Americans Elect’s Peter Ackerman, Kahlil Byrd and Dan Winslow: Where Are They Now?

March 28th, 2013 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Election 2012 | Mitt Romney | Politics | Republicans - (5 Comments)

As you may recall, from 2010 to 2012 the Americans Elect corporation operated an effort to try and elect its own candidate for President of the United States via a privatized selection run by a corporate board. That effort failed dismally despite repeated national promotion due to the lack of interest and support of the American voters. Even as the corporation dissolved, Americans Elect told the country to expect that it would return and attempt to restart its old plan in some new form. But three of the corporation’s leaders show no public inclination to continue the Americans Elect mission.

Where is Americans Elect chairman, founder and primary funder Peter Ackerman? Giving speeches on the Arab Spring and otherwise staying out of sight.

Where is Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd? Jumping ship to StudentsFirst, an advocacy organization promoting public school privatization that just like Americans Elect has been primarily funded by ultrarich private capital players, including (no surprise) Americans Elect player Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg employee and mouthpiece Douglas Schoen is now busy promoting Kahlil Byrd and StudentsFirst.

Where is Americans Elect’s former Secretary and legal adviser, Dan Winslow? Trying to run for a U.S. Senate nomination in the Republican party. He’s also busy defending his work with Americans Elect, with many questions coming from Massachusetts Republicans who wonder why he would work for an effort to elect someone other than a Republican in the 2012 presidential contest. Dan Winslow’s new answer is that he was a Romney supporter through the entire presidential campaign season, and that (in reporter Schira Schoenberg’s paraphrase) “the online nominating process was not meant to hurt Romney, but could have provided Romney with an alternative path to the ballot should Republicans have chosen another candidate.” According to this account, Winslow saw Americans Elect as a backup for Mitt Romney.

, , , , , , , , , ,

When They Say 47%, You Say…

November 19th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Economy | Mitt Romney | Moral Values | Politics | Republicans - (4 Comments)

When the Republicans call the 47% of Americans who have an income too low to pay taxes “Selfish,” you call them retirees.

When the GOP calls the 47% “Takers,” you call them firefighters.

Button that declares I'm One of the 47% -- in black, white and redWhen the GOP calls the 47% “Lazy,” you call them waitresses.

When the GOP calls the 47% “Good for Nothing,” you call them students.

When the GOP calls the 47% “Dependent,” you call them preschoolers.

When the GOP calls the 47% a “Waste,” you call them the sick, the dying and the disabled.

When the GOP says the 47% “Didn’t Build That,” you call them construction workers.

And when the GOP refers to the “Idle” within the 47%, you call them loophole millionaires.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mistaking Correlation for Causation Episode #762 (Trump Hubris)

November 8th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Election 2012 | Mitt Romney | Politics | Republicans - (1 Comments)

Donald Trump brags he was used in 6 primary states that all were solid red, thinking he made them solid red. Er, correlation doesn't equal causation. Donald Trump writes Romney campaign used me in 6 primary states and won every one - they should have used me in Florida and Ohio & he would be President.

Someone’s got it backwards. Can you hear the actual conversation at Romney headquarters?

“He wants to be deployed.”
“No. No.”
“I know, but look, he gave 7 figures, and you know what he’ll do if we ignore him.”
“OK, OK, OK. Crap. OK. We could send him to, like Mississippi or something.”
“Right. Here’s the phone. He’s on line 2.”

, , , , , ,

Early Results Indicate Winner in 2012 Presidential Race

November 6th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Election 2012 | Mitt Romney | Politics | War and Peace - (1 Comments)

Winner in 2012 Presidential Race: Drone Contractors

(Source | Source)

, , , , , , , , , ,

Can You Write an Election 2012 Palindrome?

November 4th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Election 2012 | Humor and Fun | Irregular Verse | Mitt Romney - (2 Comments)

“Yen mort, Tim? Mitt Romney!”

That one’s simple. Can you do one better? Write up your best Election 2012 palindrome.

, , , ,

Mourdock And Romney Screw Up On Religion And Rape

October 24th, 2012 | Posted by Peregrin Wood in Election 2012 | Mitt Romney | Politics | Religion | Republicans | Sex and Gender - (2 Comments)

The generation of leaders that founded the United States of America sought to keep private religious beliefs from the operation of a democratically elected government. Last night, Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock and presidential candidate Mitt Romney both displayed the reason that, constitutional issues aside, mixing religion and politics is a strategically unwise idea.

Last night, in a debate with his right wing Democratic rival Joe Donnelly, Mourdock stated that, if elected to the U.S. Senate, his policies will be directed by the religious belief that rape and pregnancy by rape is “something that God intended to happen”. Soon after the debate, the Mitt Romney for President campaign issued a statement declaring that Mitt Romney disagrees, and believes that God does not intend for rapes or pregnancy by rape to happen.

Richard Mourdock’s reflect a cruel religious perspective that won’t be popular with many voters. Mourdock seems to believe that the Christian god, infinitely powerful, actively desires rapes to take place, and wants women to become pregnant against their will. The fact that Mourdock was using this private religious belief of his to justify withholding abortion services during the very earliest stages of pregnancy, when human life exists in the form of only a few undifferentiated cells, makes him seem particularly sadistic.

Mitt Romney’s position seeks to avoid the Christian sadism of Richard Mourdock, but seems incoherent, upon reflection. Romney’s statement implies that the god he believes in is a rather minor supernatural character, without much power to influence events on Planet Earth. Yet, Romney has stated that he would direct the policies of the federal government of the United States according to the whims of this weak divinity. That seems like a risky idea.

Both candidates would have done better to leave their religious beliefs out of their political campaigns, from the start. The best a person can say about religion is that it provides a set of values based upon stories that aren’t intended to be accepted as literally true. However, both Romney and Mourdock have promoted literal belief in the existence of supernatural beings, who have particular political agendas, and suggested that the U.S. federal government form allegiances with these beings. That choice to mix their literalist religious belief into their political campaigns has led them into cruelty and nonsense.

, , , , ,

Secular Coalition Gets Namby Pamby About Obama and Jill Stein

October 23rd, 2012 | Posted by jclifford in Barack Obama | Election 2012 | Greens | Mitt Romney | Politics | Religion - (2 Comments)

One subject that hasn’t come up in any of the presidential debates orchestrated by the Republican and Democratic parties: Upholding separation of church and state. The candidates have been pushed by moderators to justify their public policies using private religious beliefs, but in no debate has anyone asked what the candidates plan to do (or not to do) to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to be free of government establishment of religion.

One organization that has pledged to speak up for separation of church and state when others fail to do so: The Secular Coalition for America. The Secular Coalition lobbies Congress for policies that respect the American tradition of leaving government out of matters of religion.

As lobbyists, rather than grassroots activists, the people at the Secular Coalition have a delicate line to walk. They have to stay true to the secular Americans who fund their organization, but they also have to maintain a friendly relationship with elected officials, so that they can keep up an effective line of communication on relevant issues.

The danger of cultivating friendly relationships with elected officials for issue-oriented lobbyists is that these relationships of power can come to overshadow the issues that motivate the lobbying in the first place. In order to keep access to elected officials, lobbyists can compromise the ideals that they are supposed to represent.

The Secular Coalition for America appears to have taken a step in that direction with its 2012 General Election Presidential Candidate Scorecard, which, as its name implies, scores the presidential candidates on their policy positions – in this case, on the candidates’ positions on issues related to the separation of church and state.

The grade earned by Mitt Romney on this scorecard is easy to predict. He got an F. Mitt Romney proposes all sorts of ways of giving the federal government more power to control American citizens’ relationships with religious organizations.

Barack Obama doesn’t offer a stark contrast to Mitt Romney’s failure to uphold the ideals of the First Amendment, however. Barack Obama has used churches as campaign tools. He’s worked with a string of bigoted preachers who promote government establishment of restrictive Christian social engineering. Obama has expanded the corrupt White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives and refused to reform that program’s allocation of government money to projects that engage in employment discrimination on the basis of religion. So, Obama gets a low grade from the Secular Coalition, too: A C.

So, what can secular American voters do? Where can we look for a leader to support the separation of church and state?

We happen to know that there is another choice: Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate. The Secular Coalition scorecard acknowledges Stein’s existence. Sadly, the Secular Coalition found a way to brush her off, giving her a grade of incomplete.

What we know about Jill Stein is extremely positive, when it comes to the separation of church and state. In fact, the Secular Coalition finds that for every category in its survey that Stein has addressed, she receives a grade of A – a perfect grade.

So, why did the Secular Coalition give Dr. Stein the incomplete grade? Its explanation is that Stein has not addressed every single aspect of separation of church and state that the scorecard addresses.

Is it really a disqualifying problem that there are some particular church and state issues that Jill Stein hasn’t spoken to? It’s hard to understand why it would be, given that Stein has clearly given strong, categorical support to the idea of separation of church and state, and has never, like Mitt Romney and Obama have, supported policies that undermine separation of church and state.

Every position Jill Stein has taken on the separation of church and state reflects a perfect, passing position. Stein has represented herself well on these issues. Yet, the Secular Coalition’s incomplete grade makes her seem absent.

I don’t know the internal politics of the decision to grade Stein in this way, but to my eye, this “incomplete” grade looks like a move calculated to forestall anger at the Secular Coalition from Democratic politicians and voters.

That’s a crass maneuver, and one that doesn’t represent the secular voters of the USA well.

, , , ,

Who Says Who is Wiping the Floor With Whom in the 3rd Presidential Debate?

October 23rd, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Barack Obama | Election 2012 | Greens | Mitt Romney | Politics - (6 Comments)

Time for a social media mop-up after the third presidential debate.

On Twitter last night, the following was the breakdown of people declaring that one candidate for president was “wiping the floor” with another candidate:

Third presidential debate of 2012: 88.1% on Twitter say Barack Obama was wiping the floor with Mitt Romney. 11.9% say Mitt Romney was wiping the floor with Barack Obama. 0% say Jill Stein was wiping the floor with anyone. 0% say Rocky Anderson was wiping the floor with anyone.

A full 88.1% of Twitter users posting with the phrase “wiping the floor with” said Barack Obama was wiping the floor with Mitt Romney. Only 11.9% said Mitt Romney was wiping the floor with Barack Obama.

There were two other participants in presidential debate proceedings last night. In a video series sponsored by Democracy Now! (see the proceedings here), Green presidential candidate Jill Stein and Independent presidential candidate Rocky Anderson were invited to answer on air the same questions Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were asked. Apparently few were watching and even fewer were reacting. 0% — none at all — said Jill Stein was wiping the floor with anyone. 0% said Rocky Anderson was wiping the floor with anyone.

I don’t like to say it, because Jill Stein‘s candidacy is the one I most agree with, but the candidates outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not attracting significant attention. What’s on the air when people turn on their cable television is what people pay attention to — and that’s just two candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Within those two, Barack Obama appears to be dominating the “debate,” but as J. Clifford has pointed out, the range of opinion in that debate is far narrower than the range of opinion of the American people.

If you’d like to expand the attention given to third-party candidates, spread the word about an event happening tonight. On October 23 at 9 pm Eastern Time, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation is holding a presidential debate to which it has invited the top 6 presidential contenders: Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, Gary Johnson, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Jill Stein. Larry King will moderate. Will Barack Obama and Mitt Romney accept the invitation? That remains to be seen. But you are invited as well — day by day more media outlets are committing to broadcast the debate. You can watch it streaming live for free at Ora TV.

, , , , , , , , , ,