« A Somewhat Unusual Request | Main | Madness, Revisited »
The Two-Plus-Way Street
The above video sums up the concerns I have about the new politics and the abilities (or lack of) of the campaigns to truly change and become what all of us at the DCP were working towards in the 2004 campaign cycle -- AUTHENTIC LEARNING.
The video was created by a guy who works at Microsoft and it has struck a chord with the choir, at any rate. It is not clear that anyone inside the world of electoral politics has picked up on it.
The top-down culture still prevails all too often, making the main source of interactivity between insiders and outsiders -- the online piece -- a bolt-on rather than the core of the campaign.
Now why, you might ask, should the interactive part of a campaign be at the core?
What the video so brilliantly points out is that, in ANY relationship in which more than one person is working toward a common goal, authentic communication is critical.
And authentic communication requires listening, considering, discussing, attuning, aligning and re-aligning.
Such a culture would look more like a giant wave sweeping the land than any top-down directives from a brilliant and unprincipled strategist could possibly produce.
Here is how:
In an active online community, the conversation flows in many directions, and each person comes with different needs and expectations. Occasionally, one person has a question, and others step up to provide possible answers. Someone is holding a strong opinion and others disagree. And so the others who disagree provide data and evidence that may persuade the opinion holder that s/he is wrong. Sometimes the opinion holder is not persuaded and that's OK too. We can agree to disagree.
But sometimes, someone has a really great insight or idea and the community itself cannot develop that idea. Posting the idea elsewhere is tricky -- other sites have their own communities and hierarchies and good ideas can get lost.
Political campaigns tend to hire people to push messages out, not to gather them up and sift through them. Meanwhile, the conversations among potential supporters continue and get richer, producing, in some cases, amazing products.
Too often, the disconnect between what the supporters do and learn about, and push for and what the staffers do on a day to day basis to produce message out grows ever wider. And that leads to "push back" and a loss of affections, as in the video.
Until busy people learn to listen more closely, support conversations in which authentic learning is taking place, understand the flow of information is NOT one-way, or even two-way, but manifests in many directions, the divorce rate will continue to climb.
Democracy is messy, as we say; so is human interaction. Way back in 2003, Richard shared on the JK blog that the candidate stands to learn the most of anyone in a campaign, because s/he is likely to have the most authentic interactions. The internet changed that; authentic learning takes place regularly for those who engage and listen well and study the facts.
Presidential campaign staffers: heed the message of the video, lest you find your candidate footing the bill for an expensive breakup!
Hey Karen,
Thanks for sharing the video and the insight.
Other than send them this video, what can WE do to get them to be better listeners?
Karen, thanks for the clip and reasoning. I just came upon this article written by a man more famous for his cartoons than his writing, and yet he certainly speaks to me through his writing.
The points made in this article extend the multi-faceted communications introduced by the header.
A manicured madness takes hold
Michael Leunig
July 28, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-worlds-gone-mad/2007/07/26/1185339163339.html
Karen,
I think the JK for President blog provided an excellent opportunity for people to learn. It was exciting, there was so much input from newbies all the way up to seasoned people who had studied and worked politics for decades. There was so much electricity on that blog!!!
I remember how fast it was moving too in those final months before the '04 election, and remember that it was challenging to ask a question, but there was so much input and it was moving at such a brisk pace that eventually the question got answered more often than not.
I know many of us sent in our suggestions to campaign headquarters, hoping to be heard, (of course if you have 10,000 people wanting to do something, you'll have 10,000 opinions on how to do it)and not knowing the internal structures of high profile campaigns, I wondered sometimes if any of the suggestions ever got to the candidate.
At any rate, the blogosphere is evolving into what could be a very useful avenue between candidates and their potential constituents.
nice pointbut way way too subtle for the campaign folks I fear- they are so insular and narrow in thought. With Mccain's campaign spiril downward I was reminded how little the candidate actually runs the campaign-itslike they hire this ameoba and then forget its there or something. I still wish JK had thrown his advisors out and gone for reality....sigh
Carol...RE Pat Tillman.
What I want to know is... You know that story about how when the bullets started coming in Tillman suppossedly raised his hands and said 'Cease Fire I am Pat Fing Tillman!"
We now know that whole scenario is a lie.
Were the soldiers involved fed a cover story? If so, by whom?
And as far as the Executive Priv. claim, see, it is things like that that makes me wonder if an actual war crime was somehow involved. If it was just a case of coldblooded fratracide because he had called someone a crybaby, that is almost... logical. We understand these things happen in groups of armed men under stress.
For some reason that entire unit turned on Pat Tillman, the only reason I can think of soldiers behaving like that is if they were expecting to get in serious trouble and decided to off the witness not afraid to step forward.
Does anyone know exactly what missions that unit was involved in directly before his death?
Posted by: TSP at July 27, 2007 11:53 AM
Not that you didn't know that before, but what I meant but didn't say was that interaction between the candidate and the potential constituents could evolve into an atmosphere of blogosphere intimacy to the point that people could ask questions, and have some of them answered by the candidate, as well as make suggestions, and have a couple of them addressed by the candidate as well. The disconnect could change the tone of the campaign from one of frustration and alientation to one of being inclusive, accessible (to a minor point) and interactive between groups of constituents and the candidate. That certainly addresses the media blackouts and biases. Then advertise like crazy to get more people on line, or get them to provide you with names and addys of people in their sphere who could learn something from even a downloaded message from the candidate. Ask the population to print a few copies out and pass it around as they go about their daily lives.
TSP and Ruffian,
It was a lot easier to get good ideas directly to the candidate and staff who could respond earlier on than it was later on--especially after high level operatives who did not know the candidate well and who had paid little attention to the online world came in.
But the problem was and continues to be for many of the presidential campaigns that the interactive pieces are bolt-ons and not central to the purpose of the campaign--which is, or should be, IMO, teaching and learning about the issues and the candidate.
Call me crazy, but lots of missed opportunities there.
Karen, that's excellent. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
It describes the disconnect we've discussed so many times very well.
Other than send them this video, what can WE do to get them to be better listeners?
Posted by: Carol at July 27, 2007 11:26 AM
Remedial classes?
Yelling louder?
Collaring them in public?
I think sending the video is a good way to BEGIN the conversation, anyway.
Posted by: TSP at July 27, 2007 12:06 PM
This, and the YouTube debate just gave me an idea....
What if the candidate(s) had a section of their website for a youtube exchange. People could ask a youtube video question via the website, and the candidate could respond on the website in a youtube type of format. That way, folks could see that it is actually the candidate responding, not just someone signing his/her name. Candidates could devote an hour a week, or something, to this.
Alternatively, or in addition (asking too much?), they could do a live blogging sesssion once a week on their own blog, where they are actually there doing the give and take with the people in the comments section.
Firedoglake often has guest bloggers - Joe Wilson comes to mind - and it's a pretty powerful thing.
Strange but Michael Moores site says nothing at all about him being subpoena'ed.
It features his Leno appearence but mentions nothing about being served.
Kinda makes you wonder what response he is somewhere cooking up right now.
I do not give a crap how many repells OR dems bash him. I think he is one of the bravest people I have ever seen.
I could not think of a dumber move georgie could make. I mean just stupid. Moore is much smarter than georgie. AND karl.
Posted by me at 12:42:
That said, I'm sure others have had that idea before. It seems kind of obvious.
Last we heard, they were threatening to charge Michael Moore but had not yet done so.
The charge was going to Cuba without permission, allegedly, Moore applied and the paperwork was ignored for six months. So he just went...
It's out of control folks, the incompetents and criminals are in charge.
Good thread header - video blocked here so will watch later.
Driving to work, heard about rising inflation, dropping dollar, floundering housing markets, and plunge in the US markets yesterday, pulling markets in Asia and Europe down with them.
Right after that, Bush came on and said that the global economy is strong, because America's economy is strong.
My friend Kayakbiker just got back from Phillipines and his brother-in-law said, "Hey, your dollar will only buy a hamburger." Checked out The Economist's Big Mac Index and we're falling. Plenty of news stories about travelling Americans experiencing sticker shock this summer when they try to buy a Coke and realize it's $5 US or that everything in London is more than double!
I think I will take along a suitcase of used Levis and Converse high-tops to sell.
Carol,
Richard had Joe Wilson on the JK blog for the first guest liveblog--it was right after he came to JK's campaign after his wife's name was outed.
We could never get JK to liveblog--it was too hard to schedule and since the blog was not at the core of the campaign, no one ever thought to make it happen--at least, no one outside of those in the basement! (The internet team was in the basement).
Liveblogging is exciting and definitely a two-way street. It;s hard to set up and schedule, but it CAN be done. I know the Edwards' have done it.
The thing about the two-way (one-way)conversations and disconnect is that it happens in everyday life, not just with candidates thinking it's a one way street.
Often we think we are saying one thing but someone else hears something else. And the same people in the converation hear or see different things.
It's the classic experiment they had us do in journalism class. In that class the teacher has a staged 'ruckus' occur. Then the journalists go around the room and talk to the witnesses.
The result is interesting. 10 pairs of eyes see 10 different things happening. A few may agree somewhat. And the other two ends are poloarized--just like politics.
Hmmmmm.
Asheville – A couple who said they were protesting the state of the country by flying the U.S. flag upside down with signs pinned to it found themselves in jail following a scuffle with a deputy Wednesday morning.
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770725118
Flying an inverted US Flag is not a desecration.
We ALLLLLLLL know exactly what it means.
Anyone know the actual name of that story?
You know, the schoolhouse held hostage, a quick witted teacher and an inverted US Flag?
We learn it so early, I can not even remember the name of that story.
Anyone?
Oh, holy crap!
It just got biblical people.
Specter to probe Supreme Court decisions
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.
Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.html
OMG! Has anything like that ever happened before?
Oh man... why am I freaking out so bad? This is bad...isn't it?
"Judicial independence is "so important," Specter said, but an examination could help with future nominations. "I have done a lot of analyzing and have come to the conclusion that these nominees answer just as many questions as they have to."
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees, said a review "could lead us to have a different approach." He said senators need to be "more probing" with their questioning of nominees.
"Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee," said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter's idea.
"They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation."
*ahem*
TSP and Carol and karen will love this. And even Christy can get her own $.02 in too, directly to the source's mouth, should she be so inclined:
---------------
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the Republicans are feeling the pressure for change on Iraq. But I’m not a patient person. Especially when the lives of our troops are at stake. I refuse to wait around for the Republicans to move without giving them a little more pushing.
Quite simply, we want to take an unusual step — and we want to do it early. I think we need to run radio ads in the states of the Roadblock Republicans, making it crystal clear that they don’t deserve to be reelected because of their continued support for the Bush Doctrine of escalation without end. We need to turn up the heat even higher.
It’s the pressure of activists and the voice of the people that have gotten us this far in the Iraq debate, not the cookie-cutter ads and thirty second soundbites of Madison Avenue media firms.
So we decided, why don’t we let you speak in this radio campaign? If user generated content can change presidential debates, I know it can help change the next election on the most pivotal of issues.
That’s why we’re running a contest. We want you to send in a script for a 30 second radio spot (that’s about 65 words long), we’ll whittle it down some to the top 20, and then we’ll open up the voting to everyone. The winner that’s chosen by the people will be what we air in the states.
And we’ll fundraise for the airing of that spot, with each of you able to choose with your contribution where you think we should run the ad. No political professionals making the spot, or choosing where to run it. It’s all done by you.
You can make the spot sad, or satirical, or hard-hitting. Whatever you want to do. You can make it a personal story from your life (maybe you know someone in Iraq or have a family member there or maybe you are one of the many veterans in this community), or you can make a factual case on why voters should consider someone else because of this issue, or anything else you’d like.
You get it — it’s up to you. And what you do can be the ad that goes on the air targeting the Roadblock Republicans.
So click here to submit your script:
http://action.keepingamericaspromise.com/roadblockradio
You have until midnight ET on Saturday August 11th to get your script in, so get thinking and start writing. And forward this email to everyone you think might be interested in submitting a radio spot to this contest. If you know someone who has a way with words and wants to make a difference, send this along. We’d love to get their scripts.
Thank you, and let’s make sure we get a change in course in Iraq very soon.
Good luck,
John Kerry
Plenty of news stories about travelling Americans experiencing sticker shock this summer when they try to buy a Coke and realize it's $5 US or that everything in London is more than double!
Posted by: not my president at July 27, 2007 12:56 PM
You don't have to even go overseas. Just try buying some foreign goods right within the US.
Benedict Motor Works will now charge almost $40K for a car that's identically equipped as my 3-year-old example, which cost under $33K new. Sure, the car was redesigned once, but that alone doesn't explain the gap.
The only reason the car is not $45K or even $50K is because only manufacturing costs are in Euros. There are other expenses that are in dollars and unaffected - including advertising on Bill O'Reilly.
Sorry, but I'm feeling snarky today.
Snarkasm appreciated.
Why would John Kerry listen to me now Otter? And why would it even be worth .02 cents to him?
I was there too on the JK blog and I too feel it was a special time.
But was is the operative word.
Besides, didn't you see where I said I quit writing? I have no interest in starting again anytime soon.
But I appreciate the offer.
OK, Christy, no problem, if you'd rather just sit here and kvetch instead, that's fine.
Christy
John Kerry listens. I have talked to him personally 3x since the election, when he came to my city. It wasn't that hard. I've had questions answered by his staff, no problem. We have several people right here on the blog who have and/or do work with him. He is one of the Senators you would have the best chance getting your .02 in with. There is also the option of commenting when he blogs at Kos or to comment on his own site. It is a matter of motivation. He may not be running in 2008 and he is not our president because of cheating, rightwing attacks, biased media and disenfranchisement of voters in states where it was tight (see Jason Leopold and Palast investigative reports). He IS a sitting Senator in one of the Kennedy's seats, sponsors great legislation all the time, pays more attention to bloggers than ever before and so is definitely someone to get input to "trickle up" to. I still intend to go to his site more. It's just that I haven't had that much time.
Christy
The couple flying the distress flag, the people kicked out of a mall for peace t-shirts, and others prevented from using their civil liberties are evidence that in certain parts of this country, freedom is already disappearing.
Such communities would never accept the flying of the corporate flag, for example.
Wonder if the Michael Moore subpoena deal is because the WH is pissed about Rove? If I had a football team with Rove on it, I would certainly swap for Michael Moore!! I can see Michael Moore in a football uniform doing just fine. Rove? Way too dainty. I don't know if I could shake his hand (some people have paid $5000 to do so) but I'll bet it feels like a dead fish.
Sitting outside a Starbucks wearing an IMPEACH Bush and Cheney t-shirt and a round loudmouth guy comes by and starts arguing with me. He is under-informed and starts in on why we should be bombing North Korea...
And how Ron Brown got what he deserved when he was killed in a plane crash.
And how we couldn't get Osama because we needed more special forces at Tora Bora...
And how the left are a bunch of racists.
I kid you not.
And then I go to my email and find this (apologies for the long post--it's a collection of info)
Dear fellow activist,
You're receiving this because time is short to try to stop Bush's Executive Order 13438 from becoming law on August 19. The Executive Order, titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq," is unconstitutional but once it becomes law it would likely take years and huge chaos and loss before being revoked. As you know, Congress will recess for August. The Order was entered into the Federal Register on July 19. It becomes law automatically on August 19. Today is July 27. Will Pelosi and Reid call them back to stop this? Yesterday at the Senate subway to the Capitol, I spoke to about 10 Senators about this. After my brief, on-the-run question-description of the Order, they all said they had never heard of the Order (!) but that they would look into it. Your help is greatly needed to quickly study the order and then move Congress to stop it using your broad contacts to mobilize. I will set up a yahoo group site, called "Stop Executive Order of July 17, 2007" to help move communication forward.
Joan Stallard
The following explains the July 17, 2007 Executive Order 13438. It is slightly edited for brevity.
Alex Wallenwein blog
30 DAYS TO ABSOLUTE TYRANNY
Latest Bush Executive Order Outlaws Iraq War Dissent on Penalty of Full Asset Seizure
In Executive Order 13438, President Bush has decreed that our property - all of it - can be taken away at the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury at the mere suspicion that we may commit a crime in the future.
You can view and read this latest executive atrocity at the White House website. http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
An executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn't overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register. (Congress has until August 19 to overturn.)
If you own a business, this concerns you. Whether you own it as a sole proprietorship, as a sole shareholder, or even as a partial shareholder of a corporation, you stand to lose all of it if the Secretary thinks you may commit an "act of violence" that may disrupt the war (or peace) effort in Iraq. "Act of violence" is not defined anywhere in this order. Once this becomes law, the president has all the tools Hitler and Stalin had to keep their respective populations in utter subjection to their will.
The executive order states in Section 1(a) that "all property and interests in property" of "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of - blah, blah, blah (followed by a laundry list of "purposes or effects").
This means that the triggering factor underlying any such blocking order is a mere "determination" by the Secretary of the Treasury that you pose a "significant risk" of committing an act of violence in the future that has any of the listed purposes or effects. All the Secretary then has to do is to "consult" with the secretaries of state and defense. There is not even a requirement that these two agree with the Treasury Secretary's "determination"(!)
In other words, if the Secretary of the Treasury says that you "pose a significant risk" of committing an act of violence with the purpose or effect of "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people", then the president can block you from accessing your bank account, retirement account, credit cards, or "any property or interest in property" that you may own.
That technically includes your house, whether owned or rented, your car or other means of transportation, whether owned or rented, your business, all the way down to your cell phone, toothpaste, and underwear.
What is there to keep the Secretary of the Treasury from "determining" that you, because you oppose the war in Iraq, are probably one of those extremist hooligans who protested the WTO in Seattle a few years back, or that you are likely to act like one of them even though you haven't even participated in those riots? War protesters do these things, don't they? They are all the same, aren't they?
If the Secretary "determines" that you probably are one of them and that you "pose a significant risk of committing" an act of violence intended to frustrate the war (or even the peace effort) in Iraq, all of your stuff can be taken away from you - or you can be "blocked" from accessing it, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
You have no legal recourse under this order. No remedy at law. The order does not provide for compensation to you for the taking of your property. There is no due process requirement that will guarantee you a fair hearing in a court of law.
Unconstitutional? You bet!
But you can't complain about it.
Why is that?
The president declared a state of emergency back in 2003 (as he recites in this executive order at the end of the paragraph that starts with "I, GEORGE W. BUSH"). That state of emergency has not been rescinded, to this date.
In a state of emergency, the president has the power to do whatever he wants, and you can't complain - or else.
This is the clear, logical consequence of Americans' acquiescing to their government claiming the right to pursue the doctrine of preemptive war.
If the president can launch a war against another country to prevent a potential, as yet unrealized, future attack, then he can also prosecute a potential criminal at home - or confiscate ALL of his property - for acts that the President (or his Secretary) simply "determine" might be committed in the future.
We are talking about the imposition, by executive order, of absolute, unrestricted tyranny and despotism in the name of "national security."
Does this mean he will take your property away from you?
Not necessarily.
But you just gave him (or any future president) the power to do so at any time in the future if he (or she) think it may be a good idea!
An executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn't overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register.
YOU must act NOW - or it's all too late.
Call your two Senators. Call your Congressman. But for God's sake, don't go out into the streets and smash in store windows to vent your frustration. That would deliver the perfect excuse for Bush to take your stuff away from you, or to have you arrested as a "terrorist" under the Military Commissions Act.
It's your last chance. If you let this one slip by you, it's all over with freedom.
One last point that I can't resist making: If you trust any candidate for president in 2008 to voluntarily rescind this order after he or she becomes president, you ought to have your head examined. They all love the power it gives them. Only Ron Paul will actually do it - and you know that is true!
--Alex Wallenwein
NOTE: A petition is still under "review" by the Grassfire.org people. I don’t know why they delay. Please go HERE http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ to get your elected officials' phone and fax numbers. Faxes are best. They must physically deal with them. Phone calls are second best. Emails are least effective. They can just dump them electronically.
[Karen interjects: FAXES are not best; phone calls are--all calls are logged, whereas they often have two fax machines and only the one for internal communiques has paper in it regularly...]
"To date, US courts have overturned only two executive orders (since 1789!!): ..... Congress may overturn an executive order (up to 30 days after it appears in the Federal Register) by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the super majority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism. [2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)#_note-1
Related to above 3:30 pm:
From Democracy School forum:
Posted by Largo Saturday, July 21, 2007 @ 9:27 AM
There is a lot of buzz going around about how George W. Bush's new Executive Order is going to allow him to seize the property of anyone who protests against the war.
This is not the real problem with the Order, as I will show. The fact that this violates the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution is the real problem that people should be up in arms about. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
First of all I'd like to defuse a bit of the hysteria by pointing out that while it does say in Section 1, a, i, B "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people", it should be perfectly clear that this is a sub-condition of what is clearly listed in Section 1, a, i, which reads "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of".
To read the condition as a whole, we would have the following:
Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.
So unless you are committing or pose a significant risk of committing an act or acts of violence in order to undermine the Iraq war effort, this doesn't apply to you. It's a simple matter not only of context, but of simply reading the whole sentence.
With that cleared up, we come to the most important point. The violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. -- No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Bush's Executive Order effectively allows him to bypass this and deprive anyone of their property without due process of law. This blatant violation of one of our most basic rights laid out in the Bill of Rights is what people should be up in arms about. And yet it seems that everyone is so caught up with the idea that Bush can use this against war protesters that they completely miss the point that he has just blatantly violated the Fifth Amendment rights of every US citizen.
With that serious point clarified, another point I'd like to address is that of the "State of National Emergency" mentioned several times. "national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."
Under The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) (effective September 14th, 1976), we see that States of National Emergency expire after 1 year if the President does not explicitly extend them before 90 days prior to the anniversary of the State of National Emergency declaration.
That would mean that this current state of Emergency would have been in effect for well over 4 years now, having been extended by the President 4 times already and will be up for expiration again around the end of February 2008, at which time the President may choose to further extend it barring the Congress previously choosing to terminate it.
I don't see any set limit on how long the President can continue extending them aside from Congress explicitly voting to end the State of Emergency. Congress must meet every 6 months after the declaration to vote on whether or not the state of National Emergency should persist.
I mention this only because I was a bit shocked to realize that we've been under a state of National Emergency for the past several years now and had never before realized the frequency and duration of such declarations or the scope of their powers.
I think I am buying a bottle of wine now.
Posted by: karen at July 27, 2007 03:11 PM
Karen, did you chuckle yer ever-lovin left cheeck off? Cuz I woulda, right in Rushs face.
Tell him to look around at who's been in absolute control the last 7 years, DUMBASS!!!
Shame them back... at least you can back it up with real information instead of hate filled bile that even flies won't land on.
2 Tickets to Dopeville
The Hidden Victims of 9/11
http://www.sohoblues.com/9-11-Still-Killing.html
Gorbachev says U.S. is sowing world ‘disorder’
Ex-Soviet premier blasts Bush as helping create ‘very dangerous’ situation
MOSCOW - Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and President Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.
Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.
“The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?” Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.
“What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people,” he said.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19994563/
NMP,
I know John Kerry would probably answer questions if I ever so happen to come word to word with him. I am sure his staff would be polite and helpful.
My aversion to Kerry has nothing to do with that.
Of all the political disappointments I have sat through and came of age on, what happened then was perhaps the worst I ever felt. I lost friends over what happened. Good friends.
I can not even hear the name John Kerry without wanting to cry for my nation. He wants to help...?
Too late.
I do not doubt him, I never did. But yet, the disappointment still lingers. What I would have to say to him if we ever did come face to face I doubT I would regret, but it will not change anything.
It could have once, that I do regret.
I would rather leave it a regret I do not revisit any time soon. Not until this bastard is impeached and tried for war crimes.
Take a dose of laughter with your TGIF cocktails...
Death Cat Begins Gonzales Vigil
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/121636/772
pecter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.html
OMG! Has anything like that ever happened before?
Posted by: Christy at July 27, 2007 01:20 PM
@@@@@@@
WHAT IS SPECTER DOING??? Is he going to impeach a Supreme Court Justice?? Once they are confirmed, it is too late, isn't it?
BTW: RARE COURAGE AMONG THE FEW MODERATE REPUBLICANS LEFT
A Republican State REpresentative in Michigan, Lawrence Wenke, has held two town hall meetings on Homosexuality and the Bible in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Wenke's view (which has got him in deep trouble with the Christian rightwing) is that the bible does not condemn homosexuality.
We could use people like him in the Michigan Democratic party..
Posted by: Ralpheh at July 27, 2007 05:29 PM
Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_2/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html
Look at this interesting exchange...
After propagating his false smears, Turner refused to allow Korb time to answer and attempted to flee the committee room quickly. Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) told Turner to sit down and listen to Korb’s response.
ThinkProgress contacted Turner’s office for comment on the incident. Andy Bloom, communications director for Turner, told us that Turner has never served in the military and has no substantive military experience. Asked if Turner was participating in a coordinated effort to smear Korb, Bloom said, “I can’t be certain.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/27/michael-turner/#comments
I can't be certain if my boss was involved in a coordinated smear...?
He 'can't be certain'....?
Hmmmmm.
Forget the wine; we are off to see the Simpson's Movie.
Then we will be checking real estate in France, Canada, and possibly, Tahiti.
On the DCP Facebook page, the following notice appeared:
On Monday, July 30th a new Amnesty International website is being launched called www.tearitdown.org. It’s going to be a flashy, colorful web 2.0 site connected to social networking sites like facebook and myspace. Check it out on Monday and play with all its features! You can read case files of Guantanamo detainees and sign the “America I Believe In” pledge saying that the America you believe in does not torture innocent individuals or imprison them unlawfully. We need your help to spread the word about this awesome new site! Check it out on Monday and spread the word! List it on your profiles as a favorite new site- write about it in your blogs and tell all your friends about it. We want to tear down the prisons at Guantanamo Bay! Help us to SHUT DOWN GUANTANAMO and STOP THE TORTURE!
Thanks, Anita Elsohn!
The DCP Facebook group is here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2839481240
Christy
I understand what you're saying about what happened with JK & there are some wounds around the Gore trajectory over time as well. I am of a split mind on it myself. Half goes plodding on, the other half doesn't, and I have to keep remembering the Serenity Prayer & Kwan Yin & balance & karma.
Karen
Amazing email you got .. will have my antennae up re that now too. Just emerged from the woods. It was nice to deal only with sprinklers, making art out of food and animal sign language for awhile - a distraction.
Want to see Simpsons too. Fortunately, Groening has a great political sensivity and it's great satire, pretty accurate really.
Two rival news helicopters crashed while covering a car chase. Sad for the casualties but pathetic example of journalism.
Jeez
People killed in Branson Space Tourist experiment.
Astronauts were cleared to fly drunk.
Pregnant Nicole Ritchie has to go to jail and who is the father anyway?
Crappy biography about me.
Sit here and what Otter...?
kvetch?
kvetch \KVECH\, adjective:
1. To complain habitually.
noun:
1. A complaint.
2. A habitual complainer.
Gee Otter ... What an interesting word.
Not quite as interesting as your 'kiss my ass' moment but almost.
BTW, can you actually provide an example of me complaining....? Habitually?
And MD TY for answering my question.
"No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached."
This stuff is really starting to make me nervous.
Can Roberts and Alito be recalled to testify in front of congress? Do they have the authority to compell SCOTUS?
This is crazy stuff.
Posted by: Christy at July 27, 2007 07:35 PM
I guess Otters speak Yiddish. Who da thunk?
Nah, Nah,Nah Nah, NahNah Nah, Nah, Hey! Hey! GOODBYE!
Republican Support Collapses Among Youth
A new Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner survey finds young people "profoundly alienated from the Republican party and its perceived values."
Key finding: "Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day."
In the presidential race, "both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead Rudy Giuliani -- the most acceptable of the Republican offerings among youth -- by significant margins. The President’s standing is substantially worse, to the degree that is possible, than we find in the broader electorate. Moreover, the disconnect we see between the Republicans and our nation’s youth runs so deep, that it likely will not only outlive the Bush administration, but potentially haunt the Republicans for many years to come."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/07/27/republican_support_collapses_among_youth.html
HAHAHA!
Merry Freaking Christmas In July.
Sparrow, I am not sure what language it was.
That new survey though does finally answer our deepest question.
The kids are going to be just fine.
"Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure..."
HAHA. That is great!
Posted by: Christy at July 27, 2007 07:59 PM
Christy,
As the video with Young Republicans pointed out...they may be smaller but they're more vocal and they're more active.
However, all of us who have children recognise that this is the first generation in 100's of years that will not do better than the generation before them. The last 30 years have set us a system where the labor and the little guy will work for less and will work without healthcare. They will have bigger college loans and less scholarships available to offset costs.
They will be working 2-3 jobs to stay afloat. The trend started with Reaganomics. Even during Clinton's years, there were many still losing their homes because the jobs began drifting away.
Now, more than ever, I consider myself part of the David Sirota group.
Christy,
The kids want impeachment! (That's what my street heat (surveys) tell me.
Amen, Sparrow.
Amen.
Christy,
Kvetching or not, I will always remember your story about calling the Republicans and how you used them to convert your friends.
(Meant to add...that was really great activism at the 'grassroots' level.)
Christy,
Do the people in your neck of the woods want impeachment? Has it crossed into the mainstream there?
Greg Palast..."The fix is in for 08"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1450281
Well, if that's the case, I hope the democratic party will show some spine and support whichever candidate is chosen.
That's one of the things that irked me about both 2000 and 2004...the party just shut down when they should have been standing up WITH the candidate (Gore and Kerry).
Frankly, I'm still irked at McAllife for not fixing the election fraud between 2000 and 2004 when they already knew it was a problem.
This better not happen again in 08!
MY CRITICAL EMAIL OF NEW YORK TIMES COVERAGE OF THE GONZALES HEARING;
Article title: "Gonzales Endures Stormy Senate Session"
I still don't like the title of your article - it is not completely accurate picture as to what happened. How about "Most Senators don't believe the Attorney General's testimony", or maybe "After third hearing, questions still left unanswered". By the way, by using the word, "endured" the hearing, do mean that the A.G. was able to walk out of the hearing under his on power and didn't need the assistance of a stretcher or a wheelchair??
Posted by: Otter at July 27, 2007 01:38 PM
Thanks Otter! Just submitted my first one!
Absolutely Sparrow. Impeachment is DEFINATELY on our tables down here. It is everywhere except openly advertised.
And yeah, that was a great lunch. It did not start out with me using republicans as an example that day, it was kinda a spontainious 'OK well I will show you then!' thing.
When I hung up that phone you could have heard a pin drop.
What really amazed me most though was how little disagreement there actually was between the dems and republicans at that table.
Posted by: madame defarge at July 27, 2007 04:25 PM
VERY funny. TGIF!!!!
I am just throwing this idea out there:
What if we picked a day when everyone in the country who wanted the end of the Iraq war to begin tomorrow with a deadline for political solutions honked his horn in traffic during his work commute? We could actually notify the press ahead of time. People could all do this from their cars, and wouldn't have the expense of traveling to a protest march or the expense of missing work.
Or what if everyone who wanted the above wore orange every single day until Congress put more heat on?
Any other suggestions?
Any one doing the World Can't Wait thing of wearing orange every Friday? Don't know how many people will catch on but during the Vietnam War we wore black armbands every day. It would be good to do that too because alot of us old timers would recognize that anywhere. It's pretty universal. Distress flags on cars & houses too.
I wrote /STOP WAR/ in the prayer book as I do every week and someone wrote under it GOD IS WAR.
Or what if people just sat in cars parked in the street and honked for an hour straight?
Would that wake people up? Would there be a economic ripple if people refused to do something (like purchase non-essential items) for a time?
What if every single town in America or close to it had a "end the Iraq war politically" parade on the same day at the same hour? With the press notified ahead?
Would they arrest and seize property if millions of Americans had a peaceful protest like a parade, or a honk-in, or a no-buy?
Sparrow
I agree about the party needing to stand WITH the candidate chosen. That's one reason I have not chosen anyone yet and didn't in 2000. It gets old, the fracturing of the party. We know the Republicans are splintered right now but I can almost guarantee they will stand lock-step in unison goosemarching to the polls once someone is chosen.
I noticed the Republican candidates do not want to do a YouTube debate, except for Ron Paul and McCain. It actually would be pretty cool to see just those two go at it! I'd pay for a ringside seat!
I'm reading backwards even though I said I wouldn't. It's just easier.
Am glad if the young are not supporting the status quo.
Seizing property = Michael Moore making Sicko & Hillary Clinton's remark that Gates or someone else replied to.... = some kind of far out Orwellian "disloyalty to the person of the resident" and would "justify" him authorizing the seizure of their property.
Or is my tin foil hat on too tight? {Ouch! This hurts! I have a headache now!}
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/27/keith-olbermann-updates-the-nexus-of-terror-and-politics-creating-terror-scares/
Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror Scares
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/27/countdown-more-political-problems-for-the-pentagon/
Countdown: More Political Problems for the Pentagon?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070727/wl_mcclatchy/20070727bcmideastarms_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop
U.S. to sell advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia and others
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has decided to supply billions of dollars in advanced new weapons to Saudi Arabia , other Arab allies of the United States and to Israel , senior State Department officials and congressional aides said Friday.
{{{Errrr.... Doesn't Congress have to approve this...?...}}}
Posted by: Otter at July 27, 2007 01:38 PM
Just got home after a very long day. Sounds like a good idea!! Are you posting this around the net? (The invitation to write the ad.)
Re: thread header:
For me, the connection is CRUCIAL.
I will tell you one thing about what I DO KNOW about my perception of George W. Bush BEFORE the 2000 election. He APPEARED competent. I was busy working to make the owners and CEO of my employer's corporation rich, and was unaware of the manipulation of the persona of George W. Bush through the media, and through the pulpits of many of the churches in America.
George W. Bush LOOKED competent. After all, anyone who was the Gov. of Texas and was man enough to send Karla Faye Tucker to her execution (I think he was wrong on that one...b.t.w.), who claimed he was God fearin' and appeared to get on well with the religious right, yet was still just a "good ole boy" from a ranch with a straw 'tween his teeth awinkin'at cha..."appeared" to be a man you could "have a beer with in yer cowboy boots", and trust to be a good President.
I had no idea who George W. Bush really was, or in what direction he would take this country. Thanks to uncle Karl, I bought the persona. Talk about buyer's remorse! When they were selling me George W. Bush I had no idea how much we would have taken from us before his Presidential terms ended. I had no idea who his closest advisors were, what they stood for, if they had any scruples or were the kind of chaps that would smear a man's record and past accomplishments in what "I" consider to be a cheap and slanderous way. I didn't know if he was interested in me and my children and their futures or if he was really just interested in placating big business and enriching the rich and pushing the middle class into poverty while creating a "legacy" for himself.
I didn't know he was far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I will tell you this: if he had EVER spoken for himself in any way other than by reading a script to hand selected and sometimes paid audiences, I feel I would have been able to get a better sense of who the man was.
I wouldn't have had to find out painfully, agonizingly, day after day, year after long year during his terms in office.
I wish now that I'd have been able to see him answering questions, tough questions, without canned responses. Also without him being shielded from any questions that might expose him for who he was not. I might have caught a few things. Some red flags may have appeared. I feel I would have been able to make a somewhat better informed decision before I cast my vote in 2000.
I might have been able to sense that he was the kind of man who would drive his limo RIGHT PAST a grieving mother who had lost her son to his war, and not even stop to talk to her or to empathize with her, or have a kind word for her, let alone have a beer with her.
It's that important. The blogosphere is evolving. I would love to see it used to it's fullest potential.
TSP
I wouldn't honk in traffic or without traffic because I'm sure it goes against a noise ordinance. Of course if you're doing civil disobedience that's different, but if not, then you're likely to get ticketed.
We can still honk in Seattle, but it's unlawful in Portland.
They have 40 strip clubs tough, and we have 4.
Just got an offer from the book club Mann put me on - about how global warming isn't real.
TSP
Good analysis. I don't think W could have a beer with anyone because he was alcoholic til 40 and never went to rehab and could relapse at any time (if he has, they are able to keep it secret from the media other than speculative pubs like tabloids).
Last year some of us got to have breakfast with a much more decent man in cowboy boots - Bill Richardson. I'll bet he'd be more fun over a beer too.
W probably should have just gone directly from his frat to some kind of amateur comedy night or entertained from a barstool and just lived on a trust fund. It would have been a waste of his education but he wasn't very focussed anyway and it would have saved alot of trouble (and lives).
MUST..
GET RID..
OF
GONZALES...
HOW???
4 Senators - Schumer, Feinstein, Feingold and Whitehouse are asking for a Special Prosecutor; Leahy and Specter backed out of supporting this, wanting, I assume to the A.G. more time. I, personally, think the A.G. has had plenty of time to clear up the record. This was his third appearance before the Senate and he has shown no more inclination or ability to answer questions now than when he first appeared.
I think we all have to start writing and calling our Senators and make this a big issue. It is a big issue in my opinion. The A.G. should have been fired two months ago. He is lying and covering up for the administration.
John Kerry's blog is one of the most attractive and substantive Senatorial blogs around. Just had a good look.
Ralpheh
Must...get...rid of .. Gonzales
My Congressman had predicted around St. Patrick's Day that Gonzo "will be gone by Friday" - it's astounding he is still there.
NMP, the tabloids are full up of stories georgie has been drinking pretty much the whole time.
Yall check this out, I do believe the taboo just went mainstream.
'War Crimes and the White House'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881_pf.html
No places to hide left now georgie.
Death Cat Begins Gonzales Vigil
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/121636/772
Christy
Amazing editorial to find in WaPO! Good find!
Marketing of Fear
Breaking from NewsMax.com
U.S. General: Terror Attack Could 'Happen Any Day,' Need
to Prepare for Nuclear Threat
Special: Bin Laden Targets 7 U.S. Cities: NY, D.C., Vegas, More
Special: Terror 'Chatter' Extremely High, Prepare Your Family
Experts Praise TSA's Airport Security Warning
Special: 6 Days of Hell: the Coming War With Iran
Important: Homeland Security Has Advised Every Family to Have an Emergency Radio — and one not dependent on electric outlet power.
Proof of Global Warming - this photograph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/28/eaflood128.xml&page=1
And how exactly do they propose we 'prepare for a nuclear attack'?
Oh yeah, the get down on your knees, stick your head between your thighs, and kiss your own ass 'Goodbye' age old defense. Like the holding your breath and hornets won't sting you defense except with a mushroomcloud.
Yeah, we will all be just fine I'm sure.
Sorry General, I forgot to take my Imscaredofterrorists pill today.
Maybe tomorrow.
Christy
Growing up with all that "duck and cover" shit is pretty much why I'm kind of immune to the fear mongering now. Substitute "hater" or "evildoer" for "commie" and it's about the same.
OLD EMAIL ON IMPEACHMENT:
THREE MORE CO-SIGNERS TO H.R. 333 AND CONYERS WOULD PROCEED
From After Downing Street
By David Swanson
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.
I was a guest today on Bree Walker's radio show. She's the progressive radio host from San Diego who purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.
Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course, what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more empty rhetoric?
It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.
Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It's safe to assume, I think, that we're talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.
First, there are Congress Members like Jesse Jackson Jr. who have spoken out for impeachment but not signed onto H Res 333. They should be urged to act now! Second, there are dozens of members who signed onto H Res 635 a year and a half ago, Conyers' bill for an investigation into grounds for impeachment, who have not signed onto H Res 333 yet. Third, one of the excuses citizens often hear from lots of Congress Members for not signing onto articles of impeachment is that not enough of their colleagues have signed on and therefore "we don't have the votes." Well that just changed. Now three more votes is all that's needed to get this machine rolling. Fourth, many of the 14 Congress Members backing H Res 333 have used similar excuses to justify refraining from lobbying their colleagues to join them. That can now end. Our 14 leaders can do more than just put down their names.
Now, if Conyers begins impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, we should all be clear on what that will mean. If it is serious, it will not mean sending any subpoenas or contempt citations to the emperors' court. Bush and Cheney have already repeatedly refused to comply with subpoenas.
President Richard Nixon did the same, of course, and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the
"IMPEACH CHENEY" CAPS!!!!!
WITH YOUR PARTICIPATION WE CAN HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT BREAKOUT
The mainstream corporate media would like to pretend that there is
nothing going on, but a 15th member of the House just signed on to
Kucinich's H.Res. 333 to impeach Dick Cheney first. 95,000 people
have already voted in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll, and no
matter how many times Pelosi protests that impeachment is off the
table, we can drive it like a truck right through the front picture
window. And this is how we are going to do it.
We have already shipped 6,000 "IMPEACH CHENEY?" caps and we want
EVERYONE who has voted in the Cheney impeachment poll to have one, so
that we can all be in the streets as a real time demonstration of our
mobilization on this issue. A donation is NOT required. We will send
you one for no charge, not even shipping, if you just email us back
with your address and request one. But if CAN make any kind of
donation, if only just a modest one, please submit this form.
CAP REQUESTS: http://www.usalone.com/impeach_cheney_cap.php
Your donations allow us to run all the blog ads, pay for keeping up
the short code cell phone voting function, where all you have to do
is text the word "IMPEACH" to 30644 to vote Yes for Cheney
impeachment. Most importantly, when you wear one of these caps,
everyone you encounter will ask themselves the question "Should Vice
President Cheney be Impeached," which is the question our democracy
must answer.
In reacting to testimony of Alberto Gonzales yesterday under oath,
Time magazine was moved to write the headline "Gonzales Digs a Deeper
Hole". It would appear the game plan is to try to lie their way
through the next 18 months, to run out the clock until they can all
pardon themselves on the way out the door. But the one revelation
that DID come out of the Senate hearing was that Vice President
Cheney, on top of everything else, had been given unprecedented
authority to intervene in justice department probes.
Just this last Friday the Cheney White House REFUSED to give a member
of Congress access to the classified portions of two of these recent
presidential directives. They won't even let our representatives SEE
the complete terms of SECRET unconstitutional orders they are rushing
to put in place. So what will it take to get Congress to debate these
things, and actually confront a White House that is now issuing royal
decrees at a record pace in the form of sweeping executive orders
that presume to have legislative weight?
The last question we CAN answer. What it will take for Congress to
act is for us to get out there, and make the impeachment movement
visible, to engage so many of our friends and neighbors in a
discussion of the issue that we can no longer be ignored. That is
what the "IMPEACH CHENEY?" caps are designed to do. That is why we
want you to have one. Congress will not defy the will of the American
people, but first that will must be expressed. That is our job, to
facilitate the expression of that will. And we accept the job.
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm
Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm
Wearing my navy blue IMPEACH t-shirt today. Many nods here on Cap Hill. WE know.
Oh and new thread...
But the problem was and continues to be for many of the presidential campaigns that the interactive pieces are bolt-ons and not central to the purpose of the campaign--which is, or should be, IMO, teaching and learning about the issues and the candidate.
Call me crazy, but lots of missed opportunities there.
Posted by: karen at July 27, 2007 12:12 PM
Well, it was a GREAT blog!!! I learned alot about the candidate that I NEVER would have learned through the MSM. It was a great unit that had alot of adhesiveness, power, and momentum. It was educational and informative.
And, as a somewhat pioneer effort for a Presidential campaign, it was magnificent and effective. Technology has evolved since then which would no doubt be added to the next one.
I learned you can't trust the MSM. And it makes me wonder about the campaign "advisors" who try so hard to corral the candidate. Are those "advisors" part and parcel of the Establishment, or did they just make some bad calls?
My opinion is that America has had enough razzle dazzle and snake oil. I would really like to get a good sense of who the candidate is from now on. I think that's why alot of people aren't jumping in and committing right now too. We've heard enough lies, seen enough callousness, seen enough struggling, poverty, and death. We have paid the piper.
I think an effort to get more people on the blogosphere would be helpful. Average Joe and Matilda America are so busy working trying to (I was going to say keep up with the Joneses - but I think it has come down to trying to make their mortgage payments and keep food on the table in a majority of cases), that alot of them don't have the time or ability to use the blogosphere.
And the neocons know it. Thus, wallah, alot of Americans have time for a quick sound bite, and that's it. The neocons have the bucks to produce the image they want the people to buy in 60 seconds or less. Anything more substantive is termed nuance.
Things are evolving, so I am optimistic.