I’ve just been made aware of an outfit called the National Presidential Caucus. The idea is to have people gather together in Democrat-affiliated, Republican-affiliated, or Non-affiliated groups of up to 50 people in size on November 9, 2007. Then the people who show up will caucus in two stages. First, they’ll talk about and identify a set of issues that they find to be of high importance. Second, they’ll identify the group’s favorite presidential candidate. The groups are to be self-organizing, kind of in a Meetup style.
It sounds interesting. In fact, it sounds so interesting that it sets off a chant of “Danger Will Robinson!” in my head. Is there something more to the National Presidential Caucus than this? Are you familiar with the National Presidential Caucus? Is there information about it that you can share?
Please share what you know here. I’ll keep looking into it too.
No fear, Will Robinson!
The National Presidential Caucus is a non-partisan effort to increase the discourse, discussion and deliberation prior to the run up to the “national primary” and an initiative to promote participatory democracy.
We’re not affiliated with any campaigns or parties. The effort is being driven by people who were on the front lines of web-enabled group organizing during the 2003 election cycle, including former executives from Meetup.com, planners for GWB’s House Parties, and operatives from the Howard Dean campaign all working together to help strengthen our democracy.
We believe that if there’s going to be a “national primary” (Feb 5) than there ought to be a national caucus first. So we built a platform to make it happen.
Please start or find a caucus in your town — and bring together your neighbors to discuss the important issues. It’s that easy.
Straw Poll is on November 9th
Natational Presidential Caucus Day is on December 7th
http://www.nationalcaucus.com
Thank you.
____________________________
Myles Weissleder
National Presidential Caucus
____________________________
Hang on, Myles, that’s not true.
The website for the National Presidential Caucus prominently lists Unity08 as part of your “coalition,” and that’s a group that says it will nominate its own candidate for president, and which needs to register as a political party in a number of states in order to get on the ballot for that purpose. So right there you’re affiliated with a campaign and a party.
Could you explain that?
Thanks Jim. I think I used the word “affiliated” too loosely in this context.
We’re proud to list Unity08 as part of our “coalition” because they recognize the system is broken and needs a fix — and they agree a National Caucus is a worthwhile effort. Will we endorse a Unity08 party or candidate? No.
We’re presently communicating with the “major” campaigns in the presidential race and will gladly include them in the coalition (no matter what party they are from) and promote their activity as it relates to giving a National Caucus traction. Will we endorse said campaigns? No.
Will we formally affiliate or endorse anyone? No. That’s what the caucuses are for — to give voice to Americans who want it — so *they* can endorse the candidates and issues near and dear to their hearts.
Is there something specific you’re looking to uncover here? I’m getting a sense you think that NPC is trying to pull wool over people’s eyes, of which I can assure you is not the case.
Thanks.
-Myles
Myles,
Well, sort of. The idea sounds really interesting to me, honestly. But before I take part, or even recommend such an effort, I need to have some qualms addressed.
Yes, those affiliations that aren’t exactly affiliations make me nervous. Democrats.com is VERY partisan. Michael Turk was part of setting up the online system in which over a hundred letters to the editor written by the GOP ended up in newspapers with the false claim that they were written by local people. Turk was later appointed the Unity08.com leadership team, and Unity08 is now using the same tactic. Now he’s on your planning board. That makes me nervous.
Exactly what kind of “support” has a “supporting organization” provided? Where has the National Presidential Caucus gotten the money it needs to operate? Who has donated money to the cause? How much and when?
Does anybody stand to make any money as a consequence of the National Presidential Caucus? If so, who? Are there any consulting contracts out there? With what person or agency?
I’m asking these questions as a citizen not affiliated with any party who, I hope you understand, has to be careful in these days when a lot of political movements aren’t what they say or they seem.
I live in Columbus, Ohio (and I notice there are no events scheduled within 100 miles right now). I’d like to organize a caucus event — but before I do such a thing, I need to make sure that doing so isn’t part of some kind of machination.
I don’t mean this as an “attack,” and I certainly hope you don’t take this personally — it’s just that organizations like the Republicans, the Democrats, and Unity08 have used words like “empowerment” and “people’s choice” in operations that manipulate people like tools too many times for me not to be nervous and careful.
I hope, I really really hope, that the National Presidential Caucus is the real deal. Thanks in advance for writing back.
Hi Jim -
First, thank you for considering creating a Caucus in Columbus.
Second, I hope this helps further clarify…
The National Presidential Caucus accepts the support from people within most any parties or cause. It’s open. Our advisors cover a broad spectrum of political & civic leaders.
The NPC is backed by Sausalito, California based Digital Village Associates, managers of conferences/seminars/meetings; in the event production business for 13 years. The NPC is a little different but still an event– a big one. Digital Village Associates is lead by Don Means, the event co-ordinator for the NPC.
The NPC is seeking sponsors. Details on request.
Regarding Michael Turk, Mr. Turk provided support to the NPC in the early planning phases, and since has been a consultant to candidate Fred Thompson. At the point he goes full time or maybe sooner, we’ll put him on indefinite leave. He does not have access to any data.
The National Presidential Caucus is as real as it can be. Our intent is simply to provide a platform for Americans to come together to discuss the important issues — before a “national primary”. Thanks to the power of the Internet and a large dose of passion, we’re on our way.
Hope you join us!
All best,
Myles
Thanks for responding, Myles.
When you write “support,” what do you specifically mean — what’s the measurable instrument of support? Volunteering? Consulting? Paid work? Monetary donations? Use of infrastructure? Are there formal or informal agreements into which the NPC has entered with other organizations?
Is the National Presidential Caucus a discrete registered entity? With what body, under what regulation, and with what disclosure requirements? Is there a corporate board of leaders? If so, who are they, and what are their positions? I can’t find any registration of the NPC with the IRS as a political group. Could you help me to look in the right place?
Thanks for being willing to provide these “details on request.” Such details are exactly what I’m looking for.
One example of an agreement that raises my eyebrows:
Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy is listed as a “supporting organization” of the National Presidential Caucus, and the CDD’s Director, James Fishkin, is listed as an formal endorser of the National Presidential Caucus.
Yet I read here that the National Presidential Caucus has agreed to provide James Fishkin and the Center for Deliberative Democracy with a database of results from the process.
Such a database would be highly valuable for an academic and would sustain him and his research center on a professional level.
Is that a conflict of interest? Could you explain this? And are there similar arrangements that have been made or are being made with other organizations?
Digital Village’s Website describes them differently. It says:
Their Projects page says their current projects are the NPC and broadband deployment (with approving quotes from Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Mark Warner, and Arnold Schwarzenegger). So, yes, they do organize meetings, but it sounds like a side effect of their main business, which is, basically, lobbying.
So, what is Digital Village’s interest in the NPC? How are they “backing” it, and why?
DEPLOYMENT? I find this military language creep insidious.
Jim -
I’m so glad to see you’re still obsessed with me and my work. It’s good to be loved.
I’d like to clarify yet another handful of things you have gotten completely wrong.
I am not on the staff of the Thompson campaign. I am an outside consultant advising them on Internet Strategy. I do not work full-time for the camapaign, but provide them with advice on how to engage people online.
Second, I am still assisting both the NPC and Unity08 as my time allows. Unity’s Rules Committee released its draft rules last year and there has been little activity (at least that I am aware of) by the Rules Committee since.
Finally, I gave Don Means free advice on the NPC as he was moving the concept from vision to reality. No money changed hands and no “connection” exists between them and the Thompson campaign other than the fact that they both asked for advice.
As I tried to explain to you last year, I do a great many things simply because I believe in the power of the Internet to bring people back into politics. I give a great many fledging entities advice (sometimes for free, sometimes on retainer) on how to use the Internet for political ends.
I hope this clears up your misunderstanding of my role in all of these organizations. If you have any questions, you have my e-mail, feel free to use it.
If any of your readers would like to ask me questions, my website – kungfuquip.com – has a contact form to e-mail me. I’d list my address, but would prefer to avoid the SpamBots.
Mike, Mike, you just know you’re my favorite plagiarism enabler.
So you are still on the rules committee for Unity08, you are still doing work for Unity08 “as your time allows,” you are doing work (not full time!) for the Fred Thompson campaign, and you don’t see how that creates any conflict of interest. It’s just because you care so darned much. Got it.
I don’t see how it is any conflict of interest at all. I receive no payment from Unity08, and as I said, have not been asked for any advice since the Rules were released last year – well before my contract with Thompson was negotiated.
My relationships with Unity and Thompson, as well as my relationships with NPC, the OpenHouse project and many others, are fully disclosed. I don’t operate in secret and I don’t hide my affiliations.
It is because of my experience, and those relationships, that I get asked for advice. People look to those who are contributing to the process and making a difference for suggestions and counsel.
If you did something other than post your paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings, perhaps you’d get asked to participate in more meaningful activities.
Oh, no, Jim, you’re not going to stop posting paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings, are you?
The world already has enough people participating in meaningful activities–like trying to get rid of social security and the minimum wage and passing resolutions that the earth is flat.
Of course, working for the Republican Party does pay pretty good. If you look at Turk’s photo, he has not exactly been going hungry.
I wonder who pays for the work Turk does for U08?
Isn’t he just a dearie, that Michael Turk?
Which part of
“Michael Turk was part of setting up the online system in which over a hundred letters to the editor written by the GOP ended up in newspapers with the false claim that they were written by local people.”
is paranoid or rambling? It sure is a conspiracy. That’s when people conspire to do something, you see. And the GOP did it. It’s demonstrably true.
I think the word he’s stretching for is embarrassing.
Michael Turk’s little “success story” about Tel Afar that was cut and pasted all over the nation’s newspapers is all the more embarrassing because it wasn’t true.
Insurgents were “cleaned out” of Tel Afar in September 2004, June 2005, and again in September 2005. Subsequently, Tel Afar was the scene of sectarian violence in May 2005, and bombings in October 2006, November 2006, and March 2007.
We have since had more official investigations into the war’s progress in Iraq. Those reports also reveal something other than the rosy picture Michael Turk’s newspaper spam campaign was trying to portray.
The Bush administration continues to try to hide problems in Iraq, typified by the response of the State department to Rep. Henry Waxman this week. How is that any different from Saddam?
Imagine if back in 2005, Michael Turk had been candid about the problems in Iraq instead of “contributing to the process” by covering them up. We might be two years further down the road towards having a real success story in Iraq.
Nobody. I didn’t take a dime for helping Unity08.
Seriously. Is that the best you can do? Turk’s fat! You were really stretching on that one. Maybe you can make a disparaging comment about my mother next. Your parents must really be proud of you. You’re a credit to your family.
If you’re telling a lie about your income for Unity08, Michael, your nose is going to get bigger too.
“If you did something other than post your paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings, perhaps you’d get asked to participate in more meaningful activities.”
Why don’t you explain exactly what you mean, Mr. Turk?
Which of Jim’s posts, exactly, constitute “paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings?” Justify your assertion by referring to something specific that Jim has written.
You want Jim to do “something other than” what he has been doing? What exactly? Why? Be specific.
The reward for Jim doing “something other than” what he has been doing would be that he gets “asked to participate in more meaningful activities.” Interesting.
What “activities” do you have in mind, Mr. Turk? In what way, exactly, would they be more “meaningful” than what Jim is doing now?
Given your role in encouraging people to lie in newspapers across the country, I’d really like you to explain exactly what kind “activity” you think would be more “meaningful” than what Jim has done.
I don’t think there’s any proof, Anonymous and “Michael Turk’s Mother,” that Michael Turk received income from Unity08. It’s certainly not listed in the financial disclosures. And calling Michael Turk fat is stupid and irrelevant. There’s no good in being inaccurate about these things.
Michael Turk, I still want to know which part of
“Michael Turk was part of setting up the online system in which over a hundred letters to the editor written by the GOP ended up in newspapers with the false claim that they were written by local people.â€
is paranoid or rambling.
I’ll be the first to admit that the letter writing tool at GOP.com is not something that a) worked the way I would have liked or b) I’m very proud of. You can create something with the best of intentions, and watch it go horribly wrong the minute you let people use it.
At a conference a few years ago, I listened to Marc Andreesson talk about the horror he felt when he heard that the 9-11 hijackers had coordinated their activities (at least partially) using the Internet – websites and browsers specifically. He compared it to the sickening feeling the inventor of the firearm must have felt the first time his tool was used on another person.
We expected people to pick the sample passages, copy them to the letter, and then rewrite as they saw fit. We specifically didn’t use the standard “form letter” approach that was very popular in online advocacy because we were trying to avoid telling people what to say.
Needless to say, the fact that a blank form field and an easy way to pick topics turned into mass produced letter never sat very well with me. When I had the opportunity to do things again, but approach it differently, I took it.
Poor little Turk got his feelings hurt. Poor Turkey Wurkey.
So, the letter writing tool you created went “horribly wrong the minute you let people use it?”
If that’s the case, how long did you leave it up on the web?
Yeah, and what does that say about your planning skills?
Thank you, Michael Turk, for standing up and saying that what you did with GOP.com is not something you should be proud of. I appreciate your willingness to repudiate the Republican Party’s continued use of plagiarism tools.
I’d appreciate it, by the way, if you did NOT attribute the visitor postings in this thread by Anonymous to Irregular Times writers. They are the postings of a visitor, and I specifically repudiated them this afternoon (see comment #19). It is inaccurate of you to do so on your blog, and it is particularly tacky of you to do so while not permitting comments without an account with your webpage.
Tacky, tacky Turk.
Fruktata, lay off. It only weakens the force of an argument when you sling sing-song slurs (say that five times fast). Thanks to people not sticking to actual, relevant facts, the Republican operative’s been able to go on his blog, incorrectly attribute the remarks to me, and use that to disparage my effort to bring some kind of accountability to the process he initiated that led to hundreds of cases of the publication of letters with fraudulent authorship claims.
Well, it is tacky for Turk to go and say you said things that you didn’t say. It’s kind of ironic, as a matter of fact, that Turk set up a computerized system to allow Republicans to commit plagiarism, and then he accuses YOU of saying things that you DIDN’T say. It’s kind of like he’s looking at other people, and all he can see is his own failings. Psychologically, yes, it’s beyond tacky. It’s kind of neurotic.
Well, yeah. But “tacky Turk” is alliterative! If we all start alliterating, then the socialists will eat our children.
Thanks a lot, Jim, is that the way you treat your guests here? Michael Turk claims I called him “fat” and you don’t even check? Go back and check. I didn’t call him “fat”. He called himself “fat”. Like Fruktata says, it’s kind of neurotic.
says Michael Turk about the GOP plagiarized letter writing campaign:
Is that the way it happened Jim? I’m sure you’ve still got the mirror archive for the GOP website. Is that what Turk really did? Avoided telling people what to say? Didn’t use a standard form letter approach? You’ve been tracking all this. When did he start the campaign on the GOP website? When did he take it down? Is it believable to think that Turk’s letter writing campaign for the GOP was like some 9/11 monster that “went horribly wrong” against all reasonable expectations?
We have already seen 1)Michael Turk made a snarky comment about Jim
which he has yet to explain or defend 2) Michael Turk, while reserving to himself the right to made disparaging and untrue comments about others, has cast himself in the role of the victim, falsely claimed that I have made disparaging comments about him. At the same time he makes insulting remarks about my family. 3)Michael Turk, at the same time he has invented remarks that I did not make, has turned around and on his own blog attributed those remarks to one of the writers of this website.
Three lies.
What else is Michael Turk lying about?
Is he lying about his letter writing campaign that, like 9/11, he says unexpectedly went “horribly wrong”?
Is he lying about who paid him to do work for Unity08?
Is he lying about his part time work for Thompson?
How does he live? Seriously. It looks to me like he has the Al Capone problem. No legal income. Yet he volunteers for all of these organizations out the goodness of his heart. And we have seen in points 1, 2, and 3, exactly how good his heart is.
Now go over to his website and look at his picture. Does he look like a volunteer who is unpaid by Unity 08 and only marginally paid by the Thompson campaign? If it’s like he says it is, Turk should look like he just got out of the Peace Corps. But he doesn’t. And now he says he’s fat. And his website refers to the size of his waistline. So if he’s “fat” now, as he describes himself, the picture he’s using for his profile must be out of date. Follow the money. How did the food get in his refrigerator? Food stamps? The local church mission pantry?
How did Unity08 get the free use of Michael Turk’s services?
Yeah, and if you say something sing-songy, then it makes PR people like Michael Turk dissolve in a puddle of steam, kind of like the Wicked Witch of the West did.
No, Anonymous. The GOP.com plagiarism website that Michael Turk headed the creation of is still up there. Just visit the website and you’ll see the very same text under the “letters to the editor” link. The good news is that finally America’s editorial page editors seem to have caught on that these snippets of text are fake.
It took them two years to catch on to that scheme? They call themselves journalists?
And the GOP is still using the same tired excuses?
Oi!
Where to begin… Let’s see…
I got involved with Unity08 because I thought their idea would make an interesting social experiment. Could a candidate be picked purely by the people? Would a fusion ticket work? Could an online primary succeed while still protecting the integrity of one-person-one-vote?
When I read what they were doing, I sent a note to the webmaster and told them I’d be glad to help if they wanted it. They called me back and we talked at length by phone. My background with running a state party, my online experience, and my political resume were a good fit for the Rules Committee. I have had to qualify candidates for ballot access and I’ve built sophisticated online tools. they felt my participation in the Committee would help, and I was happy to help.
No, I never took a dime. Yes, I have a day job and a steady income. Like any other American, I’m allowed to work for one entity and volunteer for another. If you’re questioning that right, I can’t help you.
Directly addressing the letter tool, I created and launched the tool in May of 2005. I wasn’t happy with the way it worked and planned to address that. Like any large-scale development environment, we had a development road map for things we wanted to build/fix. At the time I left the RNC in September 2005, it was on the agenda to be revised. The guy that took my place left it as is (and it remains to this day).
The tool in question provided sample text, but did not go far enough in dissuading people from simply sending it. It should have been more strident in making that point, or not provided the sample copy. Either would have been better.
To the point that I attributed the weight comment to Jim, I have updated my post to clarify that. When I wrote the post, it was not my intention to make that implication. After reading his comments here, and seeing that it could be interpreted that way, I felt it was important to note that Jim has always been polite – even if I don’t get his hang up on me.
Finally,to Jim’s comment, I require an account on the site to comment as an effort to cut down on comment spam. It also prevents problems with annoying readers who refuse to come out from behind the moniker of “anonymous”. Hiding behind anonymity while being a jackass is not something I approve of. Be a man and use your name if your going to be a jerk – at least people would respect you.
It looks like Michael Turk DOES approve of being a jerk–as long as you use your name. We have yet to hear his explanation of why he made this comment to Jim:
unless it’s in his last paragraph. Maybe he thinks being a jerk will prove his manhood and get people to respect him.
On of the advantages of anonymity is it forces people to focus on what you say instead making extraneous personal attacks. Ah, but this must frustrate poor Michael Turk. Still he keeps trying. He has 1) insulted my family (an ad hominem attack) 2) falsely claimed I said he was “fat” (straw man fallacy) and now 3) casts aspersions on my manhood (another ad hom)
Oh, and as far as Jim is concerned, he now thinks Jim’s criticism of his cut and paste spam campaign for the GOP website is an example of a personal sexual fetish. Michael Turk should be so lucky. Jim has been writing those things for ages–it’s only recently the Michael Turk name has surfaced in connection with the project. Oh, well, like the song says, even a sad love is better than no love at all.
But we did find out something. Michael Turk’s fridge was filled by paychecks. Who he works for is still secret, so we can’t draw any conclusions about his real motives for volunteering his free labor for Unity08 and the National Presidential Caucus. But here’s a clue. On another thread Michael Turk writes:
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/20/fred-thompson-asks-supporters-to-write-for-themselves/#comment-309411
Now, why would someone who wants to “screw Democrat candidates” volunteer his free time to both Unity08 and the National Presidential Caucus? And who does he really work for?
Perhaps Mr. Turk should decide just what kind of discourse he wants to engage in.
I am perfectly willing to refrain from making fun of peoples’ weight (while Anonymous’ comment didn’t use the word “fat,” it did imply Mr. Turk was well fed). I will also refrain from making unfounded derogatory comments about anyone’s mental health or sexual behavior. The latter, of course, is precisely what Mr. Turk is doing. It is hypocritical of him to complain about someone calling him fat while he calls others paranoid fetishists.
What’s it going to be, Mr. Turk? Nice or nasty?
As for the plagiarism engine he created and put on the web in May of 2005, he acknowledges it went “horribly wrong” the minute people began to use it.
So what did he do? Sometime within the next four months, he put it on the “agenda to be revised,” and left it up to the next guy to take care of. Is that kind of back-burner, pass-the-buck approach consistent with the behavior of someone that is horrified at a mistake he made?
And how does any of this square with the fact that a very similar plagiarism engine went up on the Unity 08 site, despite (or because of?) the fact that Mr. Turk (still horrified at his terrible, terrible mistake of two years ago?) was on the Unity 08 leadership team?
Well, Mr. Turk?