Washblog

I might not agree with you on some things, but I wish all PCOs would write their own stuff. People in the neighborhood know you care, at least.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:45:45 AM PST

---

Robert,

Even if people on this Blog disagree with you, I want you to think of this:  If your actions result in someone disagreeing with you strong enough to want to run for PCO against you in the '06 Primary, you will have succeeded.  If by your actions you encourage someone who had not been involved before to come to the caucuses, you will have succeeded.  If your statements cause a debate at the caucuses that creates new friendships and a better understanding of the 'big tent' philosophy, you will have succeeded.

If Maria Cantwell has the right to vote counter to how her base voters want her to vote, then PCO's have the right to support or not support whom they choose.  Being a PCO does not mean that we have been assimilated into the collective.  If we're not allowed to act on our own ideas, what's the point of having those ideas in the first place?

by chadlupkes on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 08:44:58 AM PST

---

Two prongs here, and I don't have the answer on how to rationalize them.

1) Precedent exists through the process of franking. Voters know this as the newsletters elected officials send to them periodically, and which are paid for at government expense.

In these newsletters, the officials discuss whatever they want, whatever they feel is important, and not necessarily what their Parties would consider important. I presume that the legislation which funds franking does not stipulate that the funds may only be spent to produce Party-approved materials.

PCOs are not paid, and I am not suggesting that PCOs should get a budget for franking (should they?) but I think that the fact that the money has been customarily provided argues for the traditional nature of the practice and also indicates that communicating with one's constituency is considered an important part of the democratic process, worthy of support.

(Franking has also had its abuses as an electioneering and campaigning tool.)

2) I was leafletting my precinct before I became PCO. I became PCO in some measure at least partly because I was the "'zine guy". I contrast this with what I observe in that most people who become PCO do that first, and then set about figuring how to communicate with their neighbors.

As a consequence of this I still maintain a distinction between the two activities. Indeed my 'zine goes to every doorstep, regardless of anybody's political leanings. I'm also not afraid or disinclined to take shots at any and all political parties.

Someone who becomes a PCO first may have an entirely different philosophy or impression of what "communication" entails or the purposes it is intended to serve.

by m3047 on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 01:10:53 PM PST

---

What happens if the 36th endorses Cantwell and agrees to hand out literature for her.  Do you deliver that lit to your precinct?  Do you not?  What will you do?

by asshat2001 on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 02:09:43 PM PST

---

think I support cant-sellusoutfastenough-well?  

25 years of sell outs, and, here it is a beautiful Saturday afternoon, and I am telling people to go to a Caucus so the state party can:

get a current list of active people,

get that list pedaled to the highest bidder and pimped for money,

get those volunteers to get more volunteers from whom they'll also pimp for money,

get the Perils of Pauline Campaign 2006 campaign in place for all the august pleading appeals to fight the good fight against the fascists,

...ummm what has this party learned since the Dukakis debacle? opps, I mean Kerry.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 03:15:01 PM PST

---

Will you or won't you bring Cantwell lit to your precinct if she is endorsed by your LD?  

by asshat2001 on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 04:59:23 PM PST

---

   He's made his views known, and as much as I disagree with them, he's honorably standing up for those views.
   Odds are that Senator Cantwell will win in the 36th with or without his help. ANd the rest of us can work on a better margin than 229 votes this go around.
   I hope there's some good local issues for him to work on, or maybe spend some time and effort in the 8th CD. The next step (after re-electing our Senator) is increasing the number of Democrats in the House. That's where impeachment needs to start.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:30:14 PM PST

---

You state, "Many posters don't think I should be a PCO - yawn."

"Yawn"?

So you don't give a shit about what others think over your stance that you don't think Cantwell gives a shit about what you think.

Man are you full of yourself.

On The Road To 2008: Countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

by Daniel K on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:23:52 PM PST

---

Your text (emphasis added):

A.  Delegates are elected to County Caucuses & we pass resolutions, and The Party gets names of people ...

This sounds awfully paranoid, if you ask me.  Are you implying that there's something wrong with asking residents of your precinct to sign in at the caucus?  Are you implying that there's something wrong with that sign-in sheet being retained?  Are you implying that there's something wrong with the identity of Democrats committed enough to participate in precinct platform-deliberating caucuses being known to Democrats?  Does it scare you that the party's voter list might contain information that will help you focus your canvassing efforts?

Are you, in other words, ashamed to be known as a Democrat, or at least implying that others should be ashamed of it?

I swear, Washingtonians are more forthcoming about their sexual orientation -- hell, about their HIV status -- than about their political party identification.  I just don't get it ... what's the big secret?  Why are you all so afraid to have your neighbors know that you're a Democrat?

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

by N in Seattle on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 05:31:45 PM PST

---

In ethics there are two very different types of obligations:

1. A negative obligation

2. A positive obligation

Negative obligations are that which we must NOT do. We must not hit people over the head, smoke around babies, shoot people while we are quail hunting (unless we're Dick Cheney, who is not bound by ethics) or litter. Negative obligations are always higher than positive obligations.

Positive obligations are what we should do. We should adopts stray puppies, give poor people money, and clean up other people's litter. We do not violate ethics if we fail to discharge positive obligations, we simply fail to raise ethics to a higher standard. In the way that we don't litter by failing ot clean up after others, we only fail to make things cleaner.

Now people could say that Democrats have a negative obligation not to say bad things about Maria Cantwell. That exists. We don't insult her for no reason or for a trivial reason. But once her behavior crosses a certain threshold, that negative obligation is overcome and we criticize her in the effort to form better opinions and arguments within the party.

If the negative obligation not to say bad stuf about Cantwell is overcome by the wrongness of her actions, certainly the positive obligation to actively support her is overcome. For Cantwell to ask us to fulfill our positive obligation to her, she must also discharge a positive obligation to us, at which she has failed at almost every opportunity, even going so far as to do things we plead with her not to do.

Opposing McGavick may be the positive obligation of Democrats, but if we decide not to his election is by no means our ethical responsibility. His candidacy will be supported by the positive obligations of his supporters and he must show them what he can do for them to garner their support. McGavick's candidacy is not the misdeed of Democrats. He is not our fault.

Now what would be our fault, what we would bear responsibility for is lying to voters. Nobody on this blog has shown me that he believes in the Cantwell campaign message. Nobody.

So will you tell the truth, or will you lie?

I will villify McGavick because it's the truth but I won't praise Cantwell, because I can't.

by dlaw on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 06:16:38 PM PST

---

...you were right and you can just expect more and more and more disapppointments. Look for my diary entry on another tragic story from the race for the Senate here:

http://www.washblog.com/user/dlaw/diary

by dlaw on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:25:42 AM PST

---