Centennial's dubious home-rule effort

(Updated, Jan. 18) "We cannot hope for voter approval of a charter that strips the citizens of their rights. Trying to establish a city government that demeans and disenfranchises them will evoke public outcry, and it should." [Editor's note by John Andrews: That was the closing argument by Peg Brady of Centennial, one of 21 elected members on the commission to draft a home-rule charter for that city, in a memo presented to her colleagues at their Jan. 12 meeting. Full text of the memo, entitled "To Have This Charter Approved," was as follows.]

Unless we want an extended engagement re-writing this charter, we need to remember that it must be affirmed by Centennial's voters. Inasmuch as barely 50% of the voters approved home rule, there is little chance for voters approving a charter that diminishes their rights.

Centennial's citizens were promised that home rule would afford them a greater opportunity for self-governance. A charter that reduces their ability to participate in their city's government violates that promise and deserves to be rejected. Yet that's just what we're doing.

We've already raised the bar on their rights of recall, initiative and referendum. Illogically, we stated a concern that the city council might try to block citizen action by setting standards higher than the constitutional and statutory minimums, and then we built permanently elevated standards into the charter. [Update: See Note 1 below.]

In our on-going discussions on the offices on city clerk and city treasurer, many of us seem to favor non-elective appointees. But the citizens have repeatedly stipulated that they want to elect oversight officers to ensure that the appointees act in the citizens' best interest, especially in the matter of elections. [Update: See Notes 2 and 3 below.]

We cannot hope for voter approval of a charter that strips the citizens of their rights. Trying to establish a city government that demeans and disenfranchises them will evoke public outcry, and it should.

------------------------------

NOTE 1: Upon reconsideration at its Jan. 12 meeting, the commission reduced the petition requirements for an initiative and a referendum. As now drafted, citizens have 180 days to acquire signatures on a petition for an initiative, needing 5% of the registered voters if the issue will be voted in a regular election and 15% if a special election. Citizens also will now need signatures from 5% of the registered voters for a referendum, to be collected within 30 days of the final publication of the ordinance. "Emergency" ordinances are not subject to referendum, a potential problem when the city council uses that category merely for expediting a decision.

------------------------------

NOTE 2: [Peg Brady's memo to colleagues on Jan. 15, in advance of the clerk & treasurer discussion scheduled for Jan. 17] In the original draft charter given us as a starting point, both the city treasurer and city clerk were appointed offices. However, some insisted on elected officers to hold or at least oversee these positions, and thus the section is being rewritten.

As a good first step, the city treasurer's position has been split. Our draft now describes an elected finance oversight officer and an appointed finance operations officer (with whatever titles we settle upon). The elected finance oversight officer ensures that the citizens' interests are respected, while the appointed finance operations officer handles the nitty-gritty financial tasks. Good pattern.

It seems logical to adopt the same paired-officer pattern for the city clerk's position: an elected clerical oversight officer and an appointed clerical operations officer. In parallel with the paired financial officers, the appointed officer would handle all the operational and administrative functions and the elected officer would oversee those operations to ensure the citizens' interests.

What their titles are is unimportant to me. Our current (highly deserving!) deputy city clerk told us that the title "city clerk" has value when interacting with other municipal-ities; in that context, we might title the appointed officer "city clerk" and title the elected officer whatever we choose. Another consideration, though, is that our voters are accustomed to electing the "city clerk" and would need a clear explanation of the change.

Central to the problem with the clerk's office is the matter of elections. Even those of us who prefer an appointed city clerk acknowledge that there should be some oversight of elections. An elected elections commission has been discussed, for instance. Especially if we abolish the elected clerical oversight office, such a commission becomes essential for any hope of the voters approving the proposed charter.

My suggestion, then, is that we apply the same pattern as that for treasurer: an elected clerical oversight officer and an appointed clerical operations officer. In addition, I recommend an elected elections commission. One commissioner would be elected in each district. Together with the elected-at-large clerical oversight officer, they would constitute a 5-member elections commission to supervise elections. For elections, the operational officer would handle the process and the oversight officer or the 5-member commission would ensure voters that good practices are followed. I think that our voters will require this sort of pattern, or they are unlikely to approve the proposed charter.

As to those appointed officers, I envision appointments made by the City Manager with the approval of the city council.

----------------------------------------

NOTE 3: [Peg Brady's update after the Jan. 17 meeting] At Thursday's public hearing, seven of ten speakers declared in favor of electing the clerk and treasurer; then the commission debated it without resolution for the remainder of the evening. Unfortunately, those who seek to take away electing the offices remain adamant, even in the face of strong support for election (including Mayor Randy Pye and County Clerk Nancy Doty). Because those of us who favor election are just as adamant, no progress occurs.

Perhaps there can be a resolution that satisfies those who want hired officials (continuity and professionalism) but retains our need for elected officials (accountability and independence). That Nancy Doty achieves this blend with her staff seems a logical model, I think, but it obviously didn't impress the pro-hiring faction last night.

Huckabee as deja vu moderate

(Lyon, France, Jan. 12) Here’s a no-brainer for you as the GOP primaries whirl past Michigan into South Carolina and beyond. Who said: “Since there is a God of love, our efforts to allay the suffering of the unfortunate, to temper the exercise of raw economic force at the expense of the less strong, and to provide opportunity for each individual person to realize the best that is in himself, are not sentimentalism; they are the governmental counterpart of a rule of life accepted by devout Americans as an expression of their religious convictions”? Mike Huckabee, right? Wrong. Those are the words of Arthur Larson, Under Secretary of Labor for President Eisenhower, in his 1956 book A Republican Looks at his Party. They're from the first of his eight principles defining a so-called "New Republicanism" that tried to strike a balance between the perceived harmful excesses of unfettered laissez-faire economics and the New Deal's big-government regimentation.

The striking similarities between Larson's "New Republican" trust in government to provide social insurance, and Mike Huckabee’s decision, as he put it the other day on Jay Leno’s show, to “get out of the stands” (the ministry) and go to work on behalf of the poor (politics), point to a socio-economic strain of GOP thinking that is very much at odds with Barry Goldwater’s and Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of individual freedom and responsibility under limited government.

Against the backdrop of renewed Democratic calls for antiquated New Deal/Fair Deal prescriptions -- masquerading as change and inclusiveness -- a Republican nomination of Mike Huckabee for President would mark a return to the kind of “me-too” Republicanism that led to Republican defeat in the 1936, 1940, 1944, and 1948 presidential elections.

As Republican primary voters ponder which candidate to support, they should contrast these relentless defeats with the success of conservatives in holding the White House for 20 of the past 28 years. Making the right choice should then really be a no-brainer.

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European and US politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.

No double standard for Obama

Apparently, the MSM realizes that Obama's youthful brushes with Islam are a huge negative. So they attempt to take it off the table and make the entire subject taboo. Notice that the MSM make no such exceptions concerning Romney's religion, McCain's age, or Giuliani's marriages. On CSPAN last evening, a left-wing apologist for Barack Obama from the New Republic argued that anyone who mentioned the candidate's past Muslim connections was making a low blow, absolutely reprehensible. He went on to say that the potential threat to Obama's life as an apostate Muslim was a non-issue, since any president would be in jeopardy from Jihadis.

In my view, Obama's life being threatened as an apostate isn't the issue: it is whether or not he is concealing his ties to Jihadi organizations. And after the Holy Land Foundation trial last summer in Texas, there's reason to believe that most "moderate" Muslim groups have been founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. Reputable observers such as Daniel Pipes have raised serious questions about Obama and Islam. Nor can you necessarily expect the truth from asking the senator himself.

That's because the Islamic concept of Taqyyit asserts that anything that forwards the cause of Islam is the moral thing to do. Thus, if disinformation benefits Islam, one is permitted or even obligated to practice it. Hypothetically, then, if Obama were concealing his ties to Jihad, he would be religiously permitted to deny it. There are no Ten Commandments in the Qur'an, so swearing one's oath on that book has quite a different meaning; ask Representative Ellison from Minnesota.

In my nightmares, I can picture an Islam-sympathizing US President moving to put the head of CAIR in his cabinet, and garnering praise in the New York Times, because we were finally "reaching out to heretofore marginalized Islamic organizations -- and that giving these groups responsibility would bring them into the mainstream." Of course, anyone who would object is a "racist bigot and Islamophobe."

Or imagine the same President admitting a growing stream of extremist Muslims from the Middle East as "refugees from violence", then charitably enrolling them in the US Army.

How long are we going to let political correctness pave the road to our destruction?

Eve of NH: Reagan forsaken?

Rumors of Mrs. Clinton’s demise are greatly exaggerated. True, she is reeling after a weak showing in Iowa, but the first subsequent poll (USA Today/Gallup) still showed her tied nationally with Barack Obama, and prior to Iowa she held a consistent double-digit lead in national polls for months. Indeed, to this point nobody else has led nationally in the Democratic race. And though Obama looks likely to win New Hampshire and South Carolina in the coming days on the strength of far greater likeability than Mrs. Clinton – particularly among men – contests in big states like Florida, New York, and California where Clinton is strong still remain.

[Note: See also the NH forecast by John Andrews and Joshua Sharf on the Gang of Four blog.]

Moreover, the larger Clinton machine and network, one of the most powerful in recent political memory, remains formidable in Democratic circles. Obama has a shot, to be sure, but media hype about the race being Obama’s to lose is just hype.

On the GOP side, mediocrity is breeding ambivalence. A field of philosophically lackluster candidates has made for the most evenly-matched race in recent memory, with leading conservatives everywhere lamenting that these are the best a wandering Republican Party can produce. There is no Reagan in sight. Rudy Guiliani has led in national polls for months but began sliding toward the end of November as Mike Huckabee skyrocketed.

Huckabee’s meteoric rise, which over-exposed Republican pundit and focus group organizer Frank Luntz has called “unprecedented in modern political history,” began around Nov. 25, the very day Huckabee began airing his famous “Christian leader” ad.

Interpretation: evangelical social conservatives are still numerous in the South (South Carolina) and Midwest (Iowa) and, prior to Huckabee’s series of bold statements regarding his faith and social conservatism, had not seen anyone or anything in the race that made it interesting to them. Huckabee followed up the “Christian leader” ad with his famous Christmas ad which, as such things do, terrified secular media pundits with visions of hovering crosses (actually just lighted bookshelves) and tyrannical Christian theocracy.

Huckabee’s faith is obviously genuine, his knowledge of the Bible obviously thorough (he is halfway to a Master of Divinity degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas), and his answers to media questions regarding evolution and religion unwavering. Here, for instance, on evolution. Or here on whether he believes the Bible.

If you don’t understand how energizing this is to evangelicals, the largest single bloc of Republican voters, you don’t understand evangelical Christianity. Huckabee is also a solid conservative on abortion and homosexual marriage, furthering buttressing his appeal to evangelicals. He combines this kind of backbone on his faith with a quick wit and guy-next-door likeability that is disarming even to those who distrust his Christianity.

His response to those who saw a “floating cross” in his Christmas ad: “I will confess this: if you play the spot backwards it says, ‘Paul is dead. Paul is dead.’” And here is his appearance on the Jay Leno show on the eve of the Iowa caucus (watch both parts – he plays bass guitar with Leno’s band in the second). Finally there was his debate crowd-pleaser back in May: “Congress spends money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

Huckabee is the only candidate in the race with a Reagan-style wit and charm, to say nothing of an unashamed belief in the historic Christian religion. There is only one problem. On foreign policy and military matters, taxes and fiscal matters, the welfare state, law and order, and immigration, Huckabee’s record is either confused or outright liberal. He represents the rebirth of pre-Reagan evangelical politics – William Jennings Bryan reincarnated. Bryan opposed evolution, supported Prohibition, and preached evangelical salvation, but supported the nationalization of railroads, the disbanding of trusts, and many other important free-market economic priorities of industry captains. He and Huckabee represent more a brand of Christian populism than a coherent conservatism.

Thus, the larger Republican base remains unenergized by Huckabee, and many military, foreign policy, fiscal, law enforcement, and immigration conservatives actively oppose him. These people are either settling for McCain or Guiliani – the two most liberal candidates in the race – if they are weak on social issues, or, with national conservative organ National Review, agreeing Mitt Romney is the conservative candidate of choice in a weak field. Romney’s conversion to social conservatism is too recent for the comfort of many (myself included), making his seemingly courageous adherence to his Mormon faith, which clearly teaches social conservatism, ring a bit hollow. But he does appear the best of the field.

As of now, McCain looks as though he has sealed up New Hampshire. Romney’s father was governor of Michigan once upon a time, making Romney strong there, but Huckabee is running a close second and has South Carolina in the bag. It is thus very possible that, by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, when Guiliani still looks to win big states like California, New York, and Pennsylvania, there could be three different early GOP winners, and thus no clear frontrunner. This is Guiliani’s dream scenario.

Sigh. For now, Reagan’s revolution does appear to be at an end.

Two-thirds of Iowans nixed Huck

(Lyon, France, Jan. 4) Hold everything. What’s all this I hear and read about Mike Huckabee’s brand of economic populism coming out on top in last night’s Iowa caucuses, as I raid the Internet for political news? Huckabee is said to have “won” with 34% of the vote. Well done, and I would hate to sound like a party pooper, but let me ask this: What about the 66% of GOP caucus-goers who did not vote for what David J. Sanders aptly describes on today’s OpinionJournal web page as Huckabee’s religious-left, big-government agenda based on “increasing the government’s role in the fight against global warming, poverty and economic inequality”?

Call me naïve or insufficiently versed in the intricacies of Republican primary politics, but looking at last night’s results, I would make one further comment:

However flawed the GOP's two most prominent spokesmen (Romney and Thompson) might be this year in terms of authenticity and “fire in the belly”, three-legged-stool conservatism combining defense hawks, free-market proponents, and moral traditionalists is still very much up and running -- having collectively prevailed in Iowa with at least 38% of the ballots cast (or 51% if you count McCain's near-tie with Thompson).

Huckabee campaign advisor Ed Rollins and David Brooks of the New York Times might be self-servingly shouting it from the rooftops -- but the demise of the Reagan coalition has thankfully not occurred yet, if ever in the foreseeable future.

Message matters more than money indeed, but only modern conservatism, not apocryphal economic conservative tongue-speaking, can still deliver it. How much longer will we have to wait for an authentically fire-eating conservative to step up and take the good news to Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere in these indispensable United States? Eight years?

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.