History, politics, people of Oly WA

Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 147 of 177)

Ashdown as the new model of legislator (in defense of Pete)

Peter Ashdown is the Democratic candidate running against the seemingly unstoppable Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah. Ashdown would likely be a side note in a very interesting year for Western upstarts taking Repblicans if it wasn’t for Ashdown doing something very interesting.

At the start of his campaign, Ashdown started a campaign wiki, asking folks to chime in on his platform:

This is where you have the power to influence my Campaign for U.S. Senate. You can help work on policy, strategize in an open forum, or simply see what needs to be done. Don’t be afraid to make a mistake, I’m covering new ground every day.

This site is not an official pronouncement of the policies endorsed by Pete Ashdown. Instead, it is public forum where we, the people, can help create what we feel is good policy. Every page can be edited by you or anyone else, and each edit is tracked, so everyone can view each change and input to each discussion, no matter what content gets changed or overwritten. (Vandalism is quickly reverted and vandals banned.) Pete uses the input from these pages to form his official policy, which can be found on his official campaign web site at issues.

Some people though, have taken it that he doesn’t know what to think and needs some guidance from the people (to put it lightly):

Ashdown’s views undecided

Pete Ashdown is campaigning for a Senate seat in Utah, and he wants you to define his stances on major political issues such as abortion, foreign relations, taxation, etc. Shouldn’t he have made these decisions for himself long before deciding to run for office?

I would be reluctant to vote for any candidate who hasn’t already built a strong ideological foundation backed up by substantive experience.

Ashdown should do his own homework on the issues. Utahns shouldn’t have to do it for him.

Brooke Ann Smith
Lehi

The point isn’t that Ashdown will believe whatever you and your friends want him to believe (yeah, let’s start a killing puppies page on his wiki), but rather politicians don’t solicit your input, usually. Using a wiki is a way for politicians to not only get people to speak up, but for people to do it in public and together.

Of course, people will write their representatives and say what they want them to do. In terms of crafting a collaborative policy on anything though, we leave that up to committees, bill writers and, essentially, the professionals.

A paper by Policy Consensus challenges the contemporary view of (in this case) state legislators. Our representatives, rather than marching up to the hill in Olympia with a cross between what they know our district wants and what what they believe — and translating that into bill sponsorships and votes — should be bringing people together to tackle issues.

From Legislators at a Crossroads: Making Choices to Work Differently:

This new role is that of convener. A convener is someone who brings a diverse group of people to the table to resolve problems collaboratively. Legislators are beginning to recognize the role of convening as a way they can take action, or facilitate action, without waiting for the legislature to act. Legislators have the power, by virtue of their elected office, to summon people to work on and resolve issues at the community level, without the need to go to the legislature at all.

By acting as a convener, legislators are able to be more responsive to the public. In the traditional legislative environment, legislators may feel stymied in their attempts to solve problems. But those who see themselves as conveners—those who pull different interests together to work toward solutions—feel more like effective problem solvers.

From a broad point of view, Ashdown is already doing this. Instead of asking for input and then putting the pieces together himself, he’s asking supporters (and I assume detractors) to help him put the pieces together.

Too late on the Gary Locke/Safeco/McGavick’s golden ‘chute thing

I probably should have taken some wonderful advice from a commenter and emailed Gary Locke a few weeks ago. Now that a lawsuit has been filed, how many folks think he would email me back with a “Oh, Hey Emmett…. Well, the reason I voted (didn’t vote) to give McGavick a big chunk of change as he was running to unseat Maria Cantwell was…”

Oh well:

A shareholder sued Safeco’s former chief executive — U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick — and its board of directors on Tuesday, claiming they violated securities laws by awarding McGavick about $28 million in stock and other perks when he left Safeco earlier this year.

The lawsuit was filed by Emma Schwartzman, 27, a former waitress studying at the University of Washington who says her great-great-grandfather was a founder of the company that became Safeco.

The suit contends McGavick and the board “committed corporate waste” and made false statements to investors about the nature of McGavick’s financial package.

Former Democratic Gov. Gary Locke, a member of the Safeco board, is listed as a defendant, too.

Reichart and the sales tax rebate and “Reichart joins with DC Republicans to outfox Washington”

Reichart votes to allow our sale tax rebate ($500 million for Washingtonians) to be held hostage by the estate tax. I know he can claim he was voting for our sales tax rebate, along with a minimum wage increase, but it also speaks to his willingness to go along with the Republican leadership’s sneakiness.

Of course, then there is this video with Rep. Zach Wamp pretty much delivering a nice tag line for an anti-Reichart ad. “Reichart joins with DC Republicans to outfox Washington State.”

Danger of echo-chambers

From Community Mobilization:

My fear is that as we use nice site and networks that we will simply put on blinder to outside opinion and ideas. As we exist in a closed world with similar minded friends are we creating a large collection of echo-chambers and eradicating discussion and discourse? As our country and even the world polarizes more each day is it such a good idea to shut out thoughts and opinions that differ from your own? I think healthy discussion and confrontation will heal us all as long as we are willing and open to new ideas and opinions. Our current political crisis is a perfect example of what happens when you create an echo-chamber around your specific views of the world.

This is the same fear the Cass Sunstein wrote about in Republic dot com, basically using the linking logic of the internet to say that no one is likely going to link with someone they disagree with.

Maybe we should though, maybe we should work harder to reach out to people we disagree with than back slap folks we like. I don’t know.

It brings up two thoughts for me. Locally, Olyblog has become a nice, non-partisan place for folks of different political beliefs to dialogue like adults. They even get something accomplished by learning. Good example of what I think Sunstein and Randal would like in an alternative.

A conservative blogger in Washington (Patrick at RR) recently voiced the need for a non-partisan, or maybe omnipartisan, group site like Washblog.

Then, of course, there is the open letter at wikia.

Olympia’s first elected blogger

Hat tip to Rick.

Rich Nafziger ealier this month launched Naflog, the first blog of an elected official (that I know of) in Olympia (aside from a couple really nice PCOs). As a school board member, he blogs about educational issues, and to his great credit, it seem that he has put the word out to his fellow board members so they can join the conversation.

Actually, it seems that conversation is at the center of why he started blogging:

This is my first blog and I am starting this with the biggest thing that is on my mind. And that is the failure of our education system to meet the needs of both our new economy and all of our kids. I want to start today by laying out my case. Each day I hope to build on it. I don’t have all the answers but I’m desperate for the conversation. Please respond if you are willing.

It is nice to hear a politician (I know, just school board, but still pretty important) not only say that he doesn’t have all the answers, but that he wants to talk.

Andy’s wanderings #2: Maria Cantwell was not elected to FERC

This is the second of my irregular series keeping an eye on Andy Maris over at Thurston Pundits. I did my first post without really intending to make it a series, but I guess since this is the second, let’s go ahead and serialize it. This came about because I’ve tried commenting on his blog, but with no luck. Oh well, this is the internet and a referencing post is as good as a comment sometimes.

A few days ago Andy wrote about Maria Cantwell and her problem with making an issue over Enron. Other than it being somewhat sexist (“take a letter?”), he ignores or doesn’t recognize how the federal government is broken down. Here is his post, or at least the good part:

Why is Cantwell campaigning on problems she created? Saving the voters from Enron? Maria, Enron screwed us on your watch. You’re a lot like the fireman that sets houses on fire to look like a hero for putting them out.

Senators are not members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, under whose watch “Enron screwed us.” Maria is more like doing something about the fireman that sets houses on fire. This is what FERC does, if you were wondering:

[FERC] Regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce;

Sam Hunt is right

When he heard that a former Tenino city councilmember was beginning his quixotic campaign for his state house seat, Sam Hunt said:

“First of all, I think it’s healthy to have opposition. It’s a two-party system and entering into the debate and priorities, I don’t see anything wrong with that,” Hunt said. “The system is not to anoint; it’s to elect.”

Even if a Republican hasn’t been elected in the 22nd for almost 30 years now and if two years ago no one was surprised when a relativly well financed Republican was destroyed, competition is still good.

Elections should mean something, even if it is Sam Hunt destroying a Republican.

Ryan Blenthen, 18 to 35 and the cluetrain

Ryan Blenthen at the Times wrote a column about engaging folks between 18 and 35.

Two briefings produced by Democratic and Republican pollsters and put out by Young Voter Strategies are a great example of political parent-ism: chock-full of statistics, and different rosy interpretations on the same numbers. To be fair, party strategists are the target, not young voters. One can easily imagine how the Democratic and Republican national committees will push gas prices, health care and college affordability, the topics that polled important to this age group.

18to35, another organization focused on younger voters, has put out The 18-30 VIP. (For aged readers 31 and up, VIP stands for Voter Issues Paper.) In an effort to appeal to the demographic, the VIP is promoted with pictures of enthusiastic 18-to-30-year-olds flanked by big-time wrestlers. (Is big-time wrestling still in? Seems so sixth grade to me.)

Regardless of the tortured delivery mechanism, the VIP lists five good questions — on the economy, Iraq and national security, education, health care and Social Security — one can put forth to candidates.

Taken together, what Pew, Young Voter Strategies and 18to35 have found important give a more complete idea of what politicians are faced with when approaching younger voters: many of the same things voters of all ages are worried about.

This information is useful, but there have to be other issues younger voters believe important. Some of this 33-year-old’s top concerns — international relations, media consolidation, First Amendment issues, technological and government interface (like Internet network neutrality) and the creation of a viable third party — have not been mentioned.

He also mentions earlier in the piece that if the younger voters don’t turn out, it isn’t because a lack of effort by the parties. I’m not sure if it is a lack of effort, or the wrong king of effort. The kind of issue based communication, rather than thinking about the kind of communication they’re using.

Instead of focusing on finding an issue to plug into the same old thing communication plan (you know, the kind that tends to drive down voter turn out), why not try something new? Anyway, Ryan asks us youngins to send him an email with his thoughts (rblethen at seattletimes.com), so here is mine:

Mr. Blenthen,

More than anything we want authenticity. We’re the generation of cable television, telemarketing, infomercials, and junk mail. We don’t want to be sold, rather, we want to be engaged.

Politicians will speak to our generation, ironically not with policy or issues, but rather with the way they engage us. For many of Democrats a bit older than me, Howard Dean was a fire brand anti-war candidate. He was the perfect opposition to George W. Bush, for them. But, I supported Dean because (or rather because Joe Trippi) engaged supporters in the campaign. It wasn’t another top down campaign, but rather one that brought people in.

We want politicians that listen and we want politics that isn’t one way or the other. We want solutions that aren’t wrapped in marketing disguised as ideology. To borrow a phrase from cluetrain (http://www.searls.com/cluetrain/), we want politics to be a conversation not a monologue.

Thanks,
Emmett O’Connell
Olympia

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑