From 2003, hundreds perhaps thousands of lives have been lost needlessly through ethnic clashes, police killings, violent crime and road accidents. Scores of businesses have shut down due to lop-sided taxation and ministerial directives aimed at benefiting pro-Kibaki merchants. Ethnic tension has increased as top government positions are filled with members of Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe. Unemployment figures in Kenya currently stand at 65%, not very far from Zimbabwe's 80%. The latest saga involving the Grand Regency Hotel is proof that corrupt practices reign in the corridors of State power.

All these make for a very dissatisfied populace, and the Kenya of 2002 - as bad as it was - is largely forgotten amidst the problems of today. Critics say that President Kibaki's tenure makes the 24 years of ex-President Daniel arap Moi's administration look like a Swiss democracy.

In spite of implementing projects that had been lagging for years and thus spurring the highest rate of economic growth Kenya has seen in thirty years, President Kibaki is not exactly the most popular president. Within his Kikuyu ethnic base, Kibaki is refered to as one who avoids confrontation. Indeed, majority of the Kikuyu support Kibaki because they fear the alternative, represented by Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

President Kibaki's administration suffers from a poor legacy because of a lingering perception that his allies in government exhibit arrogance towards other Kenyans. Cabinet ministers disobey court orders, others have unleashed the wrath of the security forces on the citizens while yet others are responsible for meddling in state corporations in an attempt at micro management.

President Kibaki's cabinet is seen to veer between 1960s development plans on one hand and the panicky appeasement of voters on the other hand by creating new districts or dishing out land titles. Today, almost every clan of each tribe has its own district. There have been so many districts created in the past two years that few people in Kenya know the total number of districts in the country.

When Kibaki took office in 2003 on the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) party, he pledged to respect the rule of law. This was to distinguish the NARC administration from the previous 40-year administration of the Kenya African National Union (KANU) whose flouting of the constitution were among many reasons its popularity tumbled over the years. However, Kibaki's allies generally behave as though the law does not apply to them.

Disgraced Kibaki protege, Amos Kimunya, went against government procedures by secretly selling the Grand Regency Hotel to a company whose ownership is a mystery. In the past year, Kimunya ignored public opinion as well as the views of the opposition and sold a substantial government stake in Safaricom, Kenya's leading mobile phone company. Two years earlier, Kimunya publicly announced that he would ignore a court decision stopping the Kenya Revenue Authority from forcing traders to install electronic tax registers. When he was minister for lands, Mr Kimunya dismissed a court order obtained by residents of the Mau forest and which was supposed to stop the government from evicting them. The eviction went ahead resulting in destruction of property and several deaths when the residents were rendered homeless. Kimunya famously said that title deeds, "are nothing more than a piece of paper."

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta broke the law when he nominated more councilors than prescribed. In some cases, he ignored the lists provided by political parties and appointed his own people. Uhuru created a mess that the current Minister for Local Government, Musalia Mudavadi is attempting to clean up. But the damage has been done.

Amidst all these, Kibaki kept quiet and made not a few infractions of his own.

Last December, President Kibaki broke the tenets of the 1997 Inter Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG) agreement that specified the manner in which political parties would appoint commissioners for the Electoral Commission of Kenya. It was a deal that even ex-President Moi, for all his tendencies, followed to the letter. Not so with Kibaki. He dismissed IPPG as a gentleman's agreement not rooted in the constitution. True enough. But by going against IPPG, Kibaki set the stage for suspicion in the conduct of the Electoral Commission. When he was declared winner of the 2007 elections, the opposing parties cited the composition of the Electoral Commission as grounds for dismissing the results. Violence by opposition supporters left hundreds, possibly, thousands dead and close to half a million homeless.

If you thought that the Kibaki administration had learnt its lesson from the violence of early this year, then you are mistaken. Nothing has changed and the bad old ways continue. As the violence raged, Kibaki's ministers ordered internally displaced persons to, "go home." The refugees protested, saying that they had no homes to return to. However, police were sent to forcibly remove people from the Nairobi showground and other areas. Apparently, the sight of refugee camps in the capital city was an embarrassment to the government.

In the Rift Valley province, which bore the worst of the violence, the government launched "Operation Go Home." Without going into the sordid details, Operation Go Home involved pushing refugees into army trucks then dumping them in isolated, violence-prone farming fields with no food supplies, no housing and no sanitation facilities. Ironically, many of these refugees are from Kibaki's Kikuyu ethnic group. They had initially been promised some form of monetary compensation to help them rebuild but the money is yet to come. Those lucky enough to get the promised funds were given Shs10,000 (US$150) each. A few refugees who have been mobilizing resistance to the forceful closure of camps have been tortured and shot.

The most blatant flouting of the law and the most overt display of the kind of arrogance associated with Kibaki's henchmen (and women) is the, still unexplained, presence of the Artur brothers in Kenya. The obnoxious duo introduced themselves as businessmen but it was obvious that they had powerful state connections. In the end, they were deported from the country after they over-stretched the patience of whoever was hosting them. In their lavish home at the exclusive Runda estate were found police uniforms, government issue firearms, government cars and identification documents linking them to national security apparatus. However, the Artur brothers saga was the height of public contempt that the Kibaki government has exhibited to Kenyans.

It all began in early 2006 when police raided the newsroom and printing plant of the East African Standard, Kenya's second biggest daily newspaper. The Standard had printed several articles critical of President Kibaki. When questioned about it, the Minister for Internal Security, John Michuki, proudly boasted that he was behind the whole operation and that he was willing to do it again. "When you rattle a snake, prepare to be bitten," were Michuki's remarks that drove newspaper cartoonists to draw him with a snake's tongue protruding from his mouth. Video images of the police operation indicated that it was led by foreigners. Opposition leader, Raila Odinga, claimed these were mercenaries hired by top government officials to assassinate critics of the government. It was after this that the Artur brothers came into the public limelight to deny they were mercenaries.

The Artur brothers were linked to Ms Mary Wambui and her daughter Winnie Wangui. The two women are beleived to be part of Kibaki's family and enjoy massive state security. Mary is usually seen traversing the country campaigning for President Kibaki and dishing out large sums of money whose source is the subject of very telling speculation. At one time, Winnie was said to be President Kibaki's daughter born out of a liaison with Mary but the President subsequently held a televised address denying the links. Winnie was an ally of the Artur brothers and almost married one of them.

How is it possible that a 77 year old politician, with close to 50 years of experience, can display such incompetence? Why does Kibaki allow such blunders to ruin his leadership? Why is Kibaki so blind to the day to day realities of his voters? The Makerere University graduate of economics is, in many ways, an intelligent man. He has very sound policies on development and economic growth.

Maybe its because of his character. Kibaki has long been cited as a man without a distinguishable position on anything - a fence sitter. Kibaki procrastinates on making important decisions. He delegates too much authority to his cronies and proteges. The result is a class of people who use the president's authority to make dubious decisions aimed at benefiting themselves. It has nothing to do with tribe, its a matter of economic and political class. That explains why Kibaki failed to stop the massacre of his own people in Eldoret, almost 300km northwest of Nairobi. However, when violence spread to Naivasha - just 90km outside the capital - Kibaki was quick to send helicopter gunships.

Because of his failings, Kibaki's legacy is similar to that of a tattered rag. Kibaki's presidency is like the building whose construction stops at the foundation level, then slowly crumbles into a dust heap with bits and pieces of steel rods poking out everywhere. History provided Kibaki with the opportunity to create a memorable leadership that could be an example to the whole of Africa. Instead, Kibaki trampled on the opportunity. What folly!

Kibaki: Worst president of Kenya

Despite having visited Kimilili many times before, it was my first time driving in that direction since returning to Kenya at the end of January, and therefore the first time since the violence at the beginning of the year. To get to Kimilili, I pass through Nakuru and Eldoret, both names that appeared in the news all too often at that time.

About half an hour from Nakuru, we began to pass destroyed buildings, generally missing at least the roof. In the case of mud houses, all that remained was the floor. What was particularly surreal was that it wasn't every building. There were those that remained intact presumably belonging to Kalenjin, the destroyed ones having been occupied by Kikuyu. I wondered how many of the people who were around at the side of the road had themselves been involved in the violence, either as perpetrators or as victims.

Click here to read more >>

The last general elections in Kenya were held on Thursday the 27th of December 2007. On 30th December 2007 at about 5.30 p.m,the Electoral Commission of Kenya Chairman, Mr Samuel Kivuitu announced Mwai Kibaki as the winner of the presidential polls, after which Mwai Kibaki was sworn in as the President. The results were disputed with both political parties ODM(Orange Democratic Movement) and PNU(Party of National Unity) claiming to have won the elections. After the swearing in ceremony,skirmishes erupted in many parts of the country especially in Rift Valley, Nairobi, Nyanza, Western and parts of Coastal Provinces in Kenya. An estimated 1000 lives were lost, about half a million people were displaced from their homes and property worth millions of shillings was destroyed. The displaced camped in school compounds, churches, show grounds, police stations and stadiums among other places.

Hot spots for the violence included:-
Kibera in Nairobi
Eldoret in Uasin Gishu
Molo District in Central Rift Valley
Kisumu in Nyanza Province
Nakuru and Naivasha in Rift Valley

Some of the incidences that followed included burning of a church in Eldoret, houses were torched, death of two Members of Parliament and uprise of militia groups eg Mungiki. Even food in stores and mature crop in the field was burnt and livestock lost during the violence.

Molo District has an estimate of 96,600 families which translates into a population of 546,000. Among them, 40,036 families which is about 41% of the population were displaced with 14,036 families living in camps and about 26,000 families seeking refuge from relatives and friends while others rented small houses in the urban centres.
Camps in Molo District are in urban centres of Keringet, Olenguruone, Molo Town, Turi, Njoro, Mau Summit, Elburgon, Kuresoi and Total.

In Molo Town and its vicinity the camps are at Good News Church, Pentecostal Assemblies of God Church, Kenya Assemblies of God Church, Charismata Church, Seventh Day Advestist Church, Full Gospel Church, Moto Primary School, Pyrethrum Board of Kenya Godown, Apostolic Church, Baraka Agricultural College and Molo Police Station.

Immediate effects of the violence and displacement are :-

(a) children dropping out of school
(b) food dependency
(c) shortage of water and medicine
(d) health problems
(e) increase in social vices
(f) family separation
(g) loss of property
(i) mistrust among the concerned communities
(j) interruptions in schools
(k) trauma

L’ordre juste, c’est certainement les deux mots préférés de la candidate socialiste pour les élections présidentielles de 2007, Ségolène Royal. Alors que Nicolas Sarkozy utilisait un système contre toutes attaques personnelles, les partisans, et militants PS préféraient combattre un homme, et non donner des idées pour la France.

Aujourd’hui, le problème se pose à nouveau dans la campagne très mouvementée de Salon de Provence. Jusqu’alors réservés au candidat UMP, Nouveau Centre, Divers Droite, Philippe Léandri, ce jeu de bas âge vient de toucher le maire socialiste sortant, Michel Tonon. Que Monsieur Léandri utilise un tel procédé, c’est normal, il sait qu’il n’arrivera pas en tête… Mais Monsieur Tonon ? A-t-il peur de se faire battre par Nicolas Isnard ? Un récent commentaire sur le blog de Nicolas Isnard, indique que Michel Tonon ferait 47% dès le premier tour, la source serait un dernier sondage, que personne ne montrera, car il n’existe pas. Alors pourquoi le maire sortant, jouerait-il avec ce genre d’enfantillage. Copie et reprise d’extrait :

Le tract diffusé frôle la diffamation en qualifiant les idées de Nicolas Isnard d’« illégales ». Il a bien d’autres procédés que d’attaquer aussi froidement un candidat. Première nouvelle dans cette introduction, le partage d’idée entre Philippe Léandri et Michel Tonon… Que ceux qui nous disaient qu’il n’y avait jamais eu d’entente, se mordent les doigts, c’est presque un aveu, écrit noir sur blanc ! Cette haine apparente, de prendre Nicolas Isnard pour un imbécile commence à largement me gaver dans cette élection. Il ne faudrait pas oublier que sa fonction d’assistant-parlementaire et de professeur de droit en FAC n’est pas rien… Surtout venant d’un professeur de sport qui crève avec son vélo, habillé d’une veste en cuir et d’une écharpe à 22°C? Alors es-ce suffisant pour prétendre être maire ?

Sur la girouette, c’est discutable, qui se prétend socialiste, et qui ne veut plus de sa rose sur ses affiches ? Si ce n’est pas de la girouette cela… Où est le maire socialiste invitant Ségolène Royal ?
Sur les projets, un véhicule diesel, 1,9d qui date de plus de 5 ans, et qui fume noir (vanne EGR encrassée) est-il un véhicule peu polluant ? À part les quelques Saxo électriques qui restent, aucune des nouvelles voitures n’est peu polluante… Sur le développement des pistes cyclables, des efforts et des travaux, on était fait, j’en conviens. Ce n’est pas suffisant. Moi qui viens parfois de vélo, de Grans, le travail est bien insuffisant. Continuez et proposer d’autres endroits, n’est pas un travail fini, mais un projet.
Sur le stationnement, c’est honteux de sortir un torchon pareil. Monsieur le maire élu par les salonais élus après le décès du regretté Docteur Blanc, ne pensez vous pas, que mettre une foire pendant un mois, la musique à fond à côté des défunts est une bonne chose ? Quel respect de nos ancêtres !
Sur l’incompétence, où est le candidat socialiste proche de Ségolène Royal ? Disparu ? Être Sarkozyste, et UMP, ce n’est pas un défaut, mais une fierté.
Sur l’emploi, inutile de lire les commentaires postés sur mon blog, à propos des jeunes de banlieues disant avoir (comme par hasard) de l’emploi, avoir de l’argent et du soutien de la mairie pour des manifestations en banlieues… À propos d’emploi, j’attends toujours ;)

Enfin, à lire la conclusion de ce texte, on se croirait sur un tract du candidat UMP, Nouveau Centre, Divers Droite (désolé j’ai du mal).

Nicolas Isnard répond de lui-même, dans un tract « Soyons Calme » où il remet de lui-même certains points sur les i . Retrouvez-le ci-dessous:

Pour conclure, j’aurai voulu faire passer un message, d’ordre juste, de compétence, d’expérience, qui plus est réfléchi, être contre des idées, est une chose, la politesse en ai une autre. J’ai horreur que des candidats, partisans ou autres colistiers, refusent de dire au moins « Bonjour » … Le respect est essentiel ! À méditer.

L'email proposé est un faux (enfin les 2 emails puisque celui affiché ne correspond pas à celui du lien...) . De plus, impossible à répondre aux mails envoyés, pas d'email. Après multiple recherche, dans le code source de l'email, on note enfin l'email du candidat. Il ne correspond pas à celui du site, mais concerne bien les élections. Je le donnerai à ceux souhaitant se désinscrire de ces emails non sollicités (SPAM).

Qui veut la peau de Philippe Léandri ?

Le conseiller général sortant, UMP, (tiens c'est rare de voir UMP sur ces documents) à fait parvenir un tract « Qui veut la peau de Philippe Léandri ? ». La technique du candidat sortant est-elle celle de la manipulation, et de la victimisation ?

Monsieur Léandri doit savoir, que les multiples réunions de concertation entre sa liste et celle de Isnard n'étaient pas que du vent... Quand l'UMP souhaite une union que ce dernier refuse, qui est fautif Nicolas Isnard, ou Philippe Léandri ?

Question, qui me tourne, et qui par ailleurs avait était publiés par le régional, « où est le militant UMP se disant près à rejoindre le candidat investi par le parti ? » Disparu ? Ces partisans pourront me reprocher que tous les candidats disent des « conneries » pour reprendre ces termes, mais c'est bien trop facile. À force d'être trop sûr de lui, Philippe Léandri a perdu l'investiture pour les cantonales, et n'a pas eu de soutien aux municipales. Les sondages le donnant perdant (ah pardon, les sondages sont pas bons, mais Léandri fera 30%... Léandri c'est la seule vraie droite salonaise... Que d'argumentations de la part de son troupeau). Plus sérieusement, une droite divisée par Philippe Léandri est une droite perdante, sur tous les points.

Autre point, lendemain de la victoire de Nicolas Sarkozy, permanence de campagne, Philippe Léandri nous sortait « En Juin, nous viendrons à celui de Christian (d'apéritif, NDLR), l'année prochaine à celui de Nicolas », ce qui étonna plus d'une personne.

Alors démagogie, ou victimisation ?

Soumis or not soumis, quand le conseiller général sortant UMP critique l'UMP...

Le dernier tract du candidat reçu par email de propagande de ce matin, est assez hilarant. Je ne pensais pas qu'il irai si loin dans la victimisation de sa personne. Comme quoi, avec lui, le débat d'idée n'existe pas. Sa communication résume dans les attaques personnelles... Chose que critiquez Nicolas Sarkozy l'année dernière, candidat qu'il a soutenu.
Philippe Léandri ne se dit soumis à personne ni à Paris, ni à Marseille, visant l'UMP. Alors, pourquoi faire de la politique sous l'étiquette d'un parti, si ce n'est pour refuser tout ce que demande le parti ? Est-il un mauvais perdant ?Ensuite, on retrouve les commentaires de son affiche, c'est tout à son honneur. Il est Expert Comptable de profession, donc « Responsable »... S'il faut avoir son métier pour être responsable à ses yeux, on est très mal parti...

« Social, mais pas Socialiste »... C'est marrant, mais nous n'avons pas besoin d'un tract pour cela, le social, comme l'écologie, le développement économique, l'emploi... ne sont pas réservés à un seul clivage politique... Encore une argumentation inutile, c'est tellement vide, qu'il en arrive à dire n'importe quoi.

Chers amis, chers lecteurs, osez le cœur et la raison, et faîtes comme moi, ne votez pas Philippe Léandri. Et j'ai bien réfléchi ! :mrgreen:

How can I say such a thing?  Because of what has transpired in the Senate Finance Committee, and how it reflects on The Gov and the Senate leadership.

The Senate Dems have proposed a state budget with all variety of add ons at a time when Governor Kaine is talking about layoffs and raiding the state "rainy day" fund.  There are a wide variety of things that have been talked about but not done (a new legislative building, for instance) and a collection of Governor Kaine fiscal favorites (expanding state paid pre-K coverage is one).  The budget came up and for a vote in the Senate Finance Committee, and it passed in a straight party line 9-7 vote.

Committee Chairman Chuck Colgan (D-Manassas) was outraged, accusing the GOP members of making it a partisan budget.  SenKen, a committee member, reports that Colgan claimed "the Budget is above politics!...Get politics out of this arena, it doesn’t belong here!”

I guess Colgan believes that no candidates ran for office last fall based on how they thought state money should be spent!   Colgan knows that not a single GOP member of the House was targeted in the 2005 primaries and general election because they voted the (later proven to not be needed) Mark Warner Tax Increase.  Shoot, I bet there was not a single person who talked about being able to get funding for this or that or how to stop money from going to an unfavored system or region.  One can easily see how politics and budgeting do not go hand in hand.

Right...

Then, Ed Houck attacked the GOP over their vote, saying "It takes a lot of guts to start kicking around -- politically -- poor, 4-year-old children. Man, that's leadership,". Houck's sarcasm was applauded by NLS-when in fact it was inappropriate, unstatesmanlike, self-defeating, and quite inaccurate.

Governor Kaine has chastised the House GOP, claiming they will take their ball and go home" by saying it was wrong of them to say "my way or the highway." Better I suppose to engage in Kainesian Economics and simply accept without questioning what is put before them.

Gosh, where to start?

The fundamental fact is that even in the face of a slowing economy, the Democrats in Richmond and the GOP differ on how much money will come in during the next budget period. They assume that despite the very flat income tax structure in Virginia, that taxes received will raise at a faster from personal income growth. I don't see how under the current Virginia structure tax income can do much more than increase at the same rate as personal income grows-or declines. To say it will outstrip the income growth rate seems to be unfounded.

First, the Democrats are obviously not enjoying life without John Chichester. First they failed to win his seat in the general election last fall. Now, they no longer have him to hide behind in the Senate Finance Committee. You see, regardless of what you think of him Chichester had the smarts, the charisma, the gall, and the cajones to make his will stand. He also had a permanent majority. Depending on the issue he and his minions could vote GOP and pick up a majority on the right, or bolt and go left and get the Democratic votes. Since he could always get a majority, there was little point in opposing him.

It should be noted that although retired from the Senate Chichester cannot help but heave cheap shots.  He was quoted in the WaPo as opining:

"What you have now is gridlock," Chichester said from his home in Fredericksburg. "Before, the common goal was, 'What is best for Virginia?' Now that's deteriorated to, 'What is best for the party?' "

The Senate vote on the budget was disappointing, said Chichester, who said he never saw such dissent in his 30 years in the legislature.

This is, of course, silly speak. No matter now much the RK guys think this is statesmanlike chatter. The reason Chichester never saw anything like it is because for over half his time in the Senate either the Democrats held a massive majority-so there was no need to work together-or there was a tie-in which case there was every reason to work together.

Some may say the rancor began when the GOP took the majority. It appears to me the rancor began when Chichester became the sole chair of the Finance Committee.

In an aside, I should note how Lowell has changed his tune on what constitutes "partisan rancor". When the Senate Democrats (in the minority) were voting as a bloc against the GOP budget, it was a good and patriotic thing. Now when the Senate GOP (in the minority) votes as a bloc against the Democratic budget is causes "partisan rancor".

Horsefeathers...the rancor was already in place, created by an unwillingness on both sides to work together, but fostered on the democratic side of the Senate by their willingness to hide behind John Chichester's Chairman's chair.

Moving on...

Chuck Colgan, a good man, has never been accused of having political gravitas. His election in 1975 delayed the widening of Va-234 for years. He is not a leader, nor does he inspire loyalty or fear as Chichester did. He is not going to be able to intimidate, agitate, or otherwise shmooze the GOP minority to do something just because he wants it that way.

Colgan also carries the burden that both sides have come to see that committee and floor votes have consequences now that they might not have had twenty years ago. Twenty years ago a legislator could go along on a bill he was not 100% behind knowing that it would take real digging to get that information before the public in a context that would hurt him. Not now...votes are out and announced an in the public domain immediately thanks to all types of new media.  Votes that went unnoticed twenty years ago now must be defended.

Of course, the differences in how much revenue is coming in might not matter if either party set a needs baseline. Most business's, people, families, etc., set a budget. The determine what goods and services they need, how much it takes to pay for them, and how much dinero is coming in. If the expenses exceed the revenue, they either cut the expenses or take steps to increase the revenue.

Not in Richmond, not for a long time. For the last ten years it does not matter who holds the legislature or the governor's mansion, neither party has made a case for what the state needs to spend money on. In hard times, they start talking cuts and layoffs and attriting job openings, but that is all after the fact. No one has been willing to say "here is what we think the state needs-and here is why". Instead, they assume they should start from where we were in the last budget.

Needless to say, this causes problems...especially when The Gov wants to start new programs in non-growth years.

Part and parcel of this practice is the argument that "this new thing costs so little, we should do it!" This is out of the same logic as the person from the cash strapped family who buys a bunch of stuff the family does not need, but points out that because of the sale they saved money. If the state doesn't need the program NOW, now is NOT the time to subject the state budget to the Kainesian economics and torture it with the fiscal death by a thousand cuts by pushing through a multitude of small programs that individually may not be huge expenditures (given the overall budget) but taken in the aggregate is a huge sum.

Next comes the lust for power.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a real platform they operate from.  I have chastised the GOP for it, but noted the Democrats are no better.  The General Assembly Democrats believe that Governor Kaine's bankroll won several races for them, so they had better push his program.  This means raiding the rainy day fund, implementing new programs at the expense of existing ones, and doing all this without a framework for explaining where they want to go. 

The stubbornness of the new Democratic leadership is of the same brand as that of the recent GOP Senate Majority. But it is disingenuous for them to carry on in so many forums about how partisan the GOP is being. While in the minority the Democrats wrote the book on "principled obstruction", part of which was not fighting for legislation-because that created a record that could be fought against in the next election.

Well, now they are in the majority, and they get to learn their own lesson about "principled obstruction". And now that the Senate Democrats can no longer hide behind John Chichester, now that they have to produce a record, now that they have to show what their own principles are...that adds a whole new aspect to how campaigns will be fought and policy produced here in the Commonwealth.

Most of all, it will cry out for a new parliamentary maturity in Richmond...because to date the new boss is about as petulant as the old boss.

Tout d'abord, parlons des municipales. Introduit par Michel Roux, la réunion a pour but de montrer le soutien de l’UMP à Nicolas Isnard, après l’investiture. Le débat a tourné essentiellement, sur les résultats de la ville de Marseille, ainsi que des propositions de Nicolas Isnard pour la Ville de Salon de Provence.

Le maire de Marseille, est venu, félicitez le candidat UMP pour son Union autour de plusieurs partis politiques, à l’image de Nicolas Sarkozy, au niveau national. Mais regrette que cette union soit entachée par le deuxième candidat (UMP de parti, Divers Droite pour l’occasion) qui refusa l’union, mais qu’il fallait tout faire pour y arriver.

On apprendra plus tard, dans la soirée, que le vice-président de Marseille, représentant l’UMP ne voudra pas se mouiller et ne proposera pas de candidat UMP face à Philippe Léandri aux cantonales.

Une mesure, qui pourrait être si simple.. Isnard aux municipales, et Leandri aux cantonales, sans conditions d’une part et d’autre. Si Léandri, préfère laisser sa liste, pour la division de l’union de la droite, il se retrouvera (peut-être) avec un candidat UMP face à lui (mais pas forcément soutenu par le parti). C’est d’une simplicité… J’ai vraiment du mal à comprendre la position de l’UMP sur ce type d’élection.

Enfin, vient au tour de Nicolas Isnard d’exposé un discours, clair et précis, sur la ville, sur les polémiques, et sur l’union. Selon lui, l’union a été faite, avec le Nouveau Centre, quelques socialistes, Jean Rémignon, le parti radical valoisien… Et qu’il continuerait à proposer comme il le fait depuis le début…

Hélas, pour le moment, ni Philippe Léandri, ni Philippe Adam, ni Claude Cortési, n’a répondu à son appel. Peut-être est-ce seulement pour le second tour.

Enfin.. Le tout a été conclu par le chant de la Marseillaise, avec une anecdote du maire de Marseille sur la visite de Ségolène Royal dans sa ville lors des élections présidentielles. Monsieur Gaudin a ensuite signé le « livre d’or » de la campagne.

Le prochain rendez-vous important, sera le 4 février à l’espace Charles Trenet avec la présentation de la liste « Ensemble, changeons d’avenir ! » de Nicolas Isnard.

Une vidéo (5minutes36):

[dailymotion id=x47t14]

Prochain Rendez-vous:

But sometimes the media falls down on their job and lets their prejudices to known they have to be called on it.

The legislature goes into session in two days...and the Burke Connection has not run a story on The Cooch beating The Hoot for the State Senate in Va-37....and I think that is just trashy, tacky, and wrong.

Perhaps this is no surprise-The Connection papers endorsed Hoot, and in the most glowing terms.  But after election day, while large articles were devoted to victories by democrats in General Assembly, Board of Supervisor, and School Board elections...no love for the Cooch.  He got a sidebar type article-sort of like you see used for community announcements-that noted he won by 92 votes and that Oleszek would ask for a recount.

We know that, because if you go to the connection newspapers main site, and click on the link for the Burke Connection, you can still find, as of 1700 hours on 1.7.2008, an article posted on 12.13.2007 titled 37th District Recount Set for Next Week. This journalistic gem includes the observation by the reporter that:

OLESZEK has good reason to be optimistic about what a recount might have in store for her. Del. Jim Scott (D-56) initially lost his first House of Delegates race by 16 votes in November 1991 but then ended up winning by one vote after the absentee ballots were re-checked a month later in December, Scott said.

That is not spin from the Hoot campaign, that is reporting offered by the Connection staff.

Try searching on articles about "Cuccinelli"...nothing except the "upcoming" recount.

Ridiculous. Silly. Unspeakable.

Now, as of last week there is a link to an article dated 1.2.2008 that is a year in review piece. Buried deep in this piece is the observation...:

"I am working on rebuilding the party locally. … on recruiting more people and finding more activists," said Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-37), who is the only Republican senator from Fairfax and won his reelection by 101 votes.

...and that is it! That is all they have to say that indicates Cuccinelli won.

No coverage of the recount, no article on Cuccinelli winning, nothing on the reaction of the losing campaign.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

At least the Washington Post runs full articles on the political campaigns in its geographic areas- no matter how much they dislike the candidate, and in proportion to wins by candidates they like.

The Burke Connection has failed in its responsibility to report the news, and in doing so has revealed its extreme partisanship.

The whole team, from the editors to the folks that deliver the paper, should be ashamed. This inaction will serve to taint its political coverage for a long time to come.

BTW, just to be sure, I checked with the Cuccinelli campaign...and they confirmed they have seen nothing beyond sidebar reports just after election day that reports on the Cooch winning.  I didn't contact The Hoot to ask her if she had seen any articles announcing with finality she lost.  It just didn't seem right.

"Ken Cuccinelli's victory proves that a conservative can win in Northern Virginia"

This observation is not the primary lesson to be learned from the Cooch-Hoot throwdown.  I think there is a lesson, but it is much closer to the ground.  The real lesson-and, I suggest, concern-is that conservatives have to run nearly perfect campaigns to win in Northern Virginia.

I first addressed this a few weeks ago, and mentioned the signifiance of the effort:

Why should Cooch be hailed for running the ideal campaign? Because it is something that GOP candidates seem increasingly unable to do. GOP candidates in tough races almost always give in to the urge to do something cute that they are sure will just devestate the opposition-but more typically puts a final nail in their own coffin. Instead, Cooch stuck to the basics and did not allow blood lust to overcome his judgement. He did not succumb to over-eagerness or being over-cutesy. He went back to the basics to win the campaign, and now he is going back to the Senate.

The bad news in all this is that Cuccinelli did win, but he only won narrowly. In fact, at the time of this post he is preparing for a recount-that is how close his win was. 37,100 votes cast, and he won by 92 votes. That is a pretty thin reed to hang your hat on.

I think it was even closer that that. I have gotten the word through the grapevine that only Hoot's gaffe's kept Cooch going. I have been told that Cooch polling showed that he was dead in the water in finding an issue to bring against Hoot-every issue they polled on brought more support to her than to him. Then she started the "hypothetical question", "waffle", "no set position" stuff...and then Cooch could question the Hoot on competence and not ideology.

I bring this up less to replay the campaign than to show how doggone close run the thing was...and to suggest this is the real lesson.  Cooch ran a campaign that mobilized his supporters.  He neither unecessarily antagonized those unfavorable to him nor did he do something that made him look stupid ("Hitler" ad) or hurtful (JMDD/opponents address) or racist ( "macaca") or limpid (Earley 2001) or anything else that might push undecided voters to his opponent.  This path has, unfortunately, been the path followed by too many GOP candidates in recent years.

While a clear set of principles, positions, and issues are needed, the GOP does not have a hope of winning upcoming elections without running capable, competent campaigns...and that is the lesson that should be drawn from the Cooch's likely win in the 2007 elections.

 Durant la campagne présidentielle, Nicolas SARKOZY a insisté sur le thème « travaillez plus pour gagner plus ». Objectif affiché : augmenter le pouvoir d'achat des français.

Chose promise, chose due, une loi est préparée durant l'été 2007 et sa mise en application est prévue pour le début du mois d'octobre.
Tout le monde souligne le travail rapide du Gouvernement et « piaffe » d'impatience de voir la loi s'appliquer.

Un sondage, réalisé en juillet, confirme cette attente puisque 57 % des patrons de TPE
précisent que la réforme les incitera davantage à recourir aux heures supplémentaires et 65 %
des salariés déclarent vouloir effectuer plus d'heures supplémentaires (source : IFOP -
FIDUCIAL). Tout se déroule donc parfaitement bien.
Vient alors le moment pour les entreprises de la mise en place. Quelques incompréhensions
commencent à apparaître, les experts-comptables sont appelés à l'aide, et là, la même
interrogation partagée par tous, n'a t-on pas créé une véritable usine à gaz ?
Les observations sont nombreuses :

• lourdeur administrative : l'application de ce nouveau dispositif est subordonnée à une
bonne application de la gestion des heures supplémentaires dans l'entreprise :
information du personnel, preuve des horaires de travail...,
• calcul de la réduction fiscale complexe,
• risque pour l'entreprise en cas d'erreur : il y a une forme d'insécurité juridique et
financière : l'URSSAF, qui ne fait que son travail, n'oubliera pas de sanctionner, dans
quelques années, les entreprises mal informées ou mal conseillées, qui ont pu
bénéficier, à tort, d'exonération de cotisations sociales.

Finalement, il semble s'installer une forme de frilosité chez les entrepreneurs : « attendons de
voir comment cela se passe chez le voisin », « nous verrons bien ensuite », « il y aura bien des
modifications pour simplifier tout cela »...

Via Edouard SASSARD.

You may have Ken Cuccinelli to kick around for along time

In the wake of the likely victory by the Cooch over the Hoot, many are writing off the Cooch as being in his last term in the Virginia Senate and as such a likely candidate for Attorney General in 2009.  But after looking at some census data and kicking around the idea with folks who are more knowledgeable such things, I think the large population growth increase  in Prince William County may be creating a different opportunity for the Cooch's survival.

Since Va 27 already reaches into much of Fauquier (map), and since it is highly unlikely that Colgan will run for another term in 2011, I can see a scenario where Western PW is divided. Cuccinelli lives in a precinct that abuts Prince William County, so there is the possibility of lumping him and the stronger GOP districts in the 37th and the 39th, plus part of Gainesville to make a really sold GOP senate district, but then making the surrounding democratic seats that much stronger. 

As for the rest of PWC, you end up with a Senate district that runs from Manassas to the Potomac, plus a slice that goes into Va 27. Two GOP senators are made stronger, but the 27th is going to stay GOP for a while, and the resulting senate district in PWC will be competitive-something that I doubt the 29th would be, or else successive governors would not have begged Chuck Colgan to keep on running long past the time he wanted to retire.

Besides, there is something to be said for seeing that Fairfax County has at least one State Senator in both parties...and if the Senate redistricting follows the idea that it is better to create bulletproof districts as opposed to several that are strong but not locks, then the Cooch redistricting idea may well come full circle.

Do Not Play Prevent Defense

Every year you see NFL football teams get a big lead, and then try to kill the clock by going into a Prevent Defense. Almost inevitably the pressure goes away and the opposing QB gets some breathing room-and suddenly it is a game and the other guy has the momentum. In this campaign, the Hoot showed us the dangers of playing it safe. Her entire campaign seemed to be geared toward getting out the base. She and her staff seemed to be sure that all they had was to get out the base, and they win easily...so all they had to do was harp on base issues without fully defining Hoot or her positions.

Common sense says that the base within a district varies depending on what kind of election is on tap, and the base vote for President in county x may not be the same as the base vote in the same are for a statehouse campaign. You have to assume you will need non-base voters. Hoot did not, and played the entire campaign as if they thought that if she could just avoid saying something of substance that might bother folks, victory was hers.

Hoot apparently did say things of substance, but only in front of highly partisan audiences commited to her victory. When she entered into open forums, she did not offer substance. She instead uttered verbal gaffes that Cooch exploited. You see, if someone is not qualified to be a senator, then their issue positions will likely be discounted by voters who are not ideologically tied to a candidate.

Lesson: Define yourself before your opponent does, and run full out until election day without assuming the support of a certain group of voters means the election is a lock.

Secure a Majority, Buy Insurance Policies

The Virginia Senate is 21-19, and the GOP needs one more seat to get the totals to level and create through the vote of Lt. Gov Bowling a controlling GOP contingent.  Since the next Virginia Senate election is not until 2011, there are only rare possibilities that the GOP can get control of the Senate back prior to the next election...and that will cost M-O-N-E-Y...so I would start buying life insurance.

As Ben Tribbett noted, there are 23 seats that voted Bush/Kilgore/Bolling/McDonnell/Allen/Yes. Four of them are held by democrats. At the risk of sounding morbid, I think the RPV and the Va Dem's should buy a life insurance policy of some large sum on each of those men (Houck, Reynolds, Colgan, and Miller). Then, if they do pass away while in office, you have a ready made campaign war-chest.

Oh, as  a Public Service Announcement...

Kline's Drive-In, south of Manassas, will be open only for another 57 hours or so...and then it is history.

As you may have guessed, I am already sitting shiva...

:-(

I can only assume that Senator McDougle has been reading back posts of Renaissance Ruminations. Consider these Bwana penned gems:

From RR, June 12, 2007:

As many of you know, I have suggested for several months that the GOP needs to be able to create and articulate a unified vision of what the party stands for and where it wants to lead us, especially in Virginia. My cry has been typically answered with a deafen silence.

On March 6, 2007, commenting on the General Assembly:

The question I will offer is simply this…will the GOP learn from the example of the vanished Democratic Majority? Will they find a message and a vision that resonates with the citizens of Virginia, and eschew the quick fix…and in doing so guide the state for years to come?

On December 4, 2006, posting on The Cooch's adamant statement of "No New Taxes"

...I think that a party without a vision of where it wants to go will not be able to articulate what it believes. Without that vision, without that constant star, there is a risk of losing voters over single issues. Consider Ronald Reagan, or Franklin Roosevelt, or Margaret Thatcher, or Churchill, or King, or any great leader. They had a vision of where they were going and how they intended getting there. When people differed with them on an issue the vision served as a safety net that reminded them”we disagree on this matter, but we agree on where we are going”. The vision defines the effort, the vision defines the cause, and the vision keeps support even when there is disagreement on single issues.

Later in that same piece:

Being ideologically pure and politically smart do not have to be mutually independent. But by offering issues without vision, by using fancy campaign tactics without offering substance, by offering a banquet of spicy themes without any meat and potatoes that stick to the ribs, the GOP will do something unique…They will stand for something AND fall for anything…and that is no way to win elections.

...and so on and so forth on back for a couple of years...going back as far as November 15, 2005:

The real key to winning elections is parties that stand for something. The key lies with candidates who promise not just to lead but offer real and achievable ideas that will better the lives of all the citizens that candidate wants to represent and workable plans to make those ideas reality. The key lies with candidates who excite and motivate the party base to work and persuade the undecided voters to believe.

It is gratifying to see the party leadership is finally picking up on my not-so-subtle hints...the question is-what does the party intend to do about it?

The same WaPo article says:

...Conceding they have been outmaneuvered by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and the Democrats, GOP elected officials and activists say the party must recast its message and find strong leaders to deliver it, especially in fast-growing and diverse Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

Ya think?

So now that the leadership is getting on board, let me offer some very general suggestions:

1. Get out the sharp pencils and pads and write down what the Virginia GOP thinks government should be doing and why.  Don't make any assumptions about things just because it already exists.  Start from zero, make no assumptions, and list and define what the party thinks Virginia needs and how to deliver it.  This is a time to reinvent government.
2. Get out the calculators and spreadsheets and calculate how much it will take to make this happen
3. Estimate revenues for each of the next ten budget cycles.
4. Come back with a legislative plan saying this is where we want to go, and how much it will cost and how long it will take to get there.
5. Having come to the state with a plan and the cost, explain why this plan is best for the state, that it meets the needs of Virginia's families and safeguards its economic future.

This is what families across the commonwealth have to do to plan, budget survive and-hopefully-prosper. If it works for our citizenry as individuals, it should be really good starting point for the state as a whole.

All the great legislative triumphs in history have been based in a willingness to look beyond business as usual and had the courage plant a flag in the ground and say "Here we stand, and this is what we stand for."

It can work in Virginia-shoot, it can even work for the Democrats, who have been willing to sit for years waiting for power to fall into their laps. Virginia wants leadership, we need leadership, and neither party has offered it.

The choice and the chance are there, just waiting to be seized. Who's going to cowboy up and make it happen?

Cooch and the Hoot dueled to the last minute of election day, and following the unofficial count and the official canvas the Hoot is still ahead by 92 votes.  The difference between the two is .002%, or 1/5 of one percent.  In Virginia the loser of an election with a margin of victory of less than 1/2 of one percent can request a state funded recount after the official results are certified.  However, recent strides in voting technology make it extremely unlikely that the 92 vote margin will change unless there is some huge malfunction discovered...and since the canvas (essentially a count) was conducted with a fine tooth comb, I doubt the margin will change.

Consider the McDonnell-Deeds race in 2005...McDonnell wins by 323 votes out of 1,943,250 votes cast-a difference of .00016%.  Deeds requests a recount, and nothing changes despite having a significantly narrower margin.  It was in part the fact that no numbers changed in this race that led both GOP and Democrats to urge George Allen to not ask for a state funded recount (although he was eligible to do so) because of the unlikelihood of the overall result changing.  Allen did not ask for the state recount, a decision that was applauded on both sides of the aisle.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and attitudes are different now-at least if the blogosphere is any indication.  Democrats posting at RK and at NLS are urging Hoot to ask for a recount while at the same time criticizing GOP posters who say that Hoot should concede the election.  I guess sometimes it is easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk.

I say let her have the recount.  The Democratic pain at not winning this seat goes deep, and I can only imagine the whining that will ensue if she goes not go the recount mode and take every step possible of winning this election.

But sooner or later Hoot is going to have to own up to the fact that she lost...and when that happens the recriminations that have already flown about will ramp back up. They can be found at different places, and are quite critical of Hoot's campaign manager.  There are also calmer examinations of the Hoot campaign.  I agree with the analysis offered by AIAW, especially on the matter of trying to fight the election on a Pro-Life/Choice platform.  I noted several times that with immigration, transportation, education, and other issues of greater public concern at play in this election that repeatedly focusing on stem cell research did not seem like anything except a way to motivate the base-and if the democratic base was not ready to storm Fortress Cuccinelli on day one, then Hoot had some fundamental problems going on.

But all this wringing of hands in Democrat land overlooks one thing-Republican state Senator Ken Cuccinelli ran the ideal campaign, and he should be congratulated on that.  I do not mean perfect-there were glitches along the way, like the failure to have any presence at all at Day 2 of the Burke Centre Festival.  But Cooch set up a fundamental plan, put it in motion and stuck to it.  He did not make elementary mistakes, not did he make mistakes that created an opening for Hoot to jump in.  While both sides went on the attack, Cooch used Hoot's verbal stumbles to argue she was not ready to be a state Senator without casting her as a bad person.  He also did not respond to fishing expeditions by Democrats trying to create issues, nor did he do anything stupid that gave Hoot an opening to come after him-compare that with the JMDD-Chap! mailing thing.

Why should Cooch be hailed for running the ideal campaign?  Because it is something that GOP candidates seem increasingly unable to do.  GOP candidates in tough races almost always give in to the urge to do something cute that they are sure will just devestate the opposition-but more typically puts a final nail in their own coffin.  Instead, Cooch stuck to the basics and did not allow blood lust to overcome his judgement.  He did not succumb to over-eagerness or being over-cutesy.  He went back to the basics to win the campaign, and now he is going back to the Senate.

Cooch created a plan, stuck with it, and did what he had to do to give himself his best chance of winning...and it paid off.  He won a re-election campaign that no one outside the true believers really thought he had a chance of winning.

Gosh, if that is not the ideal campaign, what is?

UPDATE: Hoot announced she will ask for a recount. The RK denizens rejoices; NLS ponders another J. Murray question.

“Be Nice, and Follow the Rules”

Naturally, I was ignored...Hey, I can only try to help.

Today's Daily Press online version offered an LTE from a Willam Welsh, who didn't agree that the the late Jo Ann Davis "filled the shoes" of her predecessor, the late Herb Bateman:

First of all, Davis never reached the level of service her predecessor, Herb Bateman, did. She never had the impact on the House Armed Services Committee that Bateman had.

Then he hits his stride...

While it is regrettable Davis passed away, it is equally regrettable she is credited with having served so well.

Mr. Welch goes on to mention his support for Paul Jost and Sherwood Bowditch, and finishes strong with:

As for the other Republican candidates, including Chuck Davis, they are not capable of beginning to fill Herb Bateman's shoes –– shoes which have remained unfilled since 2000.

Pretty nasty stuff on the face of it. Somewhere between rude and distasteful. First of all, has this man lost his sense of respect for the dead? Next, did he really put issues of perceived effectiveness in the same league as death? He finishes strong by not simply stating his support of certain candidates, but by maligning the candidates-including the late congresswoman's widower. Oh, and he cannot simply say his piece, but he has to drag in a man long gone from the earthly pale to slime political rivals past and present. There are certain rules of polite conduct, and this letter is in no way, shape, or form according to Hoyle.

But it gets worse. When you read the comments, and/or the rebuttal comments by Roger Pogge (former 1st Congressional District Republican Chairman) and Brenda Pogge, Delegate-elect, 96th House of Delegates District, you find that:

1) Mr. Welch's wife worked for Mr. Bateman;
2) Mr. and Mrs. Welch supported Paul Jost over Jo Ann Davis for the nomination in 2002;
3) Despite their opposition, Jo Ann Davis did not ask for Mrs. Welch's resignation upon her election, instead keeping Mrs. Welch employed through her retirement (with federal benefits) this past summer.

And then Mr. Welch writes this dreck? Oh-ingratitude, thy name is Welch!

What possessed him to write this letter? Moreover, to write it days before the Va-1 convention. Does he really think this will help his candidates?...but perhaps the best question is why was this letter published?

I was told last week by a former Va 1 political junkie that some of the baggage Mr. Jost brings is that the Newport News and Hampton business community will not support him over a democrat, much as happened in the recent Miller-Stall state senate election. I think that attitude may just have bled over to the newspapers. Someone wanting to keep Mr. Jost in the ballgame would have killed this letter. The only reason I can think of is to somehow help Mr. Davis while undermining an opponent, not only through the visceral reaction to this bilge but by showing Jost has no control over his campaign or his supporters.

Between this letter, the Caroline County mishegas, and the fact that most jurisdictions will be sending their maximum sized delegations, I think tomorrow will be a big old slug fest.  We can only hope that Mr. Welch shows up in his big boy clothes and doesn't further embarrass himself, his candidate, or the party.

What will happen tomorrow? My take is this...

1. If Chuck Davis is going to win, he has to either win on ballot 1 or come in so close to a majority that he cannot be denied on ballot 2...otherwise the emotion that drives some delegates to select Representative Davis's husband will fade and the delegates will start thinking politically again. But grabbing that kind of total on the first ballot with a bazillion candidates in the field? Could be tough.

2. After this letter, I doubt the Davis delegates will be going to Jost on any ballot, and I think the folks who are there as good Republicans will react badly to this this letter.  Going to be tough to win if Davis has a sizable plurality and a candidate cannot get to them as their second choice.

3. If Davis doesn't win early, and if no rush goes to Jost (perhaps the two best known candidates) due to ideology and ability to self finance, then the convention will settle down to siege warfare for a couple more ballots, and the winner will be either Delegate Wittman OR a dark horse candidate from the lower peninsula...maybe even former First District officer and conservative blogger James Atticus Bowden!

In the meantime, I am not sure what part of this Mr. Welch (and perhaps others) misunderstood, so let me try it again. As you folks head to the District Convention:

“Be Nice, and Follow the Rules”

Just so we understand, because I didn't spell it out last time...that means the rules of the party, the rules of decorum, and the rules of just plain decent polite society.

I hope the folks who most need to follow this advice are listening.

UPDATE (11/10/2007...0639)

Sherman Bowditch, one of two candidates Mr. Welch praised in the LTE referenced above, has responded-and admirably, I think:

We were greeted yesterday morning with the type of slander that makes people avoid public service. Jo Ann Davis served the First
Congressional District with distinction, humility and honor. Mr. Welch is not a supporter of mine and told me personally that he would be
supporting another candidate. Mr. Welch should understand that I do not welcome his support and I am personally offended by his remarks.

All who enter politics should know that unfair and even untrue things will be said about them. This is unfortunately the nature of our current  political climate. By demeaning and misrepresenting the accomplishment and service of Representative Davis a race that had been largely positive was made much cheaper. I am sorry that my name was mentioned in yesterday's letter to the editor. I add my voice to many others in denouncing the tone, words
and sentiment of Mr. Welch letter.

Also, the MSM has finally jumped on board regarding the curious shenanigans in Caroline County.

Finally, as always, remember to:

“Be Nice, and Follow the Rules”

Natin broadcaster Roel Sembrano filed the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao in the presence of his colleagues from the tri-media.

Sembrano recounted to reporters his encounter with Barte on Oct. 24 at the announcer's booth.

He said he was on his daily morning program, Haring Lungsod Ikaw and Nasayod, when Barte, with his wife and daughter, barged into the announcer's booth and mauled him, even drawing out a gun and pointed it towards him. Read the rest of the report on MindaNews.com.