By Ron Kahlow, on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET We welcome a new partner at the site, Vote-USA.org, with a piece by its founder and director, Ron Kahlow:
 With two clicks and an address, Vote-USA.org provides voters with their customized sample ballot containing pictures of the candidates and their social media links. In another click, a voter can compare the candidates’ biographical information for any office in a side-by-side manner. Subsequent clicks allow the voter to compare the views and positions of the candidates on the particular issues that concern the voter, always side-by-side for easy comparison. In addition, all of the information comes directly from the candidates themselves or is extracted from their campaign websites, i.e., there is no marketing spin or deception. That is the real power of the Vote-USA.org website. It is the ability to provide each voter the specific unfiltered views and positions of the candidates that they seek, quickly and easily. It is to enable the independent-minded voters to make their own decisions about candidates and ballot measures, and help them vote on a more informed basis.
Vote-USA.org has been providing this service to voters since the 2004 General Election. But many voters would probably ask why they have not found this resource during the last 8 years. Frankly, it is a tale of triumph and disaster, a tale of naivety, a tale of obsession, a tale of pride and embarrassment, a tale of not knowing when to give up, and a tale of David and Goliath.
My tale begins when I went to the polls to vote in the 2003 Virginia off-year election for Virginia Senate and House offices. When I entered the voting booth, I didn’t know anything about any single candidate or anything about the ballot measures. I didn’t even know there were any ballot measures. As I stood in the booth, I thought, what’s the value of voting if you don’t know who you are voting for, and making thoughtless decisions about ballot measures? Then driving home, I saw all those political posters trashing up the highways. This got my blood boiling. I thought to myself, is this any way to select the people to represent me? And, when I reached home and turned on the TV, there was an insulting, deceptive candidate-bashing political ad. The idea of spending billions of dollars to deceive me to vote this way or that pushed me over the edge. At that moment, I envisioned creating Vote-USA.org to fix this blatant fundamental flaw in our political system.
In 2003, I owned an Internet digital marketing agency, Business OnLine (BusinessOL.com), and I was convinced I could use my for-profit company resources to develop a solution to fix this problem. On a hobby basis, I built the first version of what is today Vote-USA.org and it was operative for the 2004 General Elections. I sent letters to all of the Federal and State candidates with their login credentials to enter whatever information they wanted. Few responded because the system is stacked in favor of incumbents. I was too naïve not to have realized that there was no incentive for them to change the game with this new Internet trump card. But, voters responded overwhelmingly. Remember the 2004 TV ad of people watching the number of hits promoting a product via ecommerce? Well that is what we experienced. As Election Day approached, a trickle turned into a torrent and then simply exploded. Triumph quickly turned to disaster as word spread. Our servers became overloaded and could not respond to the overwhelming demand. Frankly, for somebody in the Internet space business, this was an embarrassment.
Clearly we were easing the pain of voters because there was such enormous demand for this tool. So, the next couple years were spent attempting to rectify the problems of the 2004 elections. We built a farm of servers to handle the expected load. Since most candidates would not provide us with their information, we built the tools necessary to easily scrape their websites. Then, we hired a firm to do the scraping. We also developed tools to readily enter state election rosters.
Our efforts marginally paid off in the 2005 and 2006 elections. It seemed that regardless of how many servers we employed, the demand always exceeded the capacity. Although we keep Vote-USA.org up for longer periods of time, we could never keep the website up through the entire voting period.
But the biggest problem of all was cost. The financial resources needed far exceeded everybody’s wildest imagination. Voters were very kind with their tax deductible donations to support our operation, but this was only a very tiny fraction of what was needed. So, I and a friend covered the difference. Now, any reasonable thinking person would have thrown in the towel. But, one of my flaws is not knowing when to give up. I became obsessed with the mission and too proud to call it quits.
But that was not the end of our pains. Not long after the 2006 elections, we were hammered by the Internet Goliath Google. Vote-USA.org suddenly stopped appearing on all of Google’s search listings and all our pages had no Google ranking. We were totally blocked by Google and other search engines. We made numerous attempts, over a period of years, to find the reason(s) for this action and made numerous attempts to get the block removed. Finally, only after a very powerful Washington insider approached Google with our complaint did Google reveal the reason for its blocking action and finally we managed to resolve this problem. So, if you ask why you have not found us sooner, it is because the gatekeeper of the Internet locked the gate on us and only recently has it been opened. We believe there was nothing malicious on Google’s part. The problem centered on Google’s inability to effectively spider and index our website.
Our final, and most significant problem of voter traffic at election time has been solved by moving our website onto the cloud. We now have almost unlimited power at election time.
So, where are things today? Well we have built what we set out to build in 2003 and all of the problems and obstacles encountered so far have, to my knowledge, been solved. We are, however, without financial resources to continue; so, we manage to keep things running on a month-to-month basis. But, our most valuable asset is the will to continue regardless of what is thrown at us. And, we believe that what we are doing is not only helping citizens vote on a more informed basis but also serving as a counterbalance to the corrupting influence of money in politics. We believe that these are things worth fighting for regardless of the cost.
By RP Staff, on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET  For three generations, John Y. Browns have been active Democratic politicians in Kentucky.
John Y. Brown Sr., my great-grandfather, was an avid supporter of FDR’s New Deal while serving a term in the US House of Representatives and was a champion of various liberal causes in Kentucky’s state House for several decades.
John Y. Brown Jr., my grandfather, served one term as a Democratic governor of the Commonwealth and was the national chairman for the Democratic Telethons of the early 1970s.
My father, John Y. Brown III, was a two term Democratic Secretary of State and delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1996.
Being the fourth John Y. Brown, most people would expect that I would follow the tradition and become a Democrat. However, when I turn 18 later this month, I plan on registering with the Republican Party. It has been a decision that I have thought out fully and feel good about—even if it appears to break with a family political tradition.
 As my political philosophy developed over the years, it became clearer and clearer that I was drifting rightward. My father would tell me that he believed the temperament we’re born with influences our political philosophy—as much as our ideas and beliefs. My personal political journey has confirmed this in many ways. Every time I heard about an issue where there was major disagreement between the political parties, I found myself siding with the Republicans over the Democrats. Eventually, I stopped resisting this and embraced my inclination toward a conservative political philosophy.
Read the rest of…
John Y. Brown, IV: Why I’m Registering As a Republican
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET  Ron Granieri’s Response
[Click here to follow the full debate thread]
This is a fascinating question. Although I am not sanguine about Romney’s chances no matter who he picks, his choice will help shape the future of the GOP, just as the choice of Sarah Palin has, for better or worse, helped shape the debate within the GOP since 2008.
With that in mind, I will say two things:
1. If Mitt picks another white guy, no matter his ideological or geographical advantages, he loses. Period. it is not tokenism, but simple recognition of the demographics of the electorate and the hole that the primary discussions have dug for the party that leads me to that conclusion.
 2, He also needs to shore up his right. Even his worst enemy knows that. He could also use someone with a lot more zip to deliver attacks. So, I do not make predictions , but I think Allen West should stay by the phone.
By Mark Nickolas, on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM ET  Mark Nickolas’ Response
[Click here to follow the full debate thread]
At the top of Romney’s problems is that he’s not viewed as a real conservative among his base (loss of enthusiasm) and he’s lost so much likability among the swing voters. If Marco Rubio wasn’t a freshman senator with his own family baggage, he’d be a shoe-in, but I say not this year.
First term New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez would have been my call but not for what Sarah Palin to destroy any chance that someone who fits her own political profile could get picked.
I think Jonathan’s choice of Portman is a good pick if Romney wanted to project a thoughtful, businesslike team, but Romney’s problems aren’t ones that Portman picks, and remember that Portman was Bush’s OMB director in 2006 and 2007 and that could bite them in a message that what America needs is not a return to Bush economic policies. Romney can’t just go safe and hope to win.
 My pick…is Mike Huckabee. A seasoned governor. Likable. Conservatives love him. America never hated him. Principled. I’m not saying that they could win. I actually don’t see a scenario where Romney wins the general unless he’s willing to infuriate his base by selecting a true moderate like Susan Collins or retiring Olympia Snowe. But if I have to predict who he picks, it’s Huckabee.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM ET Ron Granieri: Rebuttal #2
[Artur Davis’ Provocation, Robert Kahne’s Rebuttal #1]
These days, when people speak abstractly about the kind of President the country needs, they usually say that it should be someone with legislative experience, who can reach across the aisle to compromise with the other party, who can make difficult decisions, and who enjoys the respect, even friendship of other world leaders, thus improving the international standing of the United States.
In my lifetime, we had just such a President, and no one appreciated him much. He still receives only occasional credit from history and policy geeks, and makes little impression on the public memory, never showing up on anyone’s list of the greatest Presidents. And yet, the closer you look at the actual record, the more of a gem he appears to have been.
I am talking of course about Gerald R. Ford.
I can hear the gasps now. Wait, you say, you mean the guy who fell down the stairs of Air Force One and helped launch the career of Chevy Chase and “Saturday Night Live?” The guy whose name graces the title of one of John Updike’s lamer late novels? The guy who pardoned Richard Nixon? That Gerald Ford?
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Greatness: Ron Granieri Rebuts
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET Ron Granieri’s Second Response
[Krystal Ball’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #2; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s Rebuttal #4; Ron Granieri’s First Response; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #5; The RP’s First Response:; Jimmy Dahroug’s Rebuttal #6; Artur Davis’ First Defense; Krystal Ball’s First Defense]
Krystal crystallizes the debate down to its key element, so let me offer this counter question:
Do the American people prefer logic....
 Or FABULOUS PRIZES!!!!!!?
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET Ron Granieri’s First Response
[Krystal Ball’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #2; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s Rebuttal #4]
Touché, Jonathan (he drawled while slouching in an old office chair…). You are quite right that Gingrich is no Reagan, nor are any of the other impostors. The analogy is flawed, but nonetheless retains its admonitory power. Indeed, as Robert Reich has written elsewhere, liberals should temper their enthusiasm for a Gingrich candidacy because even a small percentage chance of his election is too much.
Ultimately, all such comparisons should make us remember Jonathan’s favorite philosopher, Karl Marx, who famously wrote in The 18th Brumaire: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.
He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre [Gingrich for Reagan]….precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.”
Peace out.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
Ron Granieri: Rebuttal #3
[Krystal Ball’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #2]
I understand the premature Schadenfreude that so many Democrats are feeling as they rub their hands gleefully and imagine how easy it will be to pick off the weakened Republican nominee after this primary fight.
I can also see why so many writers imagine that this is 1984 or 1972 or 1964 all over again, with an opposition party hopelessly captive to ideological extremists furiously working toward massive defeat. Maybe it will be. I am not much for predictions. Being a historian means I have spent my professional life shaking my head over predictions later proven to be false.
With that in mind, I will only offer this memory of my father, who would have been 75 this past Wednesday. It was late 1979, and my father, a lifelong Democrat, was bemoaning the weakened position of President Carter. (He would eventually support Ted Kennedy’s rebellion against the President, which should give you an idea of his positions on things.)
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate the GOP Slugfest: Ron Granieri Rebuts
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 9:30 AM ET Ron Grainieri: Rebuttal #2
[The RP’s Provocation, Artur Davis’s Rebuttal #1]
Artur raises a crucial point, whether the money raised from gambling will really make that much of a difference, that I think deserves close attention.
As the proud product of parochial schools whose existence depended upon Bingo, I am well beyond worrying about the moral implications of using proceeds from vice to pursue virtuous ends. Considering how governments at various levels already derive revenue from other vices, such as tobacco and alcohol, as well as already existing lotteries, I view the moral debate on legalized and regulated gambling as forced and ultimately irrelevant. It is far too late for the brothel denizen known as the treasury to wish to regain its virginity.
I will say that I do not like the fact that the gambling industry has succeeded in re-christening (re-luciferizing?) itself as the “gaming” industry, which I consider a classic example of transparent mendacious marketing. It is supposed to make the activity appear somehow wholesome and entertaining, and to encourage us to avoid thinking about the whole, “most of the people who play lose their money” angle. Spare me. People play games like Missile Command (the greatest video game in the history of entertainment) for the fun of the game, and are happy to know that every quarter so spent is lost forever. Slot machines only exist because people are gambling on the hope of winning more money. To pretend otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of anything with a pulse.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:30 AM ET Ron Granieri: Rebuttal #4
[The RP’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #2; John Y. Brown, III’s Rebuttal #3]
I have to admit that I have had a serious bias against Tim Tebow since his college days, a bias that has its roots in a fundamental theological difference.
You see, everything about Tim Tebow is an affront to my deeply held beliefs, as communicated to me through the Church to which I have belonged since birth.
I am referring, of course, to the Church of the Classic Drop-Back Quarterbacks.
How well and with such joy I remember sitting on Sundays in The Church of the Three Holy J’s [Jack, Joe, and Jim—three names holy to all Western New York football fans] as the priest opened each service with the Sign of the QB: “In the name of Unitas, and of Starr, and of the Perfect Spiral, Amen.” I can still recite entire passages from Scripture, such as this from The Sermon of Yankee Stadium, 1958 [John 19: 82]:
“Blessed are they who, when the game is on the line, can stand in the pocket and deliver the ball, for they shall win The Greatest Game of All Time.”
I also clearly remember the passages from the old Baltimore [Colt] Catechism:
Q. Why did God make the Quarterback?
A: He made him to read the defense, to identify the open receiver, and to lead that receiver to the End Zone with an accurate throw.
For one whose beliefs are as deep and traditional as my own, Tim Tebow’s style of play is nothing less than blasphemous. Of course, I am used to having my beliefs insulted by both players and an elite sports media that has rushed time and again to declare my beliefs antiquated and ill-suited to the present. How often have we been told that the “Quarterback of the Future” will be more mobile, less reliant on the Deep Out? Who after all can forget Sports Illustrated crowning Randall Cunningham as “The Ultimate Weapon,” the infamous “Slash Heresy,” or even the outburst of Flutopian Enthusiasm in my own home region? Of course, in each case, I have watched those heresies flower and wither, as championships continue to be earned by classic quarterbacks such as Brady, Rodgers, Warner, and Manning.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Tim Tebow: Ron Granieri Rebuts
|
|
With two clicks and an address, Vote-USA.org provides voters with their customized sample ballot containing pictures of the candidates and their social media links. In another click, a voter can compare the candidates’ biographical information for any office in a side-by-side manner. Subsequent clicks allow the voter to compare the views and positions of the candidates on the particular issues that concern the voter, always side-by-side for easy comparison. In addition, all of the information comes directly from the candidates themselves or is extracted from their campaign websites, i.e., there is no marketing spin or deception. That is the real power of the Vote-USA.org website. It is the ability to provide each voter the specific unfiltered views and positions of the candidates that they seek, quickly and easily. It is to enable the independent-minded voters to make their own decisions about candidates and ballot measures, and help them vote on a more informed basis.
