independentsforkerry.org

Right now, you are looking at an Internet news site. The content is free to the users (you). It is updated multiple times throughout the day. Ten or 12 years ago, sites like this were few and far between. Today, they proliferate.

In the current issue of Coloradobiz magazine, columnist Jeff Rundles asks what it all means. And, since he looks to the late Marshall McLuhan for the answers, we had to bring you a taste:

I can’t imagine that a “newspaper” delivered electronically will change the game. The news organization itself has to be completely transformed not in the delivery of its content, but in the creation of the content itself. Think bloggers. Think Daily Beast. Think interactive. What is produced won’t be in a “subscriber’s” living room or on the front porch at a specified time, but rather in his pocket and her purse, always on, ever changing, constantly updated, under siege every moment, and at once immediately disposable and accessible forever.

But since I know nothing of McLuhan’s work, I’ll let him have the last word:

“The next medium, whatever it is — it may be the extension of consciousness — will include television as its content, not as its environment, and will transform television into an art form. A computer as a research and communication instrument could enhance retrieval, obsolesce mass library organization, retrieve the individual’s encyclopedic function and flip into a private line to speedily tailored data of a saleable kind.“ – Marshall McLuhan, 1962

Perhaps since McLuhan’s books were known for being dense, weighty and even a little circular, he became known more for the snappy one-liner than anything else. Here then, are some McLuhan quotes lifted from his estate’s website.

The future of the book is the blurb.

The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.

Politics offers yesterday’s answers to today’s questions.

The answers are always inside the problem, not outside.

News, far more than art, is artifact.

The story of modern America begins with the discovery of the white man by the Indians.

So, to use the generic phrase, “new media,” how has new media affected the body politic? Has it, like all media before it, become the message?

“Political science is still sitting around trying to figure out what the effects will be,” said Colorado College political science professor Bob Loevy.

“What we know is that new media provides the opportunity to connect groups together for political action that is inexpensive and quick. It has had a tremendous impact on fund-raising.”

Loevy noted that political campaigns now regularly employ paid professionals to manage new media as an outreach tool.

Indeed, just looking at the most recent campaigns in Colorado, virtually every major candidate had a prominent “Donate Now” message on their website that was click-able and allowed people to literally donate right then. It is safe to say there will never be another major campaign without such functionality — at least not until something better and faster comes along.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck posted his concession announcement to his website via Twitter. Republican Dan Maes announced via Facebook that he planned to raise a million dollars in a 24-hour period. It didn’t happen, of course, but …

YouTube videos of Ken Buck talking on various subjects became viral, spiraling out from their source until virtually everyone following the race had seen more than enough.

We can see that the medium matters, but with McLuhan long gone, who will tell us what it means?

Colorado Independent

The New American Independent Party has announced that it is endorsing Jana Kemp for Governor of Idaho. Kemp is running as an independent. More information can be found at newamericanindependent.com Jana Kemp for Governor http://www.votekemp.com/ Jana Kemp For Governor PO Box 8045 Boise ID 83707
3rd Party – Independent Pulse

Posted by Ross Levin at Independent Political Report:

This weekend there will be an open meeting of the Pennsylvania Green Party’s state committee, a fundraiser dinner featuring Green Party activist Mike Nance answering the question, “Was Hericletus right?” and a pancake breakfast the next morning at the house of Green Party activist Hillary Kane, which is [...]
Green Party Watch

Jim Schneller, an independent candidate for the U.S. Congress (PA-7) with support from the Tea Party turned in nearly 8,000 signatures just before the Pennsylvania deadline for independent and third party candidates to submit nomination papers. Schneller, a conservative from Wayne, PA. was required to submit 4,200 valid signatures. Schneller will take on Republican Patrick Meehan [...]
3rd Party – Independent Pulse

<http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/images/background.gif>

NBRA FIFTH ANNIVERSARY EVENT REPORT

<http://cache.trustedpartner.com/images/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssoc
iation2009/Jennifer%20Carroll.png>
Representative Jennifer Carroll

Florida House Representative Jennifer Carroll who is the Republican Party's
candidate for Florida's lieutenant governor was the keynote speaker for the
Fifth Anniversary Celebration of the National Black Republican Association
that was held in Sarasota, Florida on September 16, 2010. During the
festivities a congratulatory letter from RNC Chairman Michael Steele was
read and awards were presented to NBRA grassroots activists and supporters.
Among the awardees were Sarasota County Commissioner Carolyn Mason who was
presented with the NBRA's Chairman's Award and seven of our grassroots
activists who were recognized as NBRA Pioneers. At a previous quarterly
meeting of the Republican Party of Florida, Rep. Carroll was honored with
the NBRA's Booker T. Washington Award. Photographs of the NBRA Fifth
Anniversary Celebration can be seen on the NBRA website
<http://www.nbra.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=photo.album&id=37&x=4373494> and
NBRA Facebook page
<http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=493002&id=10150140745820471> .

Announced during the NBRA Fifth Anniversary event was the play, The Women of
Bradville, written by NBRA Chairman Frances Rice about the true history of
civil rights that is being produced by Bowie State University (BSU) in
Maryland. The first reading of the play was held at The Kennedy Center on
September 5, 2010 and will be premiered at BSU in 2011. A notice will be
posted on the NBRA website and NBRA Facebook page as soon as the date of the
premier is announced by BSU.

We extend our thanks to all of our grassroots activists and supporters for
your help with making our educational campaign so successful over the past
five years. We greatly appreciate your continued hard work as we move forth
with our mission of enlightening our fellow citizens about the rich civil
rights legacy and principles of the Republican Party so that we can return
African Americans to their Republican Party roots.

To learn more about the NBRA visit our website at: www.NBRA.info

To learn more about the
<http://www.rickscottforflorida.com/home/uncategorized/2010/09/10/2701/>
Rick Scott/Jennifer Carroll campaign click here.

Frances Rice
Chairman

© National Black Republican Association, 2010. All Rights Reserved.

<http://hydra.trustedpartner.com/fusion/count.cfm?mqid=1074&cid=47143&d=Nati
onalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009>

BLACK REPUBLICAN: National Black Republican Association E-News

An overwhelming majority of the people who rallied with comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Saturday are likely to vote Democratic in Tuesday’s elections, but only one-in-four is more enthusiastic about voting this year compared to 2008, according to USAction’s Straw Poll of rally participants conducted by Lake Research Partners.

While 86 percent of those surveyed plan on voting Democratic for Tuesday’s crucial midterm elections, another 8 percent said they are undecided with 1 percent planning to vote Republican. The remaining 5 percent say they are unlikely to vote – although the straw poll was conducted before the end of the rally when calls for civic participation were given full voice, according to an announcement of the poll results.

“As campaigns focus on mobilization nationwide, the survey data suggests that such efforts are extraordinarily important,” said pollster Celinda Lake.

Some 200,000 or more people descended on the ground by the Capitol Saturday to participate in the celebrity-fueled “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” organized by comedians Stewart and Colbert. Stewart’s overall goal for the rally appeared to be one of fostering greater civility and participation in voting — not necessarily a straight partisan message.

Voters surveyed at the rally reported only moderate enthusiasm for Tuesday’s election – only one-in-four (25 percent) said they are more enthusiastic about voting this cycle than they were in 2008, while a plurality (39 percent) said they are less enthusiastic and 36 percent saying their level of enthusiasm hasn’t changed.

Democrats will be defending their congressional majorities Tuesday in what has been a persistently strong anti-incumbent sentiment among many Americans, and a concerted effort by conservative tea party activists to gain power, so as to block President Obama’s initiatives.

Many pundits believe Republicans likely will take control of at least congressional chamber as a result of Tuesday’s voting.

“Tuesday’s election isn’t about witches or manning up. It’s about real issues that matter to the future of our country,” says USAction President William McNary, referring to two catch phrases used by tea party-backed candidates this year.

“Our survey was designed to find out what they care about,” says McNary. “This election is about jobs, health care, the economy, poverty, war and many other issues effecting Americans. We want to find out what is truly driving people this election season.”

A plurality (41 percent) say the president’s No. 1 priority ought to be improving the jobs situation, more than double the number who selected any of other issue option. Second tier priorities include quality education (18 percent), energy and the environment (17 percent), ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (13 percent) and improving health care (11 percent.)

About 87 percent of this audience believes the Obama administration should prioritize “investing in programs that put people back to work” as opposed to “focusing on cutting spending instead” (13 percent.) In this regard, rally attendees appear to side heavily with the vast majority of economists when it comes to the proper course of action for reducing unemployment.

Most of the people who participated in the poll were supportive of Obama and want his administration to focus aggressively on a jobs creation agenda. An overwhelming majority (90 percent) approved of the president, including more than half (56 percent) who approve of him strongly. In contrast, only 10 percent disapproves of the president (2 percent strongly.)

The USAction Straw Poll was conducted by text message on cell phones. Participants texted SANITY or FEAR to 228466 (ACTION) and received a short survey about their views on Obama, Tuesday’s election, and which issues they think are most important for the country.

The publisher of the news site On The Hill, Scott Nance has covered Congress and the federal government for more than a decade.

The Democratic Daily

Slate columnists and self-described “liberal Republican” (read: former Republican) Will Saletan wrote that Speaker Nancy Pelosi won and the Republicans lost the midterm elections. He makes a pretty good case, too.

Majorities come and go. Health care reform is here to stay. As Saletan puts it, “a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health care entitlement never restores the old order … In 30 years, Republicans will be accusing Democrats of defunding Obamacare.”

The full quote:

A party that loses a House seat can win it back two years later, as Republicans just proved. But a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health care entitlement never restores the old order. Pretty soon, Republicans will be claiming the program as their own. Indeed, one of their favorite arguments against this year’s health care bill was that it would cut funding for Medicare. Now they’re pledging to rescind those cuts. In 30 years, they’ll be accusing Democrats of defunding Obamacare.

More:

Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren’t going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.

And that’s not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform, and all the other bills that became law under Pelosi. So spare me the tears and gloating about her so-called failure. If John Boehner is speaker of the House for the next 20 years, he’ll be lucky to match her achievements.

Will Republicans revisit health care? Sure. Will they enact some changes to the program? Yes, and Democrats will help them. Every program needs revisions. Republicans will get other things, too: business tax breaks, education reform, more nuclear power, and a crackdown on earmarks. These are issues on which both parties can agree. Which is why, if you’re a Democrat, you deal with them after you’ve lost your majority — not before.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Colorado Independent

It shouldn’t come as any surprise to regular readers of this space to know that I’ll be pulling for the Democrats in the Tuesday elections. First of all, as I’ve written about here, I support Democrats on the merits. Although often imperfect, the economic and reform programs they offer are much more likely to benefit the lower- and middle-income Americans who need help most during this time of protracted downturn.

The Republican alternatives, meanwhile, will do much more harm than good.

Beyond the substantive, I have another reason to root for the Democrats on Election Night, however.

If the Democrats “win” Tuesday night — and by “win,” I mean not lose so badly as to turn over control of either side of Congress — it will be a great affirmation of the ability of a “ground war” to prevail over an “air war.”

Corporate and conservative interests have run a massive “shock and awe” air war by throwing literally thousands of attack ads, perhaps approaching billion worth, at Democrats this year.

While Democrats and their allied liberal groups clearly have put up their own negative advertising, they’ve banked much more heavily on winning through a ground war.

They’ve been fighting that ground war on two fronts: a massive get-out-the-vote drive to mobilize the masses that propelled Barack Obama to the White House in 2008, and by early voting, or encouraging supporters to vote ahead of Tuesday in those places that allow early voting.

Democrats, including the Obama-affiliated group Organizing for America (OFA), are spending tens of millions of dollars to motivate supporters and get them to the polls, especially those who voted for the first time just two years ago.

“It’s a great experiment to see whether we can bring out voters whose only previous vote was in 2008,” says Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

For Van Hollen and his cohorts, this, of course, is no academic exercise. At stake is whether Democrats can continue to hold a majority, at least through the end of Obama’s first term.

On the other side, Democrats have pushed early voting hard. Early voting gets more and more votes “in the bank” ahead of Election Day, and as hoped for, analysis of such balloting ahead of Tuesday shows some encouragement for Democrats.

Conservatives, clearly, have bet big on their attack ad strategy, but if their barrage comes up short, the efficacy of big-money-bankrolled negativity will be very much in question.

It will also demonstrate that, as bad as the Supreme Court Citizens United decision was that opened the floodgates to all this third-party bombardment, its harm can be overcome.

This may surprise you coming from an old reporter like myself, but a win for a get-out-the-vote strategy will also indicate the limits of the media, even in our media-obsessed culture.

Karen Nussbaum, the head of the union-affiliated group Working America, has been running a large labore-backed get-out-the-vote project, and has seen that neighbors talking to neighbors can have more power than Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or any other right-wing commentator.

I’m not the only one who thinks this is important. So does New York Times columnist Bob Herbert.

“I would just strongly urge everyone to get to work organizing on the local level because I think it’s the only way we’re going to turn things around in this country,” Herbert says.

For me, getting our heads out of our computer and TV screens, and returning to talking to each other, would be the biggest win on Tuesday.

I’m hoping Van Hollen’s “experiment” is a complete success.

The publisher of On The Hill, Scott Nance has covered Congress and the federal government for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington.

The Democratic Daily

Best Price .95 This digital document is an article from Church & State, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on June 1, 2009. The length of the article is 410 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and [...]
Best News & Politics

Sometimes it is hard to figure out just what the American people really want?

From jobsanger.blogspot

Unfortunately, a new Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University poll contains some puzzling information and may well create as many questions as it answers. The poll surveyed 2,054 adults between September 22nd and October 3rd, and has a margin of error of 2.5%.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that if asked whether they support a smaller federal government, a clear majority of Americans would probably say yes. And a couple of the polls answers would tend to support that.

About 55% of respondents think the federal government is focused on the wrong things and another 52% believe the governments impact on their daily lives is mainly a negative one, while only 7% believe they get more value from the government than they pay in taxes (and 55% say they get less value).

Those beliefs would make someone think the majority of Americans would be in favor of drastic cuts to the federal government.

However, when they are asked about individual government programs, the poll responses shows that Americans think those programs are important and don’t want to see cuts in them. Consider the response results in the table right:

Those are all the programs that cost the government the most money. It would be impossible to think of cutting the size of the federal government without also drastically cutting most or all of these programs, and yet a clear majority in each case doesn’t think these programs should be cut.

It’s no wonder that the Republicans, while preaching cutting government, can’t name a single thing they would cut. It’s one thing to talk about cutting government in general, but quite another when it comes to cutting specific (and popular) programs. Americans may say they want a smaller government, but they only want it in theory — not reality.

In fact, reality may not enter into people’s view of the federal government very much. About 50% of the people said they believed that the federal government budget could be balanced just by eliminating wasteful spending.

But where is that wasteful spending? And could there possibly be trillions of dollars in wasteful spending? Frankly, it is amazing that half of the population could believe that.

While there is undoubtedly some wasteful spending, it is extremely unrealistic to believe it could even come near the federal deficit. [With defense spending nearly 60% of the total discretionary budget that is the best category of spending to trim back, but even that seems to be off the table.]

Another question also pointed out this schizophrenic nature of Americans. About 77% of the people believe that the United States has the best system of government in the world.

But then when asked if the government is run for the big special interests or the benefit of all citizens, a full 65% said it was run for the big special interests. How can those two statements be reconciled? Are all other governments in the world even worse than a government run for big special interests?

I’m amazed. Evidently we need a smaller government, but this must be accomplished without cutting programs. Where is reality?

The Republicans like to talk a lot about how horrible our national debt is, but when they are in power they are the worst contributors to increasing that debt. Isn’t it time to stop listening to what they say and pay attention to what they do?

And, by the way, under the leadership of Republican Gov. Rick Perry and a Republican controlled legislature the Texas budget deficit is now billion in the hole!

Democratic Blog of Collin County – News