Just a Theory

Black lives matter

Posts about Politics

Biden on the Green New Deal

This exchange from first presidential debate a few days ago really struck me (from the Rev transcript):

President Donald J. Trump: (57:56)
So why didn’t you get the world… China sends up real dirt into the air. Russia does. India does. They all do. We’re supposed to be good. And by the way, he made a couple of statements. The Green New Deal is a hundred trillion dollars.
Vice President Joe Biden: (58:08)
That is not my plan [crosstalk]. The Green New Deal [crosstalk] is not my plan. [crosstalk]—

A hundred trillion dollars? As David Roberts of Vox points out, “US GDP is $21.44 trillion.” But I digress.

A bewildering back and forth followed (something about insulting the military), before moderator Chris Wallace managed to right the ship:

Chris Wallace: (58:53)
The Green New Deal and the idea of what your environmental changes will do—
Vice President Joe Biden: (58:57)
The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. We’re not going to build plants that, in fact, are great polluting plants—

This impressed the hell out of me. Shortly after saying the GND isn’t his plan, Biden starts to get into its policy details to defend it? Wow. I mean, he may not agree with it all, but to respond with, “okay, so you wanna talk about the Green New Deal? I’ve got all the details, let’s go!” Props to level of policy engagement.

But listening again jut now, I realize that I missed the next bit:

Chris Wallace: (59:05)
So, do you support the Green New Deal?
Vice President Joe Biden: (59:07)
Pardon me?
Chris Wallace: (59:08)
Do you support the—
Vice President Joe Biden: (59:08)
No, I don’t support the Green New Deal.
President Donald J. Trump: (59:10)
Oh, you don’t? Oh, well, that’s a big statement.
Vice President Joe Biden: (59:12)
I support [crosstalk]—
President Donald J. Trump: (59:13)
You just lost the radical left.
Vice President Joe Biden: (59:15)
I support [crosstalk] the Biden plan that I put forward.
Chris Wallace: (59:19)
Vice President Joe Biden: (59:19)
The Biden plan, which is different than what he calls the radical Green New Deal.

He explicitly says that the GND not his plan and he doesn’t support it. When he said, “The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward,” did he mean to say “The Biden Plan”? Digging a little deeper, I don’t think so. From the actual Biden Plan:

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.

So there it is. The GND may not be his plan, but it deeply informs his plan, and I’ve little doubt he could expound on it. GND champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez eliminates any doubt in this clap-back to a snarky tweet by Kellyanne Conway:

This isn’t news, Kellyanne.

Our differences are exactly why I joined Biden’s Climate Unity Task Force - so we could set aside our differences & figure out an aggressive climate plan to address the planetary crisis at our feet.

Trump doesn’t even believe climate change is real.

Fantastic! Let’s do this thing.

The Kushner Kakistocracy

Katherine Eban, in a deeply reported piece, for Vanity Faire:

Those representing the private sector expected to learn about a sweeping government plan to procure supplies and direct them to the places they were needed most. New York, home to more than a third of the nation’s coronavirus cases, seemed like an obvious candidate. In turn they came armed with specific commitments of support, a memo on the merits of the Defense Production Act, a document outlining impediments to the private-sector response, and two key questions: How could they best help? And how could they best support the government’s strategy?

According to one attendee, Kushner then began to rail against the governor: “Cuomo didn’t pound the phones hard enough to get PPE for his state…. His people are going to suffer and that’s their problem.”

But wait, it gets worse:

Kushner, seated at the head of the conference table, in a chair taller than all the others, was quick to strike a confrontational tone. “The federal government is not going to lead this response,” he announced. “It’s up to the states to figure out what they want to do.”

One attendee explained to Kushner that due to the finite supply of PPE, Americans were bidding against each other and driving prices up. To solve that, businesses eager to help were looking to the federal government for leadership and direction.

“Free markets will solve this,” Kushner said dismissively. “That is not the role of government.”

Seldom have falser words been spoken. These incompetents conflate their failure to lead with their belief that the government cannot lead. The prophecy fulfills itself.

The same attendee explained that although he believed in open markets, he feared that the system was breaking. As evidence, he pointed to a CNN report about New York governor Andrew Cuomo and his desperate call for supplies.

“That’s the CNN bullshit,” Kushner snapped. “They lie.”

“That’s when I was like, We’re screwed,” the shocked attendee told Vanity Fair.

And indeed we sure have been. Nearly 200,000 have died from Covid-19 in the United States to date, with close to 400,000 deaths forecast by January 1.

I’m restraining myself from quoting more; the reporting is impeccable, and the truth of the situation deeply alarming. Read the whole thing, then maybe go for a long walk and practice deep breathing.

And then Vote. And make sure everyone you know is registered and ready to vote.


Dan Pfeiffer’s has a plan to win the impeachment fight:

Third, an impeachment inquiry should be plotted out more like a TV show than a trial. The star witnesses and high-profile hearings should be spaced out and timed for maximum impact. They should tell a story about Trump’s misdeeds. There should be no rush to get this over with quickly or to meet some artificial timeline. The audience for this show is not the Senate. It’s not Twitter and it’s not the panel on Morning Joe. The audience is the American people — specifically the new and sporadic Democratic voters who came out in 2018, or the independents and Republicans who say they’re most concerned about Trump’s conduct. Our job is to persuade them, not the DC pundit class.

Smart strategy to “prosecute a devastating case against Trump that increases the likelihood that Democrats win the White House, expand our House Majority, and take the Senate.” Each day brings us closer to impeachment proceedings, regardless of what Democratic leadership might want. The over-the-top malfeasance and criminality of this president and his White House leads inexorably to impeachment proceedings. It’s past time for the Democrats to accept that fact and make a plan to maximize its effectiveness.

Criminals, Not Spies

Masha Gessen, in a piece for The New Yorker:

We cringed at the characterization of the Russian online influence campaign as “sophisticated” and “vast”: Russian reporting on the matter—the best available — convincingly portrayed the troll operation as small-time and ridiculous. It was, it seems, fraudulent in every way imaginable: it perpetrated fraud on American social networks, creating fake accounts and events and spreading falsehoods, but it was also fraudulent in its relationship to whoever was funding it, because surely crudely designed pictures depicting Hillary Clinton as Satan could not deliver anyone’s money’s worth.

I think this is exactly right. So much of the coverage depicts the Russian hacking as “vast” and “sophisticated”. As a technologist working in information security, I find this framing irresponsible and naïve at best — complicit at worst. (Sadly, even the former director of the CIA uses this framing.) The techniques are those used for fraud, extortion, blackmail, and the like. They effectively advance a criminal conspiracy because they’re simple; they exploit human vulnerabilities. A far cry from clandestine government surveillance or espionage, the point is disinformation for the benefit of a very few. Painting it as “massive” or “advanced” only increases its effectiveness.

That’s just one aspect of the problematic coverage. Gessen also brings a sociological perspective to bear: The Russian government and its cohort more closely approximates a “Mafia state” than a dictatorship. A press that understands the difference will cover these people not as heads of state, but as criminals who happen to control states. I hope some, at least, take it to heart.

(Via Lauren Bacon)

Democracy Over Civility

Michelle Goldberg in a bracing piece for The New York Times:

Millions and millions of Americans watch helplessly as the president cages children, dehumanizes immigrants, spurns other democracies, guts health care protections, uses his office to enrich himself and turns public life into a deranged phantasmagoria with his incontinent flood of lies. The civility police might point out that many conservatives hated Obama just as much, but that only demonstrates the limits of content-neutral analysis. The right’s revulsion against a black president targeted by birther conspiracy theories is not the same as the left’s revulsion against a racist president who spread birther conspiracy theories.

The demand for civility in the face of deplorable lies and inhumane policies enables those lies and policies. Angry voices on the left will return to civility once violent rhetoric has ceased and civil rights have been restored.

(Via @jonfavs)

Only One Scandal

Adam Serwer, for The Atlantic:

There are not many Trump scandals. There is one Trump scandal. Singular: the corruption of the American government by the president and his associates, who are using their official power for personal and financial gain rather than for the welfare of the American people, and their attempts to shield that corruption from political consequences, public scrutiny, or legal accountability.

It’s really as simple as that. Opponents to the administration could do no better than to make this statement, and only this statement, about Trump, repeatedly, ad nauseam.

enblogment: For Obama

Following up on my enblogment of Kerry four years ago, and with a tip of the hat to Lawrence Lessig, I am thrilled to endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I voted last night (gotta love Oregon vote by mail!).

The single best thing you can read for reasons why I endorse Obama is The New Yorker’s endorsement. But in case you’re not an elitist liberal like me, perhaps the endorsement of one of these other fine sources might help to sway you:

Personally, I believe that Barack Obama has the steady hand and unflappable personality to be able with withstand the worst that the next four years will throw at him. And, should he win, there will be a lot of shit to deal with, from accusations of stealing the election to confrontations with belligerent foreign heads of state. In the debates he was cool and composed, completely unfazed by McCain’s bellicosity, and that composure will serve him extremely well as President, both in his role in the bully pulpit and in dealing with attacks from within and without. I don’t agree with him on every detail of his policies, and I expect to, in some ways, be disappointed. But I’ll take disagreement and disappointment over the sheer abhorrence of the last eight years any time.

As for McCain, well, I was never a supporter, never even interested in him as a candidate. He was kind of interesting to people I respected in 2000, but that’s about the best I can say about him. What I find bizarre is the two reactions to the McCain campaign that seem to be coming from McCain apologists in the punditry and the press. On the one hand, there are those who think that McCain is in some kind of bubble, unaware of how nasty his own campaign has become. On the other hand, there are those who think that McCain knows exactly what he’s doing with the direction of the campaign. All I can say is, regardless of which of these is true (or some combination therein), is this really the sort of person you want to lead the United States of America? Someone who is either so out of touch that he has no idea what his staff is up to, or who is so obsessed with his immediate goals that he’s willing to drag his entire operation to the most debased of levels? Neither represents leadership qualities. All I can say is, “No thanks.”

Barack Obama for President. He’s the right man for the job at the right time.

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

Should We Withdraw From Iraq?

Over the weekend, I finally got ’round to reading a New Yorker article that I’d had my eye on for a while. I’d seen it when the magazine arrived a few weeks ago, but then couldn’t find it, and got distracted by articles in other issues in the meantime, till I finally located it and sat down and read it.

I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone who knows me that I think that the Iraq debacle has been just that. It’s an unmitigated disaster. The lengths to which the current administration has gone to deny the truth, even to itself, have been stunning. This article covered the administration’s resistance to the term “insurgency:”

“They didn’t even want to say the ‘i’ word,” one officer in Iraq told me. “It was the spectre of Vietnam. They did not want to say the ‘insurgency’ word, because the next word you say is ‘quagmire.’ The next thing you say is ‘the only war America has lost.’ And the next thing you conclude is that certain people’s vision of war is wrong.”

One might quibble about this, and disagree, and argue that it is not, in fact, an insurgency that has been challenging our troops in Iraq (never mind the brewing civil war!), but the truth is that those officers in the fields who have embraced the term have been able to catalyze real improvements in Iraq. Why? Because once you accept that you’re dealing with an insurgency, it obviously makes sense to use principles of counterinsurgency in order to affect change.

Such is in fact the lesson of Tal Afar, a city in the northwestern desert of Iraq, “a place that was being called the next Falluja” when command of the city was taken over by Colonel H. R. McMaster, author of Dereliction of Duty. McMaster led the counterinsurgency effort Iraq by setting an example at Tal Afar. In the last year he has achieved some success at it–and I say “some success” because the nature of counterinsurgency effort is to be very gradual. It comes from slowly building up trust with the people with whom you work, including those tied to the insurgents:

The classic doctrine, which was developed by the British in Malaya in the nineteen-forties and fifties, says that counterinsurgency warfare is twenty per cent military and eighty per cent political. The focus of operations is on the civilian population: isolating residents from insurgents, providing security, building a police force, and allowing political and economic development to take place so that the government commands the allegiance of its citizens. A counterinsurgency strategy involves both offensive and defensive operations, but there is an emphasis on using the minimum amount of force necessary.

Thanks to McMaster’s leadership, there is now a tenuous peace in Tal Afar, and things are developing, but it crucially relies on the presence of American military personnel to maintain order. Because without order, peace and justice are luxuries. So what does the military plan to do next at Tal Afar? McMaster and his units will be sent home, their tour of duty complete, and US responsibility in Tal Afar turned over to new troops who have no experience there. This is bound to be detrimental to the effort, as the counterinsurgency doctrine requires deep familiarity with disputing parties, and vice versa. Without trust, the whole thing falls apart, and trust takes a great deal of time and effort to develop.

All of this is a long way to getting to my point. Unlike most liberals, I think, I am quite certain that we should not be pushing so hard to get our troops out of Iraq now. The fact that the Administration–particularly Rumsfeld–is pushing so hard in that direction should give us pause.

I was deeply opposed to the war from the outset, and dubious as to our prospects for the occupation (especially given President Bush’s outspoken opposition to nation building). I seriously expected this administration to fuck it up, and hoped that I was mistaken. I wish I had been wrong. But now that we’ve gone in there and made a horrible mess of things, we have a responsibility to make things right–or as right as we can. And only in the last six months have some folks with good heads on their shoulders started to make a difference there. When we invaded, we took on a huge responsibility, and abruptly leaving the country to disintegrate into civil war just as we’re starting to make serious progress is abandoning that responsibility, not to mention the people we set about to “make free.”

And need I point out that it’s in our best interests to make good on our promises in Iraq? If we leave, the country will dissolve into civil war. And if the lessons of Afghanistan tell us anything, it is that a country at civil war breeds terrorism. Iraq would be worse, because we’re more directly to blame for the situation there. We made the country unstable, angered a lot of people, and now we’re talking about getting out?

I think that that we need to enlist the help of our allies (those we have left), increase the allied presence in Iraq, train the people there in the principles of counterinsurgency, and make things right. Any other choice, as far as I can see, would be disaster.

I’m not the only one. I leave you with this last tidbit from the article (though you really should read the whole thing for yourself):

Kenneth Pollack, who served on the National Security Council under President Clinton—and whose book “The Threatening Storm” made an influential case for the war in 2002—recently led a small group at the Brookings Institution in writing a detailed report on a new strategy for Iraq. It calls for the Administration to shift the focus from the pursuit of insurgents in the Sunni heartland and, instead, to concentrate overstretched American and Iraqi forces in cities where the reconstruction effort is still somewhat popular—providing security while allowing economic development to flourish. This strategy, known in counterinsurgency doctrine as the “ink spot” approach (because zones of security gradually spread out from population centers), has also been proposed by the military expert Andrew Krepinevich. It was put into practice in Tal Afar. Pollack’s proposal demands that, in spite of intense political pressures at home, there be no troop withdrawals anytime soon, since the total number of American and Iraqi forces is now only half of what experts say is required to secure the country. It also counts on a level of international help that the Bush Administration has never shown the ability, or the desire, to muster. In a sense, the report asks the country to offer the same commitment and imagination, to take the same risks and make the same sacrifices, as the soldiers in Tal Afar.

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

Hurricane Relief? Try Big Oil Relief

It is absolutely astonishing how readily our congress uses the Katrina catastrophe to further anti-environmental and pro-corporate energy ends.

Tell them no.

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

Reframing the Debate

In light of the election results, I’ve been reflecting on what needs to happen next. I started by thinking about how I’d like to reclaim the word “liberal” for use by the left in general, and Democrats in particular. Hendrik Hertzberg said something interesting about this on “Fresh Air” back in July:

Terry Gross: How do you think the word “liberal” has changed in meaning?

Hertzberg: It has been diabolized by the right, unfortunately. It’s a wonderful, perfectly good word. It’s rooted in “liberty.” It has changed so much that if you go back to 1952, when Richard Nixon gave his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, when he was nominated for Vice President, the whole beginning of his speech was an argument that the Republicans–that he, Nixon, and Eisenhower, the Republicans–were the real liberals. In those days, “liberal” was a word that everybody wanted to have attached to him, and even Robert Taft would pay homage to that word. I think it was a mistake for liberals to let go of that word. I think it’s a much better word than, say, the word “progressive”, because liberty is a better value than progress in my book.

Remembering this discussion, I started thinking about how we might reclaim the word, and this led me to ponder on how the right, starting with Reagan, turned it into a bad word. How did they do it? Well, they changed it from an adjective (“the liberal candidate”) to a noun (“he’s a liberal”). They managed this by applying adjectives to the adjective (but not in the adverbial sense), so we got “card-carrying liberal”, “tax and spend liberal,” and so on. Perhaps, I thought, we just need to apply different adjectives to it in our day-to-day usage, such as “freedom-loving liberal.”

But that’s not too strong, is it? Perhaps we could instead borrow the right’s idea of recasting a common word with a negative connotation. Maybe we could start applying adjectives to other adjectives, such as “conservative.”

I started pondering on what it means to be conservative. It used to be that conservatives had a core set of values that were primarily focused on reducing the size of government. To do so, they wanted to lower taxes in order force lower spending on programs. But it was also important to them to keep the budget balanced. Tax cuts had to come hand-in-hand with reduced spending, because otherwise budget shortfalls would just pass debt on to our children, who would then have to pay more taxes. And in the meantime, the size of government would not actually be reduced.

This changed, as near as I can tell, during the Reagan administration. Here was a conservative president who, for the first time, cut taxes but increased spending. Spending on defense and weapons research shot way up in order to beat the Soviet Union in the so-called “arms race.” Whether or not the arms race was a justifiable policy in our attempt to “win” the “cold war,” when it was accompanied by tax cuts, it gave rise to a new type of conservative, the slash and burn conservative.

And George W. Bush is the biggest slash and burn conservative of them all. Even as he slashed taxes on the richest 1% of the population, he burned through the $237 billion budget surplus (projected by the Congressional Budget Office to accumulate to $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011) in near record time, and added to it the current $477 billion budget deficit (expected to accumulate to $5.2 trillion over the next ten years). Ten trillion dollar is a lot, but a slash and burn conservative always believes that there’s money to burn.

Where did this budget shortfall come from? After all, tax breaks alone won’t lead to a deficit when you have the kind of surplus we were expecting in 2000. How has President Bush burned through so much cash in such a short time? Well, it seems that he’s a slash and spend conservative. He found new programs to spend the (nonexistent) money on, such as an incredibly expensive war in Iraq. Indeed, if Bush is the first “CEO President,” as he likes to style himself, then he must be of the Ken Lay Ilk: he’s the Enron president!

I mentioned some of these ideas to Nat yesterday, and before I could get them out, fully formed, he pointed me to a new book from George Lakoff entitled, Don’t think of an Elephant. Salon has a good article describing the book, and it does seem that Lakoff (whose work, I was amused to realize, I read in college when I was getting my MA in Anthropology) is arguing the same thing as I, only with robust tie-in to how people think and process information.

It’s all about reframing the debate, to borrow Lakoff’s terminology. The right has been so good at making a self-contained argument into a single catch-phrase–such as “Clear Skies,” “Healthy Trees,” “partial-birth abortion,” and “death tax”–that makes it easy for people to digest, so that they feel that they understand an issue just from the turn of phrase. We in the left need to follow suit, to find the self contained arguments in the clever turn of phrase. I’m going to do some more thinking on this, to find other ways to reframe the debate.

For too long, the right has defined the terms of the debate, and as the left has responded to them, they have lost, because you can’t refute them. We need to reframe the debate by defining the terms and forcing the right to respond to those terms. The only way this can be done is if we use a few really good ones for core issues, and get them into widespread use, repeated over and over, for the next four years. We need a daily talking points memo to outline the discourse and organize the left, to get us all “on message,” so that people get the message.

Think you’re tired of the phrase “flip-flopper”? Get ready to hear more about our slash and spend president. Ad nauseam.

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

Howard Fineman’s “Analysis”

My father-in-law, Steven, sent me this link to a Newsweek column by Howard Fineman. Like Steven, I thought it very interesting that a conservative columnist would be basically saying that the election is all but over for Bush, given the past week’s news. But the funny thing is, I didn’t know that Fineman was conservative until I read that column. What gave it away?

It was this snippet:

On one level, Kerry’s “position” is a contradictory bundle of confusion. He says the war was a mistake, but he’s the guy calling for a gung-ho strategy in Fallujah to root out terrorist nests. As the president has pointed out, Kerry is claiming he can win the support of allies even as he dismisses the contributions of existing ones and calls the entire war a diversion–and even as France and Germany already have said that they aren’t going to rally to our side if Kerry wins. But if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, Kerry’s “vision”–or lack of it–matters less.

This seems typical of conservative commentary–it’s a very selective description of Kerry’s position. Yes, Kerry says that the war was a mistake, but now that we’re in it, we need to do it right, including getting tough on rooting out the terrorists (who, by the way, only came into the country after the war started). Kerry has not dismissed the contributions of existing allies, but has pointed out that, unlike Desert Storm, this coalition is far from evenly divided. As Edwards repeatedly said during the Veep debate, the US bears 90% of the cost among the coalition members, both in terms of dollars and in terms of lives. There is no contradiction in these statements. The contradiction only comes up if they’re used selectively and outside of appropriate contexts.

I am so sick of this hypocrisy! I keep telling people, I can’t wait to be disappointed in Kerry’s presidency, as I was with Clinton’s. I’ll take disappointment over being offended by the President and his apologists any day!

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

Bush Uses Radio Receiver During Debate?


According to a story in Salon.com, it appears that George W. Bush may well have been wearing a radio transmitter during the first debate. This would be so that he could get prompts from someone more knowledgeable (Dick Cheney?).

Current Electoral Vote Predictor (which currently shows Kerry leading 280 to 239!) has confirmed the presence of “the bulge” with this image, using Red Hawk image intensification software.

My favorite phrase from the Salon.com article: the “Milli Vanilli president.”

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

Portland Kerry Rally

Julie and I just got back from the Kerry rally at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland, OR. According to the Kerry Blog, there were ca. 60,000 people at the rally. Julie and I waited till the last minute to go, and for a while there thought we wouldn’t get in. But we did, and heard the second half of Kerry’s speech. As we made our way through the city afterward, we overheard some other folks saying they’d arrived at 8:30 and never got in. We felt very fortunate. I think it was just dumb luck to have found the entrance we did.

We were pretty close to the stage, too. We were off to the right out of the frame of this picture, but still only 30m or so from the stage. We could see Kerry quite clearly from there. It was interesting to see him in person; he was quite lively in addressing the crowd, and clearly engaged in what he was doing. He seemed to be having a good time, too. But I couldn’t help wondering if he and the other speakers didn’t occasionally feel silly up there, making the same speech with the same gestures over and over. Especially at the end, when Kerry shakes his fist in the air like a champion boxer and points out various groups of people for him and Teresa to wave to. But then again, maybe I’m just too jaded myself.

Still, it was interesting to be there in person and to see him working in person. It gave me much more of the impression that we’re dealing with a real person here, rather than just a talking head like you might see on TV. Here’s a guy who might soon hold what is arguably the most powerful political office in the world, and really, he’s just a regular guy trying to do some good, out there talking to anyone who will listen about how he wants to make things different than they have been. He’s a guy you could talk to, and talk to about the issues.

I got this impression from a rally with 60,000 people? Yeah, maybe I’m just nuts.

Highlight of the speech (what we heard of it) for Julie and me: Kerry’s plan to invest much more in alternative energy, to make America energy independent by 2020. That’s a plan I can very much get behind! I also appreciated his saying that he would never send US troops into action unless there was no alternative. The Iraq war is such a clusterfuck in so many ways; I really hope that things will change when Kerry is sworn into office.

But even if they don’t change that much, or not for a while, I would love to be able to have complaints about the Presidential administration more like I had about the Clinton White House. I’d rather be worried that my President was too close to the middle and conciliatory than that he was so far to the right as to be, well, radical.

I will do my part to see to it that Kerry gets the chance to disappoint me as a highly preferable alternative to the current state of complete mortification.

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.

MoveOn.org Voter Registration Party

We just hosted our first MoveOn.org voter registration party. (You are registered to vote, aren’t you? If not, register register here.) Julie did all the hard work of organizing the party, preparing the munchies, going through MoveOn’s rather overwhelming and confusing instructions to make things simple for the rest of us, and getting the lists of unregistered voters to call. She’s great at the organizational stuff, and that the party was a success is due to her hard work.

We had 10 participants, and each of us called 24-36 people, mainly women in Florida who didn’t vote in the last presidential election. We registered three voters. Yes, only three! Most of the phone numbers we called were disconnected or wrong numbers. We left messages on several answering machines. And when we did get through to people, we often got replies such as:


“I’m not interested.”

“I don’t believe that my vote counts for anything.”

“I don’t believe that women should be allowed to vote.” [Yes, a woman said that.]

“Please don’t call again.”

“I’m registered. I vote. I always vote!”

Rather incredible, really. So how was it a success, you ask? Well, MoveOn ran out of numbers for us to call. After we went through all the numbers we had, they had no more to offer. Over 15,000 people signed up to participate in today’s event. Probably more actually participated, since we, at least, had 2-3 people participate who hadn’t signed up. And we did manage to register a few voters, and leave messages on answering machines telling folks to visit the MoveOn PAC Web site or their local department of motor vehicles to register. We’ll know for sure what happened when MoveOn reports the results in the next few days, but if we managed to register only 5,000 voters, it could make a difference in the outcome in November. And that’s what we’re really hoping to achieve.

Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.