Long ago, in the 1950’s, the Republics decided to do everything they could to wind the election. They won with Ike and thus began the dismantling of the world that FDR has created. In some old papers, my Mom found this poem which must have been given out by the Democrats at the time. For some reason, it seems to have some significance today.
IF THIS SHOULD HAPPEN
———————
The Republicans’ seed has sprouted and grew
In the simple minds of quite a few,
And a few men have gone plain sour,
And made up their mind to vote for Eisenhower.
They’ve promised a lot and they’ll promise more.
Let’s look and see what they did before.
Twenty years have passed, and yet
Those Hoover days I’ll never forget.
When Hoover was in, I lived on a farm,
A dollar bill looked as long as my arm.
I never saw a ten dollar bill, and
If Ike is elected I doubt I will.
When Hoover was in, things were really tight,
The rabbits were scarce and the fish wouldn’t bite.
The men were too ragged to go anywhere,
And the women wore flour-sack underwear.
Remember, men, when you cast your vote,
If you vote for Ike you’ll cut your throat.
Would you rather have a life of ease,
Or watery gravy and black-eyed peas?
Ever since nineteen hundred and thirty-two
The Republican party has been in a stew.
They’ve called the Democrats nasty names.
But the banks stayed open just the same.
If Ike is elected I’ll move to the farm.
I’ll plant some ‘taters behind the barn,
I’ll steel my neighbors’ roasting ears,
And try to get by for four more years.
President Bush plans to play the part of the hero by visiting California, now ravaged by fire. But on this issue he’s the villain — it’s two years after Hurricane Katrina and the only progress he’s made is actually acknowledging that global warming exists. If we’re going to avoid tragedies like this in the future, we must take the long-term view. On this point, the science is clear: global warming has already led to increased wildfire activity in the U.S., and if we don’t dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, the problem is going to get much worse.
More than ever, we need a president committed to making real and deep change in how we treat the planet.
“After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.”
Come around after the fold with me for Part II of my interview with Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action.
This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action, via email about the FoE Action endorsement of John Edwards.
FOE Action provides political muscle on legislative battles in the U.S. for its sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world. On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:
“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.
FoE Action well understands that you cannot sit down at the table with the corporate polluters and their lobbyists, and then expect them to treat the planet right. As John Edwards has said, if you sit down at the table with them, they’ll eat your lunch. You’ve got to beat them:
Q: You have been President of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action since 1994. In that time, you have witnessed the buying of the American government by corporate power and their lobbyists. How important is John Edwards’ willingness to take on these entrenched interests to you in making your endorsement?
A: This played a big part in our decision. John Edwards has taken a stand against the lobbyists and special interests that have so driven environmental policies in the Bush Administration. Only when candidates refuse to take money from the lobbyists for big oil and big coal can they pursue the kind of environmental polices that protect health and safety of our families. Of all the leading candidates running, we believe John Edwards has the greatest potential to stand up to corporate special interests in the White House.
We also talked about John Edwards’ plan to address global warming:
Q: At present, part of the costs of global warming are externalized on all of us. Does Edwards favor measures to auction polluter permits to, at least in part, ensure that part of the cost of global warming goes back to where it belongs – on the actual product?
A: Yes, polluter permits are an important component of Edwards’ plan. He would require polluters to pay for their global warming pollution, a portion of which will raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs.
Q: What is Edwards’ position on the annual taxpayer funded subsidies that currently exist for oil companies?
A: Edwards calls for eliminating $3 billion in annual government subsidies to oil companies. He even says he is “very open to the possibility of an excess profits tax” on oil companies. We feel this is a crucial first step in getting our country back on the right track with its energy policy.
I don’t know about you, but I agree with Brent Blackwelder and John Edwards about building new nuclear power plants: don’t do it! This is a clear distinction between John Edwards and the other two major candidates, Clinton and Obama.
Q. Senators Clinton and Obama have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs. Does FOE Action oppose the use of taxpayer money to subsidize the nuclear power industry? What is your position on this bill?
A. Friends of the Earth wholeheartedly opposes the construction and development of nuclear power in the United States. Edwards is on the same page, here. He believes nuclear power is too costly, too dangerous, and too vulnerable to attack by our nation’s enemies. New Hampshire, where FOE Action announced its endorsement of Edwards, has the unfortunate distinction of being home to the last-constructed nuclear power plant in the country, Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The plant places great environmental and health risks on the areas around it, and if constructing a nuclear power was a bad idea 30 years ago, it’s an even worse idea now, particularly given the new realities we face in terms of national security. Nuclear power simply isn’t worth it’s risks, when accidents can have environmental implications that last for generations. And John Edwards is the only candidate to unambiguously say no to nuclear power.
And what about Coal to Liquid? I’m with Edwards and FoE Action on this.
Q: What is your position on Coal to Liquid technology? One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology. Edwards opposes CtL. What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean for our environment?
A: Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid technology.
That’s right: “Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet.”
We need a green president now, if we are to survive:
Q: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President that actually enforced the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental laws?
A: After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.
A final word from FoE Action President, Brent Blackwelder regarding what they and we can do to help elect a green president:
We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards. We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency.
In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal.
Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: FoE Action (www.foeaction.org)
Help FoE Action to elect our first green president: John Edwards.
Friends of the Earth Action endorse John Edwards’ candidacy for President on October 14, 2007, in New Hampshire:
(Graves is going to have to decide – again – between loyalty to Dear Leader and health care for millions of children. – promoted by Clark)
Speaker Pelosi’s House passed a slightly trimmed SCHIP legislation, but is still seven votes shy of the two-thirds majority necessary to overcome a threatened second veto by the Decider. By tightening up the prose on the bill, Pelosi hoped to attract the approximately fifteen or so Republican votes that she needs to do the deal.
Unchanged is the $35 billion increase over five years to the program with the intent of enrolling an additional four million children. That new enrollment would bring the program total to 10 million participants. Also unchanged is the proposal to pay for the SCHIP increase with a 61-cent increase on a package of cigarettes. Bush opposes both of these proposals.
Revisions will include capping eligibility at 300 percent of poverty level. Coverage for low income adults that some states cover would be phased out in one year and the bill will specifically bar the use of federal money to cover illegal immigrants. Since these issues were specifics cited by Republicans voting to sustain the Decider’s veto on the previous bill, this time those naysayers will be left with very little cover for 08. The only remaining reasons for not voting for the bill, based on previous Republican argument, will be the increase in eligibility and funding and the increased tax on cigarettes.
From Pelosi:
it honors the spirit of 10 million children, $35 billion dollars all paid for, no new deficit spending, pay as you go. And again this is a clarification of the legislation that we put forth to insure these children. We are responding to some of the concerns expressed by some of our colleagues and some clarification that we thought improved the bill.
The measure is now headed for the Senate where it is expected to be approved with little change.
So it is back to the phones guys. Give your Republican reps one more chance. If memory serves me, this slightly revised bill cuts the foundation out from under the excuses of one Sam Graves. Republicans in the House were steamed and crying foul. Apparently seven Reps who voted against the previous bill were absent due to the fires in California. Looks like a few giant steps have been taken since the days of Tom DeLay
The Raw Story
…Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama is again facing questions about his patriotism from some conservative blogs — this time for apparently failing to put his hand over his heart during a rendition of the national anthem at an Iowa campaign event….
In 1943, at a time when we were at war, the United States Supreme Court had a thing or two to say about “required” displays of patriotism.
…The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court’s Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become ‘a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools,’ that all teachers and pupils ‘shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly.’ 2 [319 U.S. 624, 627] The resolution originally required the ‘commonly accepted salute to the Flag’ which it defined. Objections to the salute as ‘being too much like Hitler’s’ were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl [319 U.S. 624, 628] Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women’s Clubs. 3 Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah’s Witnesses. 4 What is now required is the ‘stiff-arm’ salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of [319 U.S. 624, 629] America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’…
The approved gesture was alarmingly similar to fascist salutes. In 1943. Note the “approved” text of the pledge.
…Symbols of State often convey political ideas just as religious symbols come to convey theological ones. Associated with many of these symbols are appropriate gestures of acceptance or respect: a salute, a bowed or bared head, a bended knee. A person gets from a [319 U.S. 624, 633] symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn….
…Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. 14 If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….
….National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
Justice Jackson reminds us of what the Constitution means, even in a time of war:
…If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….
“…If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….” In a time of war, no less. In 1943.
“…no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion…” Powerful words. To believe otherwise would be, well….un-American.
Democratic County Councilwoman, Hazel Erby, is African-American and therefore, not surprisingly, opposed to discrimination–except when she is practicing it herself.
Post-Dispatch reporter, Clay Barbour, broke the story almost two weeks ago about the attempt by the County Council to add gay and transgendered people to the list of those protected by county statute from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation. The measure had been expected to pass along party lines, but at the last moment, Councilwoman Erby balked and voted no, creating a three-three tie.
Charlie Dooley sympathized with the gay community on this one, but was not sure how he could help since he was not involved in the voting. He recommended that the measure’s backers, who are quietly trying to revive it, continue to lobby the council members.
Councilwoman Erby–my own council member–said, after the vote:
“I’m totally against discrimination of any kind, but I don’t compare being bisexual or transgender with being African-American,” she said. “I don’t think it’s right that you can hire a man one day and the next day he shows up as a woman.”
This quote is bound for the St. Louis American’s year-end wrap-up as one of the most ignorant and insensitive things said by a local elected official, right up there with Alderman Stephen Gregali’s infamous notion that racial politics in St. Louis is nothing more than crybaby black people whining when they don’t get their way.
21st Century to Erby: You look exactly like the rednecks who turned power hoses and attack dogs on civil rights marchers. Gay, bisexual and transgendered people (of any color) are fully as human as African Americans, and fully as deserving of equal protection under the law.
Actually, since Erby was torn about the vote, she doesn’t seem like the kind of person who would turn a power hose on anyone. She’s just part of a generation more likely to judge gays harshly. Possibly, she’s capable of deciding to show more compassion.
Perhaps I’ll find out. I’ve left a message at her office asking her to call me.
Apparently your mother was wrong and crime does pay.
The company that used counterfeit, sub-standard building materials, assembled by abducted third-world workers who are essentially slave labor, has benefited further.
Late last month, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Co. was part of a team that won a $122 million State Department contract to build a U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, according to contract documents.
That’s one of at least three State Department jobs, in addition to the Baghdad project, that First Kuwaiti won in association with a U.S. firm, Grunley Walsh LLC of Rockville, Md.
Since 2006, by operating as a subcontractor to Grunley Walsh, First Kuwaiti has won contracts for work on a new U.S. Embassy in Libreville, Gabon; on a consulate in Surabaya, Indonesia; and on the Jeddah project.
Such partnerships are increasingly common as foreign companies try to win shares of embassy construction contracts that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year under the State Department’s aggressive building program. Under a 1986 law, only U.S. firms can bid on embassy construction.
But industry analysts said that First Kuwaiti appears to be the financial muscle behind the partnership with Grunley Walsh. Lebanese businessman Wadih al Absi founded the company in 1996. News reports and Middle East experts say that Absi is a supporter of Lebanese Christian politician Michel Aoun, an ally of Syria and the Iranian-backed Islamic militant group Hezbollah. [emphasis added]
Henry Waxman is already investigating the Inspector General for State, who has facilitated malfeasance at the highest level. Maybe he needs to be looking into the OBO division of State, too.
Earlier this week, I received an e-mail from People for the American Way urging me to call Senator McCaskill because she was on the fence about whether or not to confirm judge Leslie Southwick, a painfully backward, rightward nominee for the federal bench. Ralph Neas commented: “Southwick appears ready and willing to turn back the clock on fifty years of social justice progress in our nation.”
When I called, the aide who took my message told me that he though Claire would vote against the nomination–as, in fact, she did.
Perhaps she was never on the fence. Perhaps she just didn’t make her opinion known promptly. But plenty of Democrats were on the wrong side of this vote and Southwick was confirmed. Unfortunately.
Thank you, Senator McCaskill, for voting as a Democrat ought to have done.
In the November issue of The Atlantic, the editors asked scholars, politicians, novelists, artists, and others to look ahead to the future of the American idea. Joyce Carol Oates got right down to business:
How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American idea! Speak with any non-American, travel to any foreign country, and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose body-builder bulked up on steroids, consequently low on natural testosterone, deranged and myopic, dangerous.
As for our freedoms, Oates quotes D. H. Lawrence:
Freedom … ? The land of the free! This the land of the free! Why, if I say anything that displeases them, the free mob will lynch me, and that’s my freedom. Free? Why, I have never been in any country where the individual has such an abject fear of his fellow countrymen. Because, as I say, they are free to lynch him the moment he shows he is not one of them.
(If not “lynch” precisely, how about “crucify in the media”? The ravenous tabloid press and ever-more-ominously “mainstream” media have become the lynch mob of contemporary times, pummeling those guilty of the most innocuous blunders with the ferocity with which they pummel outright criminals.)
What is most questionable–indeed most dangerous–about the American idea is its very formulation: that there is a distinctly American idea, standing in contrast to Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Icelandic, Estonian, or mere human ideas. Our unexamined belief in American exceptionalism has allowed us to imagine ourselves above anything so constrictive as international law. American exceptionalism makes our imperialism altruistic, our plundering of the world’s resources a healthy exercise of capitalism and “free trade.” From Childhood, we are indoctrinated with the propaganda that America is superior to other nations; that our way of life, a mass-market “democracy” manipulated by lobbyists, is superior to all other forms of government; that no matter how frivolous and debased, our American culture is the supreme culture as our language is the supreme language; that our most blatantly imperialistic and cynical political goals are always idealistic, while the goals of other nations are transparently opportunistic.
One woman’s truth is another man’s treason, and many in the indoctrinated, frivolous lynch mob Oates described would dismiss her truth as mere America-bashing. Of course it’s America-bashing. America needs to be swatted upside the head. As Mark Twain observed: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
Last week, Friends of the Earth Action (“FOE Action”) endorsed John Edwards.
This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action, about the endorsement of John Edwards. Part I of the interview is in this diary.
Here’s a little about FOE Action for those unfamiliar with it:
Founded by David Brower in 1967, Friends of the Earth Action has established a 35-year record of not only fighting the tough battles, but winning them too. FoE Action provides extra political muscle on legislative battles here in the U.S. for to our sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world.
snip
FoE Action looks beyond the symptoms of environmental degredation, to the systemic causes.
Come around after the fold to hear a real hero of the struggle to save our planet.
Mr. Blackwelder is a long-time advocate for the planet and the people on it. He has worked in Washington DC for over 30 years fighting for clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet. He has testified before Congress on environmental issues more than 100 times.
Mr. Blackwelder was founder and first chairman of the board of American Rivers, our nation’s leading river-saving organization. He also founded the Environmental Policy Institute, which merged with Friends of the Earth in 1989. In 1994 he became president of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action.
On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:
WASHINGTON, DC — Friends of the Earth Action (FOE Action), one of the longest-standing, national environmental organizations in the country, today announced its endorsement of Senator John Edwards for President, citing his leadership on real solutions to combat global warming and his unequivocal position against dangerous and expensive nuclear power.
“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.
Mr. Blackwelder answered 10 questions that I sent him via email. Here is Part I of the Interview. I will publish the remaining questions and answers in Part II tomorrow.
Q: What most differentiates John Edwards from the other Democratic presidential candidates with respect to environmental issues?
A: Of the leading Democratic candidates for president, John Edwards is most committed, and best prepared, to halt global warming and promote a healthy, livable planet for our families and our future. Friends of the Earth Action feels John Edwards has set the paces among all of the Democratic candidates by putting forth a plan that provides real action to combat global warming.
We encourage people to visit our web site, www.foeaction.org . to learn more about why we endorsed Edwards and facts about his environmental record.
Q: John Edwards has proposed a global warming plan that will reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. What in this plan do you feel will be most effective in achieving this reduction?
A: John Edwards plans to share America’s clean energy technology with other nations in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments. If necessary, he will insist that strong labor and environmental standards in our trade deals include commitments on climate change. This new deal will require global participation, promote shared responsibility, and let American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field. In addition, Edwards’ plan will lead America to a new energy economy by investing in clean, renewable energy and creating a million new jobs.
Q: Polluters often attempt to present a false choice between environmental degradation and jobs. In fact, clean, green technologies can mean more jobs for Americans, and good paying jobs. Edwards proposes creating at least 1 million “green collar jobs” by investing in clean energy and energy efficient technologies. Can you explain the relationship of economic growth, including good paying jobs, and using clean, green technologies?
A: Edwards really gets it: green does not have to mean fewer jobs. If our nation makes serious and smart investments in clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar and geothermal, we can create good-paying jobs, expand markets for the renewable energy industry and secure our country’s energy future.
Renewables are secure and viable alternatives to dirty, fossil fuels and costly and dangerous nuclear power. They can be scaled up relatively quickly, which means jobs and economic growth for states and local communities in the U.S., particularly in rural areas that have been hardest hit by economic downturns but have the space for these technologies to be constructed and brought online.
Q: What can FoE Action do to help John Edwards be nominated and then elected? I understand you plan to set up an independent campaign on Edwards’ behalf in New Hampshire. How will that work? How can people inside and outside New Hampshire help you ?
A: We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards. We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency.
In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal.
Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: www.foeaction.org.
I’d like to thank Brent Blackwelder for granting me this interview and Jenna Moran for facilitating it. I will publish Part II of the interview tomorrow.
I also want to thank Mr. Blackwelder for his years of service to people and our planet in fighting corporate polluters and a corrupt government.
And like he says: Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in the campaign to elect John Edwards as president: www.foeaction.org.
Last night, Representative (and AG candidate) Jeff Harris invited a number of Missouri bloggers to participate on a conference call. He started off with a quick overview of his background, why he’s running, and some of the recent developments in his campaign. He then took questions from us bloggers for approximately an hour, talking about everything from CAFOs to the battle of the endorsements to Internet fundraising to when he’ll next visit Branson. Harris handled the call well, especially considering that he’s talking to several strangers in the middle of a campaign with a newborn who hasn’t yet slept a full night. (And as he admitted on the call, he hasn’t slept a full night either. Not to diminish his obvious pride at being a new dad.)
That here in Missouri, a candidate on the state level would spend an hour talking to a bunch of state bloggers almost a year before the primary election is novel indeed. Still, it doesn’t shock me that Harris made that effort. After all, he’s already embraced, and to some degree supported, the state blogosphere in a way that I haven’t seen from any other candidate in Missouri. Not only does he regularly participate in our Q & A Series, he blasted an e-mail to his list to check out the candidate responses. He’s also bought ads like the one on the left on blogs all around the state and e-mailed a corresponding video to his supporters. He’s had a fundraising ask, the Four Corners, to transparently show support from every region in Missouri.
I don’t mean to knock other campaigns or elected officials – for the most part, they’ve been very responsive (including Harris’ rivals) – but they haven’t been aggressive like Harris has. Now, does this mean that Harris will become the Missouri netroots’ candidate of 2008? Or even if he does, will it help him win? We’ll see in the next 9 months…
Oh, and speaking of Harris’ rivals, since Chris Koster apparently will soon announce his candidacy for the Attorney General’s office, we hope to have a full field on the Democratic side in next week’s installment of our Q & A series.
Photo of Jeff Harris and Young Democrats courtesy of the Harris campaign
Democratic County Councilwoman, Hazel Erby, is African-American and therefore, not surprisingly, opposed to discrimination–except when she is practicing it herself.
Last night, Representative (and AG candidate) Jeff Harris invited a number of Missouri bloggers to participate on a conference call. He started off with a quick overview of his background, why he’s running, and some of the recent developments in his campaign. He then took questions from us bloggers for approximately an hour, talking about everything from CAFOs to the battle of the endorsements to Internet fundraising to when he’ll next visit Branson. Harris handled the call well, especially considering that he’s talking to several strangers in the middle of a campaign with a newborn who hasn’t yet slept a full night. (And as he admitted on the call, he hasn’t slept a full night either. Not to diminish his obvious pride at being a new dad.)