In Tuesday’s election, California voters statewide overwhelmingly Proposition 14 and so, starting in 2011, there will be a big change in California’s election system.

The NYT reports, “Under Proposition 14, a measure that easily passed, traditional party primaries will be replaced in 2011 with wide-open elections. The top two vote-getters — whatever their party, or if they have no party at all — will face off in the general election.”

Pro “Top Two” supporters, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, argued that Proposition 14 would strengthen California democracy. The idea is, this change in election law, “would empower candidates who, because they refuse to pander to the party machines, are now reluctant to throw their hats into the ring.” The idea is that more moderates will be elected.

But those opposed to Proposition 14, like Ralph Nader, emphasized the opposite and warned that Proposition 14 would harm California democracy.  According to this “Stop Two” web-site, “Groups across the political landscape – from tea parties to labor unions to independents – opposed the antidemocratic measure because it will limit their November ballot choices to only two candidates. All six qualified parties in California opposed the measure.”

Nader responding to Proposition 14’s approval by stating, “The California Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests have deceived enough voters in California to abolish the November elections for all but the two major parties. This is the latest manifestation of the business lobby’s antagonism to the core event of a democratic society – the November elections. What is next for their corporatist agenda against American democracy? ”

Longtime activist, Harry Kresky, wrote a thoughtful article in the Sacramento Bee, urging a “Yes” vote for Proposition 14. Kresky wrote, “Since Proposition 14 is an attempt to loosen the hold that the major parties have on our democracy by their iron-fisted control of the nominating process, it is no surprise that the major parties – whose tyranny Nader denounces – are doing everything they can to defeat it.”

Other excerpts from Kresky’s article:

• Proposition 14 will give the 3,466,855 independent voters in California who are not enrolled in a political party the right to participate in the primary elections that determine who will appear on the general election ballot. If Prop. 14 passes, independents will be on equal footing with other voters.
• Proposition 14 is an important step towards nonpartisan governance. Voters will be voting for candidates, not parties, and there is a real opportunity for coalitions of independents, parties (minor and major) and party members to join together to support reform-oriented candidates. Under Proposition 14, an effective coalition can propel a candidate not favored by the party establishment (major and minor) to round two, with a real chance to win.
• For those concerned with party building – major or minor – having strong spokespersons in the first round will help parties enlarge their base, arguably much more effectively than running what often amount to fringe candidacies in the general election that do not have an impact on either the election or public policy.
• Third-party advocates argue that they function as incubators for political and social change. Yet since World War II, social movements have been more effective in producing sweeping change than third parties.
• The most effective way for “outsider” movements for innovation and progressive change to transform the political mainstream is for third parties and social reform groups to come together to nurture the development of a mass movement.
• It’s particularly disturbing that at a moment when millions of independents are knocking at the door of an electoral process from which they are excluded, Ralph Nader and the third party movement would want to slam it shut.

The special Democratic Primary, scheduled for July 13, to choose a Democratic candidate for Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District, could provide a big break for Montgomery County Democrats.

The thirty days allotted for this Primary campaign provides a big opportunity to show democracy in action.  It is a big opportunity to bring a whole new group of local Democrats into action within the local party.  It is a great opportunity to set in place the ideas and infrastructure needed to mount a serious challenge to the Republican incumbent in the 3rd District, Mike Turner.

Montgomery County Democrats should think big and find ways to work cooperatively in these thirty days.  I think it is a reasonable goal to set eight public meetings in various locations within the district.  The point of the meetings would be to communicate what I wrote two years ago — Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Let’s Throw The Bum Out — and, in addition, the point of the meetings would be to provide an opportunity for Democratic candidates to make the case of how, by what method, they would make a better representative than the current office holder.

The fact is, Mike Turner would be turned out from Congress — if our democracy had any guts.  Congress, after all, has a very low approval by the public.  Thoroughly partisan, Turner is a big part of the problem in Congress that people seek to change. He stays in office, because ours is a weak democracy.

The key issue of our day, I feel, is the incompetence of our democracy to actually solve problems.  As a nation, we are challenged to find our way to a great future and we do not have a government that seems to find its way.  We have no leadership and we have no system that seems to be providing leadership.

People want to see democracy in action and are sick of political machines and political bosses exerting control.  Democracy is the issue and this special Democratic Primary is a big opportunity to bring people into the local Democratic Party, a big opportunity to energize Democrats — via a display of active democracy.

It is active democracy, I feel, that could get citizens to drop their apathy and become energized.  It is my belief that the Montgomery County Democratic Party should be all about active democracy that pushed me to speak out at the recent Montgomery County Democratic Party Reorganization Meeting.  See: Proposal To Stop Democratic Primary Endorsements in Montgomery County Quashed At Reorganization Meeting.

I was disappointed that Dr. Mark MacNealy, after receiving the Democratic nomination in the May 4 primary, could not complete the race  for Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District.  I felt he would have made an excellent congressman.  The advice I gave to him, as to how he could defeat Congressman Turner, I believe applies to any possible Democratic candidate:  To Defeat Congressman Turner, Dr. MacNealy Must Emphasize His Commitment To Democracy

A commitment to democracy can be given a compelling credibility by the way candidates and the local Democratic Party use this Special Primary opportunity.

Because Dr. Mark withdrew, a special Democratic Primary to choose a candidate has been scheduled for July 13.  This Thursday, June 10, at 4:00 PM is the deadline for any potential candidate to file his or her petition.  To get on the ballot a candidate must file a petition with 50 verified signatures and must pay a fee of $85.

As of today, four Democrats have taken out petitions.  But, so far, only David Esrati of 113 Bonner St, 45410, has actually filed.  The other three 3rd Congressional District Democrats who have taken out petitions, but who, so far, have not filed, are:

• Guy Fogle, 10484 South Union Rd., Dayton, 45342;
• C. Roger Gollihugh, 4 Gunnington Ct., Springboro, 45016
• Joe Roberts, 308 E. Dorothy Lane, Dayton, 45419

The legendary 89 year old reporter of presidents, Helen Thomas, first apologized for her comment that Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine.” Now, she has resigned.

Thomas made the comments on May 27. So her comments were not in response to the  Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla which happened several days after this event.  Ironically, Thomas made the comment at a White House Jewish Heritage Celebration.  NPR has the video tape of Helen’s comment’s and here is the transcript:

Q: Any comments on Israel?
Thomas: Tell ’em to get the hell out of Palestine.

Q: Ooo!
Thomas: (Laughing) Remember these people are occupied, and it’s their land, it’s not German, it’s not Poland.

President Obama and Helen Thomas at the recent The Annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

Q: So where should they go, what should they do?
Thomas: They go home.

Q: Where’s home?
Thomas: Poland.  Germany.

Q: So you’re saying Jews should go back to Poland, and Germany.
Thomas: And America, and everywhere else.

The Washington Post reports that recently White House press secretary Robert Gibbs “assailed” Thomas for her words, reporting that Gibbs said: “Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible, (Her sentiments) do not reflect certainly most of the people here and certainly not those of the administration.”

Thomas on her web-site issued an apology:  “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon”

But Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, said Sunday that Thomas’ apology didn’t go far enough.  Foxman said: “Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history. We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused.”

Thomas, who has covered presidents since Kennedy,  is known for making provocative statements. Newsbusters has accumulated some interesting quotes from Ms Thomas:

• “All of us who covered the Reagans agreed that President Reagan was personable and charming, but I’m not so certain he was nice. It’s hard for me to think of anyone as nice when I hear him say ‘The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.’ To my mind, a President should care about all people, and he didn’t, which is why I will always feel Reagan lacked soul.” — UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas in the July 1993 Good Housekeeping.
• “A liberal bias? I don’t know what a liberal bias is. Do you mean we care about the poor, the sick, and the maimed? Do we care whether people are being shot every day on the streets of America? If that’s liberal, so be it. I think it’s everything that’s good in life — that we do care. And also for the solutions — we seek solutions and we do think that we are all responsible for what happens in this country.” — UPI White House correspondent Helen Thomas on C-SPAN’s Journalists Roundtable, December 31, 1993.
• Helen Thomas of Hearst Newspapers: “Why do you refuse to respect the wall between the church and state? And you know that the mixing of religion and government for centuries has to led slaughter. I mean, the very fact that our country has stood in good stead by having this separation. Why do you break it down?” President Bush: “Helen, I strongly respect the separation of church and state.”   Thomas: “You wouldn’t have a religious office in the White House if you did.”  — Exchange during Bush’s first presidential news conference, February 22, 2001.
• “Ari, what makes the President — I’m taking note of his wide-swinging threats in speeches recently. What makes him think that he has the right to go into a sovereign country and bomb the people?”  — Hearst White House correspondent Helen Thomas questioning White House press secretary Ari Fleischer at Dec. 5, 2001 briefing shown live on cable news channels.
• “President Reagan turned the country to the right. There was a Reagan revolution, a very conservative revolution, and it was social Darwinism. If you can’t make it, tough. I mean, he did not believe in social welfare and, but at the same time, he did build up our military. He had a secret plan to spend one trillion dollars on new arms when he came in….”
• “Clinton, I think his heart was in the right place. He certainly built up a great prosperity and surplus, balanced the budget, I think that he had great ideals, but, of course, he tarnished the White House with his liaisons and, but eventually, you know, every President, time is the great healer, and every President looks better in retrospect, so I think that he has a legacy that will be worthwhile.”  — Hearst columnist Helen Thomas speaking at a March 3, 2002 Newseum session shown by C-SPAN on March 4, 2002.
• “Ari, does the President think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression?”
• — Helen Thomas’s question to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, April 1, 2002.
• “Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up….The follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?”  — Thomas to press secretary Ari Fleischer during a January 6, 2003 White House briefing shown on all three cable news networks.
• Starting after 9/11, they [the Washington press corps] rolled over and played dead — they were so afraid of being called unpatriotic and un-American and they thought the American people were watching on television. They lost their guts and they did a lousy job…. We’ve killed people in torture. That’s not us — is it? Where is the outrage?”  — Former UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas in a Q&A with the liberal Center for American Progress and posted on the group’s Web site February 28, 2006.
• I censored myself for 50 years….Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’…I have never covered a President who actually wanted to go to war. Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war is immoral — such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It’s as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam….Where is the outrage?”  — Hearst White House columnist Helen Thomas speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on November 4, 2002 and quoted on MIT’s Web site two days later.