While the nation fusses and frets about the moral appropriateness of some guy holding a religious ceremony at his church and burning a few books that (let’s face it) won’t feel a thing, news is breaking that:

* The CIA operated secret “black site” detention and interrogation centers in Afghanistan, Poland, Thailand and possibly elsewhere in violation of international law. Large numbers of people were “disappeared” to these sites.

* At one such “black site” in Poland, a CIA officer used an electric drill and a handgun as tools in interrogations.

* That CIA officer is now at work training other CIA officers in standards of conduct.

* The Obama administration is working to put at least one detainee interrogated in this manner either on trial or in a military commission, depending on which venue would allow a detainee’s responses under such interrogations to be used against him.

Right about now, if you’re a typical American, there’s a good chance that your eyes are glazing over, that your mind is fogging up a little bit, that you’re thinking you’ve heard it all before, that you’re struggling to care, that perhaps you’re not struggling to care.

Tell me whether anything is going to be done about this in the halls of Congress. Tell me whether anybody is going to march on Washington to protest this. Tell me whether we’ll hear more in the news about this revelation or about the guy who’s going to burn a few pieces of paper this weekend.

Do you remember when we were going to get rid of George W. Bush because he was the crazed kind of extremist president who would allow this sort of thing to happen without accountability? Do you remember when we were going to elect Senator Barack Obama to be president because he told us that in his America, justice would make its triumphant return?

Is this the change you believed in? Something is wrong in this country. Something’s gone very, very wrong.

The Maine Human Rights Act is a law prohibiting employment, housing, public accommodation, credit, or educational discrimination on account of various sociodemographic characteristics of individuals including race, color, ancestry, sex, marital status and religion. In 2005, the Maine Human Rights Act was amended to prohibit discrimination in provision of credit, educational, employment, housing, or public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The Republican candidate for Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, is on the record for overturning the Maine Human Rights Act

When Paul LePage attended a gubernatorial debate in May, he answered the question “Would you support offshore drilling in the waters off the Maine Coast?” with just one word: “Yes.”

In that same gubernatorial debate, Paul LePage was asked “Do you believe in creationism, and do you think it should be taught in Maine public schools?” Paul LePage’s complete answer: “I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes.” Paul LePage’s personal ideas about creationism are his own business. The proposal to putting creationism in Maine’s public schools is everybody’s business.

Paul LePage asserts that Maine public schools should improve their test scores by importing Asians from overseas.

The same Paul LePage is ahead in the race for Governor by 14 points in the latest poll.

The Obama administration revealed late Tuesday that is prepared to unveil a new blah de blah initiative in the upcoming weeks despite the pressures of the oncoming congressional election season. “Blah de blah blah blah, blah blah de blah,” Defense Undersecretary Blahford Blahdepants explained in a press briefing. “Blah de blah blah, blah blah, blah blah.”

How many times have you read news articles taking that form? They could be written by monkeys, considering how little independent thought is required to generate them. Step 1: Capture quote at a news conference. Step 2: Figure out who said it using handy name plate technology. Step 3: Hang quotation marks around it. Step 4: Publish!

There are journalists who simply report what others say without comment. Some more thought is required by the journalists who attend the government’s various press briefings and ask questions. The spokesfolks who provide the daily supply of quotations for the newspapers have an interest in saying just what they want to say and no more. The first answer to a question in a daily press briefing is usually scripted. Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley began his press briefing yesterday by delivering a scripted remark on the planned burning of a Koran in Florida.

Question: Thank you, sir. P.J., as we approach 9/11 and also the Eid, and now we have a special session this evening here with the Secretary and also Special Representative for Muslims Ms. Pandith and you have heard the warnings from General Petraeus in Afghanistan, where – how do you characterize the relations between the United States and the Muslims around the globe and especially here in [inaudible] America and – because you see a lot of things are happening because – burning of the Qu’ran – Qu’ran and all those things are going to create so much problems, sir?

Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley: Well, first of all, people need to understand that in this country, we have freedom of religion, we have a tradition of religious tolerance, we also have freedom of expression. We believe that these are fundamental principles of U.S. society. We’re very conscious of what has been discussed as potential actions down in Florida at the end of this week. We think that these are provocative acts, they are disrespectful, they’re intolerant, they’re divisive, and we’re conscious that a number of voices have come out and rejected what this pastor and this community have proposed.

And we would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values. In fact, these actions themselves are un-American. The pastor says that he’s contemplating these actions to combat radicalism. In fact, these actions, if they take place – we hope they don’t – will actually feed radicalism. As General Petraeus mentioned over the weekend, given social media, they can have at least as powerful an impact as the tragic events and photos of Abu Ghraib had.

But at the same time, people around the world need to also understand that America is not represented by one pastor or 50 followers. We are a nation of 300 million people. And the vast majority of Americans are standing up this week and saying that these contemplative actions are inappropriate, they’re abhorrent, and this should not happen.

This was the third scripted Obama administration remark in one day, following remarks by White House Press Secretary David Gibbs and General David Petraeus in its doublespeak message: the Obama administration loves freedom in America but this exercise of freedom is unAmerican and should not go forward. The prepared statements of Gibbs and Petraeus to that effect went unchallenged by any follow-up questions; the journalists on the White House and Defense beats were apparently satisfied with monkey-level transcription.

Journalists at the P.J. Crowley press briefing reached for something more than monkey-level transcription. Through a long series of follow-up questions, they worked to get Crowley into a conversation beyond that scripted answer. I think it’s worth reposting that conversation here:

Question: Do you reject it? You said a great many people are rejecting it. Do you reject this? Do you just flatly feel that this particular group in Florida should not do this?

Crowley: They should not do this. And as General Petraeus said, they potentially put soldiers at risk. For any American who is traveling, any diplomat in posts around the world, these put – these actions, whatever their motivation, potentially put American interest and American lives at risk.

Question: And why is it un-American, which is a word that doesn’t get lobbed around very often in this briefing room? And you point out that there are two principles here; one is sort of freedom of religion and tolerance and another one is freedom of expression, which means that you can burn American flags and so on and not be called un-American. I mean, why is it un-American for them to do this?

Crowley: Well, there – it is one thing to have a right. It’s another thing as to how one exercises that right. This is a divisive potential act of disrespect of one of the world’s great religions. And while we support – and those of us are who are constitutionally charged to defend our freedoms, including freedom of expression, this is an action that has potential serious ramifications. It is a statement of intolerance that we believe is contrary to our – how we – how – our values and how we conduct ourselves day in and day out here in the United States of America.

Question: P.J., Arshad is right. I mean, what – honestly, what could be more American than expressing one’s freedom of speech, freedom to –

Crowley: There – we –

Question: — assemble and freedom to do –

Crowley: Absolutely right.

Question: I mean, why is it that –

Crowley: But there –

Question: You wouldn’t say burning the American flag is un-American, would you?

Crowley: Well, it is inconsistent with the values of religious tolerance and religious freedom that are innate to us as Americans. You’ve got a clash of two principles here. There are – in our view, there are far better ways to commemorate 9/11 and the religious bigotry that that event represents than to commit yet another act of what I would consider to be religious radicalism.

Question: Okay. But I guess –

Crowley: Go ahead, go ahead.

Question: — I guess the point – again, I’m having a hard time –

Crowley: Right.

Question: Excuse me. I’m having a hard time understanding, first of all, why the State Department is getting involved in an issue that relates directly to a Florida church.

Crowley: Well, first of all, I was asked.

Question: Well, okay. Fair enough. But you made the – but then you made the observation that what they planned to do is un-American. And I –

Crowley: I think – there’s – there are a balance –

Question: Are you prepared to say the same thing if someone wants to –

Crowley: Look, there are a balance of interests here. But this, in our view, has the potential to inflame public opinion around the world in a way that will jeopardize American lives and American interests. It does not represent our core values as Americans. We hope it does not happen. We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.

Question: Right. But in fact, it is – but wait –

Crowley: Hold on – Matt. Matt, others want to ask questions, too.

Question: You’re saying that this may be incitement, but it is still a First Amendment issue. What really – what recourse does the government have to, say, go to the city of Gainesville and say maybe you should not issue a bonfire or whatever it is permit and all these things?

Crowley: Well, I mean, all we really have here is a bully pulpit. The community is going to do what they do. I mean, the city government has declined to provide a permit for this event. The pastor appears to be unswayed by comments by General Petraeus and others who have expressed concern about the action that is being contemplated. We want to see – we support a vigorous debate in this country, even about issues that have great sensitivity. That said, there is a point where the debate yields to something more significant.

We are hopeful, between now and Saturday, that a range of voices, whether they’re political figures, religious figures, others, can rise and convince this community that there are better ways of commemorating 9/11 than through this action.

Question: But, P.J., one more thing. The Secretary is going to speak out this evening. And second, freedom of expression or freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you put the whole country on fire.

Crowley: Well, and, Goyal, there is another side to this. That’s true. But if this community goes ahead and – with this proposed event on Saturday, we would hope that the rest of the world will judge us not by the actions of one pastor or 50 followers, but judge us by a tradition that goes back to our founding. We did not indict entire countries or an entire religion over the actions of 9/11, and we would hope that the rest of the world does not indict the United States for the actions of one fringe element in Florida.

Question: P.J., can I ask just one on this? Are you absolutely certain that you want to stick with the word “un-American” to describe this potential action, or do you want maybe walk back from that word?

Crowley: Let me define what I meant by this. We have a tremendous tradition of religious tolerance in this country. We believe that the potential act of burning a Qu’ran shows enormous disrespect to one of the world’s great religions. It is contrary to our values. It’s contrary to how civil society has emerged in this country. It is un-American in the sense that it does not represent the views of the vast majority of Americans who are respectful of religions – of the world’s great religions.

So while it may well be within someone’s rights to take this action, we believe and hope that cooler heads will prevail and other ways can be found to promote a dialogue among the world’s greatest religions, which is what we have been trying to do here within this country and within this Department since 9/11.

Question: P.J., I wanted to ask real quick – you touched on it earlier in your remarks that General Petraeus talked about the risk to members of the military abroad. Can you say whether you have similar concerns about whether this poses any threats to Americans tourists, for example?

Crowley: I think I encompassed that in my remarks. It does. To – we’ve already seen small-scale demonstrations in various countries overseas where anxiety levels are building because of the publicity surrounding this proposed action. It does put the lives of ordinary Americans at risk, as well as diplomats, as well as soldiers.

Question: P.J., you don’t believe that as far as – because many Americans don’t like, as far as building the mosque at Ground Zero, you think anything to do with that?

Crowley: Goyal, I don’t believe that the proposed events in Florida are related – excuse me – to the debate –

Question: Bless you.

Crowley: — in New York.

Question: P.J., both General Petraeus and yourself, and presumably – and, actually, all federal employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution, to defend the Constitution. And it seems to me that whether someone wants to burn a Qu’ran or a flag or an American flag or the Bible or the Torah or any other symbol of something that we think or that the general society thinks is a good or a great thing – like the flag is a symbol of the country which people routinely say is going to have the greatest example of representative democracy on earth, and yet, when people burn American flags in this country or around the world, we don’t hear this kind of thing saying that that’s un-American. In fact, that’s protected speech.

So I guess what my question is that it seems to me that while it may be against the values of the great majority of Americans for them to do it, you and people in this government, as sworn defenders of the Constitution, have the obligation to defend their right to do it, regardless of how abhorrent you find it.

Crowley: And, Matt, you’ve made a good scholarly and legal argument there, which I accept.

I wish I knew who “Matt” and “Goyal” and “Arshad” were, because I would like to send them flowers. They refused to take a government spokesman’s rote statement at face value yesterday and instead forced him into a conversation that moved him from one position (burning Qurans is unAmerican and inflammatory and Americans should not do it) to another (the U.S. government has a constitutional obligation to defend the free speech of Americans, even when a majority disagrees with the content of that speech).

Please, sirs, I want some more.

“There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.” — White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, September 26, 2001

White House Press Secretary’s Briefing, September 7 2010:

Question: Good afternoon. Robert, there’s a church in Gainesville, Florida, that says it’s going to go ahead and burn copies of the Koran to mark the 9/11 anniversary. Is the White House — is there anything the White House is doing to discourage that or prevent them from going ahead with that?

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: Well, look, I think the best place to look for the views of this administration would be to look at the — look at what General Petraeus said over the weekend. We know that that type of activity — we know that that type of activity is being transmitted back to places like Afghanistan, when General Petraeus obviously is our lead commander. As he said, it puts our troops in harm’s way. And obviously that — any type of activity like that would be — that puts our troops in harm’s way would be a concern to this administration.

Watch what liberals and conservatives say. Watch what they do. Will the conservatives who defended George W. Bush’s press secretary lambaste Barack Obama’s press secretary? Will the liberals who tore into Ari Fleischer for squelching free speech now give David Gibbs a pass for just the same sort of comment? Or, unexpectedly, will consistency rule the day?

Three years ago, I stumbled across a new political effort called GOOOH. Pronounced “Go,” GOOOH is an acronym standing for Get Out Of Our House, and in 2010 it is still GOOOHing. The GOOOal: to replace all 435 current members of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012 with new representatives chosen in a distinct GOOOH process.

The GOOOH process for nominating candidates for the 435 House districts envisions large numbers of GOOOH participants (citizens who register on the GOOOH website) meeting in groups to winnow a very large number of contenders for Congress in each district down to a set of 10 finalists. In the second GOOOH-around, the 10 finalists for a district decide amongst themselves who the nominee should be. Finally, these nominees will be placed on the November ballot for Congress. Ballot placement and individual GOOOH campaigns are to be paid for out of GOOOH funds generated by requiring every GOOOH member to donate $100 as a condition of participation.

GOOOH Procedural Oddities

There are some procedural oddities in GOOOH’s plans and activities which are worthy of your attention should you consider participating in the GOOOH process:

• GOOOH members do not have a direct role in nominating candidates for their district; rather, they are to winnow down an imagined large pool of contenders in each district down to 10 finalists. If as usual in a congressional district there are not 10 contenders for nomination, then there appears to be no decision-making capacity for GOOOH members at all.
• The GOOOH process stipulates that the 10 finalists in a district choose the winner among themselves. Presumably, each of the 10 finalists wishes to be the winner, which would make final selection of a nominee interesting to say the least. What deals will be struck in that smoke-filled room?
• On its donations page, GOOOH declares that “All donations, including those you make now, will be applied to the first election after we reach critical mass in membership.” But later in the fine print GOOOH makes a different declaration, that “Our intent is to use 50% of funds collected for the national campaign, 30% for the marketing of GOOOH, and 10% for administrative, salary, technology, and legal costs. The final 10% will be held in reserve for as-needed expenses but should be considered part of the Administrative funds for now (i.e. 20% admin). If we exceed our goal of half a million participants, we will revisit how any excess funds will be utilized. These allocations are not yet final, and more of the early dollars will be applied to the marketing of GOOOH, but do represent the intent of the organization at this time.” According to FEC documentation (source | source), in the first half of 2010 GOOOH has received $190,517.46 in donations and made $111,185.75 in expenditures; 92.0% of those expenditures have been dedicated to marketing, 5.1% for financial transaction fees, 2.7% for website hosting and e-mail, and 0.2% for a meetup.
• This summer GOOOH announced that its financial plan “has officially been placed on hold until spending exceeds $10,000/quarter,” but FEC documents show that in the 1st quarter of 2010 GOOOH spent $64,636.20. In the 2nd quarter of 2010 GOOOH spent $46,549.55. At the time GOOOH suspended its financial plan, spending had already exceeded $10,000/quarter.
• Even if all of the donations to GOOOH were actually being directed to candidates and elections, with its goal of 500,000 members GOOOGH would only have $50,000,000 at its disposal. I know, I just wrote “only $50,000,000″ — but the GOOOH process gives GOOOH the financial responsibility of getting candidates on the ballot in 435 House districts across the country AND covering the costs of running a successful campaign in each of the 435 districts. That’s just $115,000 per district. Even in “safe” districts incumbents regularly spend six times as much as that on their election contests… and they’re guaranteed a spot on the ballot.

The GOOOH Substantive Litmus Test

The above are procedural matters for you to pause and consider before you sign up and send $100 to GOOOH. But there are substantive matters of concern for you to be aware of as well. GOOOH publicly declares that it has no substantive platform, that it is only a process:

we have no platform… The GOOOH process allows Americans of every political leaning to participate in the selection of their District’s Representative while being considered themselves…. Because GOOOH is a process for selecting representatives (not a “party”) we expect a person left of center to be selected in San Francisco and one right of center in Colorado Springs — but it will be up to the GOOOH members in each district to decide.

But on a page that GOOOH won’t let you see unless you first sign yourself up as a participant, GOOOH sets up a candidate screening questionnaire; those who wish to be nominated under the GOOOH process must answer “yes” to every one of 21 questions. 2 of the 21 questions are non-controversial; they only ask potential GOOOH nominees whether they meet the constitutional requirements of being 25 years old and a citizen for 7 years. 4 of the 21 questions impose extra behavioral limitations on GOOOH nominees: they must live in-district, be registered to vote there, not be immediate family members of any Congressional or Gubernatorial officeholder, and not be a felon unless they are willing to talk about their crimes. A further 12 questions ask potential GOOOH nominees to agree to set of procedural standards.

It’s the remaining 3 questions that struck me with the greatest force, because they are a private contradiction of GOOOH’s public declaration that it has no platform and is only a process. To be able to run for nomination under the GOOOH process, would-be candidates must answer “YES” to the following three questions posted on the private, members-only candidate questionnaire page:

Can you confirm that you have never been a member of, or made a donation of any amount to, the KKK or NAMBLA, and that you have not made a donation of more than $100 to the ACLU after the age of 30 or after the year 1999?

Will you promise to support our nation as a republic, not a socialistic, communistic or fascist society?

If it comes to a vote, do you commit to vote for an amendment to the Constitution that calls for term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives of two terms or less?

I could not run for nomination under the GOOOH process because I have made a number of donations to the American Civil Liberties Union since my 30th birthday. I support the ACLU because the ACLU acts to support the American freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution for every person in America, whether the ACLU agrees substantively with those people or not.

Tim Cox, the founder and head of GOOOH, has written a book explaining why he feels that ACLU supporters should be banned from his nominating process:

The final reason I believe lawyers are contributing to the demise of our country and why I suggest we eliminate them from the GOOOH system is the ACLU, an organization dominated by lawyers. If the legal profession cannot find a way to control a group that argues for the “rights” of NAMBLA members, the KKK, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, and murderers, I want to try. (page 88)

O’Hare was an atheist, by the way, and for Cox she and other uppity atheists only have “rights” in quotation marks. On page 90, Cox harangues the ACLU for prioritizing free speech and free press rights and opposing obscenity laws. On both page 175 of his book and on his website, GOOOH chief Tim Cox offers up an idea for consideration:

amending the Constitution with a “law of predominant majority”, which says the “rights” of groups can be denied if they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95% of the population considers unacceptable? For example, 95% of the population would likely vote that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the “right” of free speech for that particular group.

If you support freedom of speech, if you support free press, if you think that majorities should NOT be able to shut up and shut down and railroad minorities, and if for these reasons you’ve written a check to the ACLU, you cannot be a GOOOH candidate. Serious, committed, freedom-loving liberals are banned from GOOOH candidacy as a matter of substantive preference.

Are you a “socialist?” Do you support universal health care, a minimum wage, OSHA, environmental regulation, public education or public roads? Those are socialist policies. You’re excluded. You can’t run under the GOOOH banner, even if you object that “socialist” policies are not incompatible with a representative and democratic “republic.”

I’m not a communist, a fascist, a KKK member or part of NAMBLA, but on these points again the GOOOH organization is prohibiting candidates from participating because of their substantive stances.

Finally, if all of these policy and association litmus tests aren’t enough for you, GOOOH throws in another one at the end: you can’t run as a GOOOH candidate unless you agree that 2-term term limits in the House are a good idea, and unless you agree to put those limits in the Constitution.

GOOOH emerges as an organization that isn’t just pushing a particular process; it’s pushing a rather limited vision on policy and demanding that those who disagree butt out.

GOOOH hits the Road

If you have any lingering doubt that GOOOH is a group for one part of the policy spectrum and not for others, just watch what GOOOH does:

GOOOH sent a bus to the August 27, 2010 “Restoring Honor” rally dedicated to putting “God” back in politics.

Tim Cox and GOOOH are urging GOOOH members to “Participate in the Unite In Action March On DC the weekend of 9/11.” This Tea Party political protest advocates “conservative-minded” political philosophy, including, you guessed it, the return of “God” to American politics, with a push to “reverence God and the providential history of our nation.” Stephani Scruggs, president of the corporation organizing this march, explains that she’s organizing this march on Washington because she wants public school teachers to start her son’s day with Christian prayer, she doesn’t want to pay for private Christian schooling, and she doesn’t want to take the time to home school her son. GOOOH wants you to be there.

GOOOH has done outreach with and solicited and received the endorsements of the likes of Dennis Miller and Lou Dobbs. Tim Cox traveled to speak with and obtain the endorsement of GOOOH by the right-wing anti-bill-of-rights Constitution Party.

Cox and GOOOH didn’t visit Al Sharpton’s march on the same day as Glenn Beck’s. They’re not headed to the One Nation March on Washington October 2. They’re not asking for the Green Party endorsement. They’re not asking for or pushing endorsements from Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.

Conclusion
Despite some procedural peculiarities I’d recommend you look into regardless of your politics, GOOOH is certainly within its rights to operate in the political sphere. There’s nothing legally wrong with an American political organization having a litmus test for candidates to prevent detractors of term limits, or supporters of the Bill of Rights for small minorities, from being able to compete for its the ballot. And certainly Tim Cox and the other GOOOH leadership are free to exercise their prerogative to conduct outreach exclusively with right-wing theocratically-minded groups. But GOOOH shouldn’t at the same time be promoting itself as a process without policy preferences. That’s simply not true, and it’s unfair of GOOOH to be asking for your donation while it hides these policy preferences behind its back.

P.S. I’d love to bring up these issues directly with the GOOOH administrators on their own website, but the GOOOH website prohibits the writing of any feedback that “Attacks or insults any Forum administrators/moderators/participants.” No matter the content of your ideas, you’re welcome to share them here.

Benjamin Pearcy is running for a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission. Thomas Meadows is campaigning for the position of Arizona State Treasurer. Anthony Goshorn is running to join the Arizona State Senate. All of them are running as candidates for the Arizona Green Party.

In spite of their ballot status, the Arizona Green Party lists these candidates as “actively opposed”. These candidates aren’t alone. Ten other candidates are running as Green Party candidates in Arizona, but are being opposed by the Arizona Green Party.

What’s going on? It’s a struggle for the identity of the Arizona Green Party, with a small number of party insiders insisting that they should have the right to approve or disapprove of state and local candidates running on the Green Party line, even when there is only one candidate for the Green Party space on the ballot. Angel Torres, the state Green Party co-chair says, “It is absolutely critical that our candidates are interviewed, vetted and endorsed by AZGP. This lets our registered Arizona Greens know that these candidates have met our standards, and are not carpetbaggers or opportunists trying to hijack our ballot line.”

A centralized political party exercising exclusive control, despite whatever local activists and candidates say – that sounds an awful lot like the kind of politics that the Green Party claims to be against.

There’s a wrinkle to the story. It turns out that a Republican, Steve May, encouraged these three candidates to run for office as Greens. Green Party activists are always complaining that Democrats and Republicans are all the same, but by that very standard, the Green Party of Arizona now looks no better.

These self-declared Green Party candidates are terrible representatives of the Green Party, to be sure. Goshorn, for example, wants to use the power of government to push worship of the Christian god in public schools.

Whose fault is it, though, that these candidates are representing the Arizona Green Party? Why were the insiders of the Arizona Green Party not working to recruit candidates of their own for these positions? If Steve May could recruit candidates so easily, why couldn’t the core officers of the Arizona Green Party do the same?

Ballot Access News complains that these candidates are tools of political manipulation: “If the Green Party had known that these candidates would be filing declarations of candidacy, the party could have recruited bona fide Greens to also file write-in declarations of candidacy, and the bona fide Greens certainly would have received more write-ins than the candidates recruited by the Republicans. But, the Green Party had no means of knowing what was about to happen, and by the time they knew, it was too late.” Of course, political manipulation is what electoral campaigns are all about. People organize to advance candidates, using strategy to promote their causes, directly or indirectly. If the Green Party of Arizona central committee had found candidates it had approved of, and given support to those candidates, Steve May wouldn’t have been able to find recruits to plug in as GOP pawns.

If the Green Party of Arizona wants to be taken seriously, it needs to get on top of its game, rather than allowing the Republicans and Democrats to use it as a political shuttlecock.

As Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post reports, the Republican Senate campaign of Joe Miller has sent out campaign communications bragging:

We all know that Joe’s campaign isn’t receiving any monies from corporations or out of state entities.

Grim counters this claim by sleuthing out that Joe Miller is hiring a DC Beltway fundraiser, an act incompatible with an Alaska-only money stance. But you needn’t go that far to see that the Miller campaign’s claims about itself are misleading. Just check Joe Miller’s official Federal Election Commission campaign reports and you’ll see that Joe Miller has accepted out-of-state contributions from 1 PAC and 22 people in 13 different states, none of which is (or even rhymes with) Alaska.

Last week the New York Times shared Diana Serafin’s justification for banning a mosque in Tennessee:

As a mother and a grandmother, I worry. I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.

The newspaper didn’t share that according to two studies in 2008 (the American Religious Identification Survey and the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey), Muslims make up only 0.6% of the adult population of the United States. That’s approximately 1.8 million out of about 300 million Americans.

In order to get control of Congress and the Supreme Court, the United States will indeed have to “be overtaken by Islam,” with generously a majority and practically speaking a 60% supermajority in order to overturn the U.S. Constitution and implement Sharia law as Diana Serafin and her fellow anti-Islam protesters imagine. Diana Serafin says this will happen within the next 20 years, by 2030.

Is this at all a realistic expectation?

Right now, the annual population growth rate of the United States is 0.9%. The population growth rate of the world overall is 1.2%, and the population growth rate of the Islamic nation of Saudia Arabia is 2.0%. We could assume that American Muslims are like other Americans in their population growth rate, or like people in the world overall, or like their fellow Muslims in Saudia Arabia. But as the graph below shows, no matter which of these assumptions we make we end up with an American Muslim population in 2030 that is still a very, very small part of the overall American population:

Assuming that the U.S. population continues to grow along with the U.S. population of people who are Muslim, we shouldn’t see any earth-shattering change in the proportion of Muslims in the American population by 2030.

Actually, strike that: even if the U.S. population overall shrinks (which it has never done before) by the same amount that the American Muslim population grows, then the percentage of American Muslims will still be very, very small: in no numbers even remotely capable of taking over the Congress and the Supreme Court.

Even if you fall into some 1930s Germany-style propaganda mode regarding American Muslims and imagine them to be somehow reproducing like rats (or cockroaches, or whatever other offensive vermin reference you prefer) in basements and sewers across the nation, even if the American Muslim population grows by 20% each and every year while the population of the rest of the United States stays the same, even in that ridiculous scenario Muslims in America will only make up 25% of the U.S. population by 2030.

Conclusion: Diana Serafin and others who spout off about birth rates leading to an Islamic takeover of America are simply out of touch with reality.

In a country that respects fact, they’d have to come up with a new justification for banning religion. Is this a country that respects fact?

In the month of August 2008, the following were our five best-selling bumper stickers:

1. Librarians Against Palin bumper sticker
2. People With One House Against McCain bumper sticker
3. Republicans for Barack Obama bumper sticker
4. I Like Obama, But is America Ready for a President with Brains? bumper sticker
5. Hope, Not Fear: Obama 2008 bumper sticker

At the time, attention was riveted on the presidential contest between John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and… that other guy, some Joe fella. But a year later, in the month of August 2009, attention had largely returned to policy topics; the following were our five best-selling bumper stickers:

1. I Support Healthcare Reform bumper sticker
2. O: The President bumper sticker
3. America for Health Care Reform bumper sticker
4. Vote No on 1 gay marriage bumper sticker
5. GOP Health Care Plan? Don’t Get Sick! bumper sticker

Fast forward to the month just passed, August 2010. In the list of our five top-selling bumper stickers this month, I see evidence of a turn away from policy thinking and a return to campaign thinking:

1. Barack Obama campaign bumper sticker
2. Just Say No to the Party of No anti-Republican bumper sticker
3. I Love America Too Much to Vote Republican bumper sticker
4. Thank Me, I Voted for Obama bumper sticker
5. Republicans Cut Veterans Benefits bumper sticker

Notably, there aren’t any specifically pro-Democrat bumper stickers in this latest set; sentiment is more anti-Republican. Also of notice is that none of the congressional campaign bumper stickers we offer make the top five either. Attention is already leaping local midterm 2010 elections to the national presidential re-election bid of Barack Obama in 2012.

“Them who pay the piper call the tune.”

Who does Representative Patrick Tiberi represent? Well, who’s paying the piper? The most frequent source of contributions to Pat Tiberi in the 2009-2010 election cycle is an energy corporation called American Electric Power. 48 contributions by the AEP political action committee and AEP employees have been registered with the Federal Election Commission through June 30, 2010.

If you live in Ohio, you may be asking whether these 48 contributions mean something significant or are just a matter of chance. After all, the most noticeable building in downtown Columbus (just south of Tiberi’s district) is the American Electric Power Building, which at night changes the color of its lighting from red to green to blue. Apart from the AEP PAC contributions, couldn’t these just be the random contributions of AEP employees? Is this really a coordinated effort?

Look at the following three graphs and answer that question for yourself.

The contributions of AEP and AEP employees are heavily clustered by date.

Only two AEP contributors to Pat Tiberi are regular employees. The remainder are AEP executives or the AEP Political Action Committee.

The amount of the checks written to the Tiberi campaign is abnormally uniform. The chance of so many contributors just randomly writing checks for $150 is remote, suggesting some sort of coordination.

American Electric Power is playing the piper. And Pat Tiberi is playing the tune:

In fact, within that budget is something called “cap-and-trade.” It is an energy issue to deal with the issue of global warming. But in Ohio, what it will do is devastate our already ailing economy. It will cause people to leave and businesses to leave. In fact, within my district, there is a municipal power company…

On the subject of jobs, congressman Patrick Tiberi likes to talk tough, declaring over and over again what Congress must do to bring jobs back to America:

Jobs, not health care, should be the focus of Congress and the president, U.S. Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Genoa Township) told the Westerville Area Chamber of Commerce Tuesday.

“That’s where the focus should be — jobs and the economy,” Tiberi said.

As I’ve been saying our focus in Congress should be on creating an environment friendly to job-creation.

Yes, Pat Tiberi can shove out news releases with the best of them. But the sticky bit is that Tiberi belongs to the very body he says must move into action. Pat Tiberi could help remedy what he says is Congress’ woeful inaction on American jobs by putting down the mike and picking up a pen. Instead of simply complaining that the Congress isn’t doing what he’d like, Pat Tiberi could do what members of Congress usually do when they see a problem: introduce a bill to resolve that problem.

In the 111th Congress of 2009-2010, has Pat Tiberi introduced any bill with any focus whatsoever on jobs? No.
Has Pat Tiberi introduced any amendment or even symbolic resolution with any focus whatsoever on jobs? No.
Has Tiberi even introduced any bill or amendment or resolution that could create (as he put it) “an environment friendly to job creation”? No.
Heck, has Tiberi even created any budget earmarks that would direct money to his district to create jobs there? No.

Pat Tiberi has introduced seven bills to the U.S. Congress since he was last elected. Five of these are entirely symbolic bills that don’t accomplish anything, but only make declarations (like Tiberi’s declaration that “jobs should be the focus of Congress”): to celebrate an Antarctic treaty forged 50 years ago, to congratulate a local soccer team for winning a game, to rename a post office, to name September “Brain Aneurysm Month”, and to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the use of telescopes for astronomy. Two bills introduced by Pat Tiberi since he last got elected accomplish something: one bill would give one particular family an immigration exemption, and another would review unidentified corpses to determine their veteran status.

That’s all Patrick Tiberi has to his name in the 111th Congress. For a time when so many residents in his district are losing their jobs, Pat Tiberi is writing bills to commemorate telescope usage, rename post offices and recall the glory days of South Pole diplomacy. Although he chastises everybody else in Congress for failing to do anything about American jobs, he doesn’t lift a finger to solve the problem himself.

In this year’s race for Ohio’s 12th District seat in Congress, Democratic challenger Paula Brooks has received more in campaign contributions from the people of Ohio ($723,795) than Republican incumbent Patrick Tiberi has ($712,701).

In total campaign dollars, however, Pat Tiberi holds an immense advantage, with a warchest of $2,118,311. Paula Brooks has only $994,336 at her disposal. This is a decisive imbalance that could decide the race.

The difference: Pat Tiberi has collected $1,198,022 in PAC contributions from corporate entities. Paula Brooks has collected just $158,074 in PAC contributions. If money is a determinative factor in this race, Pat Tiberi will likely win due to his advantage in attracting the investment of corporate interests.

In Ohio, a Tea Party group, the Freedom Institute of Erie County has been sending out an ideological purity test to candidates for political office. The Freedom Institute is far from the sort of independence that Tea Party activists have claimed in the past. In order to become members of the group, people are required to take an oath developed by top level Republican operatives Oliver North and James Dobson. The Freedom Institute’s ideology certainly isn’t developed by grassroots activists.

The particular items on the institute’s ideological purity test seem designed more to cater to the Republican Party’s powerful constituencies than to promote a consistent belief system. The group’s inconsistencies are in especially high relief when it comes to the issue of voting.

When it comes to voting by members of labor unions, the Freedom Institute demands that candidates oppose a card check, claiming that such checks are an unfair method of intimidation. The ideological test challenges candidates to “oppose card check for voting to implement a Union as this could give unions an unfair intimidation tactic”.

When it comes to voting in public elections, however, the Freedom Institute performs an about face, demanding that card check take place before people are allowed to vote. The Institute’s candidate test demands that, “a photo ID should always be required to vote”. Fears of voter intimidation suddenly evaporate in this case.

So, does this “Tea Party” group support card check for voting or not? It depends upon which way the winds of convenience are blowing.

The minimum wage is not set to automatically increase with inflation.

Campaign contribution limits to politicians are indexed to increase with inflation.

Priorities.