|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Vince Whitacre's Reply to My Letter:
Hola, Redeye. Let's cut right to the chase:
>1. Remember the power of so-called wedge issues. The
>GOP uses them frequently to win the vote of non-union
>working-class conservatives, mostly in the South but
>not always. You are running in a very Republican
>district, where Sensenbrenner will certainly have
>several wedge issues to use against you. In my
>opinion, the effect of these wedge issues should be
>countered by developing some wedges of your own, such
>as the Tyson boycott (assuming a majority or a near-
>majority of the people in WI-5 support the boycott),
>rather than by running on managerial issues such as
>the performance of the economy.
Unfortunately, the Tyson strike has not been a unifying theme in CD5. The town of Jefferson is wholeheartedly behind UFCW local 538, but the town itself lies just outside of the district.
The way I see it, the economy IS a wedge issue. It's up to us to show the middle-class people of the district (who make up the vast majority of its residents) that the Bush/Sensenbrenner economic plan has NOT helped them. Sure, they may have received a $300 check, but what about health care costs? What about state and local taxes that have risen due to a lack of federal funding coming to the state? What about the fact that income tax doesn't matter if you have no income due to LOSING YOU JOB? The fact is, the vast majority of Americans did not receive a "tax cut," not in any meaningful sense.
This is a wedge issue, Redeye. The trick is to make people REALIZE that Sensenbrenner's agenda will take people out of the middle class and put them into poverty. Especially the many workers in the district (and there are a lot) who stand to lose their right to overtime under the Republicans' plan. The small business owners and social conservatives also feel the pain of this economy -- it's time to give them the chance to do something about it.
>2. Don't be afraid to spin, in the sense of touting
>an issue using a language that is usually used
>against it. The whole essence of American
>conservatism is the abuse of terms that were once
>considered liberal, such as "freedom,"
>"individualism," "democracy," and "rights." It might
>help if you try and retake those words, for example
>by framing the opposition to war in terms of smaller
>government or in terms of protecting innocent people
>("Do you trust the government with your life?").
Oh, yes, buzzwords are huge. We'd all like to be able to campaign on the issues (at least Democrats would), but that's not how it works. We do need to reclaim the language. We also need to reclaim the flag, and we need to reclaim the very idea of patriotism itself. I am a patriot who LOVES his country. That does not mean I turn a blind eye to the actions of my government. Loving my country does not have a single damn thing to do with accepting the agenda of the extremist right. Those who truly love their country seek to make change for the better.
>3. How can you reconcile your assertion that "The
>United States of America is the greatest nation in
>the world" with a platform of change? If the USA
>really is so great, why is there any need to make it
>much better? As an aside, the USA is not the greatest
>nation in the world because Canada outperforms it in
>almost every respect except its head of state being a
>monarch with no real power, its not having a Harvard
>or a Princeton, and its lower GDP per capita that
>cancels out with the lower cost of living.
Of course I believe the U.S.A. is the greatest country in the world. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to be part of my nation's government. Redeye, you seem to be in agreement with the extremist right on this issue -- they claim that dissent is unpatriotic, you are saying that my theme of change somehow belies the idea that the U.S.A. is not great. Where you both err is in thinking that greatness = perfection.
We are not a perfect nation. There are many things that we could do better. What makes us great is that we CAN do better, and I believe that we WILL do better. We live in a revolutionary country, Redeye. In fact, we have a revolution every two years. We need to embrace this revolutionary spirit and steer our country on toward a glorious future. I don't think you or I or anyone else has any idea of just how much good we can do.
I know my history. I know the United States has not always been on the right side (no nation has always been on the right side). But I also know that when we do good, when we act as a beacon of freedom that shines bright enough for all the world to see, there is no limit to our greatness.
>4. What do you think regarding agricultural
>subsidies? You don't really say it in the farming
>portion of his platform. This issue is important
>because according to The Hunger Site, 24,000 people,
>of whom 18,000 are children below 5, die every day
>from hunger. They are mostly subsistence farmers, and
>a lot of them will survive, albeit still in misery,
>if more people buy their products. In other words,
>agricultural subsidies cause people to buy more
>American crops, i.e. less third-world crops, and thus
>cause deaths from hunger. The question here is, is
>American self sufficiency more important than Indian,
>Vietnamese, Somalian, or Dominican lives?
There are two issues here, which are not necessarily linked. One is subsidies to American farmers for growing (or not growing) certain crops. The other is third-world starvation. The real problem with starvation is not subsidies, it is an inadequate distribution infrastructure (in addition to warlord rule in many famine-stricken parts of the world). The world produces enough food to feed everybody; but much of this food rots in warehouses. The world needs effective avenues to distribute crops from those areas which have surpluses to those areas which face starvation.
>5. Final comment: what is your position on separation
>of church and state? More precisely, how would you
>have voted on condemning Newdow vs. Congress, which
>declared the "under god" portion of the pledge of
>allegiance (on which Jesse Ventura said "mandating a
>pledge of allegiance to a government is something
>Saddam Hussein would do") unconstitutional, had you
>been in Congress in June 2002? And moreover, what are
>you going to do once elected about the creationists'
>systematic attacks on science and rationality (a good
>place to start is this article written 6 years ago)
>in public schools?
To tell the truth? I probably would have abstained. "Under God" in the Pledge doesn't offend me personally, but I think it is probably unconstitutional. That said, part of the job of a Representative is to, well, represent his or her constituents; and a huge majority of the American people were against the ruling of the 9th circuit court. I proably would have reconciled these dual impulses by abstaining or voting "present."
As far as creationism in the public schools -- in a comparative religions class? Sure. In science class? Absolutely not. Then again, I'm running for Congress, not school board. I hate to duck the question like that, but it's true. I'd love to mandate that science classes have to teach scientific fact, but one can only do so much at the federal level.
To a large extent, you're talking about constitutional interpretation here. A U.S. Representative swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, but it falls to the judiciary to interpret. I will not vote for a bill I deem antithetical to the principles of our constitution, but it's not my job to overturn state and local laws -- that is the responsibility of the courts. This is why we need to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate -- but I assume you already knew that. :-)
>The good as well as bad news are that you won't lose
>or gain any votes because of any reply, or lack
>thereof, to this email. I can't vote for you because
>I live approximately 3,000 kilometers from WI-5, and
>I can't contribute money because I don't have any. I
>will most probably post the reply to this letter on
>my site, but I'm not sure that there's anybody who
>actually reads it, so it can't hurt or help anyone.
You're expecting a reply? That's awfully presumptuous of you! Seriously, thank you for putting your letter on your site. I'm going to face a lot of darts from the right during this campaign. It's only fair that I face a few from the left as well.
Regards,
Vince
=====
Vince Whitacre
Democrat for U.S. House of Representatives
Fifth Congressional District, Wisconsin
a href="http://www.vince4congress.com">http://www.vince4congress.com
Click here to read my reply to his reply.
Click here to read Vince's reply to my reply.
Click here to read my final reply.
This site has gotten
hits since 2003-12-25.