The last panel I attended at Netroots Nation was on reforming the presidential nominating process, and as an extra bonus, Missouri’s own Robin Carnahan was one of the panelists. The other panelists were also stellar: Joe Sudbay of AMERICAblog as moderator, Marcy Wheeler AKA emptywheel of Firedoglake, and Annette Taddeo, a progressive congressional candidate in South Florida.

The aim of the panel as stated was to discuss the problems of the presidential nominating system that we have, and to propose some possible solutions. The discussion was actually heavily weighted to the problems in the system and rather light on the solutions. Interestingly, it was up to the politicians to put forth a couple of proposals.

A lot more below the fold.

Robin gave us a quick, lucid overview of the history of the nominating process, beginning with the 19th Century control of the party nominations by members of Congress, and on to the increasing role of primaries in selecting pledged delegates to the convention on behalf of a candidate. Each wave of controversy exposed new flaws in the system that in turn generated new democratizing reforms. In 1912, the first primary came about in North Dakota as a way of circumventing the power of the political machines that controlled and selected members of Congress. Primaries gained prominence over the next half century, but it wasn’t until the McGovern reforms after 1968 that they gained their status as the deciding factor in our nominating process.

Robin stumped the audience (but not me – I just read Nixonland) by asking how many primaries 1968 Democratic presidential nominee won en route to being selected as the nominee. The answer? Zero. And of course, Humphrey’s selection as nominee helped split a Democratic Party that won the presidency in a landslide in 1964 and held a majority in both houses of Congress, and Humphrey went on to narrowly lose the election. The McGovern Commission followed, reforming the nomination process to something close to what we recognize today. So Robin tended toward hope that each wave of crises and anger would engender new efforts of inclusion and reform, rather than cynicism and disaffection with a broken system.

However, as Secretary of State, Robin recognized the difficulty in reforming the system. National elections take place in principle across the country, but in practice they should really be thought of as lots of local elections happening at the same time, with a variety of voting practices that federal and state authorities have little ability to change (without offering lots of money.) The same goes for the patchwork system of primaries and caucuses (and the primacaucuses!), and there’s also the consideration of just how much uniformity we might want in a vast and diverse country.

Annette and Marcy mainly focused on the problems of this past year for their respective states (Florida and Michigan) in the primaries. Annette spoke of Republican meddling in the Democratic nominating process. Not only was the Republican-led Florida government responsible for moving Florida’s primary up into the early window for which they were penalized, they also scheduled the state-level primaries (where Democratic nominees for Congress and state legislature are elected)

for the same week as the Democratic National Convention.

The frustration boils over when rank-and-file Democrats and independents don’t realize the extent to the Republican meddling, and only perceive that Democrats are taking away a vote that they swore to defend in 2000 and after. According to Annette, the anger is real on the ground, and she shares it.

Marcy spoke about the institutional factors in the Michigan debacle – powerful Michigan party leaders who have been committed to diminishing Iowa and New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status colliding with national party leaders skittish about a mad scramble to the front of the line, further complicated by presidential candidates who owe their nomination (or presidency) to a victory in Iowa and/or New Hampshire. But as Michigan is necessary to a Democratic path to the White House (even more so than Florida), a compromise was enacted in order to seat Michigan’s delegation and soothe the activists so crucial to a win on the ground in November.

Annette and Robin each had their preferred solution to the endless jockeying for the front of the primary schedule. Robin supports a rotating regional primary, where the nation is divided into four regions, and states in each region hold their primaries on the same day. Iowa and New Hampshire would be separated out and retain their status at the front of the schedule.

Annette believed that regional primaries would give too much power to big-money candidates able to dominate the populous states in the region. She instead favors a tiered system where the smallest states vote first, then in three more stages, successively larger states, allowing grassroots candidates a chance to compete while building up name recognition for the larger contests.

I hear her complaint, but the truth of the matter is, this money advantage is so great that I don’t imagine much difference being made one way or another without public finance reforms. I mean, Barack Obama’s strategy of countering Hillary Clinton’s early edge in big states by organizing in smaller states took a money advantage. In winning Iowa, nobody spent more than Barack Obama. (I don’t mean money is everything – John Edwards edged out Clinton despite spending half the money in the state.)

There’s a possible solution that I haven’t heard yet – leave the process alone! Didn’t this year prove that a well-organized candidate with an army of small donors could beat a party favorite with most of the institutional support? And didn’t this year prove that every state can get the attention and money that comes with a competitive primary? I don’t know if it’s really the answer, and implicitly by virtue of being the status quo, it’s already on the table, and should be discussed openly.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki agrees with Barack Obama’s plan for a US withdrawal from Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

The citizens of the US don’t want us in Iraq. The citizens of Iraq don’t want us in Iraq. Now the leader of Iraq publicly says he doesn’t want us in Iraq. So what are we still doing there?

It’ll be nice when we complete the loop and have a leader with a clue.

Louie Wright, President and Business Manager of Fire Fighters Local #42, with former Governor Roger Wilson, the master of ceremonies for the evening’s testimonial dinner.

On Friday night Labor’s Educational and Political Club Independent (LEPCI) held a testimonial dinner honoring Louie Wright, President and Business Manager of Fire Fighters Local #42, as “Labor’s Representative of the Year” for 2008 at Harrah’s in Kansas City. The crowd of approximately four hundred heard a number of speakers, including Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, Congressman Dennis Moore, Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders, Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser, Kansas City – Kansas Mayor Joe Reardon, UFCW General President Joe Hansen, Kansas City AFL-CIO President Bridgette Williams, Building Trades Business Manager Gary Kemp, and Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

As with all of these events, there was a modicum of levity in the evening’s activities, but there was also a good amount of serious discussion about the challenges we are currently facing in the country and the state.      

Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders.

Senators Chris Koster and Victor Callahan present Louie Wright with a proclamation from the Missouri Senate.(left to right) Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders, Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, Congressman Dennis Moore, Louie Wright, former Governor Roger Wilson.

Louie Wright addresses the audience.

Louie Wright’s remarks:

I’m not quite sure what to say. I am, I am, I am humbled. I am honored. Candidly, I’m a little bit embarrassed. I’m not sure I knew the guy that a lot of them talked about. [laughter]…I really appreciate your endurance sitting through this long evening. To my brothers and sisters in the broader labor community, I appreciate greatly you’re here, the tribute. Particularly, the brothers and sisters in my union, my local and the region, you hear too much from me on a regular basis so I won’t bore you with anything. To my friends up here, and Joe means a lot, Harold it goes without saying, Congressman Cleaver all, everyone up here. I’d also like to thank my daughter from traveling from New York, to be here…[applause] And my son…on a Friday night…[laughter][applause]

And what I’d like to do, which may be a little out of the ordinary, is, is speak almost exclusively in the next ninety seconds to the elected leaders, the public policy makers here. And say a couple of things. One is, it is really hard to recognize the person a lot of these folks were talking about.

I’ve had a charmed life. I have been luckier than most. And, and have had the benefit of, most every day, having two great professions and vocations, that I felt good about the work. I love the work that I’ve done and continue to do.

But I want to say this, you’ve heard a little bit from Joe, and certainly, the way things started out for me. And I’m not complaining, but to the elected leaders and the public policy leaders, the fact is, we lost track, I think, of the importance of appropriate government assistance. Someone mentioned the Emergency Employment Act [in 1972] and, and most of you didn’t know what that was. Out of high school I was declared a hard core unemployable by the Federal government, that’s what made me eligible to be hired by the fire department. That meant I had all the attributes of a career criminal, but a felony convictions. [laughter] It was a government program that allowed me to get employment. It was good employment. Luckily, employment that had a good union.

I learned about the labor movement, and I’m gonna close in a moment with a comment about Bill Richardson and a couple of other mentors I’ve…

But it was good employment with a good union. That meaningful work allowed me to make my way. The union has provided me opportunities the likes of which I never would have seen, never would have had, frankly, never would have known about.

We need to get back, in my opinion, to a vibrant, thriving, active labor movement. [applause] We need to recognize that government has a role in giving people a hand up and an opportunity. And maybe get back to doing more than that. And if it can keep a guy like me off the street for thirty five or thirty six years and beyond, it may be worth the occasional investment.

Also I learned early on the power of organized labor when they supported each other and they were really together. And Bill Richardson was one of three individuals, and there were many more, but three leaders who didn’t have a dog in the fight in 1980. Their unions were working. Fact, it was alleged that we might have put up a couple of illegal picket lines that they honored. But the fact is, they didn’t have a dog in the fight, but they knew what organized labor could do.

My good friend…was fired. I was in jail. And frankly we were in a very difficult time. Worse than we probably knew.

Three people met on the twenty ninth floor of City Hall. I wasn’t there, I was, a guest of the city in another location.[laughter] Man I wish was here tonight, Sam Long, Bill Richardson, Bob…as I recall. They told the mayor, they told the city manager, and they gave the governor a civics lesson. They told Joe Teasdale he could declare martial law. And he said, “Can I really do that?” They said, “Oh yeah, governor.” He looked at his counsel and he said, “Can I really do that?” “Oh yeah, governor.” And they quickly told the city, “You need to settle this.” Sam Long looked out the window, there’s quite a bit of work going on in Kansas City that time. He said, “Governor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Manager, see that green crane over there on top of that building, and all those others around the skyline? My union’s not that big, but that’s where my people work. And if those firefighters aren’t out of jail Monday morning, back to work, with a contract in hand, I’m shutting that job down. And every job where those cranes are. And it’s not that big a union, but every job I shut down, fifteen other crafts will honor that picket line. By eleven o’clock you’ll have thirty five thousand angry building and construction trade union members down here wanting to know why they’re not getting a day’s pay.” An hour later it was settled.

Organized labor coalesced behind a union that was maybe too dumb to even know what we were doing. But we were all doing it together. And it gave me an important lesson. And Bill, sometimes you reap what you sow. But for that intervention there’s no doubt in my mind I wouldn’t be here tonight.

It’s an honor. It’s a privilege. And I’m truly touched. Thank you very much. [applause]          

Bill Richardson, president of LEPCI, with Louie Wright.

What do you think? When a newspaper carries a story about an industry, should the reporter interview industry spokespeople? Or should he assume that all he’ll get from them is spin?

It seems to me that not only do reporters interview industry spokesmen but that they rely far more on what the spinmeisters think than they do on more objective sources. A Thursday Post-Dispatch article, “Truck miles way up, but fatalities remain flat”, is a case in point.

After a horrendous accident where a truck driver plowed into stopped traffic, killing two people and critically injuring others, P-D writer Elisa Crouch started her article with an observation from someone who’s not making money from the trucking industry: “Jeff Burns, transportation counsel for the Truck Safety Coalition, a national advocacy group dedicated to reducing truck crash fatalities.” He was allowed to point out the obvious: “Anytime you’re stopped on the highway, you’re in grave danger of being rear-ended by a semi'”, before he disappeared from the story and truck industry spokespeople took over.  

They pointed out that truck traffic is about fifty percent higher now than it was in 1975, but that fatalities from accidents in which trucks are involved are hardly any higher. Part of the reason fatalities haven’t risen is that:

Federal rules governing rest time and random alcohol and drug screening are doing their jobs ….

That’s good. But let me just mention that federal regulations of industries are the sort of thing that said industries virtually always oppose–until they get a chance, afterward, to puff out their chests over the fine results.

Do not mistake this complaint for a diatribe against the trucking industry, though. I eat more than my share of bell peppers, shipped no doubt on trucks. But the P-D article shrugs its shoulders over the 5,000 fatalities a year from accidents involving trucks. C’est la vie, it seems to say.

It could have pointed out, instead, as Jeff Burns did, when I called him, that the study the trucking industry spokesman cited is flawed. That study only took into account accidents in which one truck and one car were involved. Often, trucks plow into several cars. Such accidents weren’t included in the study.

More important than that, however, is that in 1997 Secretary of Transportation Slater announced that the trucking industry would cut traffic deaths involving trucks by 50 percent in the next ten years. At the same time, the FAA aimed for no deaths from plane crashes each year. The FAA has met that goal in quite a few years.

But since the trucking industry made no progress toward its goal, it changed the goal. It said instead that it would keep the number of deaths the same in light of increasing truck traffic. But there are a variety of reasons why the death rate hasn’t gone up, none of them the doing of the trucking industry: cars are safer now (they have more air bags; they’re more crash resistant) and highways have more dividers to prevent head on collisions.

The P-D article could also have pointed out that the rules mandating more rest for truckers still gives them, too often, insufficient sleep. Burns told me that being a trucker is the most dangerous profession in the country. Truckers die on the job more than workers in any other industry.

So. Back to the original question: should reporters even interview industry spokespeople? Some would say that surely it would be unfair not to let them at least answer their critics. But consider: what we get is seldom answers, it’s spin. I’ve written before about how the Corps of Engineers spins what it does for the barge industry. That being the case, maybe those spokespeople don’t deserve space in the news article. Or if they do, it should be minor and relegated to paragraph eighteen. (You know–the spot where the underfunded but well intentioned safety experts are usually quoted.)

State Representative – District 64

Democratic

Rachel Storch St. Louis MO 2/26/2008

Michael (Mike) Roberts Jr. St. Louis MO 3/25/2008

[emphasis added]

Note that there are no republicans. Michael Roberts filed on the last day of the candidate filing period. So, why is he running?

Rachel Storch is the incumbent. Michael Roberts is the primary challenger. The August 5th primary is for all the marbles.

Let’s look at Rachel Storch’s first quarter campaign finance report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 14th.

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: RACHEL STORCH FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

25. MONEY ON HAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING FUNDS IN DEPOSITORY, CASH, SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AND ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS) $23,186.97

26. MONETARY RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD (FROM ITEM 5) $1,309.60

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $21,716.48

[emphasis added]

Oh my. Oh my. That’s not a big fundraising quarter.

Okay, let’s look at Rachel Storch’s amended second quarter campaign finance report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 16th.

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: RACHEL STORCH FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $54,841.00

27. MONETARY DISBURSEMENTS MADE THIS PERIOD (SUM 11 + 17 + 24) $14,919.25

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $61,638.23

[emphasis added]

Raising almost $55,000.00 in a quarter is good thing in anyone’s book. In looking at the contributions I didn’t note anything out of the ordinary for an incumbent state representative – individual contributions and a few PACs, no large political committee contributions.

Let’s look at Rachel Storch’s expenditures.

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: RACHEL STORCH FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

ReportDate: 7/15/2008

3rd Coast Research  Chicago, IL 04/17/2008 Research $3,750.00

PQ Design Group St. Louis, MO 06/14/2008 Literature Design $540.75

Advertisers Printing Co. St. Louis, MO 06/14/2008 Literature Printing $1,508.38

That and campaign worker expenses.

Let’s take a look at Michael Robert’s second quarter campaign finance report campaign finance report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 15th.

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: MIKE ROBERTS JR FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $7,720.00

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $56,000.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $63,720.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $51,478.68

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $12,241.32

That’s some burn rate.

Okay. Who made the loan? Actually, there are three loans:

2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF PERSON(S) LIABLE FOR THE LOAN

MICHAEL V. ROBERTS JR.

4. DATE OF LOAN 04/07/2008

5. AMOUNT OF LOAN $11,000.00

2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF PERSON(S) LIABLE FOR THE LOAN

Michael V. Roberts Jr.

4. DATE OF LOAN 05/09/2008

5. AMOUNT OF LOAN $20,000.00

2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF PERSON(S) LIABLE FOR THE LOAN

Michael V. Roberts Jr.

4. DATE OF LOAN 05/27/2008

5. AMOUNT OF LOAN $25,000.00

Let’s take a look at the expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: MIKE ROBERTS JR FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Report[ ]Date: 7/15/2008

CBS Outdoors  St. Louis, MO 06/02/2008 Advertising $25,000.00

Is that billboards? Other stuff? And consultant costs.

This one looks like it’s about different philosophies on how one goes about campaigning. We’ll know the results on August 5th.

A big hello from Austin. I’m here at the Netroots Nation Bloggers’ Convention, and I just saw a panel featuring netroots heroes Laura Packard, Chris Bowers, Brian Keeler, and Steve Olson. Now I’m watching a lively conversation between Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas and DLC Chair Harold Ford, Jr. I’ll have more later, including coverage of Robin Carnahan’s panel. (You can watch footage on the Netroots Nation website.)

Right now, let’s get a little meta here. I really appreciate candidates, supporters of candidates, and general readers posting diaries here. It shows that you care enough about the other readers of the blog to try to provide some relevant information to everyone here.

But you have to respect two things, the first of which is your information sources. It’s fine to reference an article from a newspaper or other source, putting a key quote in a larger context of your own point of view. It is NOT OK to post full articles from a newspaper, blog, or other website on this blog. It’s wrong, it’s a violation of copyright laws, and I will delete the offending text as soon as I see it. If you persist, I will ban you from the website. I work hard on my posts, and I don’t want to see them reposted in full without on other websites. I expect the same courtesy extended to any other author, whether it’s a journalist, fellow blogger, or whoever.

As an alternative to reposting news articles or other content, try offering your own take on the story, and selectively quote the article to support what you have to say. (By quote, I mean only a sentence or two – no more than a short paragraph.) Here’s a good example.

One more problem I’m seeing. I’ve seen several press releases posted from campaigns and candidate supporters. That’s fine and all, but blogs are a place where you can carry on a conversation with readers. When you post a press release on a blog, you’re talking AT people, not inviting a two-way communication. I’m not going to delete such diaries, but I don’t think they do much for the candidate.  

Brett Penrose on the lifting of Missouri campaign finance limits: