September 11, planes crashed into buildings and a field and three thousand died, a genuine tragedy occurred. It was followed almost immediately by another one, the abject stupidity of a nation. The freest nation on earth began to cede its heritage, purchased with blood and treasure to liars. "Wait a minute, Iraq happened later..." Nope that's not the lie. The lie was much larger and with broader and more enduring consequences. Are you guessing yet? Ok
The lie goes like this, we need broader police powers to keep you safe from terrorists. You're entirely too gullible. The carnage and property damage on US roads each year exceeds 9/11. Your fear is based on image and perception, not fact. That's only the beginning of the lie. It goes much deeper. Prior to the call for broad powers 9/11 happened, prior to 9/11 standard police powers were what was available, prior to 9/11 those standard investigative procedures had uncovered enough information to roll up the conspiracy. That's not guess work or conspiracy theory, it's fact. Still, 9/11 happened.
Here's where the President's logic get really tortured, the failure to stop 9/11 was entirely the fault of the Federal Government's police and intelligence agencies. It was not a failure of law, it was the failure of turf cutting bureaucracies and executive dismissal of field agent work. Because the Federal Government was unable to exercise proper usage of its available tools it must be granted further tools. It must be granted tools that are unprecedented in their violation of the Bill of Rights and Constitutional separation of powers; and the American politicians, media, and public bought in.
Do you feel surrounded by stupidity yet? Let's take this a little further, some time passes and some folks look at this stuff and start asking questions, so... we let it go on. The Patriot Act in all it's magnificent ridiculousness had one saving component - it sunsetted. Well, now it's not sunsetted. Since that didn't scare the pants off the public, how about some warrantless wire tapping. Never mind that a scary secret court makes no bones about approving this kind of spying on Americans, it needs to be dodged. Your head hasn't exploded yet? Well how about some torture to help that along. No kidding, no shit sherlock, the United States of America needs to torture people because our govenment is inept. How inept? How about renditioning an innocent to be tortured by a foreign government, an innocent citizen of a close ally.
Why preach to the choir? If you're not foaming at the mouth and doing something activist to kick these scum out of power you ain't the choir, you're, at best, a whiner. Are you donating time and money to a political campaign to oust them? Have you registered with an actual national Party to dig in and help? You think Iraq is a mess? Look a ways into our future, then. You are facing two choices in how to deal with this kind of crap, at the polls...or at the point of a gun. You are loosing your freedom. What the **** do you propose to do about it? You don't like my language? Well, I don't like whining and sloth. If you think you can question what I've tried to do about it or what I'm doing about it, you ain't paying attention. I have earned a right to call you out.
Oh, I almost forgot. If you're looking Uncle Fed, that's exactly right, I've accused your leaders of high crimes and misdemeanors and stated publicly that the choice is ballots or bullets. **** you too. You now have an open invitation to try out George II's bullshit on me, it would be a bad idea, though.
No, my head has not exploded, that's exactly the kind of country we live in now. If you don't think so, I guess you're ...
Friday, September 22, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
Hey, Ya Ole Goat
I’ve known my pal Curt for over fifteen years; he’s been my gun nail supplier, nail gun repair mechanic, and nail gun seller. I’ve traded guns in, gotten loaners, and in general done quite a bit of business with him. He’s competitive with nails, but he sells me guns for a very good price and is quite reasonable with repair costs; in fact, if I have a gun in the shop he gives me a free loaner if I need it. So, it is pretty good in general terms doing business with Curt. But then it starts to get way beyond simple business, if I need nails after closing or on weekends he goes to the shop and opens up, if a gun repair is pressing, he’ll do it in his off time. He takes exceptional care of this customer, not for the dollar, for the pride of the doing.
Curt has been in a wheelchair considerably longer than I’ve known him, since he was a young man, and he’s in his later seventies now. At the time the doctors told him he probably didn’t have long to live. He’s made them liars, though one thing or the other has had to be fixed through that time. I have never known of Curt to feel sorry for him self or take it easy. He’s always been a hardworking cheerful guy. Beyond the nail gun business, he makes wood parts, survey stakes, window packing parts, and so on. The shop is set up for his chair but it is still hard work, and he’s kept on smiling through the day. It is one of my favorite parts of my work to stop and get something from Curt. There’s always good conversation and good humored banter. Me, “Hey, ya ole goat!” Him, “Oh, you whipper-snapper!” (right, I’m 53) It never does get accomplished quickly…
A couple weeks ago the other shoe dropped, it’s cancer and it’s inoperable and it’s not long to go. I was one of the first to know and my heart was broken. Yes, it has been a good long run, but he wasn’t tired of it yet and I sure wasn’t tired of him. He told me with that crooked smile of his, the one that lets you know there’s a punch line somewhere, only the punch line was, “Oh well…” I didn’t quite cry, but my throat sure was locked up and my eyes felt pretty wet. That bothered him a little, but he perked right back up. I’d known before hand about this, but it was his place to tell me, so I hadn’t let on, but it surely hurt hearing it from his mouth.
I visit a bit more than I did before and other than that he’s a bit weaker you’d never know. There’s so much talk about heroes anymore, I won’t use the word, but his quiet bravery through all these years and especially now makes the kind of impact on me that all sorts of tales of derring-do might on others. I share this with you as a sort of monument to my friend’s achievements and to honor our friendship. Boy, I’m going to miss you, ya ole goat, thanks.
Curt has been in a wheelchair considerably longer than I’ve known him, since he was a young man, and he’s in his later seventies now. At the time the doctors told him he probably didn’t have long to live. He’s made them liars, though one thing or the other has had to be fixed through that time. I have never known of Curt to feel sorry for him self or take it easy. He’s always been a hardworking cheerful guy. Beyond the nail gun business, he makes wood parts, survey stakes, window packing parts, and so on. The shop is set up for his chair but it is still hard work, and he’s kept on smiling through the day. It is one of my favorite parts of my work to stop and get something from Curt. There’s always good conversation and good humored banter. Me, “Hey, ya ole goat!” Him, “Oh, you whipper-snapper!” (right, I’m 53) It never does get accomplished quickly…
A couple weeks ago the other shoe dropped, it’s cancer and it’s inoperable and it’s not long to go. I was one of the first to know and my heart was broken. Yes, it has been a good long run, but he wasn’t tired of it yet and I sure wasn’t tired of him. He told me with that crooked smile of his, the one that lets you know there’s a punch line somewhere, only the punch line was, “Oh well…” I didn’t quite cry, but my throat sure was locked up and my eyes felt pretty wet. That bothered him a little, but he perked right back up. I’d known before hand about this, but it was his place to tell me, so I hadn’t let on, but it surely hurt hearing it from his mouth.
I visit a bit more than I did before and other than that he’s a bit weaker you’d never know. There’s so much talk about heroes anymore, I won’t use the word, but his quiet bravery through all these years and especially now makes the kind of impact on me that all sorts of tales of derring-do might on others. I share this with you as a sort of monument to my friend’s achievements and to honor our friendship. Boy, I’m going to miss you, ya ole goat, thanks.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I'm a Terrorist Supporter
Wowser!!! How the heck do you like that, I've graduated to the big time and I've done it publicly. (see Archives) I'd like to thank the Administration and in particular Mr Tony Snow for the nomination and award, taa daa.
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "
There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.
Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.
It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.
Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.
Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "
There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.
Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.
It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.
Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.
Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Words and More Words
Words are such wonderful things, there's so much information included in them and in some usages so much music. They contain not only information and music but also feelings. Ah, words, I suppose it's obvious as a Blogger that I love words.
Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.
Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.
George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?
Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?
Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.
Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.
Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.
Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.
George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?
Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?
Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.
Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.
George W Bush is not an idiot ???
Rep Issen R-CA on Bill Mahr's "Real Time" said that "this President is not an idiot" ... paraphrase - 'he listens to the wrong people.' Ok, Rep Issen is running for Congress as a Republican so saying GWB is an idiot might not be politic.
Now I say the guy (ok, the President) is of moderate intelligence, but that he is seriously challenged in the intellect department. Look, he didn't quite fail at an Ivy League College and he didn't manage to fly a fighter jet into the dirt, so he's not retarded. Apparently he can manage the words in books I read in 9th Grade so the neurons are connected and every once in awhile full sentences don't challenge him, especially if they hearken to an old western. So we can quit calling him a moron.
Seriously challenged in the intellect is a different matter, this involves critical thinking and synergizing information into decisions. A critical thinker will look at information and ideas and take them apart into their relevant pieces and look at the pieces. Information and ideas are a great deal like jigsaw puzzles, they come to you as a pretty picture on the box but they're made up of many odd shapes and colors that have meaning. It is your job to make sense of those pieces, even though somebody has already given you the picture. I don't care if people have been paid to analyze something, you still need to pay enough attention to it to be sure you understand how the analysis was arrived at and that you've considered opposing analysis. This does mean that you need outside sources of information if you're inside an organization or "point of view."
Synergy is hugely important, nothing that is given as an argument for an idea contains the elements of other points of view and those view points may contain important information and ideas whether you are in agreement with their conclusions or not. No serious argument undertaken by an opposing view point can come from "thin air." It must be founded on something and that something could easily be of import to your decision. Consideration of those elements and their inclusion or modification for inclusion into a decision can be a make or break proposition for successful implementation of a decision process.
GWB is a failure as a President not because he's a moron, he's a failure because he's ignorant, and what's worse, proud of it. The man has surrounded himself with ideologues and pays no attention to anything else, while they pay no attention to anything except their inflated egos. Any particular piece of stupidity can have backers for it, there are plenty of people who will state quite seriously that the moon landings were faked, no evidence will convince them otherwise, they listen to each other and that's it. The President was surrounded by people who quite seriously believed that you could impose democracy at the point of a gun on people with no experience of it. Yes, we did that to Japan. We did it after we showed them in very simple terms that extermination was their alternative. Now this is important, the one time it has been accomplished was under the umbrella of two mushroom clouds, fire bombings and the near total destruction of infrastructure didn't do it, battlefield slaughter didn't do it, none of the usual accoutrements of warfare accomplished that end. The clear prospect of annihilation did.
Now I say the guy (ok, the President) is of moderate intelligence, but that he is seriously challenged in the intellect department. Look, he didn't quite fail at an Ivy League College and he didn't manage to fly a fighter jet into the dirt, so he's not retarded. Apparently he can manage the words in books I read in 9th Grade so the neurons are connected and every once in awhile full sentences don't challenge him, especially if they hearken to an old western. So we can quit calling him a moron.
Seriously challenged in the intellect is a different matter, this involves critical thinking and synergizing information into decisions. A critical thinker will look at information and ideas and take them apart into their relevant pieces and look at the pieces. Information and ideas are a great deal like jigsaw puzzles, they come to you as a pretty picture on the box but they're made up of many odd shapes and colors that have meaning. It is your job to make sense of those pieces, even though somebody has already given you the picture. I don't care if people have been paid to analyze something, you still need to pay enough attention to it to be sure you understand how the analysis was arrived at and that you've considered opposing analysis. This does mean that you need outside sources of information if you're inside an organization or "point of view."
Synergy is hugely important, nothing that is given as an argument for an idea contains the elements of other points of view and those view points may contain important information and ideas whether you are in agreement with their conclusions or not. No serious argument undertaken by an opposing view point can come from "thin air." It must be founded on something and that something could easily be of import to your decision. Consideration of those elements and their inclusion or modification for inclusion into a decision can be a make or break proposition for successful implementation of a decision process.
GWB is a failure as a President not because he's a moron, he's a failure because he's ignorant, and what's worse, proud of it. The man has surrounded himself with ideologues and pays no attention to anything else, while they pay no attention to anything except their inflated egos. Any particular piece of stupidity can have backers for it, there are plenty of people who will state quite seriously that the moon landings were faked, no evidence will convince them otherwise, they listen to each other and that's it. The President was surrounded by people who quite seriously believed that you could impose democracy at the point of a gun on people with no experience of it. Yes, we did that to Japan. We did it after we showed them in very simple terms that extermination was their alternative. Now this is important, the one time it has been accomplished was under the umbrella of two mushroom clouds, fire bombings and the near total destruction of infrastructure didn't do it, battlefield slaughter didn't do it, none of the usual accoutrements of warfare accomplished that end. The clear prospect of annihilation did.
Who wasn't paying attention?
You can run the list of Bush failures and find a commonality in every one, closed mindedness. No, this is not a sign of retardation, but idiotic...hmmm.
Fellow lefties, there's something here to pay attention to in regard to ourselves.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Iranian Stupidity
Every once in awhile I lose my mind and get the idea that somebody in George II's administration has brains and the ability to reason from facts. I know it's silliness and wishful thinking, but I just can't help having some faith in human beings. For pete's sake, some facts about Iran actually exist and are available to just about anyone with a 3rd grade education.
Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.
Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.
The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.
Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.
The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.
I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.
Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.
Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.
The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.
Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.
The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.
I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Re-elect RM Nixon
I KNOW he's dead. And I detested him, well before he was President, but here's what David Gergen had to say, paraphrased: Richard Nixon couldn't get elected today, he was too far left.
Had you thought of it that way, I don't mean, "was he a crook?" I mean how "far left" Nixon was, by today's standards. Now I don't put myself up as a rival to the advisor to 3 Presidents, but I'd propose that by today's standards nobody from FDR through Clinton would've been elected last time.
I do believe that what the Republicans hated about Clinton was that he ran on and won on their agenda and that was where the heavy tilt right in the Republican Party came from. If you hate him and oppose him at every turn, the only way to get out from under him is to move Right. A lot right. And then to call draconian rightism compassionate.
There was a pretty spirited comment section over at Preemptive Karma the other day about shifting tags of political persuasion. I called the tags laziness in regards to individuals and individual topics, but there is a usefulness in "tagging" the general political tenor. My real problem with left/center/right at this point is that the "right" isn't what it meant - conservative -when I learned the terms. I still can't get myself to call this bunch conservatives, I understood what they stood for, the best I can do with these guys is mean selfish religious pricks. There still are some conservatives around, I don't much agree with them, but at least I understand them. I can't make sense of the agenda of this crowd, no it's not the neo-con thing, though that's a part of it, it's the thing taken as a whole, it just doesn't hang together. For Pete's sake, Barry Goldwater's stuff had a consistency, it made sense whether you agreed or not.
If the destruction of the United States of America was the agenda, their stuff would almost make sense, I'm not talking about the dirt it's composed of, I mean the Declaration, Constitution, BOR, the spirit and philosophy. I'm a real "left" sorta guy, but that's not what I'm talking about, not politics, the basis of what we live is what I'm talking about. The Conservatives had a philosophy that informed their politics, these guys have...I don't know what. This just seems like some aberrant mess and calling them names doesn't address it.
When George II first ran, I thought he was too limited to be dangerous, I also didn't know who he hung around with, first mistake; I had some idea we still had a Congress and an opposition Party, mistake two; I didn't know something was hanging out there that could be used to scare a big chunk of the citizenry, mistake three - it was obvious; I didn't know these were the guys who'd be such political animals to do that, mistake four - wishful thinking. Now I'm a real smart guy - all those tests say so - but this list sure makes me look stupid. I don't like that.
I learn real quick...
Had you thought of it that way, I don't mean, "was he a crook?" I mean how "far left" Nixon was, by today's standards. Now I don't put myself up as a rival to the advisor to 3 Presidents, but I'd propose that by today's standards nobody from FDR through Clinton would've been elected last time.
I do believe that what the Republicans hated about Clinton was that he ran on and won on their agenda and that was where the heavy tilt right in the Republican Party came from. If you hate him and oppose him at every turn, the only way to get out from under him is to move Right. A lot right. And then to call draconian rightism compassionate.
There was a pretty spirited comment section over at Preemptive Karma the other day about shifting tags of political persuasion. I called the tags laziness in regards to individuals and individual topics, but there is a usefulness in "tagging" the general political tenor. My real problem with left/center/right at this point is that the "right" isn't what it meant - conservative -when I learned the terms. I still can't get myself to call this bunch conservatives, I understood what they stood for, the best I can do with these guys is mean selfish religious pricks. There still are some conservatives around, I don't much agree with them, but at least I understand them. I can't make sense of the agenda of this crowd, no it's not the neo-con thing, though that's a part of it, it's the thing taken as a whole, it just doesn't hang together. For Pete's sake, Barry Goldwater's stuff had a consistency, it made sense whether you agreed or not.
If the destruction of the United States of America was the agenda, their stuff would almost make sense, I'm not talking about the dirt it's composed of, I mean the Declaration, Constitution, BOR, the spirit and philosophy. I'm a real "left" sorta guy, but that's not what I'm talking about, not politics, the basis of what we live is what I'm talking about. The Conservatives had a philosophy that informed their politics, these guys have...I don't know what. This just seems like some aberrant mess and calling them names doesn't address it.
When George II first ran, I thought he was too limited to be dangerous, I also didn't know who he hung around with, first mistake; I had some idea we still had a Congress and an opposition Party, mistake two; I didn't know something was hanging out there that could be used to scare a big chunk of the citizenry, mistake three - it was obvious; I didn't know these were the guys who'd be such political animals to do that, mistake four - wishful thinking. Now I'm a real smart guy - all those tests say so - but this list sure makes me look stupid. I don't like that.
I learn real quick...
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The Prez Sez
The Washington Post carried an article about GWB saying we are safer. Now I'm going to quote the end of the last line:
"...an extremist group of folks bound together by an ideology, willing to use terror to achieve their objectives."
Sound like anyone we know? Nearby?
Let's do a little defining and move on. Let's just suppose that the objectives are, gasp, achieving and maintaining political power - fairly common amongst terrorists.
Webster's 9th Collegiate says " terror ... 1 : a state of intense fear "
This is the most secretive administration in history, think about it, WWII, atom bombs, McCarthyism, this is the most secretive. Secrets are the antithesis to an informed involved populous, the "deciders" if you will.
Terror level alerts have gone up before each election since 9/11. The Republican and Administration mantra is we're strongest on terror so you'll be safer. 'you are scared now, aren't you?'
Iraq and Al Queda are linked - denied by the CIA and Saddam Hussein's own papers. You are safer because we're fighting them there - terror acts world wide have skyrocketed since the invasion.
Opponents of the Iraq War are the friends of terrorists - see above
A wartime President has extraordinary powers - Congress declares war, not GWB
The Bill of Rights can be suspended in wartime - what war? The 1st Ammendment is being whittled at, the 4th Ammendment has become virtually meaningless. The 5th and 6th Ammendments are being abused almost beyond belief, in full view of the public and in secret.
I'd say our homegrown, elected terrorists have moved very far foward with their objectives, people are scared, power is accrued to them, the people abjectly surrender their rights, and...
There are a couple ways to deal with situations like this, voting the rat bastards out is simplest and least wasteful...
"...an extremist group of folks bound together by an ideology, willing to use terror to achieve their objectives."
Sound like anyone we know? Nearby?
Let's do a little defining and move on. Let's just suppose that the objectives are, gasp, achieving and maintaining political power - fairly common amongst terrorists.
Webster's 9th Collegiate says " terror ... 1 : a state of intense fear "
This is the most secretive administration in history, think about it, WWII, atom bombs, McCarthyism, this is the most secretive. Secrets are the antithesis to an informed involved populous, the "deciders" if you will.
Terror level alerts have gone up before each election since 9/11. The Republican and Administration mantra is we're strongest on terror so you'll be safer. 'you are scared now, aren't you?'
Iraq and Al Queda are linked - denied by the CIA and Saddam Hussein's own papers. You are safer because we're fighting them there - terror acts world wide have skyrocketed since the invasion.
Opponents of the Iraq War are the friends of terrorists - see above
A wartime President has extraordinary powers - Congress declares war, not GWB
The Bill of Rights can be suspended in wartime - what war? The 1st Ammendment is being whittled at, the 4th Ammendment has become virtually meaningless. The 5th and 6th Ammendments are being abused almost beyond belief, in full view of the public and in secret.
I'd say our homegrown, elected terrorists have moved very far foward with their objectives, people are scared, power is accrued to them, the people abjectly surrender their rights, and...
There are a couple ways to deal with situations like this, voting the rat bastards out is simplest and least wasteful...
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Follow the Money
Seen a major news media story lately...or not seen one? There's a piece of analysis that would help your understanding, figure out what monied interest benefits. Whether the story supports your particular political bent or not stop and think about it.
I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.
Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.
There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.
One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?
How about the Public's benefit?
I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.
Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.
There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.
One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?
How about the Public's benefit?
People Are Trying To Kill Us
They really are, despite the political hyping and election timing of our government it's true. I doubt very many of us are pleased that this is so, it is somehow unappealing to mind your own business and yet be a target. The really unfortunate side of this is the unthinking responses.
The President and his lackies would have us believe that people want to kill us because they hate our freedom. Ummm... I find this concept a little hard to make rational, not that I find people willing to blow themselves and others up to make a point particularly rational, it just seems pretty farfetched as a hatred generator. To work oneself up to this point takes a little more than a abstract object. They certainly hate something, but I have an idea that it is much more concrete than our freedom. If someone does something to you or your family or nation, that's concrete.
In the West, our experience of tribalism is pretty distant history, excepting the American Indians, and we forget how tribes work. Tribalism is pretty recent history for the Middle East so it might be instructive to consider it. Tribes work because of a very narrow social structure, family, religion, and tribal members are very closely linked, those relationships are of extreme importance and marked out by rigid codes. Violation of those codes is met with extreme reaction, whether within or without the tribal unit. Anybody want to take the time to count the number of ways and times the US government has transgressed those codes and for what reasons?
Do the policy makers in our government really believe we're hated for our freedoms? If they do, they're stupider than they seem to think we are. Now with people actually trying to kill us, it's not a good idea to be led by stupid people, or, people who lie to you because they think you're stupid. Reality is a wonderful approach to use in potentially deadly situations.
Sure, it's pretty easy for me to be distinctly unafraid of terrorists, I hardly ever fly and Baker City, OR is pretty far down the terrorist target list, but I do give a damn if my fellow citizens are threatened. But trying to scare people out of their civil liberties and into voting against their own interests does nothing to secure them, and neither do military adventures with constantly changing justifications (lies). Finding out Who and Why is crucial, and then addressing the Whys and smaking the shit out of the Whos makes sense. Regarding the Whys, some are subject to negotiation and change, some are plain un-negotiable, figure it out and do it. The Whos sure aren't easily found, and it's a lot harder if you manufacture them at a hellbent pace with a stupid war instead of looking for them. There is no nation on earth with more power and resources than the US, we can't find these people? Well, there is oil in Iraq and we can make plenty more terrorists for the President to play politics with.
The President and his lackies would have us believe that people want to kill us because they hate our freedom. Ummm... I find this concept a little hard to make rational, not that I find people willing to blow themselves and others up to make a point particularly rational, it just seems pretty farfetched as a hatred generator. To work oneself up to this point takes a little more than a abstract object. They certainly hate something, but I have an idea that it is much more concrete than our freedom. If someone does something to you or your family or nation, that's concrete.
In the West, our experience of tribalism is pretty distant history, excepting the American Indians, and we forget how tribes work. Tribalism is pretty recent history for the Middle East so it might be instructive to consider it. Tribes work because of a very narrow social structure, family, religion, and tribal members are very closely linked, those relationships are of extreme importance and marked out by rigid codes. Violation of those codes is met with extreme reaction, whether within or without the tribal unit. Anybody want to take the time to count the number of ways and times the US government has transgressed those codes and for what reasons?
Do the policy makers in our government really believe we're hated for our freedoms? If they do, they're stupider than they seem to think we are. Now with people actually trying to kill us, it's not a good idea to be led by stupid people, or, people who lie to you because they think you're stupid. Reality is a wonderful approach to use in potentially deadly situations.
Sure, it's pretty easy for me to be distinctly unafraid of terrorists, I hardly ever fly and Baker City, OR is pretty far down the terrorist target list, but I do give a damn if my fellow citizens are threatened. But trying to scare people out of their civil liberties and into voting against their own interests does nothing to secure them, and neither do military adventures with constantly changing justifications (lies). Finding out Who and Why is crucial, and then addressing the Whys and smaking the shit out of the Whos makes sense. Regarding the Whys, some are subject to negotiation and change, some are plain un-negotiable, figure it out and do it. The Whos sure aren't easily found, and it's a lot harder if you manufacture them at a hellbent pace with a stupid war instead of looking for them. There is no nation on earth with more power and resources than the US, we can't find these people? Well, there is oil in Iraq and we can make plenty more terrorists for the President to play politics with.
Friday, August 11, 2006
A DPO Gun Owner's Caucus
Zach Johnson is working on establishing a DPO Gun Owner's Caucus and I'm proud to be a supporter. Go take a look at Multnomah County Democrats to get some details if it's the sort of thing that interests you. Sure, this is an internal action but support is a good thing and important to demonstrate a need. I really don't mind that the public gets the idea that Democrats own guns. This is a good thing for DPO, let Zach know.
Boy Am I Scared, Now
Holy Crappolla Batman, the Terror level just ratcheted up, airports are a mess and incumbents are losing...huh? What kind of sinister mind does it take to make that connection? Who's really scared, frequent fliers or incumbents? If I were an incumbent I'd be pretty nervous, and odds are that if I were one, I'd be a Republican and if it had anything to do with national clout I'd hope my pals in the Executive Branch could help me out, at least more than they have the past couple years.
I've looked at this plot scenario that's been in the media and there are at least a couple things that seem odd. Since the ingredients for this bomb had to be seperate to get past screening that would mean mixing the stuff on board, it is an odd behavior to be dumping aftershave into a toothpaste tube-ok-whatever. Then you detonate this mess with a cell phone. Why? If you're going to set this off in mid-air you're going with it, so why not set it off in your lap after you've mixed it? Why do you need a cell activated ignitor? How does this ignition system get missed by security?
I'm sure looking forward to getting all the little details on this one, if this disappears like so many of the Pre-2004 Election ones did, I'd be wondering... Do you suppose these arrested folks will make it to court before the Mid-terms? None of the 2004 stuff did. Well, this Administration has demonstrated enough times that they think we're really stupid...
Flag burning, gay marriage, tax breaks for minimum wage, oh hell, we really are pretty busy trying to survive, damn, they might pull it off again.
I've looked at this plot scenario that's been in the media and there are at least a couple things that seem odd. Since the ingredients for this bomb had to be seperate to get past screening that would mean mixing the stuff on board, it is an odd behavior to be dumping aftershave into a toothpaste tube-ok-whatever. Then you detonate this mess with a cell phone. Why? If you're going to set this off in mid-air you're going with it, so why not set it off in your lap after you've mixed it? Why do you need a cell activated ignitor? How does this ignition system get missed by security?
I'm sure looking forward to getting all the little details on this one, if this disappears like so many of the Pre-2004 Election ones did, I'd be wondering... Do you suppose these arrested folks will make it to court before the Mid-terms? None of the 2004 stuff did. Well, this Administration has demonstrated enough times that they think we're really stupid...
Flag burning, gay marriage, tax breaks for minimum wage, oh hell, we really are pretty busy trying to survive, damn, they might pull it off again.
Say It Ain't So, Joe
Joe Lieberman has managed to offend CT Democrats enough to lose the Democratic Primary to a newcomer and he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it enough so that he'll run as an Independent. Partisan politics gets the blame from his camp.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Just For Scale
Israel and Lebanon are pretty far away and pretty foreign, but for an idea of the scale and distances involved, think about this, Harney and Grant County, Oregon at war. Harney is Israel & Grant is Lebanon, square milage is very close. Of course, populations are a bit different with 7,000 in Harney and 6 million in Israel...
Oh well, Grant and Harney are probably just about as foreign as Israel and Lebanon to most, so I suppose the analogy is pointless...
Oh yeah, they're my neighbors, so it means something to me.
Oh well, Grant and Harney are probably just about as foreign as Israel and Lebanon to most, so I suppose the analogy is pointless...
Oh yeah, they're my neighbors, so it means something to me.
The Working Poor and the Poor, Poor Pitiful Rich
OK, working poor, you can have your raise in the Federal Minimum Wage, just as long as the downtrodden rich folk get an Estate Tax break. Think this mess will pass? "I (Republican Representative X) voted for the Minimum Wage Increase Bill, so this certainly shouldn't be an election issue..."
Do you suppose the electorate is as stupid as they seem to think? Aw, c'mon, they don't think we're stupid ... Gay Marriage...Flag Burning...Terry Schiavo...Stem Cells...
Well, Iraq.
How much of a plan do the Democrats have to have? "We can do better together" might be enough.
Do you suppose the electorate is as stupid as they seem to think? Aw, c'mon, they don't think we're stupid ... Gay Marriage...Flag Burning...Terry Schiavo...Stem Cells...
Well, Iraq.
How much of a plan do the Democrats have to have? "We can do better together" might be enough.
Middle East Game Change
I can't take credit for the ideas I'm about to put forward, Thomas Friedman of NY Times gets that, but I'm also not going to quote him since some of my own thinking is involved.
I ask you to bear with me a little while I run some calculations past you to get where I'm going.
Hezbollah set off the conflagration in Lebanon, I don't doubt Israel has been watching for a reason, but Hezbollah did provide it. The question is, who gains? Lebanon certainly does not, neither the government nor the citizens. Hezbollah is now directly engaged with a superior military force and launching around 100 of its rockets daily, rockets that no longer are held as a deterrent to Israel, this is not a win. The press and sympathies of Sunni Arab nations are generally not with Hezbollah. Hezbollah's civilian neighbors certainly may hate Israel more after being shelled and bombed, but they also probably don't appreciate being "shields" for Hezbollah. Israel was out of Lebanon, ever since 2000, now they're back, not a gain for anybody in Lebanon. So, apparently the winner is Iran, since their nuke program and associated stupidities are out of the headlines, news and diplomatic. But how much of a win is it to alarm much of the Arab world? The Sunni nations other than Syria are unhappy and that doesn't portend well for Iran's overtures to be a Middle East power center. There is entirely too much enmity between Persians and Arabs historically for this to work well. Israel is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, a powerful well armed Hezbollah on their border is dangerous, going after a guerilla army is dangerous. Public opinion doesn't like civilian casualties, either.
Add to this scenario Hamas' difficulties. Israel had pulled out of Palestinian areas, now tanks rumble through them and a ruined economy is further destroyed. Hamas power figures are getting killed or taken. Palestinians may have been cheered by the tweaking of Israel's nose the kidnapping demonstrated, nothing cheerful about the outcome, however.
Syria is the land route for Hezbollah supplies and a major Hamas supporter. Being a pipeline for Iran's games kept them on the right side of a major military power and foe of their foe (GWB's regime change neo-cons) and as long as Hamas was gaining ground a Sunni Arab PR win. Now it looks a little different, they're looking a lot like the toady of the neighborhood bully to Sunnis and drawing the ire of large chunks of the international community. Bad relations with the US are now seriously bad.
What nation in the entire stew might be the game changer? How about Syria? If the US were to approach Syria with some other Sunni governments and something to offer, a serious offer, might they be approachable? There are some things Syria wants rather badly, the Golan Heights, regime security, and an economy that are probably available for a trade for cutting off Iranian supplies and tossing Hamas. This could put Syria back into the Sunni camp where they naturally belong, cut the chaos in their neighborhood (economic suicide), and ensure some things they'd like to have happen. Not to mention help isolate the Iranian infection. A peace agreement with Israel could have all sorts of salutory effects, for both. The US might look like much less of a threat in Iraq, and in fact be less of a threat to Syria with the terrorist links there broken. It wouldn't be inexpensive for the US and it certainly would mean making nice with a distinctly un-nice dictatorship, but it is also important to remember that it's a tough neighborhood and a bad place to be an altar-boy. It would mean a switch from regime change to behavior change as policy, but we really don't seem to be gaining much from the neo-con regime change game.
I'm certain it would be truly humiliating for the neo-cons to go ask Syria what they want to change the game, the problem is that the game as it's being played is a losing proposition across the board. That humiliation is also the reason it probably won't happen. So we can watch more GWB neo-con disasters unfold.
I ask you to bear with me a little while I run some calculations past you to get where I'm going.
Hezbollah set off the conflagration in Lebanon, I don't doubt Israel has been watching for a reason, but Hezbollah did provide it. The question is, who gains? Lebanon certainly does not, neither the government nor the citizens. Hezbollah is now directly engaged with a superior military force and launching around 100 of its rockets daily, rockets that no longer are held as a deterrent to Israel, this is not a win. The press and sympathies of Sunni Arab nations are generally not with Hezbollah. Hezbollah's civilian neighbors certainly may hate Israel more after being shelled and bombed, but they also probably don't appreciate being "shields" for Hezbollah. Israel was out of Lebanon, ever since 2000, now they're back, not a gain for anybody in Lebanon. So, apparently the winner is Iran, since their nuke program and associated stupidities are out of the headlines, news and diplomatic. But how much of a win is it to alarm much of the Arab world? The Sunni nations other than Syria are unhappy and that doesn't portend well for Iran's overtures to be a Middle East power center. There is entirely too much enmity between Persians and Arabs historically for this to work well. Israel is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, a powerful well armed Hezbollah on their border is dangerous, going after a guerilla army is dangerous. Public opinion doesn't like civilian casualties, either.
Add to this scenario Hamas' difficulties. Israel had pulled out of Palestinian areas, now tanks rumble through them and a ruined economy is further destroyed. Hamas power figures are getting killed or taken. Palestinians may have been cheered by the tweaking of Israel's nose the kidnapping demonstrated, nothing cheerful about the outcome, however.
Syria is the land route for Hezbollah supplies and a major Hamas supporter. Being a pipeline for Iran's games kept them on the right side of a major military power and foe of their foe (GWB's regime change neo-cons) and as long as Hamas was gaining ground a Sunni Arab PR win. Now it looks a little different, they're looking a lot like the toady of the neighborhood bully to Sunnis and drawing the ire of large chunks of the international community. Bad relations with the US are now seriously bad.
What nation in the entire stew might be the game changer? How about Syria? If the US were to approach Syria with some other Sunni governments and something to offer, a serious offer, might they be approachable? There are some things Syria wants rather badly, the Golan Heights, regime security, and an economy that are probably available for a trade for cutting off Iranian supplies and tossing Hamas. This could put Syria back into the Sunni camp where they naturally belong, cut the chaos in their neighborhood (economic suicide), and ensure some things they'd like to have happen. Not to mention help isolate the Iranian infection. A peace agreement with Israel could have all sorts of salutory effects, for both. The US might look like much less of a threat in Iraq, and in fact be less of a threat to Syria with the terrorist links there broken. It wouldn't be inexpensive for the US and it certainly would mean making nice with a distinctly un-nice dictatorship, but it is also important to remember that it's a tough neighborhood and a bad place to be an altar-boy. It would mean a switch from regime change to behavior change as policy, but we really don't seem to be gaining much from the neo-con regime change game.
I'm certain it would be truly humiliating for the neo-cons to go ask Syria what they want to change the game, the problem is that the game as it's being played is a losing proposition across the board. That humiliation is also the reason it probably won't happen. So we can watch more GWB neo-con disasters unfold.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Political Poverty Bulls**t
Another Blog mentioned Carol Voisin's very small political warchest, like this is something surprising. Lets do some objective thinking about this, Waldenbush has or soon will have $ 1 Million to play with, he's an incumbent, his only apparent scandal is that he reliably votes for the interests of people who comprise maybe 0.0001% of the 2nd Congressional District, and he's Geo II's lap dog (well since T DeLay left). This isn't exactly a recipe for attracting big donors, and in a rather conservative district, being a liberal doesn't have a lot of big money backing. So...
During the Primary I wrote and said repeatedly that GW couldn't be beaten in the money game, that it had to be done differently. The money would have to come from the ordinary voters in dribs and drabs that would suffice to keep the thing breathing, the rest would have to be done through personal contacts, the candidate or surrogates. Now Carol's totals are not going cover even the most basic expenses, so she needs those dribs and drabs to start dribbling in. There's a link to her Actblue account in my sidebar, kick in something. If she gets starved out because you've decided this is a lost cause, then it is; if she can keep going she has a chance to do the hard work and so do her supporters. Waldenbush doesn't deserve a pass in this election.
Carol will be in Baker City for Miner's Jubilee 7/20-23, she'll have speaking opportunities and even get to ride in the Parade in my yellow SSR - top down. If you need an opportunity to have some fun that weekend, Miner's Jubilee in Baker City might be your ticket, and a chance to get to know my friend Carol Voisin. Thursday, 7/20, 7PM at the Presbyterian Church the Baker Co Democrats will have Carol available for speaking and meeting and greeting. Baker Co Democrats will have a booth at the Park Saturday, Carol will speak, and also be around for you to get acquainted. As an added attraction, I ought to be around somewhere...oh boy.
My Primary contribution total amounted to very little, but they enabled a fur-faced hick carpenter from the middle of nowhere with no staff and no time to get 11% of the vote, about 4,000 Democrats, the vast majority of whom had no previous contact with me. Those greatly appreciated dribs and drabs meant that something could get said and now I'm saying this, "It is utter bullshit to leave our Democratic candidate hanging by a thread and then criticize her for it." The money required to mount some kind of a campaign has to come from somewhere, from the folks or Waldenbush's kind of contributors, Carol is going to get it from "the folks" and that'll be to her credit and guess who a Representative with that base will represent.
This is not a "Voisin for Congress" site, she has her own, and I don't pretend to speak for Carol or to present her message. That's her job. But I also know Carol and I like her and I will stand up for her. You're darn right I'll vote for her and I'll encourage you to vote for her and to send her some of your hard earned cash, she'll make good use of it and she'll earn every nickle of it. Those of you who supported me believed that I don't engage in lying and spinning and do talk straight, well this is straight talk, Carol Voisin will better represent the 2nd CD than Waldenbush, hands down. This isn't Democratic Solidarity, it's just plain true, I wouldn't say it otherwise.
During the Primary I wrote and said repeatedly that GW couldn't be beaten in the money game, that it had to be done differently. The money would have to come from the ordinary voters in dribs and drabs that would suffice to keep the thing breathing, the rest would have to be done through personal contacts, the candidate or surrogates. Now Carol's totals are not going cover even the most basic expenses, so she needs those dribs and drabs to start dribbling in. There's a link to her Actblue account in my sidebar, kick in something. If she gets starved out because you've decided this is a lost cause, then it is; if she can keep going she has a chance to do the hard work and so do her supporters. Waldenbush doesn't deserve a pass in this election.
Carol will be in Baker City for Miner's Jubilee 7/20-23, she'll have speaking opportunities and even get to ride in the Parade in my yellow SSR - top down. If you need an opportunity to have some fun that weekend, Miner's Jubilee in Baker City might be your ticket, and a chance to get to know my friend Carol Voisin. Thursday, 7/20, 7PM at the Presbyterian Church the Baker Co Democrats will have Carol available for speaking and meeting and greeting. Baker Co Democrats will have a booth at the Park Saturday, Carol will speak, and also be around for you to get acquainted. As an added attraction, I ought to be around somewhere...oh boy.
My Primary contribution total amounted to very little, but they enabled a fur-faced hick carpenter from the middle of nowhere with no staff and no time to get 11% of the vote, about 4,000 Democrats, the vast majority of whom had no previous contact with me. Those greatly appreciated dribs and drabs meant that something could get said and now I'm saying this, "It is utter bullshit to leave our Democratic candidate hanging by a thread and then criticize her for it." The money required to mount some kind of a campaign has to come from somewhere, from the folks or Waldenbush's kind of contributors, Carol is going to get it from "the folks" and that'll be to her credit and guess who a Representative with that base will represent.
This is not a "Voisin for Congress" site, she has her own, and I don't pretend to speak for Carol or to present her message. That's her job. But I also know Carol and I like her and I will stand up for her. You're darn right I'll vote for her and I'll encourage you to vote for her and to send her some of your hard earned cash, she'll make good use of it and she'll earn every nickle of it. Those of you who supported me believed that I don't engage in lying and spinning and do talk straight, well this is straight talk, Carol Voisin will better represent the 2nd CD than Waldenbush, hands down. This isn't Democratic Solidarity, it's just plain true, I wouldn't say it otherwise.
Fed Sponsored Health Lies
The Washington Post, 7/18/06, describes how the Federal Government sponsors pregnancy centers lies regarding abortions. When asked about abortions the centers which receive federal funds stated that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, infertility, and "post-abortion syndrome" - a stress affliction. These centers are run by anti-abortion religious organizations and receive federal funds for "abstinence programs" which are to quote Care Net, "kept entirely separate." I also have a bridge for sale in NY,NY.
Let's see how this separation of funds works, I have program for abstinence which is something I want to do and I have an anti-abortion program which is something I want to do. Now I have a certain limitation of funds which might impede the operation of these two programs, so what I do is ask Uncle Sammy to give me money for one of these programs, the abstinence program since it's politically semi-neutral; now I have money to spread lies regarding abortion because George II likes to give money to Religions he likes (and nobody in Congress has the gonads to whack him for it).
Abortion is not a desirable thing, everybody's lives would be much better if there were none needed. The problem is that circumstances keep creating the necessity. Lying about health matters, whatever your religious orientation, is a serious matter, and considerably more serious if you represent yourself as a medical resource. Isn't it odd how lies and lying seem to surround George II and serious matters? Does it make you miss the days of an Oval Office blow-job as corruption?
Let's see how this separation of funds works, I have program for abstinence which is something I want to do and I have an anti-abortion program which is something I want to do. Now I have a certain limitation of funds which might impede the operation of these two programs, so what I do is ask Uncle Sammy to give me money for one of these programs, the abstinence program since it's politically semi-neutral; now I have money to spread lies regarding abortion because George II likes to give money to Religions he likes (and nobody in Congress has the gonads to whack him for it).
Abortion is not a desirable thing, everybody's lives would be much better if there were none needed. The problem is that circumstances keep creating the necessity. Lying about health matters, whatever your religious orientation, is a serious matter, and considerably more serious if you represent yourself as a medical resource. Isn't it odd how lies and lying seem to surround George II and serious matters? Does it make you miss the days of an Oval Office blow-job as corruption?
Conservative ???
Does anybody remember what conservative used to mean? I never was one, but I have some foggy remembrances. Political conservatives were all about budgeting and less government interference, that's what I remember.
Debt was a bad thing, deficits were the work of the weak of will. The idea seemed to be that spending money you don't have will come back to haunt you one day. The cost of government would become unmanageable as interest on the debt mounted and the economy overheated due to "printing money" which would lose its value by having nothing to back it.
Then there was government interference, the idea was that regulations and messing about with the Bill of Rights was a slippery slope into dictatorship. Federal regulations were seen as usurpation of the State's role or of a citizen's ability (or company) to control his destiny. Intertwined with regulatory abuse was the idea that the Bill of Rights would take hits. Any large program would encourage the government to snoop into your affairs and push you around. Churches that engaged in advocacy endangered their tax exempt status for backing Civil Rights, feminism, pacifism, etc. Government was seen as encouraging and subsidizing dissent. The Federal Education Dept was seen as usurping the role of local school boards and State standards, as well as a waste of tax dollars. The largest issue in the size of Federal programs seemed to be the increased influence in and power over ordinary citizens' lives. Big Brother was the bugaboo.
Something seems to have slipped, the entire Federal government is now in the hands of "conservatives" and the things they were railing about are now issues of national security. Big Brother now seems to be our pal and Uncle Fed definitely knows best. Listening to the Right today it appears that the Left is the weak sister defender of the old conservative values. Odd...
Debt was a bad thing, deficits were the work of the weak of will. The idea seemed to be that spending money you don't have will come back to haunt you one day. The cost of government would become unmanageable as interest on the debt mounted and the economy overheated due to "printing money" which would lose its value by having nothing to back it.
Then there was government interference, the idea was that regulations and messing about with the Bill of Rights was a slippery slope into dictatorship. Federal regulations were seen as usurpation of the State's role or of a citizen's ability (or company) to control his destiny. Intertwined with regulatory abuse was the idea that the Bill of Rights would take hits. Any large program would encourage the government to snoop into your affairs and push you around. Churches that engaged in advocacy endangered their tax exempt status for backing Civil Rights, feminism, pacifism, etc. Government was seen as encouraging and subsidizing dissent. The Federal Education Dept was seen as usurping the role of local school boards and State standards, as well as a waste of tax dollars. The largest issue in the size of Federal programs seemed to be the increased influence in and power over ordinary citizens' lives. Big Brother was the bugaboo.
Something seems to have slipped, the entire Federal government is now in the hands of "conservatives" and the things they were railing about are now issues of national security. Big Brother now seems to be our pal and Uncle Fed definitely knows best. Listening to the Right today it appears that the Left is the weak sister defender of the old conservative values. Odd...
Friday, July 14, 2006
Politics Is Local
I heard from the County Chair today that one of our Party members was so disgusted with the Democrats nationally that they were thinking about quitting. That's really not a good thing.
It sucks on several levels. Our County Party can't afford to lose active members, I don't think any can, but we get about a 1% involvement, that's not a lot of folks. (sure, Multnomah would have to rent a hall, we ain't them) This idea makes "us" responsible for people we have no contact with, for Pete's sake, Ron Wyden is the only national Democrat we have any responsibility for. Now here's the big part of it, those Democrats that this person is offended by were elected by somebody and you know what? They live somewhere (other than DC). They aren't so damn special, they have neighbors or old friends that aren't all that impressed by them, but some people worked to get them through a Primary and then a General Election, it took work to get them there. There must be a reason for that work. There are some Dems that I think ought to have an "R" after their name, evidently enough people didn't agree with me. Not my deal or this person's. Those "so-called Democrats" were elected by local folks.
Now I personally am a little insulted by this kind of idea. In the course of several years my presence has made some change in the viewpoint of the County Party, gotten a State Party Resolution passed, and resulted in the name of the County being linked Statewide to a Congressional Campaign, and that campaign wasn't psuedo-Republican. Now I'm not real special or real important, I've got friends, neighbors, and relatives who'll make sure you understand that, I'm an ordinary member of the County Party. Oh yeah, I've got a title, State Central Committee Delegate, so what? I'm also a PCP, what these titles mean is that I'm a Democrat, I'm breathing, and I put my hand up. But there it is, I put my hand up. I refuse to be ignored and discounted, that's local politics. Real local, local to the inside of your head. If you really don't like the looks of Democratic politics, put your hand up, refuse to be discounted, contribute to YOUR candidate (I don't care if it's a different state), and when a candidate you like IS from your area, get to work for them. That's how you quit being disgusted by where the Party is at.
I'm sorry, Non-affilliated Registration is one of the silliest things I can think of. It makes little or no sense to me to be so alienated by Parties that what you want to do is only have a vote after the Parties have decided who gets to run. Doesn't that guarantee that you'll be unhappy with your choices? How about having a say about the choices? How about taking that disgust and turning it into action? Nah, it's much easier to just bitch about it.
I don't care whether you voted for me or not, you were offered choices, the Democrats who bothered chose. The rest of you get to take what other people did. In this race, I don't think you got hurt, in other races that's not the case. I wouldn't vote for Joe Leiberman for national office, evidently enough Democrats from his state agree enough to put a credible challenge up in their Primary. That challenge will only succeed if the Locals put in the effort and money and VOTE. You want fire-breathing Democrats, choose them, support them, work for it. Don't just walk away.
It sucks on several levels. Our County Party can't afford to lose active members, I don't think any can, but we get about a 1% involvement, that's not a lot of folks. (sure, Multnomah would have to rent a hall, we ain't them) This idea makes "us" responsible for people we have no contact with, for Pete's sake, Ron Wyden is the only national Democrat we have any responsibility for. Now here's the big part of it, those Democrats that this person is offended by were elected by somebody and you know what? They live somewhere (other than DC). They aren't so damn special, they have neighbors or old friends that aren't all that impressed by them, but some people worked to get them through a Primary and then a General Election, it took work to get them there. There must be a reason for that work. There are some Dems that I think ought to have an "R" after their name, evidently enough people didn't agree with me. Not my deal or this person's. Those "so-called Democrats" were elected by local folks.
Now I personally am a little insulted by this kind of idea. In the course of several years my presence has made some change in the viewpoint of the County Party, gotten a State Party Resolution passed, and resulted in the name of the County being linked Statewide to a Congressional Campaign, and that campaign wasn't psuedo-Republican. Now I'm not real special or real important, I've got friends, neighbors, and relatives who'll make sure you understand that, I'm an ordinary member of the County Party. Oh yeah, I've got a title, State Central Committee Delegate, so what? I'm also a PCP, what these titles mean is that I'm a Democrat, I'm breathing, and I put my hand up. But there it is, I put my hand up. I refuse to be ignored and discounted, that's local politics. Real local, local to the inside of your head. If you really don't like the looks of Democratic politics, put your hand up, refuse to be discounted, contribute to YOUR candidate (I don't care if it's a different state), and when a candidate you like IS from your area, get to work for them. That's how you quit being disgusted by where the Party is at.
I'm sorry, Non-affilliated Registration is one of the silliest things I can think of. It makes little or no sense to me to be so alienated by Parties that what you want to do is only have a vote after the Parties have decided who gets to run. Doesn't that guarantee that you'll be unhappy with your choices? How about having a say about the choices? How about taking that disgust and turning it into action? Nah, it's much easier to just bitch about it.
I don't care whether you voted for me or not, you were offered choices, the Democrats who bothered chose. The rest of you get to take what other people did. In this race, I don't think you got hurt, in other races that's not the case. I wouldn't vote for Joe Leiberman for national office, evidently enough Democrats from his state agree enough to put a credible challenge up in their Primary. That challenge will only succeed if the Locals put in the effort and money and VOTE. You want fire-breathing Democrats, choose them, support them, work for it. Don't just walk away.
Eternity
Today I attended a memorial service for the father of a close friend and business associate, who died unexpectedly at 70 Sunday. The preacher had a lot to say about eternity, immortal soul, and other after death stuff and that we all seem to spend some considerable time thinking about it.
I don't.
So today I thought about it for awhile. I'm 53 and my parents are nearly 80 so death is a real consideration. I could pop off with the simple it's not knowable and so it's not important answer. That's really not quite good enough. We do die and things do go on after we're not here to participate so whether there's Pearly Gates or not, there certainly are consequences of us having been around. Some of us have kids, most of us have friends, and all of us have taken some form of action during our lives so what we have have done and what we've been will reverberate. I build houses for a living, long after I'm dust families will have the use and pleasure of my labor, that's something. I have 2 kids, they'll be who they are, and hopefully some of my good stuff will have rubbed off on them, and then their kids. I have friends that I am a better person for having, I hope the same is true for them. Awhile back I ran around a large chunk of Oregon talking about what I thought was important for a US Representative to do. I didn't win or even get a real big chunk of the vote, but I got enough to know that some listened and thought about it. What all this amounts to is that ordinary folks existence counts.
I guess I'll go ahead and not get all wrapped up in the Pearly Gates stuff the preacher was concerned with, I really don't have any opinion on it, and concentrate on the part I know about. We count, now and for some time after we're gone and we need to take care of that. It's not a matter of writing "The Great Book," or doing some huge thing, it's the small everyday stuff. I don't spend my day worrying about posterity, I spend my day trying to do a good job of it, the rest will take care of itself.
I don't.
So today I thought about it for awhile. I'm 53 and my parents are nearly 80 so death is a real consideration. I could pop off with the simple it's not knowable and so it's not important answer. That's really not quite good enough. We do die and things do go on after we're not here to participate so whether there's Pearly Gates or not, there certainly are consequences of us having been around. Some of us have kids, most of us have friends, and all of us have taken some form of action during our lives so what we have have done and what we've been will reverberate. I build houses for a living, long after I'm dust families will have the use and pleasure of my labor, that's something. I have 2 kids, they'll be who they are, and hopefully some of my good stuff will have rubbed off on them, and then their kids. I have friends that I am a better person for having, I hope the same is true for them. Awhile back I ran around a large chunk of Oregon talking about what I thought was important for a US Representative to do. I didn't win or even get a real big chunk of the vote, but I got enough to know that some listened and thought about it. What all this amounts to is that ordinary folks existence counts.
I guess I'll go ahead and not get all wrapped up in the Pearly Gates stuff the preacher was concerned with, I really don't have any opinion on it, and concentrate on the part I know about. We count, now and for some time after we're gone and we need to take care of that. It's not a matter of writing "The Great Book," or doing some huge thing, it's the small everyday stuff. I don't spend my day worrying about posterity, I spend my day trying to do a good job of it, the rest will take care of itself.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Politics, Policies, Parties ???
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...
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)