Runoffs (Impractical Proposals, 2004-12-29) and It's ba-a-a-a-ck: New Life for Conservative Initiative to Apportion Electoral Vote (Impractical Proposals, 2004-11-03). Proportional representation may be a hard concept for voters who have no experience other than with winner-takes-all ballots, but instant runoffs are so clearly superior to the method used in most U.S. elections, according to FairVote.org, that the alternative is gaining support across the country.

Many newly elected candidates are no doubt celebrating today, basking in the glow of their fresh victories. But they were not the only winners from Election Day 2007.

Instant runoff voting earned landslide support on ballots across the country. A whopping 77% of voters in Aspen (CO) voted to move to instant runoff voting. Sarasota (FL) voters topped that margin, voting 78% for IRV and prompting the Sarasota Herald Tribune to call the city "a model of election reform." In a particularly important election for next year, 65% of voters in Pierce County (WA) voted on a charter amendment to keep IRV on track for the hotly contested 2008 county executive race. In rural western Washington, voters in Clallam County narrowly rejected establishing IRV as an option in their charter.

Several cities also held ranked voting elections.

* San Francisco held its fourth IRV election overall, and its first for mayor, with first-round winners in three citywide races.

* Takoma Park (MD) smoothly held its first IRV election for mayor, with nary a single spoiled ballot out of more than 1,000 cast.

* The city of Hendersonville (NC), following in the footsteps of Cary (NC) in using IRV this fall, had a strong first IRV election for two city council seats. As one voter put it, "There's nothing to it."

* As a bonus, a graduate student in Cambridge (MA) won a city council seat in an upset victory under the choice voting system of proportional voting, now
in its seventh decade of use.

From FairVote.org

It's ba-a-a-a-ck: New Life for Conservative Initiative to Apportion Electoral Vote

Although it is being pushed by the Republicans in the hope that, in a close election, at least some of California's 55 electoral votes will go to the GOP candidate and tip the balance in the electoral college in the party's favor, progressives will need to think long and hard before jumping in on the side of the state's majority party. Winner-take-all is an anti-democratic method of tallying votes; it routinely disenfranchises millions of citizens and makes organizing alternative party challenges to the RepubliCrats nearly impossible. The Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, and progressives interested in challenging the status quo should seize the opportunity of this argument between the dominant parties to widen the debate to a consideration of the advantages of proportional representation and instant run-offs.

Ironically, though they're angling for a short term advantage, the apparatchiks of the extreme Right who ripped open this can of worms may have inadvertently also unlocked the door to a more democratic electoral process. While, to protect their current advantage, the Democrats mount their challenge to this initiative in the courts, electoral reformers can ride the publicity wave to educate voters about proportional representation and/or instant runoffs and take the opportunity to devise an effective campaign of their own to democratize our system of voting. If the law of unintended consequences lives up to its reputation and the Republican initiative actually brings about electoral college reform, progressives may face a difficult choice: voting yes to a more democratic selection process, and possibly handing the Republicans a short term bonus, or voting no and missing a chance for genuine reform.

If the measure is approved by the voters in June, and the Green/Peace & Freedom alliance (should it come to pass) is unified behind attractive independent candidates for president and vice-president, their appeal to voters looking for an alternative would be greatly enhanced. It is not impossible to imagine a situation in a very close race, where , even with a handful of votes, the progressive parties could hold the margin of victory in the electoral college, and thus be in a position to extract real policy concessions in exchange for their support.

by Jennifer Steinhauer (The New York Times, 2007-11-03)

Republican donors are pumping new life into a proposed ballot initiative, considered all but dead by Democrats a month ago, that would alter the way electoral votes are apportioned in California to the benefit of Republican presidential candidates.

Though the financing remains uncertain, the measure’s leaders said Friday that they were confident they would get the signatures required by the Nov. 29 deadline to qualify the initiative for a statewide vote next June. The effort, begun in the summer by a prominent Republican lawyer, lay in peril in October after its top proponents quit over questions about its financing.

Last week, a new organization began raising the roughly $2 million thought to be needed to get the initiative on the ballot. The new effort is being spearheaded by David Gilliard, a Republican consultant in Sacramento, aided by Anne Dunsmore, a prolific fund-raiser who recently resigned from the presidential campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani....

The initiative would ask voters to replace California’s winner-take-all system of allocating its 55 electoral college votes with one that parses the votes by Congressional district. It has attracted strong opposition from Democrats because it would transform California from a reliably Democratic state in presidential elections by handing the Republican nominee roughly 20 votes from safe Republican districts.

If the initiative qualifies for the ballot, Art Torres, the head of the California Democratic Party, has promised a constitutional challenge, arguing that only state legislatures can determine how electoral votes are allocated.

The rest of the story: The New York Times

See also: Legal challenge on electoral change: Democrats say initiative violates U.S. Constitution and vow a suit to fight it. (SacBee, 2007-11-02); 2008: California Proposal Could Sway Outcome of Race (Impractical Proposals Santa Monica, 2007-07-31); Election Reform: Instant Runoffs (Impractical Proposals, 2004-12-29); 2006: In California, it's the year to vote third party (Impractical Proposals2006-11-04)

Bush Prods Congress to Impeach **

In a surprisingly cogent lecture yesterday, the noted historian George W. Bush compared Democratic Party leaders in Congress to politicians who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler nearly a century ago, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today. Bush did not quite conclude that the inability of the U.S. legislature to rein in an out-of-control executive exactly mirrors the failure of democratic forces to act when the Bolsheviks and Nazis manipulated democratic institutions to establish totalitarian regimes in Russia and Germany, but he did say that, in his words, "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake." With the current administration assaulting democracy at home and pursuing an imperial agenda abroad, to paraphrase the president, Bush, Cheney and their "allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

** All quotes real