Reform Party

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PBC] What are you personally doing to try to advance the RP core cause?
To: Party Building Discussion <pbc@reformparty.org>

As regards Reform Party candidates, I have taken the liberty of sending the below message to the Reform Party hopefuls (I should say that, when I tried to post a comment on the candidates' webpage on the RP website, I got an error message saying "no CAPTCHA code submitted" but I could not see any CAPTCH code on the webpage to enter. I will report the same to David. If anyone thinks I should not have the problem, please let me know. I used the hopeful candidates' websites to send the below message):

[Message sent to RP Presidential hopeful candidates]

Dear ___,
The Reform Party's core cause statement from its website is this:
"At its core, the Reform Party is made up of concerned Americans, tired of the partisan rancor in government and a two-party system that appears committed to putting its support for the special-interests ahead of finding common-sense solutions designed to solve our most pressing challenges. "The people of the Reform Party are former Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, who are coming together to form a viable political organization that can best represent both the will and the needs of the American people.
"Unlike other reformist organizations, the Reform Party is a political party and not a political action committee that supports candidates from other political parties. The Reform Party (nationally and through state parties) nominates and runs its own candidates to oppose the political institutions that continue to mismanage our government."
"The people of the Reform Party are former Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, who are coming together to form a viable political organization that can best represent both the will and the needs of the American people.
I would like to know to what extent you subscribe to (or diverge from) the foregoing core cause. To the extent you subscribe to the same, I would be interested in learning the specifics of what you are doing and, as a candidate, would most do advance RP's core cause.
I would be further interested in your comments on my tack to try to advance RP's core cause, as it is explicated in my blog Voters' Victory in 2102 (URL http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/) .
Thanks.
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

I am sorry to keep pressing on this, but this is what I believe in.
Sincerely,
Rob

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Constantinos _________ wrote:

My contributions, particularly most recently, have been:
1. Trying to nominate a presidential candidate who will advance our platform, help build our party, and do as much as he or she can to gain as much popular support by September perhaps - as a longshot - to qualify for the general election debates and, at minimum, to gain national press coverage so as to tout our party.
2. Establishing a debate among all the RP presidential hopefuls.
3. Organizing all folks in Pennsylvania interested in being part of our national party.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Bev ___________ wrote:

Trying to find candidates to carry our message to the public is
at the top of my list (good candidates will attract more people
to the party, and faster than could be done without them).

Bev

--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Subject: [PBC] What are you personally doing to try to advance the RP core cause?
To: "Party Building Discussion" <pbc@reformparty.org>
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 7:44 AM

As most of you know, I am spending a lot of time on a specific tack to try to advance RP's core cause. See Voters' Victory in 2102. I have had individual discussions with PBC members about my tack. Link.
Below is the Reform Party's core cause statement from the website.

At its core, the Reform Party is made up of concerned Americans, tired of the partisan rancor in government and a two-party system that appears committed to putting its support for the special-interests ahead of finding common-sense solutions designed to solve our most pressing challenges.
The people of the Reform Party are former Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, who are coming together to form a viable political organization that can best represent both the will and the needs of the American people.
Unlike other reformist organizations, the Reform Party is a political party and not a political action committee that supports candidates from other political parties. The Reform Party (nationally and through state parties) nominates and runs its own candidates to oppose the political institutions that continue to mismanage our government.

I would be interested in learning from PBC members of the specifics of what they are most trying to do to advance RP's core cause.
Thanks.
Rob Shattuck 

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM
To: [email address for Reform Party PBC]

Subject: Dear Reform Party: Would you consider it a political victory in 2012 

if the American voters could force Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and could force Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections?

If this idea entices you, please read more in my blog Amend By November.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

[BELOW IS EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH A REFORM PARTY MEMBER]

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PBC] Just to keep you advised of AL 6th Cong. District developments
To: ______________


That's a pretty realistic assessment, Bill.  This, however, is the only thing I can get myself motivated on.  There is a good chance I won't even bother to vote in November.

Rob

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:19 AM, ____________ wrote:

Rob…I'd call it impossible, not unlikely

On May 20, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Bill, the debate is supposed to be forced on Congress by the voters through their acting in unity pursuant to the Strategy.  I know the strategy is highly unlikely to get implemented, but that is the idea.

Rob

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM, ____________ wrote:

Rob…

Congress doesn't have a constructive debate about the deficit.  Why would they about this?

On May 20, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Thanks Bill.  I stand corrected in how I phrased myself about minority parties.

The idea of trying to force a debate is to give voters a concrete focal point and fulcrum for leverage against Congress and around which voters can coalesce in taking (or not taking) the unified action of voting incumbents out.  Without a focal point, all you will have is a lot of diffuse Brownian motion of tens of millions of voting decisions having vectors that cancel themselves out and that will have no effect in pushing forward a salient on the corruption front.

Best regards.

Rob

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM, ______________ wrote:

Rob

I didn't say minor party's were like minded. Quite the contrary. As to the debate you suggest, totally unrealistic. The electorate can only force the issue by voting incumbents out.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 20, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks again Bill.

I believe you accurately articulate the impediments in trying to get minor political parties and other organizations that are similarly minded to join forces and act in concert in order to increase their political power and effectiveness.  I further agree with your comment that success is potentially highly situational.

That's why my email to the PBC put the matter in the form of this question:

Would you consider it a political victory in 2012 if the American voters could force Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and could force Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections?

In reacting to that question, one ought first decide about the primacy of the matter and whether one agrees with Lawrence Lessig that   “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’ and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.” 

I think a high percentage of American voters either agree with Professor Lessig or could be persuaded to agree with him.  That percentage could be as high as 90%.  Regardless of the percentage, nothing meaningful will happen unless that high percentage acts in unison to demand of Congress that something be done.

Next, however, comes the impediment you talk about.  Among the voters who agree with Professor Lessig, there are going to be lots of different ideas about what exactly should be done.  Those differing ideas and views have great potential for derailing concerted action.  

To prevent that derailment, I say, "Put it to Congress to have a national debate and let Congress make a proposal."   Whatever Congressional proposal comes out of the national debate, it will likely not completely satisfy a large percentage of voters who agree that something must be done.  All the voters, however, will have the satisfaction of Congress being forced to react to the voters and of having a vigorous national debate take place.  It  is not fanciful to think that, if that happens, a large percentage will say, "OK, I am willing to give that proposal a try."

To me that would be a stupendous political victory for American voters in 2012.

I will continue in my efforts as outlined in my blog.  Unless you object, I am going to post in the Reform Party entry some of this email correspondence I have had with you.  If you object, let me know and I won't post it.

Sincerely,

Rob

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:28 PM, ____________ wrote:

Rob, again some of these are national issues to take up with David.  But in general many attempts have been made to pull the third party base together but it always seems to end up in gridlock.  Just because we are "third parties" doesn't mean we are any more compatible than Republicans or Democrats are.  Third party includes the Greens, Libertarians, Socialist, Reform, New Whig etc.  I think you'll find we have some things in common but it's not enough to encourage any kind of merger.  With respect to GOOH, I have spoken with some of their people and from my own personal perspective it seems to be a TParty movement.  All third party movements and organizations like GOOH have the same objective of ameliorating the government's current deficiencies by shifting the power base.  Beyond that however we have different views as to what should replace it. We all want a strong defense, a healthy economy, a balanced budget, a sound infrastructure, affordable health care and a good educational system.  How to go about accomplishing these objectives is why different parties exist.

As to your question on time frame, third party movements are generally dependent on a motivational figure that coalesces the group and the electorate.  Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader.  So the answer to your question is highly situational.  With the right candidate, we could move beyond "trivial" in an instant.

Hope that helps.

Bill

On May 19, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

OK, so then I guess you would be saying, Bill, that voters need to get with the Reform Party.

How would you say the cause is going in the Reform Party signing up members?  

Does the Reform Party have any time frame in which it thinks the Reform Party will have any non-trivial impact on the political landscape?  

What does the Reform Party think about joining forces with others?  Take just GOOOH for example.  Is anyone in the Reform Party reaching out to try to join forces with GOOOH?  If not, why not?

Sincerely,

Rob

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, ___________ wrote:

Rob

I don't think many would disagree that the system is broken.  That it is corrupt.  And that incumbency is a very big part of the problem.

Frankly, I'm in favor of voting against EVERY incumbent.  I don't see any other way to send the message.  We need term limits, we need money out of politics, we need restrictions on the length of any campaign.  For people to agree with this approach but leave their favorite candidate in office is not a solution.  Everyone has a favorite, and as a result the incumbent success rate remains high.   We have to drain the swamp.  Both sides however live in the swamp and they both need to go.

On May 19, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Fair enough, Bill.  Would you mind reading Thesis and Strategy and tell me what you think?

Thanks.

Rob

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:40 AM, _____________ wrote:

Rob…I'm not sure what you are asking me.  This is a compilation of our prior correspondence..

On May 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Dear Bill,

I am following up on the below email correspondence we had in January.   A few minutes ago, I sent this email to the Reform Party PBC email address.  I don't know whether the email will get through to you, so I am sending you this email directly.

If there is anything here that interests you, please get back to me.

Thank you.

Rob Shattuck

[ FURTHER EMAIL EXCHANGE]

From: Bill Dopf <____________>
Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [PBC] Healthcare and the uninsured
To: Party Building Discussion <___________>

I think Rob's got a good point re the Move to Amend movement.

Beside being the right thing to do, endorsing this as a political party might give us some press on their website.

On May 30, 2012, at 5:23 AM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Thank you for replying again, Mark.

My interest in, and hope for, "reform" began, I think, in 1992 with Ross Perot.  I have persisted in "activism" in various ways for the past 20 years, notwithstanding that I think no progress has been made on the "reform" front and I think that which I would like to see "reformed" has gotten worse.  I have no expectation or belief that the next ten years will be any better for "reform" than the past twenty years has been.

Even though I believe there is not going to be success by either the Reform Party or by myself, I will leave you a representative fact to chew on.  This MoveToAmend webpage says 201,311 persons have signed their petition.  I don't know how many members the Reform Party has now.  The Reform Party may choose that it in no way wishes to engage with the Move To Amend organization (and vice versa) in order to try to increase their influence and effectiveness in combination.

In my view, absent combination, there is only futile flailing that will go on for many years.  Everyone, of course, is entitled to their own view.

I will continue with my form of activism, including pointing out things like the above concerning the MoveToAmend organization.  (GOOOH, for example, purports to have about 85,000 members I believe.  Again, the Reform Party and GOOOH can choose not to engage with one another, and I will say, "Keep on flailing, guys and gals.")

Good talking to you, Mark.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mark Kravis ______ wrote:

Fair Question.

I and some others in the Party advocate for a foundational process. We believe that the Party should proceed to build a significant base in each state of dedicated Reform Party members.  Opposing the idea of bringing in a popular convert from another Party.  We believe that building this base will bring in a candidate who comes from the Reform Party.  This process would be slower than most would want. Probably two more cycles at least, but it would change the political landscape in a big way.   

Definition   /     Change this all

 = The willingness of a majority citizens who agree to vote for candidates who have a plan in detail of what they would do.  To disqualify any candidate who promises to enact laws that contradict another promise (double talk) , To disqualify  liars at any level, to disqualify flip floppers (They can endorse someone else if they are true) , To agree to let other plans be heard from regular citizens. Etc.

Lastly I still disagree that the root problem is what you believe it is , so its likely we will not agree on to much. 

MK

I am not clear what concrete program of political action you are advocating in order "to change this all" or even what you envision for the changed situation to be like.  

If you were trying to gain me as an adherent and supporter of your political agenda, I think you would have to be more definite about what you are seeking and how to get there; and that would be way before you got to dealing with the inertia ("acceptance") of the rest of the public.

The Reform Party has this list of issues, many of which I agree with.  Which do you agree with?

How to achieve progress on those issues should be a main concern of the Reform Party.  I hope and trust the Reform Party, in considering how to be most effective and make the most progress, is giving due consideration to the "root problem" that Professor Lessig and others talk about.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Mark Kravis _____________ wrote:

Robert, I disagree with you and Larry Lessig.  The issue of lobbyists is a symptom. A symptom of our aristocracy. In the end everything comes down to the people doing the work. A country of laws is only as good as its interpretation and leaving that to just elite college graduates  is one of the major problems. We also have a bigger problem of the public allowing this with the acceptance of double talk, over promising and lies.  We have an inbreeding issue. Same old teachers , same old ideas and the worst is the notion that all other are to stupid to do the job. In the end I guess we are, because we have the ability to change this all, but no one will do it.  America will get what it deserves! (prosperity or diminishing quality of life) 

MK

On May 26, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Dear Scott,

The United States is confronting some huge problems, including that of providing good and affordable health care to its citizens. 

Many reputable commentators and ordinary citizens think there is an egregious failure of Congress to do the job it should be doing to help the country address its very serious problems, and they trace this to a root problem of corruption in the campaign finance system (and related phenomena such as the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists and special interest organizations, gerrymandering, and earmarks). 

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, in his recent book Republic, Lost, writes that “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’ and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”  

I agree with Professor Lessig about the primacy of the corruption problem and am advocating to American voters this course of action in 2012.  I hope this advocacy is something you will pass along to Reform Party candidates in Illinois for their consideration.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:19 PM, ReformPartyIL ____________ wrote:

All,

A week ago I posted a few facts:

This one in particular stands out –

“That 50% of the health care cost (equals $1.3 Trillion in 2011) was USED by a mere 5% of the population.”

Now here is another greatly understated fact –

“Uninsured Americans COST was estimated to be about $49 Billion in 2010.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What these statistics imply (some might say prove), is that the cost of health care services inflation in

fact, has nothing to do with the uninsured at all.  The math shows that the uninsured represents a mere 1.88% of the

total ($2.6 Trillion) spend on health care in America.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Politics have hidden the core elements of the health care cost inflation.  Politicians have been flat out lying

to the American people to move forward politically motivated agendas.

True – Obamacare does have a few nuggets of meaningful reform to it.   But the bulk of this legislation

does nothing to address root causes to why health care costs are so inflated.

The legislation must address the 5% of the users and every component that can be attributed to this group,

including medical devices, drugs, end of life care, surgical procedures, hospice care vs. intensive care, and so on.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mandating that you must buy health insurance WILL NOT solve the problem.  It will only increase the

problem, pushing more unnecessary visits into the system because the user will feel obligated to use

what he has been forced to purchase.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This, I believe should be the basis for a Reform Party solution.

What say you all?  Can you refute the facts presented, the analysis or the conclusion?

Best Regards,

Scott Smith

Reform Party