by Rachel Rose Hartman

Credit the tea party, our election system or just plain ambition, but 2010 is fast becoming the year for established candidates to shun the two major political parties.

Write-in or third-party candidates look to significantly shake things up in several major statewide races Nov. 2 — and this week, yet another major candidate disclosed he may be adding his name to that list.

Republican Rep. Mike Castle said Wednesday that he “probably” would not wage a write-in candidacy for Delaware senator. But he also said he hasn’t ruled the option out; he’s pondering it, he said, “simply because it’s there, simply because I’ve had a number of people who’ve asked that I do that.” Castle, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, lost his Republican primary campaign to an insurgent tea party candidate, and is looking at a write-in effort like the one Murkowski announced last week as a way back into the 2010 political fray.

Below is a roundup of  some of the year’s most significant independent candidates — together with a look at their motivations and the odds that they’ll prevail on Election Day.

• Tim Cahill for Massachusetts governor: Cahill was serving as state treasurer last year when he announced his decision to leave the Democratic Party. The switch allowed Cahill to avoid a tough primary battle against incumbent Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Cahill has been a prolific fundraiser and a frequent target of GOP attacks aimed at boosting the profile of Republican nominee Charlie Baker. But Cahill’s role in November may just be as a spoiler. Most recent polls indicate that Cahill trails both Patrick and Baker. Cahill appears to be siphoning votes from both parties — meaning that the party base losing the smaller portion of its supporters to Cahill probably has the best shot at the governorship.
• Lincoln Chafee for Rhode Island governor: Chafee was a member of the Republican Party when he served in the U.S. Senate, but after losing his re-election campaign in 2006, he left the party and became an independent.  So after several years working in the private sector and being officially aligned with independents, Chafee brought his new political identity back into the political arena. His record as a maverick moderate vote in the GOP Senate caucus  has helped him secure key endorsements from labor unions and other organizations that lean to the center and the left. Polls show that Chafee has a strong shot at besting Democratic challenger Frank Caprio in the open-seat race. Republican Ken Block continues to trail his two opponents.
• Charlie Crist for Florida Senate: Crist, the sitting Republican governor of Florida, was campaigning for the GOP Senate nomination at the start of this year. But Crist’s GOP primary bid soon fell afoul of a strong challenge from tea-party-endorsed candidate Marco Rubio. So in April, Crist, who had drawn criticism within the GOP for his moderate policy record and his support for  Obama on key issues such as the 2009 economic stimulus, announced in April that he would wage a “no party” bid in Florida. Initially, Crist was able to siphon support from both major parties, especially since the Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meek, has failed to gain major traction. But polls show that Rubio has built a strong lead the open-seat race.
• Lisa Murkowski for Alaska Senate: Sen. Murkowski lost her Republican primary to tea party candidate Joe Miller in a stunning upset last month. Last week, Murkowski announced her decision to wage a write-in campaign. Because of the uncertain nature of write-in campaigns, it’s unclear whether Murkowski will win the race in November, but her re-emergence has national Republicans girding for a very tough race.
• Tom Tancredo for Colorado governor: Tancredo, a former Republican congressman and 2008 presidential candidate, was so unhappy with the GOP bench in Colorado’s gubernatorial race that he issued an ultimatum to the candidates this summer: If polls showed the primary winner behind in the open-seat race, the nominee would have to drop out or face a challenge from Tancredo himself. But Tancredo didn’t wait that long. He launched a candidacy under the American Constitution Party before the primary. Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper, the mayor of Denver, leads the open-seat race in most major polls, while Tancredo continues to complicate GOP efforts by splitting the Republican vote.

March 15, 2010

Jim Coyle

“By silencing her caucus, Horwath probably did assert her leadership and avoid potential rifts. But, in the doing, she backpedalled from some of the long-standing, and laudable, traditions of her party.

And she gave the young another reason to roll their eyes at a business where fearless minds and independent voices need not apply.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/779829

There are at least two ways of looking at any issue. And Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath was likely getting eyed from a couple of angles for ordering her MPPs not to participate in a forum on whether the province should end public funding of Catholic schools.

On the one hand, Horwath – just a year on the job as leader – demonstrated authority, discipline and a wary eye for what’s historically been an incendiary issue.

On the other, she resembled, oh, Stephen Harper in her top-down muzzling of those elected, presumably, to speak their minds in the arena of competing ideas and not to shy from the tricky stuff.

Barry Weisleder, chair of the NDP’s socialist caucus, said Toronto MPP Michael Prue (who campaigned for the party leadership on reopening the school funding debate) had initially agreed to participate in the forum.

But even though the party’s provincial council has established a task force to examine public education funding options, Prue was ordered by the leader to bow out.

“So much for freedom of speech in the ONDP, at least on this important question,” Weisleder said.

There are at least a couple of reasons to cock an eyebrow at Horwath’s reluctance to have her caucus members participate.

One is that the NDP is legendary for its insistence on debating everything. Its conventions are usually gabfests on all issues under the sun and members are seldom happier than when protracted dispute arises over the most arcane of procedural points. Having one’s say appears to be part of a New Democrat’s DNA.

Horwath’s decision probably also plays worse with that demographic her party needs most – youth. There’s declining interest among the young in institutional politics. Their activism tends to be expressed through extra-parliamentary organizations. In considerable measure, this is because stifling, paternalistic party discipline is foreign to the ethos in which most under-30s have been raised.

The adage that children (like dutiful MPPs) are to be seen but not heard has long been rendered an anachronism.

Contemporary young have been encouraged to express themselves from the cradle. They vote people off the island, choose the latest pop-cult idol, tweet about any fleeting thought that flits across their consciousness.

They’ve been educated to assert themselves rather than unquestioningly defer. As Jean Twenge wrote in Generation Me, teenagers once admonished to “be polite” are now urged to “be yourself.”

The “question authority” mantra of the youth of the ’60s has now been around almost 50 years.

It’s worth noting that in the five by-elections in Ontario in the last year, only two of the MPPs elected were under 50 – and those by just a few years. One is almost 70.

Queen’s Park is not a counter, it would appear, where youth must be served.

As with any other cohort, the less young people see their views and values reflected in politics the less heed they give it.

By silencing her caucus, Horwath probably did assert her leadership and avoid potential rifts. But, in the doing, she backpedalled from some of the long-standing, and laudable, traditions of her party.

And she gave the young another reason to roll their eyes at a business where fearless minds and independent voices need not apply.

Jim Coyle’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

“Today, no voter’s mind is changed by what is said in Parliament, partly because free and informed debate no longer occurs in Parliament and partly because party discipline and the concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office precludes members from speaking honestly. Parliament, in short, is little more than an unedifying charade.”

Don’t forget the comments.

Suppose the House lights were never turned back on … The Canadian Press

What public function does Parliament serve? Give up?

Ian Hunter

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Feb. 09, 2010 6:48PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010 9:36AM EST

He’s done it again.

An MP widely considered invisible at best, and horrible at worst, has been saved from local rejection after party headquarters denied his own riding directors the chance to shop for a better Conservative candidate.

For reasons the national office will not explain, the Conservatives have thrown blanket protection over Calgary West MP Rob Anders to enforce his apparently unalienable right to carry their banner into the next election.

Not only did the party shut down any risk of the incumbent suffering a pre-election dumping, but last weekend it seized control of local membership lists, the cash box and the power to call an annual general meeting, shutting down a volunteer association elected only last March by Conservatives at large.

The only crime committed by these mutineering rascals was to request a vote among paid-up members on the possibility of contesting the re-nomination of Mr. Anders.

Fending off challengers might be understandable if the MP was a cabinet minister or MP with a hefty workload, but Mr. Anders is a zero-impact MP who only flares in the headlines when he opens mouth and inserts foot.

It’s true the Conservative constitution, as does all federal parties, permits national officials to annoint a candidate over local preferences. And there’s no denying party leadership the right to screen applicants vying to be its flagbearers for quality control.

But this heavy-handed move denies a local riding the right to even ask the question about contesting an incumbent of questionable quality. And that burns to the populist roots of a party whose first MP in that particular riding was named Stephen Harper.

Local sentiment is clearly against Mr. Anders as their preferred candidate. No other Conservative MP had a non-partisan website dedicated to defeating them in the last vote and no other association is so antagonistically divided over the merits of the local MP.

The Conservative party refuses all comment on the Calgary West fiasco, which only increases confusion on why it takes such a keen interest in keeping Mr. Anders on its backbench.

The hard-right, deeply pro-life Anders is an awkward fit with the upscale cosmopolitan voters of Calgary West, which boasts the eighth highest average family income in Canada.

“Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative,” Mr. Harper declared after saving his candidate from a challenge two years ago. “He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work.”

Work? Really? Mr. Anders, 37, has spent his entire adult life as an rarely-seen MP, his only apparent profession being a paid heckler for a right-wing U.S. Republican candidate.

His main claim to political fame in the Commons was to deny the required House unanimity to bestow former South Africa president Nelson Mandela with an honorary Canadian citizenship.  His only contribution to Commons discourse last fall was to congratulate a local couple on their 55th wedding anniversary. His total verbal contribution to Hansard in 2009 was less than 600 words, making him the 302nd least talkative MP out of 308.

Even Alberta Conservatives are publicly complaining about Mr. Anders for his open flirtation with the upstart Wild Rose Alliance.

So why protect such a weak candidate when strong contenders would undoubtedly emerge to seek a seat which automatically delivers 50% of the vote to the Conservative?  Search me.

It would be a stretch to link the domineering nature of party managers to leader Stephen Harper, who is now suffering a backlash for dismissing Parliament on a whim and retaliating against opposition complaints by demanding longer sittings upon their return.

But Mr. Harper would undoubtedly have to sign off on this unprecedented act of national retaliation against locals whose only interest was to land the best possible candidate for their riding.

For the prime minister to treat rival parties with disdain is part of the political blood sport.

But to stomp on his own party members for daring to peep in protest at their low-calibre representative is freakish example of excessive control when member choice should prevail, particularly in a riding where being the ballot box Conservative is spelled M.P.

dmartin@nationalpost.com
National Post