Arlen Specter Resurrected

The political reaction was immediate as the news flashed over Twitter on Tuesday: “Dems have 60…Dems have 60!”

Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senator Arlen Specter switched political parties, from Republican to Democrat. The storyline focused on the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority now held by Senate Democrats. Some claim it is a seismic change for the American political landscape. Is it, really?

Most of the political chatter I saw and heard on TV and radio focused on the impact Specter’s switch will have on the Republican Party. The storyline was the Republican Party needs to regroup and reinvent itself to stay relevant on the national political stage. Ok, but in my book the real story was about the Democratic Party. Specifically, the Democratic Party’s strong push to the right which was made more pronounced during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

I was thinking about Arlen Specter lately, believe it or not. As I followed political news along the way, I was variously bemused and concerned that the corporate media, mostly, was consistently describing Specter as a “moderate” Republican. Arlen Specter, a moderate? The hard-core law-and-order Republican Arlen Specter who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980 at the beginning of the Reagan conservative “revolution”? No thanks.

Has anyone noticed how Democrats and Republicans are so easily interchangeable? Republican Specter becomes a Democrat in a blink. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman campaigned last fall for the Republican presidential ticket (and could switch parties tomorrow). Along that same vein, Hillary Clinton supporters, upon their candidate finishing second for the party nomination, very publicly announced their defection to the John McCain presidential campaign. How can politicos support Hillary Clinton one day, then John McCain the next, with no qualms?

Now with the current Congress, you hear about “Blue Dog Democrats” acting as the voice and protectorate of the conservative viewpoint from within the majority Democratic Party. Dems control Congress, yes, but the Blue Dogs are there to make sure the “liberal” agenda doesn’t get out of control. Who invited them to the party?

The political flip-flop changes above are just a few examples. Look about our fine peninsula here in Michigan and you can find a similar interchange. For Earth Day this year, three former Michigan Governors came out in favor of an expanded nuclear power infrastructure for Michigan. The former Governors supporting this concept were William Milliken, James Blanchard, and John Engler. What’s wrong with this picture? I’m just surprised that Blanchard had a mind-meld with Engler, on nuclear power of all things. And Milliken’s pro-environment reputation took a negative hit on this one, too. Only the nuclear power industry scored a victory with the help of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat, or 2 Democrats and 1 Republican, depending on how you categorize Milliken.

Our political discourse in this country needs to include, up front, the topic of America’s political duopoly and its impact on public policy. This blog will most likely return to this topic throughout 2009. Certainly, there won't be any shortage of material.

-- Rico Thomas Rico

Gas: No One Rides for Free

Admittedly I get a grin when I see gas prices on the road nowadays. Just today I saw gas at $2.24 a gallon while driving to Fowlerville, Michigan. Months ago -- even before gas prices hit record highs this summer -- I told one of the Kravitz Patch Sisters that gas prices would plummet just before the election.


Remember how angry you were with gas well over $4.00 a gallon? Remember how angry everyone was at the time? The oil conglomerates could not afford to have that kind of public anger boiling at election time because it would hurt -- even devastate -- the conservative Republican cause at the polls. So prices have been manipulated downward to alleviate some political pressure and, so far, it has worked. Still, the conservatives are going to take a major hit on Tuesday but not as bad as if gas prices were still at record highs.


My prediction was an easy one, as oil companies can be predictable when it comes to their patterns of gouging the public. Regardless, I still have some people who argue with me on this point. These gullible people just cannot see or believe that oil companies would try to influence the U.S. elections by manipulating gas prices.


Well, let's go on to my next prediction: Gas prices will start climbing again after the election and will continue to climb right up through January 20, 2009. I'll revisit this topic on January 20th and we'll see where prices sit.

-- Rico Thomas Rico

Democracy Isn't Free, Even for Media Conglomerates

I was surprised last week when CNN news anchor Campbell Brown suggested that Barack Obama and John McCain donate the projected $30 million-a-week in campaign advertising dollars to a food bank in Provo, Utah. She thought it would be a better use of the money. Feed people instead of running negative political ads.

I totally agree with Brown. However, I am afraid that her suggestion may pass as another innocuous statement made in the din of a heated presidential campaign. Her comment, exposes a much larger issue, one that I have been raising privately with fellow citizens. So let me raise it with you here.

My contention is that the American public owns the radio and TV airwaves. So why not let federal candidates have free airtime for their campaigns and end the need for candidates to raise and spend millions of dollars on advertising? Those valuable resources and dollars can be put to better use by those donors, including spending on food banks in Utah and elsewhere.

THE ISSUE AND THE DOTS
If you watch closely enough, it happens about a month after each major election. You begin to see stories in the media about charities running short of donations just before and during the holiday season. Homeless and hungry people in need – sometimes whole families – desperately go without services.

This year the same situation will be easily noticed, as the American economic meltdown will exacerbate the problem and touch many more people. The widespread hunger and homelessness across the country will be harder to conceal.

So let’s connect some dots here and free up some resources to help needy people.

Proposition 1: Too much money is spent on wasteful, superficial, and usually negative federal campaign TV and radio advertisements for Presidential and Congressional offices. The public does not benefit or learn anything substantive from the months-long, incessant advertisement campaigns.

Proposition 2: The candidates’ need to raise inordinate amounts of cash to pay for TV and radio advertising exposes the electoral system to inordinate amounts of influence of special interest groups that are more than willing to infuse cash into campaign coffers.

Proposition 3: The public owns the public TV and radio air waves.

Proposition 4: The money and resources that normally go to paying for federal political advertisements would be put to better uses.

The Fix: The public must exert its ownership rights to the airwaves and insist that federal candidates be given free TV and radio time. In doing so, it will eliminate the necessity for these candidates to chase money from special interest groups. Candidates will then be allowed to address, in detail, issues during various 15-minute and 30-minute time slots during designated times of day, including prime time. The full-scale campaign and free media time could be limited to 90 days prior to the election, thus eliminating the seemingly endless campaign cycles. Overall, the details of the free media plan would be set by a nonpartisan citizen’s panel and the plan would be structured to allow all political parties to be heard, not just the two dominant parties.

I have talked to people about this proposal. I usually get a stammering response. You can see in their faces their minds scrolling through a million-and-one reasons why such a proposal is oh-so-unfair to multi-million dollar TV and radio stations. These are the same TV and radio stations that operate and earn profits through the public licensing of the public air waves.

What part of “public” do people not understand? We the people – does that sound familiar? – need to require profitable TV and radio licenses used by media companies to allow our democracy access to free air time for federal candidates. Even conservatives would agree that democracy is not free, even for media conglomerates.

THE MONEY
Eliminating the need for candidates to pay for TV and radio advertisements literally frees up millions of dollars. What could society do with the money? Instead of paying for wasteful, counter-productive political commercials, we could feed starving people, house the homeless, and [fill-in your suggestion here].

Raising this issue and making people, including progressives, debate it is key. It’s never too late to start, either. The next election cycle begins Wednesday, November 5th. The topic could be “food for thought” beginning in November and December while we enjoy our holiday dinners with family and friends. What’s a little indigestion in support of democracy?

-- Rico Thomas Rico

____________



ADDENDUM: The editors at the Lansing State Journal failed to publish my response to the weekly policy question in today’s print and online edition of the newspaper. It should have been part of the “Talk About It” community panel discussion in the opinion section. The question and my response coincide with my discussion above.


LSJ’s Weekly “Talk About It” Question
What, if anything, should be done to make sure political advertisements are truthful?

My response – limited to 75 words – was the following:

We should end the 60-second political commercial. The TV and radio airwaves are owned by the public. As such, we should exert our right to give presidential candidates free TV time to speak to the public in minimum 30-minute time slots. In that manner, the candidates can have the opportunity to substantively address the issues and exhibit their character, including their truthfulness. This will significantly reduce the candidates' need to chase special-interest money through fundraising.

Exclusive Interview: Jim Dean, National Chair of Democracy for America

After working out some technical kinks, I am now in the process of rolling out and publishing on the web various recordings that I have shot over that last six weeks or so. I am presenting here my one-on-on one interview with Jim Dean, the Democracy for America National Chair who was in Lansing, Michigan for the DFA Campaign Academy in early June 2008.

-- Rico Thomas Rico
P.S. This interview was also posted on the Mid-Michigan DFA blog.