e-campaigning Senators Contacting

  •  (1) |
  • 1 (11) |
  • 2 (402) |
  • 4 (1) |
  • 5 (2) |
  • 9 (15) |
  • A (1521) |
  • B (1085) |
  • C (1819) |
  • D (969) |
  • E (1200) |
  • F (765) |
  • G (698) |
  • H (976) |
  • I (996) |
  • J (461) |
  • K (107) |
  • L (611) |
  • M (1138) |
  • N (589) |
  • O (240) |
  • P (1946) |
  • Q (51) |
  • R (1212) |
  • S (1136) |
  • T (740) |
  • U (239) |
  • V (363) |
  • W (565) |
  • x (3) |
  • Y (39) |
  • Z (14) |

Blogging is not a spectator sport

In Feb 04 I was so green on e-campaigning that I had to sharpen cut/paste skills. A group of Rapid Response Writers in Austin TX adopted me as the East Wing. We wrote all summer long for Kerry/Edwards in a dedicated yahoogroup. I left them to learn more after the Nov 04 debacle. (Thankfully, we drove some nails into Tom DeLay’s coffin.) When things heated up for 06 election, they asked me if I wanted to join again. I deferred until 08, since I kept things more local because of Ford/Corker.
This all seems so yesterday. Blogs have become sophisticated, especially for those who expect to run for president. Instant communication is easier. It’s still hard to make real connections for action.
Last week Harry Reid, under the DSCC page, bemoaned that they couldn’t pass a non-binding resolution about Iraq, and asked me to give him my thoughts. (They are there in my “Letters to Senators” file.) Basically, I told him we had worked hard to put Democrats in the drivers’ seat, and now we would try to back them up. So I let him know that Murtha rankled Republicans with the power of the purse by fine-tuning how the money could be used. They would just have to figure out how to rattle Republican cages.
Actually I was already in a mood to start my own little cage-rattling campaign. When the thread called “Here’s a shocker. Or maybe not” came to my attention, I knew I had my current issue. Since Alexander is my Senator, I started with him. (We all call him Lamar. I’m not being rude.) It’s at the end of this piece.


Margaret Bassett's picture

|

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1217 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify