> the only LBO-talk associates that came up through my searches were
> "John P Lacny, Researcher, 1199P/SEIU" (who has to be John Lacny of
> LBO-talk) who gave "Howard Dean" $250 and one "Deborah Rogers,
> Interior Designer, Self" (who may or may not be Deborah Rogers of
> LBO-talk) who gave "John Kerry" $250.
LOL...not me. I'm just a tight-wad paralegal who rarely has $250 to give to anyone, let alone a multi-millionaire. When I do give, however, I keep it local and give where I know the books are transparent and the money gets the most bang for the buck, like our activist Unitarian church or a candidate in one of our local races - especially if it's a local judicial race. But more often than not, it's just old-fashioned sweat equity and volunteering...driving people to polls, donating time to Lambda Legal, educating voters and trying to get the worst of the worst judges and the district attorney replaced.
That's the best argument and motivation, in a state like Texas anyway, to get people to the polls and vote: start local and you will feel the impact quickly, building momentum and hope. Most moderate to liberal Texans feel pretty disenfranchised and helpless by the power of our vote. Large states are hard-pressed to have a real consensus on anything, and the reality is that Shrub is still considered a proprietary home-boy of sorts, even if he is a complete doofus or sociopath. Same goes for our gubernatorial races.
But the local races, even in a big city like Houston or Dallas, can be won or lost by handfuls of votes. The individual vote DOES make a difference. Convincing local voters that they can have a voice by shaping what directly affects them is a start.
The trick is getting the voter to see that. Most people, from push drives I've been on, do not see themselves as "needing" the judicial system. "Oh, I'm a law abiding taxpayer." But mention something that hits them all close to home, like divorce court or child custody cases or tax and homeowner issues, and their ears perk up.
What most progressives also forget is that the GOP's social conservatives didn't get their power overnight. They started small, getting a person on a school board here, a justice of the peace position there...until name recognition gave the candidate a shot at bigger seats and their candidate pool grew.
Also, not everyone has to be working on a national level all of the time. Some of us work best and most effectively at the local or state level. That is where trends are born, and like losing weight slowly rather than quickly, the results last longer, too.
Btw, there are more Kucinich stalwarts in the Dem party than you may care to admit, most working in a stealth mode in Dem committees, trying to cut deals and set foundations for further progression. Many of us, what did you call it? self-something queers? were huge supporters of Kucinich in Texas, and the message was carried on to the state and national committees. That should not be discounted or condemned, just because it's not "in your face" action.
There's a place and purpose for people who use "in your face" tactics, but I also believe there's a place and purpose for those who use stealth methods, too. We need both styles. The social conservatives used stealth initially so that when issues were then brought out in the open, they were able to sit back and say, "oh, but we've been doing such and such for years now," thereby gaining advantage via voter apathy. Why not use the same for progressive causes? I know gay activists within companies who are able to convince their companies to quietly institute domestic partner benefits or add sexual orientation to their EEOC and by the time the social conservatives find out about it, it's no longer a big deal and the fear of change is minimalized.
- Deborah R.
===== "The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead." - Kurt Vonnegut