NOVEMBER 5, 2014: Act to defeat the money monster in politics, end the perpetual political war, and fix a failed Congress in Washington.
FEBRUARY 8, 2020: Seeking to be Independent candidate in AL 6th Cong'l district.
CLICK on label "A. Current status" below right.
[Temporary note to readers: I am organizing and editing. I have separate entries, one relative to there NOT being government "of, by and for" the people, and the other about the dysfunctional Congress problem. The entries may ultimately get consolidated. I am doing other editing on the two entries.]
How does the money monster make Congress dysfunctional?
There is much power and riches are to be had in Washington DC, and how great the desire for power and riches is for the many people who go to Washington DC to have and keep power and riches. These include lawmakers, lobbyists, and leaders of "special interest" organizations. This is not a universal judgment of the people in Washington DC, but the aggregate of all the desire for power and riches, and doing what is needed to preserve and increase the same, is a significant factor that contributes to preventing the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people and to the dysfunctionaliy of Congress (as will be elaborated below)..
A further harsh reality is the extent of seeking and having "top down" control in order to build, preserve and further enhance one's personal power and riches. This means much more falling into line with the wishes of those above one, and much less attunement to making government "of, by and for" the people.
Mention should also be made of the intense symbiotic relationship between the political class and the donor class. A harsh reality is the extent to which there is largely one political class (including both Republicans and Democrats) and one donor class, and there is intense rivalry within, and sometimes a resort to coercive tools, in the domain of the two classes. Those in the donor class are intent on winding up on the side of election winners, and those in the political class are intent on getting donors lined up with them, and if a donor does not line up, there is a threat of subsequent retribution against the donor. This symbiotic relationship contributes to undermining the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people.
While the political class gets their needed funding from the donor class, those in the political class still need to get votes to win and stay in office. To do this, it helps to keep the voters on their side riled up and angry, which leads to turning every issue into a life and death "us against them" matter. In short, divisiveness is beneficial to the political class. This impairs Congress in working together and in reaching compromises that government "of, by and for" the people is properly capable of.
The "us against them" mentality is also useful to the political class in eliciting booster donations from average voters on top of the funding from the donor class that the politicians mainly rely on.
The harsh realities contain a risk of the political class and their lobbyist cohorts and others growing their own role and importance and having more power and riches, to the detriment of the people which government is supposed to be of, by and for. Take, as an example, complexity versus simplicity of laws. From the point of view of the people, simpler laws might be better, but, from the point of view of lawmakers, lobbyists and others in DC, complex laws can be much better for their own personal interests. The more complexity there is in the law, the greater the lawmakers' ability to obtain political contributions, and the more opportunity there is for lobbyists to collect fees for lobbying about inrticacies in complex laws. The same can be said about the scope and reach of laws. Laws with less scope and less intrusiveness may be pretty good for the people, but lawmakers, lobbyists and others can personally benefit from laws having greater scope and reach.
Particularly deleterious consequences from the life or death, "us against them" mentality is a stalemate in which there is no compromise between the two sides, and the can gets kicked down the road for someone else to worry about.
The politicians are not going to fix this
I hope I have sufficiently delineated the harsh realities that make for government that is not "of, by and for" the people and that have resulted in a dysfunctional Congress, and I have sufficiently delineated the deleterious effects of the same, and that the combination has persuaded you that a high priority should be assigned to trying to fix these matters.
I further hope you have (or have gained) an appreciation of why the politicians are not going to act on their own, and it will take the citizens to force a meaningful change to be made. I will save for another entry discussion of making changes.
This entry portrays my campaign "at a glance." It is dynamic and will be revised on an ongoing basis. Links are given to other blog entries, which expand on this entry or give more campaign information. (You can get back to this entry from any other blog entry by clicking on the "A. My 2014 election (at a glance)" label to the right.)
[Update 5/11: After you have gone through this entry once, returning to this entry is probably not the best way to keep current with my campaign. One way to stay current is to click on the above blog name "Be An Alabama Rootstriker With Rob Shattuck". Entries will appear on the page in reverse chronological order, with the most recent entry at the top, and you can scroll down through entries going backwards in time to keep up with recent entries. Alternatively, you may use the "Blog Archive" tool at the right side of the page. Click on a month in the "Blog Archive" tool, and you will see a list of the entry titles for the entries made during the month.]
In early February, I filed papers and paid the filing fee to run in the Republican primary election for the Alabama 6th Congressional district. The primary election is on June 3, 2014. For a map of the 6th Congressional district, go here.
I filed my papers to run after sending these two letters to the Alabama GOP and Democratic parties.
The information packet for filing my papers alerted me to campaign financial reporting requirements and other electioneering rules that I needed to learn about and comply with. I made an initial determination that, until I exceed $5000 in campaign fundraising/spending, I am basically exempt.
I have started an entry Voter discussion and debate, in which I am quoting, on a non-identified basis, reactions and feedback I receive from voters about my campaign.
The Blount Countian provided a candidate profile questionnaire for me to respond to, which I did. I have posted my response in the entry The Blount Countian profile questionnaire.
I was one of four 6th Congressional district candidates who spoke at the Mid-Alabama Republican Club monthly meeting on March 8th. The other three candidates will be provided an opportunity to speak at the April or May monthly meeting.
The Shelby County Republican Women and Eagle Forum held a candidate forum for the 6h Congressional district candidates on March 21, 2014 in the auditorium at Westminster School at Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church. See my Eagle Forum video.
I did radio talk show interviews with Matt Murphy and Richard Dixon on April 2 and 4. You can listen to the interviews at Matt Murphy and Richard Dixon interviews.
The AL.com Editorial Board had a meeting with the candidates on April 21st. Following that meeting, AL.com submitted a question to each of the candidates, and requested that the candidate reply with a 600 word essay, to be posted on the AL.com website, with opportunity for reader interaction. Go to AL.com questions and answers. My essay answer to my question is posted on AL.com here, and I included a link back to a series of entries in this campaign blog, which series of entries can be accessed starting here.
As of May 11th, there has been a steadfast refusal of the other candidates to respond to my campaign charges or to comment on anything else I have said in my campaign, and the other candidates have essentially ignored me. This is documented in numerous entries in this campaign blog. Some of these entries can be found by going ot the entry Dear Cheryl re RWOT May 1 candidate forum and following links set forth in that entry.
Further, no panel moderator has asked any candidate to respond to my campaign charges or comment on anything else I have said in my campaign. Also, to my knowledge, no newspaper, radio talk show, or TV news has asked any of the other candidates to respond to my campaign charges or comment on anything else I have said in my campaign.
My campaign platform
My campaign is focused and unitary.
In brief form, my campaign statement is this::
My campaign charges that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people. My campaign further charges 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 have posted these charges on the Internet, in an Open Letter to the Alabama Legislative Delegation in Washington The open letter can be found on the Internet at this link Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington. Senator Shelby has made a non-response response to my charges. For more information, go to Response of Senator Shelby to open letter.. Neither Senator Sessions nor Representative Bachus has made a response to my open letter. The six other candidates in the 6th district (Scott Beason, Paul DeMarco, Will Brooke, Gary Palmer, Chad Mathis, and Tom Vigneulle) have thus far been silent about my charges. Voters in the 6th Congressional district should demand that the validity (or not) of my charges be debated by the candidates, and the voters should decide what they think about my charges and take their conclusions into account as they see fit in casting their vote on June 3rd.
I am endeavoring to press the other candidates in the 6th Congressional district. On February 27th, I sent this email message to them:
Dear Fellow 6th Congressional District Candidates (except Scott Beason, who has not provided me an email address): Senator Shelby's Washington office called me and provided me a telelphonic response to my "open letter" to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington. I have memorialized Senator Shelby's response in this blog entry Senator Shelby's response to open letter. Senator Shelby's response to the open letter, it seems to me, provides no help in deciding whether my campaign platform has substantial validity for 6th district voters and whether debate about my campaign platform should or should not be considered important by the candidates and voters in the 6th district. It remains to be seen whether Senator Sessions or Representative Bachus will respond and help the 6th district candidates and voters in trying to decide whether my campaign platform is important to debate. Our lawmakers in Washington have the greatest knowledge and understanding about how the political system and Congress work in Washington, but if they are not forthcoming, the 6th district candidates and voters will need to try to understand and decide on their own, as best they can. I am continuing to develop in my blog my diagnosis and explication of why there is not government "of, by and for" the people in Washington and why Congress is dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people. I continue to urge that this should have primacy, because, until these conditions are improved, a dsyfunctional Congress will continue impaired and unable to act on good ideas for addressing the country's pressing problems. The country does not lack for good ideas, including good ideas that some of you began to present at the two candidate events that have taken place thus far. The problem is not lack of ideas, but rather a dysfunctional Congress. "Dysfunctionality" of Congress is not a brand new thing. Congress has been failing to do its job properly for the American people for more than a decade, and the failure is getting worse. In the vernacular, "cans" have been "kicked down the road" too long (i.e., Congress has failed to do its job properly to proactively manage pressing problems confronting the country), and there comes a point of abrupt and shocking externally driven developments (e.g., the rest of the world becoming unwilling to buy U.S. debt except at sky high interest rates, and the Federal budget becoming an ultimate nightmare), that largely dictate "solutions," and "management" of the problems is no longer in the hands of Congress. I continue to press the 6th district candidates to react to my campaign platform. Thus far, there seems to be only silence on your part. If I am overlooking something in your campaign that I can put on my blog as your view or position, please let me know. I have been strenuously exerting myself to publicize my platform to 6th district voters and will continue to do so. I hope you will express yourself at some point for the benefit of the voters.
1. Is it valid to say that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people? If there is not government "of, by and for" the people, what has caused that? (I have initiated giving my answers to these questions in my entry What is government "of, by and for" the people?.)
2. Are there causes of government NOT being "of, by and for" the people that are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people? (This question suggests I think there is a close connection here. I am working on my diagnosis of this in this entry The dysfunctional Congress problem.)
3. What is the primacy and urgency for the American people for improving the foregoing conditions, because, until the conditions are improved, there will be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions that are taken by Congress and government? (This calls for an evaluation of how "bad" the problem is. This will be covered in the other entries mentioned here.)
4. What should the country do to try to fix the problem? (I am working on this question in this entry: What the country should do.)
In this debate, it is pointed out there are many organizations and persons who believe that something is fundamentally broken in the political system, and they are making advocacy from a place outside of the Democratic and Republican parties. There are commonalities and there are differences in the advocacy that these organizations and persons are making. I too believe something is fundamentally wrong that the country needs to try to fix, and I have commonalities with these other organizations and persons. I will post information about these other organizations and persons, which can be accessed by clicking on label A4.1 Activities of others.
I believe the problem at bottom is the age old bugaboo of money in politics, and that this bugaboo has become a monster that is destroying the ideal of government of, by and for the people, and causing Congress to be dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people is.
I also say that I believe the First Amendment right of free speech is of paramount importance for the country, and I do not advocate a solution of public funding of elections that has the effect of abridging the right of free speech. I believe the money monster in politics can be tackled, while preserving the right of free speech.
In this debate, I think incumbent lawmakers are most knowledgeable about the problem, I have disseminated this Open letter to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington to try to obtain their views about the problem. Currently, only Senator Shelby has responded, and his response was not enlightening. Go to Senator Shelby's response to open letter.
The political class in DC will not fix it
Central to my campaign platform is that the political class in Washington DC and the cohorts of the political class (lobbyists and others) personally benefit from there NOT being government of, by and for the people, and from the dysfunctionality of Congress and government.
Because of their personal benefit, the political class in Washington will not undertake of its own accord any serious examination of, and discussion and debate about, these matters that are of primacy and great urgency for the American people. Only the citizens, acting in concert, can force the political class to participate in a national debate about the same and to propose something to the American people to be tried to correct the problems.
What should the country do to try to fix the problem?
Deciding what the country should do entails first evaluating how "bad" the problem is for the American people.
If it is agreed that there is a "bad" problem, the hard part is figuring out what the country should do to try to "fix" the problem.
My candidacy seeks to engender discussion and debate about how "bad" the problem is for the American people and, based on that, what the country should do to try to make government in Washington "of, by and for" the people and to lessen the dsyfunctionality of Congress. I am developing my own thinking in the entry What the country should do.
Addressing the country's many other serious problems
I have described above and in the linked entry The dysfunctional Congress problem how the political class benefits from and exploits and exacerbates the dysfunctionality and engenders an "us against them" mentality, which turns every issue, and positions on issues, into being part of an "us against them" war. Dialogue, debate, and the taking of positions are warped. This must be examined and understood, both at the top and the bottom. On numerous important issues, I advocate that the warp and distortion get cleared out from both sides, and then for a properly functioning Congress to address and pass laws about the issues, under government that is "of, by and for the people." [I will elaborate this is a separate entry that I will compose in due course.].
My campaign strategy
The population of the 6th Congressional district is close to 700,000. In largely uncontested general elections over the past decade, the number voting in the general election in the 6th district has been 200,000 to 300,000. In the 2012 primary election, about 105,000 voted in the Republican primary, Spencer Bachus getting about 60,000 votes, Scott Beason about 30,000 votes, David Standridge 12,000 votes, and three others splitting the remainder. About 7500 voted in the Democratic primary. In the general election in November 2012, about 310,000 voted, with about 220,000 voting for Spencer Bachus and 88,000 for Penny Bailey, the Democratic candidate.
There are seven candidates in the 2014 Republican primary. I am an unknown.
The approval ratings of Congress are abysmally low (a 10% approval rating or less). It is fair to say that Americans are disgusted with their Congress, but they are resigned that they can't do anything about it.
A Congressional campaign based on the disgust of American people for their Congress lacks viability, because it will be seen as a losing cause, if not a joke. Those persons who have vested interests in who is elected, and who are a source of campaign funding (put these persons at about 1% of the electorate), will be assiduously working on identifying and supporting a candidate who they think has a decent chance and will best support their respective interests. The remaining 99% will largely vote according to their inertia, which will include voting their side of "us against them" purveyed by their political elite, and are a hard, hard case to budge out of their inertia.
Under the foregoing mentality, I have zero viability.
I have an advantage. I don't care about that. I believe I have a campaign statement that has a chance of catching on so that I do have a chance on June 3rd and I am extremely curious to find out what my Internet political campaign is able to produce.
To have I chance, I have to catch on.
First, I have to catch on in the 6th Congressional district before June 3rd.
If I can catch on in the Alabama 6th Congressional district before June 3rd, notice may be taken outside the Alabama 6th Congressional district about what is going on here. If that happens before June 3rd, there is no telling what will happen on June 3rd.
So, my paramount purpose is to "catch on" in the 6th district before June 3rd.
I am and will be pushing as hard as I can to catch on in the 6th district before June 3rd.
What you can do to help
If I have caught on with you, you can help me catch on with others. Just contact me at rdshattuck@gmail.com, and we can easily come up with a way for you to help.
If you don't want me to know you are helping, you can obviously proceed to email your friends and acquaintance about my candidacy.
If you are on LinkedIn, invite me to be a connection. My LinkedIn page is here.
I would say that, if the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district voted for the platform in the primary election on June 3rd, that would make for a significant message that would get publicized nationally and that could affect the general Congressional elections in November around the country. If I win on June 3rd, I would expend great effort urging Congressional candidate around the country s to espouse a similar platform as mine.
If I win on June 3rd, I would urge voters in the 6th Congressional district to pay attention to what is going on in the rest of the country leading up to the November election.
If I am elected to Congress in the November general election, I would be at the bottom of the Congressional totem pole in Washington and the effect of my platform on what happens is entirely dependent on how much support the platform has among voters around the country and how that is manifested in the general election in November.
There is a good chance my platform will have zero effect in Washington, and further I will be viewed with disfavor by those at the top of the Congressional totem pole (assuming they even know who I am).
Let's say my platform results in zero effect in Washington, and my job is to represent the interests of the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district as best I can. Currently, I know little about what voters in the 6th Congressional district consider important to them that I need to know about in doing my job in Washington. I would want voters in the 6th district to tell me what they consider important and that I should be paying attention to. I would hope retiring Representative Bachus would give me the benefit of the knowledge and experience he accumulated from his years in Congress.
Voters in the 6th Congressional district will, in some cases, have conflicting interests. I would want to do weigh and balance the conflicting interests. Banks and bank regulation is as an example, regarding which, in casting any legislative vote related to the same, I would try to weigh and balance.
I would should for as much transparency as possible regarding what I do in my job.
To help me with a sense of the job of a Congressman, I have read and am thinking about a letter that Congressman Mo Brooks has on the front page of his campaign website and that I have copied and pasted here.
The Gettysburg Address, at its conclusion, resolves "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Do you believe the United States, in Washington DC, has "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
If you believe the United States does have government "of, by and for" the people, what is your explanation of the low (10%) approval rating of Congress?
Do our United States Senators and Representatives in Washington believe the United States has government "of, by and for" the people?
If the United States does not have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," what should Congress and the American people do about it?
I believe government in the United States falls woefully short of being "of the people, by the people and for the people." I think this has resulted in Congressional failure to make decisions and pass laws properly for the people, and there should be a national and Congressional debate about this failure in connection with the 2014 elections.
The foregoing statements are extreme and call for elaboration.
If you are interested, you can start by reading Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's short book (online) Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress And How To End It and watching his 20 minute companion video that is here. Those materials should only be a start of discussion and debate about how government in the United States falls short of being "of the people, by the people and for the people" and the primacy and urgency for the country to do something about it.
From: Rob Shattuck<rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM
Subject: Inquiry re candidacy in 6th Congressional district
To: algop@algop.org
Dear Sir:
I believe that the country's system of governance is broken and that Congress has become disabled from properly functioning and properly making decisions and passing laws on behalf of the citizens. This has become a widespread belief of others as well, and many persons are engaged in trying to diagnose the problem and make proposals about what should be done to try to fix it.
I believe this situation should be a subject of national and Congressional debate. I agree with Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's contention that this should be the prime question before the American people at this time, because, unless and until it is addressed by the country, Congress will continue to be impaired in its proper functioning, and Congress will continue to fail to address in a proper way the numerous critical problems confronting the country.
I have endeavored to ask announced candidates for the House of Representatives in the 6th Congressional district about what they think about the foregoing. My letter to the candidates can be found here.
I have not received any reply, and I do not think that the announced candidates will give this matter the attention I think it deserves. As a result I would like to become a candidate myself.
I believe the deadline for filing to become a candidate in the Republican Party primary election is February 7th. I also note that the filing papers call for the declaration "I am a Republican and I endorse and will actively support the principles and policies of the Republican Party."
I would like to have a telephone conversation with the someone from the Republican Party to discuss whether I can be a candidate in the Republican primary election for the 6th Congressional district. If you would please provide me contact information for someone to talk with in the party organization, I would be thankful.
From: Rob Shattuck<rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:28 AM
Subject: Inquiry re candidacy in 6th Congressional district
Dear Sir:
I believe that the country's system of governance is broken and that Congress has become disabled from properly functioning and properly making decisions and passing laws on behalf of the citizens. This has become a widespread belief of others as well, and many persons are engaged in trying to diagnose the problem and make proposals about what should be done to try to fix it.
I believe this situation should be a subject of national and Congressional debate. I agree with Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's contention that this should be the prime question before the American people at this time, because, unless and until it is addressed by the country, Congress will continue to be impaired in its proper functioning, and Congress will continue to fail to address in a proper way the numerous critical problems confronting the country.
I have endeavored to ask announced candidates for the House of Representatives in the 6th Congressional district about what they think about the foregoing. My letter to the candidates can be found here.
I have not received any reply, and I do not think that the announced candidates will give this matter the attention I think it deserves. As a result I would like to become a candidate myself.
I do not see on party website a deadline for filing to become a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election. Also, although I am not sure, I think I have voted in Republican primary elections in the past.
I would like to have a telephone conversation with the someone from the Democratic Party to discuss whether I can be a candidate in the Democratic primary election for the 6th Congressional district. If you would please provide me contact information for someone to talk with in the party organization, I would be thankful.
Please be advised that I have sent to the Alabama Republican Party an email similar to this email.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham (205) 967-5586
Of all the irritating things about Washington — the phoniness, the showy cars, the utter inability of a metropolitan area of 6.9 million people to produce a single decent slice of pizza or a passable submarine sandwich with oil and not mayonnaise — none is more infuriating than the local insider habit of referring to the place as “this town,” as in “He’s the most important power broker in this town” or, more likely (and worse), “The way to get ahead in this town is to seem not to be trying to get ahead.”
So when Mark Leibovich sketches a portrait of the nation’s capital — a phrase used only by people who don’t live there — and calls it “This Town,” you know he’s got a sharp ear, and a sharp eye to accompany it. You also know that he’s got the sharp knives out.
Here it is, Washington in all its splendid, sordid glory: the pols, the pundits, the Porsches. Plus the hangers-on, the strivers, the image makers and the sellouts, all comprising what Mr. Leibovich calls “a political herd that never dies or gets older, only jowlier, richer and more heavily made-up.”
He’s an insider, Mr. Leibovich is, first a reporter at The Washington Post, now the chief national correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, yet he seems to wear those special glasses that allow you to X-ray the outside and see what’s really going on. An unusual parlor trick that, particularly in light of the A-list insiders jammed into his acknowledgments, not a single one of whom could have pulled off this book, even though half of them will e-mail me and say they could. (Memo to all of you: Don’t.)
He opens with an account of the 2008 funeral of the NBC Washington bureau chief and “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, and as a quarter-century resident now in happy exile, I suppose I should stick to form and mention, hideously, that we — Tim and I — came to Washington at the same time and were friends, although mostly because I had a wife from Buffalo, and he delighted in teasing her about her bowling. The people at this funeral (and as I recall, this was an invitation-only rite) adhered to what Mr. Leibovich calls “the distinctive code of posture at the fancy-pants funeral: head bowed, conspicuously biting his lips, squinting extra hard for the full telegenic grief effect.”
The book is already generating buzz over Mr. Leibovich’s account of White House efforts to shape a profile in The New York Times of the first friend Valerie Jarrett and the administration’s apparent push to encourage Capitol reporters to disparage the conservative stalwart Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California.
Start to finish, this is a brilliant portrait — pointillist, you might say, or modern realist. So brilliant that once it lands on a front table at the Politics & Prose Bookstore on upper Connecticut Avenue, Mr. Leibovich will never be able to have lunch in This Town again, not that there is a respectable nonexpense-account lunch to be had in those precincts.
That said, this is a different Washington from the one I departed from a decade ago (Pittsburgh: what a relief!) and surely a different one from the era when, among the Washington royalty, only Alsop (and not Reston, Broder, Kraft, Evans or Novak) required a first name, and only because there were two of them (Stewart and Joseph).
The partisanship is worse, in part because the parties are different, with no liberal wing to the Republicans and hardly a conservative wing to the Democrats. And the rhetoric is mean, in part because it is less elegant.
All of which raises a separate point: Many of the Washington monuments most worthy of attention and praise, like the three Davids of capital journalism (Espo of The Associated Press, Rogers of Politico and Wessel of The Wall Street Journal), aren’t featured in this book and would be mortified beyond words if they were. They’re not at celebrity parties but at their battle stations, notebooks in hand. Nor is there a respectful bow, much deserved, to the thousands of unknown, selfless, deeply skilled bureaucrats who, since the Reagan years, have been pilloried but who, since the Franklin D. Roosevelt years, have made the country, or at least parts of its government, work.
In the old days, Washington — then as now a place where “disproportionate numbers of residents lie about reading The Economist” — was pretty much a bar where everyone knew your name, or in the case of John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former congressman from Arkansas, all three of them. Now it’s far less personal — but the personal matters far more.
So do personalities, which is why the book that Mr. Leibovich’s seems patterned after is Lytton Strachey’s 1918 “Eminent Victorians,” a classic of its time and all time, and the book it most resembles is “The Columnist,” Jeffrey Frank’s remorselessly hilarious work of fiction from 2001. As such, it is a wiseguy’s tour d’horizon of an entire city trying out for the role of Washington wise man.
So, striding self-importantly through these pages are the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (“harshly judgmental of fat people”); Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican (“a blister on the leadership of both chambers, or sometimes something more dangerous”); Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York (“lens-happy, even by senatorial standards”); the lobbyist and former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour (“looks like a grown version of Spanky from the Little Rascals”); the former House minority leader Richard Gephardt (“whose willingness to reverse long-held positions in the service of paying clients was egregious even by D.C.’s standards”); and the modern super-flack Kurt Bardella (possessed of “a frantic vulnerability and desperation”).
And though much of this volume is a sendup of the capital of kissing up, there are some important insights tucked in among the barbs. Such as this: “Though Barack Obama won the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton won Obama’s first term.” And this: The political culture is full of “people who’ve been around the business forever, who never go away and can’t be killed.” And this one, about Representative Paul D. Ryan, that must have befuddled the publisher’s fact checkers: “Like most members of Congress with half a brain, Ryan had a pretty low opinion of many of his colleagues and had been thinking of how to escape.”
So here’s to all the big mouths, big egos, big shots, big machers and big jerks. In case you’re wondering, Mark Leibovich is on to every one of you, and his portrayal of “This Town” is spot on. Because Mr. Leibovich, perhaps alone among capital insiders, has realized that Washington, once an inside joke, now looks more and more like a bad joke.
David M. Shribman is the executive editor of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Pittsburgh Press and a former Washington bureau chief of The Boston Globe.
A version of this review appears in print on July 8, 2013, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is (Duh!) Washington.
Email from Rick Staggenborg Re: Rootstrikers and Demand Progress announce their Pledge to Amend campaign Time is running out for those of us who want a strong amendment to be passed.
As you can see below, building on a small-scale project in 2012 UnPAC has joined with Rootstrikers in launching a campaign to call on Presidential candidates to advocate for an amendment to "overturn Citizens United." Obviously, that is not enough. They are also not targeting the right people, since Presidents have nothing to do with passing amendments. Targeting candidates for Congress would make more sense. We can start to do that now if we choose.
No other organizations working for a constitutional amendment have done anything to make it a campaign issue since Public Citizen called for pledges in 2010. If we continue to ignore this strategy, we risk having a weak amendment passed. If that happens, the Obamacare phenomenon will happen: A lot of people will assume that we won the fight and lose interest in the issue.
Some organizations are banking on a long-term strategy of educating the public about the need for an amendment that will both institute effective campaign finance reform and abolish corporate personhood before trying to force Congress to take a stand. They are risking the loss of the public's attention by waiting to make this a campaign issue.
I hope that local amendment advocacy groups will try to get whatever national organizations they are working with to discuss working with other groups on a pledge strategy that will bring out the issues that are not going to be discussed in a campaign to merely "overturn Citizens United."
Whatever local groups or national organizations decide, each of us can individually ask all the candidates running for Congress this year whether they will support a strong amendment and encourage others to do the same.
During the 2012 election, you joined with thousands of others to confront the corrosive influence of Big Money in our political system. Together, we crowd-funded ads in four states, inspired a nation-wide, corruption-focused art exhibition led by Shepard Fairey and pressured the president to publicly support an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
I am thrilled to announce that with the next election approaching, unPAC is joining forces with Rootstrikers and Demand Progress. To successfully take on the system of corruption in Washington, we all need to work side by side.
Our first campaign together will force presidential candidates during the 2016 election to answer one critical question: How will you, as president, end the system of corruption in Washington?
Candidates flock to New Hampshire early, before anyone knows (or cares) who they represent. By holding the first presidential primary, New Hampshire sets the tone for the national election. Our hope is that the New Hampshire Rebellion will make this issue central to the rest of the country throughout the 2016 election.
Rootstrikers and Demand Progress have been allies since unPAC launched. In case you haven't heard of them yet, I want to tell you just a bit about our new partners. Rootstrikers is organizing people across the nation to fix our democracy, led by Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor and author of Republic, Lost. Demand Progress, co-founded by the late activist and technologist Aaron Swartz, is renowned for winning fights to prevent Internet censorship and is now turning its focus to the fundamental issue of systemic corruption in Washington, D.C.
Together, we will grow the movement across the country, deepen our roots at home and weed out the systems of corruption and injustice that afflict our democracy.
Onward,
Matt and the unPAC Team
PS: If you're in New England, find a NHRebellion event near you here.
Money plays a corrupting role in our political system, and unPAC, Rootstrikers, and Demand Progress have joined forces to build a mass-movement to fight it -- and to return control over our government to the people.
The Move to Amend Coalition is a national multiracial, cross-classed, trans-partisan movement of over 320,000 people and organizations whose goal is amending the U.S. Constitution to fight corporate rule.
Come get acquainted with some of those 320,000 folks in Tuscaloosa to meet, mingle, and mobilize to end corporate personhood. The agenda includes a viewing of the "Legalize Democracy" mini-doc, which provides a wonderful intro to Move to Amend, and a discussion of the potential formation of a Tuscaloosa Move to Amend "affiliate."
This organizational meeting in Tuscaloosa is happening next Thursday, January 16th, at 7:00pmat the:
