Friday, November 05, 2004
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Dick Durbin for Minority Leader
He'd be a lot better than Reid. Durbin's better at framing issues than Reid. We don't need some consensus builder. We don't need to move to the center. We need to stand for something that people can believe in.
Like Paul Simon. Or Barack Obama.
Dick Durbin is a solid progressive, who is very shrewd about how he communicates his positions. He makes non-newspaper-readers feel that a very liberal position is common sense and reasonable. That's the global test (ha ha) that Democratic spokespeople need to pass. It is not whether they can find common ground or seek consensus (which is what Daschle did). *Especially* when the Senate minority is the only thing standing in the way of the Wall Street looting of our public pension and all the rest (oh, so much more in the next very long two years).
We need a tough, smart, aggressive leader of the Loyal Opposition.
Reid isn't it. Durbin is.
But here's one bad thing: I understand that the current Senate caucus will pick the Minority Leader, and not the newly elected Senate Dem caucus. In other words, Barack doesn't get a vote. Can that be true? Someone, educate me.
UPDATE: Looks like this has been settled with Reid as Minority Leader (ugh) and Durbin as Whip (not as good, but good enough).
Like Paul Simon. Or Barack Obama.
Dick Durbin is a solid progressive, who is very shrewd about how he communicates his positions. He makes non-newspaper-readers feel that a very liberal position is common sense and reasonable. That's the global test (ha ha) that Democratic spokespeople need to pass. It is not whether they can find common ground or seek consensus (which is what Daschle did). *Especially* when the Senate minority is the only thing standing in the way of the Wall Street looting of our public pension and all the rest (oh, so much more in the next very long two years).
We need a tough, smart, aggressive leader of the Loyal Opposition.
Reid isn't it. Durbin is.
But here's one bad thing: I understand that the current Senate caucus will pick the Minority Leader, and not the newly elected Senate Dem caucus. In other words, Barack doesn't get a vote. Can that be true? Someone, educate me.
UPDATE: Looks like this has been settled with Reid as Minority Leader (ugh) and Durbin as Whip (not as good, but good enough).
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The GOP built a majority the way Anton Cermak did in Chicago. A referendum.
Anton Cermak built the Chicago Democratic Organization -- a mix of rival ethnic groups still loyal to Republicans -- by putting referenda on the city ballot every mayoral election, asking voters if they supported a repeal of Prohibition. And the Irish, the Polish, the Czechs, the Italians, they all shared the same cultural background in resenting the Protestant imposition of Prohibition on their way of life. So they came out to vote in droves, often triggered by the referendum, and voted in the Democratic Mayor Cermak.
The Republicans did something similar this time with 11 (11!) statewide referenda on gay marriage and gay civil unions. And all 11 of them won (meaning they prohibited either marriage of civil unions for gays). And they all brought people out that almost certainly voted for Bush.
We liberals tried something similar, as we had two statewide referenda raising the minimum wage to $6 and change, and indexed those to inflation, on the Florida and Nevada ballots. They likely brought out some Democratic voters, but even better, they both passed. So a majority of voters in both Florida and Nevada decided they wanted to raise the minimum wage and they wanted Bush to serve another four years. A touch of cognitive dissonance.
The Republicans did something similar this time with 11 (11!) statewide referenda on gay marriage and gay civil unions. And all 11 of them won (meaning they prohibited either marriage of civil unions for gays). And they all brought people out that almost certainly voted for Bush.
We liberals tried something similar, as we had two statewide referenda raising the minimum wage to $6 and change, and indexed those to inflation, on the Florida and Nevada ballots. They likely brought out some Democratic voters, but even better, they both passed. So a majority of voters in both Florida and Nevada decided they wanted to raise the minimum wage and they wanted Bush to serve another four years. A touch of cognitive dissonance.
There is no mandate for Bush's policies. 51% does not a mandate make.
It's ridiculous to even mention the word mandate with a squeaker (sp?) election like this. 51% does not mean a mandate. 70% or 80% means that the electorate is behind you, and thus you should vigorously pursue your agenda. 51% means that half the electorate rejected the agenda.
Maybe the fact that people even *consider* this narrow victory a mandate is a product of our winner-take-all political system, and a switch to proportional representation in multi-member districts for the legislature would introduce a more reasonable way of thinking.
Maybe the fact that people even *consider* this narrow victory a mandate is a product of our winner-take-all political system, and a switch to proportional representation in multi-member districts for the legislature would introduce a more reasonable way of thinking.
What if Ohio and Nevada had same-day voter registration?
I wonder if we would have won.
New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota all allow same-day voter registration. Kerry won them all.
I wonder if there were an additional 130,000 people who would have voted for Kerry, and wanted to vote for Kerry, but didn't register at their current address in early October.
What is that -- 10 people per precinct?
Same thing with Nevada. 10 more people per precinct who would have voted for Kerry, but didn't register in time, and Kerry wins.
It's a stretch. But not impossible.
We've got to make voter registration easier -- and soon, make it universal so the government has the responsibility to prepare the voter rolls, not the individual finding the proper government agency. That's how most democracies operate. Putting the burden on the individual to register with the government in order to vote is fairly rare around the world.
New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota all allow same-day voter registration. Kerry won them all.
I wonder if there were an additional 130,000 people who would have voted for Kerry, and wanted to vote for Kerry, but didn't register at their current address in early October.
What is that -- 10 people per precinct?
Same thing with Nevada. 10 more people per precinct who would have voted for Kerry, but didn't register in time, and Kerry wins.
It's a stretch. But not impossible.
We've got to make voter registration easier -- and soon, make it universal so the government has the responsibility to prepare the voter rolls, not the individual finding the proper government agency. That's how most democracies operate. Putting the burden on the individual to register with the government in order to vote is fairly rare around the world.
Attempt at coherence after the liquor soothed the 269 Bush votes
First, let me say, that tonight I was something of an emotional basket case.
I went to the Obama rally (late, because my precinct took forever to close). We couldn't get a signal for the equipment to transmit the results. So by 9:00 I finally left, after Barack earned 81% of the vote. Then I went to Talk Show at the Second City, which was fun. So by the time I got to the Obama election night party, it was basically over. But here's the part where I got a little affected.
Barack was all over the media. National media. There were six or seven cameras up there, and Barack would go from one to the other, with tech guys changing his ear piece and changing the microphone in his pocket. And Barack was so good on television. He frames progressive issues in common sense ways. And I thought I could see his role changing again (or at least, it was clearer to me). He became more of a national figure, beaming across to millions of people (not just hundreds of thousands but millions) a reasonable, respectable, progressive message. It was one camera after another, and behind him on the big screen in the ballroom with confetti on the floor and a half-empty room with closed bars, his face projected on Fox News and CNN, speaking truth and changing minds. Most of the press had grown bored, but Barack was still working it, going camera to camera, sending out the message, continuing to *work*. And he's a pro. It made me proud.
It really made me proud.
And then afterwards, Bush earned 269. And it became like a bad novel. Like a bad science fiction novel where bad things happen. The Supreme Court eliminates affirmative action. Reproductive rights. Environmental regulation so permits pollution. Not to mention the Congress funding even more corporate welfare tax breaks and a bigger debt. And the invasion of Syria and/or Iran. It's bad.
The only bright spot is that we're not taking it lying down. We're not conceding. We're not conceding until every vote -- every provisional, every absentee -- is counted. I spent an extra 45 minutes in the precinct last night ensuring that those absentee ballots from the UK and Spain and a dozen other countries were counted. We're going to do the same in Ohio.
And Melissa Bean won! The map matters most, but it's not dispositive. Voters can trump the map. It's not easy, but it can be done. Maybe Phil Crane is a victim of making Mark Kirk's district more Republican, because those Palatine Township precincts got taken out of his district and put into Kirk's, leaving Crane with more black precincts near Zion.
But the Texas remap worked. That damn Tom DeLay. Time for Illinois to remap our congressional map. It's 10-9 now. It should be 12-7.
And really, it's time for the State of Illinois to step it up. With D.C. looking pretty bad for the next two years, we've got to step it up and be the beacon of manufacturing a middle class. We've got to invest in people, efficiently and prudently. We've got to put our policy expertise and wealth behind making Illinois the best State in the Union.
And Barack Obama had best learn how to filibuster, because when the Republicans try to ram something through, he's the guy who can lead the charge to stop it. Because he won't lose his backbone. That's why he won the primary, and now the general. He'll stand up to the worst elements of the national Republican Party -- and through his eloquence and tenacity and leadership, stop them from impoverishing most of us for the benefit of the few.
I went to the Obama rally (late, because my precinct took forever to close). We couldn't get a signal for the equipment to transmit the results. So by 9:00 I finally left, after Barack earned 81% of the vote. Then I went to Talk Show at the Second City, which was fun. So by the time I got to the Obama election night party, it was basically over. But here's the part where I got a little affected.
Barack was all over the media. National media. There were six or seven cameras up there, and Barack would go from one to the other, with tech guys changing his ear piece and changing the microphone in his pocket. And Barack was so good on television. He frames progressive issues in common sense ways. And I thought I could see his role changing again (or at least, it was clearer to me). He became more of a national figure, beaming across to millions of people (not just hundreds of thousands but millions) a reasonable, respectable, progressive message. It was one camera after another, and behind him on the big screen in the ballroom with confetti on the floor and a half-empty room with closed bars, his face projected on Fox News and CNN, speaking truth and changing minds. Most of the press had grown bored, but Barack was still working it, going camera to camera, sending out the message, continuing to *work*. And he's a pro. It made me proud.
It really made me proud.
And then afterwards, Bush earned 269. And it became like a bad novel. Like a bad science fiction novel where bad things happen. The Supreme Court eliminates affirmative action. Reproductive rights. Environmental regulation so permits pollution. Not to mention the Congress funding even more corporate welfare tax breaks and a bigger debt. And the invasion of Syria and/or Iran. It's bad.
The only bright spot is that we're not taking it lying down. We're not conceding. We're not conceding until every vote -- every provisional, every absentee -- is counted. I spent an extra 45 minutes in the precinct last night ensuring that those absentee ballots from the UK and Spain and a dozen other countries were counted. We're going to do the same in Ohio.
And Melissa Bean won! The map matters most, but it's not dispositive. Voters can trump the map. It's not easy, but it can be done. Maybe Phil Crane is a victim of making Mark Kirk's district more Republican, because those Palatine Township precincts got taken out of his district and put into Kirk's, leaving Crane with more black precincts near Zion.
But the Texas remap worked. That damn Tom DeLay. Time for Illinois to remap our congressional map. It's 10-9 now. It should be 12-7.
And really, it's time for the State of Illinois to step it up. With D.C. looking pretty bad for the next two years, we've got to step it up and be the beacon of manufacturing a middle class. We've got to invest in people, efficiently and prudently. We've got to put our policy expertise and wealth behind making Illinois the best State in the Union.
And Barack Obama had best learn how to filibuster, because when the Republicans try to ram something through, he's the guy who can lead the charge to stop it. Because he won't lose his backbone. That's why he won the primary, and now the general. He'll stand up to the worst elements of the national Republican Party -- and through his eloquence and tenacity and leadership, stop them from impoverishing most of us for the benefit of the few.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
80% for Obama in the 18th precinct of the 43rd ward
I just got out of the 18th precicnt (we spent a full hour trying to get a signal). Obama had more than 80% of the vote. And the two bad judges failed to earn a majority of the vote (which is nice).
It was actually a warm civic feeling to help close a precinct. And to see a dozen absentee ballots from all over the world sent into this precinct was something else -- likely a testimony to how important the presidential election is.
I still sense a Kerry victory, but with no evidence right now. Just a hunch.
It was actually a warm civic feeling to help close a precinct. And to see a dozen absentee ballots from all over the world sent into this precinct was something else -- likely a testimony to how important the presidential election is.
I still sense a Kerry victory, but with no evidence right now. Just a hunch.
MoveOn.org PAC is really fantastic -- last-minute calls needed
I've been calling through MoveOn.org's PAC into Florida today. It's a great tool, and a big step up from most traditional phone banks. If you want to make some phone calls tonight, sign up with them here: http://action.moveonpac.org/gotv/
Undecided between Bush and Kerry on the issues?
Here's why you should vote for Kerry.
If you were paid less than $100,000 last year, you will be better off with President Kerry than with President Bush. No question.
If you are under the age of 40, then you will be paying higher taxes in 20 years to pay off the huge debt that the government is running up now. That's a rip-off of our generation. Kerry will make the current generation pay for more of their expenses, by making the people earning more than $200,000 pay higher taxes (the same level they did under Clinton: 39.6%). That's fairer than what Bush has done (and will do), which is to cut taxes and run up a huge debt, leaving us to pay for it. In other words, President Bush means higher taxes for us in 20 years than President Kerry.
Bush has hired more soldiers and fewer teachers. That leaves our country a little bit dumber and a little bit meaner.
Plus, the Republicans are going to run the House of Representatives (and maybe the Senate). There's no way the Democrats are going to run the House. So if you believe that one party shouldn't run everything in Washington (like the Republicans do now), then President Kerry will be a balance against the Republican Congress. When the Republicans run everything, their extremists get too much power. Only a Democratic President can balance out the Republican Congress.
The glory of free elections in Afghanistan replacing the Taliban is outweighed by the disaster of invading Iraq. That's going to cost us a fortune, and when our military is stretched this thin, be careful about a draft. There aren't enough volunteers, and the government is forcing people to stay in Iraq much longer than they want to already.
Finally, Bush may be clear and strong-willed. But that's another word for stubborn. When the stakes are this high, I'd rather have someone willing to admit a mistake and change his mind in charge of the country than someone too stubborn to see when he is making a mistake.
If you were paid less than $100,000 last year, you will be better off with President Kerry than with President Bush. No question.
If you are under the age of 40, then you will be paying higher taxes in 20 years to pay off the huge debt that the government is running up now. That's a rip-off of our generation. Kerry will make the current generation pay for more of their expenses, by making the people earning more than $200,000 pay higher taxes (the same level they did under Clinton: 39.6%). That's fairer than what Bush has done (and will do), which is to cut taxes and run up a huge debt, leaving us to pay for it. In other words, President Bush means higher taxes for us in 20 years than President Kerry.
Bush has hired more soldiers and fewer teachers. That leaves our country a little bit dumber and a little bit meaner.
Plus, the Republicans are going to run the House of Representatives (and maybe the Senate). There's no way the Democrats are going to run the House. So if you believe that one party shouldn't run everything in Washington (like the Republicans do now), then President Kerry will be a balance against the Republican Congress. When the Republicans run everything, their extremists get too much power. Only a Democratic President can balance out the Republican Congress.
The glory of free elections in Afghanistan replacing the Taliban is outweighed by the disaster of invading Iraq. That's going to cost us a fortune, and when our military is stretched this thin, be careful about a draft. There aren't enough volunteers, and the government is forcing people to stay in Iraq much longer than they want to already.
Finally, Bush may be clear and strong-willed. But that's another word for stubborn. When the stakes are this high, I'd rather have someone willing to admit a mistake and change his mind in charge of the country than someone too stubborn to see when he is making a mistake.
There's something very wrong with our democracy.
Most of us have to drive to another part of the country in order to influence the presidential election.
That is so dumb.
In all seriousness, just consider that a few hours before the polls open, and here in Chicago, I might as well be in Caracas. I am away from the action.
I'll be calling Wisconsin voters all day tomorrow (today!) asking them to vote for Kerry.
Why can't I ask my neighbors? Why doesn't every vote matter equally?
If you still defend the Electoral College, then you have got to look in the mirror and accept that you are defending widespread disenfranchisement. You are defending unequal treatment.
Give me a break. Dragging one more person to the polls in Chicago should be just as important as dragging one more person to the polls in Milwaukee. But it's not. And that's indefensible.
Congressman Jackson Jr.'s bill, HJR 109, would amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College. This amendment should pass. The text is here. Get your Member of Congress on board as a co-sponsor during the lame duck session.
That is so dumb.
In all seriousness, just consider that a few hours before the polls open, and here in Chicago, I might as well be in Caracas. I am away from the action.
I'll be calling Wisconsin voters all day tomorrow (today!) asking them to vote for Kerry.
Why can't I ask my neighbors? Why doesn't every vote matter equally?
If you still defend the Electoral College, then you have got to look in the mirror and accept that you are defending widespread disenfranchisement. You are defending unequal treatment.
Give me a break. Dragging one more person to the polls in Chicago should be just as important as dragging one more person to the polls in Milwaukee. But it's not. And that's indefensible.
Congressman Jackson Jr.'s bill, HJR 109, would amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College. This amendment should pass. The text is here. Get your Member of Congress on board as a co-sponsor during the lame duck session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)