We the Purple

The Worst Blogger of 2008

2009-01-01T19:01:00.001-07:00

I always thought it odd that magazines and newspapers ran features on the top news stories of the year in December. I mean, what if the world blew up on Dec. 31? They would have missed the biggest story of the year.

That’s why I waited until today to announce the winner of my very own “Worst Blogger of 2008” competition. The word “competition,” by the way, is merely a convention. There was no competition. I was the sole contestant, and I won, hands-down.

Certainly there are lots of bloggers out there who posted less frequently than I did or as inconsistently as I did during the past year. I don’t know all of those bloggers. But I do know me, and I was the one who selected the winner. So there.

Here’s the thing: I tend to retreat at times, especially when I’ve been in the public eye a lot. And I was in the public eye during most of 2008 when I was promoting We the Purple. A few weeks after the election, all that publicity got to me, and I began receding into the shadows again. I’m more of an introvert than people might think.

I’m going to try not to repeat this prestigious win in 2009, but you never know. If Stephen Colbert comes calling, I may just stop blogging. For a while, anyway.

Oh, that’s me up there with all those books…some of the books I’ve written in the past 10 years. Hey, you should be impressed that I had any time at all to blog. No?

Cross-posted on all my other blogs. As if I can post three fresh blogs today. Please. I’m so out of practice.

78,000-plus write-ins for president

2008-11-17T21:57:00.002-07:00

Those of you who have read We the Purple may recall that I became a political animal when I was denied the opportunity to write in the name of my choice for president in the 2000 election. I got so miffed that I voted against the current superintendent of elections that year.

This year 78,346 voters (and counting) cast write-in votes for president, making “write-ins” the seventh largest vote-winner—after Obama, McCain, and these runners-up:

#3, Ralph Nader (independent), 705, 875 votes
#4, Bob Barr (Libertarian), 511,362 votes
#5, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), 186,335 votes
#6, Cynthia McKinney (Green), 153,698 votes

Actually, the write-ins could rack up many more votes, because they are among the last votes to be counted. It’s likely that we won’t know the exact number of ballots cast for write-ins until well into the new year.

You can check out the current tally of votes for the top 25 presidential candidates—including “None of these candidates,” who weighed in at #13—at the U.S. Election Atlas web site.

“The West Wing” and the 2008 election

2008-11-13T00:05:00.003-07:00

“The West Wing” remains one of my favorite TV series of all time. Even though I own the entire series on DVD, I’ll watch any and every episode that turns up on satellite.

According to one of the writers, he based the character of Matt Santos—the country's first minority president—on none other than Barack Obama:

Thanks to Justin Gardner at Donklephant for bringing attention to this.

Jackie Salit on the Election

2008-11-11T15:24:00.007-07:00

No one knows independent politics better than Jackie Salit does, and no one is a better spokesperson for independents than she is. The ever-articulate political director for CUIP and editor of The Neo-Independent offers her analysis of the 2008 presidential election and how independents affected the outcome.

Post-election analysis

2008-11-10T13:18:00.002-07:00

I’ll be talking about the election from an independent voter’s perspective later today on "The Blog Bunker," a radio show on Sirius Satellite Radio’s Indie Talk 110 channel. My segment airs at 5:30 p.m. Eastern.

I’ve been on the show before, and I was impressed with the intelligent dialogue we had. Too often, radio hosts are argumentative rather than substantive. Not so on The Blog Bunker, which bills itself as “A cutting-edge roundtable featuring a selection of the over 100 million bloggers around the globe.”

Likely topics today include the rejection of conservatism, Obama undoing Bush policies, top priorities for Obama, how long the honeymoon will last, the post-election political climate, the impact of the Internet on the election, my reaction as an independent to the Obama/Biden victory and my experience as a poll monitor.

Give a listen and let me know what you think, okay?

Election reform racked up some wins

2008-11-06T21:47:00.004-07:00

Like the politically active indies I know and love, I'm all about political reform, particularly electoral reform. The Huffington Post provided this roundup of electoral reform measures that voters approved on Tuesday. This is the kind of stuff that gets lost in post-election frenzy, especially after an election like this one was. Instant runoff voting, early voting, citizen-proposed initiatives and redistricting reform were among the winners. It's a short post and worth a read.

Our long national nightmare is (almost) over

2008-11-05T23:58:00.001-07:00

There's not much I can add to the eloquent and emotional words so many have spoken and written in an attempt to express what Barack Obama's victory means to them. What I can add is a personal perspective and a few memories of growing up during the civil rights movement and witnessing segregation first hand.

When I was a child, our family visited the South every few years. My mother was born in Georgia and had family in Florida; my produce-selling father had lived and worked in Florida seasonally and met my mother there. I don't have any race-related memories of the times we traveled by train from Philadelphia to Gainesville, but traveling by car was another story.

Car trips meant stopping in Southern states and being exposed to segregated restrooms, water fountains and restaurants. Those memories are hazy; I can mostly remember this vague sensation that Negroes, the term our family used, were lesser people, diseased and dirty and definitely to be feared. This impression didn't come from my parents. It came from simply walking the streets of Georgia or South Carolina in the 1950s and 1960s.

Even in the North, I can remember using coin-operated public restrooms (remember those?) in train stations and especially on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, and hearing women admonish their children not to use a toilet that a Negro had just used. A child couldn't help but absorb some of that trepidation.

Then came the race riots. I won't go into that history; all I will say is that if you didn't live through that time, you cannot imagine the terror people felt.

In April of 1968, I visited Paris on a high school trip. Race riots were the furthest thing from my mind---until the day before we were scheduled to return to New Jersey. The news was all around us: Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated in Memphis. The fear returned. I recall looking out the window of the plane as it descended toward Philadelphia International Airport; I fully expected to see Philly and Camden, its neighbor across the river, engulfed in flames.

Today I heard someone mocking Jesse Jackson for crying as he listened to Barack Obama speak the night before. I don't care who your presidential preference was; I don't care what you think of Barack Obama---if you can’t understand why people were crying and taking to the streets in sheer jubilation last night, then you're far too cynical for me.

Our long national nightmare, the one that's (almost) over, isn't our history of racism. I'm hopeful about the future, but I'm also realistic about the deep racial divide among some segments of our society. Racism isn't the nightmare I'm referring to. The nightmare is the Bush administration. Free at last, free at last---thank God Almighty, we're (almost) free at last.

My day as a poll monitor

2008-11-04T20:05:00.004-07:00

Looks like early voting in Colorado really paid off. I visited ~~four~~ five polling places and found no significant lines at any of them.

I wasn’t able to help a single voter at any polling place. But the day wasn’t a total loss. My bright yellow “nonpartisan volunteer” T-shirt attracted the attention of a young woman in a coffee shop where I was taking a break. She told me she had just found out that today was the last day to vote. She was registered in Pueblo (an hour away), but could she vote online? How about in Colorado Springs? Could she re-register today? What about her friend, who was registered to vote in Alamosa (more than two hours away)? Could her friend vote in Pueblo?

Oh my. I managed to maintain my composure as I answered her many questions.

Here’s how the rest of my day went, in Colorado Springs and its environs:

My first gig was at an exceedingly quiet precinct—and an exceedingly confusing one. It was on a college campus, and the signage was woefully inadequate. About the only action for several hours occurred when classes changed. One of the election judges told me that a neighboring precinct was swamped, so I went to help out at:

Site number 2, where there were even fewer voters. At noon I went inside to ask an election judge how things had gone so far. They told me that they expected to close up shop by 2 p.m., because nearly every registered voter in the precinct had already voted.

Off to polling place 3. No voters, no lines, no cars in the parking lot except those belonging to election judges.

Same for number 4.

Polling place 5, my wonderful hometown, where the wind chill was below freezing and I had to wear that bright yellow T-shirt over several layers of warmer clothing. This was the one place where I think I could have actually helped, because the lines were longer than at the other places I went to. But I had to stay beyond the 100-foot “electioneering” point, even though I wasn’t electioneering, and the lines weren’t nearly 100 feet long. The wait was only 15 minutes.

All in all, it was a frustrating day because I didn’t feel like I was much help. But it served one purpose: it exposed a few more problems that need to be fixed, liked signage and maybe better predictions about where to expect long lines and problems.

Bottom line, this seems to have been a fairly glitch-free election in Colorado. We'll see later on.

One scary election

2008-11-03T14:21:00.005-07:00

This is the 10th presidential election in which I am eligible to vote. In the 36 years since that first vote, which I unashamedly cast for George McGovern, I have never witnessed a voting season so characterized by fear—not even the 2004, post-9/11 presidential election.

I tend to get into more political conversations than most people do because of the political book I wrote, the social networking site I maintain and my volunteer work with Just Vote Colorado. And thankfully, most of those conversations are thoughtful and intelligent. As an independent voter, I avoid partisan free-for-alls, and that makes genuine dialogue possible.

In so many conversations this year, the one descriptor I’ve heard used most often is this one: scary.

“This is the most scary election of my entire life,” a 60-something man told me. His yard sports a McCain-Palin sign, the first political sign he’s ever placed there.

“We can’t let McCain win. Sarah Palin is just too scary,” said a 20-something woman, an obvious Obama-Biden supporter.

Here’s why the candidates are all so scary, based on what I’ve been hearing:

John McCain: He’s a warmonger, a mere shadow of the true maverick he was in 2000, a much-too-close reminder of George W. Bush, and an elderly man who may die in office and turn the reins over to:
Sarah Palin: She’s a loose cannon, an inexperienced and inept candidate who needs a basic understanding of how the government works,* and a mean-spirited, sarcastic, tactless running-mate who has no place on a presidential ticket.
Barack Obama: He’s so liberal that he’ll turn the country into a socialist nation, so pacifist that he’ll leave us vulnerable to attack, and so subversive that he and his friends will overthrow the government. Oh, and he’s an Islamic Arab—and an African-American, making him the No. 1 target for white supremacist hate groups who will target him, leaving the White House in the hands of:
Joe Biden: He’s scary, it seems, only because you never know what’s going to come out of his mouth. His gaffes are legendary.

Granted, there are thousands of other reasons why the public considers these candidates to be scary, such as their voting records or lack thereof, their stands on the issues and all that. But the points above encapsulate what people have said directly to me. They didn’t get into the issues as much as they did the overall perception they had of the candidate.

So should we be scared? Like a few other people I’ve heard say this, I’ve joked about moving to Canada depending on the results of the election. (For my husband and me, that’s not exactly radical; we’ve been talking about doing that since we met in 1978.) But if I do head north, it won’t be out of fear. It will be a result of pure cultural fatigue.

I understand why people think this election is scary. Though it sure has its scary elements, I refuse to be scared. I have too much hope for that. Between God and the fearless political activists I’ve met, I have reason to hope. We’re in a new political and cultural era, one in which grassroots activism is truly and tangibly making a difference. (For better or worse, this election is evidence of that; neither McCain nor Obama were their party’s anointed one.)

Let’s keep fear at bay and help others do the same. This is no time to be afraid. It’s time to be courageous.

*Okay, so they actually called her stupid. I'm being gracious.

Warning: your write-in vote won’t be counted

2008-11-01T00:02:00.003-06:00

Not if you live in certain states, anyway. Ballot access expert Richard Winger* says write-in votes aren’t even counted until as late as January, if they’re counted at all:

Certain areas of the country illegally don’t count them at all. Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia all refuse to provide a tally for the declared write-in candidates. In the case of the District of Columbia, this is especially egregious, since a D.C. court explicitly ordered such tallies for declared write-in presidential candidates, in 1975…New York city habitually fails to count any write-in votes for the declared write-in presidential candidates. The Board says it is too much work to take down the heavy rolls of paper from the mechanical voting machines and look at them.

So all of you who are planning to write in Ron Paul for President, go ahead and exercise your right to vote for your candidate of choice but expect to be ignored, at least for several months and possibly forever.

If you want to find out your state’s law on write-ins, you’ll find it here.

* Thank you, Richard. I always learn something new from you.

My Early and Not-So-Private Vote

2008-10-31T17:41:00.002-06:00

I sure wish the Colorado ballot looked like the one above. This year we have so many candidates, amendments* and referenda on the ballot that Tuesday could be a nightmare at the polls. The voter information booklet sent out by the legislature totaled 140 pages, and that just covered amendments, referenda and retention of judges.

I’ll be working as a poll monitor on Tuesday, so for that and other reasons I voted early. I had to chuckle the other night when I heard a talking head on TV suggest that those of us who vote early miss out on the benefit of the full campaign. Please. He was kidding, right?

Nearly every day for the past God-knows-how-long, the two major party candidates and their running-mates have said or done something that made me not want to vote for any of them. I doubt that the next three days will matter, barring some calamitous event. Besides, who says I voted major party anyway?

Only I know who I voted for…I think. The voting procedure here in Teller County was the least private I’ve ever experienced.

We had the option of electronic machines or paper ballots, and being the intelligent creature I am, I chose paper. After all, I do want my vote to count. That meant I had to sit at a table with partitions separating me from three other voters. So far, so good.

However, even though the ballot was placed inside a privacy sleeve, it was also something like 18 inches long. Whatever column I was filling out had to be outside the sleeve, and it took some time to complete the entire column.

Anyone walking behind me could easily have looked over my shoulder to see my ballot. When you’re standing at an e-machine you can do a body block, but not so when you’re sitting. But even if it means that my privacy was compromised, I would choose paper again without hesitation.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, no, the Colorado ballot didn’t offer the “None of the Above” option. Rats!

* I’m a huge advocate of citizen-initiated measures, so I’m not complaining. Honest.

Who comes up with this stuff?

2008-10-30T23:57:00.003-06:00

Never mind that this ballot is marked for Obama (it’s not mine; I don’t even tell my husband who I’ve voted for). The chosen candidate is not the point. The point is the ridiculous means of indicating which candidate the person voted for.

Voters understand checking a box or filling in a circle. Actually, anyone who made it to third grade understands those methods of making a selection. But filling in the missing section of an arrow? That’s just not instinctive or intuitive or natural.

Sure, the ballot includes instructions on how to complete it. But still, it’s simply not...normal. The best thing I can say about it is that it’s paper and not a Diebold voting screen.

This happens to be the Arizona ballot. But I don’t think we can blame that state entirely, since I understand this type of ballot is used in other states as well. I’d love to meet the person who designed this and find out what the rationale for it was.

By the way, all those other names in each party’s box are the names of the official electors. I’ve never seen that before, either.

Skewed Surveys

2008-09-02T22:35:00.005-06:00

When I come face-to-face with God, I'm sure I'll be so astonished that I'll forget to thank the Almighty for the greatest technological invention of the past 50 years: caller ID. Computers, cell phones, the Internet, Stephen Colbert—yes, these are all great advancements in the history of humanity. But none compares with caller ID, because it's the one form of technology that enables me to choose to ignore every caller who is not Stephen Colbert.

So a few minutes ago when the phone readout identified a call from "Unknown" at the number "000-000-0000," I at first ignored it, as I normally would. That's not Stephen's number, and he's not unknown. But something told me to answer it. I did, and I hit the jackpot—a political survey. Woo-hoo! This is going to be fun!

Here's how the Q&A went, dramatically condensed for your reading pleasure:

Q: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "very closely," how closely are you following the presidential campaign?
A: 1 (so far, so good)

Q: If the election were held today, would you vote for John McCain or Barack Obama?
A: Neither (total silence on other end: have I provoked shock and awe?)

[Interviewer recovers]
Q: If the election were held today, in the Colorado U.S. Senate race, would you vote for Republican Bob Schaffer or Democrat Mark Udall?
A: Neither. Hey, if you're going to ask more questions about individual candidates, my answer will be the same, because there are more than two candidates running, and I take third-party and independent candidates into consideration. (Interviewer says something like, "Uh, okay.")

Q: Would you be more inclined to vote for a pro-choice candidate who upholds a woman's right to choose or a pro-life candidate who wants to make abortion illegal?
A: Neither. There are ways of being pro-choice that are not based exclusively on a woman's right to choose, and there are ways of being pro-life that aren't exclusively based on making abortion illegal. The question is fundamentally flawed, because the definitions are flawed, narrow, and presume an either-or response.

I suspect the survey sponsor simply threw out my responses since they didn't fit the prescribed pattern. But for five brief minutes, I had a chance to expose an unsuspecting interviewer to the reality that there are more than two candidates for most positions and more than two sides to every issue.

I'll sleep well tonight.

Those pesky primaries

2008-08-13T21:52:00.004-06:00

I'm well aware that the major-parties' faithful pretty much resent independents. We're necessary evils in that we're necessary to get their candidates elected and evil because we're just as likely to get the other party's candidates elected. Why they don't make it easier for us to vote in their primaries is truly bewildering. You'd think they'd pay a little more attention to the "necessary" part.

Some states have open primaries, which means you don't have to declare yourself to be a Republican to vote in the GOP primary, for instance. Others allow you to be, say, a Democrat for a day, or a month, or a quarter in order to vote in the Democratic primary. Others shut you out of the process entirely if you're an independent.

I'm an advocate of open primaries, but not because I want to vote in the major-parties' primaries. Neither is it because some states force us to be dishonest by declaring ourselves to be something we're not just to vote in the primary. Nor is it because I think it's unfair that we're shut out.

No. My reasons are none of the above. I have one, and only one, reason: We all help pay for the primaries. For that reason alone, every registered voter should be allowed unrestricted access to the primary process. As Michael Bloomberg recently pointed out, not only are we excluded, but also we're forced to pay for primaries while the parties do all they can to keep independent and third-party candidates out of both the primaries and the general election.

The Colorado primaries were held yesterday, and my interest level in the results is directly in proportion to my participation level. Which was zilch, because I'm an independent.

Oh, there was one point of interest: Doug Bruce lost. He got promoted to the state legislature last year when the El Paso county commission could no longer abide his antics. And his antics have been legion. He often disrupted the proceedings and was called everything from a slumlord (property he owns really was disgusting) to a sociopath. He raised a stink even before he was sworn in to the legislature because he didn't like the way he was to be sworn in, and later that day he kicked, or in some way assaulted, a news photographer. He was once ordered to leave the state house podium for calling Colorado's Mexican labor force "illiterate peasants" and was booted off the military affairs committee for refusing to vote in favor of a resolution honoring...um...military veterans.

I guess it was a good day after all. Even if I did have to stay home.

Watch out for "nonpartisans"

2008-08-12T23:20:00.003-06:00

One of the Web sites I regularly visit, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID), made a great point the other day about the misuse and abuse of the term "nonpartisan" by partisan interests. It's a timely reminder that "independent" and "nonpartisan" are not always interchangeable words. Here's an excerpt:

Strictly speaking, the term [nonpartisan] means not controlled or influenced by, or supporting, any single political party. But it is a loaded word, because it carries with it the following synonyms' meanings as well: unprejudiced, just, nonaligned, unbiased, independent, uninfluenced, unaffected, uninvolved, unimplicated, unbigoted, objective.

And very partisan interests and high priced lawyers and political advisers exploit the meanings of those synonyms in their usage of the word "non-partisan." It is a term that must be considered by a time reference. ...But non-partisan only has meaning in a time-framed context. One can be partisan in the 2006 elections and approach the 2008 elections in a non-partisan fashion, having learned something of the value of making choices by criteria other than political party name or affiliation.

The post goes on to describe how VOID is at times accused of being partisan because it advocates voting out "irresponsible, corrupt, or ineffective politicians," as they did in the 2006 midterms. I can relate; while I was glad that the GOP lost control of Congress that year, that in no way meant that I was a Democrat—although some people saw it that way. I'm an independent who leans neither Republican nor Democrat. And my pleasure at seeing the GOP get punished for Iraq and so much else is no reflection of my vote that year. For all anyone knows, since I keep my vote to myself, I may have voted for third-party candidates rather than Democrats. Or maybe I didn't vote at all. Only I know.

Like VOID, I cannot fathom why voters continue to re-elect incumbents who have done little or nothing to improve the lives of their constituents, have paid scant attention to voters' concerns, and are just as embroiled in scandalous, fraudulent behavior as those who got caught and made headlines. I'm not talking about all incumbents; I'm talking about those who have abused the power the voters gave them. You know who they are, in your own district, state and beyond.

Why do voters do this? Is it just easier? Are they so tied to their party that they want it to maintain power no matter what? What do you think?

New presidential survey from Barna

2008-08-11T23:17:00.003-06:00

Fascinating results today from a survey conducted by highly respected pollster George Barna. As he points out elsewhere, most polls simply ask if a person is evangelical; The Barna Group asks specific questions about religious beliefs and determines from that if the respondent is evangelical.

Here's an indication of the staggering difference in results using the two methods:

Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.

Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.

Wow. Those are some crazy wild disparities. You can find the full survey results here.

The Misunderstood Undecided Voter

2008-08-07T20:59:00.004-06:00

As anyone who has read We the Purple the book or We the Purple the blog* knows by now, I truly resent the fact that the MSM so often links the word "undecided" with the word "independent." The independents I know—that is, the politically active ones—are, um, highly opinionated and very much decided. As I wrote in We the Purple the book:

Really now, what image comes to your mind when you think of an undecided voter? A nervous, fidgety Edith Bunker who's afraid of making the wrong decision? A neurotic individual who weighs every factor in excruciating detail to such an extent that making a rational decision has become an impossibility?

But today I'm here to defend the undecided voter in this year's election, and here's why: I respect the fact that they still want to vote even though many of them say they don't like either candidate. You gotta love someone who's intent in doing their civic duty despite the nausea it produces.

Back when it became clear that Obama and McCain would be the major parties' candidates, I recall reading a blog response from someone who had this to say about undecided voters: "Are you kidding me?? How can anyone be undecided between these two guys??" But the commenter completely misunderstood many undecideds. They know the obvious ideological differences between Obama and McCain. That's not their problem. Their problem is that they're wondering how they can be good citizens and not lose their dinner before they even leave the polling booth.

Sure, there are lots of Edith Bunkers and neurotic undecideds out there. But critics of those undecideds who are civic-minded, thoughtful and conscientious fail to hear the question these voters keep asking this year: "Is this really the best our country has to offer?"

Like them or not, many undecideds take the responsibility of voting seriously. They just wish they had better options. Many decideds wish the same.

* That's the one you're reading now. Just so you know.

Americans for Redistricting Reform

2008-08-06T23:07:00.004-06:00

Here's a heads-up about a new initiative and Web site. A number of organizations have come together to work toward changing the highly partisan nature of redistricting. From the Americans for Redistricting Reform site:

Americans for Redistricting Reform (ARR) is a national nonpartisan umbrella organization comprised of groups from across the political spectrum that recognize the critical need to reform our nation’s redistricting process. Americans for Redistricting Reform is committed to raising public awareness of redistricting abuses and promoting solutions that benefit voters and strengthen our democracy. The organizing principle of ARR is that voters should choose elected representatives, not the other way around.

Advisory Committee member organizations in ARR include: Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Committee for Economic Development, Common Cause, Council for Excellence in Government, Fair Vote, League of Women Voters, Reform Institute, Republican Main Street Partnership, and U.S. PIRG. A number of civil rights groups are also involved in this project and have offered helpful advice and information on redistricting reform.

One of the problems with redistricting, aside from the obvious, is getting people behind the need for reform. Until I became politically aware, the very word redistricting sent me straight to a deep and dreamless sleep. It's a tough sell to an audience already overloaded on political news.

That's why I'm grateful to ARR for working so diligently to get this much-needed reform. The site doesn't have an RSS feed yet, but it does have a link to The Redistricting Game, which I thought was a hoot when I wrote about it in We the Purple. And no, I haven't played it yet. You're on your own with that one.

'We have to impeach George Bush!'

2008-07-30T17:47:00.004-06:00

Every time Jon Stewart mentions "still-President Bush" on The Daily Show, I have to chuckle. I get it. So many Americans, including lots of diehard Republicans, are so tired of this administration that it's hard to believe Bush is still in office. Is he still President? Really?

But when the conversation turns to impeachment, I generally adopt a "let's just get all this over with" attitude. I want to move on to whatever is next and not get mired in impeachment proceedings. I like the high road, and I especially like to think I'm on it when it comes to my lofty opinions.

That said, you can only imagine how I felt when I was startled out of a dead sleep with the words "We have to impeach George Bush! We have to! We don't have a choice!" These were audible, sleep-defying words. It was as if someone was shouting them in my ear.

I don't know what to make of this. It's not as if I was thinking about impeachment or Bush or anything else political before I fell asleep. In fact, I had been reading The Shack, not exactly political fare. And I don't think I was dreaming politically either.

Someone, somewhere, help me. What should I make of this? I can't shake the sensation that those words came from somewhere outside of me; they didn't originate in my own mind. And no, my husband didn't utter them. He was snoring contentedly, his sleep undisturbed by political maneuverings. What would you think if this happened to you?

'We the Purple' Poll: Obama Ahead

2008-07-28T22:12:00.006-06:00

Each month on the We the Purple Web site, we conduct a poll of some kind. Well, that's not quite accurate. We conduct a poll whenever I think to change the content, and so far, "some kind" has meant presidential preference.

Just so you know, our highly scientific results from the recently ended poll, which still had Hillary Clinton in the running (yes, I'm embarrassed but overworked), shows Barack Obama way ahead, with more than twice the votes cast for John McCain. Clinton, by the way, nosed out Nader by a mere 5 votes.

We don't request and therefore don't keep demographic data on those who vote in the poll or those who sign up on the site for my irregular but brilliant newsletter. It's safe to assume, though, that visitors and poll participants are either readers or potential readers of We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter.

Nowhere in the book, or even on this blog, do I mention my own choice for president; no one cast a vote simply because the agree with me, since they have no idea whether or not they do. Those votes merely confirm what I've sensed for the last four months or so: that if the independent vote is the deciding factor in this race—as everyone says it is and as we independents know it is—this election truly is Obama's to lose.

Calling All Colorado Independents!

2008-07-23T23:27:00.003-06:00

In late August I'll be hosting a caucus where Colorado independents can get together and talk about the presidential election and the political reform issues we want the next White House to address.

Because we're so spread out here, we'll likely do this via conference call. If we get enough responses from one area—say, Denver—some of us may be able to get together in person and do a conference call with those unable to physically attend.

I think this will be a great opportunity for Colorado independents to finally talk to each other about the things that are important to us.

Stay tuned for the date, time and possible location. Meanwhile, I'd love to hear from everyone who wants to participate!

Green Party: An Alternative for Progressive Christians?

2008-07-21T12:25:00.004-06:00

One of the most frequent comments I hear when I'm out talking independent politics goes something like this: "Okay, so I know I'm not a Republican anymore, but I'm not happy with the Democrats either. Where can I go?" If the political seeker rejects my incredibly persuasive argument to just be independent, the conversation turns to third parties --- and these days, that often means the Green Party, which just wrapped up its 2008 presidential nominating convention.

So what about the Greens? For progressives, are they a viable alternative to the major parties? There's certainly a lot to be said in their favor; for one, they don't accept corporate donations, and that alone is enough to make me swoon. And their four abiding principles are grassroots democracy, social justice, ecology, and nonviolence. Not a lot to argue with there.

On social issues, Greens favor abortion rights, same-sex marriage rights, amnesty for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, reduction in deficit spending, gun control, legalization of drugs and fair trade. They oppose the war in Iraq, capital punishment and school prayer. They are strong advocates of political and electoral reform --- not surprising, since their candidates are frequent victims of policies, rules and regulations devised by the two major parties that are designed to exclude them from the political process entirely. Their 2008 platform, which you can find at www.wp.org, also addresses numerous human rights issues.

If that platform resonates with you, then maybe Green is the way to go. But you can't join a party like the Greens and expect to make changes from within on issues you disagree with. They're not likely to change their strong stance on reproductive rights, for example. Ironically, you won't find as much diversity of opinion in third parties as you find in major parties; their positions on issues are often tightly worded, carefully crafted, well-honed statements that represent hills to die on. That's not a bad thing --- the major parties should be so clear on their positions! --- but it's something you should be aware of.

And before you make the leap from a major party to any third party, it helps to understand some fundamentals about minor-party politics. You need to be prepared to face defeat and disappointment with optimism, because you won't survive otherwise. Greens are in this for the long haul; they're concerned less about election losses, especially on the national level, and more about building a party and a movement so that one day those national victories will come more easily. You can expect to be asked to get involved, because Greens, like any other third party, cannot make it without the assistance of an army of volunteers. Finally, it helps to be ready to handle the attacks that are sure to come your way from people who call you a spoiler, question your sanity and berate you for supporting Cynthia McKinney for president, even if you don't.

McKinney, a former member of Congress from Georgia, is the Green Party presidential nominee this year. You may remember her as the representative who thwacked a U.S, Capitol Police officer with her cell phone after she was stopped at a security checkpoint in 2006. Not every Green is thrilled with her nomination --- this is a political party, after all, with plenty of infighting and dissension and charges of backroom deals --- but since she has no chance of winning, they're generally glad to have a nominee with name recognition and a congressional track record who might garner some media attention and thus help other Green candidates running for state offices.

Carl Romanelli, one of my favorite political candidates in the entire U.S. of A., ran for U.S. Senate on the Green Party ticket in Pennsylvania in 2006, or at least tried to until the Democrats derailed his campaign and sued him for what at last count was $100,000-plus. His campaign attracted so much attention that it resulted in a documentary titled "It Ain't Easy Being Green." Be forewarned: Lots of Greens agree with that title, but they knew it would be hard. Minor-party politics always are.

Breaking News! Voters to Decide Election!

2008-06-24T12:38:00.003-06:00

Honestly, sometimes I'm ashamed to call myself a journalist.

Over the weekend NBC aired a segment on a presidential poll that narrowed down the results to those voters most likely to vote in the fall.

The utterly brilliant on-air reporter offered this astute observation:

"So it looks as if this year's presidential election will be decided by those who actually show up at the polls in November."

Who writes this stuff? Who edits this stuff?

The world needs me, I tell you, the news-reporting, book-editing, all-manner-of-communicating world needs me. And fortunately, I'm available.

"Ladies of Liberty" by Cokie Roberts

2008-06-23T12:01:00.009-06:00

Like most book reviewers, I get more free books than I know what to do with and seldom have time to read books that I'm not reviewing or judging or using for research. But once a year, my wonderful brother remembers my birthday* and always sends just the right book, one that I will read just for myself. Last year it was "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali; this year it was "Ladies of Liberty" by Cokie Roberts.

I love biographies, especially those that incorporate little-known primary documents — in this case, private correspondence. What made this book even better was that it contains so much that resonates with my own political views. In the very first chapter on Abigail Adams, I found the following snippet. President John Adams, Abigail's husband, had just declared a day of fasting to avoid war with France:

He was following in the footsteps of Washington, whose Thanksgiving proclamations had caused one clergyman to voice a complaint echoed so many times in the centuries since, "I feel ministers have stepped out of line and preached politics instead of the Gospel." It was Thomas Jefferson's turn to sulk in his tent, telling his daughter, Martha, "Politics and party hatred destroy the happiness of every being here."

It's important to note that political parties were brand-new to the United States, and yet they were already making people miserable. Imagine what Jefferson would have to say about the current state of affairs; he probably wouldn't be at all surprised at the recent surge in the numbr of independent voters.

* June 6. You still have time to send me a fully loaded iPod Touch or a Coldwater Creek gift certificate or two tickets for an adventure cruise through Alaska's Inland Passage.

An Obama-Caroline Kennedy Ticket?

2008-06-11T21:24:00.001-06:00

So as bloggers and their resident commenters are abuzz with criticism of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's place on Obama's v-p search team, some of their counterparts are atwitter with the prospect that Sweet Caroline, daughter of President John F. Kennedy, could actually end up as Obama's running mate.

Granted, she has little political experience and has never held elected office. But given much of the electorate's distrust of career politicians, one may rightly ask: "And that's a problem...why?" Hey, she's a Kennedy, she's a woman and she's scandal-free. What more do you want?

It's an intriguing, if not fanciful, prospect. You can hear from some of her supporters here, here and here.

John Hodgman and "We the Purple"

2008-06-10T04:42:00.002-06:00

Becky from somewhere or other is one of my new, very best friends, and all because of John Hodgman, the resident expert on "The Daily Show" and PC Guy on the "Get a Mac" commercials.

Maybe not all because of him, but close enough. Becky and I stayed at the same hotel in L.A. during BookExpo America and met at breakfast one morning. We got to talking about the reason I was there, the release of We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter. As it turns out, Becky is a committed independent, so she stood in my autograph line later that day to pick up a copy of the book.

Beloved Becky, God bless her, then went to John Hodgman's autograph line, got a copy of his book* — and handed him her own copy of We the Purple, talking it up and encouraging him to read it. He received it graciously and seemed genuinely interested, Becky tells me.

How cool is that?

"The Daily Show" staff already has a copy of the book; my publicist made sure they got it along with a media kit. Even if nothing comes of it — even if Jon & Company don't come calling — I'm so grateful to Becky. John Hodgman has my book! That's good enough for me.

Things you probably don't know about PC Guy:

He used to work as a literary agent.
He edits the humor section of The New York Times Magazine.
He plays the clarinet.
He's a contributor to NPR's "This American Life."
He's a 1994 graduate of Yale.
He writes a mean blog.

* I couldn't make it to Hodgman's signing. Ergo, I did not get a copy of his book, More Information Than You Require, or what I assume was an excerpt from it since it doesn't release until October. Whatever he was signing at BEA was titled Taxonomies of Complete World Knowledge; I'm guessing it's a chapter title. Anyway, if the good people at Dutton would like me to get my facts straight, maybe they wouldn't mind sending me a copy of Taxonomies and put me on the hot list for a review copy of More Information.

Cross-posted on my other blog.

Bloomberg Is Back!

2008-06-09T22:47:00.000-06:00

In the news, that is.

I've made no secret of the fact that I'd love to see New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg enter the presidential race, if only to liven things up a bit. Why Bloomberg? Not necessarily because I'm a huge fan but because he's got the money and the name recognition to mount a serious campaign as an independent, something we haven't seen since Ross Perot ran in 1992.

After insisting that he would not run for president, Bloomberg dropped out of the presidential news for a while. But now he's back, offering to host the first of what I hope, and many others hope, will be a series of town hall meetings between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Bloomberg's offer was made in conjunction with ABC News, which both candidates wisely rejected given the awfulness of the final Democratic debate. But the mayor, minus ABC, could still pull it off.

There's lots of speculation about what Bloomberg plans to do once his second term as mayor expires next year. By law, he can't run for a third term. What I love about all the speculation is this: The pundits readily acknowledge that Bloomberg could serve as a running-mate or potential cabinet member for either Obama or McCain. Really, how many politicians could you say that about? (After the fight-to-the-finish between Obama and Hillary Clinton, just imagine McCain and Obama duking it out over who's going to get Bloomberg...)

Like him or not, Bloomberg is one of the few high-profile officeholders who has managed to transcend partisan politics, get re-elected and retain the respect of both Democrats and Republicans in the process. Now that's saying something.

A Better Voter ID Proposal

2008-06-04T23:40:00.004-06:00

Georgia has historically been one of the most restrictive states when it comes to issues like ballot access and voter registration. Now the Democratic Party there is using — of all things — the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's photo ID requirement to challenge Georgia's photo ID law. You can read about their reasoning and the GOP's response here.

What struck me most was a suggestion made by the Dems' lawyer, Emmett J. Bondurant. It was one of those exceedingly rare proposals — an actual, reasonable solution. Though Bondurant suggested giving voters what seems to me an excessive amount of time — 10 years — to get the free photo IDs, he did recommend that the IDs be made available in places like grocery stores, housing projects and nursing homes rather than forcing voters to go to DMV offices.

It's not the photo ID that's the problem; it's the difficulty of getting one if you don't drive, or live in a rural area, or are disabled. Bondurant's idea seems like a great solution to what has become yet another partisan problem.

Spoiler Alert!

2008-06-03T22:53:00.007-06:00

Now that we know who's in the running, as if we didn't know two months ago, it's time to turn really negative and talk about all those spoilers out there who are dead set on ruining the 2008 election.

Okay, so maybe there aren't that many, and maybe it's highly unlikely that Bob Barr (Libertarian), Cynthia McKinney (presumed Green candidate), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), Ralph Nader (Independent), Ron Paul (Republican) or any of the other 250-plus candidates for president will get enough votes to earn the right to be named this election's spoiler. But let's say someone does.

In that case, I would like to remind voters across the land 1) who the real spoilers are (hint: they're in office right now!); 2) that anyone who meets the legal requirements has the right to run for office; and 3) that if these people are denied the right to run, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will be left without a candidate to vote for.

I just don't buy the spoiler argument. Like them or not, in recent elections Ross Perot and Ralph Nader gave voters a choice, as will Barr, McKinney, Paul and — can it be? — Nader again this fall. Instead of blaming a lost election on the little guys, the major parties might consider offering better candidates of their own.

If you're an independent or third-party member, what do you think about the whole spoiler argument?

Evangelicals and Political Independence

2008-05-28T22:22:00.010-06:00

Recently I read a number of books on the intersection of faith and politics, most of them written by progressive evangelicals — Christians who adhere to an orthodox view of Scripture but who are disenchanted with the way our faith has been co-opted by the Religious Right and the Republican Party. The authors discourage all Christians, evangelical or otherwise, from pledging allegiance to either major party and encourage them to instead become politically independent.

All well and good, but each author interprets "independent" from a partisan perspective. Not one mentions registering as an independent or adopting a genuine independent perspective on politics.

I've tried not to become dogmatic about my own political independence; I've been careful not to suggest that my way is the only way. While I believe that each person needs to follow her conscience, I'm baffled when I hear someone urging people to become independent but never once suggesting that they sever ties with the major parties.

Here are a few reasons why I believe all politically minded, thoughtful Christians should at the very least consider becoming true independents:

Registering as an independent makes a clear statement that you have distanced yourself from the two major parties.

The mere act of declaring yourself to be an independent works on you in subtle but significant ways. You begin to think more critically about the issues and the candidates because you've begun to shed your long-held partisan biases.

By remaining a party member, people who know that you are a Democrat or a Republican immediately assume — whether you like it or not — that you agree with your party's entire platform. You are automatically pegged as pro gay marriage or anti abortion, pro war or anti family values, and so on. It's not fair, but it's reality.

The major parties covet the independent vote. We have an opportunity to be heard like never before. You may end up having more influence as an independent than you would if you were a party member.

Jesus said no one can serve two masters. We've seen what happens when Christians try to serve both God and party, and it isn't pretty. When the party wins that contest, everyone loses.

What do you think? Are there valid reasons for remaining a party member (other than being allowed to vote in primaries)? Are there other reasons why Christians in particular should register as independents and adopt a genuine independent perspective?

David Gushee on Faith and Politics

2008-05-27T22:32:00.005-06:00

If you've ever wondered how the Religious Right became so politically powerful and how evangelicals can repair the damage done by the movement, a terrific source of information is David Gushee's most recent book, The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. Gushee is one of the organizer's of the Compassion Forum (transcript here) and a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Georgia, and one of the rare Christian leaders shining the spotlight on the moral and political issue of torture and human rights.

His book covers a lot of territory — my brand-new copy is already so dog-eared and highlighted that it's aging prematurely — but Gushee does a great job of keeping the focus on what he calls the "emerging evangelical center," a descriptive term but one that he admits is not quite precise:

...It is not quite good enough to say we should move to the center from the right and the left. Any right-center-left language is political...We need a biblically grounded rethinking of Christianity's entire engagement with American culture.

Yes! Gushee's "center" is less a compromise between right and left and more a fresh vision of the way Christians can bring their distinct perspective to the public square. Here he underscores one of the main reasons I am an independent and why I'm encouraging other Christians to become independents as well:

It is impossible both to represent "the church" and to function as a bloc within a national political party. Because no one can serve two masters, and because where your treasure is there shall your heart be also, one can predict that ultimately those Christians (and Christian organizations) that give themselves over to allegiance to a political party will lose the ability to retain their fundamental loyalty to Jesus Christ. They will meet various forks in the road in which it is either Jesus or the party; having chosen the party once and then again and again, after awhile the choice of ultimate loyalty has already been determined, and it will set the course for all future decisions.

Gushee encourages Christians to become politically independent but views that independence through the grid of the two major parties. Lately I've read a lot of political books discouraging people of faith from becoming closely associated with the two major parties, but only one author — me — actually proposes becoming a true political independent.

More tomorrow about the reasons why Christians would do well to consider registering as independents. In the meantime, and keeping in mind that Gushee writes from a bipartisan perspective, I highly recommend his book, both for Christians who are fed up with the recent history of evangelical involvement in politics, and for secular readers who want a better understanding of how the intersection of faith and politics went sideways and what's being done to set it right again.

Why I Heart Jesse Ventura

2008-05-22T09:43:00.005-06:00

If you missed last night's Larry King Live, you missed some of the most reasonable comments made so far in this most unreasonable of political seasons. King's featured guest was former Minnesota governor and pro wrestler Jesse Ventura, who was allegedly promoting his barely mentioned new book, "Don't Start the Revolution without Me." I haven't read that one, but I did read "Do I Stand Alone?" and consider it to be a rare commonsense treatise on American politics.

Anyway, last night I was reminded of why I like Ventura the politician. Here are a few of the things he said:

On the federal deficit: "We're $9 trillion in debt; that means a baby born tomorrow will be saddled with $30,000 worth of debt before they've even taken their first breath of life."
On Hillary Clinton: "We're a free country, and Hillary Clinton should be able to run until she deems that she can't compete anymore."
On Barack Obama: "He's making people aware...that's the best thing you can have for a democracy, is to have citizens that pay attention and hold their feet to the fire."
On Ralph Nader: "He should [run]; this is the United States. We're free. You have every right not to vote for him."
On the Democratic Party: "If there's anyone that can blow the election, it's the Democrats."
On election spending: "I won't spend more money [on campaigning] than I'll make [in office]."
ON McCain's age: "How is it that a federal employee [is] required by law to retire at age 65, and yet you can run for president ... at any age. John McCain could not get hired by the federal government, but he can become the head of the federal government ... It's the hypocrisy of the system."
On ballots: "I want to see on all ballots now 'None of the Above.'"
On long campaigns: "You shouldn't be campaigning before you can file for the job."

Ventura announced on the program that he's considering running for Senate as an independent against incumbent Norm Coleman and contender Al Franken. I'm well aware that in his political life, Ventura has said and done some boneheaded and ill-advised things. But I'd love to cover his campaign --- or even work on it, even though it would mean a temporary move to Minnesota.

So, Mr. Ventura, if you choose to run, I hereby apply for a position as your media point person or chief official blogger or whatever. I may disagree with you from time to time, but I fully agree with your brand of independent politics. Please run. The Senate needs you.

Where's "We the Purple"?

2008-04-23T23:13:00.003-06:00

Good question. If you go to a Barnes & Noble store looking for We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter, good luck. You won't find it in Politics, or Political Science, or even Current Affairs.

Nope. You'll find it in...um...Christian Inspiration.

Never mind that the faith content is, oh, less than 20 percent. Or that the distinctly Christian content is even less than that. And the inspirational content? I'm flattered that B&N finds my writing so inspiring, but really. Inspirational, in the religious sense? I don't think so.

And apparently, never mind that the political content is 100 percent. Or that my publisher, Tyndale, correctly categorized the book as political. Or that the B&N's own web site categorizes it under "United States Politics & Government."

The official explanation?

Tyndale is a Christian publisher.

The book contains a faith element.

All the other books I've written are shelved in their religion section.

I particularly like that last one. What if I wrote a novel, published by a Christian publisher, that contained a faith element? Would that be shelved in the nonfiction religion section, rather than Christian fiction, because that's where all my other books are shelved?

I've been in the publishing industry for 30-some years and the Christian bookselling industry for 10-plus years, and I have to tell you, it gets more bewildering with each passing year. The more inside information I learn, the more confused I am.

Unless I'm totally off my rocker here, I do believe the purpose of both publishing and bookselling is to sell books. I mean, to make money selling books. A B&N employee tried to comfort me—yes, I needed some serious comforting—by reassuring me that the staff would be able to find my book for any customer requesting it. Uncomforted, I asked him 1) Would anyone browsing the shelves for the latest and greatest book on independent politics think to check out the Christian Inspiration section? and 2) Would anyone looking for an inspirational Christian book have a clue what We the Purple is about?

Tyndale, God bless 'em, tried again to get it shelved properly, as did a B&N rep. But no. The corporate powers-that-be overruled reason. And I doubt that B&N is alone in making decisions like this; I just haven't looked for the book in any other stores yet.

Moral of the story: If you're looking for a political book during this highly charged political season and you happen to wander into a bookstore to find one, go straight to Christian Inspiration. You never know what you'll find there. (Hint: I'm shelved just to the left of Richard Foster.)

(Cross-posted on Postmodern Misfit.)

Mark Daniels on the Debates

2008-04-22T21:21:00.003-06:00

It's been a week since the infamous ABC debate that seemed to wake the nation out of its network-debate-induced slumber. Frankly, I gave up on the debates months ago*, around the time that Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and everyone whose name was not Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, or Romney were disinvited to participate. I do wish the League of Women Voters would take back control of the debates from the networks, but that's not likely to happen.

Maybe, in light of last week's debacle, the parties will pay attention to Mark Daniels' Modest Proposal for Presidential Debates, which he posted on the always insightful Moderate Voice:

First, get rid of anchors, moderators, or interlocutors of any kind.

Second, allow Candidate A to begin with a five-minute opening, followed by an opening of equal length by Candidate B.

Then, allow the candidates to alternate for five minutes apiece for the balance of an hour-and-a-half.

This format would afford the candidates the chance, for better or worse, to address the public directly. Longer form statements would reduce or mitigate the effect of those absurd sound bite moments...

I guarantee that we would learn a lot more about the candidates’ priorities and their ability to deal with the unexpected if debates were conducted in this way.

One other suggestion: No debates until at least January 1 of the presidential election year.

Of course, this would only work with two or three candidates. But I'm sure we can change things around a bit to accommodate all those lesser candidates who don't have any chance of winning but who bring up vital issues that the major candidates (read that "major-party candidates") ignore.

* I TiVo the debates and watch them only when I have to, and only for you.

Mountain of Authors

2008-04-10T23:33:00.003-06:00

That's the name of an event I'll be participating in on Saturday (April 12) in Colorado Springs. It's a regional event that gives book lovers and aspiring writers an opportunity to hear local authors speak. (I'm now a local author...) I'll be serving on the nonfiction panel and signing my most recent release, We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter, which is getting lots of media attention in this election year. Here's the official information:

Pikes Peak Library District will host its 2nd annual regional authors’ event, “Mountain of Authors” to showcase authors of the Pikes Peak region, and offer presentations about writing and publishing.

The free program will be held from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Saturday, April 12 at East Library, 5550 N. Union Blvd. No registration is required.

This event will inspire new and established writers, and offer book fans a chance to meet and discuss their favorite titles with local authors. Panel discussions will be offered by nonfiction, fiction, children’s and teen authors. A free lunch and booksigning will also be held at the event.

Program Schedule
10 - 11 a.m. Nonfiction Author Panel (moderated by Tim Blevins)

Beth Barrett
Marcia Ford
Karen Scalf Linamen
John Stansfield

11:15 a.m. -12:15 p.m. Fiction Author Panel (moderated by Kirk Farber)

Kevin Anderson
Kacy Barnett-Gramckow
Beth Groundwater
Rebecca Moesta
Robert Spiller

12:15 -1:30 p.m. Lunch (food will be provided)

1:30 - 2:30 p.m. Children’s/Teen Author Panel (moderated by Karin Huxman)

Mary Peace Finley
Donita Paul
Katherine Pebley O’Neal

2:30 - 3:30 p.m. Author Showcase: meet authors from the Pikes Peak region, and purchase your favorite author’s books

Pikes Peak Poet Laureate reception following program.

If you come to the event and found out about it here, introduce yourself to me, okay?

(Cross-posted on Postmodern Misfit.)

Compassion Forum: Democrats and Faith

2008-04-09T23:23:00.004-06:00

Sunday night's "Compassion Forum" on CNN has the potential to rise above the dreadful televised debates of late, but only if Clinton and Obama speak from their hearts and leave the religious rhetoric behind. People of genuine faith know how easy it is to learn the lingo without living the life, and they know that speaking from the heart reveals the content of the heart, whether for good or for bad.

In a commentary posted earlier today, CNN contributor Roland S. Martin had this to say about the Democrats Getting Religion on Religion:

Sweet Jesus! What has gotten into the Democratic Party when it comes to issues of faith?...These forums [along with the Sojourners forum last June] should not be casually overlooked and blown off, because they represent a significant shift in attitude from previous Democratic presidential campaigns. Democrats, in the words of Sen. Joseph Biden after the Sojourners forum, acted more like agnostics --- other would say atheists --- when it came to issues of faith.

As Martin points out, Democrats have historically avoided faith-related issues to their peril.

But what is, and what isn't, a faith-related issue? Martin writes that the forum topics will include poverty, AIDS, climate change and human rights. Many would say that immigration, the economy, healthcare, and the like are also faith-related issues. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to name an issue that someone, somewhere doesn't consider to be faith-related.

All well and good, but there are two glaring omissions on the forum list. As Martin points out, it's past the time for Democrats to face the issues of abortion and gay marriage head-on. In We the Purple, I contend that the focus on these two hot-button issues is used to distract the electorate from political inaction. On the Democratic side, though, the focus is too often on attacking Republicans for opposing a woman's right to choose and being homophobic than on taking into consideration the very real concerns about those two issues that people in their own camp have expressed. Martin further writes:

If the Democratic Party is serious about fostering a relationship with the faith community, they are going to have to come to grips with the fact that there are Democrats of faith who are pro-life and against gay marriage, but who are in agreement on other social issues such as the response to the rapid rise of HIV/AIDS and eradicating poverty...What is clear is that in the political realm, there must be an understanding of the secular and theological worlds. And there are clear examples when folks who operate in the secular world want to apply their standards to those in the theological world, and vice versa.

The Democratic candidates' understanding of the theological world should be clear to everyone on Sunday night. Listen carefully for all those Christian buzzwords --- and judge for yourself whether they sound "learned" --- or "lived."

Latinos and the Independent Vote

2008-04-08T22:44:00.004-06:00

One segment of the electorate that I've been keeping an eye on is the independent Latino voter, partly because Latino voters are often caught between a rock (the Democratic Party) and a hard place (the GOP) and partly because I've been expecting to see something of a surge in the number of Latinos registering and/or voting as independents. Though a sizable majority of Latinos are Democrats --- nearly 60 percent, according to some polls --- highly religious Latinos often find it difficult to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, which at least in part accounts for the 20 percent who identify as Republicans.

This year, Latinos find themselves in a real bind. Neither party has delivered on its promises to the Hispanic community. And then there's that thorny illegal alien/undocumented immigrant issue that has unfairly tarnished the image of all Latinos --- whether or not they're Mexican or U.S.-born, legal or illegal --- and neither party seems to know what to do about it. What's a Latino voter to do?

Jose Armas of Hispanic Link thinks it may be time for Latinos to jump ship, and he writes about the dilemma facing the Latino voter this year in a must-read article, Should Latinos vote for the independent candidate? Anyone interested in independent voting, the issues of concern to Hispanics, and the impact of the Latino vote would do well to give Armas a hearing. Or rather, a reading. My favorite quote from the column: "Are we throwing away our vote if we vote for Nader? No more than we have on previous presidents." Amen to that.

Are U.S. Voters Schizophrenic?

2008-04-07T23:36:00.002-06:00

Gabor Steingart of the German publication Der Spiegel seems to think so. You can read his analysis of the American electorate here; it's worth the time if for no other reason than the reference to a rat's head in a Coke.

New Independent Voter Poll

2008-04-03T18:27:00.003-06:00

IndependentVoting.org recently posted a new poll for independents---the 2008 Presidential Strategies Survey---that's designed to provide input to CUIP* for an upcoming report on independents and presidential primaries. I took the survey last week, so of course I cannot remember what questions were asked; I'd have to take the survey again to refresh my ever-failing memory. But far be it from me to skew the results in such an unscrupulous manner, even if my motive---educating you, my beloved reader(s)---is pure.

What I do recall is that the questions were detailed and allowed participants to give thoughtful responses. If you'd like to make your independent voice heard, click here to take the survey, or go to IndependentVoting.org and click on the "2008: Take Our Presidential Poll" box in the upper right corner of the home page. While you're there, roam around the site for a bit; there's great information, articles and other resources for independents.

*CUIP stands for Committee for a Unified Independent Party, though said committee has wisely given up hope for creating a unified independent party. It's the group behind IndependentVoting.org.

Yes! I Too Shall Vote!

2008-04-02T22:08:00.005-06:00

Ending minutes—nay, hours—of speculation, I am hereby stating that I will certainly vote in the presidential election in November. This startling and much-anticipated announcement comes on the heels of James Dobson's equally startling and much-anticipated announcement to the same effect. Only he gets the benefit of announcing it on Hannity's America. Showoff. Here's a snippet from a "Special Alert" issued by Focus on the Family's CitizenLink:

Dr. James Dobson told Sean Hannity on Sunday night he is going to vote in the November election-ending weeks of speculation that he would sit on the sidelines over his policy disagreements with the two major parties’ candidates for the White House...

“Let me just say that I will certainly vote, Sean,” he said. “I think we have a God-given responsibility to vote, and there are all of the candidates and the issues down the ballot that we have an obligation to weigh in on and let our voices be heard.”

I blogged more extensively about this the other day over on God's Politics, where I'm always much more articulate and insightful. Here, it gets personal. So yes, I will vote. And no, I will not sit on the sidelines.

You may now stop speculating.

The Problem with Political Sermons

2008-03-31T23:18:00.005-06:00

Last week I did a half-dozen or so radio talk shows, a couple of them back to back. Under those circumstances, the specifics of any one conversation tend to get lost; it all becomes one big blur. But a comment by one caller---three of the shows were call-ins---stuck in my mind. The show was "Across the Nation with Bob Dunning" on Sirius Satellite's The Catholic Channel, and we had been talking about about partisanship in the church.

The caller brought up an excellent point. A homily (or a sermon), he said, involves one-way communication. There's no chance for dialogue, no time for discussion, no opportunity for disagreement. The pastor says what the pastor says, and that's it. The caller suggested that if churches encouraged conversation on political matters in a give-and-take, hear-all-sides format separate from worship services, politics in the church wouldn't be nearly so offensive.

I'd love to hear your opinion on this. Agree? Disagree? Could you see this working in your own church, synagogue, or other house of worship?

Live on the Michael Medved Show

2008-03-26T21:47:00.005-06:00

I'll have the opportunity to talk about independent voters, and the independent voter movement, on the Michael Medved radio show tomorrow, Thursday, March 27, at 4 p.m. Eastern. The show, which airs on the Salem Radio Network, is heard on 200 or so stations nationwide and reaches a potential audience of 3.5 million listeners. To find out if it airs in your area, and on which station you can listen to it, go to the web site's station finder and click on your state.

For those of you unfamiliar with Michael, he was a well-known movie critic (co-hosting "Sneak Previews" with Jeffrey Lyons) and author before he became a well-known conservative talk-show host and commentator. (He pretty much stunned everyone when he converted from being a liberal to---some would say---an ultra conservative in the late '70s or early '80s, as I recall.) For those of you with long memories, he's also the guy who gave us the book What Really Happened to the Class of '65? and the subsequent TV show.

Regardless of what you think of his politics, Michael is a terrific and insightful interviewer. He's fair, and he always has interesting guests. (Pray that I'll keep that streak going for him!) This interview will provide me with a great opportunity to get the word out about independent activists and how we can impact the political system. I'm psyched!

(Cross-posted on Postmodern Misfit.)

Independent Voters: Largest Voting Bloc

2008-03-25T23:22:00.003-06:00

So we've known this for a long time, but here's even more proof that there are more self-identified independent voters in the U.S. than either Democrats or Republicans:

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.

The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.

The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.

These poll results from the Pew Research Center should also help put to rest the common misconception that independent voters are liberal Democratic leaners.

Barack Obama and His Pastor

2008-03-14T22:47:00.005-06:00

Aside from the obvious, something about this whole Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright situation has been troubling me. Before I could get my act and my thoughts together to blog about it, I came across a related post by Diana Butler Bass on the God's Politics blog on Beliefnet. As always, Diana said it much better than I ever could. "Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective" is worth reading in its entirety.

We the Purple Web Site Goes Live

2008-03-12T23:06:00.003-06:00

Tyndale House has created an über-cool web site for We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter, and it's now up and running. The site features bonus content, an excerpt from the book, a poll on the presidential election, and an opportunity to sign up for my monthly newsletter on issues of concern to independent voters.

The site's URL is www.wethepurpleonline.com. I hope you'll bookmark it and visit from time to time. I'll be adding new content in the coming weeks.

Cross-posted on Postmodern Misfit.

"We the Purple" Has Released!

2008-03-11T23:41:00.003-06:00

Having a book published has often been compared with giving birth to a baby. I've done both, and I can assure you that the analogy holds up. The last few months for me have been like the final trimester of my second pregnancy: I felt like I've been waddling through my days, wondering why on earth I got myself in this condition once again. Sure, the conception was fun and all that, and the first two trimesters were characterized by a flurry of activity, much like the nesting instinct that kicks in right about that time.

And then reality sets in. You start to feel like the elephant that you look like, and there are days when you totally believe that this is, in fact, a permanent situation. And during the worst part of labor, the pain is so intense that you're in denial that you really will get a baby out of the deal.

Today I officially gave birth to We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter, even though it officially released last week, because today is the day that I actually held a copy in my hands. And I have to tell you that after writing 20-plus books, this one felt incredibly good. It's clothbound, and the designers at Tyndale House pulled out all the stops to make this a classy book. Yes, I'm one proud, writing mama.

Here's a link to the Amazon page for We the Purple:

http://tinyurl.com/35a3r7

Ignore Amazon's note about the book being out of stock. They should have it by now. If you buy We the Purple and like it, please post a review on Amazon and tell your friends about the book. I'm on a mission to clear up many of the misconceptions out there about independents, and I'd appreciate your help. And let me know what you think of it, okay?

Cross-posted on Postmodern Misfit.

Quote of the Day

2008-03-04T16:23:00.001-07:00

If pro is the opposite of con, then isn't progress the opposite of congress?

~~ Keith Avery

On Nader's Candidacy

2008-02-26T23:51:00.003-07:00

I try so hard to be gracious and all that when it comes to politics or anything else in life. But some people make it so doggoned hard at times.

I speak today of the anti-Nader brigade. That would be the bloggers and commentators who have over the past few days have resorted to name-calling and all manner of evil-speaking directed at Ralph Nader, who on Sunday announced his candidacy for president.

"Spoiler," of course, is the most common charge hurled by those who blame Nader for George W. Bush's win in 2000. Conventional wisdom says Nader took votes away from Gore; my unconventional wisdom says Gore took votes away from Gore. But more importantly, the nearly 3 million Americans who voted for Nader that year were able to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the candidates of the major parties' choosing. That is what counts. I want to vote for the candidate of my choosing, and I will continue to defend the right of every other American to do the same. Here's Nader's response:

Nader said Democrats should "concentrate on the thieves who steal elections" instead of "scapegoating the Greens," a reference to the Green Party, the ticket he ran on in 2000.

"The Democrats ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves why they have not been able to landslide the worst Republican Party and the White House and Congress over the last 20 years," he said.

Other critics have called Nader a narcissist or an egotist. I don't know Nader personally, and I'm sure many of his critics don't know him either. But I do know this: it takes a whole lot more than shallow egotism to go the distance as a third-party or independent candidate. I may never vote for Nader, but I admire his tenacity and sense of purpose.

2008: An Historic Election?

2008-02-24T23:35:00.005-07:00

As a chronic multitasker, I seldom pay close attention to partisan political coverage on television, except for the real deal on Comedy Central. One thing I have managed to hear, as I'm reading or knitting or researching or writing, is the phrase "historic election year," over and over again, for months on end now. Each time I heard it, I'd mentally nod in agreement. Yes, this truly is an historic election year, and it feels good to be a part of it.

Before I make an astonishing confession, please bear in mind that I was only half-listening to said pronouncements. I consider myself to be politically aware and reasonably intelligent. What's more, I'm not blind.

Now to my confession: For the longest time, I was not consciously aware that the talking heads were referring to the whole race and gender thing when they were using the word "historic." Honest. I'm not kidding.

And here's why I was unaware: I consider this to be an historic election on so many other levels that race and gender didn't even factor in to my assessment. That's not to say that turning the reins over to a different race or gender isn't a significant milestone; what that is to say is that I've gotten so accustomed to the possibility of having a female or black president that I don't give it much thought any more. And I know I'm not alone.

Here are all those other factors that make this an historic election year:

Independent voters' concerns are finally being taken seriously, with some major candidates, like Barack Obama, listening carefully to us even as others, like Hillary Clinton, dismiss us as annoying pests at a picnic.
We have a more engaged electorate than we've had in recent memory, meaning my memory.
Not only is the electorate more engaged, the electorate is actually doing stuff, like voting in primaries and participating in caucuses. Except for independents in closed primary states, that is. We just find other stuff to do, like hammer away at the need for political reform, starting with open primaries.
After seven-plus years of President Bush, even Republicans are ready for a major change. I can't ever remember a time when the party in the White House was so relieved to see the resident of the White House get ready to move out.
Evangelicals are no longer walking in lockstep with the GOP. Of course, many evangelicals never did, but you can't convince the media and non-evangelicals of that.

Help me finish this list. What are some of the other factors that make this an historical election year?

"Independent" Board at Diebold?

2008-02-20T23:41:00.002-07:00

Thanks to Brad Friedman at BradBlog for keeping us informed about the latest goings-on at Diebold, the company that continues to supply us with faulty voting machines. The company's latest move is to create an "independent" board of directors to oversee Diebold operations. Of the five directors, three are Diebold execs. You can read Brad's full post on this debacle here.

Calling Colorado Independents!

2008-02-18T23:45:00.003-07:00

I made this announcement several weeks ago and want to repeat it for anyone who missed it:

Colorado Independent Voters now has a social networking site on Ning.com. I've met many independents throughout the state, but we're so scattered that once you get outside the Denver area, it's difficult for us to get together to talk about the issues at hand and provide support for each other. The cyber group is a warm and welcoming alternative to face-to-face meetings. We invite open and spirited conversation, though we do try to keep the focus on political reform rather than any one ideological stance. Our only agenda is to help reform the political and electoral systems so we can eventually have some hope of seeing real progress in other areas.

Come on over to Colorado Independent Voters and join in the cyber discussion!

Taking a Break...

2008-02-14T23:52:00.001-07:00

...and a breather after all of this week's political news. Be back Moday.

And Now, a Word from The Hankster

2008-02-13T02:07:00.003-07:00

We interrupt this series on political reform to bring you a post-Potomac-primary word from the esteemed Nancy Hanks, who keeps independents well-informed through her daily blog, appropriately titled The Hankster. Nancy obviously has more energy than I do. The primaries wiped me out, but they energized her. Listen to her cheer us on:

Kudos to all the independent voters, the unaligned, the blanks, the unaffiliated, the declined to state, the misfits, the couldn't care less, the disenchanted, the fed-up, the disgusted, the can't make up my mind till the last minute, the disenchanted, the disenfranchised, the disempowered, the poor, the marginalized, the fringe,the radicals, the conservatives, the middle-of-the-roads, the leftists, the fundamentalists, the constitutionalists, the people that insist that democracy means something, the .....
We are being heard. Let's be louder! Speak up now!

You go, girl! I promise, I'll be louder! I'll speak up now! I mean, in the morning or whenever I wake up!

Thanks, Nancy. I needed that boost. I feel empowered once again.

Political Reform, Lesson 16: Exercising Our Power

2008-02-12T00:00:00.000-07:00

Here’s another Problem That I Never Knew Existed, because I live in a state that allows its citizens to create laws that can be passed on a statewide ballot, rescind laws passed by the legislature, and recall an elected official from office. Alas, not all citizens are so fortunate; said citizens live in 26 states that do not allow political processes known as Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (IRR), the Big Three that give voters a direct voice in writing, passing, and rescinding laws, as well as removing elected officials from office.

In the remaining 24 states, voters can write laws and collect a certain number of signatures on petitions to have their proposed initiatives and referenda placed on the ballot. They can also “fire” elected officials (most often on the local level). This is an example of direct democracy, and it’s the best means we have to bring about all the other reforms we’ve talked about. That's because our other means involves representative democracy, and those representatives tend not to support political reforms that could cost them their power.

When it comes to power, though, not enough people seem to understand the power of IRR. It represents the difference between having someone else (such as a legislator) write a bill and vote on it, and you writing a bill and voting on it. IRR truly puts the power back in the hands of the people. Statutes, constitutional amendments, and other propositions fall under the sway of IRR; some of the 26 states that don't allow IRR may allow, say, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment but no other initiatives.

To find out if your state is one of the lucky 24, check out the web site of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at USC, an excellent source of information about IRR laws across the country.

Political Reform, Lesson 15: Signing Petitions

2008-02-11T01:09:00.001-07:00

In We the Purple, I go into considerable detail about the problems all voters as well as independent candidates face when it comes to regulations that apply to those petitions we're sometimes asked to sign. One of the most egregious problems arises when states go to extraordinary lengths to complicate the petitioning process.

Let's say you're at a state fair. It's clear that you're you and not me, because I don't go to state fairs. They're always held on the hottest and most humid days and nights of the entire year. I don't do hot and humid for anything less than an enormous amount of love or money. But I digress.

At this fair there's a booth for a hapless independent candidate for, oh, I don't know, governor or something. Let's call her Candidate X. Well, X is pretty busy talking to potential supporters, and though you'd like to talk to her, you realize it's nearly time for the pie-eating contest. You simply must run. But first, you grab one of the many clipboards containing petition forms and scribble your name and address and whatever other information the state says you have to provide.

Little did you know that the state would later rule your signature invalid. You signed the petition for Crawford County voters, but you live in Craymore County. What's worse, your mistake invalidated every other signature on that petition. I ask you: huh???

But that's the way it goes. Try fighting that one.

Here's another one: you take leave of your senses and vote in a partisan primary. Your independent cronies forgive you, because they've done that and worse. Ah, but the state is not so forgiving. Let's say you come to your senses a month later, find an independent candidate you can support (let's call him Y), and sign a petition backing his candidacy. In some states—I kid you not—your signature will be invalidated.

Some people—that is, partisans—will tell you it's your own fault that your signature was invalidated; you should have known the regulations. Right. I challenge you to research the petitioning requirements in your state. I can just about guarantee that whatever you manage to find out 1) didn't come easily and 2) isn't the whole story. Let me know how you fare, okay?

Political Reform, Lesson 14: Providing a Paper Trail

2008-02-08T22:27:00.000-07:00

As most of us should know by now, electronic voting machines have created countless (no pun intended, but an appropriate word) problems in recent elections. If you need a a refresher, here are some lowlights.

From 2004: machines in North Carolina erased more than 4,000 ballots and failed to count several thousand others; one machine in Ohio arbitrarily gave Bush an additional 4,000 votes.

From 2006: machines counted each vote three times in one Texas county; in Sarasota, Florida, 18,000 votes simply vanished; a machine in Arkansas registered no votes for one mayoral candidate who knew he had received at least two votes, his and his wife's.

There are too many other problems from the past to list. So let's look ahead. The following groups are among those at the forefront of efforts to force elections officials (and electronic machine manufacturers) to provide a verifiable paper trail for all electronic votes that are cast. Any one of these groups can provide valuable information on what you can do to make sure your vote, and everyone else's, is actually counted on Election Day.

Voters Unite
Where's the Paper?
MoveOn.org
Verified Voting
Velvet Revolution
National Voting Rights Institute
True Majority

There are so many others that it would be impossible to list them all. This is another election problem that all voters should be concerned about. And it's another political that all of us can support, regardless of our party affiliation or independent status.

Political Reform, Lesson 13: Registering on Election Day

2008-02-07T22:54:00.000-07:00

I've learned the hard way that when you move from one state to another, you need to find out right away what the deadline is for voter registration. If you care, that is, which I didn't always. But one year I did care, and having come from a state where the voter registration deadline was 20 days before Election Day, I traipsed into the DMV on Day 28, ever so proud that I remembered in plenty of time. But no. My new state's deadline was 29 days before Election Day. I was one day late.

Which brings up this question: do you know your state's voter registration deadline? My guess is you don't know, because a full 84 percent of Americans are unable to accurately identify their state's deadline. It's no wonder; some of the deadlines are unbelievably complex, like Nevada's: "9:00 p.m. on the fifth Saturday before any primary or general election. 9:00 p.m. on the third Saturday before any recall or special election. However, if a recall or special election is held on the same day as a primary or general election, the registration closes at 9:00 p.m. on the fifth Saturday before the day for the elections." (Translation: "Move to another state already; we don't need your vote.")

North Dakota neatly avoids the problem entirely by not requiring voters to register at all. And not surprisingly, it's one of a handful of states that have a 15 percent higher voter turnout rate than the national average, which is an abysmal 36 percent. Those states with the highest voter turnout rates, in addition to North Dakota, are Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, all of which allow same-day voter registration. That's right; in those states you can register to vote on Election Day. Minnesota leads the pack with a whopping 77 percent voter turnout rate.

Early registration deadlines made sense in an era of slower communications. But in an age when my computer can decide in roughly 3 seconds whether I qualify for a credit card, surely the local election board can decide in just a few minutes whether I'm qualified to vote.

This is an issue that impacts partisans and independents alike. But it's especially important to politically active independents for this one reason: when partisan officials make it harder for people to vote rather than easier, that's a form of voter suppression. And ending voter suppression in every form is a high-priority independent voter issue.

Colorado Independent Voters

2008-02-06T23:35:00.001-07:00

Colorado Independent Voters now has a social networking site on Ning.com, and I'm inviting all Colorado independents to join in the discussion there. Ours is a big state with a lot of space between towns and major cities, so it's a challenge for independent voters to find each other, let alone get together in a physical setting. Come on over to Colorado Independent Voters and join in the cyber discussion!

Political Reform, Lesson 12: Relaxing Voter ID Laws

2008-02-05T00:19:00.001-07:00

In an effort to quash widespread, nefarious, bring-down-the-republic voter fraud, a number of states have decided to crack down on the massive numbers of people who are attempting to register to vote illegally. Only problem is, there isn't a shred of evidence that there's any significant voter fraud going on in the U.S. of A. But really, who needs evidence anyway? With all the evidence we have of election fraud on the part of partisan officials, who has time to investigate the voters? Just assume the fraud is there, okay?

Here's how officials are combating this epidemic (if there actually was any fraud going on it would seem reasonable enough on the surface): simply require voters to produce identification, or better yet, photo identification, when they arrive at the polling places to vote. For most of us, that's no problem. Our driver's licenses have our image right there in living color. Or maybe, even if we don't drive—and plenty of people don't—we work at a place or go to a college that requires us to wear photo ID badges. We're good to go.

So what about those people who don't have photo IDs? That would include the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, among others. How can they produce a photo ID when they may not drive or even work?

Well, the great state of Georgia, among others, proposed that they fork over $35 for an official state photo ID. That’s a lot of money to people on a fixed income; believe me, I know. But that’s not all. The poor, the elderly, and the disabled would have been required to travel—in some cases, hundreds of miles—to a limited number of state offices to get that ID. Who are the people who think up these things? How incredibly out of touch with the realities of everyday life do you have to be in order to be in charge of elections?

Unless, of course, the whole idea is vote suppression, but we know that can’t be the case. Oh, wait. What did Paul Weyrich say? That a high voter turnout could be counterproductive? Right.

In 2006, and in some of today’s Super Tuesday primaries, voters were asked to show photo IDs even though there was no legal requirement that they do so. Also in 2006, minorities in New York City were asked for photo IDs while whites were not asked for any form of ID. Some states are trying to require proof of citizenship, which also seems like a no-brainer, but some people—again, most often the very poor—have no birth certificate and no way to obtain one.

One of the best sources for information on unnecessarily restrictive voter ID measures is NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, as well as myriad other organizations that are trying to—of all things!—increase voter participation rather than suppress it.

Political Reform, Lesson 11: Crashing the Parties

2008-02-04T23:21:00.001-07:00

I'm writing this on the eve of Super Tuesday and the Colorado Caucus. Having never lived in a caucus state until now, I've never observed the process first-hand. I sure would love to. But like many independents across the country, I'm shut out of the process.

Until recently, I can't say I cared very much. Let the parties have their party; I probably wouldn't vote for either of their eventual nominees anyway. But now my independent dander is up, a little bit anyway, and for one reason: I pay taxes that fund the major parties' primaries and caucuses. (Oh, how I wish the plural was "cauci"! To think of what I could do with that word!) And because by profession I'm an independent contractor, I actually write checks to pay those taxes, five times a year. Unlike a payroll employee, I have my fingerprints and DNA all over those payments. The process is a bit more personal for me.

Anyway, if I had wanted to, I suppose I could have registered as a party member, attend the caucus, and then re-register as an independent, but that seems a tad hypocritical. (Under Colorado law, it's up to the parties to allow me to register, attend, and then essentially unregister.) I don't know; maybe someday I won't see it that way and I'll break down and play their little game.

But again I say: my taxes help pay for the cost of the Colorado caucuses. I should be allowed to participate.

About half of U.S. states have open primaries, which means a voter does not have to be registered with a major party to vote in that party's primary. States with closed primaries, which restrict voting to those who have registered with either of the major parties, often have quirky restrictions about how long before a primary you would have to register with a party and how long you would have to wait afterward to re-register as an independent. You really have to research your state's voting regulations to stay on top of all this, and even then, the information isn't always that easy to find.

Partisans who object to open primaries do so because they feel that in order to have a say in who the party nominates, you should be a member of that party. Independents who support open primaries do so because they feel that the dominance of the major parties unfairly excludes them from the first round of voting. And then there's me. If I'm going to help pay for something, I ought to be allowed to partiticate, even if I sound like a broken record.

Partisans and independents who support open primaries also say that the change may increase voter participation, which is scandalously low in this country. Tomorrow may prove otherwise; I think we have a real horse race going this year, and the primaries and caucuses may attract more voters as a result.

For more on this, an excellent resource is IndependentVoting.org, where you can find out how to get involved in a campaign for open primaries across the country.

Political Reform, Lesson 10: Declaring Our Independent Status

2008-01-31T22:42:00.001-07:00

Depending on where you live, your official status as an independent voter may go by a variety of different terms, some good, some bad. The last I checked, here are some of the terms used in a sampling of states:

Unaffiliated or No Affiliation
No Party or No Party Affiliation
Non-partisan
Decline to State

Some states describe independents in such a way that if I lived in any of those states, I'd be tempted to write a postscript:

New Jersey—"I do not wish to declare a political party affiliation at this time” ("Gee, give me a minute, though, and maybe I will")
Oregon—“Not a member of a party” ("Not now, not ever, no way, no how")
New York (in all caps, mind you)—“I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY” ("I SWEAR ON MY MOTHER'S GRAVE AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY")

Considering that it is elected or appointed officials who determine the language of voter registration forms, it's a wonder we don't have more egregious examples of language designed to manipulate voter registration rolls, as is the case in Arizona. That state managed to erase some 140,000 independent voters from its voter database by changing the wording of its registration forms. Where once you could register as an independent, as of 2006 your only choice was “Specify Party Preference.” It's no surprise that the major parties enjoyed sitting back and watching their ranks swell as some voters felt coerced into choosing a party.

Whatever. I am an independent, unaffiliated, non-partisan voter. I refuse to specify a party preference—because I have none—and I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY. EVER. SO THERE.

Political Reform, Lesson 9: Making Sure Our Votes Count

2008-01-31T02:32:00.001-07:00

Until the 2000 presidential election, I never gave any thought as to whether or not my vote was actually tabulated. I just assumed it was. After all, this is America, for crying out loud. You fill out your ballot, something or somebody counts it, and that's that.

All voters have reason to be concerned about election problems: machines that malfunction, count a single vote multiple times, or lose thousands of other votes; prohibitively long lines at polling places, particularly in urban areas; holding elections on a workday; inadequately trained poll workers; and the lack of a paper trail of votes registered using electronic machines, among others.

But what makes this a specifically independent-voter issue is the fact that all too many election problems result from voter suppression tactics and election manipulation on the part of the major parties.

Republican strategist Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority, once said this: "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find an example of a Democrat expressing a similar sentiment. Neither major party can lay an exclusive claim on efforts to suppress and manipulate the vote, which is yet another reason why many of us became independents. We refuse to be associated with two parties that are so determined to acquire and maintain power that they would try to keep the rest of us from voting if that would be to their advantage.

We can repair our broken elections systems, but first we need to look at just what needs fixing. Next time: one tactic that especially rankles independents.

Technorati Tags: vote suppression,vote manipulation,voting machines,independents,Paul Weyrich,election reform

Political Reform, Lesson 8: Drawing the Lines

2008-01-29T23:33:00.001-07:00

Independents find this abuse of political power to be especially heinous. However, most Americans consider redistricting—drawing the lines of congressional districts—to be synonymous with "drowsy somnolence." Really, if you want to quickly kill a conversation with anyone other than a political junkie, just mention congressional redistricting.

Members of the U.S. Congress would have it no other way. They want us to be bored to death and as disengaged as possible when it comes to determining who will represent us. It's no secret that the two major parties often collude in drawing the district lines: You give us this area with all these Republican voters, and we'll let you have that area with all those Democratic voters.

All this results in some pretty bizarre—and non-competitive—districts. Enter Manifold System's Dimitri Rotow, who created several Google Earth files showing some of the worst districts in the country. His work is an eye-opener, and pretty cool to boot.

You can also play The Redistricting Game, which was developed by some brains at USC to help the Mensa-challenged understand how legislative districts are created. “This system is subject to a wide range of abuses and manipulations that encourage incumbents to draw districts which protect their seats rather than risk an open contest," the website tells us. The game "allows players to experience the realities of one of the most important (yet least understood) aspects of our political system.” And—the thrills are never-ending—there's a game based on the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2007 (a.k.a. the Tanner Redistricting Bill), which calls for independent, rather than bipartisan, redistricting commissions and other reforms.

Then there's Gerryminder, an online simulation developed to teach college students about congressional elections, representation, and gerrymandering. "By putting students in a position to manipulate district lines in multiple contexts, Gerryminder provides a non-boring, experiential way to teach redistricting," we're told. Let me know what you think; I haven't given it a test drive yet.

There are lots of proposed solutions to this problem, but the powers that be are—surprise!—resistant to those efforts. One such proposal is particularly popular among independents—the creation of “superdistricts,” in which several legislators would represent a single district. They believe that such a reform would increase voter participation, offer fairer representation, and give independents and third-party candidates a chance to not only run but maybe even win.

Next time we move on to reforms that directly affect voters. And non-voters. Or both.

Uncounted Votes

2008-01-29T00:10:00.000-07:00

Among the political reforms near and dear to the hearts of independent voters and candidates, as well as many partisans, is the need for an overhaul of the way our votes are tabulated. We'll get to that reform later, but right now it's time for recess. In fact, it's movie time.

I haven't seen this particular flick yet, but I'm looking forward to it almost as much as I did when I waited, with rapid and bated breath, for Serenity to come to town. Almost.

This one is called Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, and it takes a look at the vote-counting problems (shall we call it "election fraud"?) that plagued the 2004 and 2006 elections. And as I understand it, the film also shows how angry citizens turned their rage into political activism—the kind of transformation we need to see more of.

Check the website to see if a screening is scheduled to be held in your area. The director, David Earnhardt, holds a question and answer session after each screening.

Political Reform, Lesson 7: Throwing the Bucks Out

2008-01-28T08:32:00.001-07:00

As much as I'd like to blame, oh, I don't know, some person for what I consider to be the single most harmful element in our political system, I can't. By comparison, it would be so easy just to throw the bum out if there was a bum to blame. But no. The most immoral, unconscionable, reprehensible factor in politics is the exorbitant and shameful amount of money that controls our elected officials, our legislative bodies, our elections, and as a result, our lives.

Yes, we're talking here about campaign finance reform.

Right now, the projections are that this will be our first $1 billion election. This would not be the kind of milestone we want to celebrate, right? Oh, the adjectives that come to mind! Unconscionable, disgraceful, heinous, abhorrent, scandalous, offensive.

Roget's cannot contain the number of legitimate and made-up words I could use to describe this atrocity.

I cannot wrap my head around the numbers that apply to campaign spending. Nor do I have the ability to figure out which of the many proposals for campaign finance reform might actually work. I'm assuming that if I did use my inconsiderable clout to back one such proposal, I'd eventually find out that it was a mere smokescreen for even more dubious financial dealings.

So I've boiled this issue down to the barest elements of what I need to know. I need to know that McCain-Feingold refers to the wildly unpopular 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which in part prohibits political parties from using soft money, the donations raised by political action committees (PACs) and nonprofit political groups (such as 527s). PACs are special interest groups (think the ever-evil "big tobacco"); 527s are organizations created specifically to impact elections (think the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). Hard money, by the way, is a direct donation to a candidate or campaign.

That's all I need to know. That and the fact that candidates spend way too much money buying our votes. Let's see—I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, so let me say up front that these stats are suspect, as is my math—in 2004, around 200 million people were eligible to vote, while about 125 million actually voted. Let's say that 140 million will actually vote this year, it being a year that should bring out lots more voters. Now let's say that half of those people would vote for their party's candidate regardless of who it is, so that whittles the number down to 70 million votes that are actually up for grabs. Oh, and let's figure that this year 10 million people have already decided that they will vote for third-party candidates who don't have any chance of winning and who raised very little money. So...that makes $1 billion divided by 60 million voters.* That means the two major-party candidates will have spent roughly $16 and change for each vote.

That doesn't sound like much, does it? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote is worth a whole lot more than that. In fact, it's priceless. I feel utterly cheapened.

Yes, it costs candidates a lot to get their message out. But not that much. Not $1 billion for one presidential race. Not so much that special interests end up funding the elections and calling the shots and ultimately running our lives. We need a better way to do this.

Among those trying to find a better way are Common Cause ("Holding Power Accountable"), Democracy21, the League of Women Voters, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Democracy Matters, and other groups that offer information on campaign finance reform. They are the ones who get my vote.

*I was an English major. If my calculation is wrong, you do the math.

Technorati Tags: campaign finance reform,political action committee,soft money,hard money,527s,Comon Cause,Democracy 21,League of Women Voters,Public Citizen,Democracy Matters

Political Reform, Lesson 6: Throwing the Bums Out

2008-01-25T22:50:00.000-07:00

The first discussion on the issue of term limits that I recall having was with a political reporter at a newspaper where I once worked. He was such a firm believer in the power of the voting booth that he didn't see the need for term limits. He reasoned that term limits would work unfairly against good representatives and that all we needed to do was vote out the bad legislators. This, of course, was not an original perspective. This is the reasoning many people use in opposing term limits.

That reasoning fails on several counts. Count 1: Without term limits, those good representatives may turn into very bad career politicians. It's not a given, but look at the veteran members of Congress and compare who they are today with who they were when they were first elected. Without naming names—I'm all about keeping this impersonal—I think we could come up with one or two or 200 members of Congress who qualify as career politicians, and very bad ones at that.

Count 2: In a nation of 300 million-plus people, I do think we could scare up some effective representatives to succeed those whose terms have reached their limit. And the departing politicians, if they're all that good and effective, could surely find a way to continue serving the country.

Count 3: The good people of, say, Georgia would love the opportunity to vote out some of their career politicians. But when said politicians are so powerful that they consistently run unopposed, voting them out is not that simple. There are legislators across the land who own their districts; heaven help the candidates who mount viable campaigns opposing them.

Oh, and here's another argument against term limits: By the time a representative learns how the system in Washington (or your state capital) works, it would be time for him or her to go home for good. We need experienced members of Congress and our state legislatures, some people argue.

Counts 4 and 5: I say "Thank God!" to the first part and "Baloney!" to the second. Thank God that maybe one day none of our representatives will know how the system works. The system—politics as it is practiced in America today—is broken, corrupt, and in need of repair. I want representatives who, whether out of ignorance or determination, will pioneer a new way of doing politics. And as to the need for members of Congress with experience, I suggest that the worst kind of experience is that which comes from years, and even decades, of learning to work in a dysfunctional environment without attempting to change that environment. Again I say that in a nation of so many competent people, I do think we can find candidates whose experience outside of politics would serve the country well for a few years.

We imposed term limits on the presidency way back in the 20th century, and many independents and partisans alike feel it's time to do the same with Congress. Public support is as high as it is for the elimination of the electoral college, with more than 75 percent of the people favoring term limits. Some groups would like to impose a two-year limit on all members of Congress, while others have proposed a single, longer term. Citizens for Term Limits proposes one six-year term for senators and three two-year terms for representatives. Other groups include ThrowTheBumsOut.com (“The Independent Journal for Independent Politics”), whose mission is self-evident, as is the mission of the Pennsylvania-based PACleanSweep.com.

Some states and municipalities have already passed term-limit laws. You can find out what's going on in your state by visiting U.S. Term Limits (“Citizen Legislators, Not Career Politicians").

And before you even ask, yes, the independents I know support term limits on independent candidates. We're nothing if not fair.

Technorati Tags: political reform,term limits,career politicians,Citizens for Term Limits,ThrowTheBumsOut.com,PACleanSweep.com,U.S. Term Limits,independents,Congress

Political Reform, Lesson 5: Fusing Two Parties

2008-01-24T22:40:00.001-07:00

Fusion in the political sense of the word is a controversial reform, even among independents. I probably should have saved it for Lesson 20 or so, but it fits in nicely with our recent ballot discussions, so there you go. Lesson 5 it is.

Here's the deal: Fusion allows a candidate to run as a member of two or more "parties," including as an independent. Partisans on the losing end of the deal hate fusion. Some independents don't like it either, because the fusion candidate is often associated with one of the two big, bad parties and because it gives voters fewer choices.

Case in point: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who ran, and won, as a Republican and as a candidate with the Independence Party of New York City in his 2002 election and 2006 re-election. His name appeared in the Republican column and the IPNYC column, and in 2002, the number of votes he received in the IPNYC column gave him the win. Had he run only as a Republican, he would have lost, assuming that the IPNYC votes would have gone to a different candidate chosen by the Independence Party. That "different candidate" would have at least given the voters an additional choice, some independents say.

But fusion has several advantages, not the least of which is its face-saving and conscience-saving value. In Bloomberg's case, independents, IPNYC and other third-party members, uncommitteds, and even a Democrat or two were able to vote for him without embarrassment or guilt; by voting for him as the IPNYC candidate, they could neatly circumvent the horror of voting for a Republican.

A second advantage is this, and again I use the Bloomberg campaign as an example: The Independent Party of New York City did not automatically embrace Bloomberg as its candidate of choice. The IPNYC held the cards; Bloomberg had to listen to independents' concerns, address those concerns, and pledge to make them a priority should he be elected. Only when he did so, to their satisfaction, was he named their candidate.

Partisans hate fusion, and you can see why. Running against the opposing major party's candidate is bad enough, but when that candidate has the official approval of independents and third parties, he or she becomes a much more formidable opponent. Not surprisingly, partisans are at the forefront of efforts to ban fusion in states where the practice is legal and to defeat pro-fusion initiatives in other states.

There you have it. Political fusion. Definitely not sexy, but it can liven up an otherwise ho-hum race.

Technorati Tags: fusion,Independence Party of New York City

Political Reform, Lesson 4: Giving Independents a Fighting Chance

2008-01-23T18:19:00.001-07:00

The independents who most need a fighting chance are the candidates themselves. Even though Ross Perot received 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, he did not garner a single electoral college vote. In addition to the National Popular Vote plan, a number of other efforts would correct some of the problems inherent in the structure of the electoral college.

Here are two such plans that would help give voters more choices by increasing the field of candidates, which always appeals to independents:

Instant Runoff Voting allows voters to rank the candidates in order of preference. The winner would be the candidate who receives the most number 1 votes. If no candidate wins by a majority of number-one votes, the candidate with the fewest number-one votes is eliminated. Votes for him or her are counted toward those voters' number-two choices, and so on until one candidate receives a majority. The votes are tabulated immediately, eliminating the need for a second round of runoff voting. This is also known as rank-order voting, choice voting, or preferential voting.
Approval Voting: Under this plan, you get to vote for as many candidates as you like. If there are five candidates and you like two of them, you simply place check marks by those two names. The winner, of course, is the candidate who receives the most check marks. Not surprisingly, this plan would probably never be used in presidential elections, but a number of municipalities are considering using it in local elections. This simplicity of the plan makes the voting process inexpensive and easy to learn.

Both plans would eliminate both the lesser-of-two-evils dilemma and the spoiler phenomenon, and could quite possibly eliminate the need for primaries.

No electoral college? No primaries? Oh, the possibilities!

Technorati Tags: National Popular Vote,Instant Runoff Voting,Approval Voting,electoral college,primaries,Ross Perot

Political Reform 101, Lesson 3: Making Each Vote Count

2008-01-22T23:58:00.001-07:00

Let's say we, the 75 percent of the American public who want to do away with the electoral college, insist that Congress eliminate said college (see Lesson 2). Let's say that we fail, which we know we will, because Congress simply won't do that in the lifetime of anyone who is alive today. Well, all is not lost. As it turns out, it won't take an act of Congress to make sure each and every vote counts.

Enter the National Vote Plan. Under NPV, the states will work this out on their own, neatly bypassing Congress. States would enter into a compact with each other in which they would agree to have their electors (yes, they'd still be around) vote for the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote. This would avoid the possibility that a candidate could win the popular vote but lose the presidency because of the current structure of the electoral college.

If NPV is a success, candidates would be forced to campaign in every state instead of focusing their attention on the so-called "battleground" states. And individual voters would finally matter.

The proposal is not problem-free, but it can work, and it has the support of legislators of every political persuasion. So far, two states—Maryland and New Jersey—have signed on. That's pretty good for a plan that's been around for just over a year. You can find out more at (where else?) www.nationalpopularvote.com.

Technorati Tags: National Popular Vote,electoral college,Congress

Political Reform, Lesson 2: Graduating from College

2008-01-21T19:01:00.001-07:00

The electoral college, that is. Now before your eyes glaze over and you click on "Next Blog," let me assure you that I'd skip this lesson if I could. But until the U.S. abolishes the electoral college or we find a suitable workaround, we should at least try to understand this bizarre institution we're stuck with, one whose existence makes no sense today.

It barely made sense back when the founding fathers established it. Or maybe I'm overly sensitive to distrust, having been in one too many churches where the leadership didn't trust the parishioners. Because the thing is, the founding fathers didn't trust the electorate. They figured that ordinary people like you and me were subject to manipulation by roving bands of evil candidates, and so they gave voting power to the state rather than to the individual. In so doing, they also gave less-populated states an edge (some say an unfair edge, since each vote in those states counts for more than each vote in highly populated states).

Here's the thing. We are no longer a society in which our exposure to candidates is limited to fliers, newspaper articles, and rare public appearances in our towns. We are so inundated with information about the candidates that a truly sinister presidential wannabe would be sniffed out right away. Even our founding fathers would have to concede that the Internet in particular has contributed to the making of an informed and not-so-gullible electorate (yes, we could argue about that—endlessly, I'm sure—but then we'd be talking about the exceptions and not the rule).

We're stuck with the electoral college, by the way, because history has shown that we're not likely to get rid of it. I had always thought that this discontent with the electoral college was a recent phenomenon, but no. It seems there have been more than 700 attempts to reform or abolish the electoral college through a constitutional amendment, according to the National Archives:

There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject…Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

And independents dislike the electoral college because:

Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system...The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912... He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states.

Okay, enough. Next time, we'll look at some creative ideas for getting around the electoral college.

Technorati Tags: independents,electoral college,third parties,political reform

Political Reform 101, Lesson 1: Getting on the Ballot

2008-01-18T21:25:00.001-07:00

Before I began writing We the Purple, I knew as much about what it takes to get on an election ballot as I knew about the mating habits of bottlenose dolphins.* But as my research led me from independent voters to independent candidates, I began to realize that I had entered into the swampland of U.S. politics for real. "Dirty tricks" doesn't begin to describe the measures used by partisan politicos to keep the names of would-be independent and third-party candidates from ever appearing on a ballot.

This issue is known as ballot access, and it's one that will make your eyes glaze over...until, say, you discover that you can't vote for the candidate of your choice. Sounds utterly un-American, doesn't it? But that's what happened to me in 2004, when I discovered that my ballot did not offer a write-in option in the presidential race. Turns out, election districts are under no obligation to provide such an option. But that's another problem.

Ballot access is a critical issue for independents, because until independent candidates stand a decent shot at political office on any level, we aren't likely to see the other reforms that our political system so obviously needs.

Here are just some of the problems:

Ballot access regulations for independents vary wildly from one state to the next, often include impossible requirements, and are so complex that you have to assume the intention is to keep all but the major party candidates from running.
Voters seldom learn anything about independent candidates because the candidates have had to spend all their time and money meeting ballot requirements instead of talking about the issues.
Stringent ballot access laws limit our choices, contributing to lesser-of-two-evils voting.
Incumbents in many legislative districts go unchallenged because the opposing party simply cedes the seat, and no independent or minor party candidate can meet the strict ballot requirements.

For fun, go to your state's web site and and check out what it takes to get on the ballot for statewide office for anyone other than a major party candidate (they usually just have to file some forms and pay a filing fee). Oh, wait a minute. You probably won't find the information on the web site. You may have to go to the secretary of state's office at your state capital, and hope and pray that the documents you're given are 1) accurate and 2) complete. Don't be surprised if they're neither.

Oh, democracy!

Forget all that. You can find the best information anywhere on the issue of ballot access on Richard Winger's Ballot Access web site. Just be prepared to become sickened, angry, and enlightened, in whatever order your nature normally responds to new and perverse information.

* Bottlenose mating involves a conspiracy of love-struck males and a pod of immobilized females. That's all I know, and that's all I want to know.

Technorati Tags: ballot access,Richard Winger,independents,third-party candidates,political reform

Sex, Sleep, and Political Reform

2008-01-17T23:19:00.001-07:00

Over the summer of 2007, when I was working on the manuscript for We the Purple (which releases in March), I spent an inordinate amount of time researching, and trying like the dickens to sex up, the political reform issues that most independent voters agree on.

To me, this is one of our greatest strengths as a movement. Indies come from across the political spectrum, and when it comes to candidates and broader issues like immigration, health care, and the military, we don't always agree. But when it comes to reforming the political system, we're on board with each other.

Getting the non-activist segment of the electorate to care about just-shoot-me topics like redistricting is a daunting task. In my book, I launch into a discussion of one such issue by calling it a bedtime story. Seriously, if you don't approach issues like this with a measure of humor, and sex if you can manage to weave that in somehow, well, you'll just put your audience to sleep.

Mind you, I finished We the Purple in August. Imagine my surprise when I opened the latest issue of The Neo-Independent and saw this snippet from an editorial about political reform issues by executive editor Jackie Salit:

Oh no, you may be thinking. Not that again! Of course we need political reform - everyone knows that. But these issues just aren't sexy! They have no glamour, no drama, no emotion. Political reform is dry. It's not like money, sex and war, which excite our passions and compel our senses. Let's be frank. Political reform? It's a snore.

We're definitely on the same page, no? Anyway, for the next few posts, I'll be looking at some of what I consider to be the most important reforms. I promise I'll do my best to make it sexy and exciting and irreverent and maybe even funny. We'll see. Check in next time for the first session of Political Reform 101.

The Evangelical Vote? It's Not That Simple

2008-01-16T23:53:00.001-07:00

And that's what I keep hammering away at—in a non-injurious, gracious, and ever-so-lighthearted way. There is no evangelical vote, just evangelicals who vote. Though it seems as if evangelicals vote with one voice, they don't. In the past, that perception was certainly a more accurate one, but even then evangelicals were not of one accord when it came to choosing a president.

Christianity Today understands that and would really, really appreciate it if the media and the American public would do the same. In an editorial titled What We Really Want, the writer puts it this way:

...Evangelicalism doesn't function like an AFL-CIO, granting endorsements and delivering votes on election day. There isn't an evangelical vote. We are not some pious voting bloc up for grabs. Regardless of how pollsters might pigeonhole us, evangelicals come from across a broad spectrum of society—pragmatic, purist, and in-between.

And, I might add, from a broad spectrum of political ideologies, ultra liberal on some issues to ultra conservative on others and in-between on still others. The editorial reminds readers of the seven core commitments established by the National Association of Evangelicals in 2004: freedom of religion and conscience; protection for families and children; protection of all human life; compassion and justice for poor people; global human rights; the pursuit of peace and restraint of violence; and biblically based creation care. I read a blog recently in which a commenter asked just where are these evangelicals who care about peace, justice, the poor and the environment. I could have provided names and addresses, but the tone of the post was such that I knew I'd just get sucked into a never-ending series of email exchanges with someone whose mind was made up, and that was that.

The CT editorial brings up a number of important issues that evangelicals would like to see addressed while the pundits are busy pondering whether Barack is black enough or Hillary is warm enough. It ends thusly:

So, candidates, beware of that raised hand at the next town meeting. It may be connected to an activist evangelical who wants some honest answers about the substantive issues that face our nation.

We can only hope.

Technorati Tags: Evangelicals,National Association of Evangelicals,Christianity Today

Kucinich's Short-Lived Victory

2008-01-15T20:06:00.001-07:00

As I write this, I'm watching tonight's Democratic debate to see whether NBC will address the lawsuit Dennis Kucinich's campaign filed after Kucinich was uninvited to said debate. So far, nothing.

For a brief refresher, Kucinich was told he qualified to participate in the debate and was formally invited to do so. Then, he was abruptly disinvited. His campaign filed the lawsuit, and on Monday (January 14) a state judge in Nevada, where the debate is being held, ruled that either Kucinich be allowed to participate or the judge would stop the event.

When I heard that, I was absolutely elated. Not because I'm a Kucinich supporter (am I? am I not? who knows?) but because I am a diehard supporter of open and fair debates. Alas, my elation, and Kucinich's victory, were both short-lived. Today, a state supreme court judge overruled the district court judge, and Kucinich was left out in the desert. You can read about it here.

That brings me to the real issue: those elusive "open and fair" debates. Maybe I carry that concept to an extreme. See, I think an open and fair debate doesn't just depend on the inclusion of certain candidates. Yes, I want Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter included in the debates because they succeed in bringing up important issues even when the moderator fails to ask about those issues.

But I want more when it comes to openness and fairness. I want the consultants and handlers and script writers to fade into the background, forcing the candidates to come out into the open to offer their unrehearsed, straight-from-the-gut responses to questions they didn't get to see in advance. I'd like the moderators to ask some real zingers and follow up when the candidate fails to clearly answer said zingers.

I think that would only be fair. And open.

Technorati Tags: Dennis Kucinich,Debates

Hillary's Win in New Hampshire

2008-01-14T16:18:00.001-07:00

I admit it: I was among those who were taken by surprise when Hillary Clinton won the NH Democratic primary. Given the fact that independents generally dislike the old school partisanship that Hillary Clinton represents, that NH independents in particular had experienced several favorable encounters with the Barack Obama camp in recent months, that by contrast Clinton pretty much dissed them, and that independents comprise 44 percent of the electorate in NH, an Obama win seemed like a sure thing. You could accurately call me confused when the results came in.

Then the ever-astute Jackie Salit of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) cleared up my confusion, as she often does, this time in an analysis of the NH primary posted on the CUIP website. Reminding us that independents in NH get to choose whether to vote in the Republican Party primary or the Democratic Party primary, Salit offers this:

The CNN exit polling indicates that Obama got 41% of the independent vote and Hillary 34%. That would mean Obama got the votes of about 50,000 independents and Hillary got about 41,000. Extending this on the RP side, exit polling says McCain got 39% of indies, which would put his total independent vote close to 32,000.

Obama suffered as a result of McCain's independent draw. Polling originally anticipated that 67% to 70% of independents/undeclared would choose Democratic ballots. Obama would have been the beneficiary of that. But McCain succeeded in pulling enough independents out of the DP equation to grab a win for himself as 60% of independents chose to vote DP yesterday, lower than originally expected. Current numbers indicate that Clinton beat Obama by 7,500 votes. That means that if roughly 1-in-4 McCain independents had voted for Obama instead, Obama would have been able to close the gap with Clinton.

Salit goes on to analyze the female vote, speculating that Obama may have received more votes from independent women than Democratic women. That wouldn't surprise me at all; the female independents I know generally favor Obama over Clinton.

The McCain Factor is a fascinating one, really. Maybe independents' well-known opposition to the war in Iraq has tempered a bit, but I doubt it. Maybe his pro-war stance has become of secondary importance in the context of everything else he represents. I don't know. But I do know this: if McCain's popularity in NH can be credited with contributing to Clinton's NH win, we've got some wild ride ahead of us.

Obama's Appeal to Iowa (and Other) Independents

2008-01-04T10:23:00.000-07:00

The proof is finally in: independents prefer Obama over Clinton. We already knew that, didn't we? But Iowa proved it, with those independents participating in the Democratic caucus choosing Obama 2 to 1 over Clinton.

One reason for Obama's appeal to independents is, of course, his transpartisan perspective. He's not just willing to cross major-party lines to get things done; he's also willing to bring third parties and independents into the mix. But there's an even stronger reason for independents' support of Obama: instead of just reaching out to us for our votes, he listens to us and seeks our input. By contrast, Clinton treats us as if we're an annoying but necessary evil. She doesn't understand us at all.

Anyway, our good friend E.J. Dionne Jr., in an op-ed piece ("A Whiff of Revolution from Iowa") in today's Washington Post, offers his always spot-on analysis of the Iowa caucus. For independents or anyone who wants to understand their impact on yesterday's vote, it's a must read.

But let's move on to his take on the upcoming New Hampshire primary, from the same article:

Tuesday's New Hampshire primary will have a much larger turnout, and independents -- roughly 40 percent of the potential electorate -- will play a far greater role than they did in Iowa. Until recently, it appeared that independents, who are on the whole alienated from President Bush and his party, would vote in large numbers in this state's Democratic primary, as they did in the Iowa caucuses. This would benefit Obama...[who in NH]was drawing 46 percent of his support from independents, while Clinton drew 33 percent of her backing from voters who did not declare a party affiliation. By coming into New Hampshire strong, Obama may keep independents on the Democratic side. This could hurt McCain, who leans far more heavily on independents than Romney does.

...Democrats, particularly Obama, are fighting for the middle ground and the independents, while Republicans are largely talking to each other.

The Iowa results, especialling Clinton's third-place showing, Giuliani's barely-there outcome, Huckabee's win, and Ron Paul's strong-for-him placement, may help energize us a bit and help us overcome the election fatigue that started to set in, oh, at least six months ago.

Clinton Doesn't Get It

2007-12-28T13:38:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton that is. Not Hillary. She doesn't seem to get it either, but that's fodder for another post.

Proof that the former president doesn't get independent voters is apparent in this snippet from an interview with him that appeared in the Concord (N.H.) Monitor on Dec. 21:

"I think independents are absolutely pivotal to our political system," [Bill Clinton] said. "But they don't like politics; that's why they're independents. So to them, you become polarizing if someone else attacks you."

Let's break down his quote sentence by sentence.

"I think independents are absolutely pivotal to our political system." He gets it! He really gets it! This part, anyway.

"But they don't like politics; that's why they're independents." Um, no. Many independents are politically zealous. What they—we—don't like is rabid partisan politics and politics as usual. I'll give him a partial pass on this one, because it's possible that's what he meant.

"So to them, you become polarizing if someone else attacks you." No, no, no. If that was true, we'd consider nearly every politician—partisan or independent—to be polarizing, since most of them are targets for attacks. It's not being attacked but doing the attacking that is polarizing. Otherwise, we'd be guilty of blaming the victim.

In a subsequent issue of the Monitor, Donna Lee Richards, an independent voter from Nashua, N.H., provided this response to Clinton in a letter to the editor:

Independents do not label themselves as belonging to a political party. This does not mean that they are not interested, informed or involved in politics and government. This simply means that they do not limit their views, issues or votes to those favored by one political party...We are not snoozing between presidential elections only to be woken and wooed by candidates, returning to our slumber in between because we "don't like politics."

Actually, I do most of my political snoozing during our seemingly interminable presidential elections. Or at the very least, I want to.

Many independent voters are interested, informed, and involved. We do not limit our views, issues, and votes to those favored by one political party. Donna Lee Richards gets it. If our elected officials and candidates—and the population in general—understood what Richards understands, they'd realize what a formidable constituency independent voters are.

And the Winners Are...

2007-12-26T20:48:00.000-07:00

...Democrat Dennis Kucinich, Reublican Ron Paul, and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney (if you just wondered "Who??", you're not alone---she's not well-known outside the Greens). They were the high vote-getters in the online Independent Primary, in which 106,645 votes were cast. (See my previous post for details on the primary.)

What was most interesting to me was that in none of the races was there a close runner-up. Kucinich scooped up 76% of the 80,153 Democratic votes that were cast; John Edwards, the number 2 vote-getter, only received 9%. The results were even more striking in the GOP column. Of the 25,269 votes cast for Republican candidates, Ron Paul captured 93%; Mike Huckabee came in a very distant second with 1.8% of the vote. McKinney captured 80% of the 314 Green Party votes; Jared Ball** (again you ask, "Who??") was the runner-up, also with 1.8% of the vote. Just over 900 voters, by the way, selected "none of the above."

You can see the entire results here.

*Cynthia and **Jared, just so you know:

Is There Really an Evangelical Voting Bloc?

2007-12-06T22:10:00.000-07:00

There was at one time, but there is no such entity anymore. We started to see a serious departure from the evangelical allegiance to the Republican Party in the '06 midterms, and I suspect we'll see more of the same in '08. Rick Warren, he of The Purpose Driven Life, offered Newsweek his take on evangelicals' past support of presidential candidates:

Evangelicals tend to vote for people who claim to be born again. Every president back to Carter—Bush One didn't make a big deal about it, but he would say that. What do all those guys have in common? Nothing, except that all six of them were, quote, "born again." It didn't matter whether they were Republican or Democrat.

He's right. I knew plenty of evangelicals who voted for Carter the Democrat simply on the strength of his claim to be born again; Ford the Republican never made any such claim, and he lost to Carter. Since then, every successful candidate has made that claim. The difference today, I think, is that many evangelicals feel that the born-again label has been so abused and so misused that it's become meaningless, especially among politicians trying to curry favor with this alleged voting bloc. It's gotten to the point where evangelicals may have to develop a rating system if they're going to vote solely on born-again status, a kind of spectrum from least born again to more born again to much more born again to really, really born again to absolutely, positively most born again.

Or we could all simply vote for the best person for the job. Just a thought.

More on IndependentPrimary.com

2007-12-03T23:08:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I posted a piece about IndependentPrimary.com, an effort by political activists to enable independent voters---who are often shut out of the taxpayer-supported primary process---to have a say in the presidential primaries. I just learned that voting closes on December 18, so if you want to make sure your voice is heard, you'll have to vote soon.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think an effort of this type will be effective, and if so, how will it be effective?

A Primary for Independents!

2007-12-02T19:43:00.000-07:00

Can you tell I'm excited about this? I, a bona fide independent, can vote in a primary without registering with either major party, and I can do it from the warmth and comfort of my own home. So can you! Okay, so maybe it doesn't actually count or anything, but you've got to admire the independent minds* that thought this up.

Here's the deal: You go to independentprimary.com and vote for one of 16 current presidential candidates (eight Democrats and eight Republicans). You can only vote for one, of course, or you can select "None of the Candidates." Only then do you register to vote (talk about rebellious!) by entering your name, email address, and zip code. Hit "Submit," and your vote is counted. You can only vote once. Well, once per email address, but you wouldn't vote multiples times under a slew of different email addresses, would you? Another option, by the way, is to click on "I've Already Voted; Skip This Page." That's what I did, even though I hadn't voted and even though I know and trust the creators of the site. Still, I wanted to know more before I voted.

So here's the point: Obviously, your vote doesn't count in any legal sense, but there's a lot to be said about giving independents a voice in the primary process. Imagine what would happen if independents—whom the major parties know are pivotal to their success—voted overwhelmingly for, say, Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul. That would give the Hillary-Barack and Rudy-Mitt contingents pause, if nothing else.

But that's just me talking. The folks at Independent Primary say they created the site to:

...establish and measure the power and impact of independent-minded voters on the presidential election.

We are part of a movement bringing together ordinary Americans who think that the good of the country is more important than the good of the political parties.

Frustrated by the lack of genuine and inclusive dialogue about the issues that are critical to the future of our nation, Independent Primary is uniting independent-minded Americans into an organized force to challenge the partisanship and special interest control of policy-making which is endangering our democracy.

We are committed to find a new way of doing politics that is free from the domination of big money, political party bosses and the corporate-owned media.

Sounds good to me. I do think this is an effort worth participating in. And hey, you don't even have to leave home. No effort at all.

* That would be the fine people at IndependentVoice.Org, Independent Texans, Committee for an Independent Voice New Hampshire, and the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.

Power to the People vs Give Peace a Chance

2007-11-30T21:49:00.001-07:00

The hippie in me can't help but love this video. If only Mike Gravel, and peace, had a chance.

Daily Show Writers on the Writers' Strike

2007-11-30T01:18:00.000-07:00

So here I am, a viewer who relies on The Daily Show for political news*, and a writer who relies on corporations for a living wage**. What to do? I can't exactly protest the comedy writers' protest, but still. I do miss JonStephen.

Oh, I get it. That can be my excuse for not blogging lo these many weeks. I'm expressing my solidarity with the striking writers. That's it.

* Not really.
** I wish.

Time to Graduate

2007-10-22T23:53:00.000-06:00

Mike Garibaldi Frick over at The Huffington Post thinks it's time we eliminate the Electoral College:

There is no use for the archaic Electoral system in our modern, mass communication driven, interconnected world. U.S. citizens think and vote on a more regional and national level now. It's time to elect the President and Vice President of the United States by direct, popular vote. Or, at least, alter the way electoral votes are delegated.

I couldn't agree more. In We the Purple, I let my fairly strong opinions on the matter be known to one and all. It's antiquated, it's ill-suited for today's society, and it's downright bizarre. Clear enough?

Read and Recoil

2007-10-21T22:22:00.000-06:00

Back when I was in a controlling, legalistic, our-way-is-the-only-way church, guilt by association was a typical charge made against wayward members like me. We were branded as drunkards if we went out to lunch with co-workers who partook of the occasional adult beverage. Hanging out with "unbelievers" (quotes very intentional) threatened the future of our eternal souls. And befriending a homosexual? Heaven forfend! We would surely begin to look with lust upon every member of our own gender.

This is the kind of stuff that drove many of us from many a church, and it's also the kind of stuff that is driving many of us from many a political party. It's downright embarrassing to associate with people who cast aspersions on others just because of the people they associate with. (Those "aspersions" exist only in the eyes of those doing the casting, of course; their intention is to slander others even though those others haven't done anything worthy of slander.) Dave Schraub of The Debate Link is among those who gets it; he fully understands that aspect of politically independent thinking (or "independentism," my newly coined shorthand):

Elsewhere in Virginia, Republican leaders have been scrambling to handle two rogue lawmakers in their caucus who are accusing the state Democrats of ties to terrorism because of their relationship with some local Muslim community organizations. It's a low political slam, and one most observers think will backfire, but also the type of attack that resonates with the die-hards. The folks who come out to vote in Republican primaries eat that stuff up, but the independent voters who are becoming more and more important in Virginia read that sort of thing and just recoil.

Read and recoil for sure. I'd like to believe that some of the folks who vote in Republican primaries also recoil at that kind of behavior, which insults the intelligence of voters, embarrasses many of the party faithful, says God knows what about Democrats and Muslim community organizations, and smacks of McCarthyism to boot. Rogue lawmakers, indeed. The kind who need to get the boot themselves.

Get It Straight by 2008

2007-10-11T23:51:00.000-06:00

Not much time to blog tonight, but I want to make sure you all know about the effort by Common Cause to unblock the Holt bill, which would require that a paper trail back up each and every electronic vote in the 2008 presidential election. As you may recall, thousands of votes were lost in 2006 due to voting-machine malfunction. The effort is called Get It Straight by 2008. This is a genuinely nonpartisan effort---one that we all can get behind. Common Cause is doing the heavy lifting on this; they're just asking for our support.

Why Independents Need to Vote*

2007-10-07T21:17:00.000-06:00

Being as far behind on my blog-reading as I am, I managed to miss this gem from Art Clarke, a.k.a. The Man Behind Running Naked, which he posted last month.

*First, I must issue a disclaimer: I believe that everyone has the right not to vote. In my younger years I would sit out the occasional election because I could not bring myself to vote for a so-so candidate only to make a statement against a candidate I really, really didn't like at all. And I sat out elections because participating made me feel corrupt.

These days, though, I do vote, and Clarke makes a convincing argument for why independents should continue:

If you are a Purple Voter, always vote in every primary election! Especially the small ones...

You might not think it matters, but the people we vote for in primaries are very influential. They choose the rosters of candidates that we’re presented with for many higher offices. They form the staff of national campaigns. They are listened to by the national parties when drafting policies, candidates and platforms.

Somehow in America many purple voters (like me) believe that if the candidate they voted for didn’t win then their vote didn’t count. And often in primary elections today, the middle ground (purple) candidate loses. But our votes do matter; politics, like business, runs on a market economy. Only in politics, votes are the currency. The mere fact that someone got our vote will cause other politicians to veer in our direction to try to woo us the next time we spend our vote (see how John Kerry veered left in 2004 to try to recapture the voters that went for Nader in 2000).

Good advice, especially for independents who are less politically active and think that primaries or local elections don't count for much. If you think your vote counts only if your candidate wins, you probably don't have much incentive to cast a ballot for someone unlikely to win, like an independent or third-party candidate. But as Clarke points out, the major-party candidates are starting to pay attention to our voting habits. Maybe your vote is doing nothing more than sending a message, but Washington is starting to get that message.

Dream On

2007-10-03T20:30:00.000-06:00

Though sometimes I sound as if I can, I know I can't speak for all independent voters. Honest. So let's just say that I think I can speak for some of the independent voters I know personally, the ones that have let their opinions be known. And I can assure you that they got a major chuckle out of this snippet from an article yesterday in The New York Times about New Hampshire independents:

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said they viewed the wave of independent voters as the single biggest obstacle to her winning a state where she routinely draws big crowds and where polls otherwise show her running strong...

Her state campaign manager, Nick Clemons, said that in the end a substantial number of independents would rally around Mrs. Clinton.

Maybe Mr. Clemons, as the Times would call him, is right. Maybe independents in New Hampshire will take leave of their senses and suddenly support the candidate who best represents politics as usual in D.C. Maybe they will forgive said candidate for virtually ignoring a question about independent voters' rights during at a campaign event---in New Hampshire, no less. Maybe they'll also overlook her ongoing disdain for independent and third-party candidates and voters.

Maybe I'm wrong this time. Maybe, as Mr. Clemons later implied, independents want change so much that they'll naturally vote for the Democratic nominee, which he has decided will be Hillary Clinton.

Let me know what you think: Will independents rally 'round an anti-independent candidate? I think you can tell what I think.

More Secrecy, Please

2007-09-30T21:03:00.000-06:00

Our friends over at Salon posted an intriguing story today about a secretive meeting at which conservative religious leaders explored the possibility of supporting a third-party candidate should Giuliani nail the GOP nomination. An unnamed person "familiar with the proceedings" at the Saturday meeting in Salt Lake City said that James Dobson---who has made it clear he will not support any nominee who, like Giuliani, supports abortion---and other evangelicals were joined by Constitution Party chairman James Clymer. Now that's an intriguing ingredient to add to the mix.

Dobson has nowhere near the influence today that he had in the last millennium, but still, this development could shake things up even more for '08.

Actually, I hope more clandestine meetings are held in the run-up to the election. I was nearly numb with boredom thanks to this excruciatingly long political season, when along came Dobson and his colleagues on the Council for National Policy (which Salon describes as a "powerful shadow group") to stir me from my drowsy state. Hibernating like the black bears who frequent my yard was looking to be a mighty appealing way to spend the winter; I'd just get someone to wake me when the primaries are over, you know? But now, well, the prospects of reading about other backroom deals may help keep me awake and alert through the long and dark months to come.

I can only hope.

Oh, and if you're a Salon skeptic, the conservative news site WorldNetDaily also posted a story on the meeting and its outcome. Good luck accessing it, though; the site has apparently been swamped with attempts to read the story, and I was among those shut out.

Is a Third Party the Answer?

2007-09-26T23:27:00.000-06:00

The Constitution Party believes it is. Responding to the same Zogby poll I mentioned earlier in the week, the conservative political party issued a press release in which party chairman Jim Clymer made these statements:

Americans have lost faith in the two parties that have a stranglehold on this country...The massive defections from both parties (www.rasmussenreports.com) coupled with the phenomenal growth of the Constitution Party (up 40% since 2004) should surprise no one. The winds of political change are blowing at gale force and by November, 2008 we’ll be in the midst of a Category 5 hurricane...

More Americans realize a third party candidate is going to be the ticket out of this mess.

I don't know. I'm not a party person at all. But what do you think? Do you believe a third-party candidate stands a chance in '08? What about the chances of an independent candidate rather than a third-party candidate? What would it take to break what Clymer calls the two-party "stranglehold"?

Beware the Cranky Electorate!

2007-09-23T21:54:00.000-06:00

Peter Callaghan of The News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington, says we American voters are in a "foul and ugly mood," or rather, he reports on pollster John Zogby's findings to that effect. Here are several tidbits from his article, which is worth reading in its entirety:

The next president...will be the person voters think will redefine the federal government’s role.

Is this good news for Democrats? Maybe. His most recent poll showed that only 29 percent gave President Bush positive ratings, but Congress – controlled by Democrats – got just 11 percent. To put that in perspective, Zogby said 16 percent of Americans gave O.J. Simpson positive ratings in 1994.

You have to wonder how O.J. is polling along about now. But back to Zogby:

So Americans are as disgusted with Democrats as they are with Republicans for viewing every issue through a partisan lens. They want the parties to solve problems together, which is the opposite of what’s happening.

This is exactly what the best and the brightest bloggers out there have been saying for years. Solving problems---that's our agenda. Not making sure our party of choice is in power. Cranky? In a foul and ugly mood? You bet!

Bill Richardson answers The Rock The Debates Question

2007-09-22T00:03:00.001-06:00

Rock the Debates

2007-09-21T23:54:00.000-06:00

Rock the Debates, a nonpartisan effort to open the presidential debates to all viable candidates, including independents and third-party candidates, offers some telling videos of the frontrunners responding to a question about their opinion of open debates. A visit to the site, and watching the videos they've posted so far, is well worth your time of you're as frustrated as I am at the major parties' efforts to exclude the candidates they don't like.

Here's an Unexpected Question...

2007-09-19T22:18:00.000-06:00

...for all you independents. Most of us are independent voters because of our disenchantment with the two major political parties. It's easy for us to rattle off all the ways that the parties have corrupted the political process. But here's a challenging question for you: What signs of positive change have you seen recently in either of the major parties? And another one: What are the parties or the presidential candidates doing to effectively appeal to independents?

Are there any signs of hope on the horizon? I'd love to get a discussion going on this topic.

It Is Finished. Thank You!

2007-09-17T23:35:00.000-06:00

Thunderous drumroll, blaring trumpets, a choir of a thousand voices---I want it all! Yes, We the Purple: Faith, Politics, and the Independent Voter is finished. Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who agreed to be interviewed and provided such terrific input. I am grateful to each and every one of you for making this a better book than I ever could have produced on my own.

When I say "finished," of course, I don't really mean finished. I mean that I've turned the manuscript in to the publisher (go Tyndale!), and the publisher has given it a thumbs-up. Actually, a hearty thumbs-up, but I'm not one to boast. So now it goes through several rounds of editing. It's scheduled for release in March.

I have at least a ton---okay, many, many gigabytes---of research that didn't make it into the book. Now that I have the time, I'll be posting a lot of that stuff here. I moved halfway across the country while I was working on the book, which seriously interfered with things like blogging and eating and sleeping and breathing normally. Now I'm blissfully kicking back and enjoying life once again. I can blog and eat and sleep and breathe normally, and even knit and read and cook up a Daisy Martinez meal once in a while.

Life is good, my friends.

Desperately Seeking Younger Independents

2007-06-12T10:31:00.000-06:00

Yes, I know, it's been nearly two months since my last post, and here I am begging. You really don't want to hear about my cross-country move, full-time caregiving stint, technological problems, or the myriad other complications in my life, do you? Good. I'll forgo giving you the details.

Now to my request: I really need to hear from younger independent voters ("younger" meaning 35 and under). I know you're out there; every stat and poll indicates that more and more young people are registering as independents due to their disenchantment with partisan politics. Let me hear from you, okay? I've interviewed dozens of independents for my book We the Purple: Faith, Politics, and the Independent Voter, but so far I haven't connected with any younger voters. It's okay if you're registered with a major party in order to vote in the primaries, as long as you consider yourself to be independent. Also, I'm including third-party voters as well; as far as I'm concerned, we're kindred spirits in our efforts to bring about political reform.

If you'd like to be interviewed for the book, email me ASAP at ford2200@bellsouth.net.

Virginia Tech

2007-04-17T21:40:00.000-06:00

As I wrote on my other blog, it's been hard for me to write about anything over the past two days other than the Blacksburg massacre. And I have nothing, really, to say—no new insights, no great wisdom, no fresh perspective. Just a reminder to continue to keep everyone affected by this tragedy in your prayers; the reality is probably just now beginning to set in. It's incredibly sad.

Let's Find a Better Yardstick

2007-04-13T07:30:00.000-06:00

Dan Panorama, aka Benjy Sarlin, posted this yesterday on The Purple State ("Political Commentary from the Youth Vote"):

I really hate the old “gallon of milk” test. Why should someone who’s been a major politician the last fifteen years know the cost of milk or bread offhand? Do we expect him to be taking care of his food shopping; is that a major qualification for office? I don’t care whether or not the guy is buying his own groceries or carefully reading the receipts for them, he definitely won’t be if we elect him president.

He's referring to Giuliani, but the same litmus test has been used for decades to gauge whether a politician is in touch with the everyday lives of the average American. The first time or two a reporter (I wonder who was the first?) asked the question, I thought it was pretty clever and felt rather smug each time a politician stumbled over the answer. That was then. The question has since become tiresome and irrelevant.

Frankly, I don't care whether national-level politicians know the cost of a gallon of milk. Many of them don't live in our reality, but then, we don't live in theirs, either. I don't know how to get us out of the mess we've made in Iraq; give me a leader who does. We need that leader in the White House and not in the grocery store.

Oh...I Don't Know

2007-04-10T21:34:00.000-06:00

This is one of those political issues that I need to hear a variety of opinions on: same-day voter registration. The ability to register to vote on Election Day has become one of those political hot buttons, with one side claiming that it increases the likelihood of voter participation and the other claiming that it increases the likelihood of voter fraud.

Call me crazy, but I have this long-held, take-to-my-grave belief that there are more than two sides to every issue. And I like hearing lots of different perspectives. I'd love to hear what you think about same-day voter registration—especially if you're from Minnesota, whose residents have had the freedom to register on Election Day for decades.

Here's a thought-provoking editorial from Bob Fenske, editor of the Forest City Summit in Iowa, a state that just approved same-day registration. He offers one of what I'm sure are many reasonable perspectives on the issue. Let me hear yours!

Let's See If This Works

2007-04-09T21:52:00.000-06:00

Being the chronic news junkie I am and always will be, I'm testing out Blogger's Newsreel feature above. The jury's out. Let me know what you think.