|
|
A message from Rick Jacobs on what each of us can do to stop the Republican attempt to steal the White House in 2008 - Todd
A few weeks ago, a scathing New York Times editorial told you about how Republicans were springing another "elaborate dirty trick" on us — an unbelievable California ballot initiative to steal 20 electoral college votes for the Republican presidential nominee, thus hijacking the White House for four more disastrous years.
You're outraged. And so are we. That's why the Courage Campaign has decided enough is enough. No more dirty tricks. Not in California. Not in America.
Over 7,000 of you signed a pledge to fight this dirty trick. When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger played dumb, saying he hadn’t read the ballot initiative, you sent over 2,000 copies of the initiative to him to read over the Labor Day weekend.
Now, you have a chance to send Arnold and the entire California Republican Party a loud and clear message before their convention starts this Friday: No more excuses. No more dirty tricks. No more partisan power-grabs.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/20for20onActBlue
What will twenty dollars — the price of a movie, popcorn and a soda — get you? A campaign of, by and for the netroots and grassroots.
At the YearlyKos blogger convention last month, I talked with an amazing group of online leaders — including several folks from the Calitics blogging community — about how we could defeat this dirty trick together. I left Chicago inspired and days later, we formed a "No Dirty Tricks" netroots advisory team driven by California online organizers and bloggers like Eden James, Miles Kurland, Julia Rosen, Bob Brigham, Julie Bergman Sender and Todd Beeton. Endorsements came pouring in as well from national leaders like Arianna Huffington, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Sherry Lansing, Jane Hamsher, Eleanor Smeal and Bradley Whitford (click here to see the powerful lineup of bloggers and leaders endorsing our "No Dirty Tricks" campaign).
Courage Campaign is uniting netroots and grassroots progressives to build a people-powered online infrastructure in California that will defeat this initiative in June even as we build a winning progressive agenda. One way we’re building online infrastructure is by using and supporting ActBlue, an exciting web community tool that empowers anyone — individuals, local groups, and national organizations — to raise funds online for their favorite candidate or cause. ActBlue is campaign finance reform because it empowers each of us to democratize politics from the bottom up.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/20for20onActBlue
On Wednesday, we'll tell you much more about our plans to use ActBlue to help us build a transformative team that can turn online activism into offline action, kill this dirty trick dead, and take back the White House in 2008.
If you care deeply about building a people-powered movement to end politics as usual, we need your support right now. By contributing "20 for 20" through ActBlue, you can help us build a progressive netroots-driven organization in California that is a model for America. This is your moment.
Rick Jacobs Courage Campaign
P.S. Yes, our team is working on Labor Day. I’m sure you noticed that President Bush is as well, this time in Iraq. That's why we won’t rest until we put an end to the dirty tricks. With that in mind, I recorded this one-minute YouTube video over the weekend to talk with you about how the "Sons of Nixon" dirty tricksters are trying to steal the presidency. I hope you enjoy it.
There seems to be a lot of emotion here without much data. Is the proposal by the Republican party in CA what I've seen referred to as "Proportional Delegate Distribution" elsewhere?
If I am understanding this issue correctly, most states (with a couple of exceptions, I think Nebraska is one of them maybe) award their delegates in a "Winner Take All" system--which is what I assume CA has now. I've heard Proportional Delegate awarding actually described as "more democratic" because delegates are awarded according to the actual percentage of votes achieved by each candidate. Is this not correct?
You might do a better job educating the public on this issue with more background information and less screaming about "Republicans Dirty Tricks". If there is something inherently unfair about Proportional Delegates then I am not aware of it. But, I am far from being an expert on this issue.
By the way, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I am not a resident of California so I really don't have an agenda on this issue. It does seem to me that if the people of CA want to award their delegates proportionately instead of "winner take all" there's nothing fundamentally unfair to either of the major political parties. On the face of it, proportional delegate distribution appears to be one step closer to direct election of the office of the President--but I could be wrong.
I hope this debate is being put forth in the spirt of protecting and promoting the democratic process and not for protecting a perceived partisan advantage with the status quo.
Peace,
Lyle Gentry
There seems to be a lot of emotion here without much data. Is the proposal by the Republican party in CA what I've seen referred to as "Proportional Delegate Distribution" elsewhere?
If I am understanding this issue correctly, most states (with a couple of exceptions, I think Nebraska is one of them maybe) award their delegates in a "Winner Take All" system--which is what I assume CA has now. I've heard Proportional Delegate awarding actually described as "more democratic" because delegates are awarded according to the actual percentage of votes achieved by each candidate. Is this not correct?
You might do a better job educating the public on this issue with more background information and less screaming about "Republicans Dirty Tricks". If there is something inherently unfair about Proportional Delegates then I am not aware of it. But, I am far from being an expert on this issue.
By the way, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I am not a resident of California so I really don't have an agenda on this issue. It does seem to me that if the people of CA want to award their delegates proportionately instead of "winner take all" there's nothing fundamentally unfair to either of the major political parties. On the face of it, proportional delegate distribution appears to be one step closer to direct election of the office of the President--but I could be wrong.
I hope this debate is being put forth in the spirt of protecting and promoting the democratic process and not for protecting a perceived partisan advantage with the status quo.
Peace,
Lyle Gentry
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: Link
Blog: Link