Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 139 of 177)

Last night the Thurston Democrats held a forum on 933 (Protecting Communities).

A few points that stuck out for me.

In recent polling, 933 was below 50 percent. Even though the “no” votes were even well below that, the important number is really the yes votes. Initiatives tend to peak in their support in August, around primary time, and then decrease until November. The support for 933 is already burning, and may be down below 50 percent. Most of the undecides, I guess, will end up voting against it.

David Troutt, of the Nisqually River Council, pointed out that even if we end up winning, there is still a problem. People don’t trust government to set fair land use rules. While 933 probably wouldn’t have done anything to actually make government more responsive, we haven’t paid very close attention to this in the past either. We probably should, and he used the example of local planning efforts, like the recent effort in the Graham area. The closer this type of planning is to the people, the better.

Sen. Karen Fraser pointed out that 933 may violate I-601, which outlawed new programs for local government with no new funding.

The conversation overall last night was very nice, I think everyone would agree with that, but in terms of the number of folks that showed up, I’m disapointed. This is the second of these forums we’ve had, and turnout has been a disapointment.

At one point last night, I think we ran out of steam, not because the panelists didn’t have anything to say, but with the open question format, we ran out of questions.

It is on me to get folks to turn out for these events, and I have to say I’m at a loss of what to do. Maybe I should personally call 50 people and ask them to attend. Whatever I’m doing, I’m doing it wrong.

Get me all warm on the inside:

Reminds me of this

You probably got it, that email from the DNC on matching your money. It is different though that other appeals. Actually there is something about it that made it the most monied email from the DNC since 2004.

Here is what Paul Loeb, of Soul of a Citizen, said:

But it was more than the matching offer that’s made this the DNC’s single most successful fundraising email since 2004. And more even than the timing. Like most of us, I’m sure the Minnesota woman had gotten plenty of requests for contributions, including promises that some Senator, Congressperson, or anonymous wealthy donor would step in and amplify what she gave. But she hadn’t responded. These matching appeals help our modest dollars go further. I respond to them when I can. But I also wonder why donors who have so much more money than I do (or so much in their campaign coffers while sitting on safe seats) don’t simply give whatever they were planning to anyway without all the gamesmanship. They’re trying to multiply their impact, I know, and often this works. But it also sends a bit of a double message.

This appeal felt different. Like the Party’s new social networking tool, PartyBuilder, it offered those participating a human connection. It allowed me and others who’d already contributed a way to increase the impact of what we gave, and those responding to remember that they were being joined not just by generic donors, but by specific ordinary citizens who, like them, would contribute despite having to juggle budgets, bills and other normal commitments. That made all the difference to the woman from Minnesota. And it made all the difference to me, letting me tell the story of why I was contributing, and giving more than I’d originally planned. invited others to respond in kind. It made the process more personal.

It isn’t that I’m not a big fan of Jonathan Raban, I’m sure he’s a very nice man and writer. His apparent concern for rural growth issues and septics is something that he and I have in common.

That said I wish people would stop doing this:

Jonathan Raban=Seattle.

The Stranger did it (in my eyes) today with their Genius Awards, and my favorite radio show did it back a few months ago when they came out to Seattle.

Authors who more =Seattle than Raban would include Bruce Brown, the great Fred Moody and Douglas Coupland. Yes, Coupland is from Canada, but at least for a foreigner, he’s from the eco-region.

Crazy like a fox, and he makes the most ironic statement of the night. At least for me. I was only able to catch the first few minutes of the debate before I actually had to work on something today, but I was able to catch responses to the first question: Who did you vote for and why in 2004?

Cantwell: I voted for Kerry because blah blah blah (and go into something that relates to her campaign, not two years ago)

McGavick: I voted for Bush because (thinks to self… Oh lord, this will screw me, won’t it?)

And Bruce Guthrie, the Libertarian, actually makes a great point. He voted for Badnarik, the Libertarian, and the reason why was because he didn’t want his vote to be wasted.

Hmm… Interesting… Tell me more…

His point was that if the two major parties gave us a race where almost 40 percent of the eligible voters stayed home, what kind of race is that? His vote was for a real choice, a real conversation.

While I never would have voted for who he voted for, I do respect the point he made. Low voter turnout is never a real concern for major party candidates. I would fall down a flight of stairs of a Democratic candidate ever said “If we get a good turnout, I’ll be your next governor.”

Passey apparently agrees with me:

I thought Bruce really nailed the first question about who did you vote for for President and why. He spoke about how low voter turnout showed that the American people thought that their choices were terrible, and that he voted for change — the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik — because he didn’t want to waste his vote on the lesser of two evils. It was a fantastic answer and a great start to the debate.

Pointing out that low voter turnout, though a very good point, seemed ironic for me coming from a Libertarian. As Gary Hart pointed out (generally), if you believe government only needs to secure the borders and a few other things, what is the real point of you being and engaged, informed citizen? Libertarians, it seems, because they are much more attracted to a smaller, limited government in scope, wouldn’t be all that concerned with civic engagement. But, if they were, limited engagement by voting probably would be the greatest extent of their interest.

Oh, ha ha ha:

…Johnson entered my classroom and stated the following: When asked by a student, what would you change about, Washington? His reply: “I’d get rid of all the Democrats.”

What’s the hardest thing about, your job? “Having to work with Democrats.” ‘He went on to disparage two of the Democratic congressmen from the district.

Rock on. As a Supreme Court justice, he might be able to do that.

In 2002 Tim Sheldon gives $10,000 to a Republican campaign committee that tosses the state senate to the GOP.

In 2004 he votes for and supports the Republican candidate for governor.

In 2004 he heads up the local chapter of Democrats for Bush.

This year he fails to get the endorsement of any local Democratic Party organization.

He is listed by the Republican senate campaign committee as a Republican.

In 2006 he receives $500 from a Republican PAC, $100 more than is even raised by his Republican opponent.

Now, he endorses the Republican opponent of a Democratic representative from his own district.

So, I ask you, why do parties matter at all?

Here are some fact type thingies:

1. Libraries are among the most valued and trusted of public institutions. I don’t have any citation to back this up, but they have to be up there, way above elected officials or

2. Conservatives have tapped the social structures at mega-churches, recognizing that social conections are the most effective at determining how someone votes.

3. Libraries are wondering about their own role as “places,” or rather destinations in the way that Applebees and megachurches have become destinations.

Its a sad comment, but the valuable “third places” in our society are no longer places were people randomly come together (maybe they were never that way), but rather places were people go because they know other folks they want to meet are there.

Democrats, especially, should be worried about the places in our communities, and making sure that there are enough places for people to get together.

Out and about today, I was able to squeeze in the last 20 or so minutes of Podcasting Liberally, which covered the cerfuffle this week about a handful of newspapers across the region writing checks to the Initiative 920 campaign (here and here).

Goldy and crew were worried that because all of these papers were in league with the estate tax killer, therefore killing any chance that the anti-920 folks would get fair shake. Their worries were only half baked, as they never got around to wondering why newspapers, all family owned, would hate the estate tax.

Let’s get one thing straight, I like the estate tax. A lot. I like what it has to say about our values as a nation and I never want to see the rise of the American aristocracy again.

That said, I also like local, family owned newspapers.

Lets get down to it. The papers writing checks to I-920 aren’t the Tacoma News Tribune (owned by the McClatchy) the Seattle PI (owned by Hearst) or the Aberdeen Daily World (owned by Stephens Media), because corporations don’t fear the estate tax.

And, over the past half century, family owned papers have disappeared. The estate tax has been a nice neat weapon for large newspaper chains to sweep into a community and buy up a newspaper from heirs who either didn’t have it in them to run the paper, or lost too much cash in the transaction to make it worth it.

A great book on this sad history is Richard McCord’s “The Chain Gang: One Newspaper Versus the Gannett Empire.” While Gannett did tons of other nasty things in their earlier days, the estate tax was a common denominator in a lot of their buy outs. The Blethen family, along with the other publishers that have jumped on the I-920 bandwagon have seen dozens of family, local owned papers go down the chain route.

While I’m not for ending the estate tax, I’m also not for ending local ownership of newspapers. Locally owned papers are under intense pressure to sell out to larger chains, because they are highly profitable businesses. Chains, because they can buy things like paper at cheaper prices, can make the papers even more profitable.

Especially Goldy, who fears the lack of decent coverage of both sides of I-920, can recognize the possible chilling effects of chain ownership of newspapers.

Vote no on I-920, but also support local journalism.

Democratic candidate for the WA 8 is coming to Olympia:

On October 28^th we have an opportunity to take a direct action to change the direction of our country. Darcy Burner will be in Olympia for a fundraiser at the Home of Paul and Beth Berendt in conjunction with a swing through the southern end of the eight congressional district ( Olympia isn’t in the eighth – but the district dose come nearby to the Pierce County border).

Burner is taking on one of the most endangered Republicans in the Congress: Dave Reichert. Polling shows that Darcy is well positioned to win the race but she needs a big push to help win in the final days of the election. Will you join us in helping Darcy change the direction of our country?

What: Fundraiser Benefiting Darcy Burner for Congress

Where: Home of Paul & Beth Berendt – 1702 Sulenes Loop SE, Olympia

(Off Henderson St. near Olympia High School and the Briggs YMCA)

Date & Time: October 28^th 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Donation: suggested donation is $25, $50 or $100

Call Paul or Beth Berendt for more information at 360-753-6235