Google Search

Showing posts with label Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Party. Show all posts

Thursday, May 1, 2014

U.S. Senate race in Hawaii pits opposing wings of Democratic Party

Sen. Brian Schatz Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who was appointed to continue the term of late Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, is facing a tough challenge from Inouye's protege, U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii). (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press / December 27, 2012)

HONOLULU — In primaries across the country — in Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi and other states — Republicans are locked in a heart-and-soul battle between purists and pragmatists clashing over what it means to represent the party, its philosophy and core values.

Here in Hawaii there's a similar fight over power and purpose, but this one is between Democrats. It's a fight for a U.S. Senate seat, a rare enough prize in a state that has elected just six people senator since statehood in 1959. But it is also a battle over age and gender, over ethnicity and identity, over old grudges and new tensions.

Rivalries and historical resentments often surface in Hawaii politics — sometimes years later, like a bottle cast to sea — and the fierce contest between appointed Sen. Brian Schatz and his fellow Democrat, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, is no different: The two ran against each other in a 2006 congressional primary, and they both lost.

The latest contest arises from the death of Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye in December 2012, less than a month shy of completing his 50th year in the Senate. Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie ignored what was presented as Inouye's dying wish, that the senator's protege, Hanabusa, be named his successor, and instead appointed Schatz, the lieutenant governor and a former head of the state party.

In choosing, Abercrombie cited seniority as an overriding factor. Schatz is 41 and Hanabusa is 62, which suggests — actuarially speaking — he could serve many more years and gain more clout for a state that has counted for decades on a generous ladling of federal largess, thanks to Inouye's power and longevity. After tourism, the U.S. military is Hawaii's biggest source of income.

"Go to Washington, bring federal dollars home," said Randy Perreira, head of the Hawaii Government Employees Assn., the state's largest and most powerful union, which has endorsed Schatz. "That's the game."

Abercrombie's mention of age led Hanabusa to accuse the governor of sexism, suggesting his comments insulted women who devote themselves to family and start their professional careers later in life. (Hanabusa has no children but practiced law for several years before launching her political career.) "We make choices," Hanabusa said in an interview. "We have to."

Another fault line is race and ethnicity. Asians make up the largest segment of the population, about 4 in 10 residents, followed by whites, at just over 25%. Nearly a quarter of the population identifies itself as being of two races.

A generation of Japanese American World War II veterans, including Inouye, helped break down long-standing economic and social barriers that had once favored white plantation owners and businessmen and, with the help of organized labor, converted pre-statehood Hawaii from a Republican-leaning territory into today's Democratic stronghold.

Within the party, however, there has long been a divide between pragmatists and a smaller group of activists, typically younger, whiter and more ideological. For years, Inouye and Abercrombie represented those wings; now, it's Hanabusa and Schatz.

They took opposite sides in the bitter 2008 Democratic presidential contest: Hanabusa, like Inouye, backed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Schatz, like Abercrombie, was an early and ardent backer of native son Barack Obama and ran his successful Hawaii campaign.

Philosophically, though, the Senate contestants are largely in sync. The National Journal, which annually rates congressional members by ideology, has Schatz tied with two others this year as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Hanabusa, who was elected to Congress in 2010 after serving as state Senate president, consistently ranks among the more liberal House members.

There are differences on some issues, among them Hanabusa's support for limited drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reminiscent of Inouye's long alliance with Republican former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who pushed to open oil production there. Schatz opposes it.

Hanabusa also opposed forcing drug companies to pay the federal government a rebate for bulk purchases under the Medicare and Medicaid programs and voted to support the Simpson-Bowles commission, which, among its proposals, suggested raising the age for Social Security benefits to help cut the federal deficit.

Hanabusa said she opposed changes to Social Security but supported the commission's model as a starting point for discussion. Indeed, members of the Democratic House leadership also backed Simpson-Bowles.

Still, the Schatz campaign raises those examples to question Hanabusa's fealty to the Democratic Party's principles. His first TV ad featured the senator in a homey setting with his elderly father-in-law, vowing to protect Social Security. Hanabusa, who has raised only about half as much campaign cash as Schatz, has yet to begin her TV advertising.

Schatz said the race should be about performance, favorably comparing his year-plus in the Senate with Hanabusa's House record. He says his endorsement by President Obama — a rare intervention in a primary — and support from Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, along with much of the rest of the party establishment, means he can deliver in ways the congresswoman cannot.

"That's what I want to make this election about," Schatz said in an interview.

Hanabusa said she would have "the same kinds of relationships and opportunities afforded to me as well" if elected to the Senate. Sounding a rare note of bipartisanship, she said it was important to work across the aisle, as Inouye did. "Times change and majority status changes," she said. "What doesn't change is relationships that are built."

Much of the drama surrounding the race so far has focused on a letter, ascribed to Inouye on his deathbed, seeking Hanabusa's selection. Abercrombie has questioned the authorship and said Inouye told him, privately, to use his best judgment in filling any vacancy.

"I wouldn't want the Senate race to get lost in this question of what Sen. Inouye wanted or didn't want," Abercrombie told The Times this month.

With so many cross-currents, there seems little chance of that. Polling is difficult in Hawaii, a state with one of the worst turnout rates in the country. But all sides agree the race is exceedingly close and will probably stay that way to the end.

The outcome probably won't affect the fight for control of the Senate. Whoever wins the Aug. 9 Democratic primary is overwhelmingly favored to win in November and serve the remainder of Inouye's term. Then, it is expected, the incumbent will seek a full six-year term in 2016.

mark.barabak@latimes.com


View the original article here

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Assembly's tea party firebrand, Tim Donnelly, cools his rhetoric

Bus tour Gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly says he is working to be less confrontational in the Assembly. (Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times / February 11, 2014)

SACRAMENTO —Tim Donnelly arrived at the Assembly in late 2010 with big plans.

First on his list: a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration. A plan to dismantle the state's air quality board was close behind.

In a Capitol dominated by Democrats, those proposals, unsurprisingly, went nowhere. And the cool reception extended to Donnelly himself, one of the Legislature's few tea party disciples.

The Republican from Twin Peaks, near Lake Arrowhead, had vowed during his campaign that he was "going to Sacramento to start the war," and he kept up the provocative oratory once he landed.

Donnelly is now running for governor, campaigning on many of the themes he sounded in his initial Assembly run: personal liberty, low taxes and small government. But even as he rails against the political establishment, he says that serving in the Legislature has changed him, particularly in how he deals with political adversaries.

"Instead of looking for ways I can do a frontal assault against this massive wall, I found a way to chip away at a single brick," Donnelly said. "The key is you have to pick the right brick, and that means people have to agree with it."

That's a notable departure from the approach he took when he first ran for office 31/2 years ago. Donnelly, formerly a small-business owner and leader in the Minuteman volunteer border-patrol group, told supporters that he had no interest in making friends in the Legislature.

"I'm going there to reach across the aisles to the enemies of freedom and annihilate them and pound them into the ground and take back our power," he said at a Tea Party Express rally in Barstow in October 2010.

He promised legislation based on a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona, parts of which have since been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was the first bill he introduced.

The measure would have ended "sanctuary cities" by ordering state and local officials to comply with federal immigration laws. It would also have imposed strict penalties on businesses that did not verify the immigration status of employees.

A throng of supporters attended the bill's committee hearing, but the Democrats on the panel promptly killed the measure. Similarly, his bids to require photo identification to vote and to strip funding from the statewide high-speed rail project failed to make it past their first hearings.

An ardent gun-rights advocate, Donnelly offered several firearms bills that have languished. One would have eased the state's ban on the open carrying of weapons. Another, introduced after the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, would have created a plan for armed "marshals" on school premises.

In his first two-year term, just one of the 37 measures he introduced passed the Legislature: a resolution recognizing January as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. He has had more victories in his current term: two resolutions (one a reprise of the trafficking measure) and three bills that became law.

One bars state employees from helping the federal government detain terrorism suspects indefinitely in California — a change Democrats could support and a product of Donnelly's new approach. The proposal was a rebuke to a 2011 federal law requiring certain foreign terrorism suspects to be held by the military rather than move through the civilian justice system.

The bill forged an unexpected partnership between Donnelly and state Sen. Mark Leno, a staunchly liberal Democrat from San Francisco. Leno carried Donnelly's bill in the Senate. When the two lawmakers' names appeared side by side on the Senate's announcement screen, "there was some audible chuckling," Leno recalled.

Soon, Donnelly returned the favor, shepherding a Leno bill in the Assembly that streamlined the compensation process for those wrongfully convicted of crimes. It later became law.

Leno said Donnelly's libertarian streak offers chances for collaboration with some Democrats.

"That is where left meets right, at a libertarian point," Leno said.

Donnelly's relationship with his fellow Republicans is strained at times. He said the minority party is too willing to compromise, and after his first several weeks in the Capitol, he stopped attending the Assembly GOP's weekly lunches.

"I eat my lunch by myself," Donnelly said, adding he thought the confabs were "an impediment to really standing up for what I believe in."


View the original article here

Sunday, November 3, 2013

'Tea party' conservatives just want a health-care system that can work

(PNI) The news media and the Democratic Party have done an excellent job portraying the Republicans and especially the "tea party" conservatives as being stingy and selfish.

The tea party's main goal is for the federal government to start acting fiscally responsible. We spend too much on welfare. We were a stronger country back in the early 1960s before welfare got out of control with LBJ's Great Society program.

Social Security funds were spent in the 1960s and both parties pushed program expansions over the years to make it unsustainable for the long run. The tea party does not want to end Social Security. It wants the program to operate more fiscally responsibly so it lasts longer for those who really need it.

Tea-party conservatives are willing to make sacrifices for future fiscal success. They do not want to defund the $1.7trillion "Obamacare" and throw grandma off the cliff. They want a health-care program that actually works for grandma -- not a train wreck that is now on the horizon.

--Ken Wade, Scottsdale

Ariz. attitudes need to change

The Republic editorial board's "New Arizona" series has some surprising revelations. We border Mexico. We live in a desert (Arid Zone-a).

We have industries that depend on dry, clear skies, warm weather and federal government spending including aerospace/military, agriculture/ranching, hospitality/tourism, retirement living and health care.

We have a long history of actively offending our Mexican neighbors and local Latinos. Most of our leaders don't accept the reality of climate change and our special desert vulnerability.

Our support for education ranks near the bottom both financially and intellectually as we parasitize other states for much of our educated workforce. Transportation is limited pretty much to more freeways.

Even to provide basic health care requires semi-heroic efforts to accept billions of federal dollars.

Until these attitudes change, New Arizona, same as Old Arizona.

--Andrew March, Phoenix

Secure border is humane border

I completely agree with the premise in the editorial "Put humanity in border policy" (Opinions, Tuesday). I couldn't disagree more with the incorrect statement, "Enforcement alone doesn't work. It kills."

The opposite is true: The tighter the border, the less chance you have of someone being able to cross it and endangering themselves.

A secure border is a humane border, one which we obviously don't have yet or we wouldn't have more than 11million people in the U.S. currently seeking a solution for their illegal-immigrant status.

--Rusty Childress, Phoenix

Gun violence is the new normal

The latest shooting spree in Chicago drives home one chilling point: As long as we, as a country, embrace our firearms and neglect the sad state of mental-health care, refusing to do anything about either issue, then we should not be surprised to see more incidents of mass murder.

The hysterical news reporting and anguished hand-wringing can stop; it will have become as commonplace as the tens of thousands of gun-related homicides and suicides that occur every year in this country.

So, if we're not going to do anything about it, then we're just going to have to get used to it. What a sick thought.

--Ed Coleman, Tempe

Health insurance not in budget

It looks like I'll be one of those who will be fined for not having health insurance.

I can barely pay my expenses. I don't get assistance with food nor do I have a cellphone. I live with antenna TV. I cook all meals at home and don't go to movies. I have Internet service for bill pay instead of paying for checks and stamps.

I make less than $1,500 a month, but I make it work. I'm on the verge of becoming a vegetarian because of meat prices.

The expense of health care isn't in my budget, and I don't expect the taxpayers to pay for me to have AHCCCS. I go to the store and get what's cheap and stand in line behind someone that has every form of welfare known and has a hair weave and manicure. Not to mention the designer clothes.

Mr. President, if you fine me, I have no choice but to steal a shopping cart to live out of.

--Merry Lindquist, Glendale

Dodgers deserved pool time

A note to the Arizona Diamondbacks:

The No.1 way to keep the L.A. Dodgers out of your pool -- win the final game.

I lost a little respect for my D-Backs hearing them complain about the Dodgers celebrating their division championship by jumping into our pool -- by the way, in basically an empty stadium when there were no fans or D-Back players around.

What's that saying from "Field of Dreams"? To paraphrase, if you build it, they will come. Well, what do you expect if you want to have a clever marketing idea by putting a pool in your stadium?

--Michael Shoff, Gilbert

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Monday, April 8, 2013

Midterm Elections Unlikely to Alter Party Balance

Well, get used to the combination of a Republican House with a Democratic Senate and White House. It’s likely to remain that way for the next four years, not just two.

And oddly enough, that might just help Washington lower the partisan temperature and strike a few compromises for a change.

The campaign for midterm elections in 2014 has begun. Late Wednesday, President Obama travels to California to raise cash for the Democratic National Committee and his party’s House campaign arm.

But chances that Democrats can gain the 17 seats needed to recapture control of the House appear remote. Republicans have better prospects of picking up the six seats they need to regain the Senate – but not drastically better.

After midterm “wave elections” in 2006 and 2010, the calmer outlook this time reduces the stakes of electoral competition next year. That, in turn, may expand opportunities for bipartisan action on such issues as immigration, modest gun control measures and deficit reduction.

“We’re going to maintain our majority,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said in an interview. But with Mr. Obama not going anywhere either, he added, “I’m committed to seeing ways we can work with this White House, knowing full well we have big differences.”

“I think what you’re seeing emerge now is an appetite for achievement,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, who is a solid favorite to win re-election next year. “We want to do some things – or at least try – on a bipartisan basis.”

The ideological and political gap between the parties remains wide in any event. But the lure of seizing control of the House or Senate, and winning the presidency, has widened that gap in recent years by injecting all-or-nothing electoral drama into virtually every high-profile dispute.

In 2006, Democrats used unhappiness over the Iraq war, the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and other Republican setbacks to recapture House and Senate majorities. When the financial crisis hit two years later, they captured the presidency.

In 2010, House Republicans used continued economic weakness and a backlash against Obama administration policies to create their own comeback wave. Last year Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, set his sights on winning control of the Senate and ensuring Mr. Obama’s defeat.

As it turned out, voters last November preserved the existing balance of power. Odds favor their doing the same next time.

As this week’s fund-raising jaunt suggests, Mr. Obama is lending his energies to Congressional Democrats now that he no longer has to campaign for himself. But history and circumstance argue strongly against Democrats retaking the House.

Since voters tend to blame the White House incumbent for their discontents, the president’s party has lost House seats in all but three midterm elections in the past century. The number of times the president’s party has gained 17 seats in a midterm election: zero.

Democratic campaign operatives say they will defy history and gain at least a few seats. Among other factors, they point to strong fund-raising and the Republican Party’s national image problems.

But district lines drawn after the 2010 census circumscribe their opportunities. Charlie Cook, a political handicapper, estimates that fewer than 30 Republican-held seats are even at risk, and Democrats themselves have slightly more in jeopardy.

The midterm electorate tends to be heavier than in presidential years with older voters and whites – both important Republican constituencies. In Senate races, Republicans once again boast an auspicious map of possibilities.


View the original article here

Monday, October 29, 2012

George McGovern, Democratic Party icon, dies

George McGovern, the three-term senator from South Dakota who carried the Democratic Party's liberal banner in the Vietnam War era, launched a star-crossed bid for the presidency in 1972, and energized many of the leading Democrats of the past generation, died Sunday at a hospice in Sioux Falls, S.D. He was 90.

Family spokesman Steve Hildebrand confirmed the death to the Associated Press. The cause was not disclosed.

In a public career spanning more than five decades, McGovern may be best remembered as a presidential candidate of near-epic futility, in which he lost 49 of 50 states. The senator's liberal agenda -- supporting civil rights and anti-poverty programs and strongly denouncing the Vietnam War -- was critical to his landslide defeat to President Richard Nixon. But those views also helped define the future vision of the Democratic Party.

"In many ways, he revolutionized the Democratic Party," said Ross K. Baker, a Rutgers University political-science professor and an authority on congressional politics. "His followers drove out the old guard. Some would say it was the end of the old Democrats, but others would say, 'No, it opened up the party to women and others.'"

Among those who worked on McGovern's 1972 campaign were Bill Clinton, a future governor and president; Hillary Clinton, a future senator and secretary of State; and Gary Hart, a future senator and presidential candidate.

McGovern, a minister's son, was raised in a South Dakota farm community during the Depression and was a decorated bomber pilot in World War II. Both experiences -- seeing hobos begging for food at his family's doorstep and witnessing emaciated child beggars in wartime Italy -- molded his political career from the moment he was first elected to Congress in 1956.

In the early 1960s, he conceived the idea of the U.S. Food for Peace program, which gave foreign nations credit to buy surplus U.S. crops, and served under President John F. Kennedy as the program's first director. In that position, he played a central role building the United Nations World Food Program, a humanitarian organization that has provided food assistance to hundreds of millions of victims of war and natural disasters.

After winning his Senate seat in 1962, he spent much of his public life working on the expansion of food-stamp and school-lunch programs and championing civil rights and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the Senate. After being defeated for re-election to the Senate in 1980, he served as the U.S. representative to the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome and as a U.N. global ambassador on world hunger.

As part of his humanitarian interests, McGovern was synonymous with the anti-war movement. In September 1963, he became the first person to challenge the burgeoning Vietnam War on the Senate floor, with five paragraphs tucked into a speech about disarmament.

But McGovern voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964, giving President Lyndon Johnson almost blank-check authority to escalate the war. By the next year, McGovern joined a small group of senators who called U.S. involvement in Vietnam a mistake.

"We are fighting a determined army of guerrillas that seems to enjoy the cooperation of the countryside and that grow(s) stronger in the face of foreign intervention," he said in a Jan. 15, 1965, Senate speech that marked him as the leading Senate pacifist. "We are further away from victory over the guerrilla forces in Vietnam today than we were a decade ago." He then laid out a five-point program for withdrawal from the war.

With Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., McGovern proposed an end to the Vietnam War by Dec. 31, 1971. The McGovern-Hatfield Amendment failed on a Senate vote in 1970, but millions of Americans embraced McGovern as a prophet; millions of others considered him a traitor.

After being re-elected to the Senate in 1968, McGovern led a commission to overhaul the Democratic Party's nominating process. The experience proved crucial: McGovern entered the 1972 presidential race knowing the rules better than anyone else.

The race against Nixon was seen by most as a sure loss. The Nixon administration's involvement in the Watergate scandal -- which stemmed from a 1972 break-in of Democratic National Committee headquarters -- had not yet sunk into the public's consciousness.

McGovern offered the vice-presidential slot to several prominent Democratic lawmakers, but he was turned down. When Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri accepted the position, McGovern said he backed him "a thousand percent."

Within two weeks, Eagleton stepped down amid revelations that he had undergone psychiatric treatment.

McGovern replaced Eagleton with Sargent Shriver, the Kennedy in-law who was founding director of the Peace Corps and U.S. ambassador to France. But the campaign never recovered.

"I wish I had stayed with my initial judgment to keep Tom" on the ticket, he told the Washington Post in 2005. "I could have stood up for him had I known more about mental illness at the time."

The McGovern-Shriver ticket received only 38 percent of the popular vote, carrying just Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, for 17 electoral votes. Nixon won 520 electoral votes.

McGovern was born July 19, 1922, and grew up in Mitchell, S.D. He left Dakota Wesleyan University to serve as an Army bomber pilot during World War II. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and several Air Medals.

After the war, McGovern graduated from Dakota Wesleyan in 1946. Torn between the ministry and the study of history, he attended the old Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill., then transferred to Northwestern University, where he received a master's in 1950 and a doctorate in 1953, both in U.S. history.

Survivors include three daughters, Ann McGovern Mead, Susan McGovern Rowen and Mary McGovern. His wife of 63 years, the former Eleanor Stegeberg, died in 2007 at 85.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Not invited to the party

The ranks of Arizona's independent voters have surged 185 percent in the past two decades. They have surpassed the number of registered Democrats and are on a pace to eclipse Republicans.

The ever-growing bloc of voters is increasingly courted by candidates, who often need their swing votes to win.

But the political muscle of the 1 million-plus independent voters hasn't led to an increase in the number of independent candidates. There are only four independents on the statewide ballot this fall.

This disconnect traces back to Arizona's election laws, which were written by Republicans and Democrats and designed to tilt the political playing field to the major parties' advantage. They include higher hurdles for independents to qualify for the ballot, less public financing, and a rule that puts independents at the bottom of the ballot.

Independent candidate Brent Fine got a taste of that when he learned he could get only 70 percent of the public campaign-finance dollars available to his partisan colleagues. When he asked officials at the Citizens Clean Elections Commission why, the answer highlighted the circular nature of the barriers facing independents.

"They said, 'If you want to change it, you need to go to the Legislature,'" said Fine, who is running for the state House of Representatives in the Ahwatukee Foothills-Chandler area.

Fine's chances of making that change as lawmaker, however, are slim precisely because he's running as an independent. Arizona has never elected an independent to the Legislature, Congress or statewide office. Only 33 independents have even attempted to run in the past two decades, according to an Arizona Republic analysis.

"There's a growing sense that the parties are an institution that operate for their own self-preservation," said Jackie Salit, founder of IndependentVoting.org and director of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's independent campaign. And although the major parties are shrinking in Arizona, "they control the political process in very authoritarian ways," she said.

Legal roadblocks

Tom Rawles, an independent running for state Senate, said he's more interested in trying to spotlight what he calls a dysfunctional political system than in winning his race.

"I'm running because I think the system is broken," said Rawles, who faces Senate President Steve Pierce, a Republican. "The two parties are more interested in acquiring power than in getting things done."

No newcomer to the political game -- he served on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and then on the Mesa City Council -- Rawles was a Republican and a Libertarian before frustration drove him to become an independent three years ago.

Since launching a campaign as an independent, he's joined the elite fraternity of candidates who have been there, done that and have the loss to show for it.

Despite the odds, Rawles and other independent candidates say they press on because they don't feel they fit with the major parties. They disdain the gridlock that results from what often is a two-party standoff, and feel they offer an alternative to voters fed up with the status quo.

Their biggest obstacle to getting elected is the state's signature requirements to qualify for the ballot. All candidates must submit a minimum number of signatures on nominating petitions, but independents have to gather many more.

In Rawles' case, he needed at least 1,247 signatures, compared with 606 for Republicans and 251 for Democrats. A Libertarian who wanted to run in the central Arizona district would need only nine signatures.

The counts are based on a percentage of voter registration numbers. Established party candidates need 1 percent of their party's registered voters in the district in which they are running. In 1993, the Legislature amended the law and required independents to get 3 percent of the independent voters in their district -- a higher hurdle that is viewed as a barrier to nonpartisan candidates.

If they meet that hurdle, independents then face other challenges. They include:

Access to the voter-registration rolls. A decades-old law makes the list free for the political parties. Everyone else, including independent candidates, must pay. The cost can exceed $1,000. The data is a trove of voter information, from addresses to voting records.

Limited exposure during the primary-election season. Since independents have no partisan primary, their names are not on the sample ballots mailed to all voters. But the law requires all partisan candidates to be listed, even if he or she is unopposed.

The same no-independents-allowed rule holds true for the pamphlet the Clean Elections Commission mails to all voters; unchallenged partisan candidates still get to make a 200-word statement and have their photo published, valuable exposure for the coming general election.

Higher postage rates. State political parties can qualify for the non-profit bulk-mail rate, a 40 percent savings over the rate charged to commercial customers.

A smaller share of public campaign-finance dollars. Independents get 70 percent of the Clean Elections money allotted to partisan candidates in either legislative or statewide races. The rationale is independents don't face a primary race and thus need less money. Yet partisan candidates who face no opposition still get a nominal amount of public campaign financing.

Last place on the ballot. A law that rotates candidate names to ensure equal exposure on the ballot was amended 12 years ago to stipulate that independents must always be listed last.

The price of going it alone

There are other obstacles, consequences for candidates who decide to run outside an established party structure.

For example, independents walk away from the built-in support of a party. That means they lose out on a corps of volunteers ready to collect signatures, knock on doors and contribute to campaign coffers. It also sets them up for attacks from both the left and the right.

"They come at you from both sides," said Doug Quelland, a former Republican lawmaker now running for the state Senate as an independent. "And they're organized. There are no organized independent (parties) out there."

Quelland returned to the independent ranks (he ran for Congress in 1998 as an independent) after he was forced to resign his House seat in 2010 due to campaign-finance violations.

Mike Stauffer, an independent running against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a Republican, and Democratic challenger Paul Penzone, has felt the one-two punch of the major par-ties.

Democrats went after his nomination petitions, questioning the validity of the voter signatures. But they ultimately dropped their challenge.

Republicans also balked when he filed to run as a Republican because they didn't want Arpaio to have a primary contest.

In addition to the other obstacles, fundraising is a major challenge without the party support.

"Who's going to give me money?" asked Quelland. "It's a two-party dictatorship."

Money matters. The voter-registration list is a gold mine, containing voter addresses and voting records that help candidates target their message. By law, it's free to the political parties.

For independents, this gold mine costs a penny a name if they get the list electronically, a nickel a name on paper.

"As an independent, you have to pay for it," said Rawles. In his race, which straddles two counties, the cost for a digital file would be $1,231.

The political parties add their own data to the list they get for free, then sell it to individual campaigns. But they keep it in the family.

Pam Durbin realized it was easier to switch than fight. The Lake Havasu businesswoman filed to run as an independent, eyeing a state Senate seat in western Arizona.

Today, she is a Democratic candidate for the House.

Intimidated by the need to get at least 1,294 valid voter signatures, Durbin found the pitch from the Democratic Party too attractive to pass up. As a Democrat, she needed only 267 signatures to qualify, and there were people eager to help her collect them.

A game changer?

Some believe independents' electoral fortunes could change if Proposition 121 prevails on the November ballot. It would scrap partisan primaries in favor of an all-in primary with the top two finishers advancing to the general election, regardless of their party.

Ted Downing is a former state Democratic lawmaker who has thrown himself fully into the independent camp. He formed the Arizona Independent Candidate Coalition to share ideas. But being independents, the coalition fizzled as candidates went their own ways.

He got involved in the early efforts to draft the ballot initiative, convinced the system has to change. He chafes at the cost taxpayers shoulder for partisan elections.

He likes to note George Washington warned of the danger of putting party before country, and said that's a compelling reason for Proposition 121.

Rules 'are totally stacked'

Paul Johnson, chairman of the Open Government Committee which wrote Prop. 121, said the disadvantages independent candidates face was a driving force behind the measure.

"Everybody should be on a level playing field," he said. "The rules today are totally stacked against independents in every possible way."

He believes a revamped system would give independent candidates -- and independent voters -- a greater voice in the system by driving debate away from the extremes that he believes dominate the two-party system.

Others argue the system doesn't need to be blown up to make the process more amenable to independents.

"This idea of upsetting the entire system to get the top-two primary -- there's no evidence it works," said Randy Pullen, the former chairman of the state Republican Party.

He argued that lawmakers could simply roll back the laws that hinder independents.

But even with such changes, Pullen said, he doubts much would change. People align with parties for ideological reasons, so it probably would only marginally improve an independent candidate's chances, he said.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Social issues define party politics

NEW YORK — NEW YORK Voters in this presidential election may face the starkest choice ever on the hot-button social issues of same-sex marriage, abortion rights and access to birth control.

Wedges could aid Democrats

Some political analysts suggest that the Democrats might see an advantage in shifting the campaign conversation away from jobs and toward divisive social issues. "Social issues are the best ammunition the Obama campaign has to pull independents away from Romney," conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote this week.

Even as most voters tell pollsters the economy is their chief concern, advocacy groups on the left and right are in high gear -- with bus tours, YouTube videos and fundraising -- pointing out the sharp differences between the parties in the current phase of the culture wars.

Indeed, President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party seem increasingly eager to raise these issues proactively. They are touting their support for same-sex marriage and accusing the Republicans of waging a "war on women" by opposing abortion rights and federal programs to boost women's access to birth control.

Republicans have responded by accusing the president and his party of waging a "war on religion" via the portion of Obama's health care law that requires contraceptives to be available for free for women enrolled in workplace health plans. Democrats respond that employers have no business forcing their morals onto their employees.

Issue: Sexual assault

Such wedge issues can be pushed to the forefront of the campaign unexpectedly. That occurred this week when the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, Rep. Todd Akin, referred to women's bodies as being able to prevent pregnancies if they are victims of "a legitimate rape" while explaining why he opposed abortion in all circumstances. There's no scientific basis to support Akin's claim.

Republicans as well as Democrats criticized Akin severely. Obama called Akin's views offensive and said the idea of distinguishing among types of rape "doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me." Republican candidate Mitt Romney called Akin's comments "insulting, inexcusable and frankly wrong."

While Akin apologized and said he would remain in the race, GOP officials and Romney made it clear they wanted him to quit.

The upcoming nominating conventions will highlight the contrasts between the parties on abortion and other issues.

Issue: Same-sex marriage

The platform for the Democratic National Convention is expected to put the party on record, for the first time, in support of same-sex marriage, echoing the stance taken by Obama in May.

Four states have gay-marriage measures on their ballots. In Minnesota, the vote is whether to put a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution, while voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will decide whether to legalize gay marriage.

National gay-rights groups are pumping millions of dollars into these state campaigns, hoping to end a long losing streak. Thus far, gay marriage has been rebuffed in all 32 states that have held referendums on the issue.

Meanwhile, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and affirms the right of states to refuse to recognize such marriages, is under criticism in courts. Several federal judges have ruled it unconstitutional.

The Obama administration is no longer defending the act, and has asked the Supreme Court to settle the legal fights over it.

Romney and his newly chosen running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, favor a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The speaker list for their convention includes former Sen. Rick Santorum, a hardline opponent of abortion and gay marriage, and Mike Huckabee, who recently helped engineer an "appreciation day" for the Chick-fil-A fast-food chain after gay-rights groups protested its president's stance against gay marriage.

Ryan is conservative on social issues. He has voted against allowing same-sex couples to adopt, opposed repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, and supported Personhood Amendments, which Democrats say would criminalize the use of birth control.

Issue: Abortion

Ryan, who told the Weekly Standard in 2010 that he was "as pro-life as a person gets," has earned perfect scores from the National Right to Life Committee and other anti-abortion groups. He co-sponsored measures asserting that life begins at the moment of fertilization and -- like Romney -- favors repeal of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established a right to abortion.

Abortion-rights groups were quick to assail Ryan.

"Make no mistake about it: Ryan is 100 percent behind the war on women agenda," said Nancy Keenan of NARAL-Pro Choice America.

Social conservatives welcomed Ryan's selection, even though it remains to be seen how outspoken he'll be about various hot-button topics.

"Paul Ryan's philosophy clearly includes the understanding that America's financial greatness is tied directly to its moral and cultural wholeness," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

North Carolina, one of the battleground states, had a referendum in May in which voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The issue remains lively there, perhaps because it's more clear-cut than the economic debate, according to Tracy Tuten, a professor of marketing at East Carolina University in Greenville. She was struck by the intense responses -- from gay-marriage foes and supporters -- to the recent Chick-fil-A controversy.

"People were leaving work to go buy chicken sandwiches, or to protest buying chicken sandwiches," she said. "It's something they can wrap their head around."

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Friday, August 31, 2012

Party platform group backing gay marriage

DETROIT — DETROIT The national Democratic Party's platform committee endorsed gay marriage Saturday for the first time and called for the repeal of a federal law that recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The committee, meeting in downtown Detroit, let stand the work of a separate group that drafted the platform two weeks ago in Minneapolis. The platform is a broad statement of the party's priorities on the economy, social issues and national defense and next goes for approval to the national convention in North Carolina in September.

Scott Dibble, a committee member and a state senator from Minnesota, said support for gay marriage can attract new voters.

"Young people are looking for a political home right now," Dibble said. "This has become a defining moral question of our time."

The platform says Democrats support "marriage equality" and the "movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples."

"We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference," the platform says.

In May, President Barack Obama said he supported gay marriage.

"This certainly has been a journey for many people in this country, a journey for our president," Dibble told fellow committee members from across the country.

The platform also calls for repeal of a 1996 law, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, which recognizes marriage as only between a man and woman. Some federal courts have struck the law down as unconstitutional.

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker, co-chairman of the platform committee, said there are "profound indignities" heaped on people who can't marry someone of the same sex.

"At the end of the day, it'll maybe repel some and attract others to be more engaged," Booker said.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Terry McAuliffe and the Other Green Party

By Ben Werschkul and Mac William BishopTimesCast Politics: Terry MacAuliffe: Mark Leibovich on ‘The Macker.’

Terry McAuliffe, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is starting a company that makes little electric cars. On a sweltering Friday in early July, GreenTech Automotive unveiled its signature vehicle — the MyCar — at a plant opening in the North Mississippi town of Horn Lake. McAuliffe was puttering backstage before the event with his pals Bill Clinton and Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi and archetypal Republican lobbyist.

McAuliffe the Democrat (left) and Barbour the Republican, share a laugh.

The holding area was crowded and somewhat frenzied. People designated as V.I.P.’s kept streaming through, many in from China, where GreenTech is building an 18-million-square-foot facility. They arrived, dozens of them, via a Harrah’s shuttle bus with a big “Fun in Store for Those Who Ride” painted on the side. As Clinton prepared to go onstage, I asked him if he would ever consider buying a car from McAuliffe, who he once marveled could “talk an owl out of a tree.” “Absolutely, I would buy a new car from Terry,” he told me. “But a used car? I am not so sure about a used car.” He laughed and wheeled around and repeated the line to Barbour (“Listen to what I just told him . . . ”), while slapping his fleshy back.

McAuliffe, 55, is eager to be known, foremost, as a businessman and an entrepreneur, and not so much as a political moneyman. That will take some doing. He is “the greatest fund-raiser in the history of the universe,” Al Gore once said, in keeping with the hyperbole often heaped on McAuliffe, known widely as the Macker, by the politicians who love/need him. McAuliffe, who is in fact quite hard to dislike and is himself a peerless exaggerator, has collected legions of friends over the years. “There are 18,000 names in my Rolodex,” he boasted to me earlier that morning over coffee. When I pressed him, he revised the number upward, to 18, 632. The acknowledgments section of his memoir, “What a Party!” runs six single-spaced pages and includes the names of every member of the Democratic National Committee during his time as the party chairman. In a five-minute span of conversation, McAuliffe distilled for me the extent of his psychological complexity: 1) He pinches himself all the time because he’s so lucky. 2) He likes to think out of the box. 3) He swings for the fences every day. 4) At the end of the day, it is what it is.

If McAuliffe’s trademark is fund-raising, his principal identity is as a Professional Best Friend to Bill Clinton. The subtitle of “What a Party!” might as well be “Let Me Tell You Another Story About Me and Bill Clinton.” (One involved South Korean Intelligence agents thinking McAuliffe and Clinton were more than just friends.) If he is not dropping the name of the 42nd president, the Macker is telling you that he just got off the phone with Bill Clinton, or that, what do you know, President Clinton is actually on the phone right now, and can you please excuse him for just a second (“Hello, Mr. President”). And if Mr. President is not on the phone, there is a good chance he is, as today, close by.

Clinton’s voice is softer and throatier than you remember. He has lost considerable weight, evident to anyone who has seen him in photographs (once known as the “Big Dog,” he’s now more “Vegan Dog”). But it is jarring nonetheless to see the svelte version of the former president up close, especially since his head is as big as it ever was — a fact accentuated by the ruddy brightness of his face and pronounced cheekbones. Encountering Clinton these days is like meeting a skinny older guy who is wearing a Bill Clinton mask.

McAuliffe’s MyCar debut is the culmination of years of planning for a firm that is trying to reinvent the automobile. Unsaid was that he also hoped it would reinvent Terry McAuliffe as he approaches his own probable run for governor of Virginia in 2013 — something he tried in 2009, losing in the primary to a relative political unknown named Creigh Deeds. GreenTech could be the vehicle, so to speak, for McAuliffe to escape his lane as a political rainmaker, carnival barker and Clinton appendage and reposition himself as “a Virginia businessman fighting for Democratic causes and creating jobs,” as his Web site says. It hardly mattered that a lot of these jobs would be in Mississippi, not Virginia, because of a package of tax and infrastructure incentives McAuliffe was able to secure from Barbour, who himself made the successful transition from operative-businessman to public office when he was elected governor of Mississippi in 2003.


View the original article here

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Obama and Democratic Party have twice the cash of Romney

WASHINGTON – President Obama and the Democratic Party possess more than twice the cash reserves of his Republican rival Mitt Romney, but his financial advantage is slipping as the general-election fight gears up.

President Obama has raised $233.5 million for his campaign thus far. By Carolyn Kaster, AP

President Obama has raised $233.5 million for his campaign thus far.

By Carolyn Kaster, AP

President Obama has raised $233.5 million for his campaign thus far.

Obama and the party ended April with more than $139 million in hand, reports filed late Friday with the Federal Election Commission show.

On the Republican side, Romney and the Republican National Committee have said they raised a combined $40 million last month as the party began uniting around its presumptive nominee and had stored $61.4 million in their accounts at the end of April.

Just a month earlier, Obama had held a 10-to-1 cash advantage over Romney. April's figures don't count the money that will be raised and spent by GOP-aligned super PACs and other groups to oppose the president's re-election.

Not counting party fundraising, Obama took in $25.7 million in April — about $10 million less than he raised in March.

So far, Obama has raised $233.5 million for his re-election, compared with $265.5 million at this point four years ago as a candidate.

News also emerged Friday that Romney has dipped into his personal fortune for the first time in this election.

He and his wife, Ann, have donated $150,000 of their own money to a joint fundraising committee whose proceeds are shared with his campaign, the national party and state committees. Romney, who is worth as much as $250 million, spent nearly $45 million of his own money to help fund his unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.

Friday's report shows Obama's fundraising apparatus continues to be funded with help from donors who give in small amounts and can be tapped again for contributions in the months ahead. Slightly more than half of the money that flowed to his main campaign account last month came in amounts of $200 or less.

By contrast, about $1 out of every $8 he raised in April came from people who donated $5,000, the maximum a candidate can receive directly from an individual for the primary and general election. Those donors included Ford Motor board member Edsel Ford II and actor Robert DeNiro, who recently hosted a fundraiser that featured first lady Michelle Obama.

Romney had not filed reports Friday detailing his fundraising with the Federal Election Commission. Presidential candidates and many super PACs must do so by Sunday night.

Contributing: Associated Press

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Cuomo Picks Syracuse Mayor Miner and Assemblyman Wright to Lead N.Y. Democratic Party

Mr. Cuomo’s nominees are Mayor Stephanie A. Miner of Syracuse and Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright of Manhattan, who is also chairman of the Manhattan Democratic Party. They are expected to be approved by the State Democratic Committee early next month.

“Mayor Miner and Assemblyman Wright are outstanding leaders both for our party and our state,” the governor said in a statement. “They have been dedicated community leaders and champions of the key missions of the Democratic Party.”

Ms. Miner and Mr. Wright would succeed Jay S. Jacobs, who was installed as party chairman in 2009 by Gov. David A. Paterson. Mr. Jacobs announced his plans to resign last week, a few months ahead of the scheduled end of his term in September.

At a meeting in Albany this week, the state party planned to propose an amendment to its bylaws to allow the party chairmanship to be split between two people. The party would then consider the nominations of Ms. Miner and Mr. Wright on June 5.

In a phone interview, Mr. Wright said he intended to stay on as Manhattan chairman. “The only plan that I have is to elect as many Democrats as possible and to make sure that the state goes in the Barack Obama column, and with Senator Gillibrand carrying on for six more years,” he said, referring to Kirsten E. Gillibrand, who is running this year for a full term.

Mr. Wright added that he had never met Ms. Miner, but said, “I’m told she’s an absolutely dynamic woman.”

Ms. Miner, who once worked as a regional representative for Mr. Cuomo’s father, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, said that having two leaders would help ensure that the perspectives of Democrats from all corners of the state were represented.

“I think it’s important for upstate voices to be represented,” Ms. Miner said in a phone interview, adding, “The more voices we have represented, the better off we’re going to be.”


View the original article here

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

It’s Their Party

Other possible subjects were: The Facebook phenomenon and why does its board of directors look like a reunion tour of the Backstreet Boys and their managers?

Or: The new sensation of dancing dogs on TV talent shows and how many of them do you think were ever made to ride on the roof of a car?

But, no, I think we should go with the conventions. The Republicans are having theirs in Tampa, Fla., in August and then the Democrats will be in Charlotte, N.C., at the beginning of September. The presidential nominees have been chosen, but there’s still a lot to look forward to. The speeches! The funny hats! And, um ...

Little-known factoids about the upcoming conventions:

• The Democrats have an official barbecue sauce. Actually, three. You can buy them on the official Web site, along with a bunch of T-shirts and a very fetching oven mitt.

• The Republican National Convention says that it is expecting 13,000 to 15,000 members of the news media, which would make it “the single largest media event in the world except for the Olympic Games.” The convention should try to use this Olympic theme more extensively, perhaps decking out all the potential vice presidential nominees in Speedos and recounting heartwarming stories involving ailing family members who are rooting for them back home.

• The governor of Florida has rejected Tampa’s attempt to ban the carrying of concealed weapons downtown during the Republican convention. I guess this is one way to ratchet up excitement, but I’d prefer Donald Trump nominated for vice president.

• You, the taxpayer, are paying the bill. Yes! Back in the 1970s, after a Watergate scandal involving lobbyists who traded huge donations to the Republican convention for special favors from the Nixon administration, Congress passed a law providing federal funding. Indexed for inflation, it’s now about $18 million per.

“It’s the one part of the public funding program both parties seem more than happy to accept,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College and an expert on the financing of political conventions. (Isn’t it reassuring that there are people struggling to get the country worried about presidential nominating convention finances? It reminds me of the year I was in charge of making it fun to read about the New York City Charter Revision Commission.)

The parties swear, when they take the cash, that they won’t solicit additional contributions. But in American politics, when there’s a law against raising money you want to raise, the answer is:

A) Break the law.

B) Find a crazy billionaire.

C) Form a committee.

Option C wins! The cities that want to be a convention site create committees, which promise to raise copious cash if chosen. The host committee in Charlotte, for instance, is pledged to raise $36.65 million.

This is turning into something of a struggle, particularly since the Democrats, in a little-noted reform effort, prohibited the host committee from accepting donations above $100,000, or money from lobbyists or corporations. (The Republicans will pretty much take anything from anybody.) Instantly, like a daffodil in spring, a new committee popped up in Charlotte, called New American City. Its mission is to “showcase all that the city and region has to offer” during the convention and, of course, it has none of those irksome limitations.

While they were banning corporate contributions, the Democrats also reduced this year’s convention to three days from the usual four. However, the eliminated day will be turned over to a celebration at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, during which viewers will have the opportunity to note the close ties between the Democratic Party and Nascar dads. And since it is happening before the official opening gavel, it can be paid for by New American City.

Do not tell me that this country has lost its capacity for innovation.

In a sane world, the conventions could run one day and $18 million would be plenty. They could skip almost everything but the speeches by the candidates, and President Obama will actually leave the convention to make his at Charlotte’s unfortunately-named Bank of America Stadium.

Why do they stretch it out? Well, there are a lot of politicians out there yearning for a chance to address an empty auditorium at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. And our public officials have to deal with an endless line of really irritating people who are impossible to make happy. A convention is a mound of favors they can do for their special interests — a party invitation, a seat in the vicinity of Joe Biden, or just the opportunity to mingle on the floor with the South Dakota delegation. (Good hats!) If it wasn’t for the need to treat the monied troops, the Republicans could hold their convention at Mitt Romney’s vacation house. Which I hear is much more pleasant than Tampa in late August.


View the original article here

Monday, April 23, 2012

Democratic Party chair sees chance to make state better

Arizona Democrats selected Bill Roe as party chairman last weekend by acclamation. The Tucson conservationist has long been active in environmental issues as well as party politics, particularly on the fundraising end. He was a regular presence at meetings last year of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, tracking the panel's work as it redrew the state's political boundaries.

Roe succeeds Andrei Cherny, who resigned as chairman in January to pursue a congressional bid. He inherited a party headquarters that is rebuilding after losing key staff positions (mostly to work on congressional campaigns). The staff has been brought back to near full strength because of the efforts of Executive Director Luis Heredia.

Roe said he wants to invest in research on the party's donors, to better understand how to reach out to them; serve as a coordinator for congressional campaigns; and do the requisite hand-holding of candidates.

He sat down with The Republic last week to talk about his plans for the party as it goes into the 2012 election cycle.

Question: Why did you seek the chairmanship? Did you jump? Or were you pushed?

Answer: I had a long discussion two months ago, and the sense was you don't gain anything by seeking it. Wait and see what people really want. Ann Wallack (Maricopa County Democratic chairwoman) and I talked at some length about what was best for the party right now. There really weren't any other serious candidates. ? We decided for now we would work together as a team through the election.

Q: The news release about your appointment mentioned you're talking about building strong county organizations. Is that akin to (former Democratic National Chairman) Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, where you have stronger organizations at the base?

A: Well, yes. I hadn't thought of it that way. We have organizations in 13 of the 15 counties. (La Paz and Apache are the exceptions.) All of the other counties are very vibrant.

And what's interesting right now is everybody's excited. (T)here is a real palpable air of excitement about the future. The same thing at the state committee meeting. We had a remarkably good turnout. We had way, way over quorum.

We have a strong, unified party. And quite unlike the last couple of elections for party chair, where there was a real dogfight, this was a vote by acclamation. ? Everybody is focused on the opportunities we've got coming up for this November.

Q: What is it that's creating this energy?

A: I think people sense the Republicans have really overreached.

I had an e-mail from somebody I served with on a board. He said, "I'm tempted to admonish that you should be careful what you wish for. But instead congratulations on being chosen to lead the Democratic Party. Although I'm still struggling to be a Republican, I am convinced we must have a more competitive Democratic Party if we're going to overcome our worst political instincts in this state. I hope you can accomplish that."

That is symptomatic of a huge number of phone calls and e-mails that I have gotten, not just from Democrats but from people across the board. They're unhappy.

And I think there's a real sense with redistricting there's an opportunity to make the Legislature better. This huge push by the Republicans, all these bills, whether they be assaults on women and reproductive rights, people, I think they are trying to say it's time to take control back and try and be a normal state again.

Q: What are Arizona's chances of being a battleground state in the presidential election?

A: The president's campaign manager was here a month ago, Jim Messina ? The decision would be made later this spring. It would not be on personalities, it would be entirely data driven.

But he shared with us some polls that are very encouraging. And since then, the polls have gotten better in Arizona. So I am cautiously optimistic the president will play a much larger role than either the president did four years ago or (John) Kerry did eight years ago.

Editor's note: The Republic invited Tom Morrissey to sit down for a similar interview when he was elected GOP chairman in early 2011. The requests went unanswered.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Monday, January 23, 2012

Obama, party allies raise $68 million for re-election (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's re-election campaign and its Democratic allies raised more than $68 million in the last three months of 2011, dwarfing Republican rivals as the White House race approaches.

In a video message sent to supporters on Thursday, Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina announced the haul, which brings the shared fundraising by Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee at over $200 million for 2011.

With most of that money said to be coming in small-dollar sums from thousands of Americans, the fundraising gives Obama, a Democrat, a nice cushion as he campaigns for re-election against Republicans sparring to see who will be their nominee in November's election.

Although the money given to the DNC is effectively Obama's for grabs, his own campaign -- which faces lower contribution limits -- received $42 million during the last three months of 2011.

Still, that far outstrips the amounts donated to the Republican campaigns, which do not yet receive financial backing from the Republican National Committee.

Front-runner Mitt Romney's campaign said on Wednesday it had raised $24 million in the fourth quarter. Ron Paul raised $13 million and Newt Gingrich raised $9 million.

The Obama team is shooting to top the roughly $750 million it raised when he was elected president in 2008.

Much of Obama's success in 2008 was credited to his grassroots support illustrated by small donations, which Messina said continue to flow. Similar to the previous quarterly report, 98 percent of the donations to Obama's campaign were made up of $250 or less, he said.

In the video, Messina again rejected the expectation that the campaign would raise $1 billion. That false expectation, he said, was giving donors the misimpression Obama did not need their financial support.

"Too many Obama supporters think we don't need their money, or they don't need to give now," he said in the video.

"We won in 2008 because every single supporter and volunteer viewed their role in this campaign as absolutely essential to us winning. But now we're in danger of letting that very belief slip through our fingers this time."

One major campaign donor highlighted the financial challenge Obama faces from "Super PACs," the groups that technically cannot directly communicate with campaigns but can accept unlimited donations in support of a candidate.

"The race is going to be expensive. The fact is that there are these unlimited buckets of (Republican) PAC money," he said.

"The Obama campaign is going to need money from here for the duration. And once (the Republicans) have a nominee, that's when it starts getting expensive."

Some 1.3 million Americans gave to Obama's campaign last year, including 583,000 donors in the fourth quarter alone. Of those, almost a third were first-time donors, Messina said.

The campaign beat its goal of raising $60 million in the fourth quarter, although the amount brought in was just under $70 million raised in the third quarter. Through the end of September, the campaign and the DNC had raised roughly $155 million.

Messina's email to supporters asked them to chip in $25 now; often Obama fundraising appeals start with a much lower $3 donation request.

The campaigns have until Jan 31 to release their full fourth quarter reports.

(additional reporting by Eric Johnson in Chicago and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Philip Barbara)


View the original article here

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Democrat leaders merge religion and party (Daily Caller)

Top Democratic legislators are promising to harness religion to help them win 2012 voters, and are also declaring that the Democratic Party’s actions are the expression of their religious obligations.

“The Democrats’ values and core agenda, and President Obama’s accomplishments, are reflective of the tenets and teachings and lessons of my faith as a Jewish woman… [and] no, there aren’t things that are informed by my faith than are different from the values and ideals of the Democratic Party,” said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz and other Democrats, including Rep. James Clyburn, spoke at a Nov. 30 press event in the DNC’s headquarters intended to promote the party’s 2012 religious outreach.

When asked by The Daily Caller if the party’s blending of religion and politics is blurring distinctions between church and state, Clyburn said, “We are in recognition of the fundamental aspect of all of the great religions … love, the golden rule, of doing unto others as you would have be done unto you.”

A Washington Post reporter how the Democrats planned to work with black churches. In “the African American community, the church vote is very important… [but] the support for the president may not be as strong as it was,” the Post’s reporter said.

“As we organize going forward to next year,” Clyburn responded, “there will be be significant efforts on our part to reconnect the fundamentals of our policies to the [religious] teachings that we all learned, be it in the Old Testament or the New Testament.”

In the past, “we were so strong in our doctrine that there ought to be a separation of church and state, that we often took it to an extreme, and I thinks that’s how we got disconnected” from voters, said Clyburn, who heads the House Democrats’ Religious Outreach Committee, established after the party lost the 2004 presidential race.

“I speak with faith leaders every day, and a number of African American faith leaders,” said Rev. Derrick Harkins, the director of faith outreach at the DNC. “I find the issue is not a lack of enthusiasm, but the question is often raised ‘How can we be effective in this election cycle?’”

This use of religion for political purposes “will work with the less discerning” religious voters, said Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. But, he warned, “whenever you employ religion to justify your own positions, which may or may not be biblical, it cheapens and desacrilizes religion.”

In 2006, Obama declared at a campaign rally that he started going to church after hearing a sermon from Jeremiah Wright, a controversial, politically connected, black reverend in Chicago. The sermon, Obama said, said, “‘The world as it is is not the world as it has to be,’ … [and] I loved that idea in my own life because I thought that’s a philosophy I believe.” (RELATED: Obama in 2006: ‘I stole’ book title ‘Audacity of Hope’ from Rev. Wright, ‘my pastor’)

In Obama’s 2011 Thanksgiving address,  he sidelined any reference to God, instead saying that Americans’ rights to freely speak, vote, assemble and own property depends on the approval of other Americans. “No matter how tough things are right now, we still give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny,” he said.

Obama, however, did use biblical language to bolster the Democrats’ support for entitlements: “This sense of mutual responsibility — the idea that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper — has always been a part of what makes our country special,” Obama said. “If we keep that spirit alive, if we support each other, and look out for each other, and remember that we’re all in this together, then I know that we too will overcome the challenges of our time.”

“I would look at what Barack Obama’s policies and practices are, rather than what he may have or may not have mentioned,” Clyburn told TheDC. “I believe the president’s speech was very appropriate,” he continued, because, “The first Thanksgiving was all about celebrating a freedom to worship in one’s own fashion. … They gathered to give thanks not to any one God, but to give thanks in celebration of some omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being.”

The meal was shared between Indians and the Pilgrims, who were members of a specific sect of English Protestants who worshiped the Christian God described in the Bible.

Speakers also caricatured Republicans’ beliefs as heartless and un-Christian.

A new generation of “values voters,” said Young Democrats of America President Rod Snyder, “will reject the GOP’s fend-for-yourself theology that would roll back health care benefits for younger Americans and deny quality education, all while preserving tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent.”

“If your philosophy is to take away from the needy in order to give to the greedy,” said Clyburn, “that’s anathema to my Christian faith.”

Land predicted the Democrats’ emphasis on religious will rise as the 2012 election gets closer. Obama’s speech “had all kinds of religious allusions when he ran for president, but since then they’ve disappeared,” he said. “He’s now playing golf instead of going to Church.”

All is forgiven, Meghan McCain

Democrat leaders merge religion and party

Team Huntsman stresses conservative record; pushes back on moderate meme

Norquist: 'Sen. Coburn was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome'

Romney aide laments fall of Cain: 'He keeps Perry down'


View the original article here

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The Steady Disintegration of Obama and the Democrat Party (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In 2008, the majority of Americans saw President Barack Obama as a rock-star who could do no wrong. Today, they pretty much disapprove of everything he does. While the disenchantment with Hope and Change is destroying Obama's favor among voters, stress cracks between Obama and fellow Democrats threaten to collapse the party from within.

Obama has lost support in every demographic in his base; the youth, Jews, Unions, Hispanics and African-Americans. Not even the death of Osama bin Laden could breathe lasting life into his approval rating. The majority now blame him for the economic mess.

Congressional Democrats have publicly criticized Obama's jobs bill. The Hill reports Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is giving the president "the silent treatment."

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are simply fed up.

Just like in 2010, incumbent Democrats are avoiding Obama like the plague. Democrats in Virginia's state legislature even told Obama to stay away from their districts.

In early October, Michael Goodwin described in the New York Post a picture of "an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency" whose only happiness can be found "on the campaign trail, where the adoration of the crowd lifts his spirits."

But even that respite is starting to evade him.

At his May 2008 campaign rally in Tampa, Fla., it was standing room only in St. Pete Times Forum -- a venue that seats 21,500. For a June fundraiser in Miami only 980 people were willing to purchase tickets for the 2,200-seat Adrienne Arsht Center for Performing Arts.

In 2008, thousands came to see candidate Obama at the Mellon Center in Pittsburgh. After three years of his presidency only 300 cared to hear him speak at a South Side union hall.

Where Democrats in 2008 were "fired up," even the idea of voting in 2012 leaves them depressed.

Even the president admitted: "It's not as cool to be an Obama supporter as it was in 2008, with the posters and all that stuff."

Rasmussen and Zogby have Herman Cain leading Obama by two points.

Evolving Strategies shows Cain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry could beat him.

Asked about the power of the GOP field of candidates, CNN reported Vice President Joe Biden saying; "It's strong enough to beat both of us."

A month ago, Politico reported Democrat strategist James Carville offering a single word of advice for the struggling president: "Panic."

Considering the steady disintegration of Obama and the entire Democrat party since then, perhaps next time Carville will be inspired to offer two words of counsel -- give up.


View the original article here

Herman Cain: 81 Percent of Americans 'Brainwashed' by Democratic Party (ContributorNetwork)

Atlanta businessman, radio talk show host, and presidential candidate Herman Cain isn't afraid to mix it up a bit and make the occasional bold or controversial statement. He's done so numerous times (stating he would not have a Muslim in his Cabinet or that, if elected, he would be the first "black" president) during the few months he has been running for president. But now he has trumped his latest comments about black people being brainwashed by the Democratic Party with the assertion that 81 percent of all Americans have been brainwashed by the Democrats.

Appearing on MSNBC's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell, the anchor steered the discussion to Cain's recent remarks about "brainwashing." The presidential hopeful had stated that blacks were "brainwashed" by the Democratic Party (why so many African Americans were Democrats) and would not consider an "alternate view." When asked if he had insulted blacks, Cain said he had not. He said he had only "insulted the attitude of those that will not consider an alternate idea."

Prior to that comment by Cain, O'Donnell had decided to proceed by extension, reading from an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that noted that 81 percent of Americans support the idea of taxing at a higher rate those who earn over a million dollars per year. He asked, since Senate Democrats had proposed that a "millionaire tax" be levied to pay for the president's proposed American Jobs bill, if the American people had been "brainwashed" by the Democratic Party as well.

"The answer is 'yes,'" Cain told "The Last Word" anchor. "The Democrats have succeeded at brainwashing a lot of the American people. First of all, taxing people more that make over $1 million isn't going to solve the problem. Secondly, they have just taken class warfare to another level. When for decades you are telling the American people that we ought to take more from the rich in order to help pay off our debts but yet the debts don't get paid off, they're just playing the class warfare card. I would counter that, Lawrence, with a 50 percent of the taxpayers now pay 97 percent of the taxes. I that's pretty fair already."

O'Donnell then noted that there had been "an awful lot of successful brainwashing by Democrats." He added, "You're now saying that Democrats have successfully brainwashed Republicans, brainwashed Democrats, brainwashed 81 percent of the country into thinking that there should be higher income taxes on incomes over $1 million. You're willing to take your brainwash idea and accuse 81 percent of the American public of being brainwashed?"

Cain then said that there were a lot of blacks that were brainwashed and a lot of Americans as well. "But a lot of people haven't," he said. "So, you know, that number could be 81 percent or 85 percent. That just means that they've been succeeding. Now, what I'm doing is to try and unbrainwash people by presenting solutions that will allow everybody to try and achieve their dreams based upon their own individual effort in this nation. That's what this nation is supposed to be about."

Candy Crowley, who spoke with Cain on CNN's "State of the Union" attempted a different tack. She wondered if the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza himself might just be out of touch with the American people. When asking about comments he had made (and written in his book) that President Obama's disconnection from the American people was "absolutely unbelievable," Crowley quoted from an ABC News/Washington Post poll that revealed 75 percent of Americans wanted a surtax on millionaires.

"No. No," Cain replied. "The American people are being deceived with this class warfare stuff. And I'm not going to perpetuate it because that poll says it. The same people that took that survey I challenge them to tell me what's in that jobs bill. I challenge them to tell me what percentage of the taxes are currently being paid by 50 percent of the taxpayers -- 97 percent.

"You see," he went on, "D.C. has a definition of fairness and Webster has a definition of fairness and the president keeps talking about, well, in all fairness -- when he's not sharing with the American people. If the American people knew the facts about how the taxes are being paid I think they might have a different opinion."

And they might not. Tossing up the questionable fact that 50 percent of Americans pay 97 percent of the taxes is a disingenuous argument. It does not reflect the fact that nearly 50 percent of the unemployed (about 7 million individuals out of approximately 14 million) have been so for over a year or that nearly twice that number have yet to find work (teens and graduates, those entering the workplace for the first time, and those who have been fired, quit jobs, work part-time, and are part of the 99ers and permanently unemployed). It also does not take into consideration that 45 million Americans (1 in 7) live at or below the poverty level, which was established by the U. S. Census Bureau in 2011 to be an annual income of $22,350 per year for a family of four.

Still, regardless of perspective on the brainwashing issue, Cain has proposed what he calls the "9-9-9 Plan" to provide fairness in the tax code, pay for government expenses, and generate economic growth. The plan would do away with the current progressive tax code and implement a taxation system of 9 percent on corporations, 9 percent on personal income, and a 9 percent national consumer tax.

President Obama's American Jobs bill, which Herman Cain and other Republican presidential candidates have blasted as another stimulus plan in disguise, will face a vote in the U. S. Senate on Tuesday. It remains to be seen just how many of the "brainwashed" Republicans will vote with the "brainwashed" Democrats on the measure, but if history is an accurate guidepost, the vote could possibly be split down party lines and far from the 81 percent of the American electorate that would like to see the bill pass -- or at least the measure concerning taxing millionaires.

Apparently, Senate Republicans are part of the "unbrainwashed" 19 percent.


View the original article here

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Tea Party Endorsements Have Lost Their Luster (The Atlantic Wire)

If you're looking for an early indicator of how Tea Party brand will influence next year's elections, look no further than Gallup's first heat check of the 2012 congressional cycle. The organization asked voters how a Tea Party endorsement of a particular candidate would affect their vote. Short answer: its a turn off. "The effect is nearly 2-to-1 negative, with 42% saying they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate versus 23% saying they would be more likely. About a third say it would make no difference or are unsure," Gallup found. Even Republicans aren't enthralled with a Tea endorsement: 44 percent said it would be help and 42 percent said it wouldn't matter. As far as Democrats, only 8 percent said they'd like a Tea Party-minted candidate.


View the original article here

Friday, July 8, 2011

Democrats to elect new party leader mid August - Nation - Thailand

Suthep said he would support Abhisit Vejjajiva to lead the party for a second term despite the election defeat.

"For the time being, Abhisit is perfect in every way to lead the Democrats," he said.

In regard to his future, he said he would not accept the position of party secretary general even if reappointed.

.


View the original article here

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Weiner Resignation Up to Constituents, Not Democratic Party (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | After a week of denials followed by a tearful news conference admission that he sent lewd pictures over twitter to a woman in Seattle, Rep. Weiner is not resigning nor his constituents wants him to. He is and has been the front and center of the liberal cause, defending it, pushing it and exposing the GOP agenda the way he should.

He is better known for his passionate speeches in the floor of the house and his television appearances where he is not afraid to present the issues the way the democratic base wants to hear it, that is why he is one of a kind and shouldn't resign.

The congressman has been a rising star and is married to a long time Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. He is passionate in the causes he supports, which included the health care act and the recently passed bill for 9/11 first responders. He is a voice to many on left who felt that the president had compromised too much and under achieved his signature Health Care Act, the Financial reform Act, and extended the Bush tax cuts to the rich.

Thus, his resignation, if it ever arrives, will deprive the Democratic base someone who did not abandon the liberal cause, and energizes them to coalesce against the Republicans whom they feel too much was ceded to.

New pictures emerged Sunday and were posted on the TMZ gossip news website. These pictures, which appear to have been taken in the House of Representatives gymnasium, could be harmful and might bring more pressure for him to resign. AFP reported Sunday that Democrats stepped up their call for him to resign in light of the new photos that emerged, which might serve as a proof that he used Congressional resources to send lewd pictures online.

Rep. Weiner announced Saturday he was taking a short leave of absence to seek treatment. The announcement came after the emergence of yet another text messages he sent to a 17-year-old girl. Police in New Castle, Del., confirmed that they interviewed the teenager and deemed no harm was done. Parents of the teenager expressed concern that the congressman sent private messages to their daughter.

"It seems to me extraordinarily difficult that he can proceed to represent his constituents in an effective way given the circumstances this bizarre behavior has led to" the number two House Democratic leader Hoyer told CBS's "Face the Nation" program this morning. Democratic leaders jumped on the band wagon to call for his resignation at the end of the week.

It remains to be seen if Rep. Weiner will be able to hold on to his office and his aspirations to become the next mayor of New York. A lot will also depend on how his constituents' opinion shifts in the coming days. If his constituents want him to serve that is what he should do and not crack under the pressure. It is up to the people of the 9th congressional district of New York to make the call for him to resign if they choose so, and not the leaders of the Democratic Party.


View the original article here