Lone Star Democracy Builders Association

As part of their new Life of the Party series, Salon did a great interview with the recently elected Democratic governor of Montana.

Yep, he won in 2004 - as a Democrat running for governor in a state where Bush beat Kerry by a whiz-bang of a landslide, 20 points. How the hell did he do that?! With some common sense, a great attitude, and a shrewd understanding of what my dad calls "the folks out there."

I think this guy gets a lot of things exactly right. For example, it doesn't make sense for New York City to have the same gun laws as rural parts of the west. In NYC, having a gun is practically suicidal; in rural Montana (or west Texas, for that matter), you take a gun with you when you're going to walk the fenceline in case you run into a snake. And you don't get anywhere with people for whom that's a way of life by telling them they're a short step away from being gang members.

I also love that he's humble - he gets asked how to repeat his success in a national campaign, and he openly says he wouldn't have a clue. He may be the only person in professional politics who doesn't want to look like he knows more than he does - he ain't angling for a talking head spot on CNN. I find this charming.

There are other things I like, but the best thing, I think, is his regular guy-ness and his attitude about it. He's exactly right that the best things a politician can do are to stand for something, have a plan; and to act like you care. Part of what baffles Ds about Bush's appeal is that even when people disagree with him, they're often still willing to vote for him. This makes us stomp and sputter and scream. But what we've got to understand is something I learned as a government major. Some of the best research in poli sci and political communication tells us that nowadays, people don't necessarily vote on the issues; instead, they vote their *identity.* There's a whole complicated explanation for that, but Governor Schweitzer described it just perfectly in this paragraph: "They look up there and say, 'That guy's a straight shooter. If I wasn't so busy bowling and working and fishing, and if I had time to spend on these issues, I bet I'd come to the same conclusions that that guy would. But it's a good thing that he's doing all that studying and stuff, because I'm busy fishing and bowling.' "

Love it! I think that's exactly what we need - both that dynamic between candidate and voter, and candidates with the ability to explain a complicated phenomenon in voting behavior in two simple sentences, using words a third-grader could understand. I look forward to seeing what else this guy can do.

And with this interview as the first installment, looks like the Life of the Party series could be one to watch.

Posted by Carrie at 10:51 AM in Who Are The Democrats? | Permalink

David Brooks editorial on Roe v. Wade took me by surprise. He argues that by stifling debate by handling the issue in the courts instead of the legislature, we've been building up pressure in very unhealthy ways. As seen by the recent "nuclear option" over judicial nominations.

Posted by GlennM at 9:23 AM in Miscellany | Permalink

On April 14th, Democracy for America and True Majority had a National Day of Action opposing Social Security privatization. I heard about it at the Democracy for Texas meeting a week beforehand and decided to go on a Congressional office visit to Rep. Michael McCaul of District 10.

The field office director, Victoria Miller, and the Social Security caseworker, Thomas Brown, both attended the meeting.

The group ended up being about 8-10 constituents, including a couple of young folks, a number of retired folks, and a few in between. There was even a gentleman who isn't eligible for Social Security because he was a teacher, but had been raised by a widowed mom who depended on Social Security for part of her income after the dad died.

The group leader was just an individual, apparently drafted by DFT when he signed up. He did a great job of contacting everyone a couple of days ahead of time and giving us an overview of what would happen. The main instructions for presentation was to focus on personal stories, and not to turn it into a political demonstration. He didn't really provide much more framing advice than that, and even when I dug around on the DFA site I didn't find much more. But to my pleasant surprise, everyone stayed on topic and didn't rant - so it turned out to have a very "concerned citizen" tone that I think carried across well.

Ms. Miller was very diplomatic in her listening skills, and told us it was pretty striking that we had people in the group who weren't eligible for Social Security or were so far away from receiving it. I had anticipated a colder response since at first the staff kept calling us "the group from Democracy for Texas." But we had done many of the right things - a sign-in sheet with all of our addresses to show we were constituents, respectful tone, etc., and I think it helped.

Several of us had followed the group leader's advice and prepared written versions of our comments, which Ms. Miller said was the most important thing we could have done aside from showing up. They send a packet to the D.C. office once per week that includes constituents' letters, and Ms. Miller said that Rep. McCaul reads them all personally even though the staff prepares summaries.

We didn't get any feedback on the Representative's position, despite the group leader's question about that. Ms. Miller did mention that if Rep. McCaul was voting, it was good for him to have a 3-inch binder full of his constituents' views that supported his vote.

Both Ms. Miller and Mr. Brown passed out their business cards to everyone in the group and urged us repeatedly to contact the office with our views at any time. Given some of the stories I heard out of the last Texas Legislative session (about various legislators telling their constituents to stop calling about this or that issue), I definitely appreciated their courtesy and respectful tone.

All in all, it was nowhere near as stressful as I thought, since it was a well-organized group excursion rather than a solo gig. I highly recommend participating in something like this in the future.

Posted by Skye at 4:18 PM in Action | Permalink

Rockridge Institute

Lakoff's on the list of folks involved.

Posted by GlennM at 7:56 AM in Our Infrastructure | Permalink

The Statesman had a lead story on how we'll be losing two staunch environmentalists on the City Council when Slusher and Goodman's terms are up.

Then they endorsed pro-business Kim for the Place 3 seat.

... But the one who stands out and receives our endorsement is Jennifer Kim, 32, a small business owner with solid experience in government. Kim owns a franchise of Computer Moms, a high-tech operation providing information and support to businesses and consumers. Kim has also done stints with the U.S. Department of Commerce and for state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo.

Kim, a Texas A&M graduate with a graduate degree from Princeton, has experience in economic development that would benefit Austin. Her campaign is centered on fiscal restraint, sharing costs with Travis County and improving transportation options.

The other candidates have good credentials, too. Mandy Dealey has long been a fixture in Austin's non-profit universe, working on children's issues, mental health initiatives and more. Gregg Knaupe, 36, is an attorney with the Texas Hospital Association and a knowledgeable candidate. Margot Clarke, who ran for council in 2003, has worked with Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club.

All four candidates have excellent qualifications, but Kim has the mix of aggressiveness, openness and experience that would most benefit the city.

Personally, this has swung me even further into the Margot camp.

They also endorsed Leffingwell and Dunkerley.

Posted by GlennM at 8:31 AM in Austin | Permalink

I was wanting to hear more about health care instead of Social Security, and Krugman comes to the rescue.

Quotes below.

The countries that have something to teach us are the nations that don't pinch pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany or Canada - but still spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they're much shorter than Britain's - and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France and Germany don't have a waiting list problem.)

In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries.

The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than their counterparts abroad - but they don't actually receive more care. The title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."

... One answer is doctors' salaries

Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain with the pharmaceutical industry.

Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork.

Posted by GlennM at 11:44 AM in Health Care | Permalink

Yesterday, the Democratic Party Radio address attacked the Republicans for their attacks on the separation of the branches of government. This was prompted by remarks from leading Republicans around the Terry Schiavo case, as well as the ongoing judicial nominee confirmation battles in the Senate (see also "nuclear option"). Here's a link to the audio file of the broadcast along with a transcript of the talk.

My favorite quote: "When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way."

Posted by Ben at 5:50 PM in Who Are The Democrats? | Permalink