Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
LGBT fundraiser for Democrats shaken by community uproar
Pam Spaulding and AmericaBlog note that two big name attendees have pulled out of the DNC fundraiser. It will be interesting to see if others do so, or if a grassroots effort will succeed in getting co-sponsors Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis to bail out of the event.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Lessons from Denver & St. Paul
Karl Rove is alive and well; the Log Cabin Republicans made a bold, but costly move; and other lessons from the political conventions are revealed in my latest Lesbian Notions column.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The economy does better under Democrats
Michael Kinsley isn't the first writer to argue that the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans, but he does have the latest statistics.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Do the Texas Two Step
By Nancy Jane MooreEverything's bigger in Texas -- including your right to vote (if you're a Democrat). Texas Democrats get to vote twice, once in the primary, where about half the votes for the national convention will be divided up, and once in the precinct convention, which will account for about another 30 percent of the votes (the rest are superdelegates).
You must vote in the primary to attend the precinct convention and vote again. So if you didn't vote early, get out there now and vote. And then get back to your polling place by 7:15 PM to vote again in the precinct convention (which works like a caucus).
The poster above is from the Obama campaign, but do the two step even if you're supporting Hillary. Texas Democrats need to show how strong we are, and a high turnout is one way to do it.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Give it a rest, Ralph
By Nancy Jane Moore
The Washington Post informed me this morning that Ralph Nader is running for president again. Oh, please.
It's way past time Ralph got over himself. I won't waste much space on his spoiler role in the 2000 election, except to point out that anyone who still thinks there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore hasn't been paying attention to the extraordinary damage Bush has done to our country over the last seven years. (I note that on Balkinization, Jack Balkin has observed that the disastrous Bush presidency has given the Democrats "an enviable political position," something he suggests might be credited to Nader. Forgive me Prof. Balkin -- I'm a fan of yours -- but I'm not sure this country is going to recover from the Bush years no matter how many competent and progressive candidates we elect to office.)
Even if Nader were substantially more liberal than either of the Democratic candidates -- and I've personally always had trouble seeing a consumer advocate as a serious radical (consumer rights are important, but they are basically a middle-class issue) -- why would I pass up the opportunity to elect the first woman or black president by throwing away my vote on a white man who can't see further than his own ego?
Although I agree with the principle that the U.S. could use more political parties, I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader even if the Democrats didn't seem poised to give us a decent candidate, for one basic reason: He's a purist who is absolutely convinced he's right. No one will get him to change his mind.
That could be a useful stance for an activist. Such rigidity can keep people from selling out. And Nader has certainly never sold out.
But you don't have to look farther than the current occupant of the White House to see the dangers of rigid thinking. Bush is famous for never second-guessing his own decisions, for his determination to "stay the course" no matter how idiotic the course may be. It's not just the political ideas behind Bush's presidency that are the problem; it's the fact that he thinks so rigidly that he cannot change course even when it's obviously required.
Nader is at least as rigid as Bush, and maybe more so. I may agree with a lot of Nader's opinions, but presidents who cling to their positions no matter what do much more harm than good. The world is constantly changing, and world leaders need to adapt to circumstances. Rigid thinking is perhaps the most dangerous weakness a potential president can have.
Before he started running for president, Nader did a lot of good for this country. I've watched Public Citizen, which Nader founded, do a great job over the years of holding public officials' feet to the fire. But his political aspirations threaten to destroy his legacy as an activist who actually brought about some real change.
Nader may kid himself that he's trying to build a third party, but his candidacy just shows that his ego is completely out of control. He thinks he's the only person who is good enough to run the country. He's wrong.
The Washington Post informed me this morning that Ralph Nader is running for president again. Oh, please.
It's way past time Ralph got over himself. I won't waste much space on his spoiler role in the 2000 election, except to point out that anyone who still thinks there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore hasn't been paying attention to the extraordinary damage Bush has done to our country over the last seven years. (I note that on Balkinization, Jack Balkin has observed that the disastrous Bush presidency has given the Democrats "an enviable political position," something he suggests might be credited to Nader. Forgive me Prof. Balkin -- I'm a fan of yours -- but I'm not sure this country is going to recover from the Bush years no matter how many competent and progressive candidates we elect to office.)
Even if Nader were substantially more liberal than either of the Democratic candidates -- and I've personally always had trouble seeing a consumer advocate as a serious radical (consumer rights are important, but they are basically a middle-class issue) -- why would I pass up the opportunity to elect the first woman or black president by throwing away my vote on a white man who can't see further than his own ego?
Although I agree with the principle that the U.S. could use more political parties, I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader even if the Democrats didn't seem poised to give us a decent candidate, for one basic reason: He's a purist who is absolutely convinced he's right. No one will get him to change his mind.
That could be a useful stance for an activist. Such rigidity can keep people from selling out. And Nader has certainly never sold out.
But you don't have to look farther than the current occupant of the White House to see the dangers of rigid thinking. Bush is famous for never second-guessing his own decisions, for his determination to "stay the course" no matter how idiotic the course may be. It's not just the political ideas behind Bush's presidency that are the problem; it's the fact that he thinks so rigidly that he cannot change course even when it's obviously required.
Nader is at least as rigid as Bush, and maybe more so. I may agree with a lot of Nader's opinions, but presidents who cling to their positions no matter what do much more harm than good. The world is constantly changing, and world leaders need to adapt to circumstances. Rigid thinking is perhaps the most dangerous weakness a potential president can have.
Before he started running for president, Nader did a lot of good for this country. I've watched Public Citizen, which Nader founded, do a great job over the years of holding public officials' feet to the fire. But his political aspirations threaten to destroy his legacy as an activist who actually brought about some real change.
Nader may kid himself that he's trying to build a third party, but his candidacy just shows that his ego is completely out of control. He thinks he's the only person who is good enough to run the country. He's wrong.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
BREAKING: Kansas governor hits the REAL big time
By Diane SilverI guess being a Democratic governor in a red, red state has its perks. Kathleen Sebelius has been chosen to give the Democratic Party's rebuttal to George W. Bush's State of the Union on Jan. 28.
This is good news for Sebelius, Kansas and for the idea that red-state leaders DO have something to say to the left and right coasts.
For those of you wondering who the heck this Sebelius person is...
She is a moderate Democrat, but she has been supportive of fairness for all. On Labor Day, she signed an executive order protecting LGBT state workers from job discrimination. This was a first for Kansas.
The Wikipedia bio of Sebelius seems fairly accurate with a few mis-steps. The bio implies that it's odd for a governor of Kansas to be pro-choice. Not so. Her predecessor, Republican Bill Graves, also favored abortion rights. The bio says she has an out gay son, but I guess I'm the last queer in Kansas to know that. The material on her record as governor and insurance commissioner seems accurate, though.
The Cincinnati Enquirer has a good article about her early years growing up as the daughter of Ohio's governor.
And last, but not least, she just gave her own State of the State address last night.
UPDATE
The decision by the Sebelius Administration to block construction of two coal plants because of global warming was a first for the state and nation. Republican legislative leaders are loudly opposing the decision and claim they'll do everything to lift the road-block. Recent news reports claim behind-the-scene talks might be aiming at some kind of deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
