In response to my comments about the mayoral election, Pat Lynch posted this response on his blog:

It is an understandable error to take the twin items before voters as a first move toward more needed reform in Little Rock city hall. Alas, if this first step passes, it will surely be the last step taken for many years.

Proponents have only one object in the initiatives. They intend to preserve the three at-large seats which favor the wealthy interests that make contributions to those who run citywide for those positions. Doing so is essential to the larger plan to impose the land use plans of greedy real estate interests.

I think Mr. Lynch and I agree, fundamentally, that the at-large seats don’t make any sense. We have different beliefs as to why they don’t make sense, but nevertheless, the point remains the same.

Where we differ is that he argues this proposal “assures 15 years of relentless tyranny.” I suppose there is the possibility that such tyrannical rule could perpetuate. Of course, it’s also possible that I will one day play guitar with Bono or live like the boys on “Entourage.” Really, anything’s possible! But there’s no way to prove or disprove his assertion. Simply, I don’t think it will happen. And here’s why. My belief is that if Mayor Stodola (and the Board) manipulate this new power, the people will speak. With a $160,000 salary, there are a lot of good folks who won’t be shy about running for Mayor if they don’t like what they see. Also, I believe that you will see that backlash down ticket. Smart people will challenge these Board members if they fail to represent the entire city.

And as for why you should vote for the proposal, here’s my rationale: In order to protect the institution of government leaders need to be held accountable directly to the people. The notion that our City Manager is accountable only to the Board of Directors, and really just a simple majority of them, is inherently flawed.

What this proposal does is that it forces the Mayor to be responsive and accountable to the people. It means that, as Mr. Lynch speculates, if the Mayor puts the interests of the elite and wealthy ahead of everyone else, he’ll have to answer for it. I believe that this new accountability will compel the Mayor (and thereby the staff at City Hall) to meet the needs of everyone in Little Rock, not just a few.

The bigger question is whether this reform is the end of government reform in Little Rock. Mr. Lynch believes it is. I don’t know whether he’s right, but it shouldn’t be the end.

This is from a July 25th post on Pat Lynch’s “Lynch at Large” blog at the Little Rock government reform measures on the ballot on August 14th (you can early vote now).

It is, at least theoretically, true that Little Rock needs stronger and more accountable government. The suggested changes will actually result in less accountability, not more.

Instead of making a direct change to a mayor-council form, the power brokers maintain iron-fisted control of Little Rock City Hall by keeping three two at-large seats on the board. They (correctly) state that most large and vibrant cities have a strong mayor, but they omit that those cities have NO at large council members. The successful municipalities have a mayor-council organization, and that is the very last thing the big shots want.

Again, the math. There are eleven members of the board; therefore, it requires a majority of six to get things done. Under the proposed arrangement, the “fix” is always in and the mayor has absolute power over the city manager and city attorney. Wealthy interests control the “at-large” positions because it takes so much money to run in a citywide race. The mayor runs from the entire city. That’s four. Add at least two affluent districts (West Little Rock and Hillcrest) and you’re there. The rest of us always lose the important votes.

I think there’s something to this notion of the perpetuation of power. Lynch raises a fair question: why in the world do we need at-large seats? After all, what makes the Mayor any more powerful (or any many capable of using the bully pulpit) than one of these at-large officials? Isn’t it important that the city’s highest elected official be the only one elected city-wide?

That said, I wouldn’t go so far as to call this proposal a wolf in sheep’s clothing.It is by no means a reasonable solution to the problem. After all, it’s nonsensical to pay an elected Mayor and an appointed City Manager more than $320,000 between them.

But staying the course is not the right solution either. We need executive accountability directly to the people, and not through the Board of Directors. This proposal will accomplish that. We also need a system that allows for good people to be able to leave their jobs and run for Mayor. This proposal also accomplishes that.

But this is only a first step. If this passes, I hope that Mayor Stodola pushes forward additional reform to make Little Rock government truly representative.

Let’s truly put this city back in the hands of the people.

The New York Times is reporting that the 527 established to support  Fred Thompson raised $3 million dollars in its first month.  That’s not bad, but expectations were closer to $5 million.

I find this number incredibly impressive.  $3 million is more money than Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, or anyone else not named Romney, Giuliani or McCain has raised in all of 2007.  Additionally, Thompson’s skyrocketed up the polls thanks to conservatives who don’t identify with Romney or Giuliani.

Irrespective of what the experts say, conservatives know they rally the base with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani at the top of the ticket.  Thompson may prove to be a weaker candidate than I’m expecting, but conservatives know what they need to win and for now they’re backing Thompson.  Remember, they took George W. Bush all the way, twice.

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens was a sure thing for re-election, the FBI and the IRS up and raid his house. Apparently there’s a connection between Stevens, who sits on the powerful appropriations committee, and Alaskan businessman Bill J. Allen who recently pled guilty to bribing state legislators. Stevens and Allen are business partners and Allen did some work on Stevens house that doubled its size. There are questions as to whether Stevens actually paid the bill with his own money. Allen, on the other hand, has received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts, reports The New York Times.

The New York Times profiles Chelsea Clinton in today’s paper.

The Hill has an article which quotes several unnamed Republicans as being very skeptical of their party’s chances in 2008. If the election were held today, “We’d be lucky to hold our own,” one House Republican said.

Already, Republican incumbent Senator John Sununu is running well behind potential Democratic challenger former Governor Jeanne Shaheen in polls, although she has yet to declare. Oregon Senator Gordon Smith and Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman are a few that I think too could be vulnerable.

Coleman narrowly beat Walter Mondale in 2002 to replace the late Paul Wellstone. Since then, Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, easily won election to the Senate and Tim Pawlenty, at once believed to be an unbeatable Republican, narrowly escaped defeat in 2006. The only benefit for Coleman is that Al Franken is his opponent. Of course, Minnesotans did elect “The Body” once before, so anything is possible.

Smith, on the other hand, may have a real fight on his hands. Not only will he have to contend with the backlack of Republicans nationwide, he may not even be able to hold onto the rank and file within his own party. House Speaker Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, has established a fundraising committee and is likely in the race to stay. Merkley’s got a dynamite resume. He’s a Stanford and Princeton graduate. He returned to Oregon after working in Washington to become the Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity. Director of Housing Development at Human Solutions, where he worked to create affordable housing complexes. While there, he launched Oregon’s first Individual Development Account (IDA) program to help low-income families save money to buy homes, attend college, or start businesses. Most recently Merkley was President of the World Affairs Council of Oregon for seven years. He’s been in the State House for 5 terms.

Wayne Allard of Colorado is retiring, so that seat opens up in a state that has been trending Democrat for some time. The race could pit two Colorado Congressman, Bob Schaffer (R - 02) and Mark Udall (D-04) against each other. I like the Dems chance here.

Also, in North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole is getting a challenge from Attorney General Roy Cooper. She beat Erskine Bowles in 2002 with only 54% of the vote and her numbers have been on the decline.

You have to pay attention to Lamar Alexander in Tennessee for two reasons. First, whether he gets wooed by Vanderbilt to become the new University President, and second, whether he gets a challenge from Harold Ford, Jr. who narrowly lost a Senate race in 2006. Alexander might also get a look as a VP candidate if Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney is the nominee.

On the Democratic side, due to his recent health issues, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson may or may not be able to run again. He narrowly beat John Thune in 2002.

Here are my safe races:

Democrats: Pryor (AR), Biden (DE), Durbin (IL), Harkin (IA), Kerry (MA), Levin (MI), Baucus (MT), Lautenberg (NJ), Reed (RI), Rockefeller (WV).

Republicans: Sessions (AL), Stevens (AK), Chambliss (GA), Craig (ID), Roberts (KS), McConnell (KY), Collins (ME), Cochran (MS), Graham (SC), Cornyn (TX), Warner (VA), Enzi (WY), Barrasso (WY).

Here are some more races to watch:

John Warner, Virginia (R). He’s safe unless he retires and then look for this to slide into the pick up category for the Democrats.

Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R). Other than Alberto Gonzalez, he may get hit the hardest as a result of the US Attorney scandals. Domenici is ripe for a challenge and several people have expressed interest including former NM AG Patricia Madrid, Congresman Tom Udall and Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez.

Chuck Hagel, Nebraska (R). He won with 83% in 2002, so it’s hard to not consider him safe. That said, he’s been an outspoken opponent of the situation in Iraq and he’s starting to irritate those in his own Party. He’s also rumored to be on the short-list for VP should Michael Bloomberg get in as an independent. This seat won’t go to a Democrat, but it may not go to Hagel either.

Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma (R). If the climate change movement has any legs in the 2008 races, Inhofe should be their number one target. He consistently states that global warming is a hoax. He’s one of the most conservative members of the Senate in state that has seen progressive change under Democratic Governor Brad Henry. All of the state executive positions are held by Democrats. Unless Bush’s numbers change drastically, Inhofe could face a battle. Right now, only two state senators have expressed interest.

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana (D). Probably the most vulnerable of all the Democrats as a result of Hurricane Katrina. It looks like Bobby Jindal (R) is going to win the Governor’s race. If there’s a backlash up the ticket, Landrieu could be in trouble. She would have benefitted from former Senator John Breaux running for Governor. Nevertheless, with David Vitter embroiled in scandal, she may fare better.

That’s the topic of an op-ed in Saturday’s New York Times by Noam Scheiber. He notes,

But few headlines will be made this weekend at the council’s “National Conversation” in Nashville. The next president of the United States almost certainly won’t be there. Not only are Democratic front-runners like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama planning to skip the conference, but so are the Bill Richardsons and Chris Dodds of the field. That’s probably a good move for the candidates, as the council has become radioactive among Democratic primary voters. But the Democratic Leadership Council’s fading influence is also good news for the entire party.

I think Scheiber has a point. First, he notes that with no direct line to the White House, the DLC (as would any similar group) lost influence. Second, he notes that the DLC took some silly positions such as supporting a measure to limit the ability for people to declare bankruptcy and supporting Joe Lieberman while attacking opponents of the war in Iraq. The last was surely the straw that broke the camel’s back for anyone still willing to give the DLC a chance.

But it is not to say the the DLC couldn’t have a place in a new Democratic administration. There are a plethora of policies that the DLC could tackle that aren’t nearly as nonsensical or infurating as the ones mentioned above. For example, why shouldn’t the DLC tackle poverty, health care, and education issues?

Scheiber concludes, “Democrats should thank the group and then tell it that it’s no longer needed.” I wouldn’t go that far. I think the DLC, with a complete change in focus and leadership, could be a vital asset to the future of the Party. I’d like to see it change, and embrace bold new policy positions that help people. That’s what Democrat Party stands for in its purest form.

The Democratic Party needs an organization pushing a domestic agenda that helps people. That should be the future mission of the DLC. And I’d like to see a “progressive” in charge of it.

Florida

Democrats: Hillary Clinton - 31%, Barack Obama - 17%, John Edwards -12%

Republicans: Rudy Giuliani - 21%, Fred Thompson - 18%, John McCain - 11%, Mitt Romney - 7%.

Arizona

Democrats: Hillary Clinton - 39%, Barack Obama - 25%, Bill Richardson - 9%, John Edwards - 8%

Republicans: John McCain - 32%, Rudy Giuliani - 23%, Fred Thompson - 15%

The Arizona senator “has taken positions so deeply at odds with his party’s base that I don’t see how he can get the nomination,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

“My heart has always been with my good friend John McCain. But it’s just not happening, the buzz is gone.” former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

He will make it official this fall Republican State Senator Shawn Womack of Mountain Home is telling friends that he will seek a Circuit Judge position being vacated by Judge Roger Logan. Womack is co-chairman of the powerful Joint Budget Committee,

The move has its adventages were Womack to win. More money. Office and office expenses. Paid staff. Control of Docket. No term limits and “Judge” beside his name. It may also position him in the future for the region’s Arkansas Court of Appeals seat or a statweide Arkansas Supreme Court race if either ever interests him.

Republican State Representative Johnny Key of Mountain Home will seek Womack’s Senate seat. Key may face a challenge from Democratic State Representative Monty Davenport of Yellville.

For a while there was speculation that Womack would make a run for Marion Berry’s congressional seat when Berry decided to retire. That bid would have been a considerable longshot, and it appears Womack is opting instead for the safe play. The issue for him will be whether his extreme voting record in the state general assembly will hamper any effort to get beyond the Circuit Judge level. The State Bar doesn’t care too much for politics behind the bench, and the rules governing the election of judges are very clear that political issues are never to be discussed (see the Wendell Griffin matter).

From Politicalwire:

A new Research 2000 poll in Iowa shows John Edwards still leading the Democratic presidential race with 27% support, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Sen. Barack Obama at 16% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 11%.

On the GOP side, Mitt Romney leads with 25%, followed by Fred Thompson at 14%, Rudy Giuliani at 13% and Sen. John McCain at 10%.

Kudos to Rep. Steve Harrelson for his on-going updates about the 2008 legislative races.  Every election cycle rumors swirl, but (at least before now) there’s never been a place where you can go and get the latest information on who’s running for what.  Harrelson’s blog Under the Dome is the place.

I noticed that Darrin Williams, a Little Rock lawyer and former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Mark Pryor, has annouced his candidacy for Linda Chesterfield’s seat in District 36.  I’ve known Darrin for a long time, and we currently serve together on the Central High 50th Anniversary Commission.  He’ll be a strong, reasoned voice (he’s a Henderix, Vanderbilt Law, Georgetown LLM grad) in the Ledge if he wins.

The race for District 38, a seat vacated by David Johnson who is running for Jim Argue’s open Senate seat will also be interesting.  I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about Quorum Court member Dawne Vandiver being urged to run.  She’s a former Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas and prominent party fundraiser.  She also owns a small business in the district.

I wonder if a west Little Rock Democrat will make a run for Sid Rosenbaum’s seat?  I also see that Rep. Chris Thyer’s seat is up.  He’s from Jonesboro.  Could it be that former Democratic Party Chairman Jason Willett makes a run for that seat, assuming it’s his district?

I received this in an e-mail today:

At 2:30 Tuesday afternoon, members of the Two Votes for Leadership Committee, along with several City Directors and members of the community joined at the McMath Library to show support for the ordinance to be voted on by the citizens of Little Rock on Tuesday, August 14th.

Mayor Mark Stodola and Committee Co-Chairs former Mayor Sharon Priest, City Director Doris Wright (Ward 6), Kevin Dedner and  Jim Lynch offered sound reasoning why changing our form of city government to one led by a full-time Mayor makes sense for the capitol city.  Among their reasons were:

Making the office of Mayor a full-time position will allow the office holder to devote full time energies and effort to attracting new business, improving the city’s infrastructure, improving city services and fighting crime, which are all full time issues.  Under this new structure, the Mayor would not be allowed to hold an outside job.

By strengthening the Mayor’s office, residents of Little Rock would have one person to hold accountable and one office to address their concerns.  However, the Mayor’s authority would not be unchecked in this new system; the Mayor would not be able to make personnel changes with the City Manager or City Attorney positions without the vote of five of the ten City Directors.  He/She would need City Board approval for all appointments to city commissions.

Similar to current state and federal governmental structures, passing this ordinance will give the Mayor Veto power.  Any veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of the City Board of Directors.

Two questions will appear on the ballot August 14th:  One question will address Mayoral veto power and the other will address making the capitol city’s Mayor position officially a full-time job.  Members of the Two Votes for Leadership Committee believe that it is essential to the growth and success of Little Rock that we give our elected Mayor the ability to lead, direct and focus on our city’s future.
Early voting will take place Monday, July 30th through Monday, August 13th at the Pulaski County Courthouse (401 West Markham St) from 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
A fundraising reception to help promote this position will be held on Thursday, July 26th at Cotham’s in the City (1401 West Third St) from 5:00 – 7:00.   We hope you will join Mayor Mark Stodola, Little Rock Directors Brad Cazort, Gene Fortson, Stacy Hurst, Michael Keck, Dr. Dean Kumpuris and Doris Wright along with former Mayors Jim Dailey and Sharon Priest at this event.  Click here for your invitation.

On August 14th, you can help make Little Rock government more responsive and more accountable.  We need to give our Mayor the power to lead!

I don’t have a lot more to offer on the debate.  I liked the format; I thought it brought more people into the process in a way that may forever transform the primary and presidential debates.  Of course, it’s hard to say anything about the debate itself because there wasn’t much to it.  Most of the candidates hammered their talking points, so for anyone looking for anything different or distinguishable between these folks, last night was a hard place to find it.

In terms of performance, I’d rank them Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden.  New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson had the best chance to gain some ground on the first tier, but he failed to capitalize on softball questions about Darfur, troop withdrawal and the environment.

I thought CNN’s coverage of the event was crap.  I’m not sure what was going through the minds of the producers when they kept the video screen small.  You couldn’t see anything, and could barely hear some of the questions.

Anderson Cooper pressed the candidates when he could, but with that many on the stage, it’s difficult to do much.  I’ll say it again, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich need to get off the stage.  I’m about ready to say the same for Dodd and Biden, although I do think they bring a lot of interesting ideas to the table.

Overall, I thought the debate was interesting and I hope the networks continue to find interesting ways to bring regular people into the mix.  In terms of scoring it, well, everyone in the first tier did as expected, so everything remains the same.  It’s still Clinton, Obama, Ecwards heading into August.