The Right to Petition

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS2Chicago.com break down this week's Springfield Petition Drive


While the key to getting elected is winning more votes than any of your opponents, this might actually be the easiest step in the campaign process.

The first step for a successful election is getting your name on the ballot, yet many candidates can't even get this far.

Illinois election law mandates that Presidential candidates from an established party (i.e. Democrats and Republicans) must have at least 3,000 registered voters sign petitions in order to get their name on the February 5th Primary ballot. They need names this week.

If a candidate fails to meet this minimum standard, the name can be eliminated from the final ballot. No name, no chance.

Because many of the people who sign these petitions are not actually registered to vote, a well-organized campaign will often get triple the number of needed signatures to survive a potential legal challenge.

But, for candidates from third parties, this is virtually impossible.

Illinois election law requires that Presidential candidates representing "new parties" get
25,000 signatures from registered voters. Most third party candidates have difficulty meeting this minimum standard much less getting enough signatures to survive any legal challenges.

This might not seem fair to prospective independents, and nobody in Springfield–where these laws were written–would argue with you. The Democrats and Republicans who wrote these election laws are products of a two-party system and intend to preserve it.

They would tell any prospective independents to simply pick one of our "established parties" … and be sure you get enough signatures on those petitions.


VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Candidates File Their Petitions

Frontloading: Even the States in a Horserace

The Republican Party of Iowa has now ensured that 2008 will go down as the longest-ever presidential campaign.The Republican caucus in Iowa will be scheduled on January 3, 2008 which means Iowa Republicans will then get to vote in the General Election exactly 11 months and 1 day later.

Political pundits previewing the Democratic candidate debate on Tuesday said there are now about "35 shopping days left" for the candidates until the the first "Election (we should say nominating) Days are here.

Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally set the stage for the nomination process by hosting the first contests in which the party faithful vote for their preferred candidates to represent the Democratic and Republican parties in the General Election.This tradition is called frontloading as it gives these small states a disproportionate voice in the nomination process.

While just over 400,000 voters took part in the Iowa and NH contests in 2004 (that's less than the number of registered voters in DuPage County) the winners and near winners are vaulted into the national spotlight. The result is that a field of 18 candidates is almost instantly winnowed down to a half-dozen candidates who can garner enough attention, momentum, and money to sustain their campaigns through the contests in larger states.

Larger states such as Florida (Jan. 29), California, New York, and Illinois (Feb. 5) have tried to diminish the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire by scheduling primary elections earlier than ever. But the end result is that candidates have spent even more time and money in Iowa and New Hampshire for fear that failure in these states will carry over to losses in the bigger states.

In our system of federalism, the national government has virtually no control over this process. States and their political parties have final say in the methods used to nominate the top candidates.Until the national parties intervene in the nomination calendar, frontloading by Iowa and New Hampshire will create a year-long election that will always be disproportionately influenced by two of our smaller states.

Can you come up with a better (more fair) nomination calendar, Political Warriors? Create your own nomination schedule and share it here with us.

'Big girls don't cry,' but big boys can?

When is it OK for a man to cry? What about women? What about women in politics?

There may, in fact be another double standard as a variable on why we have yet to have a woman president.

Tom Lutz, a professor at the University of California, Riverside who authored an exhaustive history of crying says a tearful response that would be seen as sensitivity in a man could be seen as a lack of control in his wife.

"Bill could cry, (and did during his presidency), but Hillary can't," says Lutz.

The AP uses the Clinton's -- and Ellen's Iggy sob story of to compare the differences between men and women. The story is linked here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSYTw8axol0GWlZ1J55ZJvjL4diQ

So what do you think? If your President, Mrs. Clinton cried, what would you think? Would she show sensitivity? Would it show irrationality?

Or would it just make you cry?

Foreign Policy ain't beanbag

We have talked briefly about the situation arising on the Turkish/Iraqi border, where Turkey had threatened to send troops into Iraq after a deadly weekend clash with rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that left at least 12 Turkish soldiers dead and 16 others wounded.

The attack on Sunday October 21st, the most audacious in recent memory, raised fears that Turkey would retaliate by sending its army in pursuit of the rebels, who are based inside Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. That might touch off a wider conflagration pitting the Turks against Iraqi Kurds, and, possibly, even Americans in Iraq.

While the economist.com reports that Turkey has said it will give diplomacy a chance http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10010199, this has the Bush foreign policy in another hazardous situation.

The 2 Regular guys give us further insight into the issue, dusting off their clubs and the phrase that "politics, (or in this case) foreign policy ain't beanbag." Post is at CBS2Chicago.com:

When you pull your sand wedge out of the bag you know you are in trouble. Your ball has hit the bunker, the trap. Serious danger lies ahead.

There is imposing danger along the Turkish/Iraqi border.

Clearly our attempt to liberate Iraqis has brought about unforeseen consequences in the region. Deposing Saddam, in hindsight, was easy. That mission was accomplished quickly. The cost was minimal.

The greater cost, however, is wrought with uncertainty. The whole region has grown increasingly unstable.

The issue in Turkey involves its Kurdish minority. Kurdish rebels living in Iraq have used the instability in the region to launch insurgent attacks into Turkey. The Turkish government feels obligated to retaliate and defend its own soil.

Our Congress has added insult to injury by debating a resolution to punish the Turks for their apparent genocide of their Armenian population one hundred years ago. The Turkish government feels obligated to defend their reputation.

Our war with Iraq has drawn in the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Israelis and now the Turks. The whole region has become one giant sand trap.

Is it any wonder our foreign policy score has suffered?

In the future be careful of your club choice. Foreign policy is not beanbag.

VIDEO: Complicated Crisis In Turkey

Lessons, not water, from Katrina to burning California

They could really use lots of water -- and less wind to fight the raging wildfires in Southern California.

Hurricane Katrina has many legacies for the Bush White House, none pleasant. One is the guarantee that as soon as disaster strikes in the United States, President Bush's every move is closely scrutinized to gauge the speed and tone of his response.

On Tuesday, while he had no water saved, Bush declared a federal emergency and his administration said lessons were learned from Katrina. The President will be in Southern California today. Residents, hoping the wind will die down, no doubt hope the President brings more than "hot air" with him.

Linked is the AP's story on the lessons and the legacy Katrina has left on the federal government:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21453908/

The fires in Southern California give us that opportunity to assess just what exactly they have learned.

After Katrina, the Bush administration was criticized for its slow response. The fires in Southern California brought an immediate government response. Over 250,000 have already been evacuated. No hesitation this time.

After Katrina, the Bush administration was criticized for mishandling the role played by the federal and state agencies involved. FEMA was embarrassed in New Orleans. This time they appear to have been charged with delivering quick relief and they have. Today, intergovernmental cooperation appears to be smoother.

After Katrina, the Bush administration was criticized for not giving the personal attention expected when crisis hits. The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the President, have offered the personal gestures now expected.

While fighting the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s talked about the three Rs of government – relief, recovery and reform. As the wild fires rage this week all three Rs can be found on the ground in Southern California.

Maybe over time lessons can be learned.

____________________

Or maybe not. Linked here is the story of how the fires came after the State of California had declared the end of fire season, and laid off seasonal firefighters. This year the fire didn't get the message and the State was scrambling to call all available fire personel back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21443093/

Congressional Terms though Schip evaluation

Several Ch. 11 terms are seen in practice in the SCHIP bill that was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President:

What is SCHIP?

CMS ( Center for Medicare & Medicade Services) Administers the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Program benefits became available October 1, 1997 and will provide $24 billion in federal matching funds over 10 years to help states expand health care coverage to over 5 million of the nation's uninsured children.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is jointly financed by the Federal and State governments and is administered by the States. Within broad Federal guidelines, each State determines the design of its program, eligibility groups, benefit packages, payment levels for coverage, and administrative and operating procedures. SCHIP provides a capped amount of funds to States on a matching basis for Federal fiscal years (FY) 1998 through 2007. Federal payments under title XXI to States are based on State expenditures under approved plans effective on or after October 1, 1997.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalSCHIPPolicy/

This makes SCHIP Sunset Legislation or Provision -- In public policy, a sunset provision or sunset clause is a provision in a statute or regulation that terminates or repeals all or portions of the law after a specific date, unless further legislative action is taken to extend it. Not all laws have sunset clauses; in such cases, the law goes on indefinitely.

With the President vetoing the bill and Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi vowing not to back down, two other Congressional terms come to focus:

Compromise (or the need to)

To come to agreement by concession: hence, a compromise bill is secured by mutual concessions. Most legislators will agree that successful legislation is always the result of compromise, although in some floor speeches, members may pound their desks and vow never to compromise.

Divided Government

The condition that exists when the majority party in either or both houses of Congress differs from the party of the president is called divided government. The constitutional structure of the U.S. government, which separates the legislative and executive branches, sets differing terms of office for representatives, senators, and the president, and ensures that they will be chosen from different constituency bases, makes divided government possible.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6429.html

Public Law

All bills that complete the lawmaking process described in the Constitution and are signed into law or, if not signed by the president, have gone beyond the time in which the president can veto the measure. This includes bills and joint resolutions, but not concurrent resolutions or simple resolutions of the House and Senate, which do not become public law.

Actually, SCHIP is part of all of the following public laws:

Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Title XXI, Subtitle J, Section 4901, Public Law 105-33; Public Law 105-100 and Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 Public Law 106-113, Section 702; Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement Act of 2000, Title VIII, Section 801, 802, and 803, Public Law 106-554, Public Law 108-74, Public Law 108-127 and Public Law 109-171.

You could add a few more terms, like Department of Health and Human Services and Veto Overide (2/3 majority vote of both houses in our bicameral Congress needed). It didn't happen last week in the House. The vote was 273-156, leaving Democrats 13 short of the two-thirds majority of 286 needed to override the third veto of the Bush presidency.

I fought the law.....

Many of you commented here how the Illinois now mandated moment for reflection is not practical -- how would it be enforced?

There are many more examples like this.

American law is underenforced—and we like it that way. Full enforcement of every last law on the books would put all of us in prison for crimes such as "injuring a mail bag." No enforcement of our laws, on the other hand, would mean anarchy. Somehow, officials must choose what laws really matter.

Why are there dead zones in U.S. law? The answer goes beyond the simple expense of enforcement but betrays a deeper, underlying logic. Tolerated lawbreaking is almost always a response to a political failure—the inability of our political institutions to adapt to social change or reach a rational compromise that reflects the interests of the nation and all concerned parties.

That's why the American statutes are full of laws that no one wants to see fully enforced—or even enforced at all...What's going on here is that the parties all know the law is being broken, accept it, and—while almost never overtly saying so—both the "criminals" and law enforcement concede that everyone likes it better that way.

The law in question thus continues to have a formal existence, and, as we shall see, it may become a kind of zoning ordinance, enforced only against very public or flagrant behavior...The importance of understanding why and when we will tolerate lawbreaking cannot be overstated.

Lawyers and journalists spend most of their time watching the president, Congress, and the courts as they make law. But tolerance of lawbreaking constitutes one of the nation's other major—yet most poorly understood—ways of creating social and legal policy.

Almost as much as the laws that we enact, the lawbreaking to which we shut our eyes reflects how tolerant U.S. society really is to individual or group difference. Slate.com has a four-part series on American Lawbreaking linked here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/

Does this affect the legitimacy of our representative government?