Category: Uncategorized (Page 22 of 49)

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 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

For the past couple weeks comments have been pilling up here at Olympia Time, and I was too dumb to do anything about it.

What. A. Gomer.

Anyway, sorry to Kari, Mark (the nice libertarian), Brenda and Switzer. Emmett owes you something nice.

I have a surprisingly lot to say on this topic. But, here is the good part:

Libraries don’t just provide recreational services. If they did, there would be little argument from for folding the Library Board. Actually, since recreational reading isn’t much in terms of a government service, I wouldn’t argue when they started cutting funding for it.

But, the library is much more than recreational reading, it is at the heart of the purpose of education in America. Because of this valuable mission, it is even more vital to have an avenue of citizen engagement in how the library is run.

And, if we can retool the board to help focus this mission even more, so much the better.

Here is the old post on this topic, before I knew they were thinking of shutting the board down.

Who ever ends up buying the King County Journal could end up on the better end of the Puget Sound newspaper wars, or at the much cooler end. If the eventual buyer of the Journal (and its other properties)

The Journal has been suffering while the PI and the Times position themselves for a time when their JOA no longer binds them together:

High-tech folks were swarming to the Eastside, and they weren’t reading the paper. Despite the Eastside’s massive growth, not only did the Journal‘s market share decline, its real circulation plummeted. Losses mounted, and Horvitz eventually combined the paper with the South County Journal into the present King County Journal, a measure that may have saved money but declared loyalty to a region that pretty much only exists on paper. People in Medina don’t give a damn about people in Kent, and vice versa. The combined circulation of the two Journals was 66,000 in 1994; it’s now down to 40,000.

One of the frustrating things about the Journal has been a tendency to be late to the game in producing a paper for an increasingly sophisticated market. It’s long read like your dad’s slippers-and-pipe suburban rag, the journalistic equivalent of Chace’s Pancake Corral, a Bellevue diner with the down-home feel of a 1960s suburban golfer’s rec room. Quite late, the Journal had few reporters covering the emergence of Microsoft or Nintendo—stories of national import that were in the Journal‘s backyard. And you’d think a newspaper in the heart of the Silicon Forest would have a state-of-the-art Web site, but the Journal‘s has always been a clunker.

It is assumed one of the Seattle papers will fold eventually, leaving the other the King of All Seattle. But, who ever ends up with the Journal could have something to say about that.

Take, for example, what’s going on down in Portland. Pamplin Media owns a chain of suburban weeklies around Portland and publishes a very popular free twice weekly inside Portland (the Tribune). They top it of with a radio station. Every single property produces news, and now, produces content for one big online daily (actually more than daily) newspaper.

Similarly, the King County Journal sale will include not only the Journal itself (and its commercial printing press), but also two other weeklies and seven every other weeklies. This may be a more modest empire than Pamplin’s in Oregon, but it could be the start of a web-enabled media group,focusedd mainly on producing less than daily real print newspapers and a real time online news product.

The PI and Times already do pretty well online, but it would be interesting to see someone try to make a go at it mainly online.

Eric, the new guy at SoundPolitics is doing a good job so far, I think. He doesn’t employ the term “nutroots,” going for the more refined “netroots enthusiasts.” Which is very nice, I’ll take that. I’m an enthusiast of many things, the netroots included.

But, he doesn’t know the difference between Wheat and a Five Star Hotel:

All that indicates the voters in the 5th Congressional District have seen something about Cathy McMorris they like. On top of that, she’s doing well in office, taking leadership positions and working well on behalf of her district. So could someone please explain to me why liberal bloggers think Peter Goldmark is the “real deal” to take her out?

McMorris’ race isn’t listed on any of the independent, national watch lists for Congressional races; not the Cook Political Report, not Larry Sabato’s Center for Politics, not the National Journal. In addition, McMorris is easily outpacing Goldmark in fundraising.

Peter Goldmark seems like a decent, well-meaning fellow based on perusing his website. But that doesn’t mean in the least he’s a challenger to watch this election cycle. Yet more evidence the netroots is more anti-Republican emotionalism than serious political thought.

Since, Don Barbieri got trounced by McMorris a couple of years ago, logic would follow that any Democrat at all would also lose. Not so, because there is a big difference between Pete and Don.

For all his good qualities, Don ran very poorly outside of Spokane. Very poorly. This isn’t something that a person like Goldmark would repeat.

And, even though he outspent McMorris, well… he also outspent McMorris, making it look sometimes that with his money, he could buy the seat.

And, for Pete’s sake, there is a big cultural difference between Don and Pete. What do you think that matters? This isn’t simply about putting a Democrat in a cowboy hat and marching him around eastern Washington. Heck, you could have put Barbieri in a cowboy hat and it wouldn’t have mattered.

What matters is the substantive differences between Barbieri and Goldmark. One is runs hotels, the other horses.

Plus, this year doesn’t have Rossi vs. Gregoire and Bush vs. Kerry putting everything into context. This is pretty much Goldmark vs. McMorris time.

The Inlander has a pretty good article about the differences too, check it out:

I couldn’t imagine Barbieri losing to a woman who could do no better than top one vacuous statement with another. Then, one day, maybe three weeks before the election, I drove our college-age son down to Walla Walla to look over Whitman College, and I found my answer. By the time we arrived, it was clear: Barbieri had no chance. None whatsoever. From the city line to Walla Walla, all we saw were McMorris signs. Outside of Spokane, Barbieri was invisible.

Goldmark has good reason to believe he can do much better than did Barbieri in the rural areas and small towns. (It would be impossible to do worse.) And he must be tempted to go directly after Congresswoman McMorris’ most obvious vulnerability, her… ah, shall we say, aversion to substance? Then, if he can win in Spokane, maybe he can pull off an upset.

“Get Rich Quick with Measure 37” was the best anti-campaign against the proto-933. It lacked money, radio or tv ads, but what it had was the perfect message:

Are you like me? Do you want to make money fast? In Oregon, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do exactly this.

I came to Oregon from Southern California only a few years ago. But I am outraged and disgusted by the ridiculous laws that you Oregonians have. Over 150 years of “commonsense” regulations lockout our ability to make fast money from Oregon land.

FORTUNATELY, ONCE PASSED, MEASURE 37 ELIMINATES ALL ZONING; ELIMINATES ALL LAND-USE REGULATIONS; AND ELIMINATES ALL LAWS THAT PREVENT US FROM MAKING MONEY IN LAND SPECULATION!

As a born-and-bred capitalist, it is my duty to profit from Measure 37. As I like to say, “get yours while the gettin’s good!”

By comparison, the official No on 37 campaign (Take Another Look Oregon) was weak, confusing in terms of their message, and didn’t effectively counter the pro-campaign’s fairness argument.

Granted Get Rich Quick with Measure 37 was satirical, but it swept away all the mush of the “its confusing, it will increase red tape” message and hits the nail right on the head: “Measure 37 (I-933) will destroy your neighborhood.”

If I’d have known, I would have celebrated.

An interesting note on Andrew’s and Dennis’ posts the last couple of days on the “Walking for Washington” program. I googled Walking for Washington, and came up with a group called United for Washington. In addition to the BIAW, the Faith and Freedom network, and others, UfW is behind the WfW program.

At first they seem like a 527 type group or a PAC. Taking money in and then spreading it to their favorite (business of course) type political causes. But, if you go to the their “vision” website, you see they have a much grander scheme for things (emphasis mine):

United for Washington has the leadership and vision to build a pro-business political campaigning infrastructure— working with private sector partners and business oriented organizations and associations, United for Washington recognizes that the business coalition is the new political party and encourages business owners and CEO’s to lead politically engaged companies:

• Where the exclusive focus is business competitiveness;
• Where business candidates are identified, recruited and trained and;
• Where opportunities, responsibilities and resources are shared statewide.

And if that wasn’t clear enough for you, this is right next to that:

The Business Coalition is the new Political Party

No kidding. No Democrats, no Republicans. Not even our nice, civil libertarians. Certainly not the Greens. But, rather businesss is the political party.

I’d be naivee to think that business hasn’t been involved in politics since ever, but to come out and say in such strong terms that it isn’t about participating in existing political structures.

They’re not interested in electing a few conservatives to the Washington state Supreme Court. They aren’t interested in a few candidates for the King County Council or even lobbying for some new laws. They want to change politics, they want a business party.

For a group of people with whom I share nearly no political or philosophical connection, I have a lot of respect for libertarians (or is it Libertarians?). A lot of my respect comes from that they don’t stray far from their core beliefs. If you run across a libertarian, you can be pretty sure where they stand. This has a good deal to do with that they’re a small party, but that is beside the point.

The point is that I dove into a comment thread over at South Puget Sound Libertarian, and I’m having a very good time. Mark made a good point that the term “democracy” has become a very loose term lately, and has been bandied about in political dialogue to the point it just means “good.”

Soon to be heard on the street:

Person 1: So, how was your day?

Person 2: Pretty damn democratic. How was yours?

Anyway, that got me thinking about democracy overseas and the so-called democratic revolution (a guilty pleasure of mine), and well, you can read the comment thread. We may not agree on much, but man… Good Talk.