Democrats Work . . . Putting Our Values Into Action

(This may not satisfy Katie Merrill’s demand that the netroots only do what she says, but as with everything online it is a great way to bring together people who want to work together on this. – promoted by blogswarm)

I want to introduce Democrats Work, an organization dedicated to mobilizing grassroots Democrats to perform community service projects . . . as Democrats.  I also want to invite anyone in the Bay Area to two upcoming service events, which are also listed on the Upcoming Events section on Calitics.  Could be a free Democrats Work t-shirt in it for you! 

The “big idea” behind Democrats Work, which I co-founded and am now the executive director of, is our belief that we need to build a service-based approach to politics.  Let’s take the energy and enthusiasm we have around election time and use it to make positive contributions in our communities all year long.  Let’s do tangible things – clean up parks, paint schools, sponosor basketball tournaments, help at neighborhood rec centers – that people can point to and say: “The Democrats did that for this community.”

How does Democrats Work fit in?  We are working to connect Democratic volunteers with visible, tangible service projects in their communities.  We partner with Democratic and progressive organizations – including local clubs, state and county parties, and local chapters of national organizations, campaigns and elected officials – to get their members and supporters to volunteer for local service projects as part of a Democrat-branded “Work Crew.”  Basically, we are building a sustainable infrastructure to keep Democratic volunteers and supporters visible and active during the “off season.”

As for the “big idea,” what could a service-based approach mean for our country and our party? 

First, we simply do some good in our communties.  By making tangible contributions and increasing the visibility of Democrats at the local level, we show our neighbors that Democrats get things done.  When there is a need in a community, we want people to say, “Call the Democrats, they always have people who can help.”  Second, we engage the grassroots during non-election time to keep folks active and involved.  Instead of asking people to get involved every two or four years, we tap into that energy year-round and keep the band together.  Third, we reach out to people who might not otherwise get involved in purely “political” activities, but share our values. Not everyone wants to hand out campaign literature or phone bank or even wants to work for a particular candidate, but they are willing to paint a school or clean up a park with their friends.  And, fourth, we build a unified stable of motivated and easily mobilized volunteers who can help candidates win elections.

Check it out.  Send me your thoughts.  Let’s put our values into action by doing some good in our neighborhoods.

Katie Merrill on the Netroots

Katie Merrill, August 26, 2006:

Shhh. Don’t tell anyone. I’m going to let you in on a little secret as part of our getting-to-know-you process in the blogosphere. Ok, here it is. I am a political Luddite… a technology rebel… a wireless outlier. That’s right. You heard me. I am declaring myself, at least for the purposes of this piece, anti-technology. I am not completely anti-technology of course. I am, after all, writing this entry on my computer. For the launch of a new blog, no less. It’s just that I think that the whole notion that the Internet and wireless technology are changing the way we win elections is… well, a bunch of hooey. Incendiary remarks, I know. And bygones up front to my friends and colleagues in the mobile media, net roots, viral marketing, online activism world. But here’s the thing, I just don’t think any of those things actually win campaigns. At least not yet. And not in California.

Katie Merrill, today:

So, to the netroots, I say this: It’s time to get constructive guys. Roll up your sleeves and help our party leadership govern. And lay off the moderate Dems. They actually share your values. We as Democrats have a tremendous amount of work to do in the next 23 months. It’s time for you to focus on beating Republicans, not Democrats.

In just three and a half months, she went from admitting she didn’t have a clue about how much we don’t matter to trying to tell the netroots that we need to get “constructive” and listen to her when it comes to focus?

L.A. Times Editorial Blasts Alarcon; Nicole Richie Gets Hyphee on the 134

This weekend, the L.A. Times took aim at Assemblymember Richard Alarcon for his allegedly opportunistic bid for L.A. City Council. The L.A. Weekly already had its turn a few weeks ago.  Daily News, what say you?

Meanwhile, just a few exits down the 5 South from Alarcon’s Northeast Valley Assembly district, Nicole Richie got busted this morning for swallowing Vicodin, smoking pot and driving eastbound on the westbound lanes of the 134 in Burbank.

Of each, we ask: tragedy or farce?

California Approaches 300 Deaths in Iraq

Ellen Tauscher George BushA grim milestone approaches as California currently stands at 299 deaths in Iraq.

This picture is dated from the summer of 2002, during the run-up to the war, just a few months before Representative Ellen Tauscher voted with George Bush on Iraq. Just days before the vote, Gwen Ifill interviewed Ellen Tauscher during the debate over the resolution. Representative Tauscher defended the resolution and the deal she cut for her support:

And I am happy to say that have we moved this resolution very far away from where he where it was originally, which was almost a blank check and where we effectively gave the president a rubber stamp — where Congress has really inserted itself – and I think that’s in the best interest of the American people.

That’s right, the deal Tauscher cut was for congress to act as a rubber stamp for the Administration. By doing this Tauscher failed during the most important issue of our time:

Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the moderate New Democrat Network, faulted the administration on its representation of intelligence, but refused to blame the White House entirely.

“It’s clear now that they cherry-picked intelligence, amplified some things, played down dissent. [But] we all got it wrong,” she said.

That’s just not true, not all of us did get it wrong. The problem is that Tauscher marginalized and ignored the voices who have since been proven correct.

Today, Atrios recalled the absurdity during the run-up to the war:

What was so frustrating at the time was not simply that a bunch of otherwise intelligent people seemed to have come to the horribly wrong conclusion that invading Iraq was a good idea. What was more frustrating is that there was a collective blindness to the dishonest and destructive way the war was sold, that it seemed not to bother these people that the multiple and shifting dishonest rationalizations for war suggested that there was something deeply wrong with the whole endeavor. It was frustrating that people who supported the war were happy to climb on board not just with the war but with the truly awful people who were the architects of both the war and the propaganda war which, among other things, involved tarring war opponents as brutal-dictator lovers. It was frustrating that they signed up for the whole goddamn enchilada.

Frequently it’s been pointed out that they shouldn’t have trusted these people to “do it right.” But more than that it should have been obvious that they shouldn’t have trusted these people to “do the right thing.” They made clear during that time that they were, in fact, very bad people.

I think that is just one of many examples of people in the reality based community fearing what happens when Ellen Tauscher cuts deals with these people. That is why people were so concerned about her meeting with Bush. Reports of the meeting had Karl Rove taking notes on the overwhelming success of Bush kissing up to her.

In an article covering her war vote in February of 2003, Ellen Tauscher shrugged off the criticism by saying, “I sleep fine at night.”

After the 300th Californian makes the ultimate sacrifice, will she still sleep fine at night?

Schedule of California’s 2008 Presidiential Primaries

As Sacramento debates a winter season for California’s 2008 presidential primaries, one important consideration is that this race will be wide-open to a historical level.

When one party has an assumed nominee, it tends to influence the selection process of the other party. But this year neither party will have an incumbent president or vice president as nominee, freeing both parties to look focus on a vision for the future instead of worrying what the other side has coming.

The last time this happened was in 1952, but even then Harry Truman was a candidate until after he lost New Hampshire. In 1924, both nominations were wide open, but with Democrats not bothering to contest the race it didn’t really matter. You really need to go back to 1920 to find a presidential race that was as wide-open at this point in the campaign.

To put that in perspective, while the internet will be the key medium in 2008, the last time we faced a campaign like this was during the first race with radio broadcasting results on election night.

Back then, both parties still had multiple candidates at the convention, but the historic nature of 2008 suggests California activists take measures now to ensure that the east-coast media hasn’t anointed a nominee before we get our say in the matter.

Unfortunately, the current debate over the calendar has been shackled with the completely separate issues of term limits and redistricting. Scheduling the primary shouldn’t be burdened with the taint of incumbent protection, especially with many people already suggesting that this is a scheme to front-load the primaries with an expensive state to protect the early fundraising leader.

The question should stand on it’s own:  should California schedule an early primary to leverage our power in deciding 2008 nominees?

I think the answer is yes. I know I want to have a say and I don’t think I’m alone.