Thank you for all the “bird dogging” you do! It is very much appreciated by me. I count on you and Heather Cox Richardson to help keep me relatively sane during these next four years of madness. 💚
Thanks for an excellent post! However, I differ on a couple of points as to tactics.
It may not be commonly accepted, and Senators may reject this, but my view is that in acting as a member of a committee senators are serving the entire country, not just the people of their state, and I tell them that when communicating with them about a matter pending before the committee on which they serve, as I did when calling the office of Senator Ernst about the Hegseth nomination. The more we tell senators they are serving all of us when acting on a committee, and the more we express that to others, the greater the possibility of making that view a part of our political culture.
While I agree we should focus our greatest effort on the worst nominees, I believe we should take a few minutes to register our opposition to all nominees we find objectionable. Timothy Snyder's Lesson 1 in On Tyranny is "Do not obey in advance." I do not want my silence about the nominees who are not among the worst to be misconstrued as acceptance or approval, so I have called the chairs and ranking members of all committees that will consider nominees and registered my opposition to each nominee coming before those committees. It took about a half hour to make those calls. And in each call I said I was calling them in their capacity as the chair or ranking member of the committee, and in that capacity they are responsible to all of us, not just the people of their state. While I have no illusions that my call will result in a change of their decision on the nomination, it is possible they will add a tally to their counts, and if enough of us repeatedly communicate with senators like this, and share this with others, again, the greater the possibility of changing our political culture over time.
While you and I are aligned in many ways, Lang, we do disagree on tactics. And I think that's okay.
I know that with the (remote) possibility regarding Pete, Tulsi, Kash and Worm Brain, all of the other nominees are going to pass with no problems. So I move on to the things that I can do that DO have impact:
**State legislation - I live in a split state, and we won back the state assembly 2 years ago, and still hold it (by a seat) - so there are a lot of calls to make to the state senate, which is still in Rethuglican hands.
**Getting Democrats elected in 2025. I am the campaign manager for a county candidate. So, I spend a lot of time related to getting her through the primary, and then on to win the general. We will have a combined campaign for all the candidates on the county slate (row offices and judges) plus hyper-local races. I engage voters, attend events (that will grow after the primary) and I coach candidates on how to canvass and message.
**Plus, when they let me, I give civics classes.
And I work a full-time job. So - I don't spend time on things I know I cannot change. I know you are in favour of sending letters to the Senate for the permanent record, and while I support your efforts for historical import, I won't be able to carve out time for it.
I think ALL of us have our lanes, and it's GOOD that we choose different ones so that we can accomplish more overall than everyone doing just one thing.
Thanks for all the great work you are doing on so many fronts, in so many lanes! And of course I agree with you that it's okay to have differences on tactics. We are working for the same goals of creating what I would call a more nurturing society, in all the diverse lanes that each of us chooses.
Thank you for all the “bird dogging” you do! It is very much appreciated by me. I count on you and Heather Cox Richardson to help keep me relatively sane during these next four years of madness. 💚
Muhammad -- YOU HAVE MADE MY DAY!!! Thank you SO VERY MUCH!!!
Good advice. Elections have consequences as so many of us who haven't paid attention will soon learn.
You are going to REALLY appreciate Thursday's post! It's not just voters who aren't paying attention. <GRIN>
I didn't comment on your new comment. I sent you a personal, personal reply.
Thanks for an excellent post! However, I differ on a couple of points as to tactics.
It may not be commonly accepted, and Senators may reject this, but my view is that in acting as a member of a committee senators are serving the entire country, not just the people of their state, and I tell them that when communicating with them about a matter pending before the committee on which they serve, as I did when calling the office of Senator Ernst about the Hegseth nomination. The more we tell senators they are serving all of us when acting on a committee, and the more we express that to others, the greater the possibility of making that view a part of our political culture.
While I agree we should focus our greatest effort on the worst nominees, I believe we should take a few minutes to register our opposition to all nominees we find objectionable. Timothy Snyder's Lesson 1 in On Tyranny is "Do not obey in advance." I do not want my silence about the nominees who are not among the worst to be misconstrued as acceptance or approval, so I have called the chairs and ranking members of all committees that will consider nominees and registered my opposition to each nominee coming before those committees. It took about a half hour to make those calls. And in each call I said I was calling them in their capacity as the chair or ranking member of the committee, and in that capacity they are responsible to all of us, not just the people of their state. While I have no illusions that my call will result in a change of their decision on the nomination, it is possible they will add a tally to their counts, and if enough of us repeatedly communicate with senators like this, and share this with others, again, the greater the possibility of changing our political culture over time.
While you and I are aligned in many ways, Lang, we do disagree on tactics. And I think that's okay.
I know that with the (remote) possibility regarding Pete, Tulsi, Kash and Worm Brain, all of the other nominees are going to pass with no problems. So I move on to the things that I can do that DO have impact:
**State legislation - I live in a split state, and we won back the state assembly 2 years ago, and still hold it (by a seat) - so there are a lot of calls to make to the state senate, which is still in Rethuglican hands.
**Getting Democrats elected in 2025. I am the campaign manager for a county candidate. So, I spend a lot of time related to getting her through the primary, and then on to win the general. We will have a combined campaign for all the candidates on the county slate (row offices and judges) plus hyper-local races. I engage voters, attend events (that will grow after the primary) and I coach candidates on how to canvass and message.
**Plus, when they let me, I give civics classes.
And I work a full-time job. So - I don't spend time on things I know I cannot change. I know you are in favour of sending letters to the Senate for the permanent record, and while I support your efforts for historical import, I won't be able to carve out time for it.
I think ALL of us have our lanes, and it's GOOD that we choose different ones so that we can accomplish more overall than everyone doing just one thing.
Thanks for all the great work you are doing on so many fronts, in so many lanes! And of course I agree with you that it's okay to have differences on tactics. We are working for the same goals of creating what I would call a more nurturing society, in all the diverse lanes that each of us chooses.
It takes ALL of us! <hugs>