Former PRSSA President and current Puerto Rico Governor Luis G. Fortuño was named as a potential candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Noted Republican antitax activist Grover Norquist, President and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, named the Governor as a potential candidate on the 2012 Republican national ticket. Andrew Romano, political correspondent for Newsweek, contributed a story on Fortuño and what he represents for the GOP’s political future.  Norquist is recognized as a major power player within the Republican Party who has been involved in past presidential campaigns.

To read the article, click the following link:

Newsweek Article by Andrew Romano

I predicted a few days ago that Kentucky’s Republican primary would be one to watch. The race is to fill the seat of outgoing Senator Jim Bunning. Bunning is known for two things. One is his stellar baseball career. He is one of eighteen players to ever pitch a perfect game (read: no opposing players ever got to base) and is currently 17th in total career strike-outs. The second thing he’s most noted for is being a reliable bag of crazy in the Senate.

His career got off to a less than auspicious start when he eked out a half of a percentage point win in 1998. That race was so nasty that former President Clinton made point of it in the interviews he conducted with Taylor Branch that eventually became part of Branch’s book The Clinton Tapes. Things got even worse in 2004, when Bunning ran a miserable campaign that ended up with him winning by just 1% when President Bush was swamping Bunning’s Senate colleague John Kerry by 20 points. Some of the lowlights of the campaign included: Bunning admitting that he only watched Fox News (great red meat for conservatives but probably not a good thing to tell reporters who are crafting a narrative on your race), comparing his opponent Dan Mongirado’s appearance to that of one of Saddam Hussein’s sons, and appearing via sattelite for a debate in which he relied on a teleprompter.

Therefore, it was of little surprise when word got out that Mitch McConnell and others were trying to have the “You ever think about not running, Jim?” conversation with Bunning. Indeed, top Republican even started preparing for a primary challenge if Bunning didn’t want to go quietly. Rather than just go out with a whimper, however, he went out with a bang, accusing McConnell of being a control freak, saying that one of his potential primary competitiors owed him money, kept up his intense focus on steroids in baseball while the economy crashed, and predicted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead within nine months.

With lackluster funding and his approval at 28%, Bunning eventually got out, leaving McConnell’s pick Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the heir apparent. However, a funny thing happened on the way to Washington. Supporters of Ron Paul, whose firebrand libertarian-oriented campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 raised tons of cash and drew headlines while making little headway (though acute observers will note that he did come close to winning some little noticed contests and straw polls), were attempting to get Paul’s son Rand into the race. Rand had become somewhat of a darling of that wing of the party while on the stump for his dad in 2008. After Bunning stepped aside, Paul made his candidacy official on August 5th.

Again, most Republican insiders paid little attention. However, what they weren’t paying attention to was the groundswell on the internet, both in terms of money and support via social networking sites like Facebook. He currently has over 17k fans to Grayson’s more modest 5k. This is probably more of a testament to the Paulistas national spotlight on Paul, but no strategist would cast a negative light on that many potential supporters who very well may cross state lines to help Paul on the way to a primary win. On May 23rd, before Paul was even officially in the race (though he hinted he would get in if Bunning stayed out on May 1st), supporters raised $25k. On August 20th, another moneybomb raised over $400k.

Still, Grayson appeared the favorite. Then another funny thing happened. Word got out that the NRSC would host a fundraising event in DC for Grayson. That’s when Paul’s supporters got PISSED. They held a counter money-bomb that raised $186k for the campaign. This pushed the campaign over the million mark and meant real media attention for the campaign. On November 2nd, a poll came out showing Paul leading in the primary by 3 points. On November 4th, embarrassed over conservative reaction to this and their backing of Charlie Crist, NRSC Chair John Cornyn announced that the group would sit out contested Republican primaries, a move that was hailed by grassroots conservatives as allowing the people to decide (all the rage in our current populist moment).

Now, there’s further sign that big national attention is being graced on Dr. Paul (yes, he followed in his father’s footsteps in more way than one). From the New York Times (subscription required):

Representative Ron Paul proved to be a surprising presence in the presidential race in 2008. Now his son, Dr. Rand Paul, has become an unexpected contender in the 2010 Senate race in Kentucky.

Dr. Paul — an ophthalmologist and a son of the congressman, a Texas Republican and former presidential candidate — has become a serious challenger in the race to succeed Senator Jim Bunning.

Capitalizing on a hearty distrust of government and an anti-Republican-establishment fervor among conservatives, he has used the Internet to raise more than $1.3 million since he began his campaign in August.

“This primary is really about the future of our party,” said Dr. Paul, 46, who has lived in Kentucky since 1993 and has never run for public office before.

“The Republican platform specifically says we don’t believe in bailing out private business, and yet we did,” Dr. Paul said in a break between cataract operations. “The Republican platform also specifically says we don’t believe in government ownership of private businesses, and yet a lot of Republicans voted for that.”

As I’ve noted before, we’re seeing a new alliance forming between fiscal conservatives and straight up libertarian conservatives, combined with the interesting factor that many social conservatives are drawn to the Paul’s pro-life credentials. Will this continue all the way back to governance? Hard to say–one President already helped disintegrate that already shaky alliance. But a new one is bringing them right back together.

Paul’s race will be one to watch, as the primary seems to have quickly become nationalized beyond the borders of the sleepy commonwealth of Kentucky. This will be a curious race to watch, since Grayson isn’t exactly a Meg Whitman or Charlie Crist in terms of his politics. Still, this race will be a harbinger of things to come in terms of what issues will bring the party back to power and just what sort of candidate activists are seeking out to be their standard-bearer in 2012.

It’s no secret that Washington DC is corrupt and dysfunctional.  8th Congressional candidate Marc Savard had a recent posting on this very issue.  He also shares some of what he will be doing over the coming months to distinquish himself in a crowded field, while working to become the candidate residents of the 8th district can trust to represent them Washington.

Voters will have to work diligently to sort through who will earn and deserve their support over the coming months.

In my travels on the campaign trail over the last year talking and listening to residents of the District, one of several common questions arise, and that is how can we possibly change such a dysfunctional and corrupt system in Washington?My answer is that you change it one person at a time.

You don’t support candidates who just  tell you what you want to hear, and who make promises that you know they can’t and won’t keep. You look for a candidate who is living the life that you live with all of the struggles and cares that the vast majority of us deal with every day.You also watch how the candidates conduct their campaigns. What kind of folks do they have on their staff? Who are their volunteers? And most importantly of all, how do they raise and spend the funds needed to operate their campaign. Because how they do all of these things will be a good indicator of the values and judgments they will take to Washington on your behalf. You deserve a candidate who will not only work for you and our country’s well-being, but will also honorably represent you with his behavior when you are not able to follow his every move.

A key indicator of that, from Marc Savard’s perspective is how they raise campaign money.

I believe that how a candidate raises and spends money is one of the key indicators of how he will operate in Washington. Where is he getting his money from. Who is he beholden to for tens of thousands of dollars of contributions. You know as well as I that when Political Action Committees (PACs), or what is generally described as special interest lobbying, gives tons of money to a candidate  ,they expect something in return. It is fundamental to our human nature that when someone does you a favor or gives you something, you are predisposed to return the favor or  give them something in return. You know in your gut for that to be true.

So if “special interest” money is a key to the corruptness of the political system, one way to change that is to not accept such donations.

The only way to break that corrupt Washington cycle between politicians and lobbyists is for a candidate for Congress to not seek out, and not accept, such donations, so that he can go to Washington clean and clear of the attachments such contributions create.

That is something 8th Congressional District candidate Marc Savard is apparently prepared to do.

I will be making just such an announcement in a detailed and formal way before the end of the year. I will also give you the information and tools readily available to you so, as Ronald Reagan aptly put it when dealing with the Soviet Union, you can “trust but verify” my pledge.

So watch my team run in the coming months and see that I will be the candidate who will earn your trust to be your Representative in Washington DC. (Source: Saturday morning on the farm – Savard for Congress)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Santa Kagen doesn’t get it (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)
• Looking For An 8th District Candidate Part 3 (berrylaker.blogspot.com)
• Washington’s way of counting votes is just silly (seattlepi.com)

Happy Thanksgiving! The whole school came together last night for the annual North Branch Thanksgiving program and dinner. Students spent the last few weeks rehearsing songs  and preparing vegetable soup, cornbread, butter and fresh-pressed apple cider. Thank you again to Elizabeth Ferrall and Lisa Kendrick for preparing the soup. This video shows the school singing what I have come to think of as the North Branch theme song.

Today, Politico came out with an article on the 2010 Democratic primaries and how ugly the intraparty battles are already becoming. Now, as someone who is for not the Democratic Party nominee, this is a great thing. However, for the Democrats, this conflict is quite potentially ruinous. This quote comes from the Politico article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29821.html):

Situations like these are best for the voters, though. Each of the candidates vets the other, exposing flaws in ideology, covered-up scandals, and even that one night in college that’s better left in the past. By the time the general election comes around, the voter has the two or three best candidates to choose from.

As a party trying to overcome the political legacies of Bush and McCain, the Republicans need to make sure that they stay away from this sort of thing. Let the vetting be done in private. Party weaknesses should be hidden under a façade of conservative ideals, positive rhetoric and virtual idealogical unity. During a time of fractures and factions present in both parties, and Congress in general, the most valuable asset that a party could have is a sense of stability and unity.

Historically, after major wars and economic troubles, people look to the parties and the government for stability. This can be seen in Great Depression-era America and post-WWII Europe. The party that is seen as the most unified and stable has traditionally been the one to win the elections. In the first case, it was the Democrats, in the second, it was the British Labor Party and its equivalents in the rest of NATO Europe.

The Republicans have a very good situation that they may choose to take advantage of. The Democrats are fighting from with themselves. All the Republicans have to do is play nice and let the Democrats rot from within. Let the Democrats be perceived as the party of negativity and disunity during the primaries. Then, during the general election, win with a promise of stability and security. And follow through. Don’t lie to the voters.

For Sarah Palin, with her personality and history, to tell Rush Limbaugh that Republicans should welcome primary fights within their own ranks is hardly surprising.

As much as it may pain her many critics, she also has a lot of history on her side.

Many Republicans, looking at the recent fiasco in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, argue that the endorsement by Palin and her talk-radio buddies of a rigid right-winger running on the Conservative Party ticket cost Republicans a House seat they had held for more than a century. They worry that the populist anti-establishment “rogues” like Palin will kill GOP prospects for a comeback in 2010 by backing ideologues in many other primaries and scaring off independents and moderate Republicans.

They are wasting their breath on Palin, who got to be governor of Alaska by knocking off incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski in a Republican primary in 2006. When she told Limbaugh, “What I appreciate about the Republican Party [is] we have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries,” she had that fight in mind.

Unlike Palin, most campaign managers and party chairmen hate primaries. They hate to see money spent fighting people on the same team, and they fear the scars that may be left.

But Palin has a strong point, especially when a party has as many unsettled issues as the Republicans do these days. In such a situation, primaries are the best way to test leaders and ideas. The modern Republican Party began recovering from the many defeats of the New Deal era only in 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower, a war hero, defeated Adlai Stevenson. But before Ike could win the general election, he had to face down Robert A. Taft, the leader of the GOP congressional wing and an embodiment of conservatism. Their battle started in the New Hampshire primary and continued through bitter convention roll calls testing and finally overthrowing establishment control.
Another such fight came in 1980, after the ruin of Watergate had restored Democrats to the White House. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush squared off, with Bush winning the first round in Iowa, and Reagan forced to defend his claim in New Hampshire and in later primaries. Without those tests, Reagan would not have been the candidate who ousted Jimmy Carter.

And as recently as 2000, George W. Bush had to absorb a shellacking at the hands of John McCain in the New Hampshire primary before he was able to slug his way back in South Carolina and develop the tough tactics that he used to claw out his narrow, disputed win over Al Gore.

Against those examples of tough primary battles that preceded and prepared the winners for victory, we have the case of the 1976 struggle in which Reagan challenged President Jerry Ford for the nomination. Ford went to his grave believing that Reagan had weakened him so much that Carter could send him home. He argued that if Reagan had conceded earlier and campaigned harder for the Ford-Bob Dole ticket, the Republicans could have prevailed. But in fact, Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and debate slip-up on Poland had as much or more to do with his defeat.

The overall pattern has been much the same in Republican primaries for governor and senator. The number of cases where a potential winner has been sabotaged by a primary contest’s leftover wounds is remarkably few.

The fear among some Republican pros now is that as the GOP base has shrunk and become more monolithically conservative, ideological purity may replace broad voter appeal as the criterion for prevailing in primaries. The answer is to bring more people to the polls, as Eisenhower and Reagan both did.

The way to deal with Palin is not to shut her down, but to match her in appeal and effort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903431.html

Terri McCormick has officially entered the race for the WI-08 Congressional seat.

McCormick, who is in her early 50s, ran unsuccessfully against former state Rep. John Gard in the 2006 GOP primary. She says she is a more patient, thoughtful candidate this time around.

 

Speaking before a handful of supporters at the Rock Garden Supper Club/Club 1951 in Howard, McCormick outlined her priorities in Congress: job growth, regulation reform, national debt reduction, health care reform and term limits on federal officeholders.

“The mess we’re in is generally because of a lack of leadership,” McCormick said.

Referring to the government’s involvement in using bailouts for economic recovery as “perpetual meddling in the free market,” McCormick said limiting government spending and encouraging private sector growth are key. Job recovery and growth are her No. 1 priority, she said.

She criticized current health care proposals in Congress, including the 10-year, $1.2 trillion measure passed by the House of Representatives and proposals in the Senate, saying they did not adequately address the cost of health care.

“It looks like a power struggle over who controls the insurance agencies,” McCormick said, adding that she would like to see open, competitive pricing for medical procedures. (Source: Terri McCormick of Greenville enters Republican race for 8th District seat – GBPG)

So far she sounds no different than every other candidate who’s thrown their hat in the ring when it comes to priorities and the direction this country is being taken.  Although I don’t know if anyone else has floated the term limits idea.

The first question that comes to mind is this – why should those who didn’t vote for her in 2006 vote for her now?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who Is Terri McCormick? (berrylaker.blogspot.com)
• Looking For A 8th District Canidate Part 1 (berrylaker.blogspot.com)
• NRCC to Candidates: Prove Yourselves Worthy! (lakeshorelaments.com)
• More details on Ribble’s $130,000 raised (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)
• Trager Makes Five (lakeshorelaments.com)

Well I said I would do one and here we are, a little late as it were since my usual ‘weekly’ format stretched out a bit, with an all GOP all the time piece. There is much to discuss on the GOP front with a new poll that came out, as well as spending reports and further sharpening of policies to garner favor in the largely undecided republican voting masses. When I say ‘largely’ I mean it, as I will show, but now it is starting to shape up as we pass the seven month mark in the race to the primaries. As of yet Meg Whitman has taken the lead in advertising with a radio ad campaign, but in a deeper look in to these ads and fact checking they have shown truly vile in their massaged facts as well as outright lies on the topic of debate requests and refusals. Yes the mudslinging and underhanded tactics seems to be in full swing and the  deciding factor thus far seems to come in the form of green, disgusted historical American figures ashamed of their seedy role in all of this.

The most shocking tale of the tape thus far in the GOP camp is the bottom line; the cold hard facts of the cold hard cash. To date Meg Whitman has spent more than 19 million of her own net fortune of 1.2 billion. Some have speculated at a record setting 150 million dollar end budget by elections next year in November.  This is a crushing amount of money in comparison to the moderate spending of Poizner’s camp at 1.07 million and Tom Campbell at a meager $455,000. Meg Whitman is spending boatloads of cash on dozens of advisors on monthly retainers in the six-figure ranges. she has spent over $100,000 on chartered planes, she even spent 11,000 on catering for a fundraiser that saw only 33 attendees. She spent more on planes than Campbell did on his entire campaign from January to June! Whitman has raised over 7 million in campaign funds which crushes the competition by leaps and bounds, including the sole democratic ‘candidate’ Jerry Brown.

What has this insane spending amounted to? Well, according to a recent Probolsky Research Poll she has gained a large lead over her opponents in public opinion. She is the leading candidate, if the primaries were held today, with 34.3% of the  theoretical vote. What is shocking is Campbell, with little to no campaign funds following at 12.5%, and Poizner dragging up the rear with a shameful 5.5%. Now I don’t read too much in to a ‘poll’ that only sampled 750 people. 750 of about 28,000,000 voting eligible residents is a little sparse. Still, Meg Whitman showed marked improvement from their last poll of a similar sample size. What Whitman won’t tell you is that more than 35% of those likely republican voters polled were undecided, and the more shocking results of this poll is that Jerry Brown polled at more than 42% of likely democratic voters while spending only just over $100,000 on his ‘campaign’.

The numbers are staggering in the fundraising sector, and to date Meg has been willing to spend more of her own money, and raised more campaign funds than everyone else combined, and it has gained her 6% of voters polled. These are all well and good, the numbers and leaders in the party; the bigger question at hand is what each candidate is going to bring to the table. What are the platforms that they are standing on and their initial promises that will undoubtedly be thrown by the wayside when they get in that comfy seat in Sacramento?

Meg Whitman is focusing on three thing: Jobs, Education, and Spending. As the CEO of a company, and a woman who wants to reform spending and should be good with numbers, as the following statement disproves, “Let’s do three things at 100% as opposed to trying to do 15 things at 50%.” I want you to think about that a moment…did you get to where I am with that? If we are capable of three things at 100% then how can we do 15 things at 50%. Basic math would tell us that we should only be able to do 15 things at 20%. We should only be able to do 15 things at 20% given that 15 is five times larger than 3 and 20% is 1/5 of 100%. Hey, let’s not get bogged down in the ‘numbers’ or the ‘statistics’, let’s leave that to the sixth grade math students. Despite this glaring inability to do mental math when proving your worth as a possible Governor, she is hell bent on the aforementioned three items. On Jobs Whitman wants to create over two-million private sector jobs, cut taxes (of course), and increase manufacturing and new industries around green jobs. On the very same page of her website under ‘spending she wants to cut 15 billion out of spending, fire 40,000 people, create a commission to regulate relevancy of government departments and regulations, and exercise the veto to reduce government size and regulation. Finally, for education, same website page, she wants to grade every school on a website parents can check, then increase charter schools to give parents and kids a choice, give school control back to schools, but still demand accountability when a school doesn’t meet the government standard.

Is anyone else seeing the trend of Whitman contradicting herself here? I’m guessing the 40,000 workers you want to fire is going to happen faster than the 2-million jobs you will create. Let’s also be real, she won’t create them, she is simply going to facilitate a situation where jobs can be created, which won’t all be her, we can safely say that with or without her specific plan I’m betting at least 750,000 new private sector jobs will be created, but how many will be lost in the fray can’t be seen. Plus, create a commission to regulate departments and regulations…regulating regulations does not sound smaller. In practice it’s like the ‘Bobs’ coming in and you interview for your job…totally redundant. Then she wants smaller government and putting the schools back in to the educators hands, while holding them to her standard. This seems counterintuitive as well as a recipe for failure. Throw in her willingness to rate each school from A to F and then let parents see it, in which they can exercise their new right to charter schools so they can move their kids from poorly graded schools to well graded schools, only to increase class size at the ‘good school’ and cutting the poorly performing school off at the knees. It all seems like when you use a credit card to pay another credit card, you move the debt around, but it never goes anywhere, really.

Steve of course has similar outlooks on some of these things. We all know about his very catchy 10-10-10 plan, which seems too catchy to have been truly researched as to it’s viability as an actual, achievable/reasonable goal. For those that don’t know the 10-10-10 refers to a 10% cut in taxes, 10% cut in government cost, and a 10 billion dollar ‘rainy day fund’, though rainy days are hard to come by in this state and might not be the best turn of phrase for those suffering in the central valley. His position on education is the same as Whitman, turn the schools over to those in them that want to seem then succeed more than anyone else, then hold their feet to the fire when they don’t perform to the government standards. Maybe the most interesting, and one idea I will admit I can get behind, is the idea of ‘part-time legislature’. I love this concept and would like to see it adopted by democratic candidates in the future for local and state elections is the idea that we keep the career ‘fat cats’ out of the fight and let people who know what it is like to earn a decent living be integral in the decisions that effect the people. I can get behind this, I can’t believe I said that, but yes, I support a part-time legislature by republican candidate Steve Poizner.

Mr. Campbell, what have you got? What can you wow us with? Well, he is taking the anti-Whitman approach and taking on 15 things at 50%. When you think about it, by the way, a system of 15 at 50 gets 750% while 3 at 100…you get the picture, 15 at 50 is actually more efficient, and isn’t running a state all about multitasking? I digress. Campbell thinks that funding isn’t necessarily the issue, he wants class sizes of no more than 20 students, period. His outlook is that individual attention will increase test scores, given that we rate last in California, and we spend about middle of the road on schools, despite being the most populous state. This idea is tough to swallow without spending a ton on new faculty and schools. On the budget he feels that it needs to be ‘a stable source of revenue, and a stable limit on expenditure.’ He feels that we need to bring back spending limits in California and not tax businesses to pay for overspending in the government. They guy does know his stuff having served five terms in the congress, working as California state finance director, California senate on the budget committee, etc., so he’s not blowing smoke. Whitman might be able to figure out payroll overhead at ebay, but Campbell knows the books of California, my kind of republican…experienced. On jobs he wants the government to play a temporary role until the private sector can recover in creating facilities and jobs for energy, water, industry, and have the government offer these contracts and have those wanting these facilities to pay for them, not go deep in to debt through bonds to try and pay for it.

All three of these candidates have other ideas, plans, topics, platforms, but these three each has outlined are the most pressing issues in California, and indeed the country. Of all three I have to say the Tom Campbell is the most qualified, though that isn’t a stretch. Sadly as this starts coming down to face time and money, Tom as well as Poizner are going to be chasing little miss sunshine state Meg Whitman with her symbolic poppy and her piles of coke laden 100’s. She is spending her way right in to Sacramento, buying the job as it would seem, with dozens of people guiding her and suckling at her ATM tit. Whitman has proved herself to be the best of puppets with a well compensated team of marionettes.

This has been a tough road for me to trod, given my penchant for wild liberal lunatic candidates like the Mayor of San Fran Gavin Newsom, no longer running, but I have given these guys a bit of a shake out in this piece and examined the dynamic. In the end I think it will come down to Meg’s big endorsements, her big pocket book, and the impotence of either of her opponents that will win her the primary fairly handily. I have a feeling Poizner is going to drop out by March or so. What I have found in the polls is that his contribution to the democratic fundraising for a recount with the whole Gore/hanging chad debacle hurt him extensively in the Republican voters’ view to the tune of 50% being less likely to vote for him based solely on this revelation. He really hurt himself with that one innocent act years ago, which will come up in any debate, public appearance, or town hall any time after Jan. 31, when things start to heat up. Campbell will limp along, but I would be surprised to see him withdraw, a Whitman/Campbell ticket for the primaries seems likely, and I hope it comes to the two of them down to the wire in debates nearing June 8th. Campbell has the record, clout, and plan to make a run at her if he gets some funding and gets some face time. If Campbell gets to shine in the public eye he can undo the possible 150 million dollar budget she has spent to create her legitimacy, watching the vail fall leaving her exposed as nothing more than a CEO shyster and performer trying to use California as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. In the 2010 Kentucky Derby of California election races my horse is Campbell to break late in the last furlong and take Whitman by a nose at the primaries…Poizner is glue by then.

Last Friday, we were treated to a special performance of Where the Wild Things Are. The play was directed by Kristin Nicks and included a cast of Wild Things from the Primary and Junior grades.

"They showed their terrible teeth..."

"Max" in his wolf suit

The cast poses with their wonderful boat and set

Thank you to Stephanie Gross for the fabulous photos!

Thank you to Stephanie Gross, one of our parents, for providing these photos.

Grandparents took tours of classrooms and got a chance to see their grandchildren’s work.

A Primary II student shows off his journal.

Taking a tour of the new Spanish classroom

After the tours, everyone enjoyed a special assembly

Natasha's class singing "Mail Myself to You"

Yale Landsberg (l) presented North Branch with a wonderful Circadian clock. Eric Thompson (r) helped work on the annex

Seniors and Middle Schoolers sing a song for our visitors

Jaime Marion, Tommy Harvey, Charlotte Zinsser Booth and Jim Gates (contractor for the project) prepare for the ribbon-cutting ceremony

After all that, everyone got to have some of the annex-shaped cake made by Deana and Brad Tipler. Thank you so much to everyone who worked hard to make the annex a reality!

Last Friday, October 23, was Grandparent’s Day and the dedication of the new annex. More to come about that, but I wanted to share this video of Natasha’s class singing Woody Guthrie’s “Mail Myself to You” to all the grandparents who were unable to attend.

My latest posting for LabourList is here: I’m opposed to primaries – and irked that LabourList and Progress are pushing them without consultation

or: Communist Chinese Leaders don’t have it as good as Ailes could

or: Ailes/Palin ’12…I’m going Canadian

or: How can you write a book when you’ve never read a book?

or: Palin’s new book…a four hundred page Highlights Magazine ripoff.

I know it is a long way off but the race for president in 2012 is shaping up to be a bloody battle of epic, and grotesquely offensive, proportion. As Obama continues to stumble through policy changes, foreign affairs, falter on domestic campaign promises, and slight an ever more frustrated gay community the GOP seems to be pulling together a possible ticket that could call for cheers from their constituents and summon nervous gulps from the White House. Sara Palin is releasing her memoirs next month, which is going to bring massive media coverage, book signing tours, and a return to a national spotlight. At the same time the CEO and President of Fox News Television, Roger Ailes, is apparently being encouraged to seek the Presidency in 2012. Ailes running for the highest seat in the free world is more than speculation and is not outlandish with his past work in politics before eventually shaping Fox which has established itself as the clear opposition camp of the Obama administration. If these two stars, Palin and Ailes, join forces 18-24 months from now it could create an alliance that would present a tough media nut for Obama to crack in order to be re-elected.

Sara Palin’s memoirs titled Going Rouge: An American Life were originally slated to come out in early 2010, but the book, which was started and finished in a mere four months, has been fast tracked to come out Nov. 17, 2009. With an initial run of a massive 1.5 million hardcovers, HarperCollins, is clearly putting a lot of faith in the sales of Palin’s first book to be astronomical. This is not entirely without merit. Sara Palin could be described as the sweetheart of the GOP and it seems that; despite her constant foibles, misinformation, and resigning as Governor with more than a year left in her first term; she can do no wrong. With Palin it seems that her fans and supporters turn a blind eye to all her faults and family issues, that run contrary to traditional Republican lines, and instead cling to her general rhetoric and get a big hard on with her ‘rogue spirit’ and libelous shots at the ‘liberal media’. Palin has been accused of hurting McCain in 2008 with her poor speeches, inexperience, and lack of general governmental common knowledge, but it seems that it has not hurt her popularity in the long run. It would not come as a shock when her book in number one on the NYTimes Best sellers list for nearly two months.

There is much you can expect from Palin in the coming months as her books sells like mad and she is plastered all over every media outlet in the country. She will have multiple appearances on Fox News, I am thinking a full round table run of O’Reilly, Fox and Friends, et al. She will be on Meet the Press as well as Larry King Live, of course, not to mention The View. You will see her face on every tabloid for a few weeks after the book release, now that Jon & Kate has settled down, and she will be making a full nation wide book signing tour including many private colleges and universities. Palin will be great fodder with all these speaking engagements for the likes of The Tonight Show and of course the pairing on Colbert and the Daily Show. I think this move back in to the spotlight will allow her to subliminally break down the White House and Democratic faults in her own special way and start setting the foundation for a now probable run at the White House in 2012 as an opponent to Roger Ailes, until she concedes to him after a few primaries and later becomes his choice for VP.

Roger Ailes is only one of many names out there right now vying for the White House in 2012, but I think he promises the biggest headache for the current administration as the mastermind of the number one news network which just happens to be the most biased opposition of the current administration out there. Ailes and to the larger extent have been critical and nothing but a media nightmare for Obama since the early campaigning when it came down to him and Hillary Clinton. Fox News, Glenn Beck specifically, organized the 912 Project. The Channel did everything short of sponsor the TEA Party Protestors, and have been at the heart of all criticism from the Birther Movement to calling the Town Hall outbursts things like ‘patriotic’ and ‘cries of freedom loving Americans’. As a retaliation the White House press Secretary has jabbed at the network and on air personalities, Axelrod has met with Ailes to end the feud to no avail, and Obama also slighted them during his Sunday morning Press blitz promoting the Health Care Reform Bill by appearing on every major network but Fox News which was a public slap in the face that was called ‘childish’ and ‘petty’ by Fox.

Ailes does have a storied history as a man that could create and market a network with his time at MSNBC, CNBC, and of course Fox News. One of the most interesting and disturbing revelations I have found about this man is his work with the likes of Reagan and H. W. Bush during their campaigns for the White House in the position as a political and media advisor. This man has ties to two of the more popular Republican Presidents in the latter half of the 20th Century which only makes him scarier to me. He has ties, as a news guru with a long career, to every single Republican in power in the country and every lobbyist group with any sway in the capitol.

What makes Ailes scary is his ability to manipulate the largest News Channel in the country to further his policies, campaign, and to control the news without being suspect. How better to get to the White House than controlling the news and being able to hold every one hostage from politicians to special interest groups by doing shady deals and bullying GOP opposition by shutting them out of the network coverage. It would be so easy for Ailes to make himself the only candidate in the public’s eye by simply swaying the coverage to his advantage. In addition to this, who in their right mind at Fox would criticize Ailes on any single topic? He would be praised to the point of sainthood and every other candidate, on either party ticket, will be destroyed. It will be the network’s soul purpose to get their man in power and further their conservative agenda.

Can you imagine the news coverage vacuum that would be created when the likes of Ailes with an iron fist of propaganda teams up with Palin and runs cart blanc over their opponents. If he were ever to get in to the White House Ailes would be able to not only do what he wanted with policies as any President does, but he would have a number one watched network mouthpiece that would not dare disagree with him. Red China has that kind of hold over the people and the news and the audacity to think this is ok, but socialized medicine is unpatriotic. In an Ailes White House he could run roughshod over anyone and anything and freeze out almost any other network and voice leaving a stark landscape of very scared and oppressed liberal outlets and groups.

When I think of the possibility of a Ailes/Palin ticket going in to November 2012 leading in the polls I think back to how Hunter S. Thompson spoke of the Nixon administration and I can’t help but compare the two. Ailes would destroy any progress made in green job markets, silence vocal opposition, repeal environmental initiatives, as well as bully and phone tap anyone who didn’t agree and pander to him. Looking at that old man I can see the gay community being sent back 30 years and the patriot act being expanded as socialized programs of many kinds disappearing all together. The Obama administration needs to prepare for this possibility as the picture of 2012 becomes clearer. I really hope that Palin won’t get on the ticket, won’t get involved, but it is unlikely. Ailes has too much to gain and nothing to lose in a run for President and has every tool at his disposal to be an undeniable force in the court of public opinion. There are others who will throw their hats in the ring and run in the GOP primaries, but on paper Ailes presents the most disconcerting possibility. If the shows on his network are any indication then he will transform this country in to something Glenn Beck refers to as the “America he grew up loving”. Beck is 45, the America he grew up in was a tumultuously violent, corrupt, drug laden, and discriminatory nation with polarized parties and protests turned riots. I don’t doubt that this is the America Beck wants back and I wouldn’t put it past Ailes to get us there if he and/or Palin were to get within a sniff of elected power. Sieg Heil!

On October 8, NBS students helped JumpStart set a world record by having more than 1,000,000 people read the same book on the same day.  Students read The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle with their teachers and with other students, and teachers found ways to bring the caterpillar’s story and character into activities all day long.

Nursery teacher Jennifer Stuart shows off the caterpillar-green bread made by the preschool students.

Nursery teacher Kyla Saby reads this year's book in Spanish with the Juniors.

.

I was interested to see the latest Tory experiment with ‘open’ primary selection for candidates resulted in a less than predictable result for some of us in the world of Tweets and Blogs, but perhaps a slightly more traditionally anticipated outcome for the Conservatives who frequent the Blue Mountain Golf Centre. ( Iain Dale fails to win selection in Bracknell ) Resulting in the selection as candidate of local GP Philip Lee.

I’m not sure I can answer the questions this throws up – so I’ll restrict my self to musing over what the questions are.

First of all this wasn’t really a primary, and wasn’t all that ‘open’. It required pre-registration. and attendance at the Blue Mountain Golf Centre whose website alone would dissuade a good few from rolling up (Wonder if they have a no hoodies rule ?). More of a caucus really. However the principles are similar.

Iain Dale’s a big name in on-line politics. His blog is very widely read, and his connection with the notorious, and even more widely read Guido Fawkes blog has placed him centre stage in the blogosphere (if that’s not a few mixed metaphors and acronyms too far).

I’d imagine many people assumed that he was already an MP – and will be surprised by his non-selection. Iain puts this down (in the article linked to earlier) partly to negative spin on his homosexuality – I hope that’’s not true, but fear that it is to some extent. I do suspect though that what is more likely is that there is an emerging tendency to favour local candidates – which I think would be mirrored in the Labour Party, and to favour individuals with “respectable” backgrounds – which I think will be more likely for the Conservatives, but may well affect Labour too.

That in itself is an issue. OK – I accept that people have a right to want a local candidate – but how will that sit with people who have ambitions to sit for parliament yet live in a safe sit for a party they do not belong to ?  I mean if you’re a budding Tory candidate you’re not going to get very far in a safe Labour seat – or vice versa. Even in major swings of voting intentions – such as in Tony Blair’s 1997 victory, 300 or so seats never change their party ( source Electoral Calculus) – so I’m not sure how that opens things up very much. It brings the “Ryan Giggs” effect into politics – Ryan being surely likely to have been one of the worlds greatest international football players – were it not for the fact that he’s from Wales, who haven’t qualified for a major tournament in his lifetime.

It also seems to favour the local “great and good” – which might be good for me – who knows, if we can have GP’s I’m sure we could have headteachers, especially if I’m from a special school, and I’ve been a foster carer. Only trouble is I don’t know jack about politics – not really, just my own opinions, and I’ve never been a councillor or anything. But hey I’ve been a school governor so I’d get a few votes so it would be OK. OK until I got into parliament that is – then I’m not sure I’d have much idea of how to go on.

No – I’d rather vote for someone who had a little political experience under their belt – not just ‘world experience’ – but I’m not sure the ’selectorate’ would agree.

I’m not really disagreeing with the idea of primaries, I’m just wondering about the practicalities – the niggles that would crop up and make them hard to work.

This latest Bracknell Primary for instance occurred because an MP stood down. So what would you do then if we had a mutual primary arrangement ? Have primaries for all the parties ?  Or just the one ? And if you register to vote in an interim Tory primary (as Labour MP Tom Harris urged Labour voters to do Why you should vote for a Tory ) would that mean that you could still register to vote in the Labour one next time it came up ?

And I really don’t know what you’d do about safe seats. Get rid of them is the obvious answer – and I can see that that approach would have some popularity with local punters. Far better many would say, to have a well known local candidate, then a professional politician foisted on the consituency to make sure the chosen few are in the cabinet. I’m not sure though – I’d like to think that the party voted into Government won’t have half the cabinet deselected half way through the term of office, by disgruntled opposition voters registering for the primary (which they would if they wanted a say in a safe seat) – I’d also like to think that frontbenchers wouldn’t have to neglect their duties to spend time pressing the flesh in their constituencies too much just to secure re-selection.

These are all problems. Problems I’d like to think can be solved – they haven’t been solved yet though – and I think that the Bracknell Tory primary result indicates that very well.

I can’t really answer the questions – so I’ll just reiterate my opinion – Primaries are a possible way of re-democratising and re-energising politics – but I feel they can only do this if they are part of a calory controlled diet. (Sorry – I made the last bit up – I meant  – Only if they are part of a wider range of electoral and constitutional reforms)

What I’d like to see as a starting point is all of the major parties putting Primaries and Electoral Reform in prime position in their manifestos for the forthcoming General Election, to let the public know exactly what kind of a will for change each party really has.

[ I had a good idea with this one but got a bit bogged down - remember I'm an ordinary bloke not a journalist - I tidied off the worst of the rough edges and decided to publish anyway, maybe I'll come back to this theme later ]

Listening to the debate at Progress’s event last Monday Would primaries save or kill the Labour party? I naturally did a lot of thinking about the pro’s & cons of primary elections. As I’ve blogged previously  Thoughts on primaries and electoral reform – and Monday’s debate did nothing to change my mind – I can’t help but feel that although I tend to be in support of primaries, I think that they would be best employed as part of a wider range of electoral and political reform.

I’m not especially well versed in this subject area though and I feel that those issues are likely to be covered elsewhere with a little more subject specific knowledge than I can muster The Progress campaign for Labour primaries page is as good a place as any to find more information – so instead I’d like to turn my attention to something slightly different – but very much related I feel.

A strong theme that arose in the debate on Monday was that on the one hand it was slightly unfair that people who had taken the trouble to join the party, and indeed pay their subscriptions would in effect have very little more say in the selection of candidates, than an ordinary member of the public who may not eventually go on to vote for the candidate (or party) at the election. Against this it was pointed out that in many cases Parliamentary candidates are effectively selected by as few as 50 people, which raises some interesting questions about the true nature of democracy.

The answer which seemed to arise to these questions was essentially this : that political parties as they are now, and have been for many years will not continue to exist if they cling to the models of membership that they had in the past. Labour has dwindled to a fraction of its former size, and the Tories similarly have seen a haemorrhaging of members even in what is seen to be a time of renewed enthusiasm for them among the general public. New approaches to membership must develop if parties as we now recognise them are to continue.

As a football supporter, I was (and am) struck by the similarities between “the beautiful game” and the state of politics in this country

(and yes I know I turn every conversation round to football – that’s just me OK !)

In the 60’s & 70’s and before, supporting a football team meant turning up at the matches and standing in the cold to watch. That was really the only way of doing it.The particularly keen became season ticket holders which made them part of the core customer base – if we’re looking for an analogy with a political party, a season ticket holder was like a “member” of the party.

I held a season ticket until the mid eighties, at which time I moved away from home. I haven’t been to many games since – so have I stopped being a supporter ?

Well in the old sense I have – someone who manged 3 games over to 2 seasons would have been thought a pretty poor supporter in the old days, but times have most definitely changed.

For one thing, the geographical limits have changed. When I grew up in West Yorkshire, there was very little choice about football teams. It had to be Leeds or Huddersfield really. Few people travelled much further afield – or really expected to in their life time.

Now it’s more or less expected that people will move around as they progress through life – to different parts of the country and to different parts of the world. You’re as likely to be able to buy a Manchester United shirt in Oxford Street as in Manchester, and it’s become recognised that the people who sit in the stands aren’t necessarily the only “lifeblood” a team has.

Millions watch football on TV – and money from the television deals essentially provides the biggest part of the finance within the game.

I can’t imagine Sky TV ever paying millions of pounds for the right to televise CLP meetings live though – so perhaps that’s not the right part of the analogy to use.

Where I think politics can learn, is from the myriad of different ways in which it’s not possible to support a football team :

You can join “Patron’s” societies – to have access to the hierarchy within the club – and pay for the privilege.

You can join Travel clubs – and just go to the away games – Did you know that Huddersfield coaches sometimes pick up passengers in Milton Keynes ?

You can be part of online communities – email lists, and web forums – which are often joined by players and staff as well

You can buy a shirt and never go to a game or do anything else – but some of the money still goes to the club

You can open a bank account or get a credit card which provides funds to your team

You can vote for “player of the year” on the club’s website.

Which sort of brings us back to primaries. But back in the Labour Party – it’s still in the main a “put your card in your wallet and turn up at the meetings” kind of deal (and please, I am aware of the irony of a member of less than 6 months standing waxing lyrical on membership – I’ve no wish to knock those hardy stalwarts who’ve done just that for so many years)

What I’m saying is that just as changes in technology, and society changed how we support our football teams then it will also change the way in which we support our political parties – and I’d hazard a guess that the parties that get their heads around this the quickest, will be the ones best placed to survive the the coming decades.

Been absolutely rubbish blogging but being a dad, hubby, company director and chair of governors is taking up most of my time. Yeh, break out the violins!

Anyway, I thought I’d post about Progress’ call for Primaries to select our candiates. I know our current system isn’t perfect and can be open to alleged abuse, I think moving to primaries won’t help the party or help us serve the electorate.

Here’s my post on Labourhome: