Taking a Stand

Water water everywhere, not a drop to drink. That’s how I feel about the political journalism covering the upcoming Republican presidential primaries.  If you’re a Republican voter (which I’m not) and you want to figure out whom to vote for in the upcoming primaries,  where do you look for detailed information? Candidate messaging is exceptionally biased, short on depth and quite negative.

For me, analyzing candidates means the following:

• What are their positions on the important issues facing the country, like immigration, national security and the wars in the Middle East, national debt and taxation, social security, jobs and stimulus and the myriad of social issues like a women’s right to choose, gay rights, etc.?
• What relevant experience do they have in government or business, that has prepared them to be President? Do they have any executive experience?
• What kind of people are they likely to surround themselves with in key staff positions, cabinet and judicial appointments?
• What is their vision for the future of the country?
• Are they a consensus builder or will they perpetuate the partisan division that now exists?

I set out to answer these questions and it is an impossible task, distressing in light of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on campaign messaging.  It takes as much research as doing an advanced college paper. You’re not going to find the answers on the candidates’ own websites which cherry pick a few select issues and never reveal the candidates prior voting records. I actually believe that the best predictors of presidential success and conduct are personality analysis and analysis of how they conducted themselves in previous positions.

It’s a longstanding trend that the news media focuses on the story of the day, covers that day’s appearances and polling results. The plethora of Internet sites hasn’t changed this trend. The better news organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post cover the candidates in detail, but you have to read tons of articles and compile the material to get a full picture. Who has the time?

The CNN Election Center site is probably the best site out there, although it’s not so easy to find, you have to know it’s on their Politics page to find it–CNN should plug this site on its home page.  It’s got a few candidate select issues positions and good bios, even a video clip for each candidate.  If the bios were more detailed with links to voting records and other objective materials this site would be perfect.

The Des Moines Register 2012 Iowa Caucus site has the next best candidate site I have seen, which is a good thing for the voters in Iowa considering that their caucuses tomorrow are the first in the nation. The Register’s is a detailed site with the candidate’s resume, what the candidate is known for, their local supporters, and fundraising status. It’s a little light on positions on key issues or voting records but offers good links to that info. I highly recommend this site.

The N.Y. Times Election 2012 webpage has some very short profiles, but it focuses more on the candidate’s chances than anything else—more emphasis on the horse race.

Why is the easy-to-use summary page such a rarity? Have the major news organizations concluded that the public doesn’t want the details compiled for us like that?

Larry Sabato, whose University of Virginia Center of Politics “Crystal Ball” usually offers exceptional analysis has failed his followers in this effort.  His  website has a  small but helpful summary thumbnail chart but it offers no detail and simply underscores  the candidate’s advantages and disadvantages.  Politico has a series of charts, but it’s short on issue positions.   Where is  The National Journal, The Huffington Post, or Real Clear Politics in this analysis?

Why is the easy-to-use summary page such a rarity? Have the major news organizations concluded that the public doesn’t want the details compiled for us like that? It seems that we shouldn’t have to do independent research to vote. Would more people vote if the coverage was better?

Believe it or not, the best place to look for detailed background, bios and positions is Wikipedia. There is a summary page listing all of the candidates, links to each one with much detail and substance.  They are the most comprehensive summaries I have found. The problem is that you can’t always rely on the reporting to be accurate.

This is a void that needs to be filled. Can you think of a more important subject for journalism to get right?

I recently represented The Stamford Democratic Party in a Stamford Court trial, Caterbone vs. Bysiewicz, where the Party joined the Connecticut Secretary of State in objecting to James Caterbone’s request that the Court order the Secretary of State to place him on the ballot as a candidate for the State House of Representatives. In that case Assistant Attorney General Robert Clark and I were able to convince Judge Taggart Adams that Caterbone failed to abide by the Connecticut laws governing how candidates formally file the Certificate of Endorsement that is filled out at their nominating conventions. Judge Adams refused to ignore the law’s requirements and held Caterbone to the letter of the law, refusing to order the Secretary of State to place his name on the ballot.  In this case,  Caterbone’s Certificate arrived in Hartford many days after the deadline for nominations had passed.  This decision is very significant.

First, Carterbone was not the only candidate to be kept off the ballot this fall.  In the West Hartford consolidated Probate Court election,  John W. Butts, the Democratic candidate for Judge of Probate also went to Court to get an order to place his name on the ballot.  In that case, the Certification for Judge Butts was mailed in but the Secretary of State claimed never to have received it and Judge Eliot Prescott also refused to ignore the letter of the law and denied his request that his name be placed on the ballot.

For many years Connecticut Courts have been granting these legal requests to be after candidates made one mistake or another in filing the nomination certificates, so the State Legislature tightened the law, giving the Secretary of State absolutely no discretion to these correct errors, declaring the late certificates invalid. Caterbone and Butts are the first two cases that I am aware of where Connecticut Judges have refused these requests.  Since Butts has appealed the trial court decision,  we now have, for the first time a Connecticut Supreme Court decision upholding this new trend in the law.

The Connecticut Supreme Court

Another case where Connecticut Courts gave held candidates to the letter of the law was the even more noteworthy Bysiewicz v. DiNardo, where the Connecticut Supreme Court said that Secretary of State herself could not be a candidate for State Attorney General because the law required candidates for that office to have practiced law for ten years, a hurdle she could not overcome. It would be an interesting study to look at the men and women who have held this position over the last several decades to see just how many State Attorneys General could overcome that hurdle, a requirement the Bysiewicz case has likely firmly established for many years to come.

The message to candidates from the Connecticut Courts this year is a clear one: if you want to be elected to public office don’t start off on shaky ground—start by reading the laws that define your candidacy and your obligations as a candidate.  I suppose this will create more work for lawyers, just as the brand new trend of candidates challenging the awarding of public campaign finance grants to their opponents.  The lawyers will be happy, no doubt, with the expansion of a practice area. Hopefully, in the long run the result will be that the political parties take more seriously the nominating process and the responsibilities that come with having access to the ballot on election day.

James Carville’s 1992 words of political wisdom, “It’s the economy, stupid,” are an even more appropriate  analysis of today’s American electoral politics than they were in 1992.  Americans are scared, as Robert Reich recently wrote, “Voters are petrified of losing their jobs, their homes and what’s left of their savings.”

There is really nothing that a President can say in a State of The Union Address to dispel these fears. It’s an important speech, but it’s still just a speech, words.  According to Nancy Wyman, our State Comptroller, Connecticut has lost 94,000 jobs since the recession started in 2008 and 21,000 jobs in just the last six months! So long as unemployment continues to grow, as long as banks remain reluctant to loan money to businesses and to consumers, the fears of Americans are justified, and they will continue to “fire” the politicians who in power; the election in Massachusetts shows that they are still in the process of firing President Obama and my Democratic Party.  This termination may very well mean a three year work in progress unless things change.

President Obama’s recipe for economic recovery is stimulus spending. In this economy this means deficit spending.  The public, however, is wary of out-of-whack budgeting, and it is doubtful there will be Congressional support for this type of deficit spending.

What is shocking to me is that in all of the punditry and analysis of the State of The Union Address there has been so little outcry over our massive defense spending and our continued military spending to fight wars in the Middle East; defense spending has been exempted from any budget cuts.

At this time, with so many Americans unemployed or “underemployed”, can we really afford to undertake to rebuild two Middle Eastern countries? The U.S. spends almost as much on military spending as the rest of the world combined, and spends about six-times more than the second largest spender, China, a nation of a billion people. 44 percent of all 2009 tax dollars went to fund military spending, compared to a tiny fraction, just 7 seven percent, which was spent on jobs and education.

Make Us Healthy

And while it is true that Connecticut benefits from military spending and from military jobs, while military spending creates about 12 jobs per $1 million in spending, clean energy investments generate around 17 jobs, health care creates 20, and education produces 29 jobs for every $1 million of spending.

What are we accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan for our investment? In Afghanistan we have to counter a history of groups battling for political control. As my friend Scott Bates of the Center for National Policy recently wrote, “We are asking them (the Afghans) to put the past aside and work together, especially in the threat posed by the reconstituted Taliban. That is a tall order in one of the poorest nations on earth, where a generation has grown up knowing only war.”

Taliban Fighters

Are we making America safer from the threat posed by al-Quiada by our presence in Afghanistan? U.S. Intelligence officials admit that there are more al-Quiada members in places like Somalia and Yemen than Afghanistan. And Iraq? Has our commitment and spending in Iraq made America safer from terrorists? Civil war between the Sunnis and Shia still rages, six hard years after “Mission Accomplished” was declared.  Only 44 percent of Americans still believe that the war in Afghanistan is still worth fighting, according to a November ABC News/Washington Post poll, 52 percent say the war is “not worth it.”

President Bush aboard The USS Lincoln, "Mission Accomplished"

Given the pain felt in Connecticut and across the country it is time to reconsider our priorities, reconsider the exempt status of the military budget from the budget cutter’s scalpel and reconsider our financial commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq.   Back to Carville:  It’s the economy, stupid.  And it’s our economy first. And  I mean OUR.