In the News

At 1/24/2005 12:18:26 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Our State Chair, Steve Achelpohl, on the appointment of Hastings mayor Rick Sheehy as Lieutenant Governor, "I don't know this guy from Adam..."

Of course, our titular head said other things in the LJS article, mainly attacking the appointment as a political ploy and re-emphasizing his "unknown" status, but the above quote really stands out, especially since Mr. Sheehy was a registered Democrat until two years ago. That means he won election in 2000 as Mayor of one of the state's 10 largest cities, in the Third District no less, AS A DEMOCRAT. And we don't know who he is? That's telling in a lot of ways. On a first glance, it says we're REALLY out of touch with Nebraska outside Omaha and Lincoln. It even suggests this guy may have made the right choice switching parties, demographics aside, because we weren't making much of an effort to give he or his constituents a seat at the table.

Of course, this guy did change parties and make a pretty quick leap that could prime him to succeed Coach Osbourne. Surely there's more to the story that may paint Sheehy quite the calculating fellow with who-knows-what king of bargainin chips. But...that's just a mere assumption...what's known is that Sheehy was one of us, in name at least, and now he's playing for the other team. Saying we've never heard of him and attacking him for being from outside the "Nebraska beltway", our non-existent power base, is more an indictment of us than it is anything else.

We need to change our tone. We need to be expressing hope that since this guy WAS a Democrat he'll still have some sympathy for the poor and some remaining remnant of the bond with working peoples' concerns that made him a Democrat originally. Instead of defining ourselves and making this issue work FOR us, we went into tired and obnoxious ATTACK mode, as has been our lame fall-back position for as long as I remember. No wonder we keep losing.

Article to which the above post refers:
Our New Lieutenant Governor


Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread

Getting "Big Picture" by thinking smaller (Commentary)

At 1/20/2005 04:09:17 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

As much as I love "hearing myself type" about national affairs, especially my distaste for Bush Administration policies, I really think we'd be better served addressing more local concerns on this board. Am I wrong?

There are any number of places for chatting about Bush's latest blunder. What's lacking is a forum to bring in new voices and to help shape an agenda right here in Nebraska.

Of course, on the matter of DNC Chair our state leadership has a say so it's great they can get feedback from us. It's also important to have an occasional discussion on the BIG issues of our day for purposes of venting and community-building (staying in-touch with the grass roots). However, the real potential I see is in discussing local politics, critiquing local media, and spot-lighting local affairs that would otherwise slip through the cracks of Section C in the World-Herald and Journal-Star.

For instance, last week World-Herald mainstay Harold Andersen wrote a column (or part of a column, as is his "style") about how much bettter it would be if Nebraska's legislature were officially partisan. Among his reasons was the idea that it would make the Nebraska Democratic Party stronger. Whether you agree with him or not (I DO NOT), this is exactly the sort of thing we should be talking about. Today another column ran in response (from a former Daub staff member) praising this ill-intended plan to the hilt, even suggesting Nebraska Dems support the idea. This is how an issue gets made, even if it takes years to build steam, as the public hears zero honest discussion of the ramifications of such a change. Though I wouldn't expect the state party to take an immediate stance on a mere notion, this place could at least function as a response center to gauge what our people are thinking and when it is time to make a statement.

On the slew of legislative bills introduced in the Unicameral this week, this site could serve an even more important function, as many of them SHOULD be addressed by the state party leadership (whether speaking as individuals or in accordance with the platform). So long as we avoid name-calling and personal attacks (between ourselves and against Republicans), nothing but good can arise from discussing such issues on this blog. Again, the state party doesn't need to take a stance...it just needs to express an interest and indicate "hey, we're listening". Isn't that why this site exists?

I'd also like to see the administrators of this blog post some sort of policies or ground rules. In fact, I'd say it's essential if this experiment is to succeed. Since this has the potential to be something of a public face for the party, it's important that there be expectations of participants (i.e. language) and rules for moderators. At the very least, there should be a policy established for editing and deleting comments. Maybe it seems like more trouble than it's worth, but should this blog ever funcion as intended guidelines will prove invaluable. I also suggest a liability disclaimer, so people understand the state party is not endorsing or responsible for the comments made here. Do it. Now.

When that's taken care of, you may even consider trying to get this place some media coverage. The state party embracing the 21st Century and opening its doors (even metaphorically) to the public certainly seems news-worthy to me. Of course, word of mouth is a bit better at keeping away echo chamber extremists and the most vociferous of our detractors. Ultimately, that's going to be your call. I understand either way.

In summation...yes, I have thoughts on Inauguration day...if I have time, I may even share them. But, I think we'll be more effective as a neighborhood watch than a presidential watch dog. As indiviuals we can make a difference nationally, but our power and purpose as "Nebraska Democrats" begins at home.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread

Another Miracle Cure from an Internet Know-It-All (a reply)

At 1/18/2005 06:19:59 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

The Schweitzer/Montana mold offers lots of lessons but it can't just be copied and transplanted as the new face of the Democratic Party. First, the expectations of politicians at the state level are very different from federal office. We won't know how Montana really fares in the latter until 2006. Secondly, each election is its own volatile mix and requires a different strategy (NOT message) as the mood of the country lightens, darkens, or approaches meltdown and all-out eruption. Recognizing that crucial element and making it work for us (or even helping to create the most opportune mood) is probably the surest path to success. Tap into the majority's feelings (their hopes/fears), build a single theme that shows you are one of them and share similar concerns, then get creative in explaining how everything you want to do fits under that shared agenda.

Defense might win championships in football, but you don't win in politics unless you score some points. We've got to go on the attack, and that doesn't mean trying to impeach President Bush. We need to stir the pot and reclaim some of the hype by putting forward big ideas of our own. We should drown out the assault on Social Security with a new plan of our own for retirement tax breaks beyond the current system (available only to those who earn LESS than the payroll taxes cut-off). Bush has created an empty bubble from a lot of ill intent and rhetoric with no specifics. Whoever fills in those specifics best will own the debate, and Bush will have little option but to support what eventually emerges. Something will emerge, however...all is not candy canes and unicorns in the happy land of retirement...we either go into a purely defensive posture and pray to hold onto the shirts on our back or we seize this as an opportunity and advance the reforms we want (though we shouldn't give an inch on the facts).

Also, not one of our people should talk about Social Security without bringing the focus to the rest of the federal government's and the entire health care industry's both being in much worse condition...where we should be shaping systemic reforms that will restore faith in these faltering twin monstrosities of reckless spending, price-gouging and middle men. Waiting until the next election year to get our ideas out into the open will be too late. The campaign has already started and we need to be armed and loaded (not to mention comfortable in our new skin) by this summer at the very latest. The bolder Bush gets, the more this becomes a debate about issues...AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAN AND SHOULD WIN if prepared.

Guns are good. Guns are great. But, it's easy to over-estimate the power of gun owners as a voting bloc. These people are first and foremost union members, farmers, etc. They want to hunt and don't trust government but writing them off as too stupid (or "red statish") to understand the difference between a hunting rifle and AK-47 hasn't helped our cause morally or at the ballot box.

It was shameful and hurtful not to go after Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire. I couldn't tell if that was a sigh of relief accompanying our silence or if that was actually the last gasp of our integrity. A single ad campaign emphasizing the only real use these weapons have, which is the killing and maiming of human beings - mainly police officers, kids and innocent by-standers, is all it really would have taken. This is compassion politics, what we used to pride ourselves at. We haven't lost on gun control. We've given up because a single special interest group scared us away with their voter guide and ad campaigns. When we bow down to the will of those who would destroy us, we are all but destroyed. There's plenty of gray area on an issue like gun control, hence it's easy to blur the lines...but common sense is common sense and communicated as such will win the day. Anything less is not only fearful and weak but just plain lazy.

The Republicans would know how to sell gun control if they wanted to - if it were suddenly political expedient to do so. They'd emphasize the cultural differences between rural and urban gun owners and demonize the hell out of anyone with an assault weapon as cop killing lowlife gangsters. We don't need that latter extreme to get the job done. We just need to talk about families, safe streets, and the myth that responsible gun ownership extends to weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, there are bigger fish to fry. Maybe this one really isn't worth the effort...but only because we've screwed up so badly in its defense. In 10 years, I just pray we're not saying the same about Social Security and public education. How inevitable it all seems unless someone makes a stand.

We don't need a "50 state platform" that allows maximum flexibility and minimum conviction, but we do need to empower candidates to run under our banner as mavericks. Even post-Clinton, we carry the aura of the establishment and it's killing us because the Democratic idea of a maverick is Ben Nelson...one of the safest, most risk-averse politicians out there. Essentially, our idea of thinking outside the box has become a matter of geography - the box being those supposedly comfortable blue states. I welcome Harry Reid's efforts to change that, adding a little perspective and hopefully some new voices to the mix. No single candidate, no single issue is going to break down the walls we've erected in our minds and on CNN. But lots of campaigns with lots of energy and new ideas will chip away brick-by-brick until the dam eventually breaks and the sea of purple prevails.

Stupid color-coded metaphors. I hate them.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread

On DNC's Blog Potential

At 1/11/2005 12:34:08 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Is the strategy to turn the blogging community into our own version of conservative talk radio? Not a bad idea, but I don't think it's very practical. A message can not be really be sheltered and controlled on the Internet because, by its very nature, so few boundaries exist. Also, reading a person's words just doesn't quite foster the same personal connection as hearing their voice (for the majority of Americans).

All in all, the plan outlined here seems wasteful, while vastly over-estimating the potential of Blogging as a force for change. For the time being (and considerable future), this remains the domain of the biggest activists and the least active (as in sedentary) among us. An interesting combination but not the great driving force of progressive politics that we need. Anything done on the internet that doesn't have some REAL WORLD component is almost useless because of its fixed audience. The Internet is great at enhancing experiences, but it is not an experience by itself.

This blog here has the potential to succeed because it is generally local (we live in a low-population state), hence there is the possibility of community that transcends the computer screen and takes on true form. I'd say the DNC is too big, serving (or attempting to serve) too great a population to be of any real use in this capacity. It would attract attention, it would absorb a lot of energy, but the benefits of such a program would be minimal to non-existent. DNC Meet-Ups could perhaps work at mimicing the local community model, simply making a network of such communities, but the success of such groups is unproven and I'd hesitate to invest too much of our hopes in them. But shucks, it's probably worth a try.

Seriously, though, the goal is "having the blogosphere surpass cable news networks in reach and influence"??? Who is this guy kidding? There is no centralization on the Internet, at least not unless the Democratic Party can take over Microsoft and start exploiting bugs in Internet Explorer to our benefit (imagine DNC.org as the universal homepage). Barring that unlikelihood, we're stuck communicating with relative techno-elites who already have sympathies in our direction. Rupert Murdoch has more reach than that in his pinky finger.

An old question comes to mind: where's the beef? Maybe I just lack the forward-looking vision to see it, blinded as I am by chronic skepticism. I hope so but wouldn't count on it. Still a fan of Rosenberg but wish he'd leverage that ambition with a bit of common sense when it comes to Internet activism.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: New Progressive Politics

Re: 50 state strategy

At 1/10/2005 11:33:12 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

50 state platform for a 50 state party??? Uh-oh, sounds like this Bredesen fellow is a DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY. He just wants us to be BUSH LITE. Well, those of us in the DEMOCRAT WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY won't tolerate any of this DLC-STYLE appeasement of our CORPORATE CRONY/RELIGOUS FUNDAMENTALIST enemies. They're all evil - Evil, I tell you. EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!

All kidding aside, I don't think the national party platform is too much of a problem. It should tend towards inclusiveness, but how Democrats represent themselves in the House and Senate is a lot more important than any platform. Where the Democrats make a stand, roll over, compromise, and introduce ideas of their own says more about who we are as a party than a non-enforceable retread of past policy positions that runs through hundreds of revisions and rewrites to pander and appease the party faithful on personal pet issues.

We don't need to start from scratch or lose what spine we have to open in-roads and become competitive. We can win with a better message and better messengers. Of course, stripping ourselves down to the barest essentials to reveal those issues that truly define us would probably be a damn good idea that would make it a lot easier. All that would require is moderating stances on some issues while becoming more HARDLINE on others (i.e. social security and progressive taxation)...becoming a better stream-lined beast.

Party flexibility is not a bad thing. Elected representatives first responsibility is always to their constituents. That shouldn't be a problem unless we make it one by our contempt for those whose votes we seek. Maybe we need to stop telling people who we are and start showing them where we stand. Actions speak louder than politicing.

As for a 50 state plan, it's absurd not to try. If our first priority is Electoral College votes, the American people will vote in-kind - mainly, as if they're being used and don't appreciate it. The reality of the Electoral college should be part of campaign strategizing but should NEVER be so glaringly obvious as it was in 2004. John Kerry could have spent another month in Ohio and it wouldn't have done him any good. If fact, it probably would have cost him 10% of the vote he did get in that state.

The lesson we've refused to learn from November is that grassroots flooding of a few states is NOT the way to win an election. Out-of-state campaign workers are great when no one knows they're from out-of-state, but the second voters know these are legions of paid canvassers from across the country knocking on their doors fatigue and cynicism set in. That fundamental hope that politics is local and more than a money game has been shattered. The grassroots, by definition, is LOCAL - your friends and neighbors. Move-On, ACT, DFA - these are networks, glorified special interest groups, DLCs of a different breed. They can do some good, but they're not our saviors and they certainly aren't the future. Like the Internet itself, they're an over-hyped by-product of our cheap desire for THE NEXT BIG THING, when what we need more than anything else is to get back to basics and reconnect with the American people. That means a HUMAN connection based on common principles...not daily e-mails to meet fund-raising goals (though those have their place as well).

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread...

Some suggestions on Nebraska politics (a response)

At 1/3/2005 08:34:28 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Stenberg didn't lose because he was a "right wing wacko". He lost on name recognition and his generally weak personality. AND...he didn't lose by much.

Other than that, I also have to disagree with your idea of nationalizing the fight in Nebraska. Bad idea. If the Dems are going to compete, let alone take back, the state, it's going to be on local and state issues where we have bolder and better ideas (theoretically). We don't have enough emotional currency and trust with the people of Nebraska to take on Bush and his cronies...who have a huge base of support that is going to rise and fall on the fate of forces over which we have no control. The National Dems have to put forward a bold, original agenda of their own to take on Bush, but that's not our fight right now (especially with candidate Nelson).

The best thing we can do to serve the cause is getting back to our roots and emphasizing IDEAS, IDEAS, and IDEAS!!! We can and should point out Republican hypocrisy and abuses of power, but making that the focus of our energies and labeling them all extremists is a sure path to disaster (especially when we'd be considered attacking the majority of Nebraskans who identify with the Republican party, many of whom we have to win over to win). We've been marginalized in this state as malcontents. If we don't offer a better alternative and instead focus on a better line of attack, that's all we'll remain.

The one place Bush is going to be vulnerable in the state may be agriculture. Johanns' appointment allows us a basis on which to tie Bush's failures directly to this state's most important economic sector and cultural institution. If things get worse for Nebraska farmers, we have a ready-made Nebraska Republican to blame for it. Maybe that's the "in" with rural Nebraskans we so desperately need.

This governor's race is going to be so important to our efforts, even if Osborne runs and then I'd say maybe even more so. The possibility this presents of running a respectful and classy campaign where we're going up against a legend because we have a better plan for the people of Nebraska can not be discounted. Whether we'd win or lose, we could use Osborne's celebrity and the attention it would draw to the race as a chance to present a NEW face for the democratic party. If we were even able to make a race of it - the future vs. the past, David vs. Goliath - it would be a new day for Democrats in Nebraska as we'd win a lot of much-needed respect.

Let's not over-extend ourselves with coordinated campaign offices. Nothing's hurt us in the past quite like bankruptcy. Just having a single legitimate office in each of the 3 congressional districts, with perhaps a state-wide Unicameral office, would be a WONDERFUL improvement. In the 3rd, I would personally suggest North Platte as a base of operations.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Future of the Democratic Party, Circa 2010

Re: The "new" Republican strategy

At 12/30/2004 12:18:45 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

This fire was burning long before Atwater,Ditto-heads, and the "Southern Strategy." Also, surely you know better than to believe there's ever been anything gentlemanly about politics, at least in a democracy.

The Republican Party is only where it is today by molding its message to fit the people's mistrust of government and distaste for taxes. That, right there, is the root of their power and their success. Everything else is icing on the cake that effectively covers their blatant hypocrisy.

Don't buy into THEIR culture war. It doesn't need to be fought, as it's nowhere near as adversarial as some like to believe. This is not an us vs. them sort of thing. There's any number of us's that differ largely by a matter of a few degrees.

The same applies in response to this Red-Blue fanaticism spawned by Tim Russert's marker board. "Red State Mania" is little more than over-hyped myopia and frustration on the part of the left (us). When we truly start to believe in it and shape our policies and image around it, that's when we've truly lost.

We will never divide the American people as well as they do (at least, not intentionally). We have to move past this nonsense, and just keep on keeping on, trusting the American people to decide their own fate. Give the people hope, and progress will follow. If that doesn't hold true, we're all screwed anyway.

We didn't light it, but we try to fight it.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Holiday Season Open Thread

Random comment from the Nebraska Democratic Party Blog 4

At 12/29/2004 02:11:48 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Excuse me, but a Republican president that receives 60 million votes is doing more than rallying his base. I think this insulated Internet-organized, activist-driven world so many of us like to think exists has blinded us to the simple fact that tens of millions voted for Bush without any regard for Neo-Cons, Dominion, or the Rapture. They voted for him because they felt safer doing so.

Have we forgotten 9/11? Did this whole Iraq War-thing just disappear from our radar? Seriously, this was never going to be an easy election to win. With a PERFECT campaign this year, there would have been time enough to get the job done despite the 9/11-fix (emotional connection to the voters) that was in from the start only because Bush has been such a failure in so many other respects. None of this, however, was EVER going to be easy. Usurping the Commander-in-Chief when our soldiers are dying (even needlessly) is not a matter of moving left or right. You have to beat the other guy in strength, fortitude, and vision. All in all, Kerry probably matched Bush in these as a sum total, but he never got the upperhand a challenger needs to force a change.

Sadly, the American people seemed almost primed to make such an unprecedented change, except there just wasn't enough bait on the hook. Kerry's worst debate was the one on domestic policy. He conceded education to Bush entirely and refused to go on the offensive on Social Security policy. It comes down to a failure of the "vision-thing" because he couldn't tie it all together in a good package with nice wrapping paper. Thus, the status quo wins out precisely because it seems safer, and...guess what, it has coat-tails.

Breaking any of this down to left or right is just wishful thinking. An election is about issues only so far as the American people allow it to be, and this one never made the cut. This was a gut reaction election, and you have to make one hell of an argument to overcome that if the numbers aren't already on your side. This was Bush's election to lose, and he almost did. Sure, he was helped by fundamentalist turn-out, but none of that would have mattered a lick without a lot of regular Joes getting his back.

If we are the guardians of freedom, virtue, and democracy against the armies of theocracy and greed (as we purport to be), let's at least be true to that rather than looking for dogmas of another ilk, be it Move-On, Ralph Nader, or otherwise. Labels are a tool of oppression. The purging of the Democratic Party I hear kicked around is a nice bit of delusion, but if it comes down to a firefight, the American people are far too pragmatic, comfortable, and sedentary for the "instant revolution" at its heart. A giant leap backward is so much easier. We either re-claim the middle by force of character or we perish entirely. We are still victims of a caricature that the American people have rejected. What's to be gained by eagerly BECOMING who they fear we are when we can't even make the case for who we are now?

Note, none of this is about sacrificing issues but rather how we present ourselves. We can be more bold in our proclamations but preaching to a choir that doesn't exist is the very height of absurdity. You don't win the game by taking your ball and going home for a rally - not when you're still in the game.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Future of the Democratic Party, Part II