Hi folks: I am running on the ballot as a candidate for Assembly District Delegate in the 47th Assembly District Election this coming Sunday, January 11th - and, if you live in Culver City, Rancho Park, Baldwin Hills, Fox Hills, Ladera Hgts, Crenshaw area - you should come by and see how the process works. (To see if you are in the 47th District, look at the map here: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/speaker/District/Map/default.aspx. To see if you have other friends who are running for Delegate, check the list here: http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.4840275/k.804C/ADEM_Candidates.htm.) The location of the Election Meeting is the Vets Memorial Building located at the corner of Overland Avenue and Culver Blvd. (catty-corner from Sony Studios.) Registration starts at 3 pm and the election starts at 5 pm. You can vote early and leave if ya want to. Veterans Memorial Complex 4117 Overland Ave. Culver City Please come by and visit! Maybe even vote. Here is a list of Assembly District candidates approved by California CAN:
Micah Scheindlin Margaret-Mary "Hope" Aguilar Panney Wei-ChenDeana IgelsrudSteven BottKian KaeniGwendolyn AustinMichael RagognaMichael Spitzer-Rubinstein
Micah Scheindlin
Margaret-Mary "Hope" Aguilar
Panney Wei-Chen
Deana Igelsrud
Steven Bott
Kian Kaeni
Gwendolyn Austin
Michael Ragogna
Michael Spitzer-Rubinstein
Read on: From: Chairman Art Torres, California Democratic Party <cdpeditor@cadem.org>
In 2008, we were resolute in our fight for change in Washington — change in our state — change in our own communities. But the fight is not over. Now, more than ever, President-Elect Barack Obama needs a strong Democratic Party behind him. That’s why my 2009 resolution is to make sure the California Democratic Party is ready to help our President whenever he needs.
However, I need your help. On January 10 and 11, 2009, California Democrats will gather to elect almost one-third of the delegates to the California Democratic Party. These delegates will decide the direction of the Party and most importantly do whatever it takes to support the Obama-Biden Administration in the coming years.
Can you join me in reorganizing the Party by coming out to vote for your Assembly District delegate representatives on January 10 or 11, 2009? www.cadem.org/ademrsvp
On January 10 and 11, 2009, twelve delegates will be elected from every Assembly District. These delegates will represent you for a two-year term in the California Democratic Party, decide what candidates and ballot initiatives get the official endorsement of the Party, elect Party officers, and write the Party platform.
Will you make sure you are being well represented in the California Democratic Party by coming out to vote on January 10 or 11, 2009?
If you were a registered Democrat as of October 20, 2008 and are still registered democratic in that same Assembly District, you are eligible to participate. Simply pre-register here and come out to your Assembly District Delegate Election on January 10 or 11, 2009 to vote. You can find your specific voting location and time, as well as candidate information on our web site at www.cadem.org/ademlocations. Remember pre-registration is not mandatory, but will save you time.
I hope you can join me in continuing to make this Party strong. It’s the one New Year’s resolution that we can all make—and keep! Pre-register now to vote in the Assembly District Meetings.
Sincerely,
Sen. Art Torres (Ret.) Chairman, California Democratic Party
WHY WE MUST CONTINUE TO WORK HARD IN THE CAMPAIGN:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27098739#27098739
PLEASE PHONE BANK WHENEVER YOU CAN!
The more I read about Sarah Palin, the more I am starting to think it is a waste of energy to focus attention on her. People are not going to turn against her because the campaign is able to prove that she is inexperienced or that she doesn't know what she is talking about. Millions of voters are instead attracted to her precisely because she is a new face. They already know she is inexperienced but they are rooting for the new kid to succeed. And the more she is attacked, the more her sympathizers will take her side. Any sort of attack will be portrayed as mean and unfair. Even Obama's comment about lipstick on a pig that had nothing whatsoever to do with Sarah Palin was portrayed as an unfair attack on Sarah Palin. So perhaps it is best to just ignore her as much as possible.
Anybody remember Dan Quayle? The man couldn't spell "potato." Lloyd Bentsen absolutely devastated him during the vice presidential debate in 1988, with perhaps the greatest rejoinder of any debate ever ("You're no Jack Kennedy"), but it didn't matter. George Bush the first won anyway, even though very few people had much confidence in his choice for VP.
The election is between Obama and McCain. Obama needs to stick to his themes, and talk about the emptiness of McCain's promises. Sarah Palin is a boon to him in that she makes it harder for McCain to attack Obama as inexperienced. But I'm not sure the campaign gains any ground by pointing out Sarah Palin's obvious weaknesses.
Wow! According to the BBC, Obama is loved across the world!
All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama to be US president, ahead of his Republican rival John McCain.
Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled.
In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view was that America's relations with the rest of the world would improve under a President Obama.
If Mr McCain were elected, the most common view in 19 countries was that relations would remain about the same.
The poll was conducted before the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions and before the headline-grabbing nomination of Sarah Palin as Mr McCain's running mate.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the results could therefore be a reflection of the greater media focus on Mr Obama as he competed for the presidential candidacy against Hillary Clinton.
International ties
The margin of those in favour of Mr Obama winning November's US election ranged from 9% in India to 82% in Kenya, which is the birthplace of the Illinois senator's father.
On average 49% preferred Mr Obama to 12% in favour of Mr McCain. Nearly four in 10 of those polled did not take a view.
On average 46% thought US relations with the world would improve with Mr Obama in the White House, 22% that ties would stay the same, while seven per cent expected relations to worsen.
Only 20% thought ties would get better if Mr McCain were in the Oval Office.
The expectation that a McCain presidency would improve US relations with the world was the most common view, by a modest margin, only in China, India and Nigeria.
But across the board, the largest number - 37% - thought relations under a president McCain would stay the same, while 16% expected them to deteriorate.
In no country did most people think that a McCain presidency would worsen relations.
US poll
Oddly, in Turkey more people thought US relations would worsen with an Obama presidency than under Mr McCain, even though most Turks polled preferred Mr Obama to win.
In Egypt, Lebanon, Russia and Singapore, the predominant expectation was that relations would remain the same if Mr Obama won the election.
The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve ties were US Nato allies - Canada (69%), Italy (64%), France (62%), Germany (61%), and the UK (54%) - as well as Australia (62%), along with Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).
When asked whether the election as president of the African-American Mr Obama would "fundamentally change" their perception of the US, 46% said it would while 27% said it would not.
The US public was polled separately and Americans also believed an Obama presidency would improve US ties with the world more than a McCain presidency.
Forty-six per cent of Americans expected relations to get better if Mr Obama were elected and 30% if Mr McCain won the White House.
A similar poll conducted for BBC World Service ahead of the 2004 US presidential election found most countries would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry beat the incumbent George W Bush.
At the time, the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland were among the few countries to favour Mr Bush's re-election. All three now favour Mr Obama over Mr McCain.
In total 22,531 citizens were polled in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE and the UK. A parallel survey was conducted with 1,000 US adults.
Polling firm GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes carried out the survey between July and August.
When we pay too much attention to the superficial characteristics of political candidates, such as gender or skin color, we end up with a Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, and a Sarah Palin as vice-presidential candidate. Sure it is about time we had a female president, but the choice of Sarah Palin shows that it is very dangerous to make the argument that Hillary Clinton sometimes made, that people should vote for her because it is about time we had a female president. Once you make that argument, you are encouraging the Republicans to run a Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is dangerous not only because she might actually help McCain win, but also because she encourages people to think that issues don't matter, and knowledge doesn't matter. Not to mention that her views on the issues are as right wing as they come. The funny thing is that the Republicans are now falling over themselves arguing that she is knowledgeable and experienced enough to be president, after they have spent months saying that a President of the Harvard Law Review, community organizer, lawyer, constitutional law professor, state legislator and US Senator was not qualifed to be president. So the experience argument is out the window, but now the Republicans will be seeking to make the campaign solely about personalities, and the likeable qualities of their candidates. And who doesn't adore the grandfatherly McCain, beside the cute and fresh young energetic new face?
Note that Barack Obama never suggests that people should vote for him because of his skin color, even though in light of the central issues in American history of 250 years of slavery and 100 years of legalized discrimination against black people, it will be at least as historically significant to elect a black person president as a woman. He has to continue to focus on substance, and hope that people will make a decision based on substance and not superficiality.
Obama's acceptance speech was masterful as always. Every part of it struck important notes, and answered necessary questions. But to my ears the part of the speech that detailed his policy proposals represented an unwelcome shift in emphasis. I heard a little more of "Iwill . . ." and less "We will . . ." than I would have liked. It think this part of the speech was necessary to answer critics who said that Obama has not been specific enough about his policy proposals, or that he has not adequately explained what the change he is talking about will represent. These kinds of policy proposals are always taken with a grain of salt by the voters, however, as they know that politicians always promise more than they deliver, and these lists of policy proposals therefore breed cynicism about the process.
I have always understood the main change that Obama has been talking about is that the government will be less beholden to special interests, and more responsive to the needs of the people, instead of us depending on the president to take care of us. The reason people have gotten excited by the Obama campaign is that it represents the idea that we the people are going to take back our government. I know that many people have never grasped or gotten excited by this idea, including many Hillary Clinton supporters, so perhaps Obama needs to reassure these people that he is going to be a strong and effective leader who is going to handle crises for us, and run the government effectively. I would prefer, however, that he try to persuade these people that what we really need to do is remodel the government so that we the people exercise power.
Near the end of the speech, Obama did return to the central themes of his campaign, reminding his critics that this campaign is not about him, it is about us. It is perhaps necessary that Obama sometimes act like a conventional candidate, making the kinds of promises that politicians always make to get elected. But he must keep returning to this central message of hope and change, even if its supposed vagueness puzzles many voters, because the idea of putting the people back in charge of the government, and changing the way power is exercised in this country is so important, and this is the idea that has drawn many of us out of our cynicism, and drawn many new participants into the political process.
Even though we may be ahead in the polls in California, we still need to be sure we register new voters and get them all to the polls November 4th.
In addition, we can reach out and help our brothers and sisters in Nevada. The polls say Nevada is close and some of us can travel there to help register voters and canvass.
The Nevada team would appreciate our help. We are coordinating with supporters in Nevada.
It's the Obama Wild West Weekend in Las Vegas!
Join our SoCal posse as we stampede into Clark County and round up all the unregistered voters for Obama!
It's August 22-24. We're organizing caravans and carpools to Las Vegas. Limited supporter housing is available. Cheap hotel rooms are plentiful. Let's make Nevada Obama country.
Yippee!!!
Interested? Contact Dave Crocker, Out-of-State Travel Coordinator for Obamawood/North CD33, at DJCroc@yahoo.com.
Provide your name, email address and phone number. You'll be notified of all the details of when and where to meet.
(prior to Friday night 8-22-08). The event signup is also located at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpgkjr
PLEASE, forward this information to any people or groups who can help. Let's get well over 100 people to Vegas.
Thanks.
LET'S WIN THIS ELECTION!
Dave Crocker (DJcroc@yahoo.com)
Time: Saturday, August 9 at 12:00 PM Duration: 4 hours Host: Bregeet Kennedy and Raul Moreno Location: SIBI Center 2600 W. 54TH ST. (Corner of 4th Ave.) Los Angeles, CA 90043 See this Google Map.
We're just 2 blocks north of Slauson, between Crenshaw and Arlington. ***$5.00 Donation suggested for the BBQ, and bring your favorite dish to share. RSVP at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/44bw3 **When you rsvp, please leave a comment about what you would like to contribute to the potluck.
***By the way, check out the video of Temo Figueroa, the Latino Vote Director for the Obama campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/thelatinovote
We hope you can join us at this BBQ - it will be a wonderful day of community!
The information in the following email is very important:
From: Teresa Hommel [mailto:tahommel@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:04 PM To: Everyone who cares about the upcoming election Subject: What I told the Obama campaign
Below is a statement that I and a colleague made to the Obama campaign here in NYC when they were seeking input on "what should be at the heart of the Democratic Party" this year. They wanted folks to talk about platform issues, but I took the opportunity to talk about election integrity and the responsibility of the Dem party to protect the vote. We handed out 250 copies of this to people in the audience as well as about 30 delegates to the Dem convention, along with a few copies of the BlackBoxVoting "Toolkit." Everyone is welcome to use the material with your local parties. Teresa Hommel Resources to Protect against Election Fraud I urge the Obama Campaign and the Democratic Party to deal effectively and early this year with the problems of lost voter registrations and tampering in vote-handling/counting/tabulation. Election integrity activists, computer experts, and statistical experts have blamed the so-called Democratic "loss" of the presidency in 2000 and 2004 on wrongdoing in these areas. 1. Centralized, computerized voter registration enables last-minute deletion of registrations. For example in 2000, the dishonest deletion of more than 90,000 primarily Democratic registrations in Florida helped defeat Al Gore. Yesterday Greg Palast, investigative journalist, reported that Colorado has recently dumped one fifth of their voter registrations. In New Mexico, half the Democrats in one county found their registrations had disappeared. In Ohio and Nevada, tens of thousands of voter registrations are being cancelled as owners lose their homes to foreclosure.[9] The Democratic National Committee and Obama Campaign need to educate and support the Democratic organization in each state so that they can aggressively monitor and safeguard voter registrations. 2. When votes are recorded, cast, stored, handled, counted, and tabulated by computers, that is another area in which Democrats are not protecting their voters. Voters can't observe whether their votes are accurately recorded when the votes are inside computer memory. Observers can't observe whether vote storage, handling, counting and tabulating is being done honestly. Independent academic experts have hacked into these machines to expose their vulnerability to untraceable tampering. Computers should not be used for voting because they prevent average citizens from watching and understanding what's going on with the votes, but 31 states still use them. Of those, only 18 require mandatory manual audits of paper records vs machine records, but do not allow the public to observe the chain of custody of these records. There are ways to deal with these computers and prevent the dirty tricks that the GOP is now gearing up to commit. 1. The DNC needs to hire cyber security teams at least as good as the competition, as soon as possible, to investigate what they have done and prevent another stolen election. You can't wait till election day to figure this all out. 2. In states that count paper ballots with optical scanners, Democrats must provide observers to witness all handling of voted ballots, including the entire chain of custody, and observe audits that compare machine counts to hand counts. 3. Learn what's going on from election integrity activists: BlackBoxVoting.org's "Toolkit 2008" lists 13 common ways to suppress the vote. A link to the Toolkit is on the back of my statement, as well as links to other information. * Info on Election Fraud You'll find lots of information about this right after the fold.
This is what really has to change, isn't it? Here is a religion that stands for tolerance, brotherhood and liberal values, being attacked by blind hatred. Unfortunately, we live in a world that encourages that kind of hatred.
The Obama campaign, which stands for similar values as the Unitarians, has also been the subject of unreasoned fear and hatred. What has to change is the whole environment of encouraging groups to pit themselves against other groups, of fomenting fear of people whose ideas or values may be different from yours, and of looking for scapegoats for people's problems.
How does the campaign reduce the level of bitterness and hatred? By not engaging in typical attack politics, for one thing. (That doesn't mean that we refrain from setting the record straight when we are attacked by our opponents, but it does mean that we have to keep ad hominem attacks to a minimum) The campaign also has to keep emphasizing its inclusiveness. The Obama administration will represent everyone's interests (except haters, perhaps). The campaign also needs to keep repeating its message that attacking one another is not the way to solve our problems.
Of course we will not completely eliminate hate and fear, but it must be the goal of the campaign to reduce it.
We can't get upset about cartoons, no matter how they might be misconstrued. To me, it was obvious that the cover of this week's New Yorker merely satirizes the way that the right wing has been trying, subliminally or overtly, to paint Barack Obama. He's a Muslim, he's unpatriotic, he won't salute the flag, he's a socialist, he hates America, etc., etc. So why not bring all that out in the open and hopefully make it look ridiculous? Sure, some people won't get it, and some might even see this cartoon as making these kinds of smears acceptable. But most people are going to get it.
We can't stop satirists from taking unfair jabs at the campaign, or from crystalizing what many people unfairly think. Every campaign, and every political office-holder has to deal with this sort of thing, or brush it off. Bush supporters probably weren't very happy when this same cartoonist portrayed Bush as Cheney's maid, or when he drew Bush and some of his cabinet in the Oval Office up to their necks in water. But they have to live with it. So do we.
Anyway, inside the latest New Yorker, there is a lengthy article about Obama's rise in Chicago politics. The article brings up some criticisms of Obama, but it also shows him to be a smart politician able to play the game in the rough and tumble world of Chicago, and it shows how people identified him early on as a future president.
It is probably good that the Obama campaign tries to portray itself as practicing a new kind of politics and staying above the fray, but you can't stay above the fray all the time. Politics is sometimes a contact sport, and sometimes you have to have sharp elbows and be willing to get your hands a little dirty, in order to win. If you read the article in the New Yorker, you will see that Barack Obama knows this as well as anyone.
As pollsters gather data on who prefers Obama to McCain, they will not ask registered voters like me.
I am not a homeless person. I am not "living off the grid." It is not because I live in Canada (I live in Los Angeles.)
Nope.
Why won't a pollster count my preference for Obama? It is because I do not have a typical landline phone. Instead of a landline, I have VOIP through a Skype phone at home - and I use a cell phone when I am away from my home and too far from an Internet-connected computer.
According to Salon.com, 4.7 million people will be excluded from the pollsters' polls because they use cell phones only. (See: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OBAMA'S MISSING 2 PERCENT - By failing to survey cellphone-only voters, pollsters could be undercounting Barack Obama's support by millions of voters.)
"Well, the under 40 crowd does not vote that much anyway;" you say? Wrong again. With the number of young people working on the Obama campaign, the under-40 crowd will be a significant voting block this coming November. This, I promise! But I digress . . .
Cell phone only voters are not the only people missing from the pollsters' tallies! The pollsters are missing the millions of registered voters who have switched from landline phones to VOIP ("Voice over Internet Protocol") phones!
VOIP is not just for young kids. Lots of multi-national, Fortune 500 - to mid-size companies use VOIP because it is cheaper - and it is great for companies with lots of offices because they can share extensions rather than additional phone numbers if they want to. But, increasingly, individual consumers are subscribing to VOIP phone services as well. And VOIP users range in age from 20-somethings to people in their late 60s. Are the pollsters missing these people as well? Yes. Most pollsters are not asking voters who use VOIP phone exclusively who they plan to vote for.
As a lawyer who represents computer geeks and digital artists, I have numerous clients who only have cell phones. Most of them are under 40 years old, but some are older. I thought that this phenomenon was unique to my rather sophisticated, high-tech clients. But no: I have met numerous college students, graduate students, and recent graduates through the Obama campaign who have not had a landline phone FOR YEARS. And I have met a few other volunteers my age - and older - who got rid of their landlines when they found that they could use their cell phones inside their homes.
Recent grads, are surely under 40 years old, but the two people who convinced me to switch from my landlines were well over 40 years old. One of my friends, Lyle, has been using Vonage for over five years - without any problems. And I would never have known this if he had not mentioned it one day. When Lyle told me how little he paid per month, I was surprised. I had to ask myself why I was paying AT&T a minimum of $48 per month for basic home services, plus a few perks like call forwarding, caller ID, and conference calling; while Lyle got all the neat services from Vonage, plus voicemail and unlimited calling in the US and Canada for a flat $24.99 per month.
My friend, Nathan (an over-40 Internet computer geek who worked for progressive technology and media companies from Oracle to Oprah) has a Skype account. I got one a few years ago so that I could chat with him (without being gouged by AT&T) while he worked on Oprah's web site in Chicago. When he moves to Washington State later this year, I will not have to change his Skype number in my phone books - because he will keep the same Skype phone number.
I dumped my long distance landline phone service four years ago, when I decided to use my cell phone for long distance calls. I found Skype so easy to use, and the connection so clear, that I started calling my brother in San Francisco, my Sister in Denver, and my sister in New York City with Skype (rather than my cell phone.) Eventually, I started using it for calling my clients as well; even the local clients.
When I realized that I was calling everyone in Los Angeles through my computer with my bluetooth Skype headset, I asked myself why I wasted money with a landline. I realized that keeping a landline phone was just insecurity. And with the government able to spy on my landline calls anyway (thanks, Congress, for FISA!), what was I afraid of?
So, when I moved from Culver City to Los Angeles early this month, I did not get a new landline phone. I kept my Skype number, installed a stand-alone Linksys wireless router loaded with Skype in my new digs, got a wireless Cisco iPhone and - even when my computer is off, I use my wireless Skype phone to call family, friends and clients. It works flawlessly.
With over 1,700,000 donors already funding this movement for change, now is the perfect time to show your support.
Host or participate in a Listening to America: the Democratic Platform for Change event today.
Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a “platform” that outlines the party’s position on a variety of issues. Traditionally, the platform is written by paid professionals and then presented to the American people.
This year, that’s going to change.
From July 19 to July 27, everyday people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their own communities. From Atlanta, Georgia to Muncie, Indiana, from Bangor, Maine to Eugene, Oregon, Americans will meet to talk about what issues are most important to them and what should be at the heart of the Democratic platform for change.
The results of these Platform Meetings will be incorporated into the formal process that culminates in the adoption of the platform at the Democratic Convention in August. A few participants may even be invited to appear and testify at the National Hearing and at the Convention!
You can write the next chapter in the history of the Democratic Party. Host an event in your own community. We’ve prepared all the materials that you need to host. Or, if you’d prefer, click HERE to find an event near you.
A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States. Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America. This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action. That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today: https://donate.barackobama.com/gore Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action. With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems. If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today: https://donate.barackobama.com/gore On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation. We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today. Thank you for joining me, Al Gore LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a profound appreciation of the media's great possibilities. That's at least part of what earned him the presumptive Democratic nomination for president.
The great battle to get the nomination -- a bruising 13-month struggle against valiant New York Sen. Hillary Clinton -- has ended. The war, against Republican nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain, has only begun.
And if Obama's "Yes We Can" mantra leads to "Yes We Did" in a November election victory, he will be setting the tone for communications policy from the bulliest of all media pulpits. And he likely would have a solidly Democratic Congress behind him.
With that in mind, we asked the senator to weigh in on media's great challenges, issues and limits and go on the record with B&C about his communications agenda.
In e-mailed responses last week to questions submitted to his Capitol Hill office, Obama told us he is committed to working toward a digital-TV transition that is without significant disruption (the switchover would come less than four weeks after his inauguration); said the Federal Communications Commission needs to take merger reviews more seriously; asserted that FCC chairman Kevin Martin, like his predecessor, has tried to "dismantle" rules that protect the public; and gave his thoughts on whether cable content should be regulated or its channels unbundled.
Obama believes the consequence of consolidation has been less diversity, less local news and the parroting of stories across multiple outlets. That, he said, needs to change.
In other words, the media is on notice: The potential new sheriff is in town, and he believes there's plenty of cleaning up to do.
Q: You signaled that you would put the teeth back into antitrust enforcement. What would that mean for media companies that want to merge?
A: There is a clear need in this country for the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement. Our competition agencies, the Department of Justice and the FTC [Federal Trade Commission], need to step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not. Specifically, for media mergers, the Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.
Q: Where do you stand on the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, the only two satellite-radio companies?
A: I am waiting for final resolution by the regulatory agencies and would want to ensure that the merger does not give the new firm excessive market power or unduly limit the choices consumers have for satellite-radio content.
Q: You have said network neutrality would be a priority in your administration. Why and how would you go about ensuring a neutral Internet while still allowing networks to manage traffic?
A: The Internet is a powerful, democratizing tool. There are very low entry barriers for the delivery of services over the Internet, and public debate is unfettered by either the network owner or any single dominant voice. The neutral nature of the Internet makes that possible, and it is something we should defend. Up to now, legislation has focused on protecting against the discrimination against or in favor of any single voice or legal service. All have made allowances for objective, nondiscriminatory network-management practices.
Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6480419.html) last year?
A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?
A: This country's media ownership rules that both chairman [Michael] Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.
Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC's media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?
A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
Q: What concerns, if any, do you have over violent or sexual content on TV? Should cable be regulated for content?
A: We have established a precedent that government should act to protect kids in a nonintrusive way on broadcast radio and TV. That does not mean that we need the same rules for other media, but it does require us to respect and remain true to the principle that our kids cannot protect themselves -- parents are their first line of defense, and regulation can make it easier for parents to exercise that responsibility. I am focused on ensuring that parents have the tools to protect their kids from offensive material. I prefer technological solutions to this challenge rather than extending content regulation to cable and satellite. Given modern technology and increasingly sophisticated cable and satellite boxes and services, the market should be able to rise to meet the market demand to protect kids from indecent content. If the market fails to meet that demand, legislative and regulatory action may be necessary -- but it must be crafted carefully and focus not on content censorship, but rather on tools for parents.
Q: Do you support requiring cable operators to sell their channels a la carte? Why or why not?
A: I think the jury is still out on a la carte. Several years ago, chairman Powell had the FCC study the effect on consumers of an a la carte system. That study concluded that on average, rates would go up for consumers because each channel would cost much more even if the consumer took fewer channels than they currently receive. Then during his term, chairman Martin had the FCC conduct a review of that study and reversed the findings. FCC staff said the previous report was wrong to conclude that the average cable household -- which watches about 17 channels -- would likely face a monthly rate increase of up to 30% under a la carte. That 2004 report reasoned that a la carte would drive up cable companies' costs for equipment, customer service and marketing, and that would almost certainly be passed on to subscribers. But the new report says consumers could receive as many as 20 channels without seeing an increase in bills and blamed the earlier finding on faulty data it obtained from the cable industry. I do not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems and fear that a la carte regulation may do that. But given the conflicting FCC reports, I remain open to review and discussion of the concept.
I was very pleased to see that Obama has decided to adopt a 50 state strategy in the election, and will open an office in every state. What we should be aiming for is a Ronald Reagan style sweep as in 1980 and 1984. We may not succeed in every state, but the campaign should make a determined effort to win every state. Not only will this help Obama win the election, it will also help Democratic House and Senate candidates, and it will help get the country behind him to govern effectively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VfZ4h0uZ4
WOW!
TEARS IN MY EYES!
Do YOU have a story to tell about going ON THE ROAD FOR THE BARACK OBAMA CAMPAIGN????
Have you stepped out of your box and travelled to help in any way you could?
We NEED your stories?????
Please visit
www.fierceurgencyofnowproject.com
Please get the word out. Our vision is to have these published and in stores BEFORE the General!
We can help Barack win with our own personal journey!!
Peace and Blessings to all!!!!
Lisa Rivera
