I've been thinking about Parties and what they stand for and I have to admit to some confusion. I do not mistake Democratic Party of Oregon with the general voter who puts a "D" on his registration or the politician who puts a "D" on his filing, but I also cannot get away from the idea that a Party and it's candidates ought to have something in common. I used DPO as an example because I'm active in it, but really I'm talking about Parties in general.
I remember when Republican meant being fiscally conservative and advocating less government (sure, I've also read that they were once radical enough to contain A Lincoln) and actually running campaigns on that. I hear the words occasionally, but never see the action. Somehow fiscal conservatism now means no millionaire left behind and less government means more governmemnt intrusion into people's lives while the mechanism goes to hell. I can intellectually understand Republican aversion to Minimum Wage Law and equally argue against it, but I cannot understand how Republican and the last 6 years of administration coexist. If I had put an "R" after my name as a voter on the basis of my definition, I'd be in open revolt. Funny thing is that in my converstions with "good Republicans" and reading of their "stuff" I don't see it.
Democrats seem to be in revolt, something 40 years of history says is usual, but where that revolt is going I sure don't know. DLC seems to be divorced from any reality I can make out, they can't win elections but they propose and act on policies that seem based only on being more Republican as a vote winning strategy, but ignore actual Democratic policies that could win votes. Civil Liberties used to be a Democratic Party mantra, then along came Gun Control and Organized Crime and suddenly those Civil Liberties were disposable. Now when the Republicans are trampling on some of them the Democrats can't seem to make the case that ALL Civil Liberties are important, they're still caught in the dilemma created by having concern for some and not others. Instead of making a case that freedom of religion is about protecting religion from government, they now want to run around touting their "faith." The Republicans have offered a clear and obvious case of the danger to religion through their governmentalization of it and the response is "we need the 'value voter' on our side."
Since that play is obviously for the "Christian" vote my question is does a policy of protecting and uplifting the poor and powerless need God dragged into it? Or is the problem that there isn't such a policy? If the ideals of Christ are a basic part of your policy shouldn't they sell to the Christians? If they don't sell to the voters you want, then who exactly are they? Are they the Old Testament thumpers of the Republican's Religious Right? Exactly what use does the Democratic Party have for that bunch? I'm sure it would elevate the Party to include those who dress up hate, intolerance, and superiority in religious garb.
Somehow, I don't think I'm being stupid or unfair about this. If you believe that a part of government's business is to provide a level playing field and to mitigate some of the consequences of wealth and power then being a Democrat ought to be an obvious choice and vote. If it's not an obvious choice then there's a failure on the part of the Democratic elected officials. No they can't adopt into law those policies when they're completely in the minority, but they can be very public in their desire and their opposition. They can quit being gentle about it, there's no politeness in the Republican public stance regarding Democrats, their policies don't "favor" the rich, they're all about the rich and powerful, they're a crushing blow to the poor and powerless and an example of the worst abuses of managed capitalism. Plain speaking and plain language can reach the electorate, hedging and equivocating leave them cold.
You could say, " You're 11% shows how well that worked for you," but the actual case is that I did a poor job of getting my word out, a result of being a neophyte, starting late, and political poverty, and isolation. What that 11% actually shows is that plain speaking and plain language overcame the disadvantages, a campaign that well run should've gotten 1%.
With a 99% incumbent return the real miracle is that any of those people stay connected with the electorate and that any of the electorate thinks there's a reason to vote. If you listen to the elected officials their divorcement from reality is obvious and you start to wonder if they've got the only job they could get. How exactly is Rick Santorum fit to be elected to something beyond the Grand Poobah of the Exalted Order of Duh, much less returned? Push your candidates to talk to the electorate like they have brains and can take the truth, and to take actual real stands in real terms.
There really is a limit to how much more stupidity this country can absorb in it's law making. At some point the citizens will just quit voting. The government will get out of control. The social and economic contract will be completely broken. We will become a 3rd world nation of serfs and plutocrats, and most horrifically, one that's armed and pissed off.
For the sake of all of us, vote. If you don't belong to a Party, ie Independent, join a Party and affect who get's nominated in the Primaries. The solution isn't to have to pick between other people's choices, the solution is to pick the candidate and get him elected, a candidate who stands for something and will continue to stand for something. Things are running downhill fast folks, the time for disengagement is long past, there is no intellectual purity in standing apart from the "system" it won't stand apart from you.
You think I'm only talking to Democrats? Hey Republicans, how did you ever wind up with this bunch? Same way. Same stuff, alienate enough citizens that they become non-voters or Independents. I know I'm shouting into the wind, but at least I'm shouting...
Friday, June 30, 2006
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Are You A Democrat ?
I've watched the Democratic Party be attacked by mainstream media and progressives for some time now, and there are aspects that are beginning to tick me off. No message, no nerves, no basis to exist...
No basis to exist? Yup, that's what I said. There seems to be an idea that there is no unifying concept of Democrat. Several times I've read some near variation on this theme, " You can't state why you're a Democrat simply. The idea is that a Party's members should be able to state in a sentence or two why they're members. OK, can you?
I can. I can because I don't expect my political party to run in lockstep on all the minutiae.
I am a Democrat because the Democratic Party stands for social and economic justice and the expansion of civil liberties.
That's pretty darn straightforward. Not a lot of ifs and buts, not a bunch of negatives, a plain statement of principles. The weekend of June 2-4 the Democratic Party of Oregon will have its Platform Convention. There will be quite a few statements of Platform Principles, but if you were to boil them down to their essence, that's what you'd have. It really isn't too complicated to look at my simple statement and make comparison to "the other Party." That isn't what this is about, it also isn't about, "We're not them," as a campaign strategy. The total concern I have about being a Democrat versus a Republican is actually being what I said and using that to remove the Republicans' nasty version of political thinking from power. I said removed from power, I think it's real important for a bunch of them to remain in government, a potent reminder of who and what they are.
I'm real sure a bunch of you have different versions of "why I'm a Democrat," but you also need to be able to express it in one to two sentences. No, that certainly will not cover all the nuances, but nuances are not why, they're an aspect of. Nuances, here's where the going gets sticky, because I am for economic justice I am against an artificially created labor glut in the blue collar wage market, that would be illegal immigrants. I recognize that a choice has to be made between two groups and I choose the group that has done everything the right way. It is not a contradiction. I'm allowed to continue being a Democrat and not appease illegal immigrants.
If we bog down in nuances, we can't define ourselves. If we can't define ourselves we cannot offer ourselves as an alternative. This is the attack line of the media, and yes we're under attack. We also have probably invited this attack. I will not go into the politics of our "leaders" beyond asking if they pass a simple test, do they fit our definition of Democrat. How can we expect the voters to give a rat's ass about our Party if it is not something definable? If I say I want to buy a car, I certainly do not expect to have a bulldozer as a choice.
So here's an offer of something to while away some idle time with, give a definition of Democrat that takes 1-2 sentences, and have it ready to offer up whenever that kind of question comes up. If you happen to be a politician, I seriously hope you get asked.
No basis to exist? Yup, that's what I said. There seems to be an idea that there is no unifying concept of Democrat. Several times I've read some near variation on this theme, " You can't state why you're a Democrat simply. The idea is that a Party's members should be able to state in a sentence or two why they're members. OK, can you?
I can. I can because I don't expect my political party to run in lockstep on all the minutiae.
I am a Democrat because the Democratic Party stands for social and economic justice and the expansion of civil liberties.
That's pretty darn straightforward. Not a lot of ifs and buts, not a bunch of negatives, a plain statement of principles. The weekend of June 2-4 the Democratic Party of Oregon will have its Platform Convention. There will be quite a few statements of Platform Principles, but if you were to boil them down to their essence, that's what you'd have. It really isn't too complicated to look at my simple statement and make comparison to "the other Party." That isn't what this is about, it also isn't about, "We're not them," as a campaign strategy. The total concern I have about being a Democrat versus a Republican is actually being what I said and using that to remove the Republicans' nasty version of political thinking from power. I said removed from power, I think it's real important for a bunch of them to remain in government, a potent reminder of who and what they are.
I'm real sure a bunch of you have different versions of "why I'm a Democrat," but you also need to be able to express it in one to two sentences. No, that certainly will not cover all the nuances, but nuances are not why, they're an aspect of. Nuances, here's where the going gets sticky, because I am for economic justice I am against an artificially created labor glut in the blue collar wage market, that would be illegal immigrants. I recognize that a choice has to be made between two groups and I choose the group that has done everything the right way. It is not a contradiction. I'm allowed to continue being a Democrat and not appease illegal immigrants.
If we bog down in nuances, we can't define ourselves. If we can't define ourselves we cannot offer ourselves as an alternative. This is the attack line of the media, and yes we're under attack. We also have probably invited this attack. I will not go into the politics of our "leaders" beyond asking if they pass a simple test, do they fit our definition of Democrat. How can we expect the voters to give a rat's ass about our Party if it is not something definable? If I say I want to buy a car, I certainly do not expect to have a bulldozer as a choice.
So here's an offer of something to while away some idle time with, give a definition of Democrat that takes 1-2 sentences, and have it ready to offer up whenever that kind of question comes up. If you happen to be a politician, I seriously hope you get asked.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Strategy ??
Republican consultants are talking about how to win the mid-term election. The President evidently needs a boost, so Hayden's CIA hearings need to be contentious - with the Republicans coming out strong on anti-terrorism, privacy issues wimpy, a Gay Marriage Amendment to stoke the base, a play for the President as creating an illegal immigration resolution. He needs a poll bounce, especially with the "base."
Moving on to the race for seats, consultant thinking seems to be to play a "card" that if you don't trust Republicans, Democrats are worse. Also tie candidates to the DLC and Howard Dean, their thinking is scarier than the President's, is the line. As a sub-text is a Nancy Pelosi led Congress stalling government with endless subpoenas and investigations.
Since polling shows a pretty general dissatisfaction with Congress, there might be some traction for Republicans there. The real counter a challenger has for that argument is running as an outsider, untainted by Congressional BS. That's a tough argument to make in some races where DLC is heavily involved, but my opinion is that a distance from the Congressional power blocs is needed.
There's little a challenger can do about the President's agenda, except to carefully de-construct it into it's real components and challenge those. For example, coming out against Hayden does not address the actual problem which is not Hayden, but Fourth Amendment violations and the accelerating intrusion of government into private citizen's lives. That will actually play to some Republicans, while Hayden's confirmation hearings will be over by election time and being linked to any perceived partisan dispute is a loser.
But here's the real deal, if the President's numbers stay down and his righteous base and fiscal conservative Republicans continue to feel insulted, those voters may stay out. It is important to not energize those folks by making inflammatory statements. As an example, coming out supporting gays paints the candidate as morally dangerous, however, stating an opposition to a Constitutional creation of a second class citizenship gains the high ground without creating an image of support for a lifestyle the majority of Americans don't care for. The link that cannot be made is for a candidate to be seen as espousing that lifestyle, it is important to stay out of the emotional quagmire, and as a sexual issue it is an emotional quagmire. Scaring the fiscal conservatives is equally dangerous, the President has done that damage, leaving them to stew in their own juices is the best course. No Democrat who cares about social programs is going to be able to court that vote, the idea is to leave them alone.
Here's the sticky part, the Democrats have to turn out and the Independents have to be out and swayed. The real problem isn't so much pleasing these voters, the President and Congress have done the work of displeasing them, the work is making them care enough to vote. That's a tough one when so much of the public is disenchanted with its elected officials, that discontent rubs off on everyone. "I'm not one of them," helps to a certain extent, but getting the people you want to the polls takes much more than political statements.
The voters need to be reminded that they are important, that their vote carries real weight and does determine the direction of society. That's out of the candidate's hands, that takes face time and persuasion, something that has to be done locally. Letters to the editor, speeches, etc only reach the active voter, there are no good mass contact methods for reaching the disenchanted or apathetic available to low dollar campaigns. So the candidate needs to activate the troops sufficiently to get that kind of commitment.
If you're an active supporter, you already understand what needs to be done, if you're just tired of the current administration, it won't go away without some real serious help.
Moving on to the race for seats, consultant thinking seems to be to play a "card" that if you don't trust Republicans, Democrats are worse. Also tie candidates to the DLC and Howard Dean, their thinking is scarier than the President's, is the line. As a sub-text is a Nancy Pelosi led Congress stalling government with endless subpoenas and investigations.
Since polling shows a pretty general dissatisfaction with Congress, there might be some traction for Republicans there. The real counter a challenger has for that argument is running as an outsider, untainted by Congressional BS. That's a tough argument to make in some races where DLC is heavily involved, but my opinion is that a distance from the Congressional power blocs is needed.
There's little a challenger can do about the President's agenda, except to carefully de-construct it into it's real components and challenge those. For example, coming out against Hayden does not address the actual problem which is not Hayden, but Fourth Amendment violations and the accelerating intrusion of government into private citizen's lives. That will actually play to some Republicans, while Hayden's confirmation hearings will be over by election time and being linked to any perceived partisan dispute is a loser.
But here's the real deal, if the President's numbers stay down and his righteous base and fiscal conservative Republicans continue to feel insulted, those voters may stay out. It is important to not energize those folks by making inflammatory statements. As an example, coming out supporting gays paints the candidate as morally dangerous, however, stating an opposition to a Constitutional creation of a second class citizenship gains the high ground without creating an image of support for a lifestyle the majority of Americans don't care for. The link that cannot be made is for a candidate to be seen as espousing that lifestyle, it is important to stay out of the emotional quagmire, and as a sexual issue it is an emotional quagmire. Scaring the fiscal conservatives is equally dangerous, the President has done that damage, leaving them to stew in their own juices is the best course. No Democrat who cares about social programs is going to be able to court that vote, the idea is to leave them alone.
Here's the sticky part, the Democrats have to turn out and the Independents have to be out and swayed. The real problem isn't so much pleasing these voters, the President and Congress have done the work of displeasing them, the work is making them care enough to vote. That's a tough one when so much of the public is disenchanted with its elected officials, that discontent rubs off on everyone. "I'm not one of them," helps to a certain extent, but getting the people you want to the polls takes much more than political statements.
The voters need to be reminded that they are important, that their vote carries real weight and does determine the direction of society. That's out of the candidate's hands, that takes face time and persuasion, something that has to be done locally. Letters to the editor, speeches, etc only reach the active voter, there are no good mass contact methods for reaching the disenchanted or apathetic available to low dollar campaigns. So the candidate needs to activate the troops sufficiently to get that kind of commitment.
If you're an active supporter, you already understand what needs to be done, if you're just tired of the current administration, it won't go away without some real serious help.
Friday, May 19, 2006
A New Role
There's been a slight change in the Title of this Blog and it's taken on a new role. There are things I want to see happen or quit happening and this where I'm going with this, so first up, waldenbush needs to go and Carol Voisin is taking a shot at it. I'm all the way in her corner on this one, and so should you be.
This is going to be about something other than raising money, money is important but it's a losing proposition to start thinking money will win against waldenbush. He'll have $1,000,000 to spend and he'll do it. So, help with money, but set your sights on the real goal, reaching the voters.
Speaking of voters, what voters? 30% turnout? The 2nd CD Primary candidates gave the voters a wide choice of the Democratic spectrum and candidates who did not look the same or sound the same. Candidates who managed a civil friendly campaign. 15 minutes and a $0.39 stamp to participate was too much to expect. This has got to change. This is our fault, us being the politically active. We've let this build up over the years, we've let a sense of fatality creep into our politics.
We've tolerated a run to the middle, we've tolerated the people not contributing, we've tolerated a whole lot that's intolerable. It's time to stop tolerating.
I say this is something we can do, we can raise politics out of the "so what?" dumps. It's going to take work and some money, but we cannot continue like this. I'm pressing my County Party to raise its profile, to show that we're here. We'll do that and then we'll do some more things. This is going to take a lot of person to person contact. When your friends say, "My vote doesn't count" or brag that they're "Independent" have arguments ready, good arguments. This country will go into the toilet if we continue on. I like Carol and I congratulate her, but let's look at some numbers, she won by a wide margin, but her 17K votes put her at winning the vote of about 13% of the registered Democrats, we need to have elections that are not that minority ruled. How an 80% vote would have affected her vote margin is immaterial, we need candidates who have the backing of a significant portion of the voters to have legitimacy to govern.
This is going to be about something other than raising money, money is important but it's a losing proposition to start thinking money will win against waldenbush. He'll have $1,000,000 to spend and he'll do it. So, help with money, but set your sights on the real goal, reaching the voters.
Speaking of voters, what voters? 30% turnout? The 2nd CD Primary candidates gave the voters a wide choice of the Democratic spectrum and candidates who did not look the same or sound the same. Candidates who managed a civil friendly campaign. 15 minutes and a $0.39 stamp to participate was too much to expect. This has got to change. This is our fault, us being the politically active. We've let this build up over the years, we've let a sense of fatality creep into our politics.
We've tolerated a run to the middle, we've tolerated the people not contributing, we've tolerated a whole lot that's intolerable. It's time to stop tolerating.
I say this is something we can do, we can raise politics out of the "so what?" dumps. It's going to take work and some money, but we cannot continue like this. I'm pressing my County Party to raise its profile, to show that we're here. We'll do that and then we'll do some more things. This is going to take a lot of person to person contact. When your friends say, "My vote doesn't count" or brag that they're "Independent" have arguments ready, good arguments. This country will go into the toilet if we continue on. I like Carol and I congratulate her, but let's look at some numbers, she won by a wide margin, but her 17K votes put her at winning the vote of about 13% of the registered Democrats, we need to have elections that are not that minority ruled. How an 80% vote would have affected her vote margin is immaterial, we need candidates who have the backing of a significant portion of the voters to have legitimacy to govern.
Next time you get ready to complain about the state of affairs, stop and ask yourself what have I done.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Election Day is Over
Well, it's 12:30 AM 5/17/2006 and my share of the vote has climbed to 11%, I'd say that's sufficiently bad enough to say, "Goodnight Gracie." I had no particular expectations about the outcome, but I sure hadn't foreseen a number that bad. Well, the voters (the few that bothered) have had their say and I'll surely go along with them. Carol Voisin seems a sure winner, by a large margin and she's a smart, thoughtful, nice woman that I like quite a bit. She, like any one of us, will have her work cut out for her, I sure hope the folks who've taken an interest in my little endeavor will help her out, I intend to.
Now it's a good time to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who've helped me out, with money, time, enthusiasm, and some votes. I'm horribly disappointed by the turnout, this was the Democrats opportunity to pick the direction of their Party and a whole bunch of them couldn't be bothered enough to take a few minutes fill out a simple form and spend $0.39 to take charge. Something needs to be done about that.
Thanks very much,
Chuck
Now it's a good time to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who've helped me out, with money, time, enthusiasm, and some votes. I'm horribly disappointed by the turnout, this was the Democrats opportunity to pick the direction of their Party and a whole bunch of them couldn't be bothered enough to take a few minutes fill out a simple form and spend $0.39 to take charge. Something needs to be done about that.
Thanks very much,
Chuck
If you're new, start at the bottom of the Blog
Chuck posing as a distinguished candidate
Chuck on the Trail link in the sidebar will take you to some photos of the campaign.
To Donate You will find a link to Actblue Contributions in the side bar and at the bottom of each article for ease of contributing to Campaign to Elect Chuck
To Volunteer call 541-519-7080
To Invite Chuck call 541-519-7080
Write Letters To Editor - Use your voice
Policy Statement
These items will be more fully addressed in separate Articles
> Civil Liberties are not subject to the government's convenience
> The Rule of Law applies to all Americans equally, the President is not exempt
> Taxation Policies should support expenditures and be based on the benefit derived from the financial/economic system
> The bottom of the economic ladder must be addressed, the level of poverty and marginal income in this country is atrocious
> Iraq Policy is a disaster, a change in direction is required
> Veterans programs must be fully and adequately funded. No one has given more than
them.
> Transparent and secure elections are fundamental to participatory democracy
> Environmental decisions must be made and they should be based on science with consideration of economic and social benefits, the status quo of angry stalemates is not acceptable
> Rural issues must be addressed regardless of voting power, it comprises a vast majority of the American landscape and is essential to our economic and social well-being
> Federal rules regarding educational programs must be fully funded.
> An independent and varied media is essential to our form of government, the current constriction of ownership is unhealthy
> Illegal hiring depresses wages and distorts business competition , employers must be heavily sanctioned for this activity.
> American Grown Label should go forward and mean what it says, American Beef is born here, raised here, and killed here, no nonsense about across borders life, period.
This will be expanded as time allows
> Civil Liberties are not subject to the government's convenience
> The Rule of Law applies to all Americans equally, the President is not exempt
> Taxation Policies should support expenditures and be based on the benefit derived from the financial/economic system
> The bottom of the economic ladder must be addressed, the level of poverty and marginal income in this country is atrocious
> Iraq Policy is a disaster, a change in direction is required
> Veterans programs must be fully and adequately funded. No one has given more than
them.
> Transparent and secure elections are fundamental to participatory democracy
> Environmental decisions must be made and they should be based on science with consideration of economic and social benefits, the status quo of angry stalemates is not acceptable
> Rural issues must be addressed regardless of voting power, it comprises a vast majority of the American landscape and is essential to our economic and social well-being
> Federal rules regarding educational programs must be fully funded.
> An independent and varied media is essential to our form of government, the current constriction of ownership is unhealthy
> Illegal hiring depresses wages and distorts business competition , employers must be heavily sanctioned for this activity.
> American Grown Label should go forward and mean what it says, American Beef is born here, raised here, and killed here, no nonsense about across borders life, period.
This will be expanded as time allows
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Why a Blog for a Campaign Site ?
First and foremost I have a Blog for a campaign site because I like the interactive format. No, I don't edit "comments" or delete them. Well, a few have gone with candidate photos that needed to go, nobody seemed to miss the pictures or the comments about them. Yes, it's my site so I get the big page, but you get to tell me about it and I like that. I'll run my campaign that way and if you all have me hold an office, I'll run it that way, also. I don't like formality, it often acts as cover for things that should be out in the open, you tell me and also anybody else that reads this thing, then we all get to know. I may comment back or I may just let it go, but rest assured I read them and think about it. Mostly you've been nice to me (ok the pictures left a lot to be desired), but I do want to know what's on your mind. Comment away.
Another thing going on with the Blog is that it's free. Free is a good thing for the poverty stricken. I'd rather spend your money getting out and talking to you than impressing you with pretty graphics and nice layouts. I've learned not to waste on construction sites, use things as much and as well as possible and get good outcomes. I'll try real hard to spend your money well.
I've read articles about media management, there are some pretty slick ideas there. Mostly I don't like them. I like the idea of returning calls and being available, I also like being straight with people and I can apologize when I'm wrong, immediately... Any time you do something in public there's an opportunity for things to go wrong, if you already know that, then it's no big thing to correct it or apologize. This idea of waiting it out, spinning it, or just ignoring it is ludicrous, nobody's fooled and you just look like a corrupt arrogant ass. (anybody come to mind?)
Waldenbush said (Oregonian 2/24/06) he's running "because I like bringing people together and solving problems." Looking at a campaign chest of over $800,000 pre-Primary, I'd guess he's been bringing a lot of folks together, folks with a lot of money. I just can't see that the problems he's been solving involve the 2nd CD, it seems he solves problems for people with lots of money and they don't seem to be here. You'd think he's had some real competition out here, you know close races like: 65%-35%, 75%-25%. Maybe it's because I'm just a nail-banger from NE OR, but I don't think I could figure out how to spend all that loot to get to be a Congressman.
Now, really. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? I don't mean the part about giving money, I mean the amounts and where it comes from. I don't suggest legislating against it, I suggest making it a waste of their money. Seriously, just tell the waldenbushes, "No!"
Another thing going on with the Blog is that it's free. Free is a good thing for the poverty stricken. I'd rather spend your money getting out and talking to you than impressing you with pretty graphics and nice layouts. I've learned not to waste on construction sites, use things as much and as well as possible and get good outcomes. I'll try real hard to spend your money well.
I've read articles about media management, there are some pretty slick ideas there. Mostly I don't like them. I like the idea of returning calls and being available, I also like being straight with people and I can apologize when I'm wrong, immediately... Any time you do something in public there's an opportunity for things to go wrong, if you already know that, then it's no big thing to correct it or apologize. This idea of waiting it out, spinning it, or just ignoring it is ludicrous, nobody's fooled and you just look like a corrupt arrogant ass. (anybody come to mind?)
Waldenbush said (Oregonian 2/24/06) he's running "because I like bringing people together and solving problems." Looking at a campaign chest of over $800,000 pre-Primary, I'd guess he's been bringing a lot of folks together, folks with a lot of money. I just can't see that the problems he's been solving involve the 2nd CD, it seems he solves problems for people with lots of money and they don't seem to be here. You'd think he's had some real competition out here, you know close races like: 65%-35%, 75%-25%. Maybe it's because I'm just a nail-banger from NE OR, but I don't think I could figure out how to spend all that loot to get to be a Congressman.
Now, really. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? I don't mean the part about giving money, I mean the amounts and where it comes from. I don't suggest legislating against it, I suggest making it a waste of their money. Seriously, just tell the waldenbushes, "No!"
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Are We Having Fun Yet?
I 'll try to get this in some kind of order:
Deficit ,Iraq, Ohio vote called into question, Iraq, Social Security privatization, Iraq, Harriet, Iraq, Medicaid, Iraq FEMA, Iraq, Scooter, Iraq, Warrantless wiretaps, Iraq, Right to Die, Iraq, Abromoff, Iraq, Ney, Iraq, Cheney, Iraq, Cunningham, Iraq, DeLay, Iraq, Iran, Iraq, Deficit, Iraq, Afghasnistan, Iraq, Gasoline, Iraq, Goss, Iraq, Fogo, Iraq, Phone mining, Iraq;
George Walker Bush, Republican Senate, Republican House, waldenbush, thank you so very much.
For Pete's sake VOTE
Deficit ,Iraq, Ohio vote called into question, Iraq, Social Security privatization, Iraq, Harriet, Iraq, Medicaid, Iraq FEMA, Iraq, Scooter, Iraq, Warrantless wiretaps, Iraq, Right to Die, Iraq, Abromoff, Iraq, Ney, Iraq, Cheney, Iraq, Cunningham, Iraq, DeLay, Iraq, Iran, Iraq, Deficit, Iraq, Afghasnistan, Iraq, Gasoline, Iraq, Goss, Iraq, Fogo, Iraq, Phone mining, Iraq;
George Walker Bush, Republican Senate, Republican House, waldenbush, thank you so very much.
For Pete's sake VOTE
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Wrapping Up
The Voter's Pamphlets have been out and ballots are arriving, the 2nd CD Roadshow played it's last stops today, it's been interesting and some fun but now it's the waiting time. We'll get to see what the Democratic voters of the 2nd CD decide to do with the four of us after May 16. So campaigning is over, oh, if there's a call for an interview or something like that it'll happen but actively campaigning is over for the Campaign to Elect Chuck for the Primary.
I have been privleged to travel and speak with 3 other good people, we were thrown together by political chance, got aquainted through political discussions and then had the chance to make friends on a personal basis. I have had demonstrated to me over and over again what fine people live in the 2nd CD, people I'd be proud to represent. They've opened their houses to us, and welcomed us into their communities and contributed and worked on our behalf. The media has treated us kindly and fairly and opened doors to us, I'm grateful.
Pat Ackley, Chair of 2nd CD Caucus has worked her hind-end off for us, and with her help and coordination the County Chairs have pulled off the near impossible, Candidate Forums in ajoining counties workable for the candidates. DPO field organizers Autumn and Jesse traveled many miles to be with us. The DPO made a contribution to all four candidates despite the pressing concern of the State races. This assistance has been invaluable and the encouragement and enthusiasm sustained us through many miles of travel.
No matter how the Primary turns out, I have gained something I will treasure forever. I now have a very person connection with 2/3 of the State of Oregon, and with people from all over the country who have followed this campaign. I want to thank Dan Davis, Scott Silver, and Carol Voisin for their dedication, their comraderie, and a fine campaign. I believe that the Democrats of the 2nd CD have been well served and given good choices to make. We all win.
I have been privleged to travel and speak with 3 other good people, we were thrown together by political chance, got aquainted through political discussions and then had the chance to make friends on a personal basis. I have had demonstrated to me over and over again what fine people live in the 2nd CD, people I'd be proud to represent. They've opened their houses to us, and welcomed us into their communities and contributed and worked on our behalf. The media has treated us kindly and fairly and opened doors to us, I'm grateful.
Pat Ackley, Chair of 2nd CD Caucus has worked her hind-end off for us, and with her help and coordination the County Chairs have pulled off the near impossible, Candidate Forums in ajoining counties workable for the candidates. DPO field organizers Autumn and Jesse traveled many miles to be with us. The DPO made a contribution to all four candidates despite the pressing concern of the State races. This assistance has been invaluable and the encouragement and enthusiasm sustained us through many miles of travel.
No matter how the Primary turns out, I have gained something I will treasure forever. I now have a very person connection with 2/3 of the State of Oregon, and with people from all over the country who have followed this campaign. I want to thank Dan Davis, Scott Silver, and Carol Voisin for their dedication, their comraderie, and a fine campaign. I believe that the Democrats of the 2nd CD have been well served and given good choices to make. We all win.
Another Endorsement
The Source - Bend, OR
Vol. 10, Issue 17, April 27, 2006
This is a partial quote of the Candidate Endorsements, it is complete regarding myself. I thank the Editorial Staff.
Chuck Butcher For Congress
In some past elections the Democrats have had trouble fielding even one candidate in the Republican-dominated 2nd Congressional District. Maybe it's a reaction to the disastrous Bush presidency or the stink of corruption enveloping Republican congressional ranks, but this year there are four -- three impressively qualified, well-dressed, well-spoken, conventional candidates, and one oddball.
We're going with the oddball, and we'll tell you why.
Charles H. "Chuck" Butcher of Baker City is not your garden-variety Democrat. He's a blue-collar guy who owns a construction business. He has a bushy beard that makes him look a little like pre-Civil War abolitionist firebrand John Brown. He drives around in a cool screaming-yellow pickup with his campaign sign on the side. Perhaps most unconventionally, he's anti-gun control.
The three other aspirants for Rep. Greg Walden's job are Dan Davis, a businessman from Jacksonville; Scott Silver of Bend, director of Wild Wilderness, and Carol Voisin of Ashland, who teaches at Southern Oregon University.
All of them are intelligent, well-informed about the issues, articulate and sincere. All of them take the right (i.e., left) positions on the issues -- Iraq, budget deficits, health care, our increasingly inequitable tax system, the corruption of government by corporate PACs and the K Street Mob. They are pretty much your standard Democratic candidates.
And that's the problem.
All of the Democrats in this race have a great message. But a great message doesn't get you very far if you can't get people to listen to it. For decades, that's been the Democratic Party's problem east of the Cascades. If the party is ever going to have a shot at breaking the Republican monopoly in the 2nd District, its candidates need to start reaching voters outside the small progressive enclaves of Ashland and Bend.
We think Chuck Butcher is a guy who just might do it.
As he himself puts it, he's not a "scary Democrat" -- one who fits the Chardonnay-sipping, brie-eating, fancy-talking, "elitist" stereotype foisted on the public by right-wing propagandists. He looks and talks like a guy who goes hunting and follows NASCAR.
Butcher's stand on the major issues is as populist as any of his rivals -- maybe more so. He wants U.S. troops out of Iraq in "a matter of months." He calls for an end to trickle-down economics -- which he calls "tinkle-down economics." He wants the Patriot Act scrapped and civil liberties respected. He advocates a universal single-payer health care system.
Butcher expresses these ideas in pithy, down-to-earth language, often with a touch of wry humor. By not being a stereotypical "scary Democrat" he believes he can "have a conversation" with blue-collar voters in the district, and that once he gets that conversation going his populist positions on issues like jobs, health care and taxes will resonate with them. He hopes this strategy will enable him to "peel off" the less hard-core Republicans and many independents, who, combined with loyal Democrats, will give him enough votes to win.
We're skeptical about that. Republicans are facing a rough time this year, and there's more than an outside chance they'll lose their House majority -- but losing the 2nd District would require a political tsunami of a magnitude not seen since the 1930s. And Walden, at least so far, has not been touched by the corruption scandals swirling around other Republicans.
So 2006 probably isn't going to be the year the Democrats take back this congressional seat. But this year's campaign could lay the foundation for doing it in 2008 or 2010 or somewhere down the road. It could start a dialogue between Democrats and the voters who should be their natural constituency -- working-class and middle-class people who are consistently screwed by Republican policies. We hope Chuck Butcher can jumpstart that dialogue.
Just one word of advice if you win the nomination, Chuck: Trim the beard.
I got a little closer to the trimming scissors this week, not much closer, but a little.
Vol. 10, Issue 17, April 27, 2006
This is a partial quote of the Candidate Endorsements, it is complete regarding myself. I thank the Editorial Staff.
Chuck Butcher For Congress
In some past elections the Democrats have had trouble fielding even one candidate in the Republican-dominated 2nd Congressional District. Maybe it's a reaction to the disastrous Bush presidency or the stink of corruption enveloping Republican congressional ranks, but this year there are four -- three impressively qualified, well-dressed, well-spoken, conventional candidates, and one oddball.
We're going with the oddball, and we'll tell you why.
Charles H. "Chuck" Butcher of Baker City is not your garden-variety Democrat. He's a blue-collar guy who owns a construction business. He has a bushy beard that makes him look a little like pre-Civil War abolitionist firebrand John Brown. He drives around in a cool screaming-yellow pickup with his campaign sign on the side. Perhaps most unconventionally, he's anti-gun control.
The three other aspirants for Rep. Greg Walden's job are Dan Davis, a businessman from Jacksonville; Scott Silver of Bend, director of Wild Wilderness, and Carol Voisin of Ashland, who teaches at Southern Oregon University.
All of them are intelligent, well-informed about the issues, articulate and sincere. All of them take the right (i.e., left) positions on the issues -- Iraq, budget deficits, health care, our increasingly inequitable tax system, the corruption of government by corporate PACs and the K Street Mob. They are pretty much your standard Democratic candidates.
And that's the problem.
All of the Democrats in this race have a great message. But a great message doesn't get you very far if you can't get people to listen to it. For decades, that's been the Democratic Party's problem east of the Cascades. If the party is ever going to have a shot at breaking the Republican monopoly in the 2nd District, its candidates need to start reaching voters outside the small progressive enclaves of Ashland and Bend.
We think Chuck Butcher is a guy who just might do it.
As he himself puts it, he's not a "scary Democrat" -- one who fits the Chardonnay-sipping, brie-eating, fancy-talking, "elitist" stereotype foisted on the public by right-wing propagandists. He looks and talks like a guy who goes hunting and follows NASCAR.
Butcher's stand on the major issues is as populist as any of his rivals -- maybe more so. He wants U.S. troops out of Iraq in "a matter of months." He calls for an end to trickle-down economics -- which he calls "tinkle-down economics." He wants the Patriot Act scrapped and civil liberties respected. He advocates a universal single-payer health care system.
Butcher expresses these ideas in pithy, down-to-earth language, often with a touch of wry humor. By not being a stereotypical "scary Democrat" he believes he can "have a conversation" with blue-collar voters in the district, and that once he gets that conversation going his populist positions on issues like jobs, health care and taxes will resonate with them. He hopes this strategy will enable him to "peel off" the less hard-core Republicans and many independents, who, combined with loyal Democrats, will give him enough votes to win.
We're skeptical about that. Republicans are facing a rough time this year, and there's more than an outside chance they'll lose their House majority -- but losing the 2nd District would require a political tsunami of a magnitude not seen since the 1930s. And Walden, at least so far, has not been touched by the corruption scandals swirling around other Republicans.
So 2006 probably isn't going to be the year the Democrats take back this congressional seat. But this year's campaign could lay the foundation for doing it in 2008 or 2010 or somewhere down the road. It could start a dialogue between Democrats and the voters who should be their natural constituency -- working-class and middle-class people who are consistently screwed by Republican policies. We hope Chuck Butcher can jumpstart that dialogue.
Just one word of advice if you win the nomination, Chuck: Trim the beard.
I got a little closer to the trimming scissors this week, not much closer, but a little.
Friday, April 14, 2006
GOD
I've been thinking. What do I have to say about government and religion? The whole discussion ought to center around two things:
Religion in Government - People have a moral and philosophical framework that frequently includes religion, expecting them to not take that into government with them is foolish, they will. I would be horrified by the prospect, while some seem to lose some of that framework once there, it would be bad to send sociopaths to govern.
Government in Religion - This is an exceptionally dangerous idea, it is very bad for religion and the non-religious. There are a bunch of religions, even narrowly speaking of Christianity, there are a bunch. Each sect is supposed to be able to practice their religion freely and openly. This idea becomes very dubious when government gets involved. Government cannot do anything within a religious framework without destructive consequences, it will interfere. It cannot help it, it is a device for applying power and that is what it does. Money from government will have strings attached, it must because government has a desired end for that spent money. When the government gets involved in prayer it must interfere, it cannot satisfy all sects so it will satisfy what it can, those left out are marginalized and those included are defined. This does not expand religious freedom, it constrains it.
Government is about social order and the enforcement of conditions required to maintain it. This is an entirely pragmatic exercise of force, it may masquerade as moral, it isn't. Morality involves choice or free will, the government does not offer such, it offers consequences. Moral people ought to be able to pass good laws that allow people as much freedom of choice as possible while constraining the outrages that people sometimes commit on each other. This is something entirely different than enforcing morality. There is a contradiction in terms in the concept of moral law, holy books may set out terms of moral laws, but a government cannot do it, it has recourse only to coercion to accomplish such a thing, if you see the words moral and law conjoined, beware.
If this seems anti-religion you haven't paid attention, many people are greatly inproved by their religions and get comfort and support in their daily lives from them. This is a very good thing, something precious enough to not allow the cudgel of government to interfere with.
Religion in Government - People have a moral and philosophical framework that frequently includes religion, expecting them to not take that into government with them is foolish, they will. I would be horrified by the prospect, while some seem to lose some of that framework once there, it would be bad to send sociopaths to govern.
Government in Religion - This is an exceptionally dangerous idea, it is very bad for religion and the non-religious. There are a bunch of religions, even narrowly speaking of Christianity, there are a bunch. Each sect is supposed to be able to practice their religion freely and openly. This idea becomes very dubious when government gets involved. Government cannot do anything within a religious framework without destructive consequences, it will interfere. It cannot help it, it is a device for applying power and that is what it does. Money from government will have strings attached, it must because government has a desired end for that spent money. When the government gets involved in prayer it must interfere, it cannot satisfy all sects so it will satisfy what it can, those left out are marginalized and those included are defined. This does not expand religious freedom, it constrains it.
Government is about social order and the enforcement of conditions required to maintain it. This is an entirely pragmatic exercise of force, it may masquerade as moral, it isn't. Morality involves choice or free will, the government does not offer such, it offers consequences. Moral people ought to be able to pass good laws that allow people as much freedom of choice as possible while constraining the outrages that people sometimes commit on each other. This is something entirely different than enforcing morality. There is a contradiction in terms in the concept of moral law, holy books may set out terms of moral laws, but a government cannot do it, it has recourse only to coercion to accomplish such a thing, if you see the words moral and law conjoined, beware.
If this seems anti-religion you haven't paid attention, many people are greatly inproved by their religions and get comfort and support in their daily lives from them. This is a very good thing, something precious enough to not allow the cudgel of government to interfere with.
Beating Waldenbush
While I 've stated repeatedly that it can be done, beating Greg Walden in the General Election is going to be a real job, a "tough row to hoe." On that optimistic note, let's get down to some basics, he can't be beaten with money. The money isn't available. So, it comes down to beating him for nearly free. That is where you come in, you're political capital.
Now reality is that all the advertising in the world won't do more than get your face and name out, unless you go for the real nasty stuff, and that can boomerang. So what works? The very real credibility of someone who is known, speaking up for the candidate. That speaking up works best in person, in conversation, but if your name is known at all, letters to the editor help quite a bit. Passing out literature and posting signs demonstrates support and the literature can possibly be persuasive, but it carries the lack advertising does. The real caveate in all this is knowing who the candidate is and being comfortable with most of their stands. All this takes time and energy, that's a lot to ask, but it also is what will work. It will take a push of Presidential Election proportions to bring this off, in fact, more than the last Presidential Campaign.
I propose that now is the time to try it out, see what works. It is the time to show that we're serious and determined. Yes, this is a Primary, but depending on the Voter's Pamphlet creates voter ignorance, informed people spreading the word creates an interested and informed electorate. We have got to come out of this Primary with an enthused Democratic Party core or we're toast. A lot of people have got to be reached out to and touched, that's a tough one. I do what I can do, I give you as real a person as language and time allows and the best principles and politics that I know, but that's not nearly enough. I simply don't have the reach you do. All this is true of the other three candidates, as far as I can tell. So please get out there and push, infect some other people so they'll push. It can work.
Now reality is that all the advertising in the world won't do more than get your face and name out, unless you go for the real nasty stuff, and that can boomerang. So what works? The very real credibility of someone who is known, speaking up for the candidate. That speaking up works best in person, in conversation, but if your name is known at all, letters to the editor help quite a bit. Passing out literature and posting signs demonstrates support and the literature can possibly be persuasive, but it carries the lack advertising does. The real caveate in all this is knowing who the candidate is and being comfortable with most of their stands. All this takes time and energy, that's a lot to ask, but it also is what will work. It will take a push of Presidential Election proportions to bring this off, in fact, more than the last Presidential Campaign.
I propose that now is the time to try it out, see what works. It is the time to show that we're serious and determined. Yes, this is a Primary, but depending on the Voter's Pamphlet creates voter ignorance, informed people spreading the word creates an interested and informed electorate. We have got to come out of this Primary with an enthused Democratic Party core or we're toast. A lot of people have got to be reached out to and touched, that's a tough one. I do what I can do, I give you as real a person as language and time allows and the best principles and politics that I know, but that's not nearly enough. I simply don't have the reach you do. All this is true of the other three candidates, as far as I can tell. So please get out there and push, infect some other people so they'll push. It can work.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Oh ooops
You'd have to know how I approach public speaking to understand how this came about...
I don't have a speech, I don't want one getting between me and the audience. I get up, and if I can, I walk about right up by the folks, and talk to them entirely ad lib, free style, or off-the-cuff. I do this to guarantee genuineness, it's what I've got. Oh sure I've got policies, but so do we all, and they're pretty similar, so I just give them...me.
I was rolling along nicely in my 8 minute introduction and evidently, since I'm quoted in the Bulletin as doing it, I called waldenbush "a pinhead." Now I can call him waldenbush, his voting record earned that, or maybe more accurately "waldenlay" since he voted even more regularly with Tom, but really, pinhead is over the top, so I'm sorry Greg. I was tired, I had a toothache, and I was pretty disgusted with that voting record and just got a little too worked up. I'm sure there were more polite descriptions of a guy who'd vote against the interests of the majority of his district just to please his little party machine and the wealthy and powerful. I know there are and I have a pretty good command of the English language, pinhead just popped out. So I appologize to you for calling you a pinhead. I also appologize to all pinheads.
I don't have a speech, I don't want one getting between me and the audience. I get up, and if I can, I walk about right up by the folks, and talk to them entirely ad lib, free style, or off-the-cuff. I do this to guarantee genuineness, it's what I've got. Oh sure I've got policies, but so do we all, and they're pretty similar, so I just give them...me.
I was rolling along nicely in my 8 minute introduction and evidently, since I'm quoted in the Bulletin as doing it, I called waldenbush "a pinhead." Now I can call him waldenbush, his voting record earned that, or maybe more accurately "waldenlay" since he voted even more regularly with Tom, but really, pinhead is over the top, so I'm sorry Greg. I was tired, I had a toothache, and I was pretty disgusted with that voting record and just got a little too worked up. I'm sure there were more polite descriptions of a guy who'd vote against the interests of the majority of his district just to please his little party machine and the wealthy and powerful. I know there are and I have a pretty good command of the English language, pinhead just popped out. So I appologize to you for calling you a pinhead. I also appologize to all pinheads.
Endorsed
From Baker City Herald, 4/7/06
"2006 Primary Endorsement"
"Walden vs. Butcher"
"The Second District might be a slam dunk, but at least the court is full"
"Greg Walden is the Earl Blumenauer of Eastern Oregon: all but unbeatable in his district.
That hasn't stopped one Republican and four Democrats from taking to the floor in an attempt to unseat the four-term Congressman from Hood River."
***
"And while we suspect Walden will walk away with the vote in November, Democrats at least have a choice this year - and local Democrats can cast their ballots for a favorite son who is helping baste Oregon Democrats with some Eastern Oregon flavor.
Four candidates have thrown their hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination, and they are campaigning together to take as long a running start at Walden as possible.
For Baker County Democrats, a unified vote for Baker City's Chuck Butcher seems a logical choice.
Butcher spearheaded the effort to place explicit respect for gun rights in the Oregon Democratic Party's platform. If nominated to face Walden he'll have an opportunity to stump against a background of Northeastern Oregon pragmatism - something candidates from Medford or Bend or Hood River just can't tap."
I didn't know this was going to happen and I never expected them to suggest that waldenbush was vulnerable, and they didn't. But it certainly is nice, and I do appreciate the inclusion of Hood River in the last sentence. There is in fact a vast difference in the "world view" of waldenbush and myself. I'll make a simple allusion, if a framing specification calls for a structural member capable of bearing a certain load, it must be able to at least do so, ideology or wishful thinking won't work, the house will fall down, I absolutely can not have that. Waldenbush's world operates in a different manner, there are multitudes of excuses, blame games and responsibility ducking. Pragmatism isn't a dirty word, it means, make it work. Yes it means I can work with others (that was required to take that Resolution through), it also means understanding that taking a principled stand can carry a high cost and bearing it. Making things work with the tools at hand is what we manage to do around here.
Thanks Herald
"2006 Primary Endorsement"
"Walden vs. Butcher"
"The Second District might be a slam dunk, but at least the court is full"
"Greg Walden is the Earl Blumenauer of Eastern Oregon: all but unbeatable in his district.
That hasn't stopped one Republican and four Democrats from taking to the floor in an attempt to unseat the four-term Congressman from Hood River."
***
"And while we suspect Walden will walk away with the vote in November, Democrats at least have a choice this year - and local Democrats can cast their ballots for a favorite son who is helping baste Oregon Democrats with some Eastern Oregon flavor.
Four candidates have thrown their hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination, and they are campaigning together to take as long a running start at Walden as possible.
For Baker County Democrats, a unified vote for Baker City's Chuck Butcher seems a logical choice.
Butcher spearheaded the effort to place explicit respect for gun rights in the Oregon Democratic Party's platform. If nominated to face Walden he'll have an opportunity to stump against a background of Northeastern Oregon pragmatism - something candidates from Medford or Bend or Hood River just can't tap."
I didn't know this was going to happen and I never expected them to suggest that waldenbush was vulnerable, and they didn't. But it certainly is nice, and I do appreciate the inclusion of Hood River in the last sentence. There is in fact a vast difference in the "world view" of waldenbush and myself. I'll make a simple allusion, if a framing specification calls for a structural member capable of bearing a certain load, it must be able to at least do so, ideology or wishful thinking won't work, the house will fall down, I absolutely can not have that. Waldenbush's world operates in a different manner, there are multitudes of excuses, blame games and responsibility ducking. Pragmatism isn't a dirty word, it means, make it work. Yes it means I can work with others (that was required to take that Resolution through), it also means understanding that taking a principled stand can carry a high cost and bearing it. Making things work with the tools at hand is what we manage to do around here.
Thanks Herald
Monday, April 03, 2006
Four Candidates
Democrat voters in the 2nd CD are a lucky bunch, I have as opponents three very nice, capable, intelligent people. These are people that I would have no problem supporting if any one of them was the winner in the Primary. Now, we all obviously believe there are good reasons to vote for ourselves rather than the other person, but we manage to present that idea in a manner that isn't insulting or condescending to the others. Every time I speak at a Forum I mention that I'm proud to be in this field, and that's not niceness for the sake of nicety. It is a fact. I encourage all of you to look the field over carefully, everybody in it is making sacrifices to present themselves and deserves a fair hearing.
Since this is my site and I'm trying to win a Primary, I'm not going to make their presentations for them (I also might not do them justice). I believe that quite frankly the biggest differences are a matter of how we appeal to voters in the General, I've been telling you why I can beat waldenbush and I'll continue to do so. Because this is a Primary and at this point I'm talking to Democrats I'm not going to spend a lot of time telling you why you shouldn't vote for waldenbush, you should already have that one figured out. I am going to tell you that money will help a lot, but even more so is your willingness to talk to your friends and neighbors about "that Chuck guy." If you'd like some literature, drop me an email and I'll snail mail some to you. If you have Word Publishing I can send a file for printing, this would be of huge assistance and greatly appreciated. If we've visited your county, your Party committee ought to have some spares, that's what they're for, after all, to give away.
Since this is my site and I'm trying to win a Primary, I'm not going to make their presentations for them (I also might not do them justice). I believe that quite frankly the biggest differences are a matter of how we appeal to voters in the General, I've been telling you why I can beat waldenbush and I'll continue to do so. Because this is a Primary and at this point I'm talking to Democrats I'm not going to spend a lot of time telling you why you shouldn't vote for waldenbush, you should already have that one figured out. I am going to tell you that money will help a lot, but even more so is your willingness to talk to your friends and neighbors about "that Chuck guy." If you'd like some literature, drop me an email and I'll snail mail some to you. If you have Word Publishing I can send a file for printing, this would be of huge assistance and greatly appreciated. If we've visited your county, your Party committee ought to have some spares, that's what they're for, after all, to give away.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Kamikaze Pilots and waldenbush
Congressional Quarterly nicely took note of the 2nd CD Democratic Primary and how 4 (gasp!) candidates were running. They did start out by noting that waldenbush had breezed through his previous elections. I don't suppose any of us would've been surprised to read that. OSU poly-sci Bill Lunch, however, did get my attention by noting that, "there were no shortage of kamikaze pilots in Japan at the end of WWII, either...some people are drawn to lost causes."
Hmmm...
First of all, I have no intention of crashing myself into waldenbush and dying, maybe that's not what he meant. Maybe he figures I'm a martyr. Well, I am a carpenter...but nah. I've got it, he's doing the math from the last elections. I see now, he's a pro and he's looked at...what? I haven't talked to him, I'd remember. I haven't gotten any emails and I don't think I distributed any brochures at OSU, a different district and all. Maybe he's really an anthropologist who's been secretly studying the wild tribes of the 2nd. Oh, heck, if I were completely ignorant of the 2nd CD and a candidate and looked at the numbers I'd come up with something similar, but then I don't claim to be a poly-sci or from OSU, so I can't be ignorant. I really don't mind all that much when people who've watched a do-it-yourself TV program tell me how to frame a house, either...ok, but I do smile and nod my head.
Look, I'll say it again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, I'm not the same thing and I'm not doing the same thing. Waldenbush finds money and influence sufficiently important to put together a bunch of radio stations, one would do for "love of radio," I find what I do and who I do it for more important than money and I certainly have no desire to have a crew of hundreds and lose touch completely. I certainly want to be paid for my work, it's not a hobby, but there are places and ways to make more of it and I don't care enough about it to do that. That means there is an essential difference in our outlook on life and therefore our politics and what we'd do as politicians.
Sure, if you're reading this you're interested but you don't know me or hang with me so how do you know if this isn't just a political ............... lie. (posture is a nicer word for the same thing) I guess you read this stuff and see if it all hangs together as a unit and a personal statement. This is a Blog because I want you to be able to have at me in public. You'll find stuff in here that might be better for me politically if it weren't said, so what? I want you to vote for me, not some figment. Not some posture. I want you to tell your friends, "No really, you gotta check this Chuck guy out," because I trust you to see. I don't believe the American voters are idiots and I won't treat them like they are. The more I tell you about me, the more honestly I can ask for your vote. I don't expect you'll agree with everything.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why homosexual marriage would make me want to leave my wife for a man, that'll lose me some votes and it won't gain me any as a Democrat. Illegal immigrants flooding the low-mid bluecollar labor market is having a horrid effect on legal blue collar workers, that's wrong, no matter all the excuses and name calling, it's wrong. Abortion stinks, I won't interfere with it, being rich is a nice thing, I don't want to interfere with it, but I'm sure not going to help it along at the expense of the little guy. Business makes jobs but when did it become the be-all-end-all of politics? War is a horrid thing, it's the last worst option, but by gawd, don't play at it and don't pretend that it's bloodless or that you can do it without shredding civilians. You will get our troops killed and maimed and drag a conflict out in the name of sparing ... bad press. Having money and power entails a tremendous responsibility toward the workers who get you there, they're not numbers on paper, if you screw them I'm inclined to return the favor. Don't even begin to think I'd trade a civil liberty for security, if you don't feel safe, that's too bad, but probably realistic. I own a fair number of firearms, shoot them, hunt with them, I build cars and race them, sounds pretty odd for a Democrat, nope. I like people, I tend to trust them, carefully, but I cannot abide liars and cheats. I was a drunk, I'm 18 years clean and sober, I don't know if that's a recommendation or not, but it's me. I have no formal religion, maybe I'm a Deist, sort of. If you think a freshman Rep has any power, you're mistaken, but the Democrat that takes out waldenbush will certainly have a voice. (c'mon it'd be the news story of the year) I'm no public speaker, I look out at these forums and decide it's my friends and neighbors I'm talking to and I'm ok, because it's true it works. I won't give you the answer you want, I'll give you the answer I have, you may not like it, but it'll be true. I'll tweak Rep Greg Walden with the nickname "waldenbush" because it's true, but I have no interest in trying to make scandal for him, he has a public record, that'll do. There's pretty much not spit's difference in policy between myself and my fellow Democratic candidates but I'm different. They might be better candidates to vote for than myself in a different district, we're not in a different one. I can't get very worked up about trying to beat these folks, I like them and I respect them. If the voters tell me to go home to Baker City and bang nails, I really won't mind, I like doing it. Will I like having an office job in DC? No. But I can do it and I can do it better for 2nd CD than waldenbush does and I owe something back. My campaign needs contributions, I get them by little dribs and dabs, which is a good thing, but it takes lots of dribs and dabs. More important is people telling their friends about me, people trust that, TV spots and other ads are just ads. By the way, the comment buttons on here are for use.
Hmmm...
First of all, I have no intention of crashing myself into waldenbush and dying, maybe that's not what he meant. Maybe he figures I'm a martyr. Well, I am a carpenter...but nah. I've got it, he's doing the math from the last elections. I see now, he's a pro and he's looked at...what? I haven't talked to him, I'd remember. I haven't gotten any emails and I don't think I distributed any brochures at OSU, a different district and all. Maybe he's really an anthropologist who's been secretly studying the wild tribes of the 2nd. Oh, heck, if I were completely ignorant of the 2nd CD and a candidate and looked at the numbers I'd come up with something similar, but then I don't claim to be a poly-sci or from OSU, so I can't be ignorant. I really don't mind all that much when people who've watched a do-it-yourself TV program tell me how to frame a house, either...ok, but I do smile and nod my head.
Look, I'll say it again, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, I'm not the same thing and I'm not doing the same thing. Waldenbush finds money and influence sufficiently important to put together a bunch of radio stations, one would do for "love of radio," I find what I do and who I do it for more important than money and I certainly have no desire to have a crew of hundreds and lose touch completely. I certainly want to be paid for my work, it's not a hobby, but there are places and ways to make more of it and I don't care enough about it to do that. That means there is an essential difference in our outlook on life and therefore our politics and what we'd do as politicians.
Sure, if you're reading this you're interested but you don't know me or hang with me so how do you know if this isn't just a political ............... lie. (posture is a nicer word for the same thing) I guess you read this stuff and see if it all hangs together as a unit and a personal statement. This is a Blog because I want you to be able to have at me in public. You'll find stuff in here that might be better for me politically if it weren't said, so what? I want you to vote for me, not some figment. Not some posture. I want you to tell your friends, "No really, you gotta check this Chuck guy out," because I trust you to see. I don't believe the American voters are idiots and I won't treat them like they are. The more I tell you about me, the more honestly I can ask for your vote. I don't expect you'll agree with everything.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why homosexual marriage would make me want to leave my wife for a man, that'll lose me some votes and it won't gain me any as a Democrat. Illegal immigrants flooding the low-mid bluecollar labor market is having a horrid effect on legal blue collar workers, that's wrong, no matter all the excuses and name calling, it's wrong. Abortion stinks, I won't interfere with it, being rich is a nice thing, I don't want to interfere with it, but I'm sure not going to help it along at the expense of the little guy. Business makes jobs but when did it become the be-all-end-all of politics? War is a horrid thing, it's the last worst option, but by gawd, don't play at it and don't pretend that it's bloodless or that you can do it without shredding civilians. You will get our troops killed and maimed and drag a conflict out in the name of sparing ... bad press. Having money and power entails a tremendous responsibility toward the workers who get you there, they're not numbers on paper, if you screw them I'm inclined to return the favor. Don't even begin to think I'd trade a civil liberty for security, if you don't feel safe, that's too bad, but probably realistic. I own a fair number of firearms, shoot them, hunt with them, I build cars and race them, sounds pretty odd for a Democrat, nope. I like people, I tend to trust them, carefully, but I cannot abide liars and cheats. I was a drunk, I'm 18 years clean and sober, I don't know if that's a recommendation or not, but it's me. I have no formal religion, maybe I'm a Deist, sort of. If you think a freshman Rep has any power, you're mistaken, but the Democrat that takes out waldenbush will certainly have a voice. (c'mon it'd be the news story of the year) I'm no public speaker, I look out at these forums and decide it's my friends and neighbors I'm talking to and I'm ok, because it's true it works. I won't give you the answer you want, I'll give you the answer I have, you may not like it, but it'll be true. I'll tweak Rep Greg Walden with the nickname "waldenbush" because it's true, but I have no interest in trying to make scandal for him, he has a public record, that'll do. There's pretty much not spit's difference in policy between myself and my fellow Democratic candidates but I'm different. They might be better candidates to vote for than myself in a different district, we're not in a different one. I can't get very worked up about trying to beat these folks, I like them and I respect them. If the voters tell me to go home to Baker City and bang nails, I really won't mind, I like doing it. Will I like having an office job in DC? No. But I can do it and I can do it better for 2nd CD than waldenbush does and I owe something back. My campaign needs contributions, I get them by little dribs and dabs, which is a good thing, but it takes lots of dribs and dabs. More important is people telling their friends about me, people trust that, TV spots and other ads are just ads. By the way, the comment buttons on here are for use.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Immigration and 19th Century Robber-barons
I posted this 2 weeks ago, before the firestorm erupted and before some particularly silly things were written on progressive sites. I'll do a little updating and addressing of nonsense.
Like most of us, I'm a child of immigrants, a long while ago, pre-Revolution and pre-Civil War for the most part, but immigrants none the less. This country probably could not have survived without the inflow of immigrants through out the 19th and 20th centuries. There is, however, a difference between immigration and uncontrolled illegal entry.
There is the matter of just how dangerous some of the illegals are, whether simple criminality or terrorism makes little difference. Frankly, terrorists will figure out how to penetrate controlled borders. I am not making a case that all illegal entrents are dangerous, simply that an unacceptable portion are and we have enough of the home-grown variety. There certainly are unfortunate social program costs involved, a small slice of the pie becomes even smaller and student funding takes a hit.
Illegal hiring is another piece of the problem. We're not talking about grass cutting and stoop labor, but a whole range of blue collar jobs. Here's a concrete example from my own industry:
labor costs don't stop with wages, FICA takes 15.4% (half from employee-half from employer), Unemployment takes around 2-3%, Workman's Comp takes 22-30%, all totalling between 39-46% of wage. This means that a legal employee costs $1.39 to $1.49 per dollar of wage so a $10.00 per hour employee actually costs $14-15.00 per hour. An employer making an illegal hire has a $4-5.00 per hour per employee labor cost advantage. Try to make that work. If materials costs and time per job are equal where is the give? The employee's wage is where the hit occurs, cheats and thieves are cutting blue collar throats. It is not hard for the employer to verify for legal hiring. So maybe these cheats need to be penalized enough to make the practice very unattractive, like 1yr Prevailing Wage per incident as a fine. Or maybe some jail time to go along with it. The Federal govt virtually winks at this problem, there's some big money in illegal hiring...
If you're starting to think "code for racism" you can back that train up, one of three of my crew is Mexican-American, and I'd hire a green Martian who worked hard and did a good job and had legal paperwork. It's only a part of the reason blue collar wages are so seriously depressed, but it is significant and curable. Take a look at who's tolerating this and then take a look at money. Do I get angry about this? You bet, I work side by side with my guys and they do everything right, work hard and do a good job in all kinds of weather and it's a job that is statistically more dangerous than being a cop. The arguement that Americans won't take that kind of work falls apart in the face of my crew all being Americans.
Not one of my crew nor myself bear any responsibilty for the condition of any foreign country. Not one iota. But they will be made to bear the cost. Now if the stance of "bye-bye" seems hard hearted, maybe you need to consider how little we can afford sympathy until our plight is addressed. We are being "in-sourced" right out of work or wages. If I raise my per foot bid just enough to cover the cost of a motel room with 5 illegals in it, I'm done for. That would involve $1.50/hour raise for my crew. You can find a crew of 15 illegals on a job and call INS and their response is, " Ummmm, oh well..." Once they're past the entry point, nobody gives a rat's patoot.
Maybe you're a little conflicted on the illegality of the issue, so I'll make this point, if I take a little walk and come home, life is good, but if my little walk takes me into Mary Doe's house, uninvited, I'm going to face some rather ugly legal consequences. These folks have taken a little walk right into my house and are taking things, I don't like it. I don't have to like it and won't like it just to satisfy the "race" card. I don't care what language they say "hello" in or what color face is saying it, do it legally or get out. Americans go to jail for less serious offenses than invading a country and stealing services, how the heck is that condonable?
GWB and waldenbush are working real hard to take this country back to 19th Century robber barons conditions and the touchy-feely left is aiding and abetting the process on this issue. If you want to see how this crap works, take a real good look at Chicago at the turn of the Century, and look at a real history text. Well, I told you I wasn't politics as usual or just any Democrat, so if you feel mislead, not my fault.
Like most of us, I'm a child of immigrants, a long while ago, pre-Revolution and pre-Civil War for the most part, but immigrants none the less. This country probably could not have survived without the inflow of immigrants through out the 19th and 20th centuries. There is, however, a difference between immigration and uncontrolled illegal entry.
There is the matter of just how dangerous some of the illegals are, whether simple criminality or terrorism makes little difference. Frankly, terrorists will figure out how to penetrate controlled borders. I am not making a case that all illegal entrents are dangerous, simply that an unacceptable portion are and we have enough of the home-grown variety. There certainly are unfortunate social program costs involved, a small slice of the pie becomes even smaller and student funding takes a hit.
Illegal hiring is another piece of the problem. We're not talking about grass cutting and stoop labor, but a whole range of blue collar jobs. Here's a concrete example from my own industry:
labor costs don't stop with wages, FICA takes 15.4% (half from employee-half from employer), Unemployment takes around 2-3%, Workman's Comp takes 22-30%, all totalling between 39-46% of wage. This means that a legal employee costs $1.39 to $1.49 per dollar of wage so a $10.00 per hour employee actually costs $14-15.00 per hour. An employer making an illegal hire has a $4-5.00 per hour per employee labor cost advantage. Try to make that work. If materials costs and time per job are equal where is the give? The employee's wage is where the hit occurs, cheats and thieves are cutting blue collar throats. It is not hard for the employer to verify for legal hiring. So maybe these cheats need to be penalized enough to make the practice very unattractive, like 1yr Prevailing Wage per incident as a fine. Or maybe some jail time to go along with it. The Federal govt virtually winks at this problem, there's some big money in illegal hiring...
If you're starting to think "code for racism" you can back that train up, one of three of my crew is Mexican-American, and I'd hire a green Martian who worked hard and did a good job and had legal paperwork. It's only a part of the reason blue collar wages are so seriously depressed, but it is significant and curable. Take a look at who's tolerating this and then take a look at money. Do I get angry about this? You bet, I work side by side with my guys and they do everything right, work hard and do a good job in all kinds of weather and it's a job that is statistically more dangerous than being a cop. The arguement that Americans won't take that kind of work falls apart in the face of my crew all being Americans.
Not one of my crew nor myself bear any responsibilty for the condition of any foreign country. Not one iota. But they will be made to bear the cost. Now if the stance of "bye-bye" seems hard hearted, maybe you need to consider how little we can afford sympathy until our plight is addressed. We are being "in-sourced" right out of work or wages. If I raise my per foot bid just enough to cover the cost of a motel room with 5 illegals in it, I'm done for. That would involve $1.50/hour raise for my crew. You can find a crew of 15 illegals on a job and call INS and their response is, " Ummmm, oh well..." Once they're past the entry point, nobody gives a rat's patoot.
Maybe you're a little conflicted on the illegality of the issue, so I'll make this point, if I take a little walk and come home, life is good, but if my little walk takes me into Mary Doe's house, uninvited, I'm going to face some rather ugly legal consequences. These folks have taken a little walk right into my house and are taking things, I don't like it. I don't have to like it and won't like it just to satisfy the "race" card. I don't care what language they say "hello" in or what color face is saying it, do it legally or get out. Americans go to jail for less serious offenses than invading a country and stealing services, how the heck is that condonable?
GWB and waldenbush are working real hard to take this country back to 19th Century robber barons conditions and the touchy-feely left is aiding and abetting the process on this issue. If you want to see how this crap works, take a real good look at Chicago at the turn of the Century, and look at a real history text. Well, I told you I wasn't politics as usual or just any Democrat, so if you feel mislead, not my fault.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Waldenbush VS ....
I've been quiet for awhile, four 10 hour days to get 40/week in crappy weather and many miles of driving have taken a toll on this blog. 1000 miles weekend of 3/18 and close to 600 mi weekend of 3/25.
I've been running some numbers through my head, the 75/25 and 70/30 losses to waldenbush in the last 2 elections. These results happened to 2 men I admire and respect who had good ideas. Along with those numbers are how things have to play for waldenbush to go home. A Democrat has to take all the Democratic vote, they can't "stay home" or have been insulted into voting against. In an ordinary election the Independents pretty much split, that's good enough for a serious thrashing, a Democrat has to get most of them. That still won't quite do it, some Republicans have to be split off from the herd. That's a tall order. The last 2 elections ought to make it pretty clear that being a nice person with good ideas won't do it. It must take more, GWB just wasn't THAT popular, his elections were near 50/50 splits, not 75/25.
Politics as usual is good enough to get a butt kicking, if that's the case then change the rules and the game changes. For waldenbush imcumbency, Party, and empty symbolic gestures have been enough to do the trick. If he runs on his voting record he has to count on party and gestures, if some of his Party favors are removed (2nd Ammendment for one) it counts for less. If his Party is shown to be a tool of plutocrats and multi-national corporations it looks less admirable. Is that enough? Probably not quite, but what might tip the balance is a candidate that comes from a direction waldenbush can't deal with. He can't pretend to be a member of the "ordinary" 2nd CD voters, he can't pretend to understand or even comprehend actual labor and he's shown no particular ability to speak plainly and straightforwardly. That might have a lot to do with why I'm running and why I say I can beat him, even with all his money.
I've been running some numbers through my head, the 75/25 and 70/30 losses to waldenbush in the last 2 elections. These results happened to 2 men I admire and respect who had good ideas. Along with those numbers are how things have to play for waldenbush to go home. A Democrat has to take all the Democratic vote, they can't "stay home" or have been insulted into voting against. In an ordinary election the Independents pretty much split, that's good enough for a serious thrashing, a Democrat has to get most of them. That still won't quite do it, some Republicans have to be split off from the herd. That's a tall order. The last 2 elections ought to make it pretty clear that being a nice person with good ideas won't do it. It must take more, GWB just wasn't THAT popular, his elections were near 50/50 splits, not 75/25.
Politics as usual is good enough to get a butt kicking, if that's the case then change the rules and the game changes. For waldenbush imcumbency, Party, and empty symbolic gestures have been enough to do the trick. If he runs on his voting record he has to count on party and gestures, if some of his Party favors are removed (2nd Ammendment for one) it counts for less. If his Party is shown to be a tool of plutocrats and multi-national corporations it looks less admirable. Is that enough? Probably not quite, but what might tip the balance is a candidate that comes from a direction waldenbush can't deal with. He can't pretend to be a member of the "ordinary" 2nd CD voters, he can't pretend to understand or even comprehend actual labor and he's shown no particular ability to speak plainly and straightforwardly. That might have a lot to do with why I'm running and why I say I can beat him, even with all his money.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Russ Feingold and Censure
I've already made myself clear that the Bush warrentless wiretaps of American citizens are illegal for one and flat out wrong, for two. Russ Feingold thinks so strongly enough to make a Censure Motion against the President. Well, he sure needs corralled.
Here's how to email the Senator:
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
and tell him just how right this is.
Go ahead, tell him Chuck sent ya. That'll impress him.
Here's how to email the Senator:
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
and tell him just how right this is.
Go ahead, tell him Chuck sent ya. That'll impress him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)