History, politics, people of Oly WA
I got this for a Christmas present probably over five years ago. It was very funny for awhile, but while cleaning out my office today, I noticed it for the first time in a long time.
Now, I can’t figure out what to do with it? It isn’t really all that funny anymore, so I can’t see keeping it as an office decoration.
Is there some fun way to trash it? Or do I keep it for posterity, like an “I Like Ike” button?
So, what should I do?
They must have someone watching this thing. h/t: B&P
It might be a pretty good comment on the type of political blogs I am subscribed to, but the most numerous negative reactions to Palin’s speech so far on my feed reader was to this quote:
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.
Teacherrefpoet said it the best:
Obama’s decision to go to the trenches and work with the poor is my favorite thing about him. Palin’s decision to say this solidifies the idea the Republicans could care less about the poor. (Were the poor or struggling families mentioned at all tonight?)
5.7% of families in Wasilla live below the poverty line, according to Wikipedia.
Yeah, that sounds about like Chicago’s South Side. (I wonder what that number is in the neighborhoods Barack Obama worked in. 90%? More?)
Palin, McCain, and their party don’t get it. This speech solidified it. Obama’s choice to be a community organizer shows his values are immensely Christian. Have you noticed, Gov. Palin, how often Jesus discusses the poor? Those who value those teachings go to where the poor are and work with them. You know, in the community. Organizing it.
I think it also shows a certain amount of tone-deafness towards the sort of politics of the outside that the Obama campaign is trying to push forward. The meta-message of civic engagement is the most important thing for me right now, in terms of the Presidential race. Obama is showing that “serving your county” can go beyond military service.
So, Palin’s contrast of a position of political power with a position of service is striking. Granted, people who take up the rigors of running for office and being in office are “serving,” but there is a fundamental difference between what Palin did as mayor and what Obama did as an organizer.
If Palin wasn’t elected, would her service to Wassila been less valuable? She seems to imply that. The Obama example shows that anyone can and should serve, not just those that win an election. Standing up and putting your shoulder to the community grindstone isn’t just for those who win elections, but for everyone.
But, I’m too busy right now to really look, and since Ken doesn’t actually give any actual examples, I’m willing to just think he’s blowing smoke. But, I’d actually like to know.
So, here’s your assignment:
Compare the Obama convention speech text and the script from the “American President” and find any similar lines.
Bad for Iowa, bad for Washington.
Kos:
… this ridiculous process he defends will disenfranchises thousands of Iowans as it disenfranchises millions of voters around the country who would like a chance to vote for their favorite primary candidate but will never get the chance.
To ad insult to injury, only a whopping 6% of Iowans manage to drag their asses out to participate in a given year. Even with an average of 49% turnout (in 2004), young voters can’t catch a break in the media narrative. Yet somehow Iowans get a big fat pat on the back from the media every four years because a few die-hards manage to drag themselves out to the caucus and it makes for great copy and even better economics for the state.
Though, six percent compares favorably to the 2 percent turnout for caucuses we get in Washington.
“It disenfranchises certain voters or makes them make choices between putting food on the table and caucusing,” said Tom Lindsey, a high school teacher in Iowa City. Mr. Lindsey plans to attend this year, but his neighbors include a cook who cannot slip away from his restaurant job on Thursday night and a mother who must care for her autistic child.
In Washington, I’m wondering how long we have to be left defending caucuses and designed low participation.
Dennis Kucinich is doing pretty well in an email straw poll to Washington State Democrats, coming in third ahead of Hillary Clinton. Edwards is leading the pack, following closely by Obama of Illinois:
John Edwards 780
Barack Obama 713
Dennis Kucinich 511
Hillary Clinton 505
Undecided 280
Bill Richardson 234
Joe Biden 112
Chris Dodd 27
Mike Gravel 6
These are “early” numbers since the voting is ongoing here. Go here before December 14 if you want to express your preference.
If you ask me, I wouldn’t vote in this poll since it seems to be a way to collect your data.
I’m going to stop worrying about MLS in Seattle and start worrying about something I haven’t thought of for awhile.
Peter Levine points on over to a nice article by Ron Fournier (who helped write Applebee’s America) on what he calls the “civic core.” Move on over soccer moms, security moms, Reagan Democrats, here comes the engaged:
There is no greater issue than civic engagement.
A democracy is based on the notion that its citizens contribute to their society and solve problems together. In addition, there are numerous studies linking a person’s health to the strength of his or friendships and community ties.
But, he points out, other than Chris Dodd, no one has talked about civic type issues this year. And, the national service plan roll-out is a very easy task for Democrats. Not a lot of people will harp on your for doing it, but it seems no one really expects you to follow through on it either.
Bill Richardson sort of rolled out a national service plan. Actually, it was one point in his education plan:
Create a Nation of Service
Teaching the importance of community service should be a focus in our schools. To create incentives for more student participation, in my Administration, the federal government will forgive two years of the cost of tuition and fees at a public university for each year of service.
So, as much as I’d love to see Democrats (and even Republicans) talk more about civic, I don’t see them getting past the crow bars that are so much more effective at getting people to support them in a primary.
I’m still rooting for Michael Tomasky and the November 5th Coalition.
After Democrats trot out the language, if not the actions, so says Gov. Mitt Romney:
“Hillary Clinton just gave a speech the other day about her view on the economy. She said we have been an on-your-own society. She said it’s time to get rid of that and replace that with shared responsibility and we’re-in-it-together society,” Romney told the crowd. “That’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.”
I have to admit, for someone who has been blogging about one candidate in particular, I’ve paid very little attention to what’s been going on on the other side of the aisle in terms of rhetoric (short of the Ron Paul/Gualani dust-up). My impression had been that of any of the GOP candidates, that Romney was the one that would seem to stand out as a… pragmatist. Someone not willing to say really harsh things to win votes.
So, I was surprised that he basically said “Yes, we really are in this by ourselves. You can’t trust your neighbor, you can’t trust your government, you can’t trust anyone.”
For a republican, not very civic republican.
The participatory democracy argument in favor of caucuses is disingenuous at worst and misguided at best. Last night when we were debating whether to support a primary election or caucus system for next year’s choosing of presidential delegates, two people argued the participatory democracy side of the caucuses.
This isn’t a direct quote, but it gets pretty close to what one of the guys was talking about:
It takes more of a commitment to come to a caucus, very little commitment to vote in a primary. We want to encourage commitment, not just drop in participation.
And
The caucus system is where people are coming together, and talking, it’s a real plus. It shows that the people in the state of Washington are really interested in creating relationships with people in their communities.
I agree with the sentiment of both of those arguments, caucuses are awesome in that they are participatory. People come together and chat, which is much more what democracy should be about than just indicating your preference in private.
That said, the Washington State Democratic Party does nothing else beyond the caucuses to encourage participatory democracy. Actually, its even worse. Before last night’s vote state party chairman Dwight Pelz gave a talk to the 22nd LD meeting (which every quarter happens right before the TCD meeting). He spelled out the ground game plan for 2008, which centered around a lot of people coming to the caucuses.
When all those folks are sitting on their hands while the precinct results are being tabulated, we PCOs are supposed to chat them up to see who we can get interested in volunteering with the party until election day. “We can use them for the next six months,” was something he said towards the end of his talk.
The caucuses aren’t about coming together and knowing your neighbors, if they were we would be doing them more often. They’re about recruiting ground troops for the fall of 2008.
What was implied to me was that after November of 2008, we don’t really care what happens to those folks. Some of them may stay on and stay engaged, but we’re not really worried about that.
The precinct caucuses should be the end result of a civic engagement campaign, not the beginning of a faux engagement campaign. People should come to the caucuses because the party is relevant and important to them in their community, not because we’re blackmailing them to come because its their only opportunity to vote in the Democratic primary.
I’m going to hand everybody in America a shovel and we’re going to start digging our way out.
What I will do is ask millions of Americans, including you, to join me in taking action and taking responsibility, not waiting around for someone else to do it, but actually doing it ourselves, from the ground up.
Michael Tomasky himself on Barack Obama:
He is in many respects a civic republican—a believer in civic virtue, and in the possibility of good outcomes negotiated in good faith. These concepts are consonant with liberalism in many respects, but since the rise in the 1960s of a more aggressive rights-based liberalism, which sometimes places particular claims for social justice ahead of a larger universal good, the two versions have existed in some tension.
The rhetoric of civic republicanism seems to be there, but I’m wondering what kind of policies will be different. The words are the easiest things, but actually handing shovels out, actually getting people to take responsibility is the hard thing.
Edwards’ and Obama’s issue page doesn’t have any special focus on bringing citizens into the process or empowering them to make a change, or even service. Clinton doesn’t have any issue section that I could find.
So, what would be a civic republican issue for 2008?
© 2026 Olympia Time
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑