You may have noticed that I posted a couple of comments in some posts today. They were received via email. Yes, you can email your comments to me, and I will post them...yes, I may even turn comments back on some time soon. I just needed a break from deleting comment spam all day.
In the course of the email exchange Mr. Two Dogs and I had a civilized conversation, and one where I wasn't even going to jump to any conclusion about his political ethos because we were sticking to discussing facts, not how much I deserve to burn in hell as the wanton, hedonist I am, or he, as the heartless, hypocritical wingnut he is. (No, I'm not saying we really are those things; I'm saying that what poses as "political debate" in this country right now.)
Anyway, Mr. Two Dogs does turn out to be a blogger with a clear, um, point of view. But he's been nice enough to link to me and even call me "nice" :)
Of course, I'm not sure he's doing me any real favors, as there are plenty of people who are far less respectful than Two Dogs and will be happy to call me a wanton hedonist and much much worse just because we disagree, and he's probably sending a bunch of 'em my way!
FYI: Bottomfeeder indicates, according to Two Dogs, "Every week, I will drop by some of the blogs on the lower rungs of the Ecosystem ladder. These picks will not suck, they are either just starting or are not chomping at the link bit."
I feel so gratified to know I do not suck ;)
Anyway, you gotta love a guy who calls his blog (and himself) "Mean Ol' Meany". Or, at least, I do.
Andrew Rasiej is running for office in New York City, for the office of Public Advocate no less. [Yeah, I didn't know really what that did either.]
Even so, his online campaign managers decided to plan and execute a conference call with bloggers nation-wide.
The idea: that technology will change politics, and if he starts at the local level to be the one to do it, then good for him.
Rasiej was motivated to run for office after advising Democrats about technology and how to use to mobilize and motivate. They nodded politely, then called him for donations. So he decided to roll up sleeves and throw his own hat in the ring. And the reason he decided on the office of Public Advocate is not that the office is technically 2nd in line to Mayor, but rather because it's the city-wide official charged with making sure the public is heard, and that government is open and transparent. Sounds like a job for the Internet, no?
(Well, as long as we can help bridge the digital divide in our poorer neighborhoods. If we can't then we're just setting up the same old elite via different tools.)
Rasiej's ultimate goal is to build a network of public advocates in NYC who are already working in neighborhoods solving problems and to demonstrate how these technologies and ideas on how to use them can be applied to help Democrats build new base of support where new ideas and new people can enter the system. The Democrats need to stop only looking for money and wait ing for messages from top. They also need to put energy and time into civic action at as local a level as possible. Rasiej believes that the Democratic party can be rebuilt on a new platform that is connected to what happens in people's lives.
Which brings up the Republicans. Rasiej believes that the Repugs are ahead of the Dems in figuring out how to communicate across all levels, share databases, work effectively. But he believes they are still working in a top-down model and not taking advantage of a kind of peer-to-peer networking that social media technologies enable.
I was able to ask a question and clarify that he believes that yes, Repugs are more successful using technology to communicate but no, he doesn't think their platform is really connected to what happens in people's lives. (My example was the Repug reliance on gay marriage as an issue, when most of the people they're appealing to don't know anyone trying to participate in a gay wedding.)
Rasiej thinks it is critical that the party leadership recognize that technology is underneath their noses to empower people and can be harnessed. He would like to make the case for investing in building technical infrastructure that would allow for bottom-up projects to occur.
He gave us two great examples: Safe Streets...a site put together by local women. Mapping locations where crimes/rapes have occurred. The second example is a site he had something to do with putting up: WeFixNYC. New Yorkers can post pics of potholes, broken fixtures, any problem. It's up on a web site, and the city can respond. The site is up and running and even linked to Google Maps, so you can see the physical location of problems.
Mary Hodder brought up the ever-popular concept of framing: Safe Streets. How could anyone argue with that? But explanations of ubiquitous metropolitan WiFi? Those are longer and more involved. Is there better framing we could brainstorm and employ? Rasiej seems to think the powers-that-be are so backward that they're not ready for it.
There are really two aren't there?
Citizen Engagement
and
Economic Development
But my question is whether those currently in power really want the "Citizen Engagement" part to come true. If less than half the electorate votes, well then that's half the electorate they don't have to worry about appeasing or appealing to.
It's the public; it's that other half of the electorate who needs to be sold that they must add their voices to elections at every level now, and clamor for such grass roots-oriented civic proposals as city-wide WiFi. The public is the "sleeping giant" that needs to be woken up.
And Rasiej agreed that if that sleeping giant wakes up it will wake up the other sleeping giant: the Democratic Party.
NYC is obviously a big case study. If NYC can follow Philly and SF's leads and implement WiFi it will be harder for it to be blocked elsewhere.
Interesting call. Rasiej is talking about things that you just don't hear in the political landscape very often.
Check out Andrew Rasiej in more detail.
And if you're a registered voter in NYC then get the hell out there on 9/13 and VOTE.
Let me tell you about this guy: he is an absolutely passionate anti-Bush guy. He threw himself into politics for, I believe, the first time last year. He came to 2 of my fundraisers, and then he came to both of my mom's phone-banking days.
He was, by far, the most dedicated dialer we had. The rest of us would make a dozen calls and feel the need to stretch and chat. He sat in a room dialing for hours.
Not only is he devastated by Bush's win, he is not happy with the Democrats. He is among those looking for strength from us: strong responses; strong stands; strong, pro-active leadership.
Hear it in his own words in the extended entry:
My 2 cents:
Everything the Democrats have been doing since the election reminds me of an annoying little dog that barks incessantly. Yes, Boxer spoke but there was no unity in the democratic bench and Condi got easily nominated. Even our Joe Lieberman nominated her because she has a "good relationship" with the president. All the Democrats are doing is waiting for the prez to f%$k up and then call him on it. Well, he does f^&k up and they do call him on it but it doesn't matter. The election showed that. Democrats need a voice that will carry the organization and create a following not just some aimless bickering.
Also, I am hearing that Hilllary is going to run in 2008 and she is considered the front runner. If (strong if) McCain runs against her he will win hands down. Even I may vote for McCain as well as I don't think she is a true voice of the Democrats but more of a politician out for fame."
Wow. Harsh, right?
But we better listen to guys like this.
Democrats do need to be unified. we need to capitalize on the fact that it is the Republicans who seem in danger of splintering. (This is a great link from the Center for American Progress. Scroll down to the second story: "Bye Bye Base.")
But he is also right that it does not serve us to wait around for mistakes...the Democrats should have an agenda and push it...make the Republicans look like the obstructionists! (Yes, I know that most of this blog is consumed with highlighting Bush and Republican mistakes, but blogs are good for reporting and retrieving stories that might fall between the cracks, not so much for legislative activities!)
I have to add one more comment: I can't really agree with the opinion he expresses about Hillary's ambition. She's ambitious, but she's also spent a lifetime working on various causes. I believe she is truly committed to social change, and to service. Surely Bill was equally ambitious, and it doesn't bother my friend at all. Hillary would probably go over a lot better if she merely had a soft, Southern voice, not her rather flat Midwestern voice...don't you think? And maybe if she had a penis?
What? Is that bad to say? You know lots of strong women are thinking it, don't you?
So the Koufax Awards, sponsored by Wampum, are a series of awards for left-leaning blogs. (Koufax was a southpaw, a lefty...get it?)
My series of "Conversations With..." undecideds, Republicans, Independents, non-voters and anyone else I could find who wasn't already on my team has been nominated for Best Series.
If you enjoyed hearing alternate points of view as much as I "enjoyed" having to listen to them and write onjectively about them, feel free to cast your vote here.
Welcome Wampum readers!
Why at my Personal Blog?
Well, this is the official blog of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party. They've never given me any rules or guidelines for blogging. But I took the gig knowing I represented an official body...with my personal voice, yes...but an official body.
In the past 8 months there has been only one post that created a bit of a brou-ha-ha. That's it. Other than that I have always said what I wanted, and been pretty confident that I was aligned with the Party and its beliefs.
Now I am really pissed. And appalled. And I am wanting to say some harsh things.
And I just feel like it might be good for me to take a break for a day from "official" posting, so I can say them.
But what's on my personal blog only reflects on me. Not the Party, or its leadership.
So, off I go. Who knows? Maybe I'll be too bummed out to post anything at all anyway.
I wrote about this friend of mine back in April.
Believe it or not, he is still undecided. Remember, he's a life-long, always voted Republican guy, who is pro-life. The fact that he cannot decide to vote for Bush again spells big trouble for Bush.
Read about his ongoing struggle in the extended entry.
On October 21, he wrote this to me:
You're probably wondering about my vote I'll bet. I am undecided. I am a little peeved about the misleading by our admin. for going to war...which has had a big effect on our economy...the deficits, oil, etc........However, I do have two words for this....Adolph Hitler.....makes you wonder about nipping things in the bud, however history does not mean repetition. Advantage Democrats.
I like Sen. Kerry's idea of salvaging our major allies (despite the arrogance at times of the French and Germans)....Advantage Democrats
The debates have to go to Sen. Kerry. He certainly represented himself well there.....Advantage Democrats
There are some moral issues that I side with the Republicans on.....not all....but I do worry that the Democrats are so amoral that it could paralyze decision making down the road....Advantage Republicans.
Social Security....allowing people to invest in more risk adjusted return vehicles...(bonds and other CD yielding returns only...no equities).....otherwise, the solvency of the SS system could be gone by our retirement. I don't like it the way it is. 2% per year before inflation? Not......It is one big wonderful Ponzi scheme.....Advantage Republicans.
Terrorism...........fear factor...................changing of our administration during fearful times....not necessarily right that the Republicans scare people but hey it's an election year....Advantage Republicans.
I am really undecided.....it may take a decision at the booth. This is the first time for me to waver like this since my first year of voting....Advantage Dem's?
I, of course, responded with some points, especially to the issue of "amoral" Democrats!!?? (Pointing out it's not so moral to sacrifice our environment, and our kids' fiscal future, and the needy and disenfranchised, and the Iraqi civilians etc. etc. )
I'm waiting with baited breath to see which way he tips. I think it will be for Kerry.
You may recall my recent Conversation with my Still Undecided Manicurist.
Yesterday was my last chance. My last nail appointment before Tuesday.
She didn't keep me in suspense for long. Yes, she's voting Kerry.
Well, with her husband and her favorite client going that way, I expected as much :)
I have been working on my manicurist to get her to vote for months now.
She has voted in the past, but felt apathetic this year. She is a long-time citizen originally from Vietnam. She is a small business owner whose business has really felt the hurt of the economic downturn. Her husband, a very well paid engineer, voted for Bush in 2000, but is voting for Kerry in 2004.
She did watch the debates, and in fact had people over to watch the last one.
This week she finally said she had decided to vote, but was still undecided. I asked her what questions she still had, and her answers indicate that people are not so much misinformed, but so bombarded with conflicting media spin that they can't parse out what is true.
Read more about her questions in the extended entry:
She know she doesn't like Bush; she is concerned about the right to choose, but she had these three questions:
1. Did Kerry really vote to raise taxes so much and why?
2. Why did Kerry vote to "go to war" and than say it was a bad idea.
3. Why did Kerry vote against the 87 billion?
Each of these questions have a rational, logical answer, which I gave as follow:
1. They are mostly taking every line item in Clinton's big economic stimulus package and treating it as though it were a separate vote to raise taxes. It's misleading. And she agreed that Clinton had been good for the economy.
2. I explained that the day before the vote, Bush called it a vote for "peace". I explained that Kerry had voted to give Clinton the same authority. I explained that on the day of the vote, Kerry had made a speech saying that before using the authority, the UN inspectors should finish their work, and the US needed to get its allies on board. I explained that Bush had promised to get a UN vote and to get our allies on board...a promise he broke.
3. I explained abuot the version of the bill that kerry supported. A version that showed how we would pay for it...via rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy and designating that some of the funds would be repaid by the Iraqis via oil revenues. And that the bill he supported included more monetary assistance for our troops. I explained that Bush had threatened to veto any such version. I explained that Bush prioritized the pocketbooks of the wealthy over our nation's interests, and kerry couldn't vote to support that.
You still might not agree with Kerry's explanations...but the average person has too much trouble getting to hear those explanations.
That's how someone can still be Undecided. They didn't pay too much attention until the debates, and the debates were full of "he said, he said" moments. And the media refuses to simply state what is true and what is not, as though it would make them not objective to discuss facts, rather than each side's opposing spin.
The media reports "Bush says this about Kerry" and "Kerry says this about Bush".
How about doing some investigating and reporting what's factual?
That would help the Undecideds out a lot!
Well, not really a conversation. More of an email pep talk.
DDA (Discouraged Democrat Aunt) just held a fubndraiser and raised $7K, but noentheless is feeling discouraged.
I responded to her with this pep talk:
You MUST think positively. You MUST project that to everyone you meet. If we allow those on our own side to be come convinced of the inevitability of a Bush win, whether via votes or larceny, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. This election is all about voter turn-out. The more who turn out, the more decisively Kerry wins.
The Republicans will try for voter suppression. It is their only hope.
And Democrats only contribute to their cause by all of this public hand wringing and free "advice" for Kerry's campaign. DB [name withheld] needs to shut the hell up, as one example.
People like confidence. Bush does exude that, but more importantly...so does everyone on his team and all of his snarky supporters too.
We need that same snark and confidence.
Go forth and spread the word of Kerry's inevitable WIN!
I was in NYC on business on 9/11. I've told the story many times over the last three years. Each time I tell it I think, I need to write this down. This was a moment in history, and I need to write it down.
So I've finally been doing that over at my personal blog:
Each day I'm writing about what that day was like, three years ago, stuck in NYC.
It's not particularly deep, and my experience was certainly not personally tragic. But if you're into oral (sort of) history of the common person...this was my experience in the City during those days.
I was in Trader Joes' the other day, my favorite grocery store.
Trader Joe's has exactly the nice, friendly hippy-dippy vibe that usually spurs me to ask my checkout person if they are registered to vote.
This day my checkout person was a yong lady, certainly looked older than 18, but likely not older than 21.
I asked her if she was rgistered, and she said no. So then i asked her if she'd like to be.
And her answer (although likely 45% pure excuse) didn't reflect apathy, but rather a sort of misplaced perfectionism.
Read more about her in the extended entry:
So DY (Disaffected Youth) answered me that she WOULD liek to vote, when she felt she really knew what she was voting for.
When I asked what that meant, she said that she hadn't really read up on most things and followed most issues, so she didn't want to go in the booth and just vote for something, without really understanding what she was voting for.
I know how she feels. There are certain elections when there are 20 different Propositions. And between reading the desciptions and the Pro argument, and the Con argument, and the rebuttal to the Pro and the rebuttal to the Con, it's really hard to devote your time and energy to it. And you hate to just vote the way soem mailier from an organization you support tells you to.
Or what about some of the local school board or superior court judge or assembly district races? A lot of these people don't get press, don't have debates, don't send out mailiers.
Really. How are you to know?
So, I told her what I do.
I said..."you know, sometimes I leave certain things blank and don't vote either way. If I don't know anything about it, I don't vote. But for the big things. I go to vote for the big things."
Is this a flawed practice. Am I a less than perfect American now. I suppose so. But the choice isn't all or nothing. And I'd rather get myself out of the nothing camp andmoving toward the all camp.
She looked at me as though she had really never considered such an option.
But she remained unconvinced.
I told her when the deadline is (October 15th.)
And, no I didn't give her a registation form, because I only a couple left in my bag, and she seemed far from ready.
But I think I'm going to go back to Trader Joe's several times before October 15th. And this time I'm going to bring her a Talking Point document I just worked on for the Party entitled: "Critical Differences Between the Parties."
That's just one among several new talking points documents available on our site here
Each one is 1 double-sided page. I carry them around in my purse. And when someone says, well, what about xxxx, be it National Security or John Kerry's Senate record or health care, I pull out a page and give it to them.
DY is going to get the "Critical Differences Between the Parties" one, definitely.
I went to a family function yesterday and saw some aunts I hadn't probably seen in almost a year.
Two of them were definite Democrats, but as I find so common, in need of more information about Kerry. (Keep bugging your local media outlets to actually cover the election and issues, not just scandals and hearsay.)
When one aunt asked about Kerry and national security, I was able to give her our National Security Talking Points document. yes, I carry around these various Talking Points documents.
And when the other aunt wondered what Kerry had ever done, I gave her my only copy of a draft of a new Talking Points document (which should be up on the site in a day or two) which covers Kerry's Lifetime of Service and Sterling Record.
OK, two down. but the third aunt turned out, rather unexpectedly, to be a right-winger, spouting ditto-head pronouncement without anything to back them up except she had heard them somewhere.
Read a little more in the extended entry:
So what were RWA's (Right Wing Aunt) Talking Points?
-Kerry is a flip-flopper...although she couldn't name a single instance of flip-flopping. She simply didn't believe me when I pointed out that Dubya is the major flip-flopper here.
-Here's a good one: The economy is picking up, and she doesn't want someone else to come into office and "take credit" for a better economy like Clinton did.
I made the point to her that Clinton presided over eight years of sustained growth and prosperity, that it hardly seemed possible that Bush Sr.'s 4 years were responsible for that, and that Clinton's monthly average job growth figures exceeded any single month of Dubya's presidency.
-She got a tax cut, so she's happy. When I pointed out to her that Kerry pledged to maintain the tax cuts for middle and lower income folks, she simply conceded that that was what Kerry was saying "now."
-She did not believe me that the majority of our huge deficit problem is attributable to Bush's tax cuts, especially for the top percentage. She believes they are all because of 9/11 and the war.
-Saddam was funding terrorists. Maybe not Al Qaeda, but terrorists somewhere. She had no answer though about why we chose to focus on Saddam and his wrongdoing when we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan, nor had we gone after other countries who were also either a) closer to having real WMDs or b) also funding terrorist organizations.
-Here's one I have never heard to be honest: Kerry used to say he was Jewish, but is only now saying he's Catholic to get the Catholic vote!! Pretty sure that one is just crazy. Yes he discovered some Jewish ancestry, on his dad's side I think, but I he was raised Catholic since boyhood.
-Kerry's wife is so rich! Really. ('Cause the Bushes are such a struggling working class family.) Of course it did kind of sway her when I said I admired any man who was happy and comfortable being with a strong, independent woman who made more than him!
The thing is, RWA is not a big hawk. And she is also not too enamored of Dubya's allegiance to the radical religious right.
Despite all of her talking points, she told me: "If you had a couple of more days with me, you could probably convince me. You have an answer for everything."
So, I intend to keep at it.
She may have sounded like a wacky right winger, but I'm convinced that people who have been swayed by right wing propaganda can still be brought back to reality with hard, cold facts.
Heard a great story from a friend on Friday afternoon.
He's a solid, committed Democrat, but the woman who runs his daughter's day care wasn't really.
She is a naturalized citizen originally from Germany, and closer to retirement age than a mid-life crisis, if you know what I mean.
She has a fairly independent voter, just as likely to go Republican as Democrat, but she was having trouble this time. Trouble imagining voting for a sub-par President like Dubya, but also trouble learning anything of substance about John Kerry.
So she decided to see Kerry speak when he was in town the last time, and she dragged a long a resistant and reluctant friend...one who was equally dissatisfied, but even less likely to consider voting for Kerry.
More about their personal encounter with Kerry in the extended entry:
So, GDCL (German Day Care Lady) and RF (Reluctant Friend) saw Kerry speak. And they both had to admit they liked everything they heard. Not only that, but they couldn't understand the rap Kerry was getting on being stiff and unable to connect to people. They both felt he was a good speaker.
When the event ended GDCL was determined to meet Kerry and at least shake his hand. Having been to that THK fundraiser earlier this year, I can attest that standing on your feet for a long time waiting for someone to speak does make you feel particularly compelled to at least get some personal contact with them at the end.
Of course maybe that's just me.
Anyway, she starts dragging her RF toward the exit that Kerry is heading toward, pulling him by the hand through the crowd. And yes, if you were one of the people she pushed her way through, you probably thought she was really obnoxious.
So, they make it to the door, and Kerry is, by this time, being managed out of the room by Secret Service people. But intrepid GDCL manages to get a handshake and say a couple of words to Kerry as he is being whisked out the door.
GDCL is nudging RF to get a handshake too, but Kerry seems to be pretty much out the door, so instead RF simply yells out, "Mr. Kerry, please bring us peace."
At that point, Kerry stops in his tracks, turns around, comes back into the room, zeroes in on RF as the guy who shouted that out and grabs RF's hand with both of his, shakes it vigorously and says:
"I'm going to do my best. I need your help. We can do this together."
Great presence of mind and great recognition that THIS is what this campaign is about, a stronger, safer, more peaceful world.
Needless to say, both GDCL and RF moved from Undecideds to Decideds that day.
And just think, George Bush wouldn't even have let them in to hear him speak without signing a Loyalty Oath.
So, the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid, conducted an interesting experiment. They paid to have 2 Republican delegates go see 'Avenue Q' on Broadway, not one of the "approved" shows.
I saw Avenue Q last year and loved it!!! Here's my review. But it's definitely risque, and definitely liberal in its sensibilities.
What I like abut this story is that it manages to show that these 2 delegates (both women) can appreciate certain aspects of the show, not appreciate certain other aspects so much, and manage to talk like rational, civil people.
There's no demonizing of the actors or the show creators. And there's a rational explanation of what they didn't like.
You know, they say "Gee, as a Christian, I don't like the use of the term "g_d d_mn." OK. Fair enough.
And they even show a flash of humor when criticizing the infamous puppet sex scene (read my review if you don't know what I'm talking about) by saying:
"That was in very bad taste. They should stop that. Besides, it didn't teach me anything I don't already know."
Cute.
When did it become so necessary to declare candidates "unfit" and "unAmerican" and "traitors"? When did we lose the ability to disagree on issues and policies and approaches, without demonizing the other side?
And the answer might be that we, as a nation did not. But the extreme right wing of this country knows no other way to fight and no other way to win.
I wish more Republicans would see that their Party is being eaten alive by this corrosive behavior. Because I believe most republicans are probably like these two ladies: different than me, but not evil or insane or stupid.
I'm generous, huh?
Great Washington Post article about a traditional Republican conservative who cannot abide another 4 years of Dubya.
This guy has done a lot of research on the whole Bush clan, and it's not too pretty. A former Nixon staff member, Kevin Phillips has written a book on the Bush family and changed his lifetime Republican registration to Independent.
Is his the most stirring Kerry endorsement you'll read? No. But as he puts it, when you're competing against a "zero", the choice is clear.
Yes, I generally like to be as pro-Kerry as I am anti-Bush, but if we face reality we know that there are some folks for whom Phillips' endorsement more accurately reflects their feelings. I think he makes a great argument for those traditional conservatives.
In a prior life I worked in the commodities industry for seven years.
The other day I called an old commodity broker friend from Chicago to wish him a happy birthday. I hadn't talked to him in about 4 years, so we had a lot to catch up on, but nonetheless politics did come up.
I was relieved to find him on my side.
He also had an interesting observation on the historical prices in the commodities market...well, I say "observation", but it borders on a conspiracy theory. Read all about it in the extended entry:
I should clarify, since I'm sure he'll read this, that Mike is an old friend, meaning I've known him for 14 years! But we're both still totally spring chickens!
He's a born & bred Chicago guy, who was raised Catholic, although isn't particularly observant now. He's got three young adult children, aged from 18-23. The oldest, his only son, plans to enter the Marines later this year.
And while Mike's background may have been middle-class, he has been making a very nice living in commodities for years now.
Nonetheless, he is scared of BushCo, and not only because his son is going to join the military.
The thing that caught my attention, though, was the following:
Mike finds it strange that both crude oil and cattle prices are at 30-year highs, while every other commodity contract is at 30-year lows. He follows both the technical and fundamental analytics of these contracts, and his conclusion is there is some nefarious behind-the-scenes manipulation going on, due to Bush's
obvious connection to the oil industry and less obvious one to the cattle industry (apparently Texas is the largest producer of cattle for these contracts.)
He says that the risks to the Iraqi oil well shouldn't be having a major impact on oil prices, because due to sanctions, it's not like they were a major player in the oil market anyway.
Interesting, huh?
And if he's thinking that...I'd guess it's pretty common water cooler talk in at the Chicago Board of Trade.
Well, right or wrong, it puts him squarely in our camp, so it's fine by me!
...who say this is the first time they've:
a) donated money to a candidate or party
b) volunteered time to a candidate or party
c) registered and voted!
I've talked to quite a few, and here's the story of just one more:
"I saw John Kerry & Theresa on Larry King last night, and I was cheering over my ironing board. Health care/education/jobs---whatever he said it was just what I wanted to hear…so much so I have sent money to his campaign (and Elisa I have never done this before, for a presidential candidate anyway). But after seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" and hearing the commentary about the CIA shaping their reports based on what the White House wanted to hear….there ought to be a law where the people of the US can criminally prosecute this traitor posing as the president of the US, demeaning the office by his very presence…it just makes me sick. The legacy he has left for this nation his horrendous…Now how’s that for soapbox?"
Pretty damn good, Pat!
Oh, this is my neighbor, Pat. A nice lady, a grandmother, works in market research for a very large Valley employer. And completely fired up by what she sees going on around her.
Just like me, another person who never volunteered my time and money to a presidential campaign before.
Everywhere I go I meet people who are newly motivated to get involved and active in our political process.
At the Sunday morning showing of "Fahrenheit 911" I gave away a bunch of Kerry buttons, bumper stickers and 3 voter registration forms.
Yesterday I met a guy who's a Canadian citizen and can't vote, but he's hoping he's allowed to donate some money. I don't even know the rules about that. His perspective is he lives here; he pays his taxes; shouldn't he be allowed to help in some way?
I already mentioned my friend who has been a citizen for 12 years but will vote for the 1st time this year.
And now, another friend, who came to my Kerry fundraiser and attended "Fahrenheit 911" with me, emailed me this morning and want to organize a party to invite Republicans and fence-sitters too, to discuss the election and try to make our case.
Everywhere I go, people are talking politics, in a way I've never heard before.
This is a good thing, an exciting thing. So remember, keep talking; keep sending your political email blasts to your list. Now is not the time to ease up.
This entry was hacked and hijacked by an evil spammer.
I cannot recreate whatever briliant commentary was here ;)
I think my independent friend told me that the choice of Camejo as running mate by Nader sealed the deal that Nader was simply trying to help Bush win!
I only leave the entry here at all because there are several reader comments attached to it.
This entry was hacked and hijacked by an evil spammer.
The original text was replaced by a spam message.
I cannot recreate exactly what pithy and brilliant commentary I had here ;)
However, I can tell you it was the story of running into a former co-worker at the gym. He is an Engineering VP at a high tech company, a 12-year citizen, originally from Syria. But this was the first time he AND his wife had registered to vote.
You can find out why in the extended entry:
EVP is a man who has seen the damage Bush has done in the last 3.5 years and has the following pithy statements to make:
1. It may take us years to recover our standing and relationships in the world if we don't boot Bush after one term. The world may forgive us for one term...thinking oh, he turned out to be crazy. But if we re-elect him?
2. I realized if that was the Republican Party, they didn't represent me!
3. They just think they can lie and manipulate about everything.
4. The one good thing about Bush is that he made a voter out of me!
The lesson here?
Talk to people. Hear their story. Tell their stories.
Buy Viagra, Cialis or Levitra prescription from online pharmacy:
Viagra prescription
Buy Levitra
Buy Cialis
1. I don't like his aligning himself so slavishly to the religious right
Even some folks who are Sunday-church-going Christians themselves are uncomfortable with the thought of the evangelical Christian church having so much influence on the leader of our government. And his recent push for more federal tax dollars for "faith-based" initiatives, and direct appeal to ministers to recruit voters from the pulpit only serve to strengthen his image as overly anxious to blur the line between church & state. Mix in his extreme views on choice (you know the issue that most Americans continue to believe should be between a woman and her doctor?) and gay marriage (you know, that issue that evangelical preachers are surprised more people aren't caring about in their congregations?) and he's alienating as many people (even religious people) as he's wooing.
Two Sources on Gay Marriage Issue's Lack of Traction:
Washington Post today
A blog entry referencing a NY Times Article last month
2. I don't like the way the War is being handled
And given that he's not really a fiscal conservative anyway, I can't justify voting for him.
A breakthrough moment occurred on an online chat list that my significant other belongs to yesterday. A rational, reasonable guy that had, nonetheless, been adamantly sticking to his 'Bush must be better than Kerry' guns, made a complete turn-around. Why? Let me quote him:
"What with the torture memos and Rumsfeld's signature on everything, it now seems clear that I must vote for Kerry"
In other words, most Republicans, although they may hold different opinions on policy issues, DO care about truth, justice and the American Way quite a bit.
And BushCo doesn't. making it a simple choice, really.
We make think that right now Bush is the real teflon president, but the revelations keep coming. And I think by November he will get beaten and leave office in disgrace, only being glad he wasn't forced to resign.
Send this to your Republican friends and ask them: is this what this country and their party have come to?
As I've been writing, I worked a voter registration table up at the Foothill campus this past week. And I mentioned in my post after Thursday's shift that I met an elderly Republican who appeared grandfatherly and friendly, but who was slightly patronizing nonetheless
Well, Mr. Republican stopped by again on Friday and decided condescension wasn't enough.
Read about it in the extended entry, and then forward it to people who self-identify as Republicans, and ask them if they're glad that Bush's brand of "leadership" has smoothed the way for his kind of behavior.
We were having what was basically a civil debate. He tossed off the old "liberal" appellation. I said I was a liberal, and proud of it. Clearly we were on opposite sides of the line, but all was polite and friendly.
Until my fellow Democrat at the table brought up the war. He said we never should have gone into Iraq. Mr. R. said, "how would you deal with terrorism?"
I broke in and said, "Well, I was in New York on 9/11, so don't think combating terrorism doesn't mean a lot to me, but going into Iraq actually diverted our resources from finishing what we started in Afghanistan and following that particular trail to its intended conclusion."
Mr. R. says, "you were in NY on 9/11?"
And this is the point where everyone I've ever met asks what it was like, or comments that it must have been scary or terrible or some other such human response.
This guy says, "you must have liked that, huh?"
I'm a little confused and say, "what did you say?" He repeats his statement.
And I still can't grasp what he's getting at, so I ask further, "must have liked what?"
And he says: "you must have liked that when those buildings exploded. I'm sure you thought we had it coming."
What do you say to someone who thinks that you enjoy the deaths of innocents and utter mayhem?
To that moment my strategy had been to stay calm and friendly, not let this guy get a rise out of me, which he had been trying to do for two days. And he was frustrated by it, I'm pretty sure.
But I couldn't let him think what he just said was OK.
So, this is how I responded:
"Why would you think that it is either appropriate or acceptable to say such a thing to a proud American who just happens to disagree with you about a presidential candidate? We were here having a civil debate, which is supposed to be allowed in this country, so why did you have to go there?"
He kept trying to interrupt me (and not to apologize at that point) but I was sick of "fighting fair" so I barreled right through:
"You represent exactly what is wrong with Bush's leadership: he sets the tone that it's okay to question the patriotism and even humanity of people who disagree or question. Well, you have deeply, deeply and personally offended me."
At this point, the guy may not have felt he was wrong, but he knew he had crossed a line. He did apologize. But only with as much passion as Bush's apology for Abu Ghraib. And he only conceded that maybe I wasn't glad, but there were "lots" of liberals who were, and who thought we deserved it.
I told him there was a big difference between analyzing and understanding what led up to these events (in order to prevent them happening again, I might add) and condoning that which you have come to understand.
And I know you won't be surprised to hear that in the end this guy said he would pray for ME!
As a side note: a campus policeman walked up to my table toward the end of this debate and was just sort of hanging around. Turns out someone had told him I was being harassed by this old guy.
I guess I was. I was certainly having my most basic character attacked.
This is what we have come to. This is where our leaders are leading us. Does one have to be a Democrat to think this is wrong and shameful?
Recently I was at a networking event and had a lengthy and interesting conversation with an undecided, unregistered voter. She is a new American citizen, and this will be her first voting opportunity. She is also a fairly new MBA graduate and looking for a job.
The conversation started because she noted that she was receiving far more "marketing material" (meaning mailings) from Republican organizations than Democratic. And she had a fellow business school grad who sent his classmates an email telling them about how he was a "hard-core Republican" who was going to be volunteering for the Rep. Party all summer.
And this classmate "seems like a nice guy."
All that data needed to make a decision?
Read more about our conversation in the extended entry (it's quite long):
One interesting aspect of our conversation was that the War in Iraq and international relations did not come up at all. (Well, except when I brought it up at one point near the end.)
No, our whole conversation centered around the economy: taxes, jobs, outsourcing.
And her major apprehension was stated up front. "Even though the economy was much better under Clinton, aren't you afraid Kerry might raise taxes?" Now, when asked why she had the impression that he would raise taxes, or for that matter the only other negative thing she could come up with on Kerry: the flip-flop charge, she readily admitted she assumed what she and others knew came from attack ads, not from actual research.
But my undecided friend also had to admit it certainly wasn't great financial planning to tax CUT and spend. and that the deficits were worrisome.
But she theorized that the cuts and outsourcing were merely stimulating tactics and would help bring prices down for everyone. And that people would have to go through skills upgrades just like they did back in other times when the US had economic trouble.
Here were my responding points that seemed to make sense to her:
1. By taking taxes off the table, and in fact by cutting taxes, both our state and our federal government are tying their hands to achieve fiscal responsibility in a way you never would in your own financial planning. While our economy is part of a global economy, and certainly subject to influences and cycles beyond who our president is, it's hard to deny that Clinton's successes came from a canny combination of targeted tax increases, targeted spending decreases, program overhauls and more. When budgeting, you have to be able to look at ways to improve your income and reduce your expenses. That is basic, basic stuff. Deciding, a la Schwarzenegger, that an entire part of your income statement is untouchable is just bad management.
2. In fact, the impact of the tax cuts on most Americans is small...less than a few hundred dollars. The impact for the wealthy? Quite big. So, each person has to decide, is saving a potential couple hundred dollars (that, in any case, will likely be offset by higher fees and increases, or reduced services, at the state and local levels) worth the impact on our fellow community members? Do you feel receiving your $150 car tax rebate in California is more important than a low income student getting to attend a 4-year college? Not only is it morally worth it, but in the end does it serve your interest to have that $150 or to have more kids getting an education and improving their futures?
3. I used to think, "Well I'm a capitalist, so if it's cheaper to do things overseas, what can you do?" But that was before I understood that companies are basically incented to outsource by the breaks they get in taxes. So not only are they improving the expense part of the equation, but they're basically retaining more of their income by avoiding taxes. Sure, it makes sense. It's completely legal. One could argue that it's their fiduciary responsibility to pursue outsourcing. But WHY is it legal? WHY is it considered anti-business to question the fairness and frankly intelligence of this arrangement? Corporations used to contribute a large percentage of federal tax revenue, and now they do not...the burden has fallen to the individual, to the middle-income tax payer in a way it never has done in our history. There needs to be serious review and reform of corporate taxes, and you KNOW the Bushies are not going to do it.
4. A skills upgrade discussion is ridiculous when we are seeing the outsourcing of software development and other high level jobs. Exactly what kind of upgrade is left? Back in the day, we didn't have companies able to outsource most functions to other countries. Large companies with large manufacturing facilities, maybe. But now, with global communications the way they are, companies of any size can outsource any and every function. I remember when I worked at a high-tech firm that actually still did manufacturing on site. The people who worked there were often immigrants, many not college graduates, yet they had a decent job, with good salaries, benefits, stock options and an opportunity to learn and constantly upgrade their skills as technology advanced. Where do all of those people go?
5. As for prices coming down here...hmmm if people stay consistently under-employed, prices couldn't come down enough to make it worth the reduction in their prospects.
6. But mostly, here is the point that really resonated with Ms. Undecided (and the other folks at the event who had started to participate: This conversation happened the day after the San Jose Mercury released their annual list of what valley executives make for a living. The figures in this review are staggering. Many valley executives are making many millions of dollars. Don't tell me you need to justify outsourcing as a way to increase profitability for shareholders, when it's really just a way to be able to pay your CEO 15 million dollars. Call me a Socialist or what have you...but I think it's obscene.
Bottom line to me: what does this country stand for? When I was was growing up, America used to balance its independent spirit and pull yourself up by your bootstraps attitude with a desire to reach out to those within our borders and without...to help them take part in this great experiment...to help them find their own American Dream.
We now behave, and that means vote and legislate, as though this is the Land of Opportunity For Those Who Already Have A Leg Up. I've got mine; I'm not going to worry about yours.
The Bush Administration has abandoned fiscal responsibility for fiscal greed, and their only way to obscure that fact is the only way they can try to keep public support for Bush's foreign policies: fear and vague accusations.
In the end, I gave Ms. Undecided a voter registration card, and I told her she could register for a party, or register as Decline to State if she wasn't sure. Hopefully I'll run into her again and find out what happened.
Maybe the Republican Party is better at bombarding people with junk mail.
I think the Democratic Party has better marketing material: the truth and passionate believers to make sure the truth gets out there.
Yesterday the SCC DP held one of its monthly 'Call to Action' meetings for its volunteers.
They presented a featured speaker, Dr. Katherine Forrest, from the Commonweal Institute, to discuss how to talk to (and ultimately persuade) others about your political viewpoint.
Forrest provided a lot of interesting information and valuable advice, but made one point that I am not sure I agree with, and I thought I'd solicit my blog readers' opinions.
If you're interested, read the extended entry:
I mentioned I often hear a litany of concerns about Bush from the Republicans and/or Independents or even undecided Democrats I speak to, but nonetheless a confusing lack of commitment to vote Kerry. Often at that point I ask the folks to name what they actually like about Bush. Not the Republican Party; not the theory of what was supposed to happen, but in the real world...what positive things can they say about Bush?
I think there are two advantages to this tactic:
First, it is helpful to understand the opposition. If you don't know what people like about the opposition, how can you counter it?
But secondly, and more importantly, my experience is that most people have a lot of trouble naming even one concrete thing. And sometimes they can name intangible qualities, but not actual tangible actions that they have liked. And this makes them pause and think and start to question themselves too.
So, what's the downside? Well, according to Forrest, if people get to state the positives of their position, it helps solidify it in their minds; it helps harden their resolve. So, don't engage in debate.
Now, don't get me wrong, I can totally see that with some of the die-hard, hard-core, right-wingers that I've met. But I'm not sure I'd waste my breath on those folks anyway. definitely see her point about debate. The more you defend a position, the more emotionally invested you get in that position.
But what do you think about the people who describe themselves as undecided or ambivalent or on the fence?
Bottom line: what has worked for you?
In my ongoing effort to engage in rational, healthy discussions with those who are uncommitted to Kerry, I had a lengthy discussion last night with a registered Independent.
He is a Vietnam vet, and he voted for Nader in 2000. His vote this year? Still up for grabs.
Read more about our conversation in the extended entry:
So I ask my usual question: what do you like about Bush? This is a surprisingly tough question, even for those who plan to vote for him.
He did, after some deliberation, come up with 2 things, both of which are more supported by Bush's image machine than reality:
1. You know where he stands (Sound familiar?)
I had to, of course, point out that he pretended to stand as a moderate and compassionate Republican in 2000, and see how that turned out. But his general impression is that he wants to do something, and then he goes about doing it.
2. He is guided by his beliefs, not the polls
I had to, of course, point out the story about his team doing polls before his last press conference to decide whether or not he should admit mistakes or apologize.
Both of these positive qualities are more image than reality, but I suppose that's true of many a politician.
But here's the kicker. Both of those fine qualities are greatly tempered by the fact that Mr. Independent finds that a) where Bush stands and b) those beliefs he is guided by...well, they're kind of scary.
What doesn't he like about the Bush Administration?
Their penchant for secrecy and the idea that they think they're running their own little fiefdom, not a representative democracy. And the fact that they head in the same direction, blinders on, no matter what's happening around them.
So, can this Independent thinker be won over to vote for Kerry? I think so. Kerry has to make the case that he has a vision and that he stands for something that he truly believes in. Should be easily accomplished in these next few months.
So, two days in a row I had lunch with friends who are self-identified Republicans! And people say the country is divided!
Yesterday's Republican was quite different than Thursday's, as he is a committed Kerry voter already. And he pretty much blows my theory that Democrats will vote the "anyone but Bush" way, but Republicans are looking for a good reason to vote Kerry, even if they know they hate Bush.
Not this Republican. He's definitely in the "anyone but Bush" camp.
To hear more about Republican friend #2, read on to the extended entry:
You may be wondering: what makes him a Republican in the first place? I mean, frankly I've known him for years, had many interesting discussions about politics, sociological issues etc. and had always assumed he was a Democrat.
As it happens, this Republican re-registered for the primary as a 'Decline to State.' And I think he represents one of the many Republicans who feel that they didn't leave the Party, the Party left them.
He agrees with Republican friend #1 that the Republicans have lost all claim to the "fiscal responsibility" mantle. He is also not too happy with the entire Iraq mess.
Another interesting point we agreed on was regarding social programs. So, this friend believes in social safety net programs, but doesn't want them to be unlimited or be abused.
I had to point out that I thought it made him pretty much a Democrat to believe in such social programs to begin with, whether he wanted them to be better managed or not, especially since Republicans were never responsible for creating any of our great social programs and mostly seemed interested in dismantling them.
The point is that somewhere along the way people get inundated with the idea that Republican are "good with money; good for your pocketbook", and it's taken 20 years of Republican deficits and Democratic fiscal discipline to make many moderate Republicans open their eyes, shake off their brain-washed stupor and say, hey wait a minute...that is NOT the Party I signed up for anymore.
And I say, nope it's not...welcome!
Given this job as Democratic Party blogger, and my own personal interest, I try whenever possible to engage Republicans in courteous, healthy debate.
Sometimes, that's just not going to work out. Like the time that I sent a Republican friend what I considered to be a reasonable article on jobs by NY Times columnist and respected economist, Paul Krugman, and he responded by calling the NY Times a "leftist, loony rag" and sent me in response a file with pictures and graphics talking about kicking ass in the Middle East. There's just no healthy debate that's going to happen there.
Yesterday, however, I had an interesting, long conversation with an old friend from Chicago. He's a 40-year-old dad of three, a CPA, a pro-life anti-death penalty Catholic and a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.
But he's NOT committed to voting for Bush again. So, he's one of those infamous "swing voters."
Read why he's on the fence in the extended entry:
So, interesting issue #1: my buddy acknowledges that in our voting lifetime it is the DEMOCRATS who have demonstrated FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!!
I mean, you and I know that's true, but there aren't many Republicans who are willing to admit it.
So here's the conundrum: he admires the fiscal responsibility, but he doesn't necessarily like tax raises when he feels that the money isn't being spent wisely. However, he freely recognizes that the Republicans are spending just as much, if not more, and just as unwisely, but racking up huge debts to do so.
So, count this guy among the many I talk to who think who are disgruntled with pretty much everyone.
Another interesting issue: he agrees that we went to war on false pretenses and that we're messing up in Iraq now. He does believe that we diverted resources from the "real" war on terrorism to go after Saddam, but he also does believe Saddam was an evil dictator and that it's good that he's gone.
So this is a case where he thinks the end was just, even though he acknowledges he in no way admires the means used to get there.
Throughout the entire conversation it seemed clear he doesn't like Bush much.
He doesn't like him on the economy; doesn't like him much on the war on terrorism or post-war in Iraq; he doesn't like his rabid pro-life but pro-death penalty positions. (To my friend life is life.)
The problem? He doesn't KNOW John Kerry yet. His impression of him, likely garnered from RNC advertising, is of a guy who says one thing and does another, but he didn't really have any examples of that except the 'No' vote on the $87 Billion for Iraq.
So the lesson here is that unlike most Democrats, a swing voter won't go Kerry's way just because he dislikes Bush.
I asked my friend to not tell me what he doesn't like about Bush, or what he doesn't know, but thinks he doesn't like about Kerry, and I asked him to tell me what he LIKED about Bush.
This stumped him for a while to be honest. I mean he saw my point and wanted to come up with something concrete. Finally it was:
"You know where he stands."
Now, I could have argued on that point, especially given his 2000 campaigning as a moderate Republican and all, but instead I asked a follow-up question:
"So, you don't AGREE with most of where he stands. And on the parts you agree with, you don't actually agree with the METHODS he used to achieve those goals, but you like that he takes a stand in general and doesn't SEEM like a waffling politician?"
The answer was 'yes.'
Now, to be fair, as he pointed out, I'm spending a lot of my time thinking about and researching what's going on out there and Bush & Kerry positions. Meanwhile he's not even really following things in the political arena right now. He knows he wants to learn more about Kerry's position. He knows it's his responsibility as a citizen to not just believe attack advertising, but to do his own research.
So he has reserved the right to think more abut the question "what does he like about Bush" and send me a better answer later.
And he certainly reserved the right to vote for Kerry.
I don't know if he will, but I think he is an example of how vulnerable Bush really is.
Democrats may feel no one could be worse than Bush (not that I think that's a compelling argument, of course.) Republicans don't automatically feel that way. These are the people we have to show that Kerry will be BETTER than Bush, hands down.
I've announced this blog to a lot of communities to which I belong, and I got a response from a colleague, Tom Ryugo, in a non-political, networking group.
He called it: "A Note to Democrats", and it opened like this:
"As a disgruntled Republican, I have a message for Democrats that they can use in November."
The summary is that Tom thinks we should NOT focus on whether we went to war on false pretenses or not, but what we're doing now that we're there.
You may not agree with everything he says, but he makes an excellent case.
And more than that, he reminds us that it's not just Democrats who are "angry".
It's not just Democrats who are troubled by some of what they see happening around us.
Please continue to the extended entry to see all of Tom's excellent points, and remember to use the Comment function to add your own two cents.
Tom's "Note to Democrats" in full:
As a disgruntled Republican, I have a message for Democrats that they
can use in November. Namely, stop harping about whether Dubya Bush went to war in Iraq over phony WMDs. That is irrelevant now. There are more important considerations with Iraq.
Why should Democrats quit bellyaching about whether war was justified?
1. Most Americans supported the war and still support it.
2. Overthrowing a genocidal megalomaniac like Saddam is never a bad idea.
There are enough mass graves with thousands of Kurds and Shiites to justify it. Oppressive and corrupt Arab rulers like Saddam are what creates angry young men who fly planes into buildings.
3. The war is over and done with. The important part is the peace or lack thereof. Even Dennis Kucinich couldn't withdraw now. We have to treat Iraq
like china in a china shop. We broke it and we own it and it's our responsibility to fix it whether the President is Dubya Bush, John Kerry, or John Belushi.
4. The Middle East does need serious political, social, and economic reform and won't get it as long as dictators like Saddam hold sway. Incredibly, the 20 nations that form the Arab League have a combined GDP lower than Spain which is a non-descript European economy. That's despite the oil wealth. There's too much corruption and poverty and too little freedom which means young men have no future prospects and no outlet for their frustration.
What's the real issue? The real issue in Iraq is that Bush is at risk of blowing the peace, losing the Iraqi people, and creating the very terrorist haven he was seeking to prevent.
1. There are not enough troops to keep down the insurgents. Therefore, there's not enough security so everyone is scared - including the US soldiers who spend a lot of time behind barricades.
2. There aren't enough troops because (it's rumored) Karl Rove is afraid of
casualties hurting the Bush re-election effort.
3. Reconstruction is moving too slowly because insurgents wreck projects and because aid workers are afraid to work because of lack of security resulting from insufficient troops.
4. Ordinary Iraqis are angry at lack of clean water and power along with
excessive sewage all of which results from slow reconstruction resulting from lack of security.
5. There is the appearance of cronyism that fuels rumors that the US is out to steal Iraqi oil, further souring relations.
6. Build a peaceful, decent, democratic Iraq and there will be a stable Middle-East. Fail and the region sinks into chaos, taking a lot of the world economy with it.
It's pointless to bellyache about the war because it was too late to stop the war a year ago and the war is long since over. It's not too late to save the peace which has far greater ramifications than all the anti-war slogans ever written.