Dave Pollard has a nice summary of yesterday’s election results from Canada. Good news for progressives:

The rightist Conservatives lost nearly a quarter of their support, and only gained seats because they combined into a single party to exploit Canada’s antiquated first-past-the-post voting system. The three progressive parties, the NDP, Bloc and Greens saw their share of the vote rise by 50%. Canadians clearly said once again that Bush-style right-wing governments are not for us. I’m very proud of my fellow Canadians today.

I’m delighted to report that the Green Party got more than double the 2% of the vote nationally they needed to get the new government campaign funding of $1.75 per vote per year until the next election, and also behaved so credibly the Canadian media conglomerate won’t dare exclude them again from the national leaders’ debate next time.

The Seattle PI today covers Ron Sims’ decision to make tax reform the centerpiece of his bid to become Governor.

Last month, Sims’ campaign commissioned focus group surveys of 20 loyal Democrats from King County on the issue of tax reform. According to a summary of those interviews, the participants favored tax reform as a means to a system that would be more fair, business friendly and stable. “Participants … spontaneously identified tax reform as a critical issue facing the state,” reads the report. “… They did express a concern if a candidate raised the specter of an income tax — that it might make the candidate ‘unelectable’ because of well-known controversy surround the issue, but they admired the ‘backbone’ and ‘guts’ that it would take to raise it. “Upon discussion, there was general consensus that this was not an issue to be avoided.”

This is unexpectedly bold. And very, very welcome. Tax reform is definitely the most important issue facing our state, and it’s refreshing to see someone taking the political risk of addressing the big issues head-on.

I hope that this moves the debate, even if Ron fails to gain the nomination.

Kayne McGladrey makes the offer I wish I had the time and energy to make myself. The response, however, was disappointing.

A few weeks ago, I sent out an email to multiple Democratic candidates and their campaign managers in Washington State. In the email, I posed the following question: “Would the public read the web log of a local candidate? And would a local candidate periodically write on a community web log?” I offered to handle all the technical bits, promoting a new community site, and I’d pay for all the hosting costs and bandwidth. In turn, all the candidates had to do was write on the site and hopefully reply to comments. Volunteers would also be allowed to post entries. The idea was to establish a local Democratic echo chamber to promote these candidates, and also to make them more accessible and interesting to the public. As the replies came back, I came to realize that most campaigns are still in the 1990s when it comes to effectively using technology. Most political websites are woefully non-interactive – just some statlc pages on policy, a glossy photo and an email address. Some campaigns now have donation links, but these are the exception. This is not the compelling content that brings people into the process. None of the campaigns I contacted took me up on my offer. The common thread in the replies was that they didn’t have enough time to write. The other reason that was cited was that while people might read about John Kerry, who’d read about a local candidate? Small campaigns are often short on time and on volunteers. I can understand this line of reasoning. However, small campaigns depend heavily on targeted mass-mailings, which are a primary expense on a local campaign.Web logs are inexpensive by comparison, and can be easily updated, unlike a mail piece. The technologies are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

The only ray of hope I can offer is the observation that several Seattle City Council members — most notably Richard Conlin and Nick Licata — write in-depth, personal, informative email newsletters… content that could just as easily be adapted to blog format (hint hint). So I think there is some precedent for small-scale elected officials (if not campaigns) to do this.

… how the Saudi government was able to find and kill Paul Johnson’s killer within mere HOURS of his execution — unless they already knew where these guys were? This whole think stinks. And what stinks more is that nobody seems to be asking this most obvious question of our so-called allies in Riyadh. Media, hello?

Remember how a bit earlier in the campaign cycle the media got all caught up with the idea that maybe this was the year of “turning out the base?” Well, now at least the NYT is waking up to the idea that Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Politics | Leave a reply

So the first trailer for “Farenheit 9/11″ is out. Go watch it.

Then let’s think about to maximize the impact of what looks to be an astoundingly powerful indictment of George Bush.

I’ll be there on opening night. But let’s be real: only the faithful will go see in theatres. A few more will see it if somone organizes house parties around it. But if you really want to tap this film’s power to persuade the undecided and alienated, you gotta put it right into the hands of the people who won’t motivate to see it on their own.

So… I wonder — seriously — how much it would cost to bulk mail DVDs of Farenheit 9/11 to targeted voters in swing states about a week before election day. Maybe a buck or two each? If AOL can afford to do it, then maybe we should think about it. I can’t imagine a more effective political persuasion piece.

Hell, the earned media alone would probably be worth it.

What else can we think of to maximize the reach & impact of this film?

Jeff Reifman asks Is it time for Washington’s Progressives to MoveOn?, and calls for the creation of a “centralized progressive organization that can help support and connect our grass roots community efforts.”

I completely agree that state and local-scale progressive movements need a more cohesive public face to cut through the noise and better mobilize the majority of Americans who share our values.

And I also agree with Jeff’s observation that the “MoveOn” model is not without its flaws — an awkward connection to “real-world” organizing, and its lack of a coherent issue strategy.

Here are the things I think that MoveOn DOES do well that should be emulated:

• Passionate, articulate, personal writing about important issues that builds a real connection between the MoveOn organizers and their members.

• Ability and willingness to be nimble, and react to breaking events as they happen, rather than working off a predefined agenda no matter what else is happening in the world.

• Developing strong feedback loops from members and listening closely.

• Issues are framed in terms of values rather than policy.

Here are some aspects of the MoveOn model that need to be altered or improved to work at a state-wide scale:

• MoveOn is based on leveraging saturation news coverage of national issues — war in Iraq, Presidential campaigns, same-sex marriage, etc. It’s harder to get that kind of earned media around state & local issues on a consistent basis.

• MoveOn is still a totally centralized operation — no real decision-making power is placed in the hands of members. Listening is good, but decentralizing power is better. Perhaps a chapter-based model would be more powerful/flexible.

• Even though MoveOn listens pretty well, it’s still a broadcast model where only the MoveOn staff is really allowed to “speak” to the membership.

• Not all high-visibility issues are truly important, and not all important issues are high-visibility.

• Need to find better ways of partnering with existing progressive organizations that aren’t perceived as competition.

This is an issue that I’d be really interested in exploring more.

OrangePolitics is a blog about local politics in Durham, NC by Ruby Sinreich.

Given the lousy coverage of progressive local issues in the mainstream media, I think that there is a tremendous need for a lot more of this type of writing.

The key is to find the right people who do it. The folks have to be:

• Political junkies with a good understanding of the issues and the ability to cultivate a network of sources
• Great writers
• Tech-savvy enough to understand the value of cultivating online community.

A rare mix indeed. But these are the people we have to find — and more importantly, the progressive movement needs to find a way to direct resources towards these people.

This is what patriotism looks like.

It’s also what Molly’s dad looks like. Yup, that’s my partner’s dad, Thad Curtz, almost getting arrested for carrying a protest sign into a pro-PATRIOT Act rally in Olympia yesterday.

Here’s what the front page of the Olympian had to say:

Olympia police, on instructions from the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, eventually were asked to remove a white-haired college professor, Thad Curtz, from the news conference site because Curtz carried a sign the Bush-Cheney aides didn’t like, said Mark Higbee, manager of the Best Western.

“We asked (police to intervene) for the Bush-Cheney people. They didn’t want the sign in there,” Higbee said. “They said they wanted him to go.”

One side of Curtz’s sign declared: “No lawyers. No hearings. No warrants. Is not patriotism.” The other side invited donations to the campaign of Democrat John Kerry.

Bush-Cheney’s state campaign aides, who were on the scene to organize the campaign event, refused to comment publicly, referring calls to campaign headquarters in Virginia.