Tuesday, May 6, 2014

AL.com editorial board candidate endorsements

From: Edward Bowser <EBowser@al.com>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:46 PM
Subject: AL.com editorial board candidate endorsements
To: "rdshattuck@gmail.com" <rdshattuck@gmail.com>

Good afternoon, Mr. Shattuck, I hope you’re well.

I’m Edward Bowser with AL.com, representing our Editorial Board. We’re in the process of endorsing candidates and we need your help.

Could you provide six to 10 issues that you feel are key to this election, and provide his stance on those issues? We’re presenting those issues directly to readers, and that feedback with help us make our final decision on endorsements.

If possible, we’d like to have your response by close of business today, around 5 p.m. or so.

Thanks so much for your help and please reach out to me here or at my number below if you have questions.

Edward Bowser
Community Engagement Specialist
Alabama Media Group



From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: AL.com editorial board candidate endorsements
To: Edward Bowser <EBowser@al.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>

Dear Mr. Bowser,

This is in response to your above email.

Issue #1

The problem:

My campaign has been charging that, in Washington DC, there is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that Congress has basically stopped functioning in the way it is supposed to for the American people. Further, I don't see any reason to think that Congress is going to regain functioning for the American people, unless the American people take needed action to force Congress to change how Washington works.

I think there are numerous important matters that Congress should address for the American people, including the debt, entitlements, health care, tax reform, and immigration. Looking at how Congress has performed or failed to perform its job for the American people during the past five to ten years, and how it has largely been unable to address these matters, I don't see Congress being able to address the matters in a proper way for the American people during the next two to four years (unless a start is made on forcing the aforesaid change of the way Washington works).

Thus, my Issue #1 is that the American people need to do what is necessary to get Congress to change the way Washington works, so that Congress can resume functioning properly for the American people again. 

This entails first diagnosing, if possible, why Congress has stopped working properly for the American people, and then seeing whether there is a way to try fix that. Until a start is begun on that, Congress will continue unable to address the important matters mentioned above and other matters.

I think, in deciding how the Editorial Board evaluates this issue #1, the Editorial Board should take into account that the other candidates have declined to discuss my charges. Does that mean my charges are baseless? Does that mean the other candidates are unable to discern something that is very important for the voters in the 6th Congressional district? In making a decision about endorsement, I think the Editorial Board needs to answer the foregoing questions for itself.

My diagnosis and solution:

To use a short hand term (and this is very shorthand and deserving of several pages of explication), my diagnosis is that of a "money monster" in politics. Under my diagnosis, there is no way Congress is, of its own accord, going to undertake what is needed to try to fix the problem, and only the voters can force Congress to do that.

I fully acknowledge that the reality is that it is a long shot whether voters will be able to force Congress to fix or try to fix itself.

In deciding about its endorsement, the Editorial Board may conclude that, yes, there is a very significant problem about Congress not functioning properly for the American people. but it is virtually impossible that a fix can be accomplished, and therefore Candidate Shattuck's issue #1 needs to be disregarded in the Editorial Board's reaching its endorsement decision because nothing can be done about the problem.

I hope the Editorial Board will at least be explicit with itself about this, if it chooses not to endorse me.


Issue #2 -- My American Lawmaker's Creed

I think there is a discrete component in the problem discussed in issue #1, which I think warrants being identified as a separate issue for the voters to consider relative to which candidate will endeavor to push on the issue.

A problem for democratic government (and the problem becomes bigger the bigger government is and the more pervasively it intrudes in the economy by taxation, spending, regulation and other governmental action), is that actors in the economy fixate on the respective niches in which the government affects them and which are very significant for them (let's call this the "special interest" phenomenon).  This results in these actors being concerned only about how they are affected in their particular niche and being indifferent to whatever else the government does which things outside their particular niche.  This in turn is associated with campaign contributions being linked only to laws or governmental action affecting a particular niche of the "special interest", and the politicians accommodating, or trying to accommodate, many "special interest" in their particular niches, to the detriment of more general interests.

In my campaign, I have discussed how lawmakers are frequently confronted with a matter in which the people have general interests on opposite sides at the same time, and in which a very small group of persons have a special, one sided interest. See My American Lawmaker's Creed,  I have said that, in these situations, lawmakers should make their decisions virtually exclusively on the basis of balancing the two generalized societal interests that are on the opposite side, and should disregard the special, one sided interest of a small group.  See The GM faulty ignition recall.  In the first cited link, I conclude by saying, "There are hundreds of potent one sided, special interests, which are hard at work in Washington, and their fundraising, campaign contributions and other activities are significant contributing factors to the defects in governance that my Congressional campaign is about."

So, I make as issue #2, which has far reaching ramifications, that I hold myself out as a candidate who, if elected, will endeavor to practice, and to advocate to my fellow Congressmen practice, My American Lawmaker's Creed.

To my knowledge, none of the other candidates has evidenced giving any thought to the this issue #2. I think this issue #2 is an issue that should weigh significantly in my favor in the Editorial Board's endorsement decision.


Issue #3 -- Health care

The other candidates have blamed Obama and the Democrats for The Affordable Care Act, and they bang on "repeal and replace."

I believe The Affordable Care Act is a monstrosity, I blame it more on the above described "problem" and the "special interests" having all been hard at work to make sure they were ok in their respective niches (per the discussion under issue #2).  Also, I ask, where were the Republicans in Washington during 2001 to 2007, when they had the Presidency and the House and Senate, and it was known that some health care reform was needed, and they could have tried for reform more to their liking?

In short, I think the Editorial Board should decide which of the candidates has a better understanding of the problem of why the United States has The Affordable Care Act, why it is likely to remain the monstrosity it is, or be replaced with a comparable monstrosity, and that the American people will best make headway in getting the monstrosity meaningfully changed or replaced by forcing Congress to change the way Washington works.


Issue #4 -- The national debt, pro-growth energy policies, less intrusive government

I have argued that average Republicans, average Democrats, and average independents are very similar in their desires and goals regarding these important issues, and that the political class in Washington is the common enemy of such Republicans, Democrats, and independents in having a Congress that is functioning for the American people and that will address the issues.  See the discussion under "Brooke question regarding Federal budget" in the entry Let's deconstruct what the other answers will be, and also the entry MAKING SENSE OF THIS.

I consider what we have witnessed in Washington DC in recent years to be Kabuki Theater, in which the two sides push around issues as will keep their respective sides agitated, with the prime objective of keeping the electorate divided and maintaining their powers and riches in Washington, with little concern for the best interests of the American people.  The other candidates only offer to enable further this Kabuki Theater.


Issue #5 -- Cultural issues
   
I consider many of the cultural issues, which are important to the voters in the 6th Congressional district and also important in different ways to other persons, all to be part of this Kabuki Theater.


Issue #6 -- My "open" Congressional office idea

I think the voters should take into account important benefits that would flow if my "open" Congressional office idea was implemented.  See "Press release" re suggestion for improving Congress.


Conclusion

The voters have been ill-served by the refusal of the other candidates to discuss the foregoing things which I have been talking about in my campaign. 

In light of such disservice, whether or not the Editorial Board endorses me, I hope the Editorial Board will go out of its way to give to voters the benefit of what the Editorial Board thinks about these matters which the other candidates have refused to discuss.


Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter to you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Candidate, 6th Congressional district


SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION: The above was supplemented on May 9 th by means of the below email:

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Subject: AL.com editorial board candidate endorsements -- Supplemental submission
To: Edward Bowser <EBowser@al.com>
Cc: [omitted]

Dear Edward,

Today I made a response to a request from the 60 Plus Association for me to make a pledge regarding repeal of death taxes. I have posted the response I made in this campaign website entry:



I wish to make a supplemental submission to the AL.com editorial board in its candidate endorsement process of the statements I make in the above link.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Monday, May 5, 2014

Open letter to Laura Ingraham re AL 6th Congressional district


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:30 AM
Subject: Open letter to Laura Ingraham re AL 6th Congressional district
To: James Beattie <_____@______>

c/o James Beattie, producer of The Laura Ingraham Show
Dear Laura,

Your seeking a no amnesty pledge from the candidates in the Alabama 6th Congressional district race has received significant local publicity.

In my campaign, I have been charging that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and further that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people.

I consider this the most important matter confronting the voters in the 6th Congressional district, and it should be the same for voters all around the country.

While I am a nobody, there are numerous serious and reputable persons in the country who think similarly. I mention Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig for one. I think your fellow alumnus Robert Reich has pretty strong feelings about the matter as well.

I invite you, with your considerable standing in conservative circles, to express yourself about my charges, for consideration by the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district.

I hope you will make comment on your radio show.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Candidate, AL 6th Congressional district

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Jim Rubens, Republican for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire

Why can't we get a Republican in Alabama like Jim Rubens in New Hampshire?

  1. Political Reform Agenda

    Stop Political Corruption, Increase Congressional Accountability
    1. Enact a public elections financing system for candidates voluntarily opting out of the current private money system. Allow voters to use a portion of their own taxes to fund the campaigns of their choice. Each two years, every citizen 18 years and older is given a $50 tax rebate check assignable to and spendable only by candidates or Congress or President. *
    2. Require all campaign contributions and expenditures of all types and to all entities engaged in electioneering and lobbying to be reported in realtime in an easily searchable public database.
    3. Ban solicitation or receipt of campaign, PAC, or leadership PAC contributions by members while Congress is in session. Ban solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions by members or candidates from lobbyists or government contractors. Ban spouses, children, parents, and near-relatives of Congresspersons as registered lobbyists.
    4. Enact a constitutional amendment limiting members of Congress to terms of not greater than twelve years. I pledge to serve no more than two terms, if elected to the US Senate.
    5. Enact a constitutional balanced budget amendment or, better, a constitutional gross federal debt ceiling, with waivers during times of declared national disaster or war.
    6. As provided for under Article V of the US Constitution, I support a convention called for by the legislatures at least 34 states to propose amendments to the Constitution for subsequent ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 states. This never-used amending process is the single means to bypass a reluctant and excessively self-interested Congress in enacting needed reform. The 38-state ratification threshold is sufficient to block proposed amendments harmful to liberty.
    7. Members of Congress should adhere equally to all laws applying to the public.;
    8. Establish and enforce rules of procedure so that the full text of legislation and amendments to be considered by the full Senate is available to members and to the public for review, other than for emergencies, seven days before Senate floor vote.
    9. Over the period ending June 1, 2014, I will participate in and will respond to unfiltered questions at no fewer than five public meetings or debates noticed in advance and open to the general public. I challenge Jeanne Shaheen to do same. To improve connection with New Hampshire constituents, as Senator, I will host and participate in teleconferences, Twitter live chats, Google hangouts, and Facebook town halls.
    * Candidates eligible to receive citizen rebate contributions must first establish credibility by having raised a threshold sum of private money in small dollar contributions from persons eligible to vote for the participating candidate. This public system will reduce the cost of government and will more than pay for itself by reducing the wasteful spending, corporate welfare, and special interest tax subsidies now given in trade for private money campaign contributions.

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Yardies v. Tweets, a look ahead at Week 1

After 2-1/2 months of scrimmaging, "game time" in the Alabama 6th Congressional district race has arrived. The play will be for four weeks. Let's set the formations of the players, as we look to Week 1 ahead.

I live in Mountain Brook, and Yardie Brooke's yard signs are showing a real nice bloom. I have seen some yard signs for DeMarco, and a couple for Palmer and Mathis. (All the Yardies Brooke, DeMarco, Beason, Mathis, Palmer, and Vignuelle will need to file whatever reports they see fit about how their yard signs are proliferating in the 6th Congressional district ramparts.)

I am the Tweets team. I was retweeted by @lessig to his 286K followers on May 2.

Lessig is Founder and Board Member of the MayOne citizens' super pac, and Mark McKinnon is Board Member and Treasurer. Said Mark is also frequently on with Morning Joe and Mika. In fact, I think Mark was on Morning Joe on Thursday, May 1, the day MayOne was launched. Joe is a University of Alabama graduate and big on Alabama. So, you can figure that the Tweets team is angling for a mention on Morning Joe, but it could be only a "Hail Mary" in Week 4.

There is also a Laura Ingraham side play which the Tweets team hopes will pan out.

Laura either chided or strong armed Yardie Brooke on an amnesty pledge. Go to the link: Following chiding from conservative host Laura Ingraham, District 6 hopeful Will Brooke fills out anti-anmesty 'pledge'.

The Tweets Team was neither chided nor strong armed by Laura, the below email interchange having taken place.

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: The Laura Ingraham Show
To: James Beattie <jbeattie422@gmail.com>
Thank you for this inquiry, James.
I don't know if Laura's interest in AL06 is limited to candidates' views on amnesty. If it is, I am going to provide little grist for her.
I am trying to position myself to grab hold of the rocket tails of the May 1 launch of Lawrence Lessig's "Moonshot." See Is AL06 ready for May 1 launch of Lessig "Moonshot"? I am hoping Laura's (and my) fellow Dartmouth alumnus Robert Reich will help push upwards in Lessig's launch.
On immigration law questions, I will vote in the way citizens in AL06 desire me to vote, following receiving from them of expression of their views regarding same.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Dartmouth, class of 1969

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:58 PM, James Beattie <jbeattie422@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Mr. Shattuck,I am a producer with The Laura Ingraham Show. Later this week, we are doing a story on candidates in Alabama's 6th district and their views on amnesty.Could you provide a comment by the end of tomorrow on your views on FAIR'S questionnaire (three short questions found here: http://fairtaskforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FCTF_questionnaire.pdf)?Please respond as soon as possible, as this is time sensitive. Thank you for your help.Best,
James--
James Beattie
Producer, The Laura Ingraham Show
901 North Nelson Street Apt. 1514
Arlington, VA 22203
Cell: 201.314.6219
The Tweets Team thus can be seen as angling for an interview on Laura's show.

Also, the above mentioned Robert Reich is Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary, he is Chair of the National Governing Board of Common Cause, "money in politics" is a main issue for Common Cause, and the Tweets Team would be keen on getting a retweet by @RBReich.

On the substance front, the Tweets Team inaugurated its "stark choice" campaign at the Republican Women of Trussville forum last Thursday.  The stark choice is:  The six other candidates message to the voters is, "Your enemy is Obama and the Democrats."  My message to the voters is, "The common enemy of average Republicans, average Democrats, and average independents is the political class in Washington DC." I expect to post a video here giving more about the "stark choice" shortly.

For the Yardies, the big question is whether they will continue to be "mealy-mouthed." I borrow the word "mealy-mouthed" from Dale Jackson in his interview with me on Thursday.

Let the game's Week 1 begin, I say.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Dale Jackson says

Yesterday, in my telephone interview with Dale Jackson (go to A must listen podcast), I said that "government has failed us, and I link the failure to money in politics."

Dale said he agreed that government has failed us, but he did not agree about the money part.  Dale said, "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." (That is at about time 11:10 in the podcast.)

OK, Dale and I are agreed that government has failed us. I have my above diagnosis of the source of the failure, and I have a plan for the American people to try to correct that failure.

Dale has his above diagnosis of the causative source of why government has failed us, but I don't know whether he has any ideas for getting the failure of government corrected. He did not indicate in the interview about this.

While Dale and I are in agreement that government has failed us, it is not entirely clear what the views of the other candidates are about whether government has failed us or not, and, if so, what their diagnosis is of the cause of the failure.

Ok, now let's take up the Republican Women of Trussville forum last night, at which all seven candidates appeared.

At the forum, I said "the political class in Washington has been doing a big time number on the American people" (which includes the result of Congress having stopped working for the American people), and that I had a long shot plan for trying to fix that.

Presumably because he believes something needs fixing about Congress, Will Brooke said to the RWOT that the first thing he would do when he got to Congress was introduce three bills, one bill imposing term limits, a second bill prohibiting Congressmen from becoming lobbyists after they left office, and the third bill providing that Congress shall be subject to all laws that it passes in the same way as the rest of the American people are.

I have said Will Brooke has been fatuous and stupid in saying things like that to the voters.  (See Dear Dolores and Dear Cheryl re RWOT May 1 candidate forum.)

Maybe I should stand corrected, and  appreciate better Dale Jackson's above diagnosis of why government has failed us.  Maybe I should not say Will Brooke is being fatuous and stupid, but rather I should say that he "playing to the stupidest people" and "pandering to the rubes."

Can you help me out here, Dale?  Is that it?  Should it be obvious to me that the RWOT are the "stupidest people" and "rubes", and Will Brooke is just "playing" to them and "pandering" to them?

I could really use your help from more of your brain flexing, if you could kindly do that.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

A must listen podcast

Please listen to the podcast of Dale Jackson's telephone interview of me today.  The podcast is at:



Audio recording and upload >>

Lessig has launched

He is calling it:




This is the link:  MayOne.

On the front page of the link is this:



the Idea

Government has failed us. More than 90% of Americans link that failure to the influence of money in politics.
Yet the politicians ignore this influence. While America founders, they spend endless time with their funders.
These funders hold our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom, and get it back.
We're going to kickstart a SuperPAC big enough to make it possible to win a Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016.
Or at least we're going to try.