Four US House Candidates Talk to HACA

The Hispanic Affairs Council of Alaska hosted a candidate forum this afternoon at the Mountain View Community Center for the US House Race. It was a chance to see all the candidates except the incumbent.





All of them were a refreshing change to polite and respectful compared to Don Young, who, we were told, was unable to make the audio conference connection because of a change in travel scheduling. But he offered to meet with the HACA board when he's back in the state. Hmmmm, what is a better setting for getting your ideas across? A forum set up with four other candidates where each is limited to two minute responses, or a private meeting with the board?


The format was interesting. Candidates were NOT asked the same questions. They had too many questions to do that. But at the end, candidates were able to choose one of the questions they weren't asked.

I got there late and heard Sean Parnell, responding to a question on NAFTA, saying that he believed in free trade, therefore, yes, Mexican buses should be allowed into the US.

His next question, on how to lower the Hispanic dropout rates in school, was a chance for him to talk about incentives, namely the incentive scholarship that he had something to do with. He said incentive or incentivize about 6 times in his two minutes. He never addressed the Hispanic part of that question.



Next he was asked about Federal reimbursements for translations/interpreters for patients with limited English. He responded that if those Americans are entitled to health care, I don't see how we can say no. (I'm not using quotes because that's close but probably not exactly what he said.) Then he changed the subject to agree with Berkowitz about allowing out of state health insurance.

And then he was asked,Which Presidential candidate has the best economic plan for the country? He said he was speechless and then regained his speech and talked about economic stimulus - reducing economic barriers, gas tax holiday, need to move forward on alternative energy, reduce demand, conservation, and reduce the deficit. He appeared to not know what McCain's economic plan was so he changed the topic to something he was prepared for. He never did name a presidential candidate.

When offered the chance to to pick a question he hadn't been asked, he talked about how we all benefited from the oil pipeline and how the next big thing was the gas pipeline.

Finally, for the last question - what makes you the best person for the job? - he talked about the difference between success and greatness. Success is achieving things. Greatness is who we are as a people (I wasn't sure now if he was talking about Alaskans or himself) our core. Great - who we are, I'm calling Alaskans to greatness. Limit government growth, stimulate individual initiative. Make a change, make difference.

Overall, Parnell talked in platitudes, in generalities. He started from an ideological stance each time - free trade is good; incentives are good, economic stimulus is good - but never got into the subtleties of the issues or got very concrete or detailed. Just being polite isn't good enough for me. We just saw what the prosecutor called a "politely corrupt" legislator sentenced to 42 months. I don't mean to imply that Parnell is corrupt, but just that being polite isn't enough. Even though it's a positive change from our current Congressperson.



LeDoux suffered from the same problem of generality, though to a much lesser extent. She was "in general" against vouchers, but wouldn't rule them out in situations where poor kids in failing schools were concerned.

She was for expanding the rural dental assistant program.

When asked if we were in a recession, said Alaska was in better shape than most of the country, but that yes, we were. She mentioned the high price of fuel and that we should never give up on ANWR, as well as finding alternative energy sources. I know that ANWR is the Holy Grail for Alaska Republicans, but if we couldn't open it with a Republican US Senate, House, and President, what makes them think it will get opened by a Democratic controlled House and Senate and perhaps President? I know that they think that $120/barrel oil changes things, but squeezing out whatever little oil there only postpones the day of reckoning a bit and contributes to global warning. When I think about the millions of dollars Alaska has spent on lobbying for ANWR unsuccessfully while cutting $10,000 here and $40,000 there for social programs, I just have to shake my head and wonder. Sorry, didn't mean to veer off there.

When she got the chance to pick a question she'd not been asked before, she jumped to discuss No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which she called a total failure. Then went on to use ideology to explain what it was a failure - the Feds shouldn't be telling the communities how to educate their kids. And there was something about Anchorage having a lot of bilingual kids, but I didn't catch her point on that part of it.

Finally, when asked why she should be the candidate, she said that an important part of leadership is never say "die." She then went on to relate how in 1992 she lost her husband and a son in a car accident, how she didn't even want to get up in the morning. But she had two other kids and needed to continue her law practice and that is what she did. "I've been tested. Been through hell and back. I know I can fight for you." Can't argue with that. That was the only time I really felt I heard directly from her heart during the forum.



OK, now I've boxed myself in. Giving so much time to those candidates, it's only fair to go through each of the questions for the other two candidates. Not sure I can do it. When I graded student papers, I always felt I needed to write more on the papers that I thought were lacking something, because those students needed more direction. But the good papers also needed encouragement and challenges. So here again, I find that I needed to justify my sense of the two candidates who were less impressive by giving more detail. The other two candidates conveyed to me a much stronger grasp of both details of the implications of policies and laws (such as No Child Left Behind) and they understood the larger context. But then if you don't like the unequal coverage of what the candidates said, you can go to the next forum and hear for yourself I guess.

Benson, when asked about drivers licenses for illegal aliens got to the practical issues immediately. Of course (I'm writing here) there are logical, rule of law, standards for saying no to such drivers' licenses, but Benson said that she'd been in an accident the other day and she wants everyone driving to have a license so they can get insurance. She did it again on her next question on NCLB, she had the jargon acronyms on the tip of her tongue. HQT for example. Sure, she said, it sounds good, we all want Highly Qualified Teachers, but when a village has only a couple of teachers, they can't be HQT in every subject.

When asked, "What are your priorities for vulnerable populations to gain access to health care?" she quoted John Edwards' recommendation to move from the terminology of access to the terminology of provision. Then rattled off numbers - 30% of Alaskans at some part of the year don't have adequate health care. Then she went into another practical example of a guy with an injured hand who got bandaged up instead of the getting the surgery he needed because he didn't have insurance. Now he's on disability. How is that cost effective she asked.

Berkowitz was also fluent on the issues, spoke from the heart, and filled his time with specifics that showed his familiarity with the topic. When asked about seniors getting cut off by doctors when they get onto medicare, he said first, we need more doctors, need to grow more here, get a medical school in the state. Second, find solutions so doctors don't lose money when they treat medicare patients. There was a range of options he said, but the real question is why the system is broken? We need to solve some of the problems ourselves - expand Denali kid care, buy health insurance across state lines. (I'm not so sure about the economics of a medical school, but I do know that people who go Outside to school, usually don't come back to Alaska.)

There was a look of glee on his face when he was asked about alternative energy. "I love this question" he said and then listed all sorts of potential energy sources in Alaska - geothermal, solar, the bark beetle killed lumber, wind. He then listed three key objectives here:
1. Lower utility bills and create jobs
2. Need for Alaskans to respond positively to Global Warming because we are the most affected state and need to set an example for the rest of the country
3. Get energy independent - I see, he said, a time when every house is energy self sufficient.


My personal favorites here were the two Democrats. But it wasn't merely because of the stands they took. Benson and Berkowitz were both clearly far more able to talk about each topic in great detail, offering a sense of understanding - intellectually and in human terms - all the issues that were addressed. From Parnell I mostly heard platitudes and he didn't answer all the questions, preferring in some cases to change the subject. Maybe that was the luck of the draw of questions, but I don't think so.

Berkowitz made the point sometime during the forum that it's important with a Democratic Congress, to have a Democrat. Of course that was the argument Stevens and Young gave every year until the Republicans were no longer in the majority. But as head of the minority in Juneau, Berkowitz knows well how little one gets done. I suspect that will be a theme we hear a lot from Democrats in this election.

When Denial Ends

Phil at Alaska Progressive salutes Rich Mauer's ADN article on the Young-Abramoff connections today. Phil also talks about Dennis Greenia at Daily Kos whose been working on the Abromovff Scandal for a while now under the name Dengre and whose research has helped Phil in the past and Mauer in this new article.

Phil also links to an October 6, 2006 post he did on this topic covering much of the same ground.

All this relates to an important theme for me (see the name of this blog) - how people 'know' what they know. One wonders about the Alaskan voters who have elected and reelected Don Young all these years despite all the evidence that his response was to shout like a bully at anyone - including constituents - who asked questions about things like Abramoff and the Marianas.

Thomas Kuhn, the physicist who put the word 'paradigm' (see links to Kuhn in an earlier post) into the American mainstream, said that scientitists don't discard their old paradigms - even when they know they are faulty - until they have a better one to replace them with. I think that makes sense here.

I remember the evidence piling up that - despite his denial - Richard Nixon was a crook. Yet he was reelected for a second term. People didn't want to believe that there president was a crook. They didn't want to believe that Viet Nam was a mistake and that the great USA was on the wrong side and was losing. (Some people still think we could have won, whatever that means, but we were politically hampered. But looking back from today, we can see that the whole rationale of our being there - to keep the dominoes of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, etc. from falling to Communism - was a model of things that did not accurately reflect what was happening.) While there were questions about Nixon, their beliefs overall were being challenged and they didn't have another belief system to switch to.

So, it has taken a while for the American public to lose faith in George W. Bush.

And it seems like forever for Alaskans to lose faith in Don Young.

Radical Catholic Mom raises a point that I didn't think of this morning: the poisonous role on American politics of one issue voting blocks. In this case she cites the Right to Life over everything else crowd for helping to keep Young in power.

It goes to the heart of the whole "vote pro-life only" camp. I received an email ripping me one for even hinting that I could POSSIBLY argue for voting for a "pro-abort" candidate. I responded that it ain't black and white, honey. Don Young and other Republican corrupt, disgusting, anti-life politicians who shamefully used the pro-life vote to continue in office and push through this Mariana Islands deal where women were raped, again and again and again, forced to abort their babies, and then forced to make clothes for the US consumer reflect why the traditional pro-life vote needs to become CRITICAL. WHO are we electing?

If a group is so obsessed with one issue that they are willing to close their eyes to everything else a candidate might do if only he takes a strong stand on their issue, then we get politicians who use those voters to carry out their immoral actions.

The point for me is NOT Don Young, but how we help US citizens to

• understand how to critically evaluate candidates,
  
• critically evaluate interest groups that urge them to vote based on certain issues,
  
• see beyond the very short term simplistic promises to understand who they are really putting into power.

I think Alaskans have gotten the point on Don Young. They got the point on Frank Murkowski (who, by the way, gets points on his outraged reaction to the Marianas situation

Murkowski said, he "talked with some Bangladesh workers who had not been paid and who were living in appalling conditions." He also described a young woman taken to Saipan as a minor and forced to work as a prostitute. (from Mauer piece)

though he continued to publicly support Young and according to the Mauer article

Since leaving office, Murkowski has declined to talk about the Marianas issue.

Again, my point is NOT Young or Murkowski, my point is about how voters

• gather the information they use,
  
• how they analyze that information, and
  
• how they decide to vote.

McCain Has an Interesting Past, Obama Has an Interesting Future

I don't make predictions often or lightly because there are just too many unpredictables, especially in politics, but I'm getting a strong sense of where things are going in the US presidential election.

CNN has become a gossip station, focusing on the day-to-day scraps of information

• today's poll data,

• snippets of candidates talking about each other, ignoring what they say on the issues,

• goading partisans to make nasty comments about the other candidate, etc.

This, of course, makes the campaign into a reality show - who will end up as the next American Idol President? "Who says the campaign can't be entertaining?" is one of their campaign ad lines.

• Can Hillary get enough votes to stop Obama?
  
• with story after story on how she might get them through primaries, super delegates, and even enticing those 'pledged' to Obama

• Will dragging out the Democratic primary cost them the election in November?

• Why is McCain competitive when so many people think the US is going in the wrong direction?

Very little about their policy proposals, no serious analysis of their past records and accomplishments, nothing with any meat.

Well, here's my take on things.

I was there for the excitement of the Democratic caucus in Anchorage. It was palpable. People were excited about politics like they haven't been for decades.

And there is no mistake that the people of Thailand here are excited about the possibility of Obama as president. My sense is the Thai perception is echoed around the world. Just Obama's election would totally change the rest of the world's image of the USA.

Obama's response about his pastor was statesmanlike.

• The content was intellectually solid - putting into words a new understanding of race relations that the American public was ready to hear,
  
• The language and images spoked directly to everyone
  
• The delivery sounded honest and authentic
  

Compare this to Clinton's shrill and ineffective response to her Bosnia Airport-under-fire story.


What about McCain?
The Republican primary was packed with candidates who fell by the wayside quickly. McCain was the front runner only at the very end so was never really the target. At the end Huckabee gracefully dropped out compared to Clinton's clinging. (And she has every right, and I don't necessarily buy the media's story that this will hurt the Democrats in the end.) McCain hasn't been under any serious pressure or probing spotlights the way the Democratic candidates have been.

When that happens, his numbers will drop quickly. Reading between the lines, it sounds like

• he's testy,
  
• he talks off the cuff without thinking,
  
• his ideas don't seem to be based on any comprehensive world view. Instead they seem to be idiosyncratically based on his emotional reactions to his experiences and so they are inconsistent and unpredictable.
  
• his party's establishment has no enthusiasm for him.

Once he and Obama are the two candidates, McCain will be creamed.

In summary, McCain has an interesting past. Obama has an interesting future.

Anchorage Registered Voters Exceed the Number of Residents 18 or Over

[UPDATE Aug 2010:  I've done a similar post after the Aug 2010 primary election looking at the large number of registered voters compared to voting age population.]


187,163 = The number of Anchorage registered voters as of March 3, 2008.*

42,749 = Highest number of people voting Tuesday on anything (Prop 2)

184,412 Anchorage residents 18 years and over
(2000 Census Data)


So, if we believe the Division of Elections data on the number of registered voters, then about 22% of the registered voters voted on Tuesday.

But there are 187,163 registered voters (and I'm not counting those in District 16 who are in Anchorage.) But the census bureau said there were only 184,412 people in Anchorage aged 18 or over, thus eligible to vote.

OK, that's 2000 census data compared to 2008 election data. But still we have over 100% of the eligible voters registered to vote. If we had 80% of the eligible population registered to vote, that would be a high percentage.

A 2005 US Census report on the 2004 election says that in 72% of the US population said they voted - and I'd guess that people would report higher than the real numbers. If we assume Anchorage got another 10,000 people over 18 since 2000, 80% would be 157,730 registered voters.

That means the State of Alaska Division of Elections has 30,000 more people listed as registered voters in Anchorage than there should be if 80% of the over 18 population were registered. That's almost 20% more than we should have if 80% were registered.

I'm sure it's not easy to keep the voting records up-to-date. I'm sure a lot of people on the rolls have moved away or died. But if my numbers here are even reasonably close, it would seem that the Division of Elections has some serious housecleaning to do.

But if Sean Parnell, the Lt. Governor who is in charge of elections, is out campaigning for Don Young's seat, I'd guess the division won't get a lot done on this issue.

Since the number of registered voters rolls apparently includes a lot of people who have moved or died, then the percent of people who voted is actually considerably higher than 22%.

*from adding up the totals in State Division of Elections Website from Districts 17-32 which appear to be all the Anchorage districts. Probably we should add in parts of District 16, but this is close enough.

Traini's Back In

It seems my mid town vote matters after all. According to an ADN story by Kyle Hopkins, the Supreme Court has decided that Traini is eligible to run.

I've already written on this extensively. It's unfortunate that the only way, apparently, to clarify the ambiguity in the law, was to legally challenge someone running for office for an 'extra' term. I've looked at the Municipal Charter and at the Muni's hired attorney's opinion, and think that he shouldn't have been eligible. But the reasoning Kyle reports the SC used - when there is a doubt in the law, interpret for the candidate - does make some sense too.

The decision clarifies this for future races, which is good and was clearly necessary. Unless the charter is changed again, 'term' does not mean 'partial term.'

I'm sure all this put a damper on Traini's campaign - as Kyle's post says - and Traini may challenge the election if he loses. I still think it is contrary to the spirit of the term limits. He will have served, if he wins and completes his term, more than nine years.

Voting - Thanks to Persistence of Lupe Marroquin,

People are quick to complain and slow to praise public servants. I want to thank Lupe Marroquin of the Municipal Clerk's office for her persistence in getting us our absentee ballots here in Thailand. Here's a picture of me voting long distance.



It wasn't easy. First, I didn't know what fax machine to use. At our apartment building they said I couldn't fax out of Thailand. (To send in the applications) When I asked at the office though, Ew smiled and pointed at a box. She'd just bought a new fax machine. We set it up and managed to send in the applications. But I wasn't so sure about getting a fax back. It would be night here when they faxed. Would the electricity to the fax be on? Would the paper jam?

I emailed to check they got the applications. They had, but they were getting busy signals. At the apartment the fax at the main desk was out of toner and they had to order from Bangkok. Then, there was a knock on the apartment door, and someone from the front desk had brought up an old fax machine to use in our apartment.

Lupe checked the internet and figured out that she needed to drop the zero in our phone number when calling from overseas. She got through to the Thai recording I warned her about, but then there was a second recording and she hung up. I faxed from the office to the fax in the apartment the next day. It worked. I emailed Lupe that the second recording just said, "Wait a sec."

That night about 11pm, the phone rang, and the fax began to spit out a long scroll of paper with our ballots printed on it. So, today I took them to the office and faxed them back. People were a little amazed that I could vote by fax.

It does say on the form, "I am voluntarily waiving a portion of my right to a secret ballot..." But when I saw that in the picture you could see how I voted, I redacted the photo. I don't have to give up that much of my right to a secret ballot.

So, thanks again Lupe for being so persistent in getting our ballots to us. I know you were working from home at 6am when you emailed me you'd try again. That's the kind of service that you aren't paid for, but which is great to get.

Now, the rest of you Anchorage readers, go vote in the Municipal elections.

Sorry Hillary, You Need to Cool it or Drop Out

Saw Hillary Clinton's response on CNN to the criticism (that I wrote on yesterday) of her embellishing her story about 'running from the plane under fire' in Bosnia. I think she needs a good night's sleep, maybe two. She's so focused on becoming president that she's forgotten the long term goal - getting the country back on the right track, best accomplished, if you're a Democrat, by electing a Democrat.

All of us can be nice when things are fine and people are friendly. Our true character comes out when we are under pressure. Clearly Mrs. Clinton was under pressure. But still, this was clearly choreographed by her handlers as well. So we can't just say she's under stress. Changing the topic is a classic response to attack. But bringing back up the stuff about Obama's pastor to distract from her own crisis only turns off Democrats who range from dismay to disgust by her embellishment.

OK, a brief detour here a second. Is embellishment just another euphemism for lie? I don't think so - it's allowing for more than just 'lie' as the explanation.

I've learned from my wife over the years, that I'm on the extreme end of focusing on the literal truth of content in a conversation. For me, conversation is about getting information passed from one person to another. For some people, the content is irrelevant because conversation is about human interaction. If there is lapse in the conversation, it is all right to totally make things up to keep the communication going. Someone I won't name (not my wife), once asked at a large dinner at her home, if someone wanted mustard. When I answered I did, she got all flustered and said, "We don't have any." I've come to understand that she was "being a good hostess" in her eyes. This is not about lying or telling the truth, because the content is irrelevant to the purpose of making people comfortable.

Most people are somewhere in between on that continuum. Content and communication are both important and the balance varies depending on the context. Talking with your buddies about the fish you caught or the basket you shot from midcourt is about camaraderie and allows for embellishment. What a comedian says on stage, we understand to be fiction. When we testifying as a witness in court we're supposed to be telling just the truth.

So, it is reasonable for Clinton to have filled in some details that maybe didn't happen. Given all the briefings she had about the dangers, her brain may have actually merged the briefings with the actual event. Or maybe the first time she embellished a little on this story it got a good response so she kept embellishing. This is natural. I imagine most people reading this are conscious of doing this themselves. My brain doesn't work that way. I may remember things and relate them incorrectly, but if I am conscious that I'm straying from the facts, I stop and correct myself immediately. It's not some superior moral position that deserves credit, it's just how my brain works.

But when we are talking about a possible US president, I want someone whose brain is good at separating fact from fiction if that was the problem. I want the president to remember as close to the truth as humanly possible her interactions with other world leaders. And when she does make things up (say as part of high stakes negotiation strategy like nuclear weapons in North Korea), I don't want it to be something that can be so easily discovered to be false as this. And if the president is found out in a lie, I want a her to respond the way Mr. Obama responded to criticism of his pastor. With intelligence and class.

Mrs. Clinton seems to be so narrowly focused on winning that nothing else matters. A truly presidential candidate would recognize that the stake for the Democrats and the nation will be much higher in November. If she doesn't win the nomination, Mr. Obama will. Not a disaster for her cause. It seems to me this has gotten too personal a goal from Mrs. Clinton. As a Democrat, her highest goal should be that a Democrat wins in November. What she's doing now is counterproductive. It's making her look bad and when you throw mud, it inevitably gets the the target dirty too.

Now, I'm not sure I buy into the argument that what she says against Mr. Obama will only help Mr. McCain. All this stuff will be brought up in the final campaign whether Mrs. Clinton raises it or not. And if she is discredited, then quoting her on this will only convince the convinced. A united front would certainly strengthen things, but the Republicans don't need the Clinton campaign to talk trash about Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton, I think the honorable courses of action open to you are these:

1. Continue your campaign with the knowledge that you might not win and that's ok. Focus on the programs you think are critical and what you would do if elected. Try to influence the eventual winner to adopt your ideas. When talking about Mr. Obama and his policies, remember that he may be the Democratic candidate and possibly the president. Say things that reflect well on you as a person and as Democratic presidential candidate and that will help the party elect whomever is nominated. Don't let the media push you into a food fight with Mr. Obama
2. You already recognize that you are fighting from behind. Step back and also recognize that each day this campaign goes on, it costs the Democrats money and time they could use in the fight against Mr. McCain. If you can't be president, certainly it would be better for you to have Mr. Obama president than Mr. McCain, wouldn't it? With this knowledge, you could announce that you are withdrawing for the sake of the party and the nation. It would prove wrong the people who are saying you will do anything to win and make you look much more like a statesperson.

Hillary's "Millions of words a day"

CNN's website says that in explaining the difference between her description of running from a plane in Bosnia under fire in 1996 and the video of her walking normally from that plane:

Clinton told the paper's editorial board it was a "minor blip." Watch how Clinton described her trip »

"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.

Millions of words a day? Could that be? So, I read out loud from the CNN piece for 5 seconds. I read seven words in five seconds.

12 X 7 = 84 words a minute.
60X 84 = 5040 words an hour
5040 X 24 = 120,960 [per day]

So, if she spoke non=stop for 24 hours, it still wouldn't be close to a million. OK, I know she doesn't count the words and this was simply a wild guess, but it's nice to know that someone who could be our president has a sense for numbers, not just so that she would realize it was probably impossible to say millions of words a minute [day]. But so when other large numbers are used, we can have confidence that she understands them and the implications.

More disturbing is the suggestion that because she talks all day, it's ok to 'misspeak' once in a while, because that would just be a 'misstatement.' Since we now know that she doesn't use millions of words a day, does that change anything? What is the difference between a misstatement and a lie? In this case painting a picture of running from a plane under fire when in fact she walked off, and according to the picture, she and Chelsea stopped to talk to a little girl.

Wouldn't a mother remember whether she put her daughter into a life threatening situation? I'd like to know if possibly there was some other flight when she came under fire. If there isn't some other flight she might have confused this one with - and she didn't mention one in her defense apparently - then this is all disturbing indeed. Embellishing one's stories may be ok for fishers, but it isn't ok for presidential candidates.

Or am I falling victim to anti-Clinton non-stories being leaked to the press?

Clinton - Obama Feud a Media Creation?

I caught a CNN piece this morning about how things are getting down and dirty in the Democratic primary. But as I listened to their examples of the dirt, it seemed to me mostly minor. It seemed more likely that CNN is doing its best to keep up ratings by creating the impression of a nasty fight between the two.

Example 1:

Sen. Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama's camp is spreading false information about her positions.

Example 2:

Obama described Clinton's anger as "tactical" and defended his campaign.

These are hardly fighting words. But it appears that CNN and the others are doing their best to make it seem that the two are engaged in something that will keep viewers glued to their tvs.

OK, someone might point out that they also got into Carville's Judas statement about Richardson's endorsement of Obama. But Carville and Richardson aren't even the candidates.


CNN's website sets it up for you to see them fight. They have their story - Obama and Clinton fight it out - then they pull out the clips, no matter how weak, that support their story:

Taking a mocking swipe at the Illinois senator's campaign style, Clinton said people want actions and not words. Watch Clinton mock Obama »

Meanwhile, Obama railed on Clinton for supporting NAFTA when her husband was president. Watch the latest on the back-and-forth »

This is politics as reality tv. Actually that would be fine with me if they focused on what was important instead of just the how things affect the race.


It seems that Stanley Fish at the New York Times is thinking the same things I am

This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns – no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot – but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round. [emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, the things the candidates themselves are saying about really important matters – war, the economy, health care, the environment – are put on the back-burner until the side show is over, though the odds are that a new one will start up immediately.

Why? Controversy means more viewers and more viewers means higher advertising rates. Additionally, the longer Obama and Clinton fight for the nomination, the more money they will spend on political advertising.

Now, I'm pretty good using Google, but I could find precious little on media profits and the elections. From this November 2004 post on a website for direct response marketers:

In a presidential race that spent more money than any other election in history, exceeding $1.5 billion according to some experts, people were curious about who went home with bulging pockets after the last of the confetti was swept from election headquarters.
According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, media firms were among the big winners this election, in addition to lawyers and pollsters.

We see here, that it appears that the media report the news in a way (horse-race) that helps their ratings. But this also raises another question. How does advertising spending affect whether they even cover a story at all? If a newspaper, say, gets tons of money from a particular advertiser, will that cause the paper to not report news that negatively impacts that advertiser? Odds would seem pretty good they would find other important stories to write about.


So, what is legitimate and what isn't in debate? Basically, I would say that criticism of one's opponent's policy positions is legitimate. Personal attacks - questioning their loyalty, snide comments on their religion, gender, race, looks - should generally be off the table.

But separating out the personal from the professional isn't always that easy. It is legitimate to raise questions about one's experience and decision making abilities - anything directly related to the job is fair game. It's up to voters to watch the ads critically and reward those candidates who keep on task - campaigning on the issues, not trashing their opponents. Of course, the voters have to know the difference between the two.

Spring 2008 - 99F and climbing

Suddenly there was a surge of visitors to this site today. It turned out that Google.co.th has What Do I Know? listed second for the search term "First Day of Spring".

That has as little meaning here in Chiang Mai, where it is in the hot 90s (My Computer says it's 99F, but the 30% humidity makes it fine with me), as it does in Anchorage where, according to my computer, it is 22F.

They are all being directed to last April 26 which I dubbed the real first day of spring when the temperature got up to 65F in Anchorage.

I've finally gotten my sense of purpose here - last week actually - and I've been developing lists of outcomes and tasks that relate to the plans the organization wrote as part of getting their grant. It is getting close to the end of the grant and people here are feeling a little overwhelmed with what they all have to do, including writing reports.

One thing I'm contributing is getting them to see that the goals are not just either/or - either you reach the goal or not. Rather, we can look at at how much they've done toward reaching the goal. So, for example, they are supposed to gather information for about ten villages. Rather than saying, "No, we haven't done that" because they don't have everything for every village, I've divided it up into villages. Then for each village we're listing the steps in this process. Set up an intitial meeting, pass out the questionnaires, get official land documents, etc. When they look at it this way, there are two advantages:
1. They can see how much they've actually done as well as what specifically they still need to do. (They know all this, but it is different when it is written down on paper and you look at it.) I've already started with one person to calculate the time he will need to do everything that is left. (At least the things we've identified. It is much less overwhelming than he thought. He's typed it all up in Thai and is already checking things off.)
2. When they report what they've accomplished to the funding agency, they now have all the steps along the way to report. They've been thinking either/or and haven't thought as much about all the work that goes up to getting to complete. So even if some goals haven't been completed, they can show they are 60% or 80% complete with a list of all they've done.

The reaction seems to be pretty positive to this approach. The boss is clearly pleased.

Other activities - I faxed in our absentee ballot applications today. When I asked about using the fax yesterday, E. pointed to a box - she'd just bought a fax machine. So we set it up yesterday evening and I got the forms in today.

Sunday, the organization has a big event up in one of the villages north of here. They have initiated a program of building fire breaks in the mountains with one of the hill tribes that has traditionally used slash and burn agriculture. I'm not completely sure whether the slash and burn techniques will still be used and how the fire breaks contribute. In any case it is a big deal and several people have been out of the office in preparation. I'm trying to arrange for us to stay up there at a small resort Friday and Satruday night where the birding is supposed to be very good. Then we'll get up to the village Sunday morning somehow. Things will work out one way or another.

Election Traini Wreck

Kyle Hopkins at the ADN blog reports that Judge William Morse has ruled that Dick Traini is termed out and cannot run again for the Assembly. That leaves candidate Elvi Gray-Jackson as the only real candidate on the ballot, but Traini's name will also still be on the ballot. Unless, of course, the Alaska Supreme Court overturns Morse's decision.

So, we will see now whether the voters really wanted term limits or just wanted term limits for candidates they didn't like.

I'm not happy with this whole situation. While I'm not a fan of term limits - I think voters should be allowed to vote for any eligible candidate - it is the law. Rather than stepping down gracefully and following the spirit of that law, Traini chose to challenge the law on a technicality (When is a Term not a Term?) saying his first term wasn't a 'full term' and the Muni contracted attorney agreed with him. Now the judge has said the law does not permit him to run again.

This gets messy for several reasons:
1. His name will be on the ballot. (Muni says it's too late to print new ballots. We still have two weeks. I think they mean it's too expensive.)
2. The Supreme Court could overturn the ruling and say he is eligible. If that happens - and he loses the election - do we have another election?
3. He could get more votes than his opponent. In which case the next Assembly person will have lost the election, but won the seat.
4. The people of my district have only one real candidate to vote for.

But I think a challenge was necessary because:

1. The decision will probably affect the School District and Mayor elections too.
2. The Mayor is planning to run for Senate and if he won, would leave office early.
3. If that happened, the person - Assembly President - filling his seat would be faced with the same issue when he/she ran for reelection the second time.
4. Debbie Ossiander has already served more terms on the School Board and Dan Kendall did it on the Assembly, but no one challenged them. This will give us the final answer on whether this is ok.
5. This was a risk Traini took, knowing he could be declared ineligible, and knowing his incumbency would prevent other qualified candidates from putting their hat in the ring.

So, what the Supreme Court rules will clarify the ground rules. It is unfortunate that the only way this can be done is by challenging a candidate who decides to run for a fourth term (for Mayor a third term.)

So, I'm hoping the people in my district will choose Elvi Jackson-Gray, giving her a mandate to be a good Assembly person, and demonstrating that we believe in term limits, we believe in the law, and that we can elect a strong woman candidate who, because of her years as the Assembly budget analyst, is one of the most qualified candidates to run for the Assembly in a long time. [Yes, I have supported her candidacy with a check.] Doing this will clean up a potential mess that Traini's decision to run, the Clerk's decision to allow him to run, and the Superior Court's decision to not allow him to run have all set in motion. Let's get it behind us.

And the Supreme Court's decision on the appeal will let us know what the rules are for the future and, if Jackson-Gray wins comfortably, won't result in a political mess that will cost the residents of my district all sorts of grief. The Assembly and the people of Anchorage have more important work to get done.

Can we act like adults now? Or are we going to try to make this really messy? Yes, I'm sure there are people who think Jackson=Gray or any liberal candidate means the end of the world, but consider what years of Republican dominance have done to this state. Jackson-Gray on the Assembly will be just fine. Your lives won't come crashing down around you.

Thai Elections - March 2, 2008

Tomorrow, Sunday, (it's Saturday afternoon in Chiang Mai as I write) is election day for the Thai Senate. I know an election is going on because of all the signs up and the election trucks. Plus where I work they are supporting one of the candidates and so there was election work going on and the truck have been at our compound. But I wasn't sure of the date.

Apparently, according to this Bangkok Post story not that many Thais really know that much about the election either.

There's a senate election?

By Mongkol Bangprapa

Despite campaigns by the Election Commission (EC), fewer than 30 per cent of Thais were able to tell a pollster that they know there is to be an election for 76 senators countrywide on March 2.

According to the latest Suan Dusit poll by Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, of the 3,266 people surveyed, only 29 per cent could tell the interviewers how important the election is for the parliament, while 57 per cent said they had "scant knowledge" of it.

A surprising 12 per cent of respondents admitted they knew nothing of the coming election.

Most people surveyed admitted they were less aware of the senate election than they were of the Dec 23 election for House of Representatives.

There are 18 people running for the seat from Chiang Mai I was told - one seat per province - and the candidate my Thai colleagues are supporting is one of the candidates who has a chance to win. They think he needs at least 100,000 votes. This is for the Senate.

74 people have already been appointed to the Senate, according to MCOT English News. The rest get elected tomorrow.

Election Commission names 74 appointed senators

BANGKOK, Feb 19 (TNA) - Thailand's Election Commission on Tuesday announced the appointment of 74 members of the Senate who will represent half of the Upper House while the other half will be elected nationwide on March 2.

The 74 senators represent a ratio of 6 men to one woman. The oldest is 72 years old and the youngest 42.

EC secretary general Sutthiphon Thaweechaikarn said the appointed senators came from diverse backgrounds including academics (15), government officials (14), private sector (15), various professions (15) and other sectors (15).

They represent almost every field of career from university lecturer to former national legislator, lawyer, journalist, medical officer, nurse, engineer, architect, former provincial governor, farmer, university student, telecommunication specialist and financial expert.



Bangkokians dominate the list with 43 representatives while five are from the South, three from the North, two from the Northeast and 21 from the central region.

Asked if there has been behind-the-scenes lobbying for the seats, Mr. Sutthiphon affirmed that the screening committee has thoroughly and carefully studied the background of each appointee and the votings among committee members were carried out in an open manner.

The EC allows 30 days for anyone objecting to the appointment to file his/her complaint while those disagreeing with the screening committee's decision can file their complaints with the Supreme Court within one year.

The appointed senators will be in office for three years. The other 76 senators, one from each province, will be elected nationwide on March 2. They will serve for six years. (TNA)

Anchorage Democratic Caucus - The Video

The previous post has pictures and commentary. This one is the video.




Pictures and video of the Fairbanks caucus.

Pictures of the Matsu caucus.

Obama or Clinton?

The US voters are making history with the Democrats virtually assured that either a man with African heritage or a woman will be their candidate for president. Tomorrow night is the Democratic caucus in Alaska. From what I hear, there will be a large turnout in Anchorage, possibly even stretching the capacity at Begich Middle School for the Anchorage caucus. But which candidate is the best? I've boiled this down for me to three criteria.



General Electability in November

Are Americans less racist or less sexist? Or put another way, are they more willing to vote for a man with African heritage or a woman? Blacks, with 9% of the seats in the House of Representatives reflect their 13% of the US population much better than do women with 16.1% in the House. But in the Senate, where whole states, not gerrymandered districts ,vote there is only one African-American - Barrack Obama - for 1%. But women have 16% of the 100 seats. That still means 84% men in the Senate and House.


[2/5/08: Added the missing decimal point Ropi pointed out in the comments. This post was postponed because I had trouble finding reliable numbers for blacks in Congress. That story is in the previous post. A good webstie for information on women in politics is Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.]

David Broder has an interesting article on districts where women win.

The scholars could find no significant differences in terms of geography or social characteristics between those districts that elected African American men and African American women. Almost without exception, they were heavily Democratic, urban and working class.

But the picture is very different for white women running for Congress. "Female Democratic House members tend to win election in districts that are more liberal, more urban, more diverse, more educated and much wealthier than those won by male Democratic members of the House," they write. "They come from much more compact, 'tonier,' upscale districts than their male counterparts."

The fact that a woman and a man of African heritage are the finalists for the Democratic nomination says a lot about the changing demographics of the United States. I we are in a period of flux - the old rules are starting to dissolve, but I don’t know that the new rules are in place yet either. Will enough voters ignore gender and race to elect and man of African heritage or a woman as president?

Stand on Key Issues

I don’t think they are too far off on the issues, though Obama focuses on the fact that he never supported going into Iraq and Clinton did. But it isn't simply the issues we face now, but the issues that the President will face once in office - the 9/11's and Hurricane Katrina's that weren't anticipated. Which candidate has the imagination to find better ways to do things?

Ability to get things done

No matter how great their policies are, without the competence to get them through Congress, they have nothing.

Hillary Clinton surely has learned a lot of lessons in the eight years Bill was President. As a former first lady and second term Senator she knows a lot of people both in the US and overseas. Of all these people, how much does she owe them and how much do they owe her? More particularly, which people does she owe? The Clintons also have a high negative rating among a sizable minority of people. This could cause the kind of constant sniping Bill Clinton faced during his eith years. These are people who will always be trouble. On the other hand, Bush has much higher negatives and has managed to get his way a lot of the time.

Barrack Obama has less experience and presumably fewer connections, and fewer people he owes. He is inspirational, but you also need administrative mechanics to make things happen. His campaign shows that he is able to attract competent people to help. Obama is able to articulate people's hopes for a better way. That can be powerful for a while, but then some tangible things need to be achieved.

Either of the two will have to attract competent teams to develop good policies and to get them passed by Congress. It seems to me that Clinton’s strength and weakness here are her connections to the existing power structure. Obama’s strength and weakness are that he has fewer of the ties and can take us in a new direction.

May the best...candidate... win.