BS: Primaries

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:43 PM

Who said the press was monolithic?   Well, somebody recently said "The media can make or break any candidate".

This implies:

1) "The media" will all write about the candidate the same way. Sounds rather monolithic to me.   And more and more out of date--if it ever was true--which is doubtful. Especially, as I've noted, with the advent of the Net. Not only do we have the NYT, Fox News, and the WSJ, for instance, but now we have Daily Kos, for instance--and programs like Jon Stewart. There are any number of prisms these days through which voters can receive their news.

Therefore "The media can make or break any candidate" strikes me as absurdly simplistic.

"Some truths cannot be stated". Unlikely. Some evidence please--please specify a "truth" that all the "media" refuse to acknowledge.

2)    There are no countervailing forces---- such as a person's built-in negative--or positive-- feeling about a candidate--especially the degree to which they identify with a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:22 AM

It takes great visionaries in positions of leadership to break the status quo. It is the job of such people to lead in making a breakthrough in understanding. The public will respond if their leaders are willing to inspire them.

THis concept is what is driving the Obama resurgence. People are betting he might be such a one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:31 AM

Yes, you're quite right that the press mirrors the majority, and, yes, it's quite diverse. No question about that. The majority of people do support the status quo in almost every society...that can only change if and when the status quo becomes absolutely unbearable for the majority of people, and that's quite rare. It can happen when a war is decisively lost or an economy is in a shambles. Or both.

It takes great visionaries in positions of leadership to break the status quo. It is the job of such people to lead in making a breakthrough in understanding. The public will respond if their leaders are willing to inspire them. They will remain generally complacent and passive with leaders who are unwilling or incapable of inspiring them.

You could not have had the American Revolution without a small group of visionary leaders to inspire and lead it. Same goes for any other revolution.

Now, we got public health care in Canada starting out shortly after WWII because a socialist visionary, Tommy Douglas, dared to try something brand new in a single western province where he was premier at the time (it's like being governor of a state). He made the breakthrough, he showed people it was possible and workable, and he was bitterly opposed by the medical establishment, but he got it done anyway. Then the rest of the country followed suit in not too many years. Now it IS the status quo, and people take it for granted that we have universal health care.

It would not have happened without one inspired man to lead the way.

I hope that Americans find such an inspired man or woman shortly. The inertia in the system that opposes such people is simply tremendous, but sometimes it can be overcome.

******

I am not suggesting an isolationist foreign policy for the USA. I am suggesting a policy of not attacking other nations militarily, of NEVER attacking anyone "pre-emptively", but instead working with other nations through mutually beneficial trade and negotiation. A win-win scenario is a far wiser course in human affairs than a win-lose scenario can ever be, and win-win scenarios can always be found by those willing to look for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:41 AM

Many of us saw Kuchinch (sp?) on CNN or somewhere or another, but although he seemed like a pretty smart guy, there is no way that the public, the press, or the gods would ever install him as a leader.

Tear up the status quo? That's a security blanket for most of us; we might open a hole here and there to get rid of some particular elements that we object to, but we don't want any part of tearing it up. The press mirrors us (the majority) and it is quite diverse.

I don't believe in being policeman to the world and it is obvious that Bush is a moron for trying, he has wasted a fortune and the lives of a lot of young people and got no forwarder; but that doesn't mean that we should back off into a corner. You've got to maintain your position vis-a-vis the other big guys or get shoved away from the feeding trough.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:52 PM

Right.

And the differences that exist between them aid in maintaining the illusion of a genuinely open-minded media that offers real choices and alernatives.

What they offer is stylized black hat /white hat choices within a rather constricted mental box of general conformity, conformity to various forms of virtually unquestioned national myths and illusions such as the assertion that "this is the greatest country in the World".

And that's utter nonsense, unless you mean great in the power of destructive weaponry or space missions...but when people are taught such things from the time they are toddlers, they grow up believing them. It becomes an unquestioned dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:30 PM

"How anybody could include the NYT and Fox News as part of the same monolithic "media" is beyond me."


                      Ron - I think all you have to do is to get out a pencil and paper and write two columns. (1) What does the NYT and Fox News have in common, and (2) What does the NYT and Fox News have that separates them. You will soon find the first column growing much faster than the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:01 PM

Who ever said it was monolithic?

I am not saying that at all. There are various factions within the moneyed status quo who constantly vie against each other for the most influence, and they do not necessarily agree on all policies. Hardly. But what they do pretty much agree on in a general sense is which people and which stories are given big coverage in the media...and which are downplayed, marginalized, or ignored. They also agree on just how far outside the usual political box you can go and still get treated with any respect...and that is not too far. Some truths cannot be stated. If you state them, you are tuned out of the media from then on. (but you can still get on the Internet) Scott Ritter is someone who has been tuned out of the MSM for a long time now, but he's got some great stuff on the Net.

In other words, some people don't get a ticket to enter the great public media show, while others do. The way to get your ticket is to stay within certain unofficial guidelines. Kucinich was denied his ticket on numerous occasions...as is the case with anyone who really seriously challenges the status quo.

It's also necessary to maintain opposing points of view if you want to play the Great Game: Divide and Conquer. A public that can be divided into...

Left vs Right
liberal vs conservative
Black vs White
Hispanics vs Whites
Religious vs non-religious
Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice
Democrat vs Republican
Male vs Female
Straight vs Gay

and a whole whack of other such dichotomies...

That is a public that can be easily manipulated and controlled by turning their combative energies mostly against one another rather than against the very basic power structure of the $ySStem itself.

And that's why the game is played the way it is. It keeps people mesmerized with divisive issues, and keeps them chewing over old history and old conflicts.

This again is not so much a monolithic conspiracy as it is a generalized way that has evolved over centuries of coping with the ongoing maintainence and perpetuation of established political power. Sometimes it grows more corrupt, sometimes less so.

The same things were done in Imperial Spain or Elizabethan England in the 1500s, for heaven's sake, only the outer details were different! The powerful find, by trial and error, all the ways that they can best maintain and enlarge their power, and keep the public in support of the ruling system. You can call it a conspiracy if you want, but what it really is...it is simply a set of standard modus operandi for the power brokers of this world, and the power brokers are and always have been those with the most money and weaponry.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:32 PM

Sorry, LH, your $ystem cannot be monolithic if it includes both Fox News and the NYT. Face it, "the media" always were fragmented, and with the advent of the Net, are even more so.

And since "the media" are not one force, "the media" do not pick the president. The various outlets play a role--contradicting and competing with each other for readers and viewers.

And to make dark predictions of the power of " the media" just shows a mindset that can only be described as a prisoner of conspiracy theory obsession.

Competition precludes many conspiracies you seem to believe in.

However, congratulations, you get the last word for today--I have to go do other tasks.

See you tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:18 PM

"Conspiracy"???? Ha! Ha! There is that word again, a word which has become a standard way of casting doubt upon virtually any argument, it seems, but without meeting that argument through anything but innuendo.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? I'm talking about clever marketing. I'm talking about a $ySStem of Big Business that looks after its own present and future interests. There are a few people, a few very rich people, who own the main media outlets (meaning TV and radio and the press). Those main media outlets are not totally disinterested in the process of reporting "the News" because their owners are not totally disinterested in how it affects the status quo. They'd rather not see someone like Kucinich, for instance, get equal coverage in debates or in the News, because they don't like his policies one bit! So he gets shut out.

Is that a conspiracy? Or is that just some very well-positioned business people doing business in the way that they feel will benefit them most?

Anything that is organized behind closed doors by more than one person, and which the public is NOT fully informed on at the time is technically a conspiracy. (that doesn't necessarily mean it's BAD, but it's still a conspiracy) It fits the literal definition of a conspiracy. So any business decision which is made behind closed doors by two or more people is technically a conspiracy, as is any military decision or any other decision made behind closed doors by two or more people. There are probably at least a trillion conspiracies happening in the world RIGHT now, and you may be engaged in one or two yourself! ;-)

But when you question someone's theory by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you are simply engaging in a kind of manipulative rhetoric which is a bit like playing the "race card" or pulling the "anti-semitic" card. It obfuscates the discussion by treating the other person's premise as if it automatically was in the realm of wearing tinfoil hats and believing in lizard-people who secretly control the government from underground bases beneath Greenland.

In short, it's a mild form of implied ridicule. That is not a legitimate way of discussing anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM

"The media" are neither as monolithic, all-powerful, nor potentially malevolent as just pictured.

How anybody could include the NYT and Fox News as part of the same monolithic "media" is beyond me. And with the Net, "the media" is even more fragmented.

Why is everything a potential conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:48 PM

As to who is "electable" and who is not...I think we'll have to wait and see about that. Much can change between now and November.

The media can make or break any candidate. It depends on how they choose to do their coverage, and it can depend sometimes on a single incident or a single rumour, and how that incident or rumour is played upon in the mainstream media.

The tail does wag the dog, unfortunately, most of the time. So keep an eye on what the tail is doing. That can change quite quickly sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

By older Hispanics, I was referring to those who came in the period 1590-1900 or thereabouts and settled in the southwest.
Many others came from Mexico, esp. northern Mexico, mostly after 1900. The border was not a barrier, a typical example is Lydia Mendoza and her family, Tejano musicians who worked and lived on both sides of the border.

The Census provides a few figures-
Of the 39 million Latinos in the U. S., 67% are of Mexican origin. Mexican immigrants account for 38% of the Mexican origin population. About 1/5 have gone through the naturalization process.
77% of farm workers in the United States are Mexican immigrants. Many others are in service and construction industries.

The populations of several of the large farming-cattle-fruit counties in south Texas are predominantly Mexican immigrant. San Antonio is 41% Mexican immigrant, 16% other Hispanic (older inhabitants, etc.), El Paso is 64% Mexican immigrant (total 77% Latino).

Over 4 million of the citizens of California are Mexican immigrants.
Some 2.5 million of the citizens of Texas are Mexican immigrants.
Most of these citizens received their papers on length of residence, children born to Mexican parents working in the U. S. (1/2 of all Latino children in the U. S. have one parent who is a Mexican immigrant), service in the U. S. armed forces (for many years a route to citizenship for 'illegal' immigrants- no formal immigration procedure required).

In 1986, 2 million Mexican immigrants were 'legalized.' Currently, it is estimated that the undocumented population from Mexico is 5.3 million (2002). A pathway to citizenship for these immigrants should be provided by Congress.

They have proved to be good citizens. 44% of Mexican immigrants are home owners. They pay their taxes. They respect their Mexican roots, speak Spanish at home, celebrate Cinco de Mayo (defeat of the French army, 5 May 1862 by Texas-born General Zaragoza. Incidentally, this kept the French occupied and prevented them from providing supplies to Confederate forces during the Civil War). We should add it to our American holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM

Rig--

"The witchdoctors" will "drive their flocks to the polls"--if the Democrats are stupid enough to make homosexual marriage and removing 10 Commandments plaques from courthouses pillars of their platform, as some Mudcatters evidently would like.

Something tells me Obama is not stupid. Hillary--well, you never know--she's been rather tone-deaf lately.

And there will be no Cheney riding the circuit this year predicting that if the Democrat is elected "a dirty bomb may be exploded here in...."

Also, the current rumors from your "Smears R Us" outlets are somewhat threadbare.

Added to which, Bill is still, through his business connections, diligently devising more scandals for his allegedly "thoroughly vetted" partner to deal with. With the Clintons there are always more rocks to peer under.

And McCain can hardly wait to bring up Hillary's Woodstock museum again--with all the 60's baggage attached. None of which will work on Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM

GG/Janet, there is nothing much here that I don't grasp. But there are several things that you don't grasp. One of those things is that several times here I have said that I do not belong to the Democratic Party, nor do I owe them any allegiance. DO try to read more carefully.

I am an Independent.

Believe me, I have done my share of organizing, petitioning the government, and protesting. And I belong to a couple of organizations, independent of the political parties, that are working for change—and with a measure of success so far.

I have also said that, of all the candidates, I preferred Kucinich, not because he is a Democrat, but because of what he, personally, stands for. But he has been cut out of the race.

Right now, there are no independent or third party candidates who even come close to having a chance of being elected this November. And I don't like ANY of the candidates currently in the running. So, disgusting as the situation is, I am NOT going to just throw up my hands and not bother to get involved, or even vote, which is what your defeatist attitude says everyone should do.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION ELECTED TO OFFICE IN 2008.

I feel like a doctor with a very sick patient, and I am trying to do whatever I can to save the patient's life. I note, however, that in every thread you have started and in every post you have posted, you are preaching negativism and defeatism. "The system is totally corrupt! Give up! Give up! Give up!"

I'm trying to save the patient's life, even though it may be a vain attempt. In the meantime, you want to perform an autopsy before the patient is dead!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM

"(In November, I intend to start a thread noting your prediction about "unelectable candidates")"


                        Bill - I'd be happy to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM

Art - I think when blowhards like Speedy Cheese and Sean Hannity start talking about Supreme Court Justices, the witchdoctors will find the calling to drive their flocks to the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM

It seems to me that either of the Democratic options are eminently electable, especially if (as seems possible) the "very conservative" and evangelical voters stay home in droves come November 4th.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:05 AM

and had it not been for the antiquated electoral college system, Gore would have BEEN president, and we would never have invaded Iraq.

(In November, I intend to start a thread noting your prediction about "unelectable candidates")

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:45 AM

"Rig: This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks. Has 2000 slipped your mind? lol..."


          Ebbie - As I recall, Al Gore was the anointed candidate in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

It's occurred to me that the primary process needs to be constructed as close as possible to the general election process. i.e. primaries should not be caucuses.

                This is very probably why the Democrats have continued to nominate a long string of unelectable candidates. It looks like they're doing in again.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:26 AM

Rig-

Your generalizations above about Obama supporters appear to be out of date.

In yesterday's Potomac Primaries Obama's support increased across the board in all major groups by about 10 percentage points. All groups include senior citizens, women, white men, young adults, Mexican-Americans, and blue-collar voters. The only group that maintained support for Clinton appeared to be rural voters in Virginia.

It's boring, I suppose, to actually look at or listen to voting statistics before saying what you'd like to say but why not give it a try!

Charley Noble, who knows how to Goggle

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:01 AM

Rig--

So now it's the wine vs beer indicator, eh?

Actually, it's bit more complex than that.

If the wine drinkers come out to vote and the beer drinkers don't, that will tell the tale. So if your Bud drinkers don't feel a compelling reason to support their candidate they don't have to vote for the opposition--just stay home. The result will be the same.

And there are plenty of Democratic beer drinkers--and wine drinkers-- who will support the Democratic candidate--rather than see another Republican get in.

What's more, independents and some Republicans will also support the Democrat--if he is Obama. They will not support Hillary.

Your oh-so -subtle class division fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:57 PM

Rig: This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks.

Has 2000 slipped your mind? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:50 PM

Art's point, as I understand it, was that many Hispanics can speak and understand English--especially those who've been here for quite a while. And they are by definition the most likely to be citizens and therefore able to vote. Many recent arrivals are not citizens, so Q's point about recent arrivals is not germane---and I am not saying they are illegal, just not citizens.

There was a huge Hispanic voter drive recently--but now it seems those who signed up to become citizens as a result of that will not finish the process til after this fall--so will have no impact on the vote.

Kevin, do you really find Spanish easy? I can understand it fairly well in reading but it's hard to follow conversations. I find German much easier to get along in. I suppose it depends on what training you've had in a foreign language. But I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that Spanish would be the easiest foreign language for an English speaker. It really depends on the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:34 PM

Q - I can see that you're on to something with this caucus problem.

               I was watching "This Week" with Georege Stephen-whatever, this weekend, and Sam Donaldson piped up with, "I was with a group of Democrats last night, we were drinking Chardonnay, and everybody there supported Obama."

               I don't know if you saw it. But I would submit, if the people he was with were drinking Budweiser, I don't think very many of them would have supported Obama.

               I see this as a major problem in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM

Percentage of languages other than English spoken at home-
*New Mexico 36.5% (Spanish)
Texas 31.2% (Spanish)
California 39.5% (Spanish, Asian- 12.4%)
*Those who belong to the old families do speak English to a large extent, but the more recent immigrants from Mexico, etc., are quite different.
______________________

Obama made it look easy tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:13 PM

I know it is hard for you to grasp this Don, but one third of the US electorate doesn't vote in primaries or caucus, because they are not members of either political party.

We still vote and participate in our democracy, we just do it in a very different way than you do.

So why are you so harshly judgmental about that?

Exercising our democratic freedoms through voting, petitioning the government, organizing protest movements to work for change, fighting through the courts--all of these are ways Americans participate.

I do jury duty too, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:06 PM

Maryland results: AOL News.

Obama    72%
Clinton    26%

Precincts reporting: 1%

They're declaring Maryland an Obama victory. It may well be but how they can declare anything on 1% of the vote is beyond me. I'm sure that lop-sided ratio can't last.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:05 PM

It strikes me that the loudest complainers about the political system in this country are those who maybe do manage to summon up enough energy to mark a few boxes, stick the ballot in the envelop provided, and lick a stamp, but can't be bothered to get up off the couch and go to a meeting or two and speak their minds. I guess they regard elections as a "spectator sport."

You know, I don't really have the time either.

But I take the time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM

Glad you like it, Janet. The only goal of the voters is to please you, as you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

So, the results are exactly what was predicted, in other words.

That's thrilling news.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:18 PM

Obama's victory in Virginia appears solid, on the order of 60/40.

McCain is building up a lead now that the urban votes are coming in. Huckabee was beating McKain by embarrasing margins in the early returns from rural districts.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM

And, by the way--in anticipation of the inevitable coming contribution to this thread-- no, Rig, for the n'th time, it is not a plot by Republicans to get the weakest Democrat nominated.

Your wonderful theory fails for the obvious reason that Obama is actually by far the stronger of the two remaining Democrats for the fall.

He will be able to unite the Democrats, and will get far more independents and Republicans than she could dream of.

Her main achievement would be to unite the Republicans.

Sorry, it's back to your conspiracy drawing board. You'll have to think of something better.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

Obama is tops in Virginia primary. Haven't heard the exact percentage yet. Virginia is an open primary, and theory I'm hearing is: since it's obvious McCain has the Republican nomination---(despite Huckabee's dragging it out)--- many Republicans--especially moderates to liberals--(and of course independents) are voting in the Democratic primary. Obama is lopsidedly getting the benefit.

I've also heard on the call-in radio show (CNN?) several voters say they voted for Ron Paul--but will vote Obama in the fall. Iraq war stance was cited, as was ability to unite the US.

Maryland primary closing time has been extended to 9:30 (from 8), due to traffic problems influenced by the "wintry mix" we are enjoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM

Yikes, Bill! You should not have revealed that you are located somewhere in Maryland. Don't forget...George W. Bush (aka King Arthur reincarnated) is still lookin' for that sucker out there called "Bill D" who doesn't believe in him (the King Arthur part, I mean), and you have now provided a valuable tip which will allow his minions to narrow the search! The reason you ain't been hearin' so much about Condi lately is cos G.W. is ticked at her for not finding you so far. You have now given her the clue she needed.

Lie low, man. Watch for black helicopters.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM

A lot of people must feel that way. This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:54 PM

Ok,,,I just voted today in Maryland. First time in ages that my primary vote has a chance of meaning something.
It was cold and windy and there is now icy conditions on many roads. Polls were pretty quiet where I was. We'll see soon how it went.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

Q - I feel the same way you do.

               Another piece of it is, some people have a lot more time to devote to this process than others.

               Young people with small children probably have the least amount of time, but they are probably impacted the most by the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

Yeah, Freightdawg, no problem. My old home state of New Mexico will complete its primary count of provisional ballots before the Conventions- what's the hurry?

The split is so even that the delegate count will remain close to 13 all, so doesn't make no nevermind anyways. The superdelegates will determine convention attendance and how soon the pledges are re-assigned after the first vote, so everything hotsy totsy as usual!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:40 PM

Out of date, I guess- my Webster's Collegiate (10th ed. 1996) defines caucus ("origin unknown") as "a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political or faction usu. to select candidates or to decide on policy; also: a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause."

OED- alleged to have been used in Boston as early as 1723; "Already in 1774 Gordon (Hist. Amer. Rev.) could obtain no "Satisfactory account of the origin of the name.""
The word has been transported to England and New Zealand and has been used in various ways; see OED.

I am not blue collar, but I avoid meetings of that type, especially political. If I did attend, it would be as a silent observer. My vote is nobody's business but my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:21 PM

Amos, that is an incredible article. I wonder if anyone emailed it to camp Clinton. Whew!

Don, "Maybe the New Mexico Democratic Party needs to check a good dictionary." HA! I nearly busted a gut on that one! I orter send that quote to his highness the exalted King of Richardson.

New Mexico is a strange and wonderful state. We seem to like to alternate governors, going from a wacked out lefty like Toney Anaya to "Gov. Veto" - the last Repub. governor whose name completely escapes me right now, but who was elected to two terms. Now Richardson, and if the trend continues we will go back to a Repub. when its time to change the linens in Santa Fe.

Likewise, we typically keep our senatorial delegation to one Dem. and one Repub. That will probably change this year, if the Dem. presidential candidate has long enough coat tails. Sen. Domenici was a favorite of both parties for a long time - Dems may discount that statement, but they never really mounted much of a charge against him.

Locally, however, the Democrats meet in a huge conference room and the Republicans meet in a broom closet. The Democrats have it exactly as they want it, and no dictionary is going to change anything.

Here is one sure fire prediction: the rest of the nation will know within hours of the closing of the polls on election night in Nov. which presidential candidate won the electoral votes from their state. For New Mexico it will be days, if not weeks. I guarantee it.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:16 PM

McGrath - I don't know where you are, but the concept of a trade union in the US is almost laughable any more, with the exception of the public unions--teachers and etc.

             I think there is something troubling about a small number of people making the primary decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:13 PM

Kevin--and Rig--I belong to two unions, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Comunications Workers of American (CWA), and my wife, who works for the Seattle Public Library, belongs to the Seattle city employees' union, and we received mailings from all three unions urging us to attend our precinct caucuses.

Most unions have candidates that they endorse, and they urge their members--generally "blue-collar" workers--to attend caucuses and support those candidates.

And there were plenty of "blue-collar" workers at the caucuses I have attended.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:57 PM

I know the quote is usually "Think globally. Act locally," but I think we need to launder the skid-marks out of our own shorts before we start trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:51 PM

But surely most people generally don't take part in these caucuses anyway, whatever their collar.

The published figure indicate it's a minority who choose to do so, but the assumption that "blue collar workers" can't be expected to be in that minority is an assumption; the fact that Trade Unions exist suggests that just possibly it might not stand up to close examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:50 PM

Art, that sounds less like a caucus and more like a primary.

I had always thought that the word "caucus" came from the Latin (it sounds Latin), but apparently not. One theory holds that it comes from an ancient Greek word for "drinking cup," implying sitting about at a symposium and discussing things political. Another says it's a North American Indian (probably Algonquin) word for a person or group who pushes for or advocates a particular position or idea (many eastern Native Americans tribes, it seems, had remarkably democratic systems of government). Be that as it may, Webster's defines a caucus as

A meeting, especially a preliminary meeting, of persons belonging to a political party, to nominate candidates for public office, or to select delegates to a nominating convention, or to confer regarding measures of party policy.

A caucus—by definition—is supposed to involve discussion, not just marking a ballot and sticking it into a box. That is a primary election.

Maybe the New Mexico Democratic Party needs to check a good dictionary. As, apparently, should the political parties in a number of states!

Maybe you need to get a few like-minded people together and all go yell at somebody.

Don Firth

P. S. I just watch "Sick-o" (got it on NetFlix) a few evenings ago, and that great philosopher, Michael Moore (!) makes the point that the reason France has an excellent government-supported national health system—excellent care, no doctor or hospital bills, and doctors make house calls—is because the people demanded it, and because elected officials are basically afraid of the voters.

Like him or not, Moore makes a lot of sense.

For anything you feel needs changing, locally is a good place to start. Visit the appropriate elected official, look him or her straight in the eye and tell them what you want. Nose to nose if need be. Make him or her a little bit afraid of you.

Think nationally. Act locally.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:38 PM

Q - Most the blue collar workers I know would feel the same way about participating in a caucus. It wouldn't happen.
                      If they could vote-by-mail, though, in lieu of participating in a caucus, that should take care of it. The thing is, they should have the ballot maile directly to them, so they don't have to request it weeks in advance.

                      The way it's described above, the caucuses seem to work for everybody except for the people who are supporting everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:31 PM

"Candidates have not appealed to them {Hispanics} directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home."

What's so difficult about learning Spanish? I'd have thought that a combination of basic courtesy and self-help would ensure than any serious candidate for political office, in a country where there is a very sizeable Spanish speaking population, would have a fairly good acquaintance with the language.

It's probably about the easiest foreign language for an English speaker to learn, because it is so regular. Much easier than French or German. And far easier than English is for Spanish speakers, which must be a nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

Don, our (New Mexico) caucus was indistinguishable from a primary - that is, we stood in line, checked in, filled in a box on a paper ballot, put it in a box and left. I wish I had had your experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:09 PM

Rig's criticisms of and antipathy toward the caucus system are those of someone who is simply not acquainted with it, as he admits.

First of all, the precinct (neighborhood) caucuses are held in some public location, such as a neighborhood school (generally within easy walking distance), and in a large room, such as the school lunchroom or cafeteria. And it is scheduled on a day and at a time to make it convenient for as many people as possible. The ones I've gone to have been at Lowell Elementary School two blocks from where I live, on Saturdays beginning at 1:00 in the afternoon. Hard to find a time that would be more convenient for most people, and anyone who wanted to come could have, and indeed, was urged to come, through the local media, mailings, posters, and those annoying phone calls you get from political parties ("We need your input! Can you be there? Please try!").

The routine, at least in the caucuses I have attended (most recently 2004, although now I wish very much I had gone last Saturday), is that when you arrive, you sign in the same as when you go to the polls to vote, so they can check the books and make sure that you are a registered voter.

This does not violate one's right to a secret ballot any more than going to a polling place and signing in before you actually mark that secret ballot. Of course, these are party caucuses, and if you go, it can be assumed that you are interested in that party's candidates, although a few members of the opposition party often go just to see what the other guys are up to.

A party official then convenes the meeting and gives a brief explanation to newcomers to caucuses as to what to expect. First, those who already favor a particular candidate gather in groups so they can become acquainted if they aren't already, and discuss things among themselves. "Kerry folks over in the corner by the windows, Dean folks over there" (pointing), Kucinich people in the back corner by the windows. . . ."    And on through the list of those who have declared their candidacy.   Those who are undecided can wander from group to group, listen, and ask questions.

After about half an hour or forty-five minutes, people begin moving from group to group and some of the more confrontational discussions begin as a couple of, say Howard Dean advocates join the Kucinich group and another couple of Dean folks join the Kerry group,   And some of the Kucinich group moves over to the Kerry group, the Dean group, etc. The main bodies of each group stay in their original locations, but there is a general milling around as the Dean folks try to talk the Kucinich folks into shifting over to Dean and vice versa. You get the picture.

This goes on for some time. Then, after some shuffling of people from group to group, the hard-core Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, etc., folks reconvene in their original groups and elect the person or persons from within the group whom they feel will best represent them as delegates to the regional convention. Depending on the extent of the hierarchy in any given state, some Joe Schmoe such as myself, by being elected at a neighborhood caucus as a delegate, could end up as a delegate to the National Convention. That's pretty "grass roots."

As I mentioned in a post above, in 2004, the Kucinich group wanted to elect me as their delegate, but for reasons explained, I had to decline. I think one of the reasons they wanted to choose me was that I had come to the caucus pretty well informed about Kucinich's positions (I had downloaded and printed off a copy of Kucinich's "Ten Key Points" from his website—someone borrowed my copy, dashed off to find a copy machine, and made copies for the rest of the group) and some of his history, particularly when he was mayor of Cleveland and refused to sell a local public utility to private interests. By doing this, he incurring the wrath of a lot of people which cost him the re-election, but who later realized that he'd done the right thing. Personal integrity and the guts to stick to what he knew was right, even when he knew it would cost him—a rare commodity in politics! Oddly enough, most of the Kucinich folks didn't know all this, so I was able to give them some talking points. We gained a few folks from other groups simply by being well-informed.

Kucinich didn't make it, of course, but the caucus was my chance to spread information—and talking points—that I had to the others, who, in turn, became better advocates for the candidate that they wanted. And I learned a great deal about all the candidates that I probably would not have learned any other way. Enough, for example, that when it finally boiled down to John Kerry, I still would have preferred Dennis Kucinich, but I didn't feel all that bad about supporting and voting for Kerry.

This is one of the major values of caucuses. You get to express yourself, exchange information, and learn a lot that you didn't know before about the various candidates, most of which you aren't going to learn from the media.

And during the whole afternoon, we didn't have anyone—party officials—trying to dominate the meeting or cram anything down anyone's throat. There were plenty of heated discussions, but these were between the people on the floor, strongly advocating for their favorite candidate and trying to give reasons why someone else should change their position.

To me—and I think to the other people who were there—it was a very educational, informative, and generally well spent Saturday afternoon.

Don Firth

P. S. If you ignore the caucuses and only vote in the primary, all you have to go on is what the media tells you, plus whatever other information you can pick up, provided you are sufficiently motivated to actually investigate.