Link Round-Up, January 3
Posted on January 3, 2008 in Iowa Caucuses, Link Round-Up by DM
In honor of Caucus Day, I decided to round up some of the thought-provoking and entertaining posts I’ve been reading lately related to the caucus process.
Conservative polit-blogger Ted Sporer gives a snapshot account of the “Raucus before the Caucus” New Year’s Eve party…
Des Moines Girl resorts to puppetry to explain the political process…
Jim Lindberg, guest-posting over at Around Des Moines, offers food for thought on the question of whether America is divided. (This line is actually some pretty brilliant writing, if you ask me: “We were diverse but we didn’t know it. We thought we were Americans.”)
Tim applies an understanding of office politics to some of the Presidential candidates…
And finally: how many times, in how many other situations, have you made the decision for someone that they should not have an opportunity because you felt they were unlikely to make the most of it? (”Don’t invite her to the dinner, she won’t come anyway.” “I’m not even going to share this brochure with him, he’d never even consider using this service even though he really needs it.”) Jodi makes the point well regarding her caucus choice: don’t caucus based on who will win - caucus based on whom you support.
subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments
3 comments to “Link Round-Up, January 3”
Leave a Comment
-
Get Updates!
-- OR --
-
Thanks for your comments about the caucuses. I attended tonight’s caucuses at Valley High School in West Des Moines and now understand why such newspapers as the Des Moines Register promote them over and over again–I think.
That said, I will say again that there should be a way for registered voters in both parties who cannot make it to the caucuses (for example, those in the armed forces serving in foreign countries, those who are working in emergency rooms, those who are infirm, those who run our utility systems and the like) to participate. Some of the Register’s staff ignore them completely saying that there is no excuse for anyone to stay at home.
One would think that someone at “the newspaper Iowa depends upon” would think of those who cannot make it to the caucuses! But consideration–let alone sympathy–to those who cannot make it to the caucuses by the Register has been nil, if nonexistent.
I have thought that with today’s internet technology, someone could develop a way for those who couldn’t make it to the caucuses to participate in them. Perhaps they could submit ballots beforehand which could be counted–or some way to support their candidate via the internet. Perhaps they could have off-site caucuses, websites or moderated chatrooms and the results could be sent via internet to the party offices. What are the thoughts of everyone on this board.
By the way, I am for change in the caucuses–or for abolishing them if they cannot serve everyone. As many of the barriers which keep people from going to caucuses (such as necessary jobs and military services) should be eliminated.
Please accept my apologies for ranting so much but I was thinking about those who couldn’t make it. Your thoughts are welcome.
Joel, no apologies needed - your thorough approach to revamping the caucus process is certainly on the minds of the many who feel that Iowa should not be “first in the nation,” and your comments are always welcome here! Was your caucus well-attended? Was it a smooth process for those in attendance?
It was jammed. Our room was so stuffy that we had to open a door (I think we met in the band room at Valley High School, which had a door to the parking lot) to the outside for ventilation purposes. To make things more interesting, we had to hear an alarm going off for half an hour or so–which I thought was a fire alarm. Some of the folks thought the size of the crowd (437 were counted) violated the local fire code.
Needless to say, the event was handled surprisingly efficiently. For all the shortcomings in the caucus systems–and my concerns about them–the evening went well. My only regret now is that I did not take any pictures with a digital camera, although that privilege might have only been reserved for the press, party people and candidates’ representatives.