Lone Star Democracy Builders Association

It was hot. There were protesters and counter-protesters. A bus got stuck and we un-stuck it. A local spouted off.

UPDATE: Pics are here, and made some minor edits.

After finally leaving Austin a little late, we got up to Crawford after 3. We hit heavy traffic and eventually parked on a side street as it looked like the pro-Bush counter-protest was winding down. Sample sign from the pro-Bush side (with unfortunately no pic to back it up): "Kick Their Ass and Take Their Gas." Many SUVs with flags waving on them were taking off as we were heading in.

Walked a couple of blocks to the Peace House. A few folks hung around under a decent sized tent, a bunch of camping tents were tucked into the corner of the lot. A small labyrinth was in the front corner (the Walk the Walk part of the Peace House slogan "Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk"). We finally figured out that the shuttles to Camp Casey II were taking off from the parking lot instead of the street due to the traffic. Downtown Crawford was a couple of blocks away, where the pro-Bush folks were gathered in front of the Yellow Rose. Up there it's a gift shop not a strip club. Complete with a large display of the 10 commandments sandwiching a replica of the Liberty Bell. Go figure. A black helicopter flying around completed the picture.

Drove 10-20 minutes out to Camp Casey II on small farm roads. I can understand the desire for shuttles, the roads were barely wide enough for cars to pass each other. Good old farm country. Some double-wides, a little corn, some larger houses. A lot of land and sky.

Pulling up to Camp Casey II we were flanked on the left by a CNN cameraman and on the right by troopers at a roadblocked road where 100% ID checks were being performed. Looked like the back way in to the Bush ranch.

Greeters welcomed us to Camp Casey, with the graveyard to one side and tents to another. The big top was ahead of us, about the same size as the tent for DemFest. Folks were starting to line up for BBQ. Tables were set up for eating. At the other end of the Big Top was the stage with seating in front of it. Larry Monroe from KUT was introducing performers. Cindy was being swamped by well-wishers. Folks were eating and hanging out. Staff tents were tucked into a bit of shade behind the big top. Mary Magdalene from Colorado sang a duet which they tried to turn into a singalong. They asked us to hold hands as we sang (or not). A large banner to the side was a portrait of Casey.

There was usually a crowd around Cindy, who was holding up ok even when one of the songs was an ode to Casey. Folks had come to the camp from all over the country. Iraqi Verterans Against the War were present, Cindy wasn't the only Gold Star fmily member there. An oversize coffin had the names of all the soldiers killed in Iraq on it. The tents covering people waiting for the shuttles back had pictures of those killed on it. One table had information for ways high-school graduates could help their country without serving in the military. Another table asked folks to write their Congresspeople.

I recognized some DFT folks there. And one of the ladies on the bus was someone I chatted with at Threadgills at DemFest who lives in ??? (somewhere very small in Texas). It's a small world. I'd guess attendence at the camp was somewhere between 300-400 folks. A surprising number of people had dogs along. More folks were coming in as we were leaving.

We didn't stay long and returned to Crawford. A couple on mopeds that we passed on the way out were still heading into town as we headed back.

Back at the Peace House folks were still milling around. A shuttle bus (tour sized) got stuck, and a group of folks were gathered to push it out. Amazingly enough, the cars/trucks close to it were unscathed as it finally moved forward amidst a cloud of tire smoke. We walked over the tracks to Crawford's main street. The pro-bush folks were still camped in front of the Yellow Rose. A few anti-war folks were across from them. One of the pro-Bush folks pulled a Noriega and started blaring pro-war music. Some of the anti-war folks walked away, and the pro-Bush dude was upset that they weren't around to taunt anymore. He started getting in the face of another anti-war person, but she seemed nonplused.

The roads were now clear. While the black helicopter was still flying around, the ambulance fleet that had been hanging around before was reduced to a single sentinel.

As we started walking back to our car, I stuck up a conversation with a homeowner a couple of houses down from the Peace House. I hadn't really had a chance to talk yet with any of the pro-Bush folks. However, the Crawfordite (?) wasn't a Bush supporter. He's not happy with what's been happening with the economy. But he's also not happy about folks parking on his grass without permission. And fewer "flag wavers" were parking on his turf without asking than "peace signers". [Might have something to do with his location and/or the ratio attending. But it's still apparently a nice gesture in those parts to introduce yourself to the folks whose house you're parking in front of.] The gentleman thought the Peace House was just all about politics and didn't have much respect for them. Although I could see him being a little scary to middle age peaceniks when he went down to talk with them.

The drive home was uneventful, past stopping to take a pic of the Bush's "Welcome to Crawford" sign on the way into town that we'd driven by on the way in.

Being behind a camera added some distance to the whole proceedings. I'm happy that even in this Red state more folks were coming out against the war than for it. Even if it was hard to see that from downtown Crawford (most of the anti-war folks were at the camp, at least by the time we got there). Even with the graveyard, it's still not quite real to me that folks are dying for something our country agreed to (or didn't fight strongly enough before it started). It bugs me that it's been reduced to a "pull out now" vs. "kill 'em all" mindset. The logic of being "anti-troops" by supporting Cindy escapes me. And don't get me started about the "accountability" president. But I don't think that a total cut 'n run now would be the best solution either.

The only clarity I had all day was a desire to send a little something up to Crawford for letting us use their town as the stage in which to perform this drama. If I was the dude down from the Peace House, I'd be pissed about all the traffic jams as well.

Posted by GlennM at 10:32 PM in Action | Permalink | Comments (2)

In the June/July 2005 issue of "The Beliver", the interview and commentary magazine put out by McSweeney's, the comedian Patton Oswald (Comedians of Comedy) is having a conversation with friend Aimee Mann about politics:

AM: Bush was perfectly cast to win. As Democrats, we always end up going for the guy who is a great actor and not a great movie star. The Republicans have a movie star. All we've got are these actors from Australia that nobody has heard of.

PO: We've got Paul Giamatti, and they've got Ben Affleck combined with Collin Farrell.

AM: They're just much better at casting.

Later, a comment on Bush's popularity

AM: Bush was never really judged on his merits. It was all about image, and he played into it very well. I think there was something about Bush that reminded people of a dad they never had. He's more of a dream phantom president. He doesn't exist as a person; he exists as an image that people want to buy into.

And finally, a comment about how the Republicans talk:

PO: And the Republicans have started to pick up on that. All these evil conservative demigod motherf****rs have stolen the language of rebellious rock and roll. They've taken the funky, cracker swagger and used it to their advantage.

It's a really funny interview, and I found it interesting for these smart people who live as performers look at the right's marketing as a co-opting of show business practices.

Posted by Ben at 10:38 AM in Quotes | Permalink

On my trip to California this week, I managed to read a library copy of Paul Krugman's 2003 book "The Great Unraveling", a collection of his columns for the New York Times and other publications. Paul's is a professor of economics who has become more prominent in the national scene for his straight talk about the problems of the Bush administration.

I enjoyed the book, but by the end, I felt like I'd heard the same message fifty times. This is mainly due to most of the content being short three page essays, with a lot of common establishing material. The columns are grouped by topic, with each chapter presenting a selection of writing in chronological order. This sometimes was quite interesting; the series of columns on the California energy crisis started with speculation that the shortage was a result of market manipulation, then continued with confirmation of that theory over the next two entries. On other issues, like the president's social security plan, it just felt like the same point being made.

Krugman is quite approachable. There's economics in this book, but nothing too complex for someone literate in the business page. If you know a conservative whose primary interest is business, there's plenty of ammunition here to show him or her that Bush's economic policies have been really bad news. The best part of the book is the introduction,

The best part of the book was the introduction, titled "A Revolutionary Power", where Krugman uses research material collected by Henry Kissinger (!!!) in the 1950s about revolutionary France to show similarities in the modern right-wing movement, especially in how they deny reality and disdain our government's tradition.

Alas, the book ends with the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, so we don't get any of Paul's commentary on the economic costs of the war or any notes on the 2004 campaign or the defeat of Bush's Social Security plan. In all, it was a worthwhile, but depressing read. Over and over, the book shows just how entrenched the Bush's cronyism is, and how they keep making decisions that benefit personal friends, selling them to America using whatever argument seems convenient.

Posted by Ben at 4:45 PM in Book Reviews & Economy | Permalink

I would like good writing, please.

If you'd like to inspire me, these passages from the DLC's "Idea of the Week" aren't going to cut it:

In an important new report from the Progressive Policy Institute, Michele Stockwell, PPI's director of social and family policy, argues that parents, while remaining the first line of defense, need help protecting their kids from commercializing pressures and outlines a series of modest steps policymakers can take to address some of the more egregious marketing practices without unduly intervening in the market economy.

All of these measures are aimed simply at adjusting public policies to reflect rapid changes in technology and marketing techniques and giving parents the tools they need to effectively control and counter the harms associated with hyper-commercialization.

I'm obviously not the first to have issues with the DLC's lack of fire. They position themselves as "appeal to everyone, offend no one," and it shows. But is it possible that they offend no one because they put their audience to sleep?

Posted by Skye at 7:28 AM in How To Communicate | Permalink | Comments (2)

In general, I thought Radnofsky was well-spoken and smart. At first she came out swinging at KBH and I thought she was just another Dem whiner, but she did move on to positive things we can do for our country. She didn't take the bait when pressed about impeaching Bush ("We're better off moving forward than backwards ... [and it doesn't gain me anything as a candidate]"). And when someone came up with a shorter answer for the impeachment question ("that's for the current legislators, not candidates, to deal with") she warmly appreciated the more direct response. It's nice to see a candidate that can think on their feet.

She seemed to enjoy KBH-baiting. While KBH has a reputation as a moderate, my take is that the current Rep machine keeps KBH in line. Which means that even if KBH is a moderate her current record is of a strong conservative. The response letters I've gotten from KBH on issues certainly haven't shown any original thinking, they're just Rep talking points reguritated. BAR noted that KBH is surprisingly most vulnerable on the three main issues in KBH's campaign (but BAR didn't mention what they were, and I can't find a re-election web page for KBH).

All in all, Radnofsky is a candidate I'll be happy to support.

Posted by GlennM at 3:06 PM in Who Are The Democrats? | Permalink

Last night, Glenn and I attended the August meetup for Austin's Democracy for Texas chapter. This meeting had a speech and Q&A session by US Senate candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, and I've posted my notes on the event below:

After a few songs by a Western swing group out on the hot and humid Mother Egan's patio, Fran Vincent came up on stage and got things started by introducing the main speaker, Barbara Ann Radnofsky.

She's made over 200 trips around Texas in the last year getting support and forming a campaign strategy. Her background is as a lawyer, most recently with her own practice. She's the daughter of NASA scientists, and her dad was shot down over Germany in WWII, making a heroic escape back into Allied territory. She's openly spiritual and thinks that religious people should participate in politics, but that separation of church and state is very important.

Her opponent in the general election, sitting senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, tries to position herself as a moderate, but her positions aren't. She was against restoring Medicade funding, she's voted anti-choice, and she supported the recent energy bill that causes a huge transfer of federal gasoline tax money out of Texas. On veterans issues, she originally didn't support increasing funding for the VA hospitals. Worth noting: there are no VA hospitals south of San Antonio in the state. KBH changed her mind after getting pounded on the issue earlier this year.

How will BAR get elected? For the primary, she needs about 300,000 votes. For the general election, she needs to get around 2.5 million. Her strategy is to run her campaign for the general election; she's not going to move to the left or take extreme positions, and her campaign messaging will be based on framing issues to find common ground with moderates and some Republicans.

On reproductive rights, she's pro-choice, but will be pushing a message of trying to greatly reduce the number of abortions by improving economic conditions for women and pushing health care reform.

On civil unions, she thinks that she can win over people on this issue by framing it in economic terms. She made an argument that by making it illegal to recognize civil unions, you keep people out of private health insurance plans offered through employers and cities, which means more people will use emergency rooms and public assistance.

On immigration, her stand was that it's tied to national security, and we need policies that deter illegal immigration, but that allow the economically beneficial immigration that boosts the border economy in south Texas. Our current policy under Bush has failed and deterred legal trade. The vigilante border patrol groups are illegal and are a sign of the failure of current policy.

Her big issues: economy, national security, health care, and immigration. She's going to really be pushing against KBH on the first two, attacking Kay as weak in those areas because of the Bush policies she's supported.

She doesn't get or want DLC support, and when asked if she's "Republican-Lite", she made a joke about being a soccer mom and wearing pink dresses, but said that she's an authentic Democrat but also a moderate, and didn't want labels of "Feminist", "Progressive", or "Populist" attached to her because of their political stigma with many voters.

Iraq: we need to provide a timetable to remove our troops safely. She's anti-draft; it would be more equitable, but it would cause far too many problems.

Electoral reform: we need paper trails. Her husband keeps her up to date on what's happening here.

Posted by Ben at 2:19 PM in Who Are The Democrats? | Permalink | Comments (2)