Exegetical

Our afternoon speaker, John Lipscombe, is a Texas judge who has been working within various echelons of Texas’ judiciary since the early 1970s. For the most part, conversation narrowed on electing judges and the death penalty.

Gettin’ 'Em Into Office:

Texas judges, and prospective judges, seek seats through ballots. This may be counterintuitive: Judges, as impartial arbiters, may (should?) be understood as processors of raw materials that meticulously discern logical/logically causal relationships between those materials while conforming to constitutional principles. Still, the problem of electing judges—asserting a designation of legitimacy that (probably) reflects one’s own moral compass—is not remedied in the act of appointment. Equally troubling is the bipartisan political machinations plausibly present in an appointment made by a political elite—i.e. Bush’s Alito or FDR’s Court-Packing Plan (albeit a more serious case that undertook institutional reconstruction and not only appointments). Concerns that result might include whether the former or the latter case is worse on a scale of contributing to judge partiality or whether their outcomes are of equal weight. What to do ...

Lipscombe: “People have a right to vote for their judges—to gauge the capacities of the judges for themselves.”

But that doesn’t really treat the problems discussed above. So?

Lipscombe: “Look at city council races: you can tell partisanship without officially announcing it.”

I suppose the resolution is a choice of lesser evils. Judges are invariably rooted in a persuasion and so, like Lipscombe, I would prefer to entrust the selection of candidates to
(informed, transcendental forces willing) citizens, rather than proffering the temptation of opportunistic endeavors to politicians.

Sanctioning Death:

There’s really nothing I can discuss about the death penalty that hasn’t been said or isn’t an unsubstantial morsel of thought. Instead of offering some crucially naïve op-ed, I’ll dissect and relay Lipscombe’s lecture.

Amorality and its tangents:

a) The death penalty “is itself a morally corrupt thing; it’s morally unjustifiable.”
b) “If you’re saying it’s against the law to kill someone and you kill someone as an executioner, then you’re going against what you say. It’s reprehensible to believe that we as a young nation are above everything, other nations, other cultures that have been here for hundreds of years” and began using life without parole within the past century…“that we have a better way of doing this…it’s absolutely wrong.” In other words, we—states utilizing the death penalty--are operationally and morally dubious and arcane.
c) “As societies grow and evolve, we have to get above those baser instincts; we have to apply a good morality to what we’re doing.”

I changed my mind about not approaching this conversation. However, instead of diving into the debate over the penalty, I will very briefly explore what I’ve assumed is the moral scruple under consideration: the notion of state-sanctioned violence or violence period. This argument runs deeply and broadly into the realms of political ideology (liberal and republican democracy), religion (Thou shall not… and Eye for an…), and even state sponsored transgressions or omissions (atom bombs and post-9/11 national security, among many others). My perspective on the issue is complicated by views and functions of violence across time and within divergent social and political systems: (unfortunately platitudinous) M. Gandhi, J-P Sartre, and Arendt offer a lot to digest on violence used by and against the state. Admittedly, this isn't about the death penalty directly, but about violence generally. Maybe I'll come back to this if another speaker brings it up.

This is an exhausting topic.

We are NOT normal...thank heavens.

It seems like ever since I got involved as a contributing voter in Texas campaigns, I've been talking about caucuses, conventions, and precincts like crazy. And it wasn't until campaign academy, and these last few months, I realized that I was not normal. It wasn't until one of our speakers drove the point home, while we were talking about targeting, I think..."YOU ARE NOT NORMAL". We political nuts are not the norm. Especially among our age range.
I've always embraced the oddity... "abnormalness", if you will, of a young person involved and truly interested in the inner workings of politics, outside of what you see on network news. But it was only in this last cycle, when my friends would ask me what I was doing over the weekend, and I would happily and with enthusiasm say, "working at the state democratic convention." At which point, I'd be asked for how long, and I'd respond, as long as I can. And then be asked how much it paid. Then I'd laugh, and say nothing....and then get asked why. Why in the world would you do this? You, a young single mom, whose free time is already precious and not very plentiful, why would you devote a whole weekend to a cause your not even getting paid for?
That question has been asked a lot here at campaign academy. What brings you here? Why are you here? And I don't think I've really gotten a good understanding of why I do this crazy political stuff I do until I started the academy. Which was pretty bad timing, cause that kinda is the first question you get asked while your here, is why your here. I guess I'm here because I care...because I want this world to be a better place for my son, to be a nation where he can afford to go to a good college, and not pay an arm and a leg to get good health care. I guess that sounds a little corny, and maybe I'm idealistic to believe that I'll play a part in getting all that accomplished. But you can try. All it takes is trying, trying to be the change you want to see in others. I know, thats a pretty over-used phrase, but it holds true, I believe.
But thats my little contribution for the day...guys, I think that would be pretty cool, to get the people who can post to the blog to write up a little wordy explanation of why they are really here, what motivates us to block-walk in 100 plus degree heat, and give up part of our summer vacation...our passion, basically.
Or maybe I just don't want to be the only one, heh.

Controversy

I know that I've heard people say they default to women and minorities when voting in down ballot primaries. Now our speaker John Lipscombe tells us that in Travis county women and minorities have an estimated five point advantage. I have very mixed feelings about this and would love to hear some justifications. Baisically; comments anyone?

The Road to Heckling is Paved with Good Intentions

Any good campaign has a strong message. Most of us only remember TV ads that are funny- let's throw caution to the wind and go for the easily-entertained demographic. Here are some (very rejected) campaign slogan ideas from myself and others:

Strama Marks the Spot

Mark Strama: Not Patrick Rose

Marack Ostrama 2008

A Rose By Any Other Name Would Look Like Strama

Victoria's Dad In '08

Do You Wanna Strama Strama? Vote Mark in '08!

Holy Markeral! Strama's a Catch for State Rep!

No Marketing: Strama's a Straight Shooter

No Drama with Strama: Mark Represents ALL of District 50!


Feel free to post your own!
-Nick

Prof Steckler Talks Shop-- And Listens, Too

Last Thursday at the Campaign Academy, we had Paul Steckler come and speak to us. Mr. Steckler directed the documentary we viewed on Monday, Last Man Standing. We asked him what went into his decision to base his documentary on the Texas 2002 governor and state representative races. He discussed the potential change that could have occurred with the Sanchez and Kirk races (see my last post) and the chance some of us thought we had to bring the state back into Democratic control. As we all know now, that didn't happen. In covering these races, the Rose/Green campaign came to his attention, and well, aren't we all glad he did, because it resulted in a great documentary. He also made a film called Vote for Me, and has reformed the film academy at UT and teaches there. 

We asked him what the best way to get an important person to come and see us at the academy was, and he gave us the advice to ask simple questions to get the answers we want. At the end, he asked us what we would think was important in a campaign if all we had seen or heard about campaigns was what we viewed in Last Man Standing. Which I thought was really great, because he seemed genuinely interested in our views, and what we thought. We learned on one of the previous days, that in targeting for campaigns, the younger voters are generally overlooked, and efforts are more concentrated on swing voters, and other demographics. It really does speak a lot of the tide turning in politics today, that people really are listening to the opinions of the younger voters. Some of the things we mentioned were the importance of message and appearance, and connecting with voters and taking your opponent seriously.

It was great to have him here to speak to us, and we learned a great deal about what goes into documentary film making.

Fun with Rorschach

Maybe block-walking in the hundredsomething-degree heat yesterday fried a few too many of my brain cells, but does Donna Howard's district look like a dragon to you?


See, KT said it reminded him of a dragon, but to me it looks more like a manic poodle. Meanwhile, Mark's district looks like a malformed lobster, Elliott Naishtat's a puzzled ferret, and Valinda Bolton's reminds me of my mother. There are probably better maps out there, but this one is the best thing that twenty pages of Google searches turned up. (Howard's website, however, features a much larger depiction of the alleged dragon, which up close looks suspiciously like England rotated ninety degrees to the right.

Coincidence? I think not.)


ETA: Looking back over this post, the fact that I spent a Saturday afternoon Googling maps of District 48 is both alarming and way lame. I need to get invited to more parties that don't have "Democratic" at the front.

Texas Veep?

Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House for these United States, has suggested that Congressman Chet Edwards be selected for the Vice Presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket. For those of you who do not know, Edwards is the U.S. Representative for the fightin' 17th. This district includes a range of land from Waco, trailing down to the Brazos Valley. In the 2006 election, Edwards defeated newcomer Republican Van Taylor. My voting decision was difficult, and for a while, I thought I would swing right. At the last second, I decided to vote for the incumbent to allow Chet Edwards to maintain his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
During his time as a national legislator, Edwards has earned seniority ranking and a position on the House Appropriations Committee. His position on this committee allows an open door for federal funding to reach Texas, and our state is in dire need. Texas is constantly being rated last, or next to last, in many different important categories: education, health care, environmental issues.

Obama/Edwards '08? This could happen, but what does that mean for Texas? Well, District 17, where many of my close friends and family reside, will lose a powerful, sometimes shifty, but hard working Congressman. Though his record has not always been consistent, Edwards has recently voted to pass legislation that favors and supports the stability of the middle class. He believes in reducing the national debt by eliminating Congressional earmarks. He also agrees that the status quo of this nation is unacceptable and requires much improvement. Having Edwards on the ballot as VP would be a great help to down ballot Democrats, encouraging straight ticket voting, however; he is a very strong member of the House of Representatives and Texans do not want to lose that representation. He has served his districts, which have been gerrymandered by Republican leadership, since 1990. He has earned tremendous amounts of respect and power as a member of Congress which leads me to believe that we may need him to maintain his position as a legislator as opposed to an executive.

And so it begins...

This week has been a very exciting one. We have learned all sorts of information from local politicos, elected officials, and all-around interesting people. After absorbing as much information as possible and listening to inspirational speeches, we are finally ready to get out in the field.

Later today we will be doing our first lit drop in Mark's district. It will be very exciting to actually get out in the heat and do something to put all this wonderful information we have learned to use.

Robert Jones-First Day Rundown

"Try to be the campaign that makes the next to last mistake."

-Michael Shannon

Robert Jones, Political Director for Annie's List, spoke to the Campaign Academy in a three-hour cram session, laying out the foundation of local political campaigns. He reported on what positions and duties fell into a campaign and then shifted gears into campaign strategy.

50% plus one is all you need. The key is having a plan to achieve the simple majority. This includes two elements we focused on: fundraising and targeting.

Face-to-face and phone fundraising is most effective for candidates, and Jones took the Campaign Academy through the process of "Making the Ask". Important elements included establishing a succinct campaign message and proving the candidate's viability before asking for a specific dollar amount.

The resources for each candidate include the following three things: people, money, and time. Targeting simply prioritizes these resources, using them only on people who are undecided, or could be easily swayed to vote for a specific candidate.

By targeting key voters and viewing previous voter history, resources are used effectively, and the persuasion percent (percentage of voters that are persuadable) is convinced, if you were to vote for your candidate.

Calculating and formulaic, this effective political formula is often viewed as a pernicious but necessary evil. An effective politician does not lose. The idealism is lost with the business model for a political campaign, but ideals do not pay the bills or the staff. They do, however, help us sleep at night and wake up each morning. 

The real courage lies in those who know the system, manipulate the system, and still wake up idealistic.

I will not naively generalize Representative Strama as a "good guy," because I believe there is innate good in the heart of the richest, cheating, son-of-a-gun, mudslinging politician. But Mark  has displayed a genuine interest in education, not only through legislation and voting history, but also in this Campaign Academy. Though we are his resource, he runs the Campaign Academy like a constant classroom. I think we know where he stands on education. 

 

Professor Paul Steckler Answers a Participant's Question

Mystery man Fero talks to academy

In a single article, The Statesman called our Tuesday lunch speaker Kelly Fero “shadowy," “invisible," and “clandestine."
Political consultant/ex-paid journalist/renegade blogger Fero talked with us about role of media in society. I think he was supposed to talk to us about press releases, but after Strama used Obama as an example of a candidate that knew how to “massage the media” (ew?) our group sort of exploded into debate. We talked about the rhetorical importance of an article’s lead. How in merely choosing the order of facts in her story a reporter can exhibit her values. Then we talked about the obligation of reporters to their community. By the way when I say we talked I do mean We Talked. Fero never actually lectured us. He just sat down and let us ask questions. Some of us believed that newspapers ought to be a source of facts to the public. The idea of objectivity is fairly new and American. In Europe a newspapers particular slant is common knowledge, and in the 19th and 18th century newspapers practically embraced their slant: advertising themselves as abolitionist or conservative rags. The idea of objectivity seems blatantly false, and misleading. Reading one account is never enough to get the full picture.
Another motif in Campaign Academy discussions is immigration. There is a lot of righteous indignation over the Republicans' use of immigration as a wedge issue. Fero said that it was “sad” that immigration had “gone from an issue that candidates dropped six months after election to a potential wall."

Jack Martin Skips the Razzle-Dazzle and Delivers the Goods

So I'll admit it: I'm kind of a traitor. Though a resident of the state of Texas, I opted to attend college in southern California-- an act of base ingratitude that broke the heart of every diehard Texan I know.

"What's wrong with UT?" they ask me, lower lips quivering in hurt and bewilderment. I never know exactly how to answer them, but profuse apologies and fervent hopes that the Horns "hook them" are usually involved.

One downside of being all the way in "exotic" California, as one UT friend put it, is that I'm a little isolated from Texas politics. Not really knowing who's who or what's going on, I am forced to take my cues off of other people, adopting their enthusiasm or disdain as my own and pretending it's coming from a place of actual knowledge.

Imagine my gratitude, then, when opposition researcher and guest speaker Jason Stanford indicated exactly how I should feel about Jack Martin, who came today to visit with the Campaign Academy during our lunch hour, through his wide-eyed and slightly breathless declaration that we were extraordinarily lucky to be graced with a rare Jack Martin sighting and even-rarer dispensation of Jack Martin political knowledge. Jack Martin, he said, was the last and best hope for a Texas Democrat seeking statewide office, and one of the smartest people we would ever meet.

Based on this slightly star-struck reaction, I was sort of expecting a combination of Yoda, Justin Timberlake, and Jesus Christ. (The normal-looking guy in the suit who ended up being Martin kind of threw me.) But once he started talking, I started getting it: Though not bathed in a golden glow, Martin knows his stuff. Between anecdotes about important political events in Texas-- like turning his college town wet in the early 70s-- Martin dispensed such down-to-earth advice as "don't count on a surge of new voters as a recipe for victory" and "if you're denying before noon you're in trouble." Nothing flashy, no complex statistics or algebraic formulas; just solid, no-nonsense analyses that pierced through the illusions and needlessly complicated political stratagems that Democratic candidates especially have a tendency to fall victim to. Is Martin a rock star, a minor deity, the messiah we've all been waiting for?

I couldn't tell you.

But I'd sure trust him with my campaign: I may have been out of state for so long that I practically need a passport to get back in, but I do know that in a place as crazy as Texas, you need a guy who's got a good head on his shoulders.

(Re)New(ed) Beginnings

The third incarnation of Campaign Academy began two days ago. Mark Strama commenced with a welcome speech that defined one of the fundamental elements of campaigning: the elevator speech--a project of expeditiousness. Each academician was given 20-30 seconds to introduce themselves and their (life, momentary, and otherwise) objectives, allowing for a quick getting-to-know-you session and also serving to demonstrate one of the many pressures politicians face while vote-seeking.

My favorite speaker of the day arrived shortly after intros. Rafael Anchia, a Dallas-area Texas state representative, shared a few anecdotes that informed his policy interests and understanding of democratic practice. Son of Mexican and Spanish immigrants, Rep. Anchia offered a refreshing perspective on labor, immigration, and constituent (whether citizen or no) representation issues. His lecture, despite its straightforwardness, presented a sophisticated and nuanced narrative of his negotiation between issues constituted by past, present, and future. In terms of party advancement in the region, he certainly appeals to the shift in demography and its concomitant policy concerns.

Ian Davis, our noontime speaker, introduced us to the Turn Texas Blue Campaign and explained what we’ll be doing with it. The campaign, as its name implies, is a project to get democrats (back) into office. Ian established one big objective for the TTBC: 2010 is, in effect, the not-so-distant bull’s eye marking a sweep of Texas state democratic victories.

License and Registrar ... Shun.

It may be only our third day in session at Campaign Academy, but I want to let it be known that yours truly is already moving up in the world. Just yesterday, I was awarded the prestigious and coveted position of Volunteer Deputy Registrar in the State of Texas, County of Travis, meaning that not only am I charged with the task of registering Travis County voters whenever and wherever I find them, but I am practically insured against being shot by Eric Clapton. I'm still waiting for my posse and my shiny badge, which I am assured will not be coming in the mail, but in the meantime I thought I'd share a few voter registration tips that I learned from Glen Maxey, who was kind enough to drop by and anoint me yesterday afternoon:

- Make use of the hours between midnight and 4 am. Though hazy on specific policy details, the mildly inebriated can usually be persuaded to fill out voter registration forms. (Warning: First ensure that they are cogent enough to accurately recall their personal information; otherwise, you run the risk of registering voters whose social security number is "Miller Lite.")

- Remember that voter registration is clothing-optional. As we learned from Maxey's tales of registering "the most naked people in Travis County," the folks down in Hippie Hollow may believe strongly in asserting their right to public nudity, but that doesn't mean they don't also believe in casting ballots. If a situation arises that makes you uncomfortable as a registrar, consider plastering recalcitrant nudists with your candidates' bumper stickers. Turn It Blue, baby!

- In Travis County, spouses can register spouses, parents can register children, and children can register parents. Hey, Jimmy, if you write down Daddy's place of residence I'll give you a popsicle ...


Increased voter turnout is great and all, but I still won't be happy until they give me a shiny badge.

Last Film Standing at GSD&M

by Kaeri Pav

On Monday, the first day of the Mark Strama Campaign Academy, we visited GSD&M IdeaCity, located on West 6th Street in downtown Austin. They were kind enough to let us use their facilities (a very nice, large, theater-style room) to view a documentary by Paul Stekler entitled Last Man Standing. It chronicles the campaigns of Tony Sanchez and Ron Kirk against Rick Perry and John Cornyn, and the race for state representative between Patrick Rose and Rick Green in District Number 45.

The film takes a closer look at the rise and fall of our "dream team" ticket for governor and senator, and what happened that made it fall. In the race for representative, the documentary looks at the dynamics between the Rose and Green campaigns, taking a person look into each party's reactions from the beginning of the race until election day.

It also talks about the great enthusiasm that was seen at the 2002 State Democratic convention in El Paso, Texas, and the huge positive energy that existed therein. I know for a fact how optimistic we all were, because that was the very first convention I attended, and very one that got me interested in Texas Democratic politics.

It was an excellent movie, giving us a lot of insight into Texas campaign politics, and a great start for what is sure to be a wonderful Strama Campaign Academy.

Rep. Strama Speaks to the Campaign Academy

Applications for the 2008 Campaign Academy!

The Mark Strama for State Representative Campaign Academy is a unique summer opportunity for high school and college students to work inside a high-profile campaign. You will learn the nuts and bolts of modern politics as well as the important policy questions that confront state government. Daily lunch speakers will include current and former elected officials, political consultants, university professors, and state policy experts.

Campaign Academy is dedicated to ensuring that every student has a rewarding and challenging experience, while making a difference in the political system.

General Information

Dates: June 23, 2008 - July 25, 2008
Daily Schedule (M-F, Optional Weekends): 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM (lunch provided)
Location: 1107 N I-35, Austin, TX (at Travis County Democratic Coordinated Campaign HQ)

Special accommodation may be made for students with part-time summer jobs who wish to participate less than the required 8 hours per day.

Apply!

The application deadline is Tuesday, June 17th.

To apply, download the 2008 Campaign Academy Application or email the following information directly to kt@markstrama.com.

Name:
Age:
Address:
Email:
Phone:
School:
Incoming Grade:
Brief Essay:

In your brief essay of no more than 350 words, describe your interest in the Campaign Academy and in politics in general, as well as any previous experience you have in politics.