The poll tax has a long history in England and America. It dates back medieval times, as a source of revenue for the English crown. The king, depending collecting fees and dues from his vassals, found this wasn't enough so he levied a tax on every man, woman and child living in his realm. This was called a "head tax," or "tallage." It was also known as the poll tax. As the power of the English House of Commons grew and more Englishmen gained the right to vote for its members, the poll tax became a way to ensure that only those making a certain amount of money per year voted. This practice carried over to the United States.
In the post Civil War era, the poll tax became a tool to disenfranchise poor voters--disproportionately African American--to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to vote. The poll tax was abolished by constitutional amendment almost half a century ago. But it seems to be coming back. I'm sure you've heard the old cliche "time is money." It is not a stretch to say that having to wait hours in line to vote constitutes a de facto poll tax. Rachel Maddow makes a persuasive case, and I can't put it any better:
This is why we decided to try to reach out to Rickeys everywhere. Be ready for long lines, be ready for difficulties, and be ready to stick it out, both you and your Rickey. We're having a lot of fun here at RickeyPAC, but this election is too important to sit on the sidelines. Stay tuned to the RickeyPAC Twitter feed for alerts on reported voting difficulties across the country, and for results starting at 6 pm Eastern when polls close in Indiana and Kentucky.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Ghosts of 1948
Everyone's seen the picture. It's in every school social studies book. It's President Harry S Truman triumphantly holding up the most famously wrong newspaper headline in American political history--the Chicago Daily Tribune's declaration "Dewey Defeats Truman."
The election of 1948 has become part of the mythology of the modern presidency, and the ghosts of '48 seem to alternately encourage or taunt a presidential candidate hoping for a come-from-behind win on election day. John McCain clearly hopes to follow in Truman's footsteps. How realistic are his hopes? Robert Schlesinger, who writes for U.S. News and World Report, has an outstanding piece up at Jefferson Street, the U.S. News blog, entitled Past & Present: Harry Truman's 1948 Comeback Campaign. (Robert is a Middlebury classmate to many of us here at RickeyPAC, is very astute, and has appeared on The Daily Show. You should read his article. You should also buy his book White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters.)
Rob's articles recounts the details of the '48 campaign, so I will only repeat the broad strokes here. It is necessary, though, to put Truman's campaign in context in order to understand how it may--or may not--apply to 2008.
It is not exaggeration to say that Truman was besieged on all sides as the election of 1948 approached. The midterm elections of 1946 had been disastrous for the Democrats, with Republicans winning control of the House and Senate. Truman, or at least his policies, were proving highly unpopular according to polls. Finally, for all the talk of a split Democratic party after this year's primaries, Truman had to hold together a highly unstable coalition in his own party: African Americans and liberal northerners pushing for civil rights; Southern conservatives adamantly opposed to them; FDR's labor allies; and Jewish voters who wanted American support for an indepent Jewish state in Palestine.
Truman responded with a train tour of what some people would term "flyover country" today, the myriad small towns of the Midwest and West, which bolstered Truman's popularity with voters and garnered him favorable press. Truman, it seems, made for very good copy. In an epic campaign swing that was a grueling experience for Truman and his staff, the president gave four major addresses and dozens of minor ones, all of them delivered off the cuff from an outline put together by Clark Clifford and a team of speechwriters traveling with the president. Truman was famously terrible at delivering a speech from a prepared text. From there, momentum built until Truman won a decisive victory on election night. Despite a split in the Democratic Party over civil rights--Strom Thurmond and his "Dixiecrat" faction ran as a third party--the final tally wasn't even close. Here is what the electoral map looked like once all the votes were counted in 1948 (note that Alaska, Hawaii and Washington DC did not have electoral votes then):
So can McCain replicate Truman's success? Here are what I believe are the factors in Truman's victory, in no particular order of importance, and how they might apply to the Republican campaigning:
Gaffes by your opponent: Truman got lucky in this regard. First, there was the train tour. It's now known as "The Whistlestop Tour" and in 2008 the term "whistlestop" evokes a romantic image of scenic small towns full of decent, hard-working people. Just the sort of people John McCain and Sarah Palin have been trying to reach this year. But in 1948, "whistlestop" was a term of derision, and it was coined by Republican Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft. A whistlestop was a town too small to even merit a train station, so a train stopped and whistled for passengers or mail. If there were none, they moved on. Basically, in 1948, the Republicans (or at least one of their leaders) were dissing small-town America. McCain's been trying to make hay at times over Barack Obama's infamous "bitter" comments from this spring but that hasn't seemed to work, probably because Hillary Clinton already got plenty of mileage out of them in the primaries. In 2008, the Democrats just haven't been giving McCain many gaffes that he can exploit.
The fine art of negative campaigning: One of Truman's great strengths as a president and campaigner was he knew when he needed to be pragmatic, and when he knew when he needed to be partisan. Under the broadest sense of the term, Truman went negative but his target wasn't Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey. Indeed, Truman rarely referred to Dewey, and when he did it was almost never by name (it was almost always "my Republican opponent"). Truman instead ran against the 80th Congress, calling it the "Do-Nothing Congress," a name that still sticks. McCain has tried to do something similar in the latter stages of the campaign this year, raising the specter of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharing in the leadership of an Obama presidency but again, it doesn't seem to have had much effect. Part of it is that Reid and Pelosi are neither as well-known or as formidable as Robert Taft was in 1948. Taft was arguably more powerful a figure than Reid in the Senate, and had been a serious candidate for the Republican nomination in 1948. The GOP decided to go with the more liberal Dewey instead. McCain's other problem with tarring the current Congress with the "do-nothing" label is that it's been the Republican minority stonewalling legislation.
A unified team: This has been a serious and growing problem for the McCain team in the last few days, with the Republican ticket seeming to split between the presidential and vice presidential nominees. It's hard to imagine such a thing even being possible with Truman's team. The campaign staff, led by the gifted Clark Clifford, were people who trusted the president and who were trusted by Truman in return. This dynamic just doesn't seem to exist in the McCain campaign. Clark Clifford was working so hard during the '48 campaign he suffered an attack of stress-induced boils. It's hard to imagine the same thing happening to Steve Schmidt or Doug Davis.
Poor campaigning by the opponent: This, in my opinion, is the largest point of departure between 1948 and 2008. By all accounts, Thomas Dewey ran a poor campaign. Seen as cool and aloof, he was complacent; he believed the hype that everyone else but Truman and his inner circle had bought: that in January 1949, Thomas E. Dewey would be sworn in to office. He coasted. Barack Obama is doing anything but. In comments after her interview with Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow commented about how Obama and his senior staff were confident but not complacent. They were pushing their ground forces hard and are ready for anything. Exactly the opposite of the Republicans in 1948. McCain's just out of luck here, and even his supporters admit as much.
There is more. Much, much more. Too much for a humble blog to do justice to. But I think these are the biggest factors. Taking into account that anything can happen in politics, the stars just don't seem to be aligning for McCain in the same way the did for Harry Truman 60 years ago. If McCain does pull off the very improbable, he will have to create a whole new dynamic.
The biggest lesson to us is: every vote counts. Whether you cast a vote for McCain or Obama in the privacy of the voting booth what the ghosts of 1948 do have to tell us is that every vote counts, and no one has anything in the bag until after those votes are counted!
The election of 1948 has become part of the mythology of the modern presidency, and the ghosts of '48 seem to alternately encourage or taunt a presidential candidate hoping for a come-from-behind win on election day. John McCain clearly hopes to follow in Truman's footsteps. How realistic are his hopes? Robert Schlesinger, who writes for U.S. News and World Report, has an outstanding piece up at Jefferson Street, the U.S. News blog, entitled Past & Present: Harry Truman's 1948 Comeback Campaign. (Robert is a Middlebury classmate to many of us here at RickeyPAC, is very astute, and has appeared on The Daily Show. You should read his article. You should also buy his book White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters.)
Rob's articles recounts the details of the '48 campaign, so I will only repeat the broad strokes here. It is necessary, though, to put Truman's campaign in context in order to understand how it may--or may not--apply to 2008.
It is not exaggeration to say that Truman was besieged on all sides as the election of 1948 approached. The midterm elections of 1946 had been disastrous for the Democrats, with Republicans winning control of the House and Senate. Truman, or at least his policies, were proving highly unpopular according to polls. Finally, for all the talk of a split Democratic party after this year's primaries, Truman had to hold together a highly unstable coalition in his own party: African Americans and liberal northerners pushing for civil rights; Southern conservatives adamantly opposed to them; FDR's labor allies; and Jewish voters who wanted American support for an indepent Jewish state in Palestine.
Truman responded with a train tour of what some people would term "flyover country" today, the myriad small towns of the Midwest and West, which bolstered Truman's popularity with voters and garnered him favorable press. Truman, it seems, made for very good copy. In an epic campaign swing that was a grueling experience for Truman and his staff, the president gave four major addresses and dozens of minor ones, all of them delivered off the cuff from an outline put together by Clark Clifford and a team of speechwriters traveling with the president. Truman was famously terrible at delivering a speech from a prepared text. From there, momentum built until Truman won a decisive victory on election night. Despite a split in the Democratic Party over civil rights--Strom Thurmond and his "Dixiecrat" faction ran as a third party--the final tally wasn't even close. Here is what the electoral map looked like once all the votes were counted in 1948 (note that Alaska, Hawaii and Washington DC did not have electoral votes then):
So can McCain replicate Truman's success? Here are what I believe are the factors in Truman's victory, in no particular order of importance, and how they might apply to the Republican campaigning:
Gaffes by your opponent: Truman got lucky in this regard. First, there was the train tour. It's now known as "The Whistlestop Tour" and in 2008 the term "whistlestop" evokes a romantic image of scenic small towns full of decent, hard-working people. Just the sort of people John McCain and Sarah Palin have been trying to reach this year. But in 1948, "whistlestop" was a term of derision, and it was coined by Republican Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft. A whistlestop was a town too small to even merit a train station, so a train stopped and whistled for passengers or mail. If there were none, they moved on. Basically, in 1948, the Republicans (or at least one of their leaders) were dissing small-town America. McCain's been trying to make hay at times over Barack Obama's infamous "bitter" comments from this spring but that hasn't seemed to work, probably because Hillary Clinton already got plenty of mileage out of them in the primaries. In 2008, the Democrats just haven't been giving McCain many gaffes that he can exploit.
The fine art of negative campaigning: One of Truman's great strengths as a president and campaigner was he knew when he needed to be pragmatic, and when he knew when he needed to be partisan. Under the broadest sense of the term, Truman went negative but his target wasn't Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey. Indeed, Truman rarely referred to Dewey, and when he did it was almost never by name (it was almost always "my Republican opponent"). Truman instead ran against the 80th Congress, calling it the "Do-Nothing Congress," a name that still sticks. McCain has tried to do something similar in the latter stages of the campaign this year, raising the specter of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharing in the leadership of an Obama presidency but again, it doesn't seem to have had much effect. Part of it is that Reid and Pelosi are neither as well-known or as formidable as Robert Taft was in 1948. Taft was arguably more powerful a figure than Reid in the Senate, and had been a serious candidate for the Republican nomination in 1948. The GOP decided to go with the more liberal Dewey instead. McCain's other problem with tarring the current Congress with the "do-nothing" label is that it's been the Republican minority stonewalling legislation.
A unified team: This has been a serious and growing problem for the McCain team in the last few days, with the Republican ticket seeming to split between the presidential and vice presidential nominees. It's hard to imagine such a thing even being possible with Truman's team. The campaign staff, led by the gifted Clark Clifford, were people who trusted the president and who were trusted by Truman in return. This dynamic just doesn't seem to exist in the McCain campaign. Clark Clifford was working so hard during the '48 campaign he suffered an attack of stress-induced boils. It's hard to imagine the same thing happening to Steve Schmidt or Doug Davis.
Poor campaigning by the opponent: This, in my opinion, is the largest point of departure between 1948 and 2008. By all accounts, Thomas Dewey ran a poor campaign. Seen as cool and aloof, he was complacent; he believed the hype that everyone else but Truman and his inner circle had bought: that in January 1949, Thomas E. Dewey would be sworn in to office. He coasted. Barack Obama is doing anything but. In comments after her interview with Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow commented about how Obama and his senior staff were confident but not complacent. They were pushing their ground forces hard and are ready for anything. Exactly the opposite of the Republicans in 1948. McCain's just out of luck here, and even his supporters admit as much.
There is more. Much, much more. Too much for a humble blog to do justice to. But I think these are the biggest factors. Taking into account that anything can happen in politics, the stars just don't seem to be aligning for McCain in the same way the did for Harry Truman 60 years ago. If McCain does pull off the very improbable, he will have to create a whole new dynamic.
The biggest lesson to us is: every vote counts. Whether you cast a vote for McCain or Obama in the privacy of the voting booth what the ghosts of 1948 do have to tell us is that every vote counts, and no one has anything in the bag until after those votes are counted!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Another Obstacle to Voting?
As if there aren't enough potential pitfalls in this year's election: long lines, lost absentee ballots, ensuring you are registered, finding your polling location, and making the time to vote, you could get there and find your right to vote challenged by another person at the polls. "Challenged at the polls? What do you mean?" "Why would someone challenge me?" "Is that legal?" There is a combination of surprise, confusion and consternation from people when I talk to them about voter challengers at the polls. The reason people often state for challenging a voter is to prevent voter fraud. But before you believe that, read this.
Don't let all this get you down, this post is to make you realize how much EVERY VOTE COUNTS. Why would they go to so much trouble to challenge a individual voters if they didn't think it would make a difference? So if you had any question before about whether your vote can make a difference or is really needed...here is some evidence that should help prove it.
Yes, it is legal to challenge a voter at the polls. The rules about this vary from state to state. The National Association of Secretaries of State has a website called http://www.canivote.org/ where you can check your registration and polling location. Confirm that before you go. To find out more information on your state's rules go to the ACLU's website and download the Voter Empowerment Card for your state. They have also posted a great video "Always Practice Safe Voting" you should watch as well.
Project Vote has a 26 page document titled, The Role of Challengers in Elections, available for download on challengers that answers many of the questions you may have. They are already seeing issues with early voting.
For a light, but still serious look at voter challenges and other ways the vote is being suppressed - download Robert Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast's comic book, "Steal Back Your Vote" and read their article in Rolling Stone.
Some ways to prevent being challenged:
- Don't wear a t-shirt, ping, button or other item that identifies who you plan to vote for. Some states ban it completely, including Vermont, South Carolina and New York.
- Don't discuss your vote with people in line. Voting used to be considered more private. I'm not saying you have to do this, but it may lead to you being able to quietly come in, vote, and go home.
- Vote early.
- If you do wait till Tuesday, November 4th, vote during the morning or before or after lunch. After 5pm is when most people are at the polls.
This has happened in the past and they often know who they are going to target. The practice was so bad in the 2004 election that some states have passed new laws, including Minnesota. NPR has a great article about voter challenges.
This is usually a Republican strategy to slow down the line, discourage people, scare lower income or minorities and in general disrupt the process. A recent story in South Carolina illustrates the tactics used.
If you don't believe this will happen, read these articles:
A Wis. Call for GOP Poll Watchers Draws National Notice -Wahington Post
National GOP Officials Outline Poll-Watcher Plan - LA Times, California
Democrats Press GOP To Ease Off Game Plan for Voter Challenges - Washington Post, Maryland
Voter Challenges - Kolotv.com, Reno, NV
State to Notify 4,770 Their Votes Are ‘Challenged’ - Altanta Journal Constitution, Georgia
I spent three hours today digging for information on what to do if you are challenged. I could only find one blog post that had a broken link to an article in the Dayton Daily News. I will keep digging and see what I can find! Thanks for reading.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Enlightened parenting? I think so.
I live in a house dominated by testosterone: three little boys and one big husband. Luckily, my foster daughter adds a bit of much-needed femininity to the house when she is not away at school. As the mother of young boys, I am determined to raise them to be open-minded, compassionate, curious, tolerant and sensitive (but not too sensitive...) human beings. In our household, we talk a lot about race, religion, sexual orientation, and ability. We also talk about respect, responsibility, patriotism and honor. I want them to ask hard questions and have strong critical thinking skills. My husband and I are decidedly liberal - socially and fiscally. We openly discuss why we are inspired by Barack Obama and why we do not agree with the Bush administration's decisions over the past eight years.
Our boys are young, James is six, Eamon is four and Gavin is eighteen months old. Our daughter, Raya, is eighteen, was born and raised in Afghanistan and has been living with us for two and a half years now. For everyone's benefit, we talk about major issues in the simplest terms possible. I am often delighted by the kids' innocent and funny questions about politics, our country, and other people's lives. My sense of joy when answering these questions often extends to the exchanges I have with our Afghan daughter. She approaches some things here in the U.S. with the eyes of a very young child because certain things are completely outside of her sphere of experience.
My favorite example of this "innocence" was a time last winter. We drove the family north to a holiday party hosted by one of my husband's closest friends - I'll call him Karl. He and his partner welcomed us into their home, and we had a wonderful time. After the party, Raya asked if Karl's partner was his brother. I explained that they were both gay and in a relationship with one another. She was puzzled, but then asked if they were related. I found myself explaining what “gay” means and telling her that their relationship was very similar to my relationship with my husband. She took that in and thought about it for a while. About half an hour later, she asked me what Karl and his partner would wear if they were to marry. I immediately thought of the options. They could wear whatever they wanted to wear; tuxedos if the wedding was formal, maybe shorts and flip flops if they married on a beach, or perhaps khakis and a button down if they had a casual ceremony. Raya wasn't totally satisfied with that answer, so she demanded to know "who would wear the dress?" It was an "ah ha!" moment for me. Homosexuality is not "allowed" to exist in Afghanistan, so Raya had never met a gay man (that she knew of). Her idea of a wedding was a man in a formal suit and a woman in a gown. So, of course, given her frame of reference, who would wear the dress?
Because of where we live and how we are raising our family, our boys have few fixed ideas about romantic relationships or marriages. Similarly, they don't see why people with different skins colors would be treated in a manner different than how they are treated. I remember James being totally incredulous when he learned about segregation in the US. He thought it was outrageously unfair that a black person would have to sit in the back of the bus or that black people could not eat in some restaurants. It's refreshing to hear them talk about people of different races, sexual orientations and abilities as if they were just people - not different people.
The following conversation was one I had with my six-year-old about a week ago. I was driving the crew home from a play date at the end of a long day.
As we are pulling out of the driveway:
James: Mom, you will NOT believe how many girls want to marry me!
Me: Wow, sounds like you are a lucky guy!
James: Yeah... Mom, can I marry two girls?
Me (holding back snarky comment about certain religious groups): Sorry - you can only marry one girl.
James: Well, Darlie really wants to marry me.
Me: You ARE lucky - she's smart, funny, cute - and I like her parents too!
James: I know (I can feel him rolling his eyes), you guys talk way too much. But Cate really wants to marry me too and I like her just as much.
Me (again): That's a hard one James. Cate's a total catch - smart, fun, pretty - and her parents are great too. Good choices for in-laws.
James (obviously annoyed with my focus on in-laws): Whatever Mom... so, I really can't marry two girls? Even if we are all really good friends and love each other?
Me: Sorry bud. You can only choose one girl.
James: OK - so two girls can get married if they love each other, right?
Me: Yes, they can.
James: Great! Then Darlie and Cate can marry each other and then I can marry just one of them and all three of us would be happy.
Me: Wow - excellent reasoning. James, you are just......
James: I'm classic, right mom?
Me: Yes, classic. Now pipe down and rest, it's late.
I love that he easily accepts that two women can marry each other – that love is the most important factor in the equation. And no, I don’t worry that he’s talking about marriage in first grade. I think it’s just what little kids do. Maybe Sarah Palin would like to speak with James. He’d probably be far more open to the idea of Bristol and her baby-daddy getting married than I am!
So, I guess we may not be the most non-judgmental parents. Nor do we hold our opinions to ourselves. Our kids are big Obama fans, wear their Obama buttons proudly and can tell people they like him: because he shows respect for others and wants to run America in a responsible way. They are excited to come to the polling station with me on November 4th and see what it’s like to vote. Both Eamon and James think it is totally unfair that they are not allowed to vote yet.
I’ll end this post with another funny James story (I have many!). At the beginning of every school day, his class does some creative writing exercises. Then, each child shares his/her story with the class and the class asks questions or critiques the writing. James’ teacher stopped me after school a few weeks ago to tell me about James’ story that day. Apparently, James wrote about a bird who flew to Texas and once there, met a lizard. The lizard was brightly colored and was also very smart. He was digging a hole in the ground and that hole was large enough to bury George Bush in it. The End.
That had me laughing for days. I guess James’ teacher knows which way our family leans…I do think it is my responsibility to let my children know what we believe and why. At least they are listening!
Our boys are young, James is six, Eamon is four and Gavin is eighteen months old. Our daughter, Raya, is eighteen, was born and raised in Afghanistan and has been living with us for two and a half years now. For everyone's benefit, we talk about major issues in the simplest terms possible. I am often delighted by the kids' innocent and funny questions about politics, our country, and other people's lives. My sense of joy when answering these questions often extends to the exchanges I have with our Afghan daughter. She approaches some things here in the U.S. with the eyes of a very young child because certain things are completely outside of her sphere of experience.
My favorite example of this "innocence" was a time last winter. We drove the family north to a holiday party hosted by one of my husband's closest friends - I'll call him Karl. He and his partner welcomed us into their home, and we had a wonderful time. After the party, Raya asked if Karl's partner was his brother. I explained that they were both gay and in a relationship with one another. She was puzzled, but then asked if they were related. I found myself explaining what “gay” means and telling her that their relationship was very similar to my relationship with my husband. She took that in and thought about it for a while. About half an hour later, she asked me what Karl and his partner would wear if they were to marry. I immediately thought of the options. They could wear whatever they wanted to wear; tuxedos if the wedding was formal, maybe shorts and flip flops if they married on a beach, or perhaps khakis and a button down if they had a casual ceremony. Raya wasn't totally satisfied with that answer, so she demanded to know "who would wear the dress?" It was an "ah ha!" moment for me. Homosexuality is not "allowed" to exist in Afghanistan, so Raya had never met a gay man (that she knew of). Her idea of a wedding was a man in a formal suit and a woman in a gown. So, of course, given her frame of reference, who would wear the dress?
Because of where we live and how we are raising our family, our boys have few fixed ideas about romantic relationships or marriages. Similarly, they don't see why people with different skins colors would be treated in a manner different than how they are treated. I remember James being totally incredulous when he learned about segregation in the US. He thought it was outrageously unfair that a black person would have to sit in the back of the bus or that black people could not eat in some restaurants. It's refreshing to hear them talk about people of different races, sexual orientations and abilities as if they were just people - not different people.
The following conversation was one I had with my six-year-old about a week ago. I was driving the crew home from a play date at the end of a long day.
As we are pulling out of the driveway:
James: Mom, you will NOT believe how many girls want to marry me!
Me: Wow, sounds like you are a lucky guy!
James: Yeah... Mom, can I marry two girls?
Me (holding back snarky comment about certain religious groups): Sorry - you can only marry one girl.
James: Well, Darlie really wants to marry me.
Me: You ARE lucky - she's smart, funny, cute - and I like her parents too!
James: I know (I can feel him rolling his eyes), you guys talk way too much. But Cate really wants to marry me too and I like her just as much.
Me (again): That's a hard one James. Cate's a total catch - smart, fun, pretty - and her parents are great too. Good choices for in-laws.
James (obviously annoyed with my focus on in-laws): Whatever Mom... so, I really can't marry two girls? Even if we are all really good friends and love each other?
Me: Sorry bud. You can only choose one girl.
James: OK - so two girls can get married if they love each other, right?
Me: Yes, they can.
James: Great! Then Darlie and Cate can marry each other and then I can marry just one of them and all three of us would be happy.
Me: Wow - excellent reasoning. James, you are just......
James: I'm classic, right mom?
Me: Yes, classic. Now pipe down and rest, it's late.
I love that he easily accepts that two women can marry each other – that love is the most important factor in the equation. And no, I don’t worry that he’s talking about marriage in first grade. I think it’s just what little kids do. Maybe Sarah Palin would like to speak with James. He’d probably be far more open to the idea of Bristol and her baby-daddy getting married than I am!
So, I guess we may not be the most non-judgmental parents. Nor do we hold our opinions to ourselves. Our kids are big Obama fans, wear their Obama buttons proudly and can tell people they like him: because he shows respect for others and wants to run America in a responsible way. They are excited to come to the polling station with me on November 4th and see what it’s like to vote. Both Eamon and James think it is totally unfair that they are not allowed to vote yet.
I’ll end this post with another funny James story (I have many!). At the beginning of every school day, his class does some creative writing exercises. Then, each child shares his/her story with the class and the class asks questions or critiques the writing. James’ teacher stopped me after school a few weeks ago to tell me about James’ story that day. Apparently, James wrote about a bird who flew to Texas and once there, met a lizard. The lizard was brightly colored and was also very smart. He was digging a hole in the ground and that hole was large enough to bury George Bush in it. The End.
That had me laughing for days. I guess James’ teacher knows which way our family leans…I do think it is my responsibility to let my children know what we believe and why. At least they are listening!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Who Is John Sidney McCain
One of my OpenSalon friends, Greg Randolph, has put together a devastating piece from a number of sources about John McCain and what we're not learning about him. With Greg's generous permission, here are a couple of choice paragraphs:
Many times throughout this election, the McCain/Palin Campaign have asked the question, who is Barack Hussein Obama? I think it only fair to lay out just who exactly John Sidney McCain is... There's a lot of information out there on the history of John McCain if people would bother to look for it. A lot of what we think we know about McCain is overblown. The "Maverick" persona, the P.O.W. and the moralist who is anything but moral.
Like his father and grandfather, McCain enrolled in the United States Naval Academy. There, he earned over 100 demerits. His reaction was that it was "bullshit."
But it was in his off-base activities that McCain truly excelled. According to one classmate, "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck." It is unclear what being with McCain during his presidency would be like for the nation. Unfortunately, America has no direct experience from which to draw with a president who was a temperamental son of a distinguished military man and who in college was a temperamental fuckup who liked to party. What could possibly be so dangerous about that?
There's more. I invite you to read Greg's entire post at his OpenSalon page. If nothing else, it gives you a convenient link to send to your Rickey if they seem under the spell of Rush's latest talking points.
Many times throughout this election, the McCain/Palin Campaign have asked the question, who is Barack Hussein Obama? I think it only fair to lay out just who exactly John Sidney McCain is... There's a lot of information out there on the history of John McCain if people would bother to look for it. A lot of what we think we know about McCain is overblown. The "Maverick" persona, the P.O.W. and the moralist who is anything but moral.
Like his father and grandfather, McCain enrolled in the United States Naval Academy. There, he earned over 100 demerits. His reaction was that it was "bullshit."
But it was in his off-base activities that McCain truly excelled. According to one classmate, "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck." It is unclear what being with McCain during his presidency would be like for the nation. Unfortunately, America has no direct experience from which to draw with a president who was a temperamental son of a distinguished military man and who in college was a temperamental fuckup who liked to party. What could possibly be so dangerous about that?
There's more. I invite you to read Greg's entire post at his OpenSalon page. If nothing else, it gives you a convenient link to send to your Rickey if they seem under the spell of Rush's latest talking points.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Why Every Vote is Important
Voting. It is easy to fall into the trap of being complacent or disinterested or just plain frustrated with the whole process. Our nation's vigorous population is made up of people of every race, religion and creed. It may seem like democracy doesn’t work, or that it only works for people who don’t agree with you. Yet the founding fathers of the United States of America had a beautiful idea. They dreamed up this republic we live in, they tried to see into the future and create rules for a nation that would stand the test of time. And here we are over 225 years later and the USA is still here in all its glory and you still have a voice, a say in who represents you at all levels of government.
Election season can feel draining. The debates are hashed and re-hashed. Ads berate you while you are trying to drive to work, watch your favorite show or surf the internet. Candidates try to get their message out, convince you to vote for them and not their opponent. The election season may feel personal, particularly during presidential elections when it feels like so much more is on the line. Talking politics with friends and family can be uncomfortable. But try, ask their opinion, share yours, get more information and spread it around to people you know. Just always remember we are all people, we all have the right to our own opinions and don’t let special interest or campaign rhetoric invade your heart and generate anger, fear or hate for others.
Things your vote could do at the local, regional and national level:
- Reduce global warming and traffic congestion by approving a new mass transit package for your city.
- Defeat a local initiative to limit the rights of a minority group.
Elect a new land commissioner in your state who will work with private interests and conservation groups to find a better balance. - Send a corrupt Senator or Congressperson packing and replace them with a fresh face and a new chance in Congress.
- Elect a President of the United States who you feel can lead us best through the next four years.
But if you don’t vote, you’ll never know.
Friday, October 24, 2008
How I Became A Lifetime Voter
As the purpose of RickeyPAC is to persuade, even pester voters to get out and vote, I feel I should explain why I think it's so important. How did I become a lifetime voter? For me it came down to three things: example, example, and good fortune.
My parents were regular voters. My dad had fallen under the spell of Barry Goldwater after reading Conscience of a Conservative at an impressionable age. My mom, too, was always at least moderately conservative though it seems to me that she is one of those voters the new and not-so-improved Republican Party has left behind.
The specifics of my parents' political evolution and how it impacted my personal politics is a story for another time. The important thing is, they voted. Even more important, one or the other took me to to the booth with them. We all have things that acquired a mystique when we were kids because adults got to do them and we couldn't, yet. On top of that, throughout my childhood till the time I cast my first vote in the 1990 primaries, Indiana used mechanical voting machines. To a young kid, a mysterious walk-in booth with lots of levers you could move back and forth was about as cool as it got. Of course by 1990 I'd lived through Ronald Reagan and Michael Dukakis's epic defeat in the 1988 presidential election, so a lot of the romance was gone. But it didn't matter. The pattern was set. I was finally getting to vote.
My second example was my senior year government teacher, Mr. Catanzarite. He was a great teacher, a small quiet man who was so impossibly gentle you'd never think of acting up because you couldn't imagine doing that to him. Mr. Catanzarite was absolutely passionate about something else besides teaching: that his 18 year-old seniors were registered to vote. I know he did get a number of my fellow students signed up, and I'd like to think he made a difference with kids whose parents weren't as regular in their voting habits as mine were. What a great example.
And finally, there was good fortune. As I was getting ready to leave Indiana for Vermont in 1990 to start my freshman year at college, I read a newspaper article about this guy running for Congress there, a self-described socialist, former mayor of Burlington, Vermont, who had a real shot at being the first independent member of the House in decades. To my pleasure, this man--Bernie Sanders--was scheduled to speak during freshman week. I fell in love, politically speaking. I switched my registration to Vermont so I could help send Sanders to the House. It is and will always remain the vote of which I am most proud of casting.
As I prepare to vote early in Texas, I will proudly take my son to the booth with me. Parents, take your kids. Make them see voting as something to look forward to when they're old enough. If you don't have a child, take a niece, nephew, godchild or neighbor kid (get parental permission first, we don't want you getting in trouble) to vote with you. If you're a high school teacher or volunteer, encourage your 18 year-olds to vote. Though it's probably too late to register them this year (unless your state has same-day registration), it's never too early to start planning for 2012.
Finally, find a candidate you're passionate about and support them. It doesn't have to be for president or Congress; it may be for a city or county position. Those offices are just as important and impact us more directly than the "sexier" federal or state races.
Above all, get involved!
My parents were regular voters. My dad had fallen under the spell of Barry Goldwater after reading Conscience of a Conservative at an impressionable age. My mom, too, was always at least moderately conservative though it seems to me that she is one of those voters the new and not-so-improved Republican Party has left behind.
The specifics of my parents' political evolution and how it impacted my personal politics is a story for another time. The important thing is, they voted. Even more important, one or the other took me to to the booth with them. We all have things that acquired a mystique when we were kids because adults got to do them and we couldn't, yet. On top of that, throughout my childhood till the time I cast my first vote in the 1990 primaries, Indiana used mechanical voting machines. To a young kid, a mysterious walk-in booth with lots of levers you could move back and forth was about as cool as it got. Of course by 1990 I'd lived through Ronald Reagan and Michael Dukakis's epic defeat in the 1988 presidential election, so a lot of the romance was gone. But it didn't matter. The pattern was set. I was finally getting to vote.
My second example was my senior year government teacher, Mr. Catanzarite. He was a great teacher, a small quiet man who was so impossibly gentle you'd never think of acting up because you couldn't imagine doing that to him. Mr. Catanzarite was absolutely passionate about something else besides teaching: that his 18 year-old seniors were registered to vote. I know he did get a number of my fellow students signed up, and I'd like to think he made a difference with kids whose parents weren't as regular in their voting habits as mine were. What a great example.
And finally, there was good fortune. As I was getting ready to leave Indiana for Vermont in 1990 to start my freshman year at college, I read a newspaper article about this guy running for Congress there, a self-described socialist, former mayor of Burlington, Vermont, who had a real shot at being the first independent member of the House in decades. To my pleasure, this man--Bernie Sanders--was scheduled to speak during freshman week. I fell in love, politically speaking. I switched my registration to Vermont so I could help send Sanders to the House. It is and will always remain the vote of which I am most proud of casting.
As I prepare to vote early in Texas, I will proudly take my son to the booth with me. Parents, take your kids. Make them see voting as something to look forward to when they're old enough. If you don't have a child, take a niece, nephew, godchild or neighbor kid (get parental permission first, we don't want you getting in trouble) to vote with you. If you're a high school teacher or volunteer, encourage your 18 year-olds to vote. Though it's probably too late to register them this year (unless your state has same-day registration), it's never too early to start planning for 2012.
Finally, find a candidate you're passionate about and support them. It doesn't have to be for president or Congress; it may be for a city or county position. Those offices are just as important and impact us more directly than the "sexier" federal or state races.
Above all, get involved!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
