Guess who just hired Chris Lehane, the former Gore aide and consultant on the official “Fair Election Reform” (the Stephen Bing funded push against the Dirty Tricks Initiative)?  Well, if you guessed the Film and TV Producers, you’re right:

Seeking to shore up its flagging public image, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers has turned to veteran political advisors from both sides of the aisle to guide its public relations battle with Hollywood’s striking writers.

The alliance announced today that it had retained Mark Fabiani and Chris Lehane, who have served as senior aides and advisors to President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore and other Democrats across the country. The group also said it hired Steve Schmidt, a close advisor to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who served as his campaign manager in 2006. (LA Times 12.05.07)

Apparently some Democratic consultants are willing to sell their services to the highest bidder regardless of the values wrapped up in those decisions. Fun times to be a Democratic consultant, huh?

While Democrats have been hyperventilating about Thomas Hiltachk’s proposed June ballot referendum, the Presidential Election Reform Act, even going so far as to attempt to place a counter-initiative on the ballot written by Chris Lehane, hardly anyone seems to have noticed that not all Republicans are supportive of such a wholesale change in our nation’s electoral system.

It seems like a central assumption for California Democrats has been that all Republicans, of course, would get behind a simple change that would increase their chances for holding onto the presidency in 2008. But apparently, some Republicans are capable of complex thought, even federalist ideology. Who knew.

Such an example would be Thomas Del Beccaro, the Vice Chair of the California Republican Party and the Chairman of the Contra Costa Republican Central Committee. Del Beccaro has recently written an interesting criticism of the current move to change California’s electoral system:

For those interested in immediate gratification, that would mean that California’s 55 electoral votes would not go in unison to Hillary in 2008 — but as many as 22 would go to the Republican nominee — thereby making it much easier for a Republican to win the Presidency.

However, before you blush with expediency, it may be worthy to pause.

Recall that the Electoral College is a rather unique American construct. 

Our Founders were loathe to accept the wiles of direct democracy so they established our Republic. Amongst the compromises necessary to craft our Constitution were concessions to smaller states.  Those concessions included two houses of Congress which featured a Senate giving each state, small and large, the same number of votes.  That was designed to be a moderating force.

It also included the use of Electors to vote for our Presidents and Vice Presidents.  The Electoral College, as it came to be known, was a bulwark against the prospect of large majorities in large states electing Presidents to the exclusion of the rest of We The People.

As a practical matter today, the Electoral College prevents the Democrats from winning the Presidency by the popular vote of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc. – all to the exclusion of the red, fly-over states.

Snazzy illustration on the flip…

Del Beccaro then points to this map as an example of the vicissitudes that could face Republicans if such a plan were to gain nationwide traction:

[K]eep in mind that: the Democrats want to scrap the Electoral College altogether.  That is their determined goal because they really would need to do no more than to campaign in but a few blue places which, as this map displays, include the largest of cities.

Now, I have to admit that I’m not fully up to speed on all the issues swirling around the Hiltachk proposition and Lehane counter-proposition, but it seems to me that if there are sizeable pockets of Republican opposition to Hiltachk’s “Presidential Election Reform Act” proposal which can be exploited, along with a more general Democratic opposition, then perhaps that path might be significantly easier than the counter-proposition alternative.  Or is Del Beccaro a lone voice in the wilderness?

Via John Myers, here’s the trailer to Michael Moore’s new movie Sicko. I gotta agree with SacGuy when he says, “The timing couldn’t be more perfect.” Moore himself is going to be doing a major PR offensive in Sacramento, but you probably won’t be at the premier:

Tickets to the premiere of “Sicko” will be $150,000 each, with Insurance covering $8.75 and a co-pay of $149,991.25.

And there are strange rumors of this:

This time, Moore is counting on the blogosphere to help promote his film and its “call to action” against the health care industry. Which might explain why when the movie opens in the United States over the July 4th weekend, Moore and his PR team are planning a premiere fundraiser in San Francisco benefiting — what else — the blogging community.

Kinda odd for Chris Lehane to release this to a newspaper, instead of…you know, the blogs. But we’ll see who and what soon enough I’m sure.

Cross-posted from Calitics: the progressive community blog for California

Yesterday, KQED’s Forum, ordinarily a program that I enjoy, had a program about the close of the legislative session.  After a discussion of possible reforms, talk moved to the blogs.  I have uploaded the clip here.  

Apparently, Bill Whalen, of the Hoover Institution, is scared by me.  Well, bloggers in generally I suppose. (The transcript is courtesey of Kid Oakland).

I don’t worry so much as a Republican, but as a citizen, and there’s one word: “the blogosphere”  That’s what scares me.  There are angry people on the left and angry people on the right.  And I’m not sure if I want to see that anger harnessed in reforming our government.  I like the firewall, if you will. … Among the leaders opposing [Prop 89] are the California Teachers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce.  Why?  They are very vested interests in Sacramento, they don’t want the rules changed.  But Direct Democracy, to me we have it in effect in the initiative process and I’d kind of like to keep it harnessed. (KQED Forum 9/1/06)

Please see the flip:

Well, this is typical Republican, he’s interested in protecting the entrenched interests. He certainly wouldn’t want the people infecting his government with their petty ideas and nonsensical garbage.  You see, the wise people at the Hoover Instituion know far more about governing the people than that actual people being governed.  It’s blatantly elitist garbage.  nbsp;Chris Lehane, a former White House staffer and one of the contributors to the California Majority Report, first agrees with him(!!) on the substantive blog issue, but eventually calls him out on Prop 89. :

 Lehane: I think Bill makes a lot of good points, I would just sort or challenge the premise that if you’re concerned about Prop 89 and the opposition to it…as the blogosphere evolves and more and more everyday people have access to it it will allow people to transcend some of those historic power centers that have potentially blocked some real reforms that actually do mean something to everyday people. (KQED Forum 9/1/06)

Well, I give Lehane credit for calling Whalen out on Prop 89.  What world does the Hoover Institution live in?  Two entrenched interests fighting against election reform isn’t a sign that it must be bad.  It’s a sign that the entrenched interests like the special access they have.  Sorry, I know the labor people out there won’t agree with me, but I think Prop 89 will be a boon to our government.  We win if the government speaks to the actual people.  Like Bill Clinton said, “When people are talking and listening and thinking, we win.”  

But what upset me more than Whalen’s comments, which come from a Republican, so you expect them, are the comments of Barbara O’Connor, a Professor of Communications at Cal State-Sacramento, who apparently agreed with Whalen completely.  Yes, she doesn’t want any part of our direct democracy infiltrating her little club that she’s got in Sacramento:

Bill’s correct, I read the blogs all the time.  They really do frighten you.  And I don’t want to have that kind of Direct Democracy.  Many of them, by the way, are by journalists.  I don’t want that kind of Democracy either.  But the blueprint thing that I was alluding to harnesses the Sim City game that all of our children use and allows real people to give their priorities to their elected officials.  It’s not taking over government by revolution, it’s an informed citizenry that let’s their views be known.  Clearly, that’s the kind of thing that Chris is talking about where you harness the technology through websites or…we can talk about MoveOn.org and Lieberman a little bit…but I think you have an opportunity as it becomes more mainstream……and I’m hopeful that that kind of thing, and even things like You Tube which frighten people will become more regularized and not so frightening from the far right or the far left…

See, this just doesn’t make sense.  She goes from saying that blogs are “frightening” to saying that she would appreciate citizens being able to let their elected officials know how they feel.  Apparently, that’s not what I’m doing at Calitics.  I’m just angry and extreme.  Huh? I guess Barbara hasn’t actually read Calitics.  I’m neither angry nor extreme. I address issues of electoral politics and public policy issues.  I seek consensus upon a liberal basis. I praise, and scold, politicians of both parties when it is warranted.  Essentially I, the “frightening blogger” am one of these “informed citizens” that Barbara is talking about.  By the way, Prof. O’Connor, I notice you didn’t mention anything about the Right-Wing blogosphere’s attempts on Lincoln Chafee’s career via the Steve Laffey campaign.  I guess it’s only noteworthy when “left-wingers” try to get our views heard.  Lamont is no more extreme than John Kerry, he’s just not part of the in-crowd like Joementum is.  Will Ms. O’Connor be making snide remarks about Chafee?

In the end, I think this bashing is more about selfish self-protection than anything else.  Many insiders, especially Republicans, would like the governing process to remain controlled by the entrenched interests for so long.  They don’t like blogs because they interfere with their power base.  That’s what they are truly scared of.