Rep. Thaddeus McCotter launches longshot presidential bid

2012's Non-Third-Party Third-Party Candidate for President by Tim Heffernan October 29, 2010  --  Still looking ahead to the 112th Congress, and to 2012 (previous thoughts here and here), a big question presents itself: Will there be a third-party candidate for president next time around? John Heilemann's much-discussed piece on Palin's White House chances hinged on his conjecture — well-sourced as always — that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is going to run. I ignored that conjecture because, basically, I think it's fantasy, great sources notwithstanding. But the question remains: will there be a third-party candidate? My guess: If there is a "third-party candidate" in 2012, it won't be one from a third party at all — but one from within the GOP. Specifically, a moderate Republican. Namely, Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana. I take it as a given that President Obama will not receive a challenge from within his party. There is no obvious candidate; there is no clear upside. It would be hard to find a more centrist Democrat than Obama, impossible to find a more popular one, and running as a genuine lefty would be suicide. So Obama it is. As for the GOP, its national leadership has hitched itself so strongly to the far right that it's inevitable that its candidate will come from there. Or at least campaign from there — witness the infinitely plastic centrist Mitt Romney's pathetic pandering to a base that considers his religion all but satanic. The fact is that the party votes are ossified. Dems are voting Dem, Republicans are voting Republican. It's the independents who are in play. And no national Republican politician — no sitting senator or representative — can credibly claim any independence without giving up the base. Which leaves a potential opening for a candidate who appeals to the highly malleable self-described independents. That means state leaders. And the only one among them who can claim true independence and who is remotely popular is Daniels. I don't claim that he will run, or that he'd win the White House if he does. But if he does run, he's blessed by the quirks of the nomination process. Iowa all but decides things. And Daniels can only be happy that a run would pit him there against a faker from Massachusetts, a dingbat from Alaska, possibly a far-right Southerner, possibly a weirdo from Pennsylvania, and likely a host of career Beltway panderers who will be coming off two years of doing nothing while the country spins further into dysfunction. The view from Indianapolis looks good. ###  Mark McKinnon Predicts Third Party to Rise from 'Poisonous' System by Janell Sims, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy October 22, 2010 -- Mark McKinnon, Republican political advisor, president of Maverick Media, and the vice-chairman of Public Strategies, Inc., joined the Shorenstein Center for an event discussing "The Hotter the Water, the Stronger the Tea Party." McKinnon opened his talk with a video clip that showed highlights of the past few months in the run-up to the midterm elections. He observed that the election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was "the first signal that something significant was happening" in the shifting of American politics. After the "historic, transcendent campaign with Obama," McKinnon said, he doesn't see America ever having a "popular president again," because complex issues — international involvement, domestic economic restructuring and changes in media technology — are dividing the country. Painting a picture of Washington today, McKinnon explained that there is no longer the bipartisanship that once existed. "You get in trouble for working with the other side," he said. A "complete breakdown of trust in politics and government" has resulted in "voter anger and frustration, and a rise of the citizen politician" — someone who has had a career outside of politics and who brings in outside experience. McKinnon said he fears that the system we have now is "so poisonous that good people are leaving, and it's not attracting good people to get in." The "mainstream media is dying," McKinnon stated, and as a result, politicians like Sarah Palin who use social media are able to have complete control over their media image, and do not have to answer to a larger media entity that would hold them accountable and ask them questions. Elections are being reshaped by the "increasing influence of outside money," McKinnon said. "Campaigns are being outspent" by unions and special interests. As a result, "voters don't feel like they can effect elections anymore." McKinnon said that he is a "strong advocate" of election reform. "Anger is translating to action," McKinnon observed, and has caused the rise of the Tea Party. A "huge train wreck is coming," he said. "It's hard to imagine things being worse in Washington, but they will be." However, this will lay the ground for "something very exciting," McKinnon predicted: "A third party in 2012."   ###   Shady Florida PAC continues to spend big in national races By Luke Johnson 10/22/10  -- The Ending Spending Fund, a recently incorporated “super PAC” registered to CPA Nancy Watkins at a Tampa address housing 32 other active political committees in Florida, spent $555,562 in media buys Thursday in three close House races as well as the deadlocked Nevada Senate race. The Ending Spending Fund incorporated as an independent-expenditure-only PAC on Oct. 5, allowing it to spend freely on multiple campaigns provided it does not coordinate with them. The group has to disclose its donors; however, the group is too new to have qualified for the October quarterly deadline. On Oct. 19, Ending Spending spent $594,438 on a media buy in the Nevada Senate race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and spent another $243,144 against him Thursday. It also spent $186,334 against Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., $71,334 against Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, and $29,900 against Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho. (Despite being a Democrat, Rep. Minnick was the only Democrat endorsed by the Tea Party Express — until Friday, when it revoked his endorsement. He voted against the health care bill and the stimulus, and John McCain won his district by 26 points in 2008.) Ending Spending is one of 32 committees registered to Watkins at 610 South Blvd. in Tampa. Most of the committees registered fund Republican causes — Watkins said in a 2009 Florida Trend profile that she supported groups calling for “limited government and more freedom.” In 2009, the Federal Elections Committee fined Watkins $99,000 for various violations associated with her work as treasurer for the (Mel) Martinez for Senate campaign. When no-party candidate Bud Chiles was running in the governor’s race, he held a press conference outside the building, calling it “ground zero for what’s wrong with Florida politics.” He asked, “What’s being hidden from Florida voters?” Luke Johnson reports on Florida for The American Independent. ###   Talk Grows of Third-Party in 2012. Could the political turbulence of this unusual year yield a serious third-party bid in 2012? October 19, 2010 ###   Third party in 2012 By Brent Budowsky   09/27/10  --  America has moved from a president elected in 2008 for hope and change to a midterm election in 2010 dominated by massive dumps of mud and sludge on voters sickened and disgusted by both political parties. Is America ready for a president who could write a $3 billion check for his campaign and never need one dime of special-interest money? Should New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg run for president as an Independent, he would re-rewrite the rules of national politics and become the transforming force voters demand. Imagine the candidacy of a self-made billionaire CEO who built and ran a globally admired business, successfully manages the largest city government in the world and can tell voters that he is unbought and unbossed by campaign donors, lobbyist influence or partisan politics. President Obama is famous for disrespecting advice from outside a small inner circle, even from strong supporters, but here is my advice. There is a powerful majority tide of public revulsion toward both political parties. Either the president will lead it, follow it, or his presidency will be overwhelmed by it. The president should: invite Michael Bloomberg to be his Treasury secretary. Ask former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to formally join the White House staff for six months. Name a chief of staff who has operated at the highest levels, such as Tom Daschle, George Mitchell or Leon Panetta. Bring in a senior counselor such as David Gergen who has served Democratic and Republican presidents. I suggest a dramatic presidential shakeup, openly stated without spin, clearly implemented in fact, publicly announced in an October surprise, going to voters in November with a program to regain the mantle of change that the president championed in 2008, which would inspire independents and rally Democrats in 2010. A dramatic shakeup would vastly enhance public confidence in the Obama presidency. It would increase consumer and business confidence. It would encourage business to unleash the nearly $2 trillion that is now being hoarded and increase the lending and investment that is the surest path to a job-filled recovery. If the president does not take dramatic action, he sends the signal “Vote for Democrats, you get more of the same.” And: “I am not listening. The president must learn what JFK learned, and do what JFK did, after the Bay of Pigs. All presidents make mistakes. The best presidents learn from mistakes, and make changes. The 2010 campaign is leading to a closing dirt-dump that will further inflame an unhappy nation, followed by a new Congress that will be a partisan snake-pit of gridlocked impotence. This will even further outrage voters against everything they detest about a two-party system they believe is incompetent and corrupt. The time is right for Mike Bloomberg. The nation is ready for leaders who rise above petty politics, who can run a business and manage a government without being bought, bossed, owned or rented by any interest or party. The president can still return to his first principles of 2008. If he doesn’t, Mike Bloomberg or someone else will answer the call of a nation whose voters are shouting a primal scream for change, which the president and both parties ignore at their peril. Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv.net. Source: © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.  ###
Independent Green, Glenda Gail Parker, urges Virginia to boycott major parties, show leadership. by Joseph Oddo, Election day November 4, 2008 message.   Alexandria, VA -- If ever there was a reason for voters in America to question the authority we grant to our political leaders, now is the time. Never before has a small group of elected officials taken advantage of the public’s trust and totally squandered it on false hopes and misguided intentions. Our career politicians seem to be daring voters to vote them out of office by passing an $800 billion plus bailout package – one that only passed after holdout members were able to insert their earmarks. Providing money to failing financial institutions without stepping in to help struggling home owners is a foolish venture and indicative of who our members of congress and the White House actually represent. What did the voters get in the Wall Street bailout? The most brazen extraction of our national wealth ever committed. What did the taxpayers get in the Wall Street bailout?   After eight years of doubling our national debt, continued waste, fraud and abuse in our federal budget management, and the increase of government intrusion in our lives by legalizing government surveillance, shouldn’t our citizens be ready to boycott those responsible?  Our ruling class lead you to believe that there is a difference between the two big parties, yet they both bear responsibility – they hope voters won’t recognize that. So who should we really be voting for? None of the above. The Independent Greens of Virginia were America's first state party to oppose the Wall Street Welfare program. We were the first to advocate Rail as a positive solution to cut our dependency on foreign oil and to describe the war-for-oil for what it is. Both major parties have been complicit in the charade. Presenting a tax cut while fighting two wars and ignoring positive solutions yields the proof that the ruling class thinks the American taxpayers are not capable of non-partisan voting. Instead of drawing up federal budgets that serve as a statement of our values as a country, we are repeatedly embarrassed by how and where we allocate the precious resources that the taxpayers have pledged with trust. Instead of asking for sacrifice during the last six years of war-making, we were sold tax cuts that amount to nothing more than credit card advances on oil when we could have put those monies to building consumption-reduction rail and a bridge to alternative energy and its distribution system. The war-for-oil machine has succeeded in churning through billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, cost overruns, and un-auditable improper payments. One would think that Americans would be upset, maybe even bitter, considering the sacrifices that our brave soldiers –past and present- have endured for our country. Never again can we trust our governing elite after playing “fast and loose” with some mortgages then holding the Nation’s wealth hostage to succeed in diverting Billions of our tax dollars right into their bank accounts. I’m a businesswoman, a retired Air Force officer and governmental budget analyst on the ballot for the US Senate in Virginia yet excluded from speaking in the debates this year, just as in 2006. I ask for your non-partisan vote.  Let’s make Virginia America’s leader for Rail, Solar and Wind power.  Let’s innovate with Rail.  Let’s cut dependency on foreign oil in half. I have years of experience in cutting budgets and doing it right. Though it may be a stretch for you to consider voting outside of the big two parties, you may agree that we can’t keep sending millionaires and lawyers to Congress to represent our middle-class interests. We can grow the economy, balance the budget, pay off the debt, create jobs AND cut dependence on foreign oil by making a serious commitment to expanding and modernizing our rail system. Rail returns $18 to the community for every dollar invested. We can build rail and balance the federal budget. Rail will make us safer, provides cleaner air, cleaner water and makes us more productive. So I ask you, why should debates be conducted without my voice? Why are the two parties so insulated against progress that they fear the logical solutions that I offer? Are they so afraid of losing their funding source that they forget about the greater good? Now is the perfect opportunity for American voters to boycott the two parties on Election Day 2008 and beyond until they open the process and allow all qualified candidates to make their case in a public forum.  We urge voters to take advantage of the timing and vote out all the incumbents. If you vote for either of the two big parties, you can expect Washington to continue stealing your tax dollars, and your children's future. With all the alternative choices available this year, the only wasted vote is one for either of the big parties.   Our team offers solutions specific to Virginia and ask Virginians to play a leadership role. We offer a simple plan to pay off the federal debt in five years – by installing an auditable accounting system in the Department of Defense where no-bid contracts and improper payments are bankrupting our Treasury. By just counting the money, then we can track it and cut out the wanton waste of tax dollars.   Finally we urge Virginians to stand for office. Take stock of the issues that matter to you. Join the debate, get on the ballot and run for office. Do you realize that 50% of our General Assembly runs unopposed? We need you involved. Democracy cannot survive without you. ###
Third parties seek impact. Charlottesville Daily Progress Monday, October 30, 2006 Third-party politics is always interesting, and especially so in Virginia this year. Central Virginia has in Joseph Oddo its own third-party candidate, representing the Independent Green Party, against Republican Virgil Goode and Democrat Al Weed in the 5th District race for Congress.  The usual questions and complaints are heard in this race about third parties: - Third parties aren’t a viable part of the democratic system. - Third parties sidetrack voters, pulling support away from viable candidates. And: - Who are these people, anyway? The Independent Greens are not who many people think they are. The Independent Green Party is often confused with the Green Party, from which it broke away. But while the Greens generally lodge left of center, the Independent Greens trend rightward. The Independent Greens have a brief platform that calls for fiscal responsibility in Washington, including balancing the federal budget, paying off the debt, holding the Pentagon accountable for its spending and eliminating non-competitive no-bid contracts. That’s the conservative part. The party also endorses building high-speed rail across Virginia to reduce traffic congestion. That’s the green part. Its goal of reducing reliance on foreign oil also reflects a traditionally conservative view. The party also calls for terms limits for House and Senate - a position some conservatives would call liberal. And it advocates reinvigorating democracy by mounting challenges to entrenched incumbents and a powerful two-party system that, Independent Greens contend, seeks to lock out newcomers. Which takes us back to those complaints. By polling just enough votes to prevent someone else’s victory, the third party is seen as a spoiler; by failing to attract enough votes to win, the third party is seen as nonviable. Such criticisms may be accurate enough. Ironically, the political establishment also often operates as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: By marginalizing third parties - such as by keeping them out of debates - the establishment ensures they will stay on the margins. If a candidate has garnered enough voter interest to be listed on the ballot, he or she also should be included in public debates. Third party adherents generally see their role as something other than either winner or spoiler. They know the odds against them are slight. But they want to spread a message, wake up the electorate, shake up the establishment. In 1992, Ross Perot’s third-party presidential campaign “failed” in that Mr. Perot came nowhere near being elected to the White House, but in a sense it succeeded when Republicans embraced one of his campaign planks, the balanced federal budget, and moved to implement it when they took control of Congress in 1994. Today, the Independent Greens say they want to raise issues that the major parties are afraid to take on. They want to make voters think more deeply about campaigns and issues of governance. They want to make elections more interesting and bring voters out of their apathy by offering alternatives to the usual campaign fare. They may want to throw a bit of a scare into the major parties, so that the Big Two at least will have to engage them on the issues and perhaps - as with Ross Perot and the GOP - even adopt some of their goals. Critics may be right about the spoiler effect. But third parties can have some worthy aims worth supporting. Voters will have to probe their own consciences to determine if they want to allocate their valuable support to candidates deemed viable, or spend it on a third-party effort to shake up the establishment. This story can be found here.

Political Campaign Management

Candidate Prep & Training