August 2008

WaPo’s Dan Balz reports on Barack Obama’s plans to change the Democratic Party rules. There are 3 significant ideas. The first two are about openness. He wants to reduce the influence of the super-delegates, and he wants to include absentee ballots in caucuses. The other is simply a good government reform.  He wants to un-screw-up the timing of the primary calendar.

It should be noted that Obama is trying to force the GOP’s hand by raising these issues now. We pass our rules for 2012 in Minneapolis, after which point they can only be interpretted, not changed. By contrast, the Dems have well into 2010 or even 2011 to mess around with this.

But the ideas, because these are actually important. First, the delegate-super-delegate relationship:

"The number of superdelegates has gotten too large in relation to overall delegates," Plouffe said. "We want to give more control back to the voters. . . . Everyone thinks there ought to be more weight given to the results of the elections."

The commission will be encouraged to consider either reducing the number of superdelegates eligible to attend the national conventions or increasing the number of pledged delegates — those elected on the basis of caucus and primary results.

This gives more power to the voting public and takes it away from the party insiders. Recall that Obama lost the pledged delegates and won the super-delegates. He is biting the hand that fed him.

Obama also wants to open up the caucus process some:

The other major area the commission will be asked to examine is the operation of caucuses in states that choose that process rather than a primary. The caucuses drew criticism, particularly from the Clinton campaign, which said that they restricted participation and that in some states they lacked the necessary infrastructure to ensure fairness.

"We agree that we ought to make sure they’re funded properly, staffed properly and run smoothly, and even see if people ought to be eligible to vote absentee," Plouffe said.

The Democratic caucuses, outside of Iowa, included allegations of voter intimidation and fraud by both sides. Improving the operations would be important. But the really interesting part is the idea of opening up absentee ballots. Active-duty military cannot vote. Some elderly have problems. People with shift-jobs cannot (this was a big problem in Nevada). And others.

This is a move to enfranchise voters. That’s a big deal. There is some indication that Republicans are considering a similar reform.

Finally, there is the calendar, an issue of endless speculation in 2007:

The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar received significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and also because so many states were crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month battle.

Under the system envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for those in a handful of states authorized to go earlier — presumably in February rather than January.

Plouffe also said the commission will be urged to look for ways to avoid the bunching of states on particular days. Almost two dozen states held Democratic contests on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, and party officials hope to avoid a repeat in 2012.

My gut is that the RNC should recommend a rule like the March one, while studying the timing one. The real problem is that if the parties disagree on the timing of primaries, states parties are forced into caucuses because in nearly every state, legislatures pick primary dates and state governments pay for them.

Just some random thoughts that I have had watching this. I have been too busy to focus on blow-by-blow, which may or may not help for clarity.

First, the Republicans:

• It really feels like the pro-choice thing is a hip-fake. One option is that it is a hip-fake for Mitt Romney. Another is that it is a way of telling moderates that McCain is thinking about them even if he is not capable of giving them something.
• It sure feels like the Romney campaign is back in full gear. I mean, why today, of all days, does Mark Halperin have a link to something about Romney’s healthcare plan? This is exactly the sort of tactic that the Romney campaign excelled at in the primary. Romney’s problem is like Obama’s. All the great tactics, etc., will only get you so far. In the end, "the dogs won’t eat the darn stuff."
• Thinking back to the 3 subgroups (see the POS presentation after the jump on these groups) that the McCain campaign thinks that they need to move, I wonder who helps. This feels like a list for Tim Pawlenty or Carli Fiorina, except for the 3rd:
  
  • Rehab Republicans. I think that they are mostly back. Mostly "the Mac" being "back" was enough to move the dial on them. Someone too convention probably is mildly repelling.
  • "Walmart Women" Who would do that?
  • Facebook Independents.
• Wouldn’t Joe Lieberman put the exclamation point on "old"?

Really only one thought on the Dems:

• Perhaps Patrick was right. A very good source is telling me that multiple DNC members have told him that Hillary is the person. While not immediately intuitive, Clinton is the candidate who one can easily imagine helping with Barack Obama’s numbers. Which seem to be … in bad shape? Who else would fundamentally shift the numbers? You could see her bringing Democrats back home, etc., in a way that none of the other candidates could.
• By the way, she would probably school most Republican VP candidates in the debates. And she and Bill know how to attack attack attack.

But what do I know?

<!–break–>

David Brooks wrote a column today about the "education of the McCain" about how John McCain’s campaign has become conventional. The old McCain acted like this:

This sort of behavior has been part of McCain’s long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship. In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity. He’s done it through self-mockery, by talking endlessly about his own embarrassing lapses and by keeping up a running patter on the absurdity all around.

The new McCain is:

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention. […]

As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared. Both he and Obama had visions of upending the system. Maybe in office, one of them will still be able to do that. But at least on the campaign trail, the system is winning.

I, for one, believe that the system is poisonous, and I agree with John Weaver that John McCain is better than the system. But let’s be clear, who has done this. The media has done this. First, as Brooks points out, their love affair with the process itself forced McCain’s hand:

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

The country could have had a debate about ideas. The media wouldn’t cover it. The country could have had a debate about what was really going on in the country. The media was not interested.

McCain offered the townhall. There could have been authenticity. The American people could have had access to the candidate. Only a couple of people in the media who have real respect for the process like David Broder called on Obama to accept. McCain tried and failed:

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

As a Republican and a fan of John McCain, I am very glad that McCain is learning these lessons. I am, however, sad for our country that an unconventional candidate who really understands how repulsive the process is can’t run that campaign.

Catherine Lucey at the Philly Daily News is reporting that Barack Obama will be playing the street money game in November:

According to U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, the local Democratic Party chairman, Sen. Barack Obama’s general-election presidential campaign in Philadelphia will be run different from his primary operation, which relied more on volunteers than on Democratic ward leaders and did not provide street money on Election Day. […]

But Brady said that the campaign has promised street money to pump up turnout in November. And now that Obama is the official nominee, his campaign will team up with the city’s Democratic ward leaders, who traditionally help get out votes.

I would note that prior to the Democratic Primary, one ward leader, Carol Ann Campbell, told the Philly Inquirer that the Obama campaign was paying "canvassing money":

Then she let me in on a fact of political life. The Obama people are asking for names of people they can pay to canvass for the candidate. "Any way you look at it, they are paying people." So no street money, but a little canvassing money.

Now I point out the lovely Mrs. Campbell because of who she is, Secretary of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, and what’s she’s done. In particlar:

In 2001 Campbell was charged by a Grand Jury with illegal collection and spending of campaign money, and failure to file campaign expense reports. Said the PA Attorney General: “Money just disappeared.” Campbell was convicted, fined and sentenced to a year’s probation.

The conviction apparently didnt sidetrack her, as the Philadelphia City Paper reported she raked in close to $500,000 in the 2003 and 2005 primary elections.

In April 2007, Campbell was sued by the Philadelphia Board of Ethics for illegally operating two PACs. She signed an agreement to refrain from such activity in the future.

So I think that it would behoove a reporter to ask Rep. Brady (who, incidentally, as the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration is in charge of making sure that Congressmen spend their money within the rules. Isn’t that cute?) if Obama was playing the walking around money game (aka "street money") in the primary. And ask Mrs. Campbell that same question.

And ask the Obama campaign if they are going to put money in the hands of known criminals for the purpose of increasing their electoral chances in rough-and-tumble Philadelphia…

Drudge still has a headline up about Barack Obama announcing his Veep tomorrow, which Mark Halperin calls BS. My gut is that it is BS. Obama probably wants to wait until Wednesday or Thursday to delay the scrutiny until during the conventions. But the evening talk shows were about the VP speculation. Undoubtedly tomorrow will be about it. And the whole week will be.

The Obama campaign’s tactics have been great. Now, don’t get me wrong. As Open Left’s Chris Bowers points out, it appears that John McCain’s campaign is winning the war:

It is very difficult to not conclude that McCain is winning the messaging war right now. If Obama is winning in field, paid media, and free media exposure in a very Democratic year, what other explanation could there possibly be for his narrow lead nationally?

But every time there has been s significant float of a name by the Obama campaign, 2-3 days of media get sucked up. The Obama campaign is clearly doing it deliberately, when potential VP candidate Tim ("Hahahahahaha") Kaine cancelled a fundraiser, that was practically the only national political story for two days. When Obama did a long overnight in Indiana, a possible Evan Bayh VP candidacy got enormous coverage.

Now, tactics and skirmishes do not win wars. Ultimately, long-term strategies do. Right now McCain’s strategy is based on substance, whereas Obama’s often is not, as noted by The New Republic:

"They’re terrified of people poking around Obama’s life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it’s not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama’s old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

But still. It is so frustrating to watch the Obama campaign dominate the media like this with nothing at all going on.

In the meantime, Obama says McCain is “devil you know”, but
Obama just unknown

The Messiah thing just doesn’t let up.
Ben Smith has Nancy Pelosi describing Barack Obama as “a leader
that God has blessed us with at this time.”

Maybe he is the one?

In the meantime,
Obama says that McCain is “the devil” but that Obama is merely
“unknown”:

“Even when people are having a tough time, sometimes
the devil you know may be preferable to the unknown.”

Of course, it is a joking point. But it is still telling that he
can only quote the saying so far to call McCain a devil, but
himself only unknown.

Emil Jones said it was “steak”, “not pork”

Barack Obama’s mentor, Emil Jones, will announce his resignation
from the Illinois State Senate today, according to the
Chicago Tribune. The Tribune describes Obama as Jones’ protege.

Rumors are floating that Jones is wrapped up in a criminal
investigation. We will keep you updated…
We have written about his own private slush fund in the
past.

In the meantime,
here’s what you need to know about the relationship between
Jones and Obama:

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency,
Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for
fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet
projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones’s
Senate district.

Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking
his view on pork-barrel spending.

I’ll never forget what he said:

“Some call it pork; I call it steak.”

Paul Pringler of the LA Times has running a great series of stories about the corruption of the LA local of SEIU. The most recent places them all in context.  The basic idea is that the head of LA local, Tyrone Freeman, appears to be using union funds to route money back to his friends, family, and even spouse.

This story adds three important components. First, Freeman appears to run corrupt elections. Second, he is a "protege" of Andy Stern, the head of SEIU, and there is evidence that Stern and the (inter)national organization is covering up for Freeman. And, third, Stern has a strategy for using Freeman and his corrupt elections and embezzling to take over all of the California SEIU. If these facts hold up, it could lead to some very danger places for Stern and the SEIU.

The details from the story are all above the fold. The key point here is that these stories suggest a need to continue these investigations and examine both national and local SEIU expenditures much more closely.

<!–break–>

The basic story is that Tyrone Freeman used funds from the local to pay his family lots and lots of money from the union treasury:

In addition to the outlays to the firms owned by Freeman’s wife and mother-in-law, the union paid a combined $219,000 in 2006 and 2007 to a video firm whose principals include a former employee of Freeman. A now-defunct minor league basketball team coached by Freeman’s brother-in-law received $16,000 for what the union described as public relations, according to records and interviews.

The union also paid about $106,000 to a firm called The Filming, for which no incorporation record, business license, address or telephone listing could be found.

In addition, he appeared to run corrupt elections:

The election of a Los Angeles union leader under fire for his labor group’s spending practices is the subject of a government review that could force a new vote because of complaints that the contest was unfair to challengers.

The U.S. Labor Department is investigating allegations that Tyrone Freeman’s union local made it nearly impossible for candidates not on his slate to qualify for the ballot, according to people familiar with the probe.

These are neat and good stories for demonstrating union corruption and why unions shouldn’t have more power over the votes to unionize by giving them card-check.

But the real story is that this crook, Tyrone Freeman, is a central part of Andy Stern’s plan to centralize power:

Trossman’s efforts succeeded, the source said. Freeman’s local continued to expand as part of SEIU President Andy Stern’s much-celebrated campaign to organize entire industries state by state. The local and an affiliate ended up representing about 190,000 workers, most of them in the field of home healthcare. …

Lichtenstein said the union clearly had an "investment" in Freeman, a Stern protege who has been a high-profile loyalist in the SEIU push to consolidate regional locals into statewide chapters. That effort is being resisted by a handful of dissidents, notably the president of a 150,000-worker Oakland affiliate.

Not only is Stern trying to give this guy Freeman power, but Stern appears to be covering up for him:

In response to the July inquiries, Trossman had issued a statement on behalf of Stern that said the union had received no allegations about Freeman’s local. Freeman denied any wrongdoing.

The source, who said he was party to internal conversations about Freeman in 2002, told The Times last week: "The international knew that there were allegations of impropriety many years ago. This is not news to them."

Picking a fight with NRLC on a question of fact

I watched Rick Warren’s Saddleback event last night. I thought
it was interesting. I thought John McCain won, an opening shared by

Zack
Exley, a former John Kerry staffer. He called Obama’s
performance “disappointing” and notes that he had been coached on a
number of issues by evangelical leaders but that Obama “kind of
went around in circles”, calling it “a little John Kerryesque”.

By contrast, he describes McCain as:

Wow. McCain is doing really well. He’s so relaxed and natural.
What’s going on? He was supposed to be old and spent and out of
touch. But he’s being so much more engaging than Obama was. I
think… Right?

But, in some circles, the news of the night may be different.
Just minutes after leaving the stage, Obama gives an interview with
CBN’s David Brody. Brody drills down on the
Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which we have discussed here. The
key passage:

Brody: Real quick, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I gotta
tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s
just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants,
main — they’re trying to understand it because there was some
literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And
they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your
position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the
truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a
situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I
would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill
that everybody supported – which was to say –that you should
provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as
a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that
was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was
trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had
a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving
treatment was given to infants.

When a group like the National Right to Life Committee is called
out as liars by the candidate himself, the group responds and the
issue is elevated. Obama has now given editors reason to print
these stories.

By the way, the best details on this issue are, to my knowledge,
in
David Freddoso’s book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely
Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite
Candidate

This will be an interesting fight to watch. If NRLC and Freddoso
are right, Obama just lied on video to the Christian Broadcasting
Network. That’s a story.

At the end of June, Barack Obama had $72m CoH. At the end of July, he had $65.8m CoH, after raising $51m.

That means he spent $57m. Can he sustain this level of fundraising? And how do you spend that much money in a month?