Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

Clintons push a Hillary/Obama ticket | U.S. | Reuters

Its a recent strategy of the Clinton campaign to suggest Barack as VP to garner votes, but not only are the framing of the issues so vastly different, the brands won’t mesh. In addition, the campaign infrastructures are totally incompatible. In one case we have top down command and control, and in another buttom up grass roots. If a strategic mixed branding plan were in case 2 years ago, perhaps it might have made sense with a ton of work behind the scenes… but today, the only thing they share is a base set of policy, and the rest is vastly incompatible, at least from an operational and electability pov.

Barack Obama’s campaign has a rather amazing consistency in branding, and its truly amazing, even so far as to include grassroots diy graphics. I’m not sure how it came to be, but certainly any marcom group would jump up and down to have this level of consistency across their corp, much less across a geographically and sociologically diverse group of volunteers. Certainly there is a high risk of mis-steps and mixed messages when you take command and control out of the equation, especially in the pr domain. Yet, when mistakes happen, folks take ownership very very fast, as evidenced by Samantha Power and Kirk Watson. Granted, I think Samantha’s resignation was overkill, yet in her choosing to do so, an even stronger message is sent concerning her commitment to the message.

Yet, I contrast the consistent message and branding of Barack’s grass roots campaign, with the mixed and variable messages sent by Hillary’s top down command and control. Within a weeks time frame, Hillary’s messages and the framing of such have swung back and forth and sideways. Barack’s campaign on the other hand canges very slowly and deliberately, in part probably due to real time feedback via the social network combined with the bottom up messages from the field. Its fascinating to watch how changes on the network affect the message presented. It is very subtle effect, but causality is definitely there.

I almost wonder if perhaps the Clinton campaign is measuring impulse response followed by Bayesian analysis…  intentionally creating ripples for predictive modeling while cool from an academic pov, would seem to be too risky to use in a high stakes campaign. Yet, if such ripples are not intentional, the only other option suggests a scatter gun approach perhaps out of desparation, and I sort of doubt that as well. Either way, this campaign and its associated social dynamics would make for a fascinating paper.

Lastly, there is the I or We factor I previously blogged about… and to some extent, I think that sets the tone of the major incompatible differences between the campaigns. Branding, framing, consistency, command and control vs grass roots bottom up, all tie to the I or We factor. Short of one or the other party completely jettisoning their principles and operating practices, a mixed ticket is just not workable. I hope it never happens, as effectively it kills off the participation of the strongest activists on both sides. Ultimately, I go back to Seth’s analysis, that stepping aside may be the best course of action for Hillary as well as the party.

Seth’s Blog: Sunk costs, quitting and the value of your brand

Seth Godin brings up a good point about Hillary changing her brand to win the nomination, and the results of which almost guarantee failure in the general election. I think his analysis of sunk costs is on the money, although being an Obama supporter, I must admit I am pre-disposed to agree with him.

From Seth’s blog:

The new brand, the one that it would take to succeed at this stage, almost guarantees she doesn’t succeed at the next.

And the alternative?

The alternative is to quit. To become a statesman. A respected power broker.

The alternative is to be the trusted advisor, the person who gave up one dream to realize a bigger one, and to build a brand and a lifestyle with long-term leverage.

I think the issue is two fold,  first is whether she can realize a bigger dream at this time. Certainly Al Gore has done so, and I think Bill Clinton up until some serious mis-steps this election was onto something even bigger than his presidency. Bill will recover, that I am sure of. Hillary on the other hand, has her sight on the presidency, to the exclusion of everything else in the short term.  Secondly, the time clock is not on her side. She likely has this one and only opportunity for the presidency. Yet, that doesn’t preclude something bigger down the road.

Sadly, if the rate of earth scorching increases…. there likely will be a point, where there is no spring board left to launch of off in order to foster such a dream. Ie, to go after the big dream, one needs to have a group of people and a vision to rally around. When one goes into earth scorching mode, the vision easily gets obscured, and the rally group decreases in size. In other words, politics as usual, with limited participation… and whether thats enough to make a difference down the road will be something her campaign will need to seriously consider as to her strategy.

Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | State Updates: 1,282,000 Calls and Counting; Let’s Hit 1.5 Million by Tomorrow

The call counter keeps going up and up, in fact so much so, the phone call server is having difficulty keeping up with the demand. Its pretty amazing… albeit a little frustrating at the same time, especially if one scheduled a time slot to do phone banking. Thus, Julie at Barack’s Inspired Phone Bank Army came up with a great idea when the server gets overloaded, (or the time slot for calls expires) Go blog commenting!

Its actually a bit more than that, its targeted blogging in the states of interest. Newspapers and media outlets often times have blogs, and there is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there. Thus, for the times we can’t get on the phone, we can put effort into getting the right information into voters hands. The issues pages are a huge resource in this regard.

Another opppurtunity includes targeting the blogs located in states of interest. The goal is to provide correct information, or help someone who is undecided or cynical to vote for Barack. Arguing with diehard Clinton supporters is likely not the best use of the little time we have left to work with.

We have only about 23 hours left, the phones are our best strategy, short of being on the ground, but prudent blog commenting can also help when the phone server is overloaded. If you do however go down the path of blog commenting, make an entry, and then retry the phone call server, it does come back now and then, and folks are getting through, albeit intermittently.

Winona DFL: Winona County DFL Banquet - March 2, 2008

Wow, what a blast, there were well over *170 folks in attendance, as well as Mike Ceresi, Jack Nelson-Palmeyer, and Al Franken’s wife. The keynote speaker was MN Senator Ellen Anderson.

I met a number of folks, a surprising number from adjoining states of MN and IA. Its good to get out in 3D and have some face time, as contrasted with the 15 or so hours online I spend every week volunteering with Obama’s campaign. I almost wish, I would have spent more 3d time pre-caucus, but that is water over the dam at this point.

One fellow I ran into was Victor Vieth of the National Child Protection training center. They are rolling out some new programs in the near future, and their work looks to be pretty amazing and they most definitely fill a critical need. It was also cool to learn of Mike Ceresi’s involvement in getting them funded.

I also talked engineering with a couple guys, and met a number of interesting folks from a variety of walks of life. Everything from biodiesel conversions to pathology to folks involved in foster care. A most diverse crowd indeed.

Jack Nelson-Palmeyer was one of the first speakers… there were others, but alas, my palm battery died, and I’d rather not get a name wrong, so I’ll have to forego that for now.

Jack presents a most inspiring vision, its easy to get behind him… od course being I signed up to volunteer with his campaign some weeks back I was already behind him. He has the greatest vision of any of the candidates, both by paper research, and by hearing what he has to say. To some extent, he carries a tone reminiscent of Paul Wellstone yet with a mix of Russ Feingold. Granted, as a prior republican I didn’t agree with their views, but was impressed with the stances they took nontheless. I really think Jack would be a top notch senator for us.

Next up was Al Franken’s wife… and its hard to say a whole lot one way or another since he wasn’t there himself. She did put on a nice speech though. I have a feeling based upon paper research that Al would serve the party very well, although he doesn’t have the vision of Jack, nor the get it done approach of Mike Ceresi. Were it not for his name and success, he likely would mostly be a go with the party type of guy. However, with his name, he can rally folks, and he is a smart man. Assuming he surrounds himself with great advisors, I think he will do well.

Mike Ceresi comes across as a go to get things done sort of guy, and can capture a big picture fast, and capture secondary and tertiary consequences of a multitude of issues. I met Mike back in 93 or so, when a friend was of council with Robins Kaplan. Mike’s speech was pretty powerful, and he presented a big picture view, and specifically used the word sacrifice, a rarity for a politician… Apart from my personal knowledge, as well as my paper research, his position of being willing to say what folks need to hear, rather than what they just want to hear goes a long way. I have no doubt he will get things done, and do exceedingly well. Its too bad we can’t have both him and Jack as senators, that would be a dream team combination.

Tim Walz sent a representative, and they talked a bit about the FISA bill which I blogged about previously. His staff seem to really be on top of things.

And then on to Ellen Anderson’s keynote speech, where she relayed the long term history of the energy bill, and how Gov Pawlenty jumped on the bandwagon. It was a fascinating history for sure, including how they stopped some rather off the wall definitions as concerns renewable energy sources. She also discussed the use of non-corn based ethanol, which imho is the way of the future. She also talked about how rapidly things are moving forward in this session, and a little bit on healthcare. Again, I wish I had my palm, as I am really lost without it.. thus this summary is a lot more vague than I’d really like it to be.

I left around 8:45PM as I expected the weather to take a dive. It was a good call, the weather gradually deteriorated over the 30 minute drive home. Starting at 35 deg F in Winona, and ending up at 30 deg F with ice pellets in St Charles. I’m sure it was no fun for those who had a long drive this evening.. the weather went south really fast.

I think the organizers did a wonderful job of putting this together, and I really appreciate the Winona County DFL chair Ann Morse responding to my last minute email and getting me in. It was well worth it.

* I think they said 170, but my hearing is not so great. 

GovTrack: H.R. 5351: Text of Legislation passed the house

The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 has a provision to encourage bicycle commuting. In fact, employers would be able to offer a tax exempt fringe benefit of up to $20 a month for those who commute by bicycle.

Granted, being I coordinate virtual teams in my business, who don’t commute, and are not employees, the ability to offer this fringe benefit has limited value to me, other than it will reduce emissions. If I ever decide to go the route of onsite employees again, this is something I will have to highly consider.

Years ago, one of my techs, as well as a co-engineer used to commute by bicycle. Even I had to prove it to myself I could do so… on one of the coldest days of the year. I figured if I could ride 3.5 miles in -23 deg F weather, I would have no excuse for not doing so on any other day. Well, I didn’t bicycle commute very often, but it did convince me it was possible.

Thus, I think this is a great addition to the bill. The cost to the govt is pretty low, the cost to employers who choose to offer it is pretty low, and apart from reducing carbon emissions, it is likely to also result in lower medical costs, and even efficiency gains due to healthier employees. Its also one of those fringe benefits that can give an employer an edge when it comes to recruiting. Not so much from a benefit standpoint in and of itself, but that an employer is on the ball, and wants to encourage energy conservation, as well as improved employee health… and such a stance can make a difference when it comes to recruiting, at least in some sectors.

H.F. No. 2800, 4th Engrossment - 85th Legislative Session 2007-2008
E85

Initially, when I first heard of this, it was like whoa… a gas tax increase with the economy taking a header, not cool. But alas, in politics as in other aspects of life, whats on the surface is often times not the whole story. Thus, it was time to do some digging.

Well, first I come to find out, this is the first time the gas tax has increased since 1988.. and that makes me go hmmm. A quick run over to the Federal Reserve’s CPI calculator makes for an interesting analysis. 20 cents in 1988 equates to 36 cents in 2008. Granted, the CPI is a bit broad, but if we look at the cost of fuel, vs the cost of construction, its probably a reasonable calculation. Thus, in looking at the last 20 years, the MN legislature should have acted way before now. Secondly, with October’s 28 cent gas tax, it ends up being 8 cents less than it would have been in 1988 dollars. Now, I wouldn’t go so far and play the game that the legislature came up with a tax decrease, but it is interesting to note the difference in the value of a dollar over time.

The next thing I did, was run some numbers, to see how the tax increase would impact me in a worst case scenario. One of my highest mileage years ended up being upwards of 43000 miles traveled. And being my vehicle is not super great on gas mileage,  that works out to about $140 as a fuel cost increase. However… thats not the full story by any means. Poorly maintained roads raise havoc from a preventative maintenance standpoint. Suspension parts and tires take a major hit in life span, but also vibration can lead to failure of other parts.

Being I have over 12 years of historical data on my car, as well as road conditions, I’m able to hazard a more quantitative guess than most. (still a lot of hand waving though, as road condition is quite subjective, without onboard datalogging and vibration sensors…. and component life span can be affected by a multitude of non-road related factors) Ultimately, I found that poorly maintained roads ended up on average increasing my maintenance costs roughly $37 a year. Yet, it should be noted that I do all maintenance work myself, thus that figure is probably two or three times greater if one were to use a commercial garage or perhaps even more at a dealership.

Then there is the aspect of safety and comfort while driving. No one likes to be riding on a buckboard as it can be pretty fatiguing, but there is also a safety factor to be considered. One trip into a corn field is a ton more expensive than even a few years of this tax increase.

And of course, the last thing is a detailed read of the bill itself, and a few things came to mind as good calls. First as concerns transfers, I know this was an issue some years back, where in there was a push to take from the airport fund and transfer it to the general budget. I think, as the bill reads, that effort was thwarted, and it is one I agree with. Aircraft fuel tax should be used to fund airport ops, not everything else under the sun, especially since airport funding is pretty tight, and aviation is already a huge source of general tax revenue.

Lastly there is a provision for a low income tax credit to offset the financial aspects of this tax. While the amount of the credit is pretty low,  to add more tax to the less fortunate for the benefit of the masses is not cool, and this credit mitigates that a bit.

This, I think the legislature made the right call on this one, although ideally they would have passed such a tax increase when the economy was good and fuel was much cheaper, and this coming from a guy who dislikes tax increases as a general principle.

Back in my Republican days, I used to enjoy sitting down and talking with Steve Sviggum, who was speaker of the MN house at the time. Sometimes we’d agree, sometimes not, but it was always a blast just to jaw with him. One of the things I remember asking, was whats the deal with all this hate stuff. I remember him saying, they could have huge disagreements on the floor, yet, at the end of the day be willing to go have a beer across party lines etc.

Twenty years ago, when I was involved with the IA state govt (no, not as an elected guy), I found the same thing. We might have substantial disagreements in the meeting sessions, yet, when finished for the day, it was a real blast to sit back and share experiences… many of which ended up being not all that different…. apart from the difference in official pov.

Thus, it does seem to be the case, that in actual political work, hate doesn’t enter the picture all that much, folks ultimately do have to work with one another. Yet, it seems more and more, the MSM likes to focus on the disagreements, and spin such into hate in order to bump up market share, and thus ad revenue. Its somewhat similar on websites…. intense controversy teetering on hate brings up traffic counts, which again helps page rank, SEO, and ultimately ad revenue. (hate in and of itself on the web is a real problem though… just ask any webmaster… there is a fine line not to be crossed, something the MSM doesn’t have to deal with).

The problem is… hate is an insideous thing, and it can propagate from the screen or newspaper into real life fast if left unchecked. These 2 guys got into it, and one ended up in the hospital, and another in jail.

Its great to be passionate about ones candidate or issues, even so far as being vocal, but hate….whoa, thats going too far.

Defense of Democracies Offers to Debate Rep. Walz on Terrorist Surveillance « Defense of Democracies

An interesting, and well versed response and a request for dialog. I think thats a good thing. Certainly I doubt that any person reasonably skilled in this arena believes FISA in and of itself is adequate. Many things have changed over the last 30 years, threats and technology are only two of them.

Yet, the author fails to mention the sunset provisions of the Protect American Act.

(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, unless someone really dropped the ball, the only gap is the immunity issue… and the last news I heard, is that the phone companies are on board even without immunity as of late last week. Thus, for now, even though the Protect America Act expired, the authorizations remain in force until they expire.

What I find odd though, is that certainly Tim Walz is aware of this, citizenry who follow such arena’s in legislation are aware of this…. and yet the author left it out. Sure, its spin, but to what audience. Certainly not to those who he is likely to dialog with, nor those who have been following such legislation. It likely will serve just to aggravate them, rather than to engage…. And I think wide scale engagement and discussion of the rather complex issues is the key to resolving how best to move forward. Few will sacrifice liberty for safety. Many will be outraged to sacrifice safety for the phone company, or for a 30 year old law. Thus, all parties have very much the same goal in mind, the problem is how to get there. Spin may work forsome, but not very well for the concerned and informed citizen. Tim Walz was right, congress and the executive branch had time to work this out. There is no reason to let things slide. The end goal is too important.

Please bear in mind, I don’t want the phone companies hung out to dry. They appear to have acted in good faith, most certainly last week, and they should not be penalized for it… but more importantly, neither should the general public.

 Defense of Democracy is a new group

And talk about spin city…. but it is free speech.

I appreciated that they included details of their commercial on their website. It actually makes it pretty easy to use as a template to create a counter one. Thus…. here is some proposed audio. If anyone wants to run with it, by all means feel free to use this in any form you like. Kaltura makes for a pretty easy way to put together collaborative video projects.

• (Music ramps up)
• Midnight.
• February 16th.
• The law that lets the phone companies off the hook expires….
• Senate Democrats and Republicans vote overwhelmingly to protect the phone co.
• But the House refuses to vote on H.R.3773 (as amended by the Senate) and instead….
• want to protect the lives of American citizens AND their civil liberties.
• So the phone company looses
• Tell the House of Representatives to do its job and continue to block the Senate’s Terror Surveillance Bill. FISA must be updated based upon todays technology, AND it must also protect the civil liberties of American Citizens.

I’m not anti phone co… well ok, I’m anti alltel, but thats another story entirely. Protecting the phone company from being hung out to dry is a good thing to ensure continued cooperation in grey areas of the law, but it best not be a deciding factor as to whether FISA is updated or not. American lives may be at stake.

I also have even greater respect for Barack Obama, who chose to vote NO when the bill was before the senate. For reference, Hillary did not vote, and John McCain voted for it.

Here is a letter from Barack Obama to one of his constituents. I’ve copied a part of  it here.

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. I am disappointed that S. 2248, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, that would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telecom companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. I am frustrated by the President’s decision to play politics by threatening to veto any legislation not containing immunity. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation. The House and Senate must reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill before being signed into law.

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.

And thank you as well to congressman Tim Walz for taking a stand on this.

GovTrack: S. 2433: Text of Legislation

Wow, talk about a ruckus over at FRC. Whats really scary, is I used to contribute to them….

Assuming the figure is $845 billion, and being I have yet to find a GAO analysis, its a big unknown what the real cost will be, I find the outrage more than a bit out of line. If one were to ask a grade school kid, if they would give $1.29 a day to help others in the world who were not so fortunate, the vast majority would probably be for it. Then if you told them that it will help folks who live on under $1/day, even more youngsters would no doubt chime in.

Granted, there are legitimate concerns, there also exists tie-ins to other UN programs, which can raise additional concerns. Yet, the biggest outrage seems to be cost….  It really makes me wonder.