Saturday, May 31, 2014

Memo to TeamDemocracy

5/31 4:00 am cdt

I started doing "tweet bombing" yesterday. (See Join TeamDemocracy in "tweet bombing" AL06 this weekend.) I did about two hours worth. My start was with followers of the Mountain Brook Chamber (https://twitter.com/shopmtnbrook/followers). 


I used the tweet message:

AL 6th Cong'l dist.-- SAVE YOUR COUNTRY ON JUNE 3rd. Vote for Rob Shattuck. http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2014/05/al-6th-cong-district-save-your-country.html
I count that there have been 21 page views of  http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2014/05/al-6th-cong-district-save-your-country.html, since I started yesterday. I don't know if they are solely from my tweeting

I see that someone else may be doing tweeting with this tweet message:

Rootstriker wants to stop the system of corruption in DC for ! http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2014/05/al-6th-cong-district-save-your-country.html?m=1
I am new to this. What hashtags should be used? Do hashtags take up tweet message space?

Let me resume my tweeting. I will update this as appropriate during the day.


Update #1 

I believe there are limits on numbers of tweets. Also, I think it is helpful to exercise judgment in sending a tweet to someone on a follower list.

Geographical location of person is obviously very important. 

With a person who does not show recent tweet activity, such as last activity more than a month ago, should I bother sending a tweet? Even though a person doesn't show recent tweet activity, will they get notification on their email that someone sent them a tweet, and there is a reasonable chance they will go read the tweet?

What about people whose tweets are protected? Should they be considered reasonable candidates for sending tweets to?

Friday, May 30, 2014

Join TeamDemocracy in "tweet bombing" AL06 this weekend


Join TeamDemocracy's event in San Francisco this weekend by "tweet bombing" for me in the Alabama 6th Congressional district. To find out about "tweet bombing," go to Make AL06 a spearhead in Lawrence Lessig's moonshot.

See Memo to TeamDemocracy.

Or, if you are cro-magnon like me, and rooted in email, get going with AL 6th Cong'l district - Get chain emails going for Rob Shattuck.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

AL 6th Cong'l district - Get chain emails going for Rob Shattuck

For three months, I have been saying there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress, and it critically needs addressing by the American people and Congress. 

For three months, Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus have ignored me. 

For three months, the six other candidates have ignored me. 

For three months, the local media and political commentators have failed in their roles related to my candidacy.

What do you think?

If you think something is fundamentally wrong with Congress, and you are fed up with Congress being unwilling or unable to do anything about it, you can send a message on June 3rd by voting for me in the Republican primary in the Alabama 6th Congressional district.

If I win on June 3rd, the rest of the country will hear about your vote.

You can help out before June 3rd. 

If you have received an email with a link you clicked on to get to this blog entry, please forward that email to as many people as you can.

If you prefer using Twitter, go here for tweeting you can do.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Candidate, AL 6th Congressional district

Update 5/30: For those who prefer Twitter, go to
Join TeamDemocracy in "tweet bombing" AL06 this weekend.


Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Make AL06 a spearhead in Lawrence Lessig's moonshot

At yesterday's Kiwanis Club of Birmingham luncheon forum for the Alabama 6th Congressional district candidates, I began my introductory statement with this:
For three months, I have been saying "there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress, which critically needs addressing by the American people and Congress." For three months, I have been ignored by Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus. For three months, I have been ignored by the other candidates. For three months, I have been ignored by the local media and political commentators. That's ok. I am at 1% in the polls, I have no campaign funding, and I have no chance of winning on June 3rd, but I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you about something fundamentally wrong with Congress.
There are six days left until the June 3rd primary election day in the Alabama 6th Congressional district. That's do or die for me.

I want to make AL06 a spearhead in Lawrence Lessig's moonshot.

I need all the help I can get.

I need a carpet bombing of AL06 with tweets.

Please go to Tweeting campaign in Alabama 6th Congressional district.

If that looks like a good way to carpet bomb AL06 with tweets, please pitch in and start tweeting.

If you have other ideas, please let me know them.

Let's make AL06 a spearhead in Lawrence Lessig's moonshot.

Updates:
5/28 8:50 am: Looking for my first tweet bomber. If you use the indicated message on the other link, I should see page views of tweet bomb recipients who click on the tweet link.

5/28 9:40 am: If you have questions about this tactic, or about the appropriateness of tweet bombing from outside of AL06, why don't you ask Professor Lessig @lessig what he thinks?

5/28 1:30 pm: I am getting good response of page views, following, retweets, and favoriting of my tweets. I have initiated my "tweet bombing" idea on my own initiative. I am not privy to any ideas or plans of Professor Lessig or MayOne relative to the five Congressional districts to be targeted in 2014, except that they are desired to be object lessons for trying to learn what works in trying to influence outcomes of Congressional elections and that may be applied for the big effort in 2016. I present an early case in 2014 that may be learned from. Responders should think critically about my "tweet bombing" idea and its potential usefulness. Ultimately, the object has to be to get votes in the election, and that requires making communication to voters. Your retweets, following, and favoriting do little in making communication to voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district. You have to decide whether you are willing to tweet to voters in the 6th district. It does not appear that anyone has decided to do that yet. If there is a way to have discussion about this, I am fully game. Just let me know.

5/28 4 pm: I may have my first tweet bomber. I see eight page views today of the link in the suggested tweet. I hope they are a result of a tweet bomber at work. I could use about a hundred tweet bombers to make needed penetration into AL06. Thanks.

5/30: See Join TeamDemocracy in "tweet bombing" AL06 this weekend

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Tweeting campaign in Alabama 6th Congressional district

Please email me or call me at 205-967-5586, or just get going, if you are willing to help out in a tweeting campaign in the Alabama 6th Congressional district.

It is pretty easy to do. Subject to better suggestions, I think the best way is to pick someone in the Birmingham/6th Congressional district who has lots of followers and many of whom are likely to be in the 6th Congressional district. (Here is Map of the 6th Congressional District.)

Copy the tweet message you want to use on your clipboard. Proceeding through the follower list, right click and open in a new tab the tweet to be sent box. Paste your tweet message in the tweet box, click send, close the tweet box, and go to the next follower.

Feel at liberty to craft your own tweet message.

Here is a suggestion for a tweet message:
#AL06 Cong'l dist.-- SAVE YOUR COUNTRY ON JUNE 3rd. Vote for Rob Shattuck. http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2014/05/al-6th-cong-district-save-your-country.html
The foregoing link in the tweet message has 136 pages views as of May 30, 9am. I will update this as "tweet bombing" progresses.

Here are some suggestions for persons and organizations whose followers you could tweet to (numbers of followers shown in parentheses):

Kyle Whitmire:    https://twitter.com/WarOnDumb (6051)
John Archibald:   https://twitter.com/JohnArchibald (7848)
Joey Kennedy:   https://twitter.com/joeykennedy (4184)
Matt Murphy:   https://twitter.com/mattmurphyshow (4581)
Jeff Co. GOP   https://twitter.com/JeffCo_GOP/ (545)
Shelby Co. GOP https://twitter.com/ShelbyCountyGOP/ (8934)
Chilton County HS: https://twitter.com/ChiltonCountyHS/ (295) (a lot of students but they can pass info on)
Bibb Co. GOP https://twitter.com/BibbGOP (60)
Blount County Sports https://twitter.com/BlountSports (1593)
Run Gardendale https://twitter.com/RunGardendale/ (126)
Homewood Chamber of Commerce https://twitter.com/HomewoodChamber (2099)
Shelby County Sheriffs Office https://twitter.com/ShelbyCountySO (1692)
City of Fultondale https://twitter.com/fultondale (169)
Shelby County Reporter https://twitter.com/shelbycreporter (4987)
Over The Mountain Journal https://twitter.com/OTMJnews (924)
Village Living https://twitter.com/village_living (600)
Vestavia Voice https://twitter.com/VestaviaVoice (112)
Weld For Birmingham https://twitter.com/WeldBham (6296)
Birmingham Business https://twitter.com/business_bham ((7425) (most of B'ham not in 6th district)
Trussville Tribune https://twitter.com/TrussTribune (3272)
Vestavia Hils https://twitter.com/VestaviaHillsAL (1184)
Hoover Library https://twitter.com/hooverlibrary (739)
Mountain Brook Chamber https://twitter.com/shopmtnbrook/ (4461)

Thanks!!!!

Yellowhammer videos

Yesterday I endeavored to make inquiry of Cliff Sims via his website email messaging, via Facebook messaging, and via Twitter messaging. I have not heard back anything from Cliff about why I was not included in the Yellowhammer videos that are running this week.

I don't know whether I am going to bother to watch any of the other six candidates' videos.

Yellowhammer says this about the videos:
Our goal was to ask specific questions, then make it as easy as possible for you to compare the candidates and make the most informed decision possible when you head to the polls June 3rd.
For the local media and local political commentators who take themselves seriously, I will be interested in whether any of them offer any comments or observation about anything in the Yellowhammer videos that they consider noteworthy  for voters to consider in making their voting decision about which of the six candidates to vote for.

Or is there basically nothing "to compare" about the other six candidates, and the voters could just as well do without the videos?

Yikes, after yesterday's topic of "immigration," today is the "tax code."

Now, if any of the candidates' videos revealed anything convincing about what prospects a candidate sees about what Congress might in fact be able to get its act together to do in the next two years on either of those two subjects, I would be interested. I am pretty sure the videos don't reveal anything in that vein.

But the videos should be pretty good Kabuki Theater at the 6th Congressional district level.

At bottom, d'ya think anyone but me is working on their Candidate evaluation exercise?

Monday, May 26, 2014

Reviewing the bidding with one week to go

Keeping in mind Bill Britt's 2011 editorial Responsibilities of the Press, let's see how folks have been doing

I have been making charges in my campaign for three months. My exact choice of words has changed over the three months, but not the substance.

My current choice of words is "something is fundamentally wrong with Congress, which critically needs the attention of the American people and Congress."

The other six candidates have adamantly refused to discuss my charges.

It seems it should be fairly simple for the other candidates to say  "there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Congress that either the candidates or the voters in Alabama 6th Congressional district should give any consideration to in this election," or "there may be something wrong, but other of the nation's problems are much more pressing, and it is inadvisable to distract ourselves with discussion about what is wrong with Congress," or something else which would not be hard for a candidate to come up with to say. (If a candidate picks the second choice, I would have some follow up questions.)

Senators Sessions and Shelby and Representative Bachus have declined to say anything about my charges.

In the media, I don't know of anything that anyone in the media has said, except that Dale Jackson has said Congress is "broke," and this is because  "the electoral process lends itself to the stupidest people being played to, and that has failed us, money or not, and they will always pander to the rubes." See Dale Jackson says. My impression is that Dale's view is there is no way for the American people to fix the "broke" Congress, so let's move on to discuss other things.

Not only has the media not said anything about my charges, to my knowledge no one in the media has asked any of the other candidates to comment on my charges.

Now, let's turn to Bill Britt's editorial. The second paragraph says:
We believe the surest way to guarantee good government is to have a fully and accurately informed citizenry. The purpose of the news organization is to produce honest and accurate reporting that informs, educates, alerts and calls citizens, lawmakers and business leaders to action to insure the people of Alabama are represented by the best government possible.
Concerning the subject of "good government," I think it is fair to say that the substance of what the other six candidates have said is pathetic. If those in the media disagree, they ought to find a way to say so to the voters.

I have put forth extended discussion of my diagnosis of why there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress.

I have put to the Birmingham, Alabama, and U.S. Chambers of Commerce two specific ideas for their consideration that could create "better government" and asked the Chambers what they think. See Request to U.S., Alabama and Birmingham Chambers of Commerce.

This foregoing has all received nada from the media (to my knowledge).

Now, return to Bill Britt's editorial, which says this:
Everyday writers, as well as, editors are faced with decisions as to what is newsworthy, what is in the public interest. While news organizations should strive to make these choices based on wisdom and understanding many are made arbitrarily based on time to complete a story, physical space within the paper and, yes, sometimes, whim or malevolence.
However, when it comes to public trust we all need to take a serious and measured view of what is reported and how it is reported. As an editor, I labor under a great personal weight every time a story concerns matters of public trust.
Now, as to "what is newsworthy," I am at about 1% in the polls, and the media could thereby conclude that nothing coming out of my mouth is newsworthy.

In that regard, I would like to raise this question: Under Bill Britt's "Responsibilities of the Press," should it be a factor if some candidates have large campaign budgets for communicating their messages to the voters, and another candidate has no campaign funding and is extremely limited in getting his message to the voters? Should the media be very circumspect in making its determination about how much the candidate without campaign funding has to offer to the voters about the goal of "good government," and, if someone in the media thinks a great deal is offered for the consideration of the voters, the media, under its "educating" and "alerting" functions, needs to devote special attention to make sure its "educating" and "alerting" are carried out?

Bill Britt asked to be dropped from my email list

Bill Britt of Alabama Political Reporter requested to have his name removed from my media email address list. His colleague, Brandon Moseley, remains on the list. The below is an editorial Bill wrote (November 2011, I believe; see this link) concerning the responsibilities of the press. Perhaps those in the media covering this election will look to Bill's editorial for standards for judging their coverage of this election.

Bill Britt: Responsibilities of the Press

By Bill Britt

The Alabama Political Reporter is a news organization devoted to Alabama politics. We will provide accurate, reliable coverage of policy, elections and government. A political news site that gives citizens, lawmakers, business leaders and organizations one place where they can find thorough coverage of all the political news that affects our government and our lives.

Alabama Political Reporter is independent, non-partisan media company that we believe will become the most trusted source for political news, analysis and commentary in the State of Alabama.

We believe the surest way to guarantee good government is to have a fully and accurately informed citizenry. The purpose of the news organization is to produce honest and accurate reporting that informs, educates, alerts and calls citizens, lawmakers and business leaders to action to insure the people of Alabama are represented by the best government possible. In a metaphorical sense, we hope to serve as an aegis of the public good.

The word "aegis" (from the Greek) entered our modern English to mean a shield, protection or sponsorship.

In later Classical mythology, the aegis was the shield of the god Zeus, he is described in the Iliad as the “Aegis-bearing Zeus.”

In Greek mythology, when the Olympians would shake the aegis, Mount Ida would become wrapped in clouds as thunder rolled and men where struck down with fear.

Today, we have a clear concept of doing something “under someone’s aegis” meaning to do something under protection of a powerful, knowledgeable or benevolent source.

News organizations at their best are powerful, benevolent protectors of the public interest.

At their worst they are self-promoting scandal sheets, advancing the agenda of the management, staff or its underwriters.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press but also implicit in our laws is a freedom from the press. This concept, of freedom from the press, is however, greatly ignored.

Everyday writers, as well as, editors are faced with decisions as to what is newsworthy, what is in the public interest. While news organizations should strive to make these choices based on wisdom and understanding many are made arbitrarily based on time to complete a story, physical space within the paper and, yes, sometimes, whim or malevolence.

However, when it comes to public trust we all need to take a serious and measured view of what is reported and how it is reported. As an editor, I labor under a great personal weight every time a story concerns matters of public trust.

Reputations, lives and institutions can be reformed or destroyed by such stories. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all who wear the mantle of journalist to consider, with great care, the validity of a story.

As an editor, I believe there is an implicated obligation to protect people from the press.

The press is often referred to as the “Fourth Estate.” Novelist Jeffrey Archer, in his work, the Fourth Estate observered: “In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the ‘Estate General.’ The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, ‘Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.’”

As the Fourth Estate we are advocates as well as defenders. We should, at our best, provide accurate, unbiased information to frame the issues in a way that allows citizens to make good decisions. We should hold those in power accountable and to expose the rats and cockroaches that infect all corners of public life.

It is naïve to think that all or any public man or woman has clean hands, by omission or commission there is dirt.

The great failing of journalists is to think that we are the heroes of the story. The truth is we should never be in the story, not our ego, ambition, desire or political ideology. We are mechanics who should work in earnest to make clear information that shields against tyranny and promotes liberty.

We pray this news organization will continue in this tradition for years to come, to inform, educate, alert and call to action the people of our state.

In this earnest spirit we offer you the Alabama Political Reporter, may our desire to make Alabama even better be blessed by God and also protected from ourselves.

A note of thanks...

A project like Alabama Political Reporter may have come from the mind of one individual but making it a reality takes the work of many hands.
The laborers are not just those who have coded the software or written the stories or provided the ideas it is also the many who have offered food, advice, comfort and belief that have built the foundation upon which the dream now appears as a new news organization for all Alabamans.
So, it is Susan and I would like to acknowledge some of those people.
We want to thank Governor Robert Bentley and those in his office, the Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and his staff, the President pro tempore of the Senate, Del Marsh, and his staff as well as the Attorney General Luther Strange and his staff.
The many friends and supporters who have been there for us from the beginning, when resources were scarce and hope was our only comfort, to you we offer our deepest thanks to Dick and Evelyn Whatley, Vernon Burns and Sharon Meadows, Bradley and Rebecca Byrne, Kat Tucker, Mike Gardner, Marty and Hoke Sullivan, Pastors Shawn and Andrea Machen, and many more. You know who you are. You have all been true friends and inspirations, thank you all.

Cliff Sims; Yellowhammer

Somehow I did not get included in the Yellowhammer videos that are running this week. I am making inquiry to Cliff about what happened on that.

In the meantime, Cliff seems clearly qualified to evaluate my candidacy, so I am extending my request to Cliff as well for the evaluation of my candidacy (I don't have Cliff's email, but will let Cliff know about this).

I continue to think that Framing the question is a good starting point for evaluating my candidacy.

Joey Kennedy

Dale Jackson has steered me in the direction of Joey Kennedy, as being someone Dale appears to respect highly, and I have taken the step of soliciting from Joey an evaluation of my candidacy.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Not endorsing me

[this will be updated as more indications are received]

Dale Jackson
Matt Murphy
Richard Dixon

Please endorse me

Please endorse me in the Alabama 6th Congressional district by going to my Facebook page, inviting me as a friend, and, after I accept your friend invitation, liking my Facebook Endorsements page.

The reason you should endorse me is I am saying something is fundamentally wrong with Congress, which critically needs the attention of the American people and Congress. The other six candidates have, for more than three months, adamantly refused to discuss this. I have ideas and a plan to try to fix Congress, but it requires the support of the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district to endorse and vote for me on June 3rd.


If you have any questions, please email me at rdshattuck@gmail.com or call me at (205) 867-5586.


Thank you!!!

Request to U.S., Alabama and Birmingham Chambers of Commerce

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM
Subject: AL06-- Candidate request for further Chamber feedback re American Lawmaker's Creed
To: Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, Nathan Lindsay <nathanl@bcatoday.org>, wpowers@uschamber.com
Cc: "gp1494@att.com" <gp1494@att.com>, "chad@drmathisforcongress.com" <chad@drmathisforcongress.com>, "will@votewillforcongress.com" <will@votewillforcongress.com>, "tomv@tomisforyou.com" <tomv@tomisforyou.com>, "pdemarco@pljpc.com" <pdemarco@pljpc.com>, "dean@drmathisforcongress.com" <dean@drmathisforcongress.com>, "billy@votewillforcongress.com" <billy@votewillforcongress.com>, "vic1baker@aol.com" <vic1baker@aol.com>, "jpudner@concentricgrasstops.com" <jpudner@concentricgrasstops.com>, "rjourney@rickjourney.com" <rjourney@rickjourney.com>, Scott Beason <senatorsbeason@gmail.com>, "jon@palmerforalabama.com" <jon@palmerforalabama.com>, Jefftyson2@clearchannel.com, Madison Underwood <MUnderwood@al.com>, "Mountz, John" <JohnMountz@clearchannel.com>, "Lunceford, Jon" <jonlunceford@clearchannel.com>, David Sears <david.sears@cumulus.com>, Justin Love <Justin.Love@cumulus.com>, Thomas Allen <TAllenJr@wvtm.com>, newsroom <newsroom@bhamnews.com>, news <news@insideuab.com>, news <news@theplainsman.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cw.ua.edu>, Ron Gholson <rong@otelco.net>, jwelker@bizjounals.com, ccrawford@bizjournals.com, dixon@1070wapi.com, matt@100wapi.com, newstip@wbrc.com, ReportIt@cbs42.com, newstip@abc3340.com, "robert.thuston" <Robert.Thuston@energen.com>, Kirk Mancer <Kirk@shelbychamber.org>, chamber <chamber@vestaviahills.org>, "Noles, Jim" <JNOLES@balch.com>, Cheryl Mathews <cherylamathews@gmail.com>, Eunie Smith <alaeagle@charter.net>, Jim & Dolores Fort <jimanddolores@gmail.com>, candaces@abc3340.com, bbritt@alreporter.com, Brandon Moseley <bmoseley@alreporter.com>, mark <mark@weldbham.com>, Anthony Cook <ACook@al.com>, info.rwsc@gmail.com, Apryl Marie Fogel <amfogel@60plus.org>, Dale Jackson <Dale.Jackson@cumulus.com>, mayers <mayers@babc.com>, Edward Bowser <EBowser@al.com>, ndavis <ndavis@bsc.edu>, kwhitmire@al.com, jarchibald@al.com, Phillip Ohnemus <phillip.ohnemus@wiat.com>, Jim Stinson <JStinson@al.com>


Dear Alison, Nathan, and Wade,

I wish to expand the request for Chamber feedback that I sent you yesterday (yesterday's email is "forwarded" hereby).

As I think Alison and Nathan know, my campaign charges that there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress that critically needs addressing by the American people and Congress.

I have a diagnosis of what is wrong, and am putting forth ideas for fixing, or trying to fix, Congress. 

One of my ideas is the "open" Congressional offices idea that was the subject of yesterday's email.

A related idea grows out of my analytic of lawmakers being frequently confronted with a matter in which there are general societal interests on two or more sides of the matter, and a special, one sided interest of a small group.

I discussed this analytic in a speech I prepared for the May 12th "Birmingham's Future for Young Professionals" candidate forum, sponsored by Rotaract Club of Birmingham and the Birmingham Business Journal. Said prepared speech can be read at Birmingham's Future For Young Professionals. See also The GM faulty ignition recall and My American Lawmaker's Creed.

I think the American people and American business would be better off if lawmakers made their decisions based on balancing the general societal interests and largely ignoring a special, one sided interest of a small group.

Currently, there is a roadblock to this happening. The roadblock derives from the large costs of election campaigns, the continuous fundraising which must go on, and the need for campaign contributions from special, one sided interests (whose interests are limited to their respective small niches in the the domain of Federal law and Federal government actions).

Whether or not this roadblock can be overcome, my question to the Chambers is this: Do you think the American people and American business would be better off if it was possible to inculcate in lawmakers a widespread or universal practice that they make their decisions based on balancing the general societal interests and ignoring special, one sided interests of small groups?

My "open" Congressional offices idea is intended to provide support for such a practice becoming widespread.

I appreciate that the Chambers probably probably will not be able to provide any reaction or feedback before the June 3rd primary election day. Writing the Chambers, however, is a basis for helping me get these ideas in front of the voters in their consideration of the candidates, and, in that vein, I am taking the liberty of copying the other candidates and my local media and forum list on this email.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Candidate, AL 6th Congressional district

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM
Subject: AL06- Candidate request for "down and dirty" Chamber feedback re "open" Cong'l offices
To: Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, Nathan Lindsay <nathanl@bcatoday.org>, wpowers@uschamber.com


Dear Alison, Nathan, and Wade,

You are the contact persons from whom I, as one of the seven candidates in the Alabama 6th Congressional district race, have received the candidate questionnaires of the Birmingham Business Alliance, the Business Council of Alabama, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I have previously replied on the BBA and the BCA questionnaires, and the due time for the U.S. Chamber questionnaire, which I received yesterday, is next Wednesday.

I wish to make, if possible, a "down and dirty" inquiry of the Chambers about an idea I have put forth in my campaign. 

The idea is that of using data capture technology to create "open" Congressional offices, so that there are basically no private communications between a Congressional office and the outside world.

The extent of my written description of the idea is this campaign blog entry: Dear Anthony: re slow Friday afternoon.

Your Chambers have a lot of knowledge and experience of working with Congressional offices. 

My basic question is, could the Chambers live with this concept of "open" Congressional offices?

I think all I am looking for at the moment is a choice of "down and dirty" reactions, such as, "there is no way this idea of "open" Congressional offices could ever be workable and acceptable," or "it is an idea worth exploring," or "that idea has really good potential."

I know you may not be able to give me any quick "down and dirty" reaction at all, but it seemed at least worth asking.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Friday, May 23, 2014

From a DeMarco supporter (updated)

A DeMarco supporter wrote me the below email last night:
From:
Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Subject: Dear Shattuck,
To: "rdshattuck@gmail.com" <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
I'm emailing you in regards to your attack letter to DeMarco, in which you called him fatuous. I would like to return the favor in saying that your campaign and your ideas are fatuous and DeMarco actually has a plan to lower spending and balance the budget. At debates, you constantly grind into people's heads that we need to fix this dysfunctional congress, but you have no legitimate plan to do so; and when your asked what your standpoint is on something, you refuse to answer. Those issues are the issues that matter to the taxpayers, and when you refuse to answer them, you refuse to inform the people, which will never get you elected. We ALL want to fix Congress. But saying it isn't a very strong message.

My response

I have said that Congress is kaput. I have said there is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people in Washington DC. I have said that my diagnosis is that Congress, of its own accord, cannot and will not take adequate action to fix these things, and only the American people, acting in temporary unison, can force Congress to change things or otherwise force change. I have said this is a longshot, and that it could very well be crazy to think it will ever happen. Given the direness of the situation, I have said we have no choice but to be crazy and to try.

If what I have said is true, and that Congress is kaput and has stopped functioning, it does not do much good to talk about plans to lower spending and balance the budget. In fact, it is delusional to be doing such talking. Kabuki theater I am calling it.

As I said on Matt Murphy on Monday (a link to the podcast can be found here), a roadblock to Congress becoming functional is that a chief tool of the political class in Washington DC is to keep the electorate divided and polarized, and to put out non-stop extreme rhetoric on the two sides. Once steps are taken to begin to fix Congress, the idea is that will start to quell, more reasonable dialogue will ensue, and compromises will begun to be reached. Exactly what will unfold in the course of that is far too early to say. Any "plans" right now are fatuous.

I have invited the DeMarco supporter who wrote the above email to reply to my reply and to solicit Representative DeMarco to give an adequate addressing of these matter to the voters. In my opinion, all that Representative DeMarco has served up to the voters thus far is either "political hokum" or "fatuous stupidity." I stand by that until I hear more from his supporter or him.

If Representative DeMarco needs some guidance about fashioning a reply, I refer him to Framing the question.


DeMarco supporter emailed me back this:
So you have made clear that if you are elected, you will do absolutely nothing to balance our budget, decrease spending, repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ANYTHING that will stimulate the progress of our country? I understand that Congress needs to be fixed, but don't you think you can balance fixing Congress and assisting this district?
Also, if you are elected, how exactly would you "fix" Congress? 


I replied with this:
Thank you for writing again, ____.

I am saying Congress is kaput, and Congress is not able to do anything to balance the budget, decrease spending, repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, or anything that will stimulate the progress of our country. 

If elected, I would contribute and do what I can, but I expect not to be able to make one whit of difference. I further expect that to be the case with any of the candidates, if they are elected. I have tried to engage the other six candidates in discussion about this, but they have refused for three months.

I have said that Congress cannot be looked to to fix itself, and only the American people can force change. 

My plan is to use the 2014 elections as a linchpin for doing this. See National battle plan (2014).

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig has launched a citizens' super PAC to try to win enough House seats in 2016 and have a Congress that will fix itself. See this recent Atlantic article.

Does this answer your questions?

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck 


DeMarco supporter then emailed me this
I understand that Congress is in a kaput, but in the miraculous event that you contribute in getting them working again, what issues would you fight on Capitol Hill. That's what everyone wants to know. 


I replied with this:
Let me try putting it back to you this way, _____t.

While I say Congress is kaput, take a look at this link, which is many pages listing Bachus' votes on House legislation set out in reverse chronological order.

Whoever is elected will be confronted with a comparable long list of items of legislation to vote on. One could speculate what might get voted on during the next two years and how one would vote as a candidate. I am not prepared to begin to speculate that.

Alternatively, you could ask each candidate, "how would you have voted on each of these items of legislation listed?" Or maybe you would want to pick certain items of legislation for each candidate to say how he would have voted.

I am not much motivated to go through the list and say how I would have voted.

Bachus shows up as a co-sponsor on a number of the bills, so I guess you would say Bachus "fought" on those. You could ask each candidate, "what legislation would you co-sponsor if elected?" My answer is I don't at this time have any ideas for legislation I would co-sponsor.

Perhaps Representative Bachus can give you better answers to the above questions or hypothetical questions.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck.


I got curious on my own
The names of the legislation that Bachus voted on shown on the list in the link given above got my curiosity going, and I read the below highlights of some of them set out below:.

Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2013
Highlights:
  • Requires a lead agency leading a construction project that requires approval by a permit or regulatory decision to establish a schedule for completion of an environmental review by considering certain factors including, but not limited to, the following factors (Sec. 2):
    • The size and complexity of the project;
    • The cost of the project; and
    • The responsibilities of participating agencies.
  • Defines “lead agency” as the federal agency preparing or responsible for preparing the project’s environmental document (Sec. 2).
  • Defines “environmental review” as the procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Sec. 2).
  • Defines “environmental document” as an environmental assessment or environmental impact statements and includes any supplemental document or document prepared under court order (Sec. 2).
  • Requires the lead agency of a project to complete an environmental review for projects requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement within the following deadlines (Sec. 2):
    • Within 2 years after the earlier of the date the agency receives a project initiation request or publishes a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environment Impact Statement is published;
    • Within 2 years after a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environment Impact Statement if the agency has prepared an environmental assessment and determined that an environmental impact statement will be required.
  • Requires the lead agency to issue a finding of no “significant” impact or publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement within 1 year after the earlier of the date the agency completes the following (Sec. 2):
    • Receives a project initiation request;
    • Makes a decision to prepare an environmental assessment, or
    • Sends out participating agency invitations.
  • Authorizes the lead agency of a project to take any actions necessary to facilitate the “expeditious” resolution of the environmental review for the project (Sec. 2).
  • Prohibits an extension of the environmental review deadline without an agreement between the lead agency, the project sponsor, and the participating agencies or without “good cause” (Sec. 2).
  • Prohibits an environmental review deadline from being extended by the following (Sec. 2):
    • By more than 1 year for a project requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement; or
    • By more than 180 days for a project requiring preparation of an environmental assessment.
  • Requires a federal agency that is required to act upon a permit, license, or other similar application for approval related to a project prior to the record of decision or finding of no “significant” impact, to act no later than 90 days beginning after the following (Sec. 2).
    • After all other relevant agency review related to the project is complete; and
    • After the availability of the environmental impact statement or other environmental documents, or no later than such other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs first.
  • Specifies that if the federal agency does not act upon a permit, license, or other similar application for approval related to a project, the permit, license, or other similar application shall be deemed approved by such agency (Sec. 2).
  • Requires the lead agency to establish a comment period for comments by agencies and the public on a draft environmental impact statement of not more than 60 days after public availability unless a different deadline is established by agreement between the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating agencies, or the deadline is extended for “good cause” (Sec. 2).
  • Authorizes the lead agency of a project to adopt an environmental document that resulted from an environmental review on a “similar” project in “geographical proximity” that was subject to environmental review within the previous 5 years if the agency determines that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the project will have “similar” environmental impacts (Sec. 2).
  • Authorizes the lead agency of a project to adopt an environmental document that has been prepared for a project under state laws and procedures as the environmental document for the project if the state laws and procedures under which the document was prepared provide environmental protection and opportunities for public involvement that are “substantially equivalent” to those in NEPA (Sec. 2).
  • Prohibits the lead agency from using the “social cost of carbon” in any environmental review or environmental decision making process (Sec. 2).
  • Prohibits a claim from arising seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a federal agency for an action subject to NEPA unless certain conditions are met including, but not limited to, the claim was filed within 180 days after publication that the permit, license, or approval is final (Sec. 2).
  • Requires the head of each federal agency to annually report to Congress on the following items (Sec. 2):   
    • The projects for which the agency initiated preparation of an environmental document;
    • The time it took the agency to complete the environmental review for each project; and
    • The resolution of any lawsuits against the agency that sought judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by the agency for an action subject to NEPA.
  • Specifies that the deadline provisions of this bill apply to a project for which an environmental review or environmental decision making process was initiated prior to the date of enactment and shall be calculated as beginning from the date of enactment (Sec. 2).

Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act
Highlights:
  • Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish Forest Reserve Revenue Areas within each unit of the National Forest System within 60 days of the enactment of this bill (Secs. 102 & 103).
  • Defines “Forest Reserve Revenue Area” as National Forest System land designated for sustainable forest management for the production of national forest materials and forest reserve revenues (Sec. 102).
  • Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to include in Forest Reserve Revenue Areas at least 50 percent of the National Forest System lands that are capable of producing greater than 20 cubic feet of timber per acre (Sec. 102). 
  • Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the annual volume requirement for a Forest Reserve Revenue Area within 30 days of its designation as such, and to immediately begin managing the area in a manner suitable to achieving the annual volume requirement (Secs. 103 & 104).
  • Defines “annual volume requirement” as a total harvest of forest materials that is at least 50% of the total possible sustainable harvest (Sec. 102).
  • Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to pay 25 percent of revenues derived from the sale of national forest materials in a Forest Reserve Revenue Area to state governments for the benefit of the counties in which the national forest is located (Sec. 105).
  • Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish community forest demonstration areas within a state at the request of an advisory committee appointed by the state’s governor, consisting of at least 200,000 acres and not more than 4 million acres of National Forest System land (Sec. 402).
  • Authorizes the advisory committee for a community forest demonstration area to retain revenue generated by the area to fund the management, administration, restoration, operation and maintenance, improvement, and repair of the area (Sec. 405).
  • Exempts the following categories of projects from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that require an environmental assessment or impact statement before implementation (Sec. 104):
    • Projects that are proposed in response to a catastrophic event;
    • Projects that cover an area of 10,000 acres or less; or
    • Projects that are hazardous fuel reduction or forest health projects involving the removal of insect-infested trees, dead or dying trees, trees presenting a threat to public safety, or other hazardous fuels within 500 feet of utility or telephone infrastructure, campgrounds, roadsides, heritage sites, recreational sites, schools, or other infrastructure. 
  • Exempts forest health projects whose primary purpose is the salvage of dead, damaged, or down timber resulting from a wildfire occurring in 2013 from being subject to judicial review or any federal court injunction (Sec. 204).
  • Prohibits a U.S. Court from issuing a restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal in response to an allegation that the Secretary of Agriculture violated a procedural requirement when selecting, planning, or analyzing a project involving hazardous fuel reduction or the management or sale of national forest materials within a Forest Reserve Revenue Area (Secs. 104 & 204).
  • Requires a plaintiff challenging a project that involves hazardous fuel reduction or the management or sale of national forest materials within a Forest Reserve Revenue Area to post a bond or other security to the court in order to cover the estimated costs, expenses, and attorney fees of the Secretary of Agriculture as defendant within 90 days of the start of legal action, or the action will be dismissed (Secs. 104 & 204).
  • Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a determination explaining that a proposed project in a forest reserve is not likely to jeopardize the existence of any species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, if the Secretary decides that the project might impact such a species (Sec. 104).
  • Establishes the Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands Trust, that shall comprise all lands located on Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region Public Domain lands as of January 2013 and containing stands of timber that have previously been managed for timber production or that have been materially altered by natural disturbances since 1886 (Sec. 311).
  • Requires the Board of Trustees for the Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands Trust to manage at least 50 percent of the total harvestable acres of the Trust lands for the purposes of generating the maximum sustainable revenue for the area (Sec. 314).

Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act
Highlights:
  • Prohibits the Department of the Interior from enforcing federal regulations of oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing activities if a state has regulations, guidance or permit requirements for the hydraulic fracturing activity (Sec. 102).
  • Prohibits the Department of the Interior from enforcing federal regulations of oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing activities on Indian land that is held in trust or restricted status (Sec. 104).
  • Requires the Department of the Interior to defer to state regulations, permitting, and guidance of oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing activities on federal land (Sec. 102).
  • Requires a state with regulations that apply to hydraulic fracturing on federal land or the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on federal land to submit a copy of the regulations to the Bureau of Land Management (Sec. 102).
  • Requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study examining the “economic benefits” of domestic shale oil and gas production resulting from hydraulic fracturing including identification of the following (Sec. 103):
    • The state and federal revenue generated;
    • The jobs created both directly and indirectly; and
    • The estimate of potential energy prices without domestic shale oil and gas production.
  • Requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources to meet certain requirements including, but not limited to, the following (Sec. 202):
    • The report must be reviewed by peers;
    • The report must include estimates of the probability, uncertainty, and consequence of each impact that takes into account the risk management practices of states and industry; and
    • The report must be released publicly by September 30, 2016.
  • Requires the Secretary of the Interior to annually review and report to Congress on all state activities regarding hydraulic fracturing (Sec. 301).

Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013
Highlights:
  • Authorizes an employee in the private sector to receive compensatory time off instead of monetary compensation for overtime work (Sec. 2).
  • Requires 1 and one-half hours of compensatory time off to be applied for each hour of overtime work an employee performs (Sec. 2).
  • Requires an employee who has accrued compensatory time off and who has requested to use the time to be authorized by the employer to use the time within a “reasonable period” after making the request if the use of the time does not disrupt the operations of the employer (Sec. 2).
  • Prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing any employee for the following purposes (Sec. 2):
    • To interfere with the employee’s ability to request or not request compensatory time off instead of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
    • To require any employee to use his or her accrued compensation time.
  • Limits to 160 hours the compensatory time an employee is authorized to accrue (Sec. 2).
  • Prohibits an employee from receiving compensatory time off until he or she has worked at least 1,000 hours during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period prior to the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off (Sec. 2).
  • Requires any compensatory time off agreements to be in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement for employees who are represented by a labor organization or affirmed by a written record of agreement between the employer and employee for employees who are not represented by a labor organization (Sec. 2).
  • Authorizes an employee who is not represented by a labor organization to discontinue a compensatory time off agreement at any time (Sec. 2).
  • Authorizes an employer to discontinue the compensatory time off policy if the employer provides a 30-day notice to employees, unless a collective bargaining agreement specifies otherwise (Sec. 2).
  • Authorizes an employee to request in writing at any time that monetary compensation be provided for all unused compensatory time accrued, and requires the employer to provide the employee the monetary compensation within 30 days (Sec. 2).
  • Authorizes an employer to provide monetary compensation after 30 days’ notice for an employee’s unused compensatory time in excess of 80 hours (Sec. 2).
  • Requires an employer to pay an employee who has accrued compensatory time off for the unused compensatory time upon voluntary or involuntary termination of employment (Sec. 2).
  • Requires an employer to provide monetary compensation by January 31 of each calendar year for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar (Sec. 2).
  • Requires monetary compensation for accrued compensatory time off to be paid to the employee at 1 of the following rates, whichever is higher (Sec. 2):
    • The employee’s regular rate when the compensatory time was earned; or
    • The employee’s final regular rate.
  • Specifies that the provisions of this bill expire 5 years after the date of enactment (Sec. 6).