Credit: SCPR.org

SACRAMENTO – Senate and Assembly Republicans today introduced Governor Brown’s pension reform legislation, and called upon Democrats in the Legislature to work with them across party lines to enact the Governor’s reforms.

“Republicans believe that the Governor should have an up-or-down vote on his pension reform plan,” said Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, of Diamond Bar. “While we have heard Democrats give lip service about supporting his plan, none of their Members have committed to supporting it, or even carrying it. That’s why today Republicans are introducing the Governor’s pension reforms as legislation. We have not changed one comma, one period or one word. This is his plan as he wrote it, and we will stand with him to see it passed.”

“Governor Brown’s pension reform plan represents the first step of the changes that must be enacted to get our runaway pension system under control,” said Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway, of Tulare. “We are committed to working across party lines to pass the Governor’s plan. At the same time, Republicans will also propose a number of other vital reforms to end the abuse of the system, bring public employee pensions in line with those in the private sector and preserve fair retirements for government workers.”

Previous studies from independent, nonpartisan sources have estimated California’s total ongoing unfunded state pension obligations to be as high as $500 billion, and the problem is growing worse by the day.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 (Huff), Senate Bill 1176 (Huff), Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 (Smyth), and Assembly Bill (bill # pending) (Smyth) would enact the 12-point pension reform plan outlined by Governor Brown last fall. The language in the bill is the identical legislative language as crafted by the Brown Administration.

Legislative Republicans have called the Governor’s pension reform plan the start of the changes that must be made to fix California’s broken pension system and protect vital funding for core priorities now and in the future. GOP lawmakers also plan to introduce other reforms this session that will bring state pensions more in line with what most Californians who work in the private sector are offered, and reduce ongoing costs to taxpayers.

In a recent poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, 83 percent of Californians said the amount of government spending on pensions is a problem.

“The people of California are demanding that the Legislature and the Governor enact pension reform,” said Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, who is carrying the Governor’s reform plan in the Assembly. “Today, Republicans are listening to the voices of the people, joining together to support the Governor’s 12-point pension plan and enact the type of public pension reforms that Californians overwhelmingly support.”

“As a member of the pension reform conference committee, I’ve remained hopeful that the committee would move forward with the governor’s modest reforms,” said Senator Mimi Walters, R-Irvine, a member of the joint legislative conference committee on pension reform. “However, the persistence of special interests to derail any serious efforts to fix our massively underfunded pension systems is hampering any significant progress. That is why it is imperative that we act now and entreat our Democrat colleagues to work with us.”

“We have heard some Democrats talk about the drive for pension reform as being anti-worker. Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Assemblyman Jim Silva, R-Huntington Beach, a member of the joint legislative conference committee on pension reform. “The Governor’s pension reform plan and reforms proposed by Republicans are about fairness—fairness to taxpayers and fair retirements for employees.”

Assemblywoman Connie ConwayIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

IVN LIVE: We will be live-tweeting the CNN/Arizona Republican Party Debate tonight starting at 5pm PST, 7pm CST, and 8pm EST. You can follow our tweets at @IVNetwork and use the hashtag #4yourself to join in! And of course, we will be bringing you full coverage of the debate in tomorrow’s Presidential Election Update. 

The Final Four (Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, and Paul) face-off tonight in the last Republican Debate before Super Tuesday. Illustration by DonkeyHotey via Flickr/Special to The Politics Blog.

After a three week hiatus, the Republican Presidential Debates are back! And while this will mark the 20th debate this election season, here are a few reasons why this one matters: 

1) Santorum’s Sweep: This will be the first joint appearance of the four candidates since Rick Santorum’s multiple victories earlier this month. While his sweep on February 7 resulted in no secured delegates, the symbolic win has resulted in rising numbers in the polls, and he has come in first in the last 8 National polls. Santorum’s emerging position as a front runner makes this debate especially important for him, and especially threatening for Mitt Romney.

2) Super Tuesday: The CNN debate scheduled for March 1 in Georgia was cancelled last week after Romney and Paul declined their invitations. Due to the cancellation, tonight’s event will be the last chance for candidates to debate before the primaries on March 6.

3) Who’s on top: Because of the competitive nature of the Republican Primary race, tonight’s debate will be critical for all candidates, who have each had their ups and downs in this fluctuating race. Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer notes: “Everybody’s been on top, and everybody’s been on bottom. Now we’ve got to determine exactly who is going to be the candidate, so I think this will probably be one of the best-watched debates that we’ve seen.”

What to expect from the candidates: 

Rick Santorum: After referring to President Obama’s faith as “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible,” we can expect to see a defense of this statement from Santorum tonight. He has already come out defending himself and has blamed the media for “nitpicking.” Furthermore, his campaign has started using the comment as part of their campaign strategy to portray Santorum as an authentically conservative candidate. Hours before his “theology” remark, Santorum said:

“People are looking for someone who doesn’t read off a teleprompter; that actually tells you what they believe, and can do so with some consistency.”

Newt Gingrich: Hanging on by a thread, Gingrich’s campaign has shifted focus away from Romney attacks and is now targeting Barack Obama, calling him the “most dangerous president in modern American history.” Adopting the new slogan “Let Newt be Newt,” his top advisors are encouraging him to be himself in tonight’s debate, stating that “to some extent, we didn’t let Newt be Newt in [previous] debates.” With most of the attention geared towards Santorum and Romney, tonight’s event gives Gingrich the opportunity to push his agenda, unscathed by the back-and-forth attacks that muted his character in the last two debates.

Mitt Romney: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is expected to turn his attention to Rick Santorum tonight, who is beating him in the latest polls from Gallup, Rasmussen Reports, and Pew Research. Romney is also trailing in his native-state of Michigan, whose February 28th primary may be critical to the future of his campaign. We expect to see much of tonight’s debate focused towards Mitt Romney, as Republican voters are still unconvinced of his electability against President Obama.

Ron Paul: A new Des Moines Register poll distinguishes Ron Paul as the only candidate safely beating President Obama in Iowa, a state that is not only a swing state, but also critical to Obama’s re-election. These numbers indicate that while Paul remains the “back-runner” in this election, his support is still strong, a characteristic that Paul hopes will help raise money in his two fundraisers today. After tonight’s debate, Paul will be speaking at New Life Bible Church.

Jane SusskindIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

Photo: Gawker.com

Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for supporters of Proposition 8, told Metro Weekly on Tuesday that proponents of the controversial ballot initiative would be seeking an en banc review by the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled earlier this month that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Despite fierce opposition and garnering national attention, the controversial California initiative was passed by voters in 2008, defining marriage in California as between one man and one woman. Since then, the legislation has had a bumpy ride through the courts, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on February 7, 2012 via a three-judge panel that the law is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Now proponents of the law are seeking a full review of the case in the Ninth Circuit by an 11-judge panel.

As the two sides continue to fight the battle over Prop 8 in the courts, both groups appear to be playing a game of cat and mouse, trying to avoid settling the matter in the Supreme Court where the issue of gay marriage might be federalized– and settled differently than each side wants. Both groups seem to want to keep the issue local, which makes the legal fight an interesting one to watch. Legal commentators were surprised that proponents of the initiative didn’t simply appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. Winning an en banc review by an 11-judge panel will be the first hurdle.  Then, if the appeal makes it that far, Prop 8′s proponents will have to actually win a case they’ve already lost twice in court at the District and Appellate levels.

Going this route indicates that the law’s supporters are trying to play it safe and resolve the matter without resorting to a Supreme Court ruling that they might not like, and which might federalize that result if the nation’s highest court decides there’s a positive Constitutional right to gay marriage guaranteed by the Constitution. And it’s not just the law’s proponents that want to keep this about California instead of “betting the farm” at the Supreme Court level. Gay rights advocates are worried that if the Ninth Circuit smacks Prop 8 down too hard in an 11-judge panel decision, it will arouse the interest of the Supreme Court and federalize a result that they’re not happy with. As one columnist put it in the New York Times:

“Many gay rights advocates… had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state-by-state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state.”

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown argues:

“I’ve always thought that the smart thing to do is to win this case for California and to keep this case out of the Supreme Court. In this court at this time, it will be very tough to sell a challenge [to the roughly 40 states that prohibit same-sex marriage altogether.]“

To suggest an Independent solution, that is to say, a solution that would keep the entire issue of marriage independent from the public sphere: why not privatize marriage? Instead of legalizing gay marriage, why not de-legalize straight marriage? Both sides want to keep this issue out of the Supreme Court so that each has a better chance of getting a result they want on a state-by-state basis, but let’s follow this logic to its necessary conclusion.  Why not keep the issue out of District and Appellate courts too? If not just one, but both sides want to keep the issue from being federalized, why not keep the issue out of state governments as well so that every single individual, couple, and religious community can have a better chance of getting the result they want by deciding the matter for themselves privately? The logic of each side’s legal strategy suggests the wisdom of such a solution.

W. E. MessamoreIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

Credit: Businessweek

Can food lift California out of its recession? A mounting body of evidence points to yes.  Local food startups that only source labor and materials from local and regional businesses as part of a “community food enterprise,” or CFE for short, increase prosperity and employment at the local level. CFEs keep ownership and employment a near proximate affair, growing community capital and cultivating a bountiful crop of entrepreneurs to keep the cycle going.

CFEs distinguish themselves from typical local food economies by bringing together more than just farmers and consumers. A true CFE seeks the luxuries of a global food system, only on a hyper-local level. Every link in the production chain – from growers, processors, packers, distributors and marketers – is locally sourced and all are locally or regionally aimed.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle piece provides the quintessential CFE anecdote: Bi-Rite, a San Francisco grocer, says 90 percent of its employees live within walking or bicycling distance of the store. Also, the company only uses local designers, printers and sign makers.

“And the cycle continues,” reads the article. “Last year Bi-Rite started showcasing Michele Manfredi’s SFQ Original San Francisco-style Barbecue Sauce in its store when her company was a tiny startup and she did everything by hand. SFQ is still fairly small, but now Manfredi can afford to outsource her kitchen work, jarring and label making. She could probably save money by scouring the Internet for cheap labor, cheap jars and even cheaper labels. But she’s decided to go regional – most of her ingredients are sourced in the Bay Area, her jars are from an Oakland company, her labels are from Napa, and her preparation and jarring are done in Healdsburg.”

According to owner Sam Mogannam, last year Bi-Rite spent close to $7 million doing business with regional companies, mostly Northern California-based small businesses.

Neighbors attending to neighborly needs by offering jobs represents the basic socio-economic push behind the steady growth of CFEs in recent years. Other factors, including changing consumer demand toward local/sustainable goods and services, have cultivated fertile ground for food-enterprisers. Opportunities are prevalent now that local food markets have grown into economies of regional scale after a decade plus of continuous expansion.

The report, Community Food Enterprise: Local Success in a Global Marketplace, published by the Wallace Center at Winrock International, says that price is a major factor in the current success of CFEs:

“As more CFEs enter the marketplace, local food prices are trending downward. CFEs themselves are learning how to bring down their costs through greater volume, through smarter distribution techniques, through the better use of technology, and through collaboration with other CFEs.”

Michael Shuman, economist, research director for the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) and lead author of the report calls the CFE the model of future food and fiscal policy.

“There’s good evidence to show that CFEs generate more jobs – two to four times the amount per dollar of sales – and generate more income and wealth for (their) communities than non-locally owned businesses, even ones that source goods from the area,” Shuman told the Chronicle.

Shuman is also research director for Cutting Edge Capital, an Oakland venture capitalist company specializing in innovative financing.

The USDA also recognizes the economic pitfalls inherent in a global food system and has been quick to support the CFE movement by guaranteeing loans to farmers who practice the model.

“Studies show that farmers who sell locally and regionally employ 13 full-time workers per $1 million revenue earned,” said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan. “Farmers who don’t sell locally or regionally employ three workers for every $1 million in revenue earned.”

The last time the numbers were gathered, California farmers’ markets pulled in roughly $163 million in direct marketing sales. That was in 2007. Since that time, locavorism (by all indications) has increased. With the regionalization of distribution and merchandising industries through CFEs, no matter what the current revenue stats show, it is all but guaranteed that a much greater percentage of those dollars are now staying closer to home, reinvested into a stronger community.

Chris HinyubIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

According to the old adage, often mis-attributed to the likes of Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Is there a better way to describe any continuing support for the Republican-Democratic, two-party political charade?

buelahman.wordpress.com

According to two recent polls from Gallup Politics, just 22% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the country and only 10% approve of the way the Congress is handling its job, a new record low. Among Independents, the latter number is even lower. A mere 8% of self-described Independents are satisfied with Democratic and Republican leadership in the House and Senate.

Clearly, it is not because they have a significant level of support among the electorate that representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties continue to monopolize public office at all levels of government in the United States. Indeed, there are more Americans who identify themselves as Independents than there are who willingly confess that they still affiliate with one of the two legacy parties. A capital ‘R’ or ‘D’ appended to one’s name is slowly but surely becoming a badge of shame, if it isn’t one already.

Even among those who express some level of support for the Republican or Democratic parties, a great many admit that they do not in fact particularly like that party’s candidates, and state that they are rather simply voting against the candidates from the other major party. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much if any scientific data gauging the prevalence of this reactive mentality, but it seems to be fairly common across the political spectrum. It is likely safe to conclude, however, that without the pseudo-argument in favor of the lesser evil, which is beloved by Republicans and Democrats alike, levels of support for the Democratic and Republican parties would be even lower. As Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch wrote at Reason last summer:

“Every election cycle (and we are always in an election cycle), we are urged to remember that deep down inside we really despise the opposing gang of crooks.”

The result of this scenario is a lack of any substantive choice in our electoral system even when there is more than one candidate on the ballot. It is no wonder, then, that in so many elections, up to and including those for the presidency, there are more eligible voters who opt not vote than there are who vote for the Republican or Democrat. But it is ironic that if the majority of Americans who consistently express a desire for real alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans were to cast their ballots for a third party or independent candidate, that person would win in a landslide.

Of course, the stock response to any suggestion that one might support a third party or independent candidate for elected office is that you are simply throwing your vote away. But aren’t things now the other way around? Perhaps the only wasted vote is a vote for the current political status quo, for the deadlock and dead end represented by the Republican and Democratic parties.

With the number of self-declared Independents steadily rising across the country, and even outpacing the Democrats and Republicans themselves, it is time to begin expressing that independence at the ballot box. There will be no lack of choice in this year’s elections, though the partisans of the major parties and their mouthpieces in the media would rather we ignore this simple fact. Between Independents, Greens, and Libertarians alone there will be hundreds if not thousands of alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans up for election this November, from the presidency to the proverbial dog catcher.

In 2010, there were more third party candidates for Congress on the ballot across the country than at any other time since the 1930′s, according to an analysis out of the University of Minnesota. Given the public’s record levels of discontent with the two-party state, there will likely be even more choice this time around.

Damon ErisIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

Independent Democrat Torie Osborn (left) will challenge party endorsed Democrat Assemblywoman Betsy Butler in California's AD 50. Credit: TorieOsborn.com; Benjamin Wong for IVN

Democratic delegates from across the state of California recently gathered in San Diego to participate in workshops, determine the party platform, and ultimately ratify pre-primary endorsements of statewide, State Assembly, State Senate, and Congressional candidates. While the pre-primary endorsement process is not a new practice for the Democratic Party, this is the first time these endorsement have occurred before the March filing deadline for candidates wanting to run. Regardless of the change in timeline, it appeared to be business as usual.

It comes as no surprise that the majority of the endorsed candidates this year were incumbents, meaning that on top of the structural advantages of name recognition, political experience, and campaign funding, these candidates will also receive special designation on the sample voters’ ballot as the party’s officially backed candidate.

As an establishment that prides itself on its commitment to electoral participation, why would the Democratic Party encourage and partake in the endorsement of candidates a month before the official filing period ends?

We asked candidate Torie Osborn, who is running against the California Democratic Party’s endorsed incumbent Betsy Butler for the 50th Assembly District seat. Her response:

“State party endorsement is pretty much rigged. The bottom line is that there is a heavy emphasis on directing the endorsement wherever the main party establishment wants it to go.”

While Assemblymember Betsy Butler received the official backing of the Democratic Party, Osborn has been working outside the establishment to receive the endorsements of Democratic clubs and members of the California Assembly and Congress. With 24% of the population Declined to State voters, 19% Republican, and the rest Democratic, Assembly District 50 is a safe seat for Democrats. Running from Malibu to Hollywood, it has one of the highest voting propensities and as Osborn notes, this is a district that “likes to make up their own mind.” The number of DTS voters, tendency for political participation, and open mindedness of this district’s voters is what makes it competitive for Osborn.

Moving forward without the Democratic endorsement, Osborn remains highly involved in the Democratic Party and its ideals, but admits that it has not been her pathway for running for office. Running a campaign of hope and ideas, fixated on government reform and job creation, she referred to the party’s endorsement process as a “self perpetuating machine of incumbency.”

When asked about the effect of the early endorsements on potential candidates who have not yet filed to run, she candidly responded:

“Truthfully, I see why people leave the Democratic Party. When you see how many resources and how much party leadership is spent on protecting incumbents, regardless of the their political view, it’s pretty discouraging.”

Even as a member of the Democratic Party, she finds fault in the backwards practice of early endorsements and sympathizes with the Independent candidates who have since been shut out of the election process. And while Osborn has not been discouraged, third-party candidates and independents already up against the party power machine, might not be as fortunate.

Jane SusskindIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

Credit: CBS

With next Tuesday’s Michigan Primary looming over the GOP candidates and a debate scheduled for tomorrow, tension increases between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. This primary will prove to be an important deciding factor on who will be the front runner for Super Tuesday on March 6th, so it’s safe to say Fat Tuesday is the last thing on these candidate’s minds. A loss in Michigan for Romney will underscore the difficulty he has in gaining Republican support.

On the campaign trail…

Newt Gingrich (Republican): Wrapping up two days of campaigning in Oklahoma, Newt Gingrich attacked the president’s stance on energy issues. Gingrich criticized the delay of the Keystone XL Pipeline, as a key factor in the U.S. quest for energy independence. During his campaign time in Oklahoma, Gingrich claimed that if elected president he would shrink the role of the Federal government and lower the price of gasoline to $2 per gallon. Gingrich currently trails in Michigan polls behind Santorum, Romney, and Paul.

Barack Obama (Democrat): Focusing on what matters most to middle class Americans, President Obama has centered the spotlight of his campaign to everyday issues such as, jobs, health care, and money for college and retirement. This is a significant change from his campaign four years ago which promoted more lofty goals for change in Washington.  In promoting his “Modest American Dream” President Obama states:

“Folks don’t have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream.”

Ron Paul (Republican): In a newly released ad, Paul attempts to paint Santorum as a fake fiscal conservative. In time for the Michigan Primary next Tuesday, the Paul team hopes to deter support for Santorum who is holding on to a lead in the Michigan Primary polls. In other news, Maine’s Republican Party announced Friday that it would recount votes cast in the February 11^th caucus. Initial result showed a 194-vote victory for Mitt Romney, however, due to weather and an issue with some e-mailed results ended up in a spam folder. Paul supporters hoped this recalculation of votes might determine Paul as the rightful Maine caucus winner. Tallies from the weekend has Paul gaining 83 votes, but not enough to surpass Romney as the state victor.

Buddy Roemer (Republican): In Puerto Rico’s Republican Primary, set for March 18^th, Buddy Roemer’s name will appear first on the ballot. He won the first spot in a lottery overseen by election officials on the island. Though Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the general election, they can vote in primaries.

Mitt Romney (Republican): Last month, the Romney campaign raised and spent more money than any other GOP candidate, raising $6.5 million and spending $19 million. Though he remains trailing slightly behind Santorum in the upcoming Michigan primary, polls show that he is leading in Arizona whose primary is on the same day. At a town hall on Tuesday in Michigan, Mitt Romney criticized the Obama Administration, saying it promotes “secular agenda” that has hurt religious freedom in America. He also encouraged tea party voters in Michigan to look into Santorum’s record before giving him their support.

 Rick Santorum (Republican): Continuing to lead in the polls in Michigan, Rick Santorum prepares to fight it out with Romney in the crucial Michigan primary next Tuesday. Santorum appealed to blue-collar workers in Michigan stating that the Obama Administration will limit quality of life and lower resources in its plans to combat global warming. In other news, Santorum-backing Super PAC has refunded a $50,000 donation from a London-based securities firm. The donation could have violated a law restricting foreign money in U.S. political campaigns.

Heather RogersIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

Presidential candidate Ron Paul lambasted fellow Republican candidate and former Senator Rick Santorum on his social conservatism this week. Credit: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

On CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul ripped into former Senator Rick Santorum‘s voting record as well as his campaign rhetoric, calling social conservatism “a losing position” for the Republican Party going into the November general election against President Barack Obama.

The twelve-term Republican Congressman from Texas, known for his independent voting record and libertarian political philosophy, argued that there are bigger and more urgent issues at stake, issues that will resonate more with American voters concerned about our nation’s future. Paul said:

“I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion. They are worried about birth control pills.”

When asked point blank by Candy Crowley: “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?” Paul replied, “No. I think it’s a losing position.”

Presidential candidate Ron Paul on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sunday February 19, 2012. Credit: CNN

Is Ron Paul right? Will the emphasis on social issues derail the GOP’s attempt to win the White House? Back in 2004 before the economy crashed and burned, social issues and ballot propositions to define marriage were a key part of Karl Rove’s strategy to win Bush a second term– and it worked. But as another strategist across the aisle famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” When Americans are worried about putting food on the table and paying the bills, it’s suddenly less important to obsess over everybody else’s sexuality and culture.

In the anonymously-written exposé on the Tea Party published by Playboy back in the Summer of 2010, the author, who claimed to be an insider and consultant for Tea Party groups, welcomed the protest movement’s focus on economic and fiscal policy issues. They argued it was much easier to write a sarcastic letter to voters from a Wall Street executive to thank them for the bailout their congressman helped pass than to send them a tract explaining why two men who love each other shouldn’t be able to marry. If that anonymous consultant is still at work writing campaign literature, he or she would probably nod in agreement with Ron Paul: in post-Tea Party, mid-recession America, social issues are still a losing battle for conservatives, and the numbers prove it.

Last year, support for legalizing gay marriage reached an all-time high in America, with 64% of respondents saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal.  73% of the coveted Independent vote said gay marriage should be legal, a statistical tie with Democrats who supported legalizing gay marriage by 75%. Republicans, meanwhile, were out-of-sync with Independents and Democrats, with only 41% supporting legal gay marriage. A few months before that, 67% of American voters said they supported a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell so that gays and lesbians could serve openly in the military, with 70% of Independents supporting the repeal. Just this week, 54% of respondents in a Rasmussen poll said that women in the military should be able to serve in full combat roles, a position that Rick Santorum opposed as the DOD moved to allow women in combat roles.

Sexuality isn’t the only social issue where Republicans aren’t likely to charm voters, especially Independent voters, with their own version of the “nanny-state” that they otherwise purport to oppose. Late last year, the Independent Voter Network reported that a record 50% of voters now support legalizing marijuana, the largest ever percentage since Gallup started asking the question in 1969, noting that:

“Gallup‘s figures through the decade suggest an exponential growth in the percentage of legalization advocates, which has promising implications for the legalization movement over the next decade. It took ten years for the percentage of legalization supporters to jump ten percent from 30% to 40%, and only two years to jump another ten percent to Gallup‘s most recent figure.”

How would Republicans do if they focused on economic issues and fiscal policy, seen to many as a growing entitlement state and bloated bureaucracy? This month, 63% of voters said cutting the federal payroll would be better for the economy than giving federal workers a modest pay raise. Only 18% said the latter option would be better for the economy. Yesterday, Rasmussen reported that a majority of 53% of Americans support repealing the controversial health care law pejoratively called “ObamaCare” by its critics. We also learned more Americans than ever hold a favorable view of Ford, the one “Big Three” automaker to turn down federal bailout money at the height of the financial crisis, and that Ford still holds its favorability lead over Chrysler and GM, who got bailed out.

And finally, of all recent presidents going back to Richard Nixon, Americans rate Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the first and second best, respectively. This could likely indicate a yearning for the relatively stronger economic times and more modest reach, role, and price tag of the federal government. George W. Bush, ranked second worst, indicating that the social conservatism and open-ended wars of the Bush years aren’t so appealing to voters now. If defeating Obama in November is the single most important priority for the GOP, as so many Republican leaders have continued to repeat, running on a platform of social issues is not likely to woo voters especially not Independents.

W. E. MessamoreIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

Thaddeus McCotter, former Republican presidential candidate and current Michigan congressman, recently warned about the GOP establishment maneuvering the 2012 presidential campaign toward a brokered convention in which party insiders hand pick a “new face” nominee.

articles.latimes.com

The congressman outlined four consequences he believes would result from a convention that produces a “non-candidate” apart from the remaining Republicans. Essentially, he argues that the party will be hurt more than it is helped if the establishment is allowed to make such a move.

In his words, these consequences include the following:

1. Betray the courage of our current contenders who entered the GOP primary process;
2. Reward an individual who lacked such courage and, instead, chose to sit on the sidelines during this transformational time of hope and peril in the life of our nation;
3. Belie our Republican party’s claim to trust the judgment of the sovereign American people, especially those who have worked and voted for the current candidates; and
4. Dispirit and divide our party at the very time it must unite to defeat President Obama and reaffirm American Exceptionalism in the 21^st Century.

Congressman McCotter certainly raises some legitimate concerns. The possibility of  the establishment rewarding individuals who didn’t persevere on the campaign trail from the beginning, questioning the judgment of Republican primary voters, and dividing the party at a crucial time are all threats to the party’s future viability- both in the general election and even beyond.

“A GOP that distrusts its primary voters will be distrusted by general election voters – and rightly so,” he wrote.

With a brokered convention seemingly becoming more of a possibility, McCotter says that the GOP nominee must be one of the four remaining candidates. Contrary to the advice of what many in Republican leadership would say, the congressman even includes his fellow congressional colleague Ron Paul as one of those final choices whom Republicans should choose if necessary.

It would appear, however, as if a Republican unraveling is already taking place before the convention. One significant development already being witnessed is that the Republican field’s infighting is turning off the necessary demographic of Independent voters. As my colleague Damon Eris recently reported, Independents have trickled back to President Obama over the course of the campaign from former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

McCotter says that it’s the duty of every Republican to “condemn and combat” an establishment-orchestrated convention that picks a new nominee in order to not only keep focused on the goal of defeating Barack Obama, but also to keep the fate of the party out of the control of the Republican establishment.

At this point, every one of the remaining Republican candidates has in one way or another attempted to distance themselves from the political establishment. What is telling, however, is that Republicans like McCotter and the candidates recognize that the existence of such a behemoth has been problematic in the U.S. political system.

The election approaches ever near and the Republican obstacles don’t seem to have become fewer in number, brokered convention or not.

Christopher A. GuzmanIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News

This is one of those bombshell stories with multiple facets that branch off into all manner of areas: gay rights, immigration & border control, potential abuse of power, sexual assault by a priest, and a mediagenic sheriff about to run for Congress.

Paul Babeu, a conservative Arizona sheriff, is running for Congress. Credit: Daily Beast

Late last week, Phoenix New Times broke a major story saying that Pinal County AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu had a gay sex affair with a Mexican (known only as Jose, for privacy).  They broke up, and Jose now claims that Babeu threatened him with deportation. Babeu quickly held a press conference strongly denying the allegations but also said “I am gay.”

Students of crisis management and damage control take note. Babeu did this part right. Regardless of how the serious charges of abuse of power turn out, Babeu did not dodge, evade, or obfuscate about his sexuality. By stating pointblank he is gay, he saved himself weeks of pointless denials and defused at least that part of the crisis. For a public figure to do that is commendable. For a sharply conservative, immigration border hawk sheriff in Arizona to do so is rather extraordinary.

It should be noted that Babeu is not a hypocrite when it comes to his sexuality as he appears to have never made any anti-gay statements publicly.  Babeu and his boyfriend met in 2006 on gay.com, a dating website. Jose says Babeu claimed he loved him and wasn’t seeing anyone else, but Jose soon suspected him of cheating. So he set up an account on another gay dating website under the assumed name of Matt and contacted Babeu, who was also on the site. He showed Phoenix New Times photos Babeu sent to him as Matt, some of which showed Babeu naked from the waist down.

Jose also has texts from Babeu to him as Matt where Babeu identifies himself as a sheriff who had appeared in a TV ad about border security with John McCain. Let that sink in. Babeu told an anonymous man on a gay sex site precisely who he was.  Look, I like adrenaline rushes too, But Babeu’s behavior was so risky that it borders on irrational. Then again, perhaps Babeu suffers from the delusion that Rep. Anthony Weiner apparently had too, that what you do on the Internet and with texting is somehow private. It’s not. A better idea is to act as if anything you do on the Net and text could be public. Did you know that President George W. Bush never used email because he didn’t want anything that could be subpoenaed?

Whether Babeu or his personal lawyer threatened Jose or hinted he would be deported if he didn’t stay quiet about their relationship will no doubt be the subject of multiple investigations. While there may be more texts, the perhaps most damning one mentioned in the New Times article was from Babeu to Jose in September.  It said, “You can never have business after this and you will harm me and many others in the process . . . including yourself & your family.”

Babeu is running for Congress in a highly conservative Arizona district. He began politics in North Adams, Massachusetts. It’s a rust-belt mill town. Babeu controlled the city council for a bit against an entrenched boss then lost the race for mayor in a “bare-knuckle” race. It was during this period that Babeu said he had been molested as a youth by a local priest, something which along with his deeply conservative views, turned most people off to him. He then left for Arizona in 2002 and was sheriff of Pinal County 7 years later.

Clearly, he has serious political skills. But in the wake of the revelations, long-time ally Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County is distancing himself from Babeu. The next few weeks will probably show whether Babeu can remain as sheriff or has a chance of being elected to Congress.

Bob MorrisIndependent Voter Network - Independent Political News