Political Gastronomica : Campaign 2006

Wha? Lieberman site wasn't hacked?

So, I was reading TPM today and found myself chuckling with the Federal probe completed today commenting on the fact that Lieberman's website was not hacked, rather that the takedown of the site during the day before the primary election was due to "misconfiguration". From TPM (by way of the Stanford Advocate):

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign's allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail.

And the shame of it all was the negative publicity and slander on Lamont Internet Director, Tim Tagaris. At least in some circles, he finds some relief.

Hey Tim, I know how you feel.

And, one comment - I think I said something to this effect back in August of 2006 where I assumed the site was overloaded based on the facts form the blogosphere. From that post:

My guess is that the server was having problems because shared servers are reknowned for having limited number of web clients to handle traffic. No amount of bandwidth can address not enough web server processes to handle the enormity of requests.

Tim - more power to you.

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 2:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Massa v. Dickert: Libel Case Settled

The following is a joint statement that Eric Massa and I have collaborated on drafting which follows the libel complaint described in this post.

Emphasis is mine.

Desire to clean the "memory of google"
For clarity sake, we have requested from all of the blogs that posted content to remove it and replace it with the above statement. For details of the request from both of us, please click on this link.

Tags: Eric Massa, Eric Massa lawsuit, Massa for Congress, NY-29

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 11:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Massa v. Dickert: Arbitration Hearings Cancelled

Update March 6th, 2008: As of this afternoon, the libel suit is settled and a joint statement for the press will be released in due time.

Arbitration Hearings Cancelled
With just 96 hours left until the arbitration hearings were to begin, Eric Massa conceded that the campaign was responsible for upholding my contract, which was the original reason for this arbitration. Eric Massa also withdrew with prejudice (meaning he can not try to bring them up again) the counterclaims that he had made against me in the arbitration.

While I am pleased about being vindicated against Eric Massa's efforts not to pay my wages and finally getting paid the money I was owed, it came at a high cost of six months and close to $50K in legal bills, whereas Eric Massa was able to use some of his campaign funds (see [1], [2]) and free legal staff/services to support him through this process. Meanwhile, my political professional life was damaged beyond repair due to his false and empty allegations.

While this is a significant battle to have won, the war for my good name is not over yet. Unfortunately, Eric Massa did not retract or concede the false and inflammatory accusations he made about me that hit the press during the 2006 campaign. The impact of these unfounded accusations still reverberate in my personal and professional life long after the campaign ended.

Ongoing Lawsuit against Eric Massa
I filed the libel complaint (on Nov 2nd, 2006) against Eric Massa to get back my good name by either winning the lawsuit in open court or getting Eric to publicly concede his false accusations (see this post) as part of a settlement.

While I could have filed the lawsuit before that date (because of his libelous emails), due to the nature of these allegations and the major story of the day regarding Rep. Mark Foley, I knew that any action of this nature could seriously impact the success Democrats were having in taking back the House. By waiting until after the story broke in the national news, I was demonstrating my resolve not to hurt the Democrats in reclaiming my reputation, regardless of whether he won the seat or lost.

Instead of settling, Eric Massa filed a motion in NY State Supreme Court in New York City to dismiss these charges on a technicality. Eric Massa's lawyers strongly believed the dismissal would succeed. I disagreed.

I could go on with more detail, but if you want to know more, contact Eric Massa at emassa@massaforcongress.com for his response to this ongoing lawsuit. I am moving forward with my life, and this post is simply a way to update the people who have been asking as to where things stand at present.

Thank you again for your support, and I look forward to updating you with more positive news soon.

Tags: Eric Massa, Massa v. Dickert, Eric Massa Arbitration, Eric Massa Lawsuit

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 8:16 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

End of the election...next steps...

It is 12:15am and I have been up watching the returns. I am thrilled that the Dems have won the House - and maybe will win the Senate, but I will find out tomorrow morning. Jim Davis in Florida did not survive the Charlie onslaught - had so much feeling like the Kerry-Bush debates.

I am tired and want to move forward, clearing my name and resolving the issues. I have, and will continue to defend myself - and will do so in a way of integrity and honor. I am still a life-long Democrat, and I will still support Democrats whenever asked or given the opportunity. I look forward to 2008 and what will happen in the coming years.

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Election Day - where will you be?

While my work may be focused elsewhere, I still feel that you should go out and vote whenever and wherever you can. Today, if you have come to the site for my coverage on the Florida's Governor race, you should go to the following sites for information on polling sites:

• Jim Davis' site - this page has all of the links to each of the Election Supervisors - and their websites.
• Florida Division of Elections - Crist redirects you here, as does Davis, but neither make it easy to find your polling place.

If you are here for the NY-29th, then you should use the following to find your polling place:

• Vote411.org - a terrific site which has ALL of the polling locations (which the earlier links do not provide)

Whatever you do, make sure you get out and vote this cycle - it is about make a change happen in the country, and while it does not have the glamour of a Presidential election, it is still a very important one. Go out and create a great country.

Tags: Election 2006, Florida Governors Race 2006, Campaign 2006

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Final Florida Governors Debate

Well - very interesting - all I can say is that I am glad Chris Matthews made it a better debate that the sterile debates I have seen in the past. His presence and persistence in getting answers form the candidates (Attorney General Charlie Crist and Congressman Jim Davis), handling the surprise appearance of Reform Party candidate Mark Linn, and managing the meandering of the political rhetoric was a breath of fresh air. A quick run down of some of the better reporting:

• Mark Hollis gives a terrific run-thru of the debate for the Sun-Sentinel (and thanks for the video feed!)
• Laura Fiorilli from TBO has a terrific spin on the debate - including a much meater way of looking at what was said.
• Adam Smith of the St. Pete Times also talks about the impact the debate had on Crist.

I also just went reading the blog posts suggested by Laura but was kind of underwhelmed by the commentary (except for Interstate4Jamming's.

As I have in the past, I will give a blow by blow on each of the issues questioned by Matthews to the candidates. In truth, this is as best as I could glean from watching the debate. IMHO, I think Matthews relished clamming on the pols for their squishy answers, and in particular seemed to get Crist when he could.

• Issue: Iraq War - was it worth it? Are we safer?
  TOSSUP - Davis voted for war (based on faulty intelligence) and has been fighting to get it to a positive resolution and voting for body armor. Crist believes we are safer - took the war to them, not on our shores. Linn has always been against the war. Wonders where the government official's kids are in this war - they are not fighting in this war.
• Issue: Gay Rights - NJ passes law, what is your opinion?
  TOSSUP - Crist says marriage is a sacred institution, supports civil unions. When pressed for a specific definition to clarify the differences between marriage and civil unions, goes into political rhetoric. Linn supporters gay adoption, civil unions but not gay marriages because the country is not ready for it. Davis believes marriage is a religious sacrament, couples in civil unions should have the same rights, would support gay adoption and supports judges being able to decide if gay adoption should occur. When asked, Crist says he does not support gay adoption, traditional family is the best way to raise a child.
• Question: Clean campaign, so are you a Libertarian Conservative (small govt, low taxes) or Values Conservative (abortion rulings, strictures)?
  CRIST - Crist says he is a common sense conservative - which seems to be like libertarian. Davis asked if he is a liberal (90% Democratic Action rating) - he goes into platform issues on FCAT and is asked again, where he then replies he can not be placed into a simple label. Linn (later) answers saying he is a (my interpretation) a libertarian conservative.
• Diversion: property tax issue
  TOSSUP - Davis will "find a way" to roll back 5% of the $20B in tax giveaways to "special interests". Crist points out that this is removing tax breaks and increasing "your" taxes ("backs of seniors") and Davis hopes that the legislature will return the money to you. Matthews asks for a clear itemizing of the homestead exemption numbers - Crist can not make simple numbers, Davis seems unable to (outside of 5% of the $20B set of tax giveaways). Davis points out that Crist's idea will be on the backs of first time home owners, renters and small businesses. Linn points out that doubling the homestead exemption will bankrupt many small towns in Florida for the loss of revenue to their local budgets.
• Diversion: did you take donations from companies/lobbyists for this campaign?
  DAVIS - Crist: yes (from insurance companies) but does not know the exact numbers. Davis knows the numbers (and tells us later that it was $2M), and is asked if he takes money from the teachers lobby. He answers yes, but "teachers don't have much money".
• Schivo Case - are you happy the way it was handled in the State Legislature/Congress?
  DAVIS - Crist says he disagreed with Gov. Bush, which is why he stayed out of it. Asked if he disagreed with it - he says he did. Davis responds that "he did not" and points out how he fought in Congress and did to stay out, but stood up. Linn was appalled in the government's action on the case and believes in a strict separation of church and state.
• Mark Foley case: did you see this coming? Any strange signals?
  DAVIS - Crist says he saw nothing - and the office of AG offered to help in the investigation. Davis says that it was a failure of leadership - that the Republicans were more concerned over party issues than the issues of the children - and then drifts into the insurance issue. Linn says that people are tired of the Republican and the Democratic parties.
• Issue: Election 2000 - do you think the matter was handled well?
  DAVIS - Matthews is trying to get at the issue of paper trails and if the process is broken. Crist says US Supreme Court did what was right and that the process is not broken. Davis launches against this - no paper trail, no automatic restoration and then uses the dreaded H word (Harris).
• Segway: paper trail - are you advocating a receipt with your vote on it?
  TOSSUP - Davis does not answer well, Crist is against it for fear people would be paid for their vote, and Linn is for paper trail, but does not answer the receipt question. [Ed Note: I think what should happen is a paper transcript with encoded ID and votes hashed should be recorded on paper and then sent to a location. This is what we do in databases as a matter of course.]
• Question: Grade Governor Bush
  TOSSUP - Davis gives him an overall grade of C, but for education a D- and port security and A. Crist gives him a strong A and believes in education, Bush has been strong. Linn gives him an overall C, but upgrades him to a B for a smile and the pen (Bush just signed to get him into the debate).
• Question: Grade President Bush
  DAVIS - Crist gives GWB an overall grade of B, especially high grades for being principled. Commends the Bush family for its contribution to the country. Davis gives GWB an overall grade of an F since he broke his promise not to drill off the coast of FL (and Crist did not join the fight) and that GWB wanted to privatize social security. Uses his line "...fixing to send a message..." Linn gives GWB an overall grade of an F. Then comments on Crist's answer by bringing up $25K a plate dinners and the $5M given to his campaign by developers.
• Question: does Florida have a big crime problem?
  DAVIS - Crist says we are at a 35 year low - and reels off a number of his efforts. Davis comments that violent crime is up 30% in the past six months (specifically murder). Davis wants to get more cops, gear, etcera to enforce the current laws on the books. Matthews then grills Crist on his statement - trying to get clarity on the difference between violent crime and murder - and Crist admits murder is up, but violent crime is down. Matthews gives him a scathing retort sounding like DC mayor Marion Barry for the "technicality" issue - most people think murder is a violent crime. Linn wants more cops. Davis finalizes with "focus on your job, not on technicalities"
• Issue: Homeowners Insurance - how can you help the common person?
  DAVIS - Crist returns to his talking points ("stop the cherry picking", "stop the shell game", Davis attendence record). Davis slams with his points ("up to 40% reduction", "eliminate Citizens", "stand up to insurance lobby") and then comments on Crist's "cherry picking" plan as Gov. Bush saying it would not work. Linn says insure homes worth $500K and below. Florida does not belong in the insurance business.
• Digression: why did you run for Congressman when you knew you were going to run for Governor? (to Davis)
  Davis answers with his point "I do not sit down, I stand up" line. And then hammers that "Charlie" got $2M from the insurance companies for his campaign.

So?
I would traditionally end with their closings, but this is the same old stuff in the closing statements (with the exception of the questions posed by Linn: "Are you truly happy and satisfied with current system and do you believe the current system needs new direction and fresh ideas?"). The best line of the night, as commented on by others, was Linn's "All I found was an empty suit" when he looked in Tallahassee for Crist.

My take - Davis did well for his public speaking skill set. He must have worked on his attack - and kept "Charlie" down with the use of the diminutive over and over again. For some reason, when he spoke, "Charlie" sounded like an insult instead of his name. Linn was sort of the Al Sharpton of this debate - coming up with lines, and I wish he had been better prepared. And Crist - well, not very interesting - very much like the politician he seems. All I can say is I think Davis did well, but I am still fearful of having another Davis as my governor - I hope he is better than Gray. But I will say - great job Jim, go out and win this election!

Tags: Florida Governor Debate, Jim Davis, Charlie Crist, Chris Matthews, Mark Linn, Florida Governors 2006,

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Finally - Florida Governor's Debate at Nova

Wow. I spent last night and this morning watching and rewatching the Florida Governors debate between Attorney General Charlie Crist and Congressman Jim Davis. I was equally flummoxed and amused over the course of the debate. In some ways, it was almost a rerun of the Davis/Smith debate - just with a taller opponent against Davis and no Big Sugar references. From the debate - if you read the papers - you'll hear:

Crist: Empty chair. People's governor. You have the worst record. Rhetoric has to stand up to your record. You can see it on my website.
Davis: 40% reduction in insurance premium. Not just show up, you have to stand up. Stay the course or change course. $1B down payment. Special interests have to pay their fair share.

My favorite moment was Davis' showing his insurance premium statement to Crist - totally surprising, but Davis looked kind of stiff, where Crist looked fluid. The laugh was well needed.

My biggest disappointment regarding this debate was that there was lots of political policy talk, and little in the way of explaining nuance or reasons. Both candidates could say whatever they wanted - and, for most viewers, looking into the details is almost impossible to do so. So, you are left with believing the messenger versus the content. Given the format of the debate - and the content - I am not surprised that anyone was able to "stay the course".

As I did the last time with the Smith/Davis debate, I will try to summarize what each said with each question and give my opinion on success of the candidates. Understand, your mileage may vary since I am not a talking head for any major television network...

• Opening
  TOSSUP - Davis issues the first "Crist is for staying the course - I am for changing course" statement. Uses the five paragraph essay rule - state the premise in the beginning - "as a parent, will fight to improve our schools, reduce property taxes and reduce insurance premiums". Crist responds with "responsible plans for lowering insurance, property taxes, homestead exemption, protect the children, improve education". Very congenial in his thanks - and comments on the fact he is the last candidate in the race who graduated from a FL high school.
• FCAT: if elected, would you end the use of FCAT?
  TOSSUP - Davis wants to end the punative aspects of FCAT testing, use it as a supportive tool. Evokes Lawton Chiles - FCAT is a measure of what is going on the education. Useful for identifying problem schools. Crist feels the measurement is more important ("should students pay for the shortcomings of schools?") and that A thru F is good for identifying problem schools - take a look at his website for more. Schools should be accountable - the FCAT should not punish, rather help improve the education. Davis responds with Crist "staying the course because teachers will be paid according to the students scores. Ed note: to me, it feels like Crist is trying to say we need to police the schools and the teachers, whereas Davis is saying putting a measure on teachers constrains their creativity by focusing on passing a test.
• Taxes and Schools: how could Florida schools get more money into their program if Floridians do not want to raise taxes?
  DAVIS - he answers the question (would stop the tax giveaways to special interests) which would not raise taxes, just divert money. Has plan to increase teachers salaries by $4K. Crist gives a "mushy" answer, rather harps on Davis wanting to bring back the intangibles tax.Ed note: not sure, but could be that Davis wants to get money from both pots - special interests and intangibles.
• Insurance Rates: how can you impact private businesses?
  TOSSUP - Crist suggests overcoming the "shell game" from insurance companies - "stop the cherry picking". Moderator asks how can the Governor enforce private companies to do what he wants (meaning insurance companies). Crist answer: "Governor is not king" and then turns it into a slam on Davis and his poor voting record in the past 18 months. Davis turns it around with the "not just showing up, but standing up" retort. Responds with Crist just "stood around". Reiterates the 40% reduction in premiums and that he will say something no one else has said in Tallahassee to the insurance companies - "No". Ed note: amused at the harping on Davis's record in the past 18 months, but if you look at his record before running for Congress, you would see his voting/attendance record is stellar.
• Save Our Homes: will you support making the home insurance cap portable?
  CRIST (for style) - Davis responds with going to make four points, but only gives two. Says yes to portability, but explains how Crist will wait four years. Crist does not answer the portability question, rather he responds with the fact that while his plan might say four years, he can work on it for next year - if they put an amendment into place. Then, he paryies with "I am the People's Attorney General. If you want someone to be the Government's Governor, chose Davis. If you want the People's Governor, choose me."
• Doubling the Homestead Exemption
  DAVIS - at this point, my opinion, people are confused. Both want to double the homestead exemption - Crist says Davis is protecting government, Davis says Crist is staying the course and allowing special interests to not pay their fair share. Davis repeats the 40% pledge and also describes how Crist's plan will reduce the burden on homeowners while increasing the burden on renters and small business owners.
• Upcoming health care costs: Florida growing with boomers, elderly and low wage earners. How will we address the issue?
  TOSSUP - Davis and Crist will negotiate to get prices down and allow for importing drugs. Crist accuses Davis of doing nothing ("empty chair"), Davis accuses Crist of not "standing up". Davis will put small business aggregation into place for pools insurance costs. Crist offers a perscription drug discount card plan like WalMart and Target. Both counter the inaction arguments. Crist lands a punch by converting the topic to the Pitts/civil rights issue. Ed note: I did not think they answered the heart of the question - how will they handle the low wage staffers and the increasing cost of infrastructure for supporting the growth
• Schivo case: was it handled correctly? How would you do it differently?
  DAVIS - lands the "standup, not just showing up" line - and comments that Crist did not even show up. Crist counters with "I stayed out because government should not be involved". "Some decisions should be for G-d and family." And then returns to the "you missed 300 votes" theme. "You violated a public trust". Ed note: this time, Davis is right, and Crist uses his inactivity to prove he keeps govt out of the way. Davis fought to keep government out of the way in Congress - tough fight at that time.
• Abortion: do you favor the current laws? How would your office stand?
  CRIST - Crist has the most nuanced answer "it is not about changing laws, about changing hearts" and says he favors pro-life (check out his website for his adoption plan). He says he will not change Florida law, but Davis counters with Crist statement on his support for a South Dakota law that removes a woman's life to choose and that Davis would not. Davis fights the earlier comments on voting record with 93% lifetime voting record in Congress and that he will "stand up". Crist delivers the line "I am a happy warrior". Davis responds with "change is coming" and that he will "stand up". Ed note: at this point, it seems as though the candidates are using the time to push their negative points on the other candidate and push their positives, at times avoiding the question. Davis does not answer directly, rather indirectly.
• Florida growth: do we continue with the same urban planning/infrastructure plans or???
  DAVIS (by a hair) - neither really answers the question. Davis talks about "managing our growth and protecting the environment (plug for Sierra Club here). Then goes back to special interests not paying their fair share. Little people pay, need to give everyone a chance to live out the American Dream. Crist evokes Ronald Reagan and how we need to make sure our infrastructure is ready (but does not answer the question). Then uses a Smith slam about how the US government has not paid it's fair share in the Everglades cleanup.
• Illegal immigration: how will we handle the increased costs? What will you tell the President and others on how to handle the issue?
  CRIST (by a hair) - Crist answers on securing the borders, path to citizenship, supports Martinez's plan and evokes his father's journey to America ("he shined shoes", "good honest work"). Ends with needing to make this work because the "promise of America keeps hope alive - and in Cuba tonight". Davis agrees with Senator Martinez's plan, but slams Crist on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. "I want a strict, fair path". Ed note: roles have switched since Crist is being soft and Davis is being the policeman.
• Question - Davis to Crist: why did you pick your running mate who is against stem cell research?
  CRIST - not only does Crist turn around the question (both running mates are good men, but what matters is at the top of the ticket) but makes it a double slam "Need someone who is positive, someone who shows up, listens and learns."
• Question - Crist to Davis: why did it take a Governor's race to make you admit your mistake from 1990 (Pitts case)?
  DAVIS - again, turnabout is fair play. Not only turns it into the most poignant part of the debate ("I made a mistake") but also shows that Pitts not only forgives, but also endorses Davis. Then turns the question into a Crist/Harris connection by discussing Crist lack of defending voter rights for blacks when he had the chance to stand for free and fair elections.
• Question - Davis to Crist: Four year for tax breaks?
  CRIST - Crist says that he is advocating for next year, not four years from now. And then he evokes the Mondale word - "you want to bring back the intangibles tax".
• Question - Crist to Davis: Cubans are troubled. Jews are troubled. Blacks were troubled. Are you going to also apologize to the Cubans and Jews now?
  DAVIS (slightly) - slam by Crist almost works, but Davis explains and handles the question with aplumb by supporting the embargo six times, going to see what was happening in Cuba to get an even greater understanding of the issue. Israel trip was with Congressman Robert Wexler where they both went to pressure Arafat for peace. And then lands the "standing up" and "fighting the fight".
• Middle class: how will the government help stop the hollowing out of the middle class?
  DAVIS- neither really answer the question. Crist talks about savings he accomplished via FPL and telephone companies. Davis counters with his insurance premium statement and slam on Crist getting millions from insurers for his campaign.
• Campaign Finance: most expensive campaign in Florida history. How can we change this?
  DAVIS (by Crist mistake) - Davis kid of answers since it is a slam against special interest financing of other campaigns ("$2M campaign against me"). Crist does not answer the question - moderator has to reask the question. Instead offers a "you did not show up" line against Davis. On reask - answers with "accountability" and the fact he did not take money from FPL.
• Closing
  CRIST - Davis starts with slamming Crist, not offering vision until the end "I will fight for change". Crist offers positive message, then adds cut to Davis, then ends positive.

Sad to say - not much to hold onto
After the debate - there was not much said - and very little that you could see where one slipped up or said anything different. I wish candidates would understand that people want to understand that they mean and spell it out simply. Davis is saddled with being a Congressman - he has a small staff (no more than six staffers, most under 30) and can only do so much. Running for public office across the state of Florida is a lot different than running across a district. Crist has a much larger, more professional staff, so he could campaign and amass a record without having the attendance "hit". The shame of it all - all I got out of the debates was that Crist is a great public speaker and that Davis is the thoughtful, albeit stiff, Democratic candidate. Jim - please get more media training - and learn to emote more.

Tags: Jim Davis, Charlie Crist, Florida Governors Debate, Florida Governors Race 2006

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watching the Florida Governor race with a disappointed yawn...

Prior to the primary, the Florida Governor's race was an exciting time on the Democratic side - two campaigns fighting it out - discussing issues and accusations of poor judgement and being in the pocket of some big industry PAC - and the television was filled with discourse on who would be the better candidate on the Democratic side. After the fighting was done and the votes were tallied, Rod went back to Alachua and Jim went back to determine who would be his running mate.

What's happened since? Davis selected a terrific running mate for Lt. Governor, Daryl Jones and then went into fundraising mode. As reported in the St Pete Times, Davis has lagged in all of the metrics most political operatives discuss in terms of fundraising, field offices, television, and public appearances. I could have also given the same measure, simply by noting the Internet effort that occurred soon after the election. Much like the failed Betty Castor campaign in 2004, the Davis campaign has lost its online engagement strategy and the momentum is waning. Based on this measure, and previous experiences with other Florida campaigns - I worry that the Davis Campaign is in a hole - and, unless a heroic effort is undertaken, we will be discussing Governor Crist.

Web reflects confidence
This might sound silly to most of the old hat people in the political industry, but the appearance on the web often has an impact on the campaign. It is not readily measured, but a good web presence and a strong email campaign often demonstrates efficiency, strength in operation and bolsters supporters confidence in the campaign. Take the following facts in stride:

• Davis' emails - give me $$$
  Davis's emails overwhelmingly cry out for fundraising - four of the last nine ask for money and, most recently, they are discussing the $50, $100, etcera line in the first paragraph. In addition, of the other emails, three are event booster emails (bring out supporters to events) and two are "momentum" emails. None of the emails - with the exception of the most recent one, tries to engage volunteers, and even in this one, it is a post-script request.
• Crist's emails - ho, hum
  Crist is even worse in the fact that his emails either read like policy documents refuting the Davis policies or are simplistic "reach-outs" to constituencies they feel are vunerable to acquisition (e.g. a Rosh Hasahana email to the Jewish community was a nice touch). But no where does the campaign even engage the readers to "get involved". Oh, I can say that the button is on the email header, but that is not an engagement practice, rather it is a "checkbox" in the email ("Do you have the Volunteer link?" "Yep?" sound of pencil checking a box
• Crist's website - I am ready for the presidency, Mr. Bush
  Crist's newly revamped website looks like a Presidential site - leveraging all of the right visuals and navigation tools designed for understanding the candidate. But, what is sorely lacking: a real Action Center. And, as everyone already knows, there is no blog on the site - why risk the potential downside of a public forum on the website when your candidate is double digits in the polls.
• Davis' site - ugghh, can someone redesign this for most of Florida?
  Davis' site - I can not really comment on it without explaining that two facts: I originally designed the Rod Smith website (here is one of the earlier versions of the site) and I am not a fan of the software platform they use. But, what surprises me is that the Davis campaign had the chance to revamp the website to reflect the new monetum and a combination of both the candidate AND the new Lt. Governor and make it a centerpiece of the campaign. Instead, the photos show a greyhound dog wearing a shirt, the blog seems to have reverted to a press release channel, and I get to see the video ads on the site once again. And there is little to no energy on the site at all. How does an enthusiastic Democrat supposed to get energized by that?

Make the Internet work for you!
My simple comment to Davis - get Greg Wahl (yes, I know Greg from another Broward campaign) and any other volunteer coordinator to get off their a**es and start sending out volunteer coordination emails to the Florida supporters. Who cares if you are down double digits in the polls, now? It is about the GOTV, and the Internet is supposed to be the channel that Democrats know to make things happen cost-effectively and efficiently. Greg has done things like this before - and, I assume other staffers have as well. While you may not have the monies for lawn signs and TV saturation - you have raw human talent that can get out the vote - and start the canvass. Make it happen. Please.

Tags: Jim Davis, Charlie Crist, Florida Governor, GOTV, Campaign 2006, eCampaigning

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Smith concedes, Davis wins.

Wow - after a hotly contested race, Davis wins. That is amazing. With the low turnout in Broward and Dade Counties, I guess the perceived advantage Smith had in the northern part of Florida did not offset the advantage Davis had in the I-4 Corridor. It is funny, we had a very similar situation happen to us (on the Deutsch Campaign) where we spent most of our time in the South Florida area and little up in Tampa or along the I-4. I understand that the Smith campaign did better, but my assumption is that Davis was more effective. And, in addition, the low turnout in Broward did not help Smith. I look forward to the breakdown of the votes in the major media markets and see how effective the campaign truly was.

Rod - a good fight was fought, and now we have a Governors mansion to win in Tallahassee. Go Davis!

Tags: Rod Smith, Jim Davis, Florida Governor

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Davis/Smith Debate II - He shoots, he...

Only in Florida can a campaign be sidelined by Mother Nature - and campaigns are trains that, by themselves, are forces to be reckoned with. After Ernesto cancelled the debate for Tuesday, the Davis/Smith campaigns have had a field-day regarding whether or not to commit to another debate.

As reported in the Miami Herald, the Smith campaign decided not to commit to another debate because of the planned campaign stops in Northern Florida. The Davis campaign got a chance to give a shot about Smith's connections with US Sugar. It was reported in the Palm Beach Post that Davis was ready as of 2pm Wednesday to be at the debate, but by 4pm, the Smith campaign decided that it would not work to be in West Palm Beach and still handle the campaign schedule they had already planned.

Is this horse-hockey?
Being on campaigns now for a bit of time, the time for prep and getting all of the practice in is extremely demanding on a campaign. I can speak to the stressors and efforts put into the Kerry and Deutsch campaigns to prepare for their debates - especially trying to get all of the advisors ready and to agree on what is the best spin on a topic. But, Rod is a natural orator. He was materful in the previous debate - and impromptu has never been his weak point.

Could it be that the efforts of ads, mailers and the previous debate (that is more than likely replying over and over again on PBS) was enough that Rod does not need any more visibility? With the Strategic Vision Poll out (reported by FLA Politics) yesterday, is it suprising the Rod is feeling the momentum that precludes a showing on local television? The amount of votes Rod is going to gain from this North Florida run that he has not already won is miniscule - compared to what exposure he might get given a focus on a West Palm debate. Think about the additional coverage he would get from WSVN and other local stations in a rich Democratic region like Broward County... Or could it be that Labor Day Weekend is not the best time to expect people to see candidates on television - especially since they would be heading out for a holiday with the family, and not sitting in front of the TV.

Truth be told, the race is almost over. After Labor Day, the decision will be made. The people coming out more than likely have already made their mind. The question is - who do you support?

Tags: Rod Smith, Jim Davis, Florida Governor

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 8:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Florida Governor Debate - Smith versus Davis - who won?

Got home late last night and watched the streaming video of the Florida Democratic Governor debate between Congress Jim Davis and State Senator Rod Smith. As I watched, I tracked the performance of each candidate on each issue discussed gave my estimate of who performed in each issue to help me better understand the stance. Prior to watching, Davis came into the debate with assumptions of being stiff and not as strong a debater as Smith, whereas Smith would be more in his element.

After watching, and knowing about the race, I would suggest that Smith won over Davis - even though Davis did perform better than expected. The first half was light - and Davis was able to position himself as a straight-talker and more animated than I expected. If I wanted to play a little Oliver Stone, I might suggest that Smith even stumbled and played behind to gain some sympathy for his "nervousness". But once the two were able to ask questions of each other, Smith's abilities began to overshadow Davis. And, whereas Davis might have tried to point out how Smith had the backing of big, bad US Sugar - it came off sounding weak. Smith, who initially came off kind of "off" was able to pound on Davis two major points - you did not do your job AND you are a Washington outsider. Incredible as this seems, Davis, who originally used the concept of not being a Tallahassee insider to point out his strength, now found Smith using it to demonstrate how out of touch he was with the issues in State. His technique of discussing his family and being a parent was a nice tactic, Smith's use of "there's another Washington answer" during the debate was a deft touch to keep Davis positioned outside the Florida mainstream during the debate.

Style points go to Davis in the debate for performing better than I expected. And Smith, in the debate, still had his almost Baptist minister-like energy, but by the end of the debate, I had begun to get tired of the fast delivery and a sense of over-confidence. His last line in the closing somewhat unnerved me - regarding how Davis had not earned the right to be Governor and (in contrast), he had.

Who will be the best person for the job? I would say that Davis makes me feel that we will be the thoughtful Governor, but Smith has a record of deomnstrating how to handle the issues between working as a minority party with the majority working against him. He knows the system and more than likely would be able to work it much more effectively than Davis, who has been outside the social structure that is Tallahassee. While Smith has the backing of US Sugar (which I have seen first-hand the ability of their negative campaigns), he came across much stronger and more with a strong understanding of the issues and mechanations of Florida politics. Advantage goes to Smith, though I wonder what people in South Florida will say in the coming days.

UPDATE: Fla Politics has a great run down of all of the articles out today on the debate.

What follows are my notes from the debate - and my conclusions on who won the points on each of the issues raised.

Quick thoughts and notes:

• Opening - TIE - both made mistakes on the opening, neither were strong
• Fixing schools and keeping teachers - DAVIS who answered the question, SMITH only discussed the problems
• Same question - DAVIS again, answered the question
• Death penalty - TIE since Davis supports the death penalty, Smith speaks with authority but has not answered the question straightforward like Davis
• Email question: Preserving Florida history - DAVIS since he answered the question directly, connected on the heart issue. Smith good story-telling, focused on the developer control, Davis talks of his family history, historical boards, economic development
• Everglades cleanup/US Sugar - DAVIS - Davis worked on federal tax dollars for the Everglades, smacks Smith regarding Everglades, $1M to Smith campaign, back to Everglades cleanup. Smith points out delay did not happen, FL did the money expenditure, states $1M not to him, to 527, states not connected to US Sugar and polluters will pay
• Insurance - SMITH on the issue, DAVIS on connecting: Smith states get out of Citizens Insurance, sales receipts from previous years, reinsurers, independent board - smacks Davis regarding rates, Davis will raise the money. Davis states loophole was made to help people in problems, policy holder advocate general fight back now - Davis responding much better
• "Lax" gun laws - SMITH on the issue, DAVIS on connecting: Davis supports some restrictions on some guns, connecting with the cause even though not understanding well. Smith connects with story on past experiences - early prevention and intervention.
• DAVIS to SMITH: You fought against a third party mailer before, what about now? - DAVIS squeaks by barely - Smith says "I did not have anything to do with this" - and he believes that nothing should be a personal attack or untruthful. From his light eval, the content was not a personal attack - not going to work when you should have, not being on the job when supposed to. This is a discussion on trade issues. It is not untruthful. Davis reiterates US Sugar has control over you.
• Turning pointSMITH to DAVIS: You missed more work than anyone else - why did you allow politics to get in the way of your attendance? - SMITH - Davis says he had a 93% attendance now, 97% before the campaign. He has always been focused on Floridians - continued to fight against oil drilling, against Tom Delay, against Bush. Smith responses "Washington language" - politics ahead of your job.
• DAVIS to SMITH: Phone rates (gets a laugh) - Smith first supports and then repeals - was it a bad bill? - SMITH - Smith states that it is revenue neutral - you did not read the bill. Important thing to remember - always do best when we had competition. Be sure to read the bill when you get the work. Davis slams regarding US Sugar and how the phone bill was against us.
• SMITH to DAVIS: Class size at reducing class size and attracting new teachers - where were you? - SMITH - Davis supports reduced class size here. Davis responds with his past - he is a parent. Smith says you supported the record - painting Davis as Washington outsider.
• DAVIS to SMITH: Where were you on greenbelt bill abuses? - SMITH - Smith slams Davis - "check the record". I brought a bill to committee.. Davis states "you did not do your job" - a call to committee does not equal action.
• SMITH to DAVIS: compensation for claims act - SMITH - Davis states that he listened to the evidence, but the evidence he looked for was not there. Rather than focus on the popular position, he focused on what is right, not popular. Smith says this is "Washington talk" - accuses Davis of not making a stand when he could.
• Electronic voting machines - TIE - Davis discusses loss of confidence, "I will make sure we restore the trust in the power of your vote - do not let these folks make you think your vote does not count." We shoudl have a paper trail, we should restore rights to felons who have paid their dues. Smith focuses on his recent bill, and an amendment he attempted to pass years ago. Smith feels the issue of restoration of felons rights must happen as well.
• Higher Education - DAVIS - Smith speaks incredibly fast - will discuss resources, excellence. Davis recomments on Graham. Wants to reinvest in our students - not just adequate class size. Too much in terms of politics. Abolished the Board of Regents. Will change the business model in the state. $300M for 300 jobs.
• Wet foot/dry foot: do you agree? - TIE - Davis says the policy does not work, wants a fair issue. Wants a comprehensive immigration policy. Immigration reform - fair path to citizenship. Smith states does not work for FL - need to focus on the homeland security. Need to work toward guest status - need to focus on reality.
• How will you work with the Republican majority? - SMITH - Smith finds working with Reps easy. Been very successful in a Rep majority. States the intangibles tax reinstatement - Reps will be willing to work to this effort. Davis responds with an accusation of the falsehood of intangibles tax. Plan on raising teacher salaries - remove the rewards. Unite the state - the loophole is bad for business. Stand up for consumers. (Davis does not say how he will work with the Reps).
• Closing statement - Davis pounds on the negatives on Smith - tries to tie Smith to the "bad" legislature (never says Republicans). Who's going to be on our side. Judge his record - honored to serve as next governor. Smith agrees on effectiveness - connects on positives for himself and connected. Pounds on Davis' as a Washington outsider, misses , Davis' loophole - pounds on Congress again in terms of the Everglades. About effectiveness - Davis has not earned the right for a promotion. He says he has earned his chance to be the next Governor.

Tags: Rod Smith, Jim Davis, Florida Governor

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 4:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Defining the main theme of 2006?

Interesting post by Stirling Newberry at BOPNews.com regarding the true motivation behind Lieberman's loss...

This race isn't really about the war - it is about lying. People feel they have been lied to - about the economy, about how sound the housing market is - one rural route was packed with for sale signs for homes - but it is the war that they have proof positive they were lied about. They want someone who can stand up to Bush - who is not "the President" but "that President" - and someone who won't lie to them any more. Lieberman's campaign, desperate to keep the election close, or even win under depressed turn out - has lied about Lamont's past, about his own record on the war - and now about their site being hacked. (my emphasis)

Interesting point. I wonder if the anger that is tapped here is truly from the national feeling - or a personal frustration at Lieberman (after the general impression of inevitability of his re-election). As I read the previous blog posts, I see very little extolling support for Lieberman, and a lot of people expressing their anger at him. With the blogosphere leading and the mainstream media reporting on the Cinderella story of Ned Lamont and drubbing of Lieberman, is it any wonder why he became the focus of the Dems anger at this time?

Integrity is a tough quality to measure - especially when you consider that it is not measured by the winds, but by a personal code. I wonder - does Joe actually think that the war is good or is it support for the Administration policies? The people that I know, who know him personal, speak of his incredible integrity and the fact that he would not be so duplicitous. His belief in the country and the threats that exist lead me to believe that he is strong on his convictions, even when faced with a vocal group of constituents who disagree with him.

Does he know something we do not?
Is it right to assume that Lieberman is privy to other pieces of data that we are not - and is it this information that leads him to make these decisions? It is this integrity that makes me (want to) believe that he must have some reason for his unwavering faith in this course of action. Maybe I am being naive about my belief in the goodness of others - but as I have said before, a number of friends have vouched for his integrity - and for that, he gets credit from me.

And, as I have said before, I am not in support of the war or the actions that have brought us to where we are today - but I still believe in the inherent goodness of the man - even if he seems to have lost the pulse or the sheer representative nature of his position.

Thought exercise: are Representatives/Senators supposed to be a pollster to their state in terms of expressing the majority opinion of the state - OR - are they to be the person we would trust to represent the best interests of our state in Congress? Is it better to have a representative reflect the moods of the people they represent, or be the person they have represented themselves to be in Congress? Or should we use the word AND?

UPDATE: just read at Media Matters that Bill O'Reilly and I seem to share a similar view on Lieberman. Not sure if that is a good thing or not, especially since I do not think highly of O'Reilly.

Tags: Joe2006.com, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Political Integrity

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 4:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ummm - Lieberman website crashing?

Interesting - learning about Lieberman's website going down - yes, you could potentially call this "hacking", but when you are under a large amount of traffic - as long as the traffic is coming from many different hosts, this would not be counted as a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Let me see "the facts" - which, by the way, are snipets of information gleaned from the blogosphere

• The Leiberman website suffered from delays on Monday night and crashed by 7am Tuesday morning (Stanford Advocate)
• According to Dan Geary, there were numerous requests for "web pages, FTP files, and emails" which swamped the server. (MSNBC)
• The Joe2006.com server was on a shared machine which hosted 70+ other sites (DailyKos)
• The Joe2006.com server more than likely was on a low-cost solution that could have had a large bandwidth allocation (gleaned from multiple blogs and from MSNBC)
• Joe2006.com email server is hosted at the GoDaddy/SecureServer service provider (DNS Stuff)
• The Lieberman/Lamont primary was the most contested race on Monday/Tuesday which would have had a large amount of traffic on Monday and Tuesday (see previous post about web traffic)
• Today, the Joe2006.com website is hosted at a different IP address (68.178.232.95) as I gleaned from pinging the server

So what do I see? Actually, not enough for a conclusion. Simply - I would want to see the server logs on machine hosted at IP address 69.56.129.130 (the original site of the Joe2996.com site). Dan suggests that he got a deluge of FTP (port 21), emails (port 113/25) and web requests (port 80). Since the machine will track via logs. If there is an attack, it would have logs to show for it.

My guess is that the server was having problems because shared servers are reknowned for having limited number of web clients to handle traffic. No amount of bandwidth can address not enough web server processes to handle the enormity of requests. Just this week, one of my clients (www.goodnightburbank.com) just launched a new episode of their show. Interestingly - we have over 100GB of download purchased, but the site would not load for many people. What I discovered was the virtual/dedicated server only had a max of 10 http clients available for spawning and had no growth for increased need. Once I increased the settings, I was able to handle the enormity of the requests and the site was running smoothly once again.

What? What are you saying?
Best way to explain is using a supermarket analogy. When the supermarket is in normal operation, two cashiers are usually enough to handle the number of customers - and if each customer has ten items, then there is a set amount of time to go through each of the items and handle the transaction. And if the items are all the same, small size, then the time can be estimated pretty consistantly. But what happens when suddenly a hurricane is announced and everyone comes into the supermarket to purchase items. And not only toothbrushes or sliced luncheon meat, but big bags of dog food and gallons of water?

Now the store has only a set number of employees in the store, and a subset of them can actually run the cash registers. You can see that even though there might be an increase in throughput by the cashiers, the large number of requests would queue up and come to a standstill with long lines filling the interior of the store. Now add one more behaviour - after 10 minutes of waiting, people begin to leave the store in anger and disgust.

What I have just described is what happens between a web browser and a web server, if the web server is the cashier bank and the web browser is a single customer. The groceries are the various components of the webpage that are being requested by your web browser. In the case of the Joe2006.com homepage, there were 16 images that were separate from the actual page and unknown number of background images that also needed to be loaded. On top of this, the code running the website was not simply a web server - it was also a dynamically generated website which ran PHP (which is notoriously known as a processor hog). And, even if they did try to switch over to a new server which could handle the processing - the DNS timeout (telling the computers on the Internet to go to a different machine) would not have propogated (read: happened) in a time. Am I surprised the website ran slow? Not at all.

How to prove who did what?
Get the server logs. Real simple - and if the machine crapped out - it will be because the traffic load. If there were strange FTP requests or email requests, that would prove something was up. And, you can tell if they switched servers to a better machine to handle the load, because other DNS servers will know when the information changes for the IP address and the TTL (time-to-live: how often it checks for changes iin the IP address). But my gut tells me that they were suffering from a underpowered server - not too little bandwidth.

Related Kerry story
Yes - as usual, there is a related Kerry story. When we first were migrating from our underpowered server, Slate ran an article on our newest video ad and we suddenly found our web server coming to a screeching halt. Fortunately, we were literally were 90 minutes away from switching our video content to Akamai. That meant we had shortened the TTL time to 30 minutes and Akamai had the video streaming service operating - and we recovered within 45 minutes. And this was in October 2003 - well before the crushing traffic we were to experience in the coming months.

Tags: Joe2006.com, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Denial of Service, Overloaded Server

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 9:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack