questionnaire for Congressional candidates

Neo Liberal economics (0.00 / 0)

I see Neo Liberal economics as being a major issue, but I'm not sure how to write a question about it.

Perhaps:

Most would agree that Neo Liberal economics expands the global economy, but there are questions about the human costs of the economic ideology. Some have suggested Neo Liberal economics creates more losers than winners. Would you favor making international financial institutions (e.g. World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc) and trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) more accountable by having Congress hold periodic hearings on the effects of these institutions and trade agreements?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 15:33:59 PM CDT

How about... (0.00 / 0)

Would you vote for the USA to pull out of NAFTA as it currently exists? Would you support future NAFTA-style treaties? If your answer depends on the details of the treaties, please explain.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone

---

by: Gary Kleppe @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:53:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

brainstorming on NAFTA question (0.00 / 0)

"How should NAFTA be modified? What should Congress do to influence the President of the United States to update or modify NAFTA?"

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:57:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

IL-13 weighs in on Huffington Post version - what do you think? (0.00 / 0)

Should we have gone to war in Iraq?

No. At least not the way we did. It was a war of choice. We should not have gone without UN sanction. We should not have gone under the false pretenses that were drummed up. Even if weapons of mass destruction had been found, they were only likely to have been the chemical weapons that we sold to Hussein in the first place. They were absolutely no threat to us. I think that we could have had moral sanction to remove a dictator of Saddam's reputation. But Pentagon planners steadfastly refused to listen to Arabists in the State Department about possible consequences, to generals about what security would take in terms of troops, or even to the common sense measure of having a team and a plan. Read General Franks accounts of his 15 iterations of the war plan and his fights with Rumsfeld (at the very time when he should have been free to corner bin Laden) or Woodward's 3rd volume of Bush at War.

Should we start to bring our troops home from Iraq as quickly as possible, or immediately?

We should bring some home immediately, set timetables for withdrawal of others, and we should keep some brigades to protect the Kurds and the marsh Arabs from genocidal attacks. But we should insist of the Kurds in exchange that they not allow their territory to be a staging area for attacks into Turkey or Iran. As someone who thinks that we were morally craven to not protect the Hutus in Rwanda, and that we are equally failing the Darfuris, we should not pull every last brigade out of Iraq. Rather we should drop demands for a privatized, regional oil industry and for permanent bases, negotiate with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and begin to seriously engage the political process. Dropping demands and seriously negotiating, along with a timetable for withdrawal 'might' change the political calculus on the ground.

I think Democrats are mis-framing this issue. I recognize that the only practical power Congress has is the power of the purse, and as a tactic I support not approving these supplementals.

Should we in the near term preemptively attack Iran?

Not now. Not ever. How can we even be thinking of doing this?

Should all Americans have health care insurance?

Yes. I favor a single-payer system, with the supply-side kept private and competitive. I could also favor keeping the expertise of the insurance companies in the game, by, for example, having a nationwide pool, on which insurance companies could bid for a random 10 million insurees. The government could then negotiate terms with the insurance groups. It could even potentially be securitized and the risk pooled with the total asset pool of the securities market - hopefully with more integrity than has been shown to be the case in the sub-prime mortgage market.

This should be paid for out of general revenues, and the cost should come from trimming the defense budget, closing loop-holes in corporate taxation (that will be a tough fight), and if needed raising the corporate tax rate. Corporations currently (2006) only pay 7% of the total tax. That doesn't seem fair when business accounts for one-third of GNP. I would want to assure that corporations had a lower rate of tax than our industrial trading partners however, to assure that the US is the best place in the developed world to set up a new enterprise.

Should any American be without sufficient food to eat every day?

No. Of course not. I would favor a resurrection of an idea that came close to passage in the late 60s - the negative income tax. Everyone under a certain income level would get cash from the government. It could be made available weekly on a Visa/MC branded debit card to preserve dignity and cash flow, while also assuring choice.

Should the activities of all Washington lobbyists be further restricted by congress?

Probably. I'm not enough of an expert to say how - while preserving freedom of speech, right to petition the sitting government, and also making use of the expertise they provide. Public funding of elections (which I support) would certainly help though.

Should all young Americans have a college education if they wish paid for if necessary by the government?

I favor a plan where everyone who gets a 3.0 in high school gets a government-funded scholarship to a state school in their state. If they don't have those grades, they should be eligible for low-interest loans to the college or trade school of their choice. This latter could be means tested but at a suitably generous level.

Should Americans condone torture or inhumane treatment of anyone for any reason?

No.

Should we reaffirm that the Geneva Convention will apply to all of our "detainees?"

Yes.

Should any prisoner "captured" in "the purported war on terror" be held indefinitely in prison without being charged with a crime?

No.

Should we sanction gay and lesbian marriages?

I have sympathy for religious people who think that marriage is a religious sacrament and who have objections on grounds of violation of the separation of church and state. I think that the most sensible solution is to have the government sanction civil unions of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. That would then represent the maximum state-sponsored commitment. Then if couples also wished to get married under church/synagogue/mosque/temple auspices and could find a minister/priest/rabbi/imam to perform the ceremony - well and good. It wouldn't have any civil implications.

I realize of course, that this has little chance of passing any legislature bigger than the Berkeley city council, but it makes sense to me.

Should we have a policy and intention to deport all of the people who are in this country illegally?

Probably not. It seems to me that immigration is a huge muddle. Everyone agrees that the situation is problematic, and moral hazard considerations abound. We seem to need more (or different) workers than we have.

I would like to introduce two considerations into the debate that I haven't heard much discussed. First, in terms of self-interest, Canada's policy of welcoming (with their green-card equivalent) anyone with $2 million to invest in a business, with an intention to employ at least 5 Americans (Canadians in their case, obviously). That makes a ton of sense. I would add that we should welcome any graduate students to live here. We could specify only math and science, but I would support all of them being able to stay. What a boon that would be to higher education in this country.

Second, in terms of humanity, we could do much more for asylum seekers. 900 Iraqis in 2005, 7,000 in 2006 - come on. There are over 2 million in Syria, and they are bursting at the seams. And what about the lost boys of Sudan, or the democrats in Myanmar. If we took more in, (with suitable sponsorship by American families if needed), that might go some way to decreasing demand for less skilled labor filled by Mexicans, and relieve the fear that Spanish will somehow challenge English.

For the record, I welcome Mexicans and Central and South Americans. I think the whole language argument is fallacious and contradicted by the facts of second-generation kids of Latino extraction.

We need to get business and industry on side. I'm not sure that a guest worker program will work. We are too used to not caring that much who lives here, enforcement would seem cruel, as deportment seems now.

Let the people here now have a path to legal settlement and citizenship, make sure that business has the work force it needs through more generous immigration from the rest of the world, and also enforce the borders.

Should all Americans share equally in repaying our nine trillion dollar national debt?

No. We should pay down the debt in an orderly way out of general revenues, with the progressivity that we currently have in the tax system. Some debt is good, as it creates a market floor for bond rates. If it is being gradually and systematically paid down, our fiscal health will be maintained.

Should we commit not to send American troops anywhere at anytime without an act of Congress or national plebiscite?

That's a good idea.

Should we allow the death penalty?

I would be pleased to eliminate it. I think we can afford the imprisonment. What most offends me is the racial unfairness, and the number of people on death row that have later been found innocent by DNA testing. Surely that should give even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty pause.

Should all government actions that contravened the letter or intent of the Constitution be reversed?

How would we do that exactly? Isn't the whole point that the Constitution can be variously interpreted? Isn't that why the Supreme Court is as busy as it is? Do we want any ruling of the Supreme Court to automatically ripple back through every law, Presidential order, and regulation? I'm not sufficiently expert here, but it sounds like the unintended consequences of such a blanket edict would be manifold.

Should those responsible for the Constitutional violations be charged with a crime?

Maybe. Sounds a bit dicey though. There are other Constitutional tools for dealing with this. Maybe we should use impeachment more commonly and aggressively.

Should all candidates reaffirm that they will uphold the Constitution notwithstanding any "special circumstances?"

Yes.

Should America allow all first trimester abortions?

Yes.

Should the FCC allow still more media consolidation then we already have?

No. And we should find a way to roll back the consolidation we do have. We should also perhaps have a requirement or test of viewpoint diversity. We could judge the viewpoint of a new corporate owner on the basis of the editorial direction of the media outlets they currently own, and we could stipulate not-to-exceed percentages for conservative or liberal views in a given media.

Should we return to the broadcast media fairness doctrine?

Either that or ensure that the diversity of views are adequately represented. I'm skeptical of "objective journalism" and personally prefer the hurly-burly of the English print media, for example.

Should Americas Military "privatize" as many "duties" as it did with so much of our present wars?

Absolutely not. What's happening with Blackwater and other 'private security firms' is one of the most dangerous, and underreported mistakes of this administration. We have to fight it at every turn. Not only is it dangerous, it is fiscally irresponsible.

Should we make a serious attempt to lower our national debt?

Yes.

Should we pass laws in order to increase exports, and cut imports?

No. Government micromanagement of commercial enterprise doesn't work. We should police the playing field, we should embrace sound fiscal policy, we should keep corporate taxes below that of our industrial rivals, we should encourage unionization to bolster the consuming power of the middle class (and improve people's lives), we should fund research and development, we should improve the lab to commercialization cycle, review our patent system, keep talented graduate students in this country, stop regional trade deals but work hard to foster global ones, keep interest rates low, and exports and imports will take care of themselves.

Also, a very little understood bit of economic theory, highly abused by the media - balance of trade exactly equals the balance of investment, by definition. So the fact that we have a balance of trade deficit means that we have a balance of investment surplus (at a given interest rate and exchange rate). If more people, companies, or countries want to buy American assets than we buy foreign ones, we have to have a balance of trade deficit. If people stop wanting our assets, and we buy the same amount of goods and services from the rest of the world, then either the interest rate has to rise, or the dollar has to fall. In other words, it's not as grave as it sounds.

Should we as a national priority commit unlimited federal funds to stem-cell research?

Nothing should be unlimited. But yes, we should commit federal funds in rather large quantities to this effort, as we should to all sorts of bio-medical and basic molecular biology research. It is, and can become even more, a lever of American industrial growth.

Should we make the morning-after pill available over the counter to those under 18?

Probably not. If your teenager is living at home, do you want to relinquish even the chance to talk to them about their sexual behavior? If someone is in a conflictual relationship with their parents, they could talk to their doctor, or other adult that could retrieve the pill.

Should school prayer be allowed?

It depends what one means by school prayer. Public, in-class school prayer seems to obviously cross a line and discriminate against non-dominant religions or kids with none.

But I think differently about school clubs. If a Buddhist meditation group or a Christian bible study group wants to form along with the Chess club or the future biologists of America club, I think it should be allowed. I think the issue of faculty sponsorship here has been overblown. I could be wrong, but it seems that we should allow our students to form any kind of voluntary group they want, including religious ones. The Atheist club should be allowed to meet too.

Should the Constitution be amended to allow school prayer?

No.

Should we unilaterally reduce our nuclear stockpile of weapons?

Yes. And we should ban depleted uranium bombs, and land mines. Back to nukes - it seems we have the hardening technology to allow us to have no more than several hundred nuclear devices (instead of 10,000+). That would provide plenty of deterrence.

If I am rightly informed, the original NPT included the provision on the existing nuclear powers that they negotiate to eliminate their existing stockpiles. That was the carrot for the non-nuclear powers to pledge to remain so. The cold war changed the calculus, but the treaty was never changed, and it certainly wasn't re-approved by the non-nuclear powers. So we are hypocritical in our approach to Iran and N. Korea. One doesn't know, but it seems plausible to imagine that Iran at least, and perhaps N. Korea too, would be more amenable to negotiation on their nuclear programs if we unilaterally decommissioned 9,800 nuclear devices. And we could negotiate with the Russians to keep 10 each, say.

Should all of our troops stationed abroad be returned to the United States?

No. But it doesn't make sense to me that they don't rotate as divisions or armies to Iraq and Afghanistan, and that divisions or brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan don't rotate to Korea and Germany. Dependents could be on post, and training could take place. I don't understand why this is not in the discussion. Why are we completely stressing out our reserves and national guard units when we have perfectly good regular army divisions in Germany and Korea? They have training opportunities, they could orient their training more toward anti-insurgency operations, have their family with them, etc. It seems that we are being treated to one more attempt create a crisis so that we can push ever greater resources to the Pentagon.

Should our country consider introducing a military draft?

Yes. Under two conditions: as long as there was a flexible and liberally applied way for 18 year olds to opt for alternative service - like the PeaceCorps or Americorps. And as long as there were no exemptions, not for the rich or for the girls.

This would have two benefits. One, Americans would be more careful about vetting the wars we fight or the conflicts we adjudicate if the kids of the well-to-do and the middle class were more involved. Two, we live in a diverse society that is highly segregated by income. If all kids had a period of service with a cross-section of the country, they would come to appreciate the unique contribution that each of us can make.

-----

I enjoyed this process. It makes one think. I tried to both answer the questions directly, and use them as a platform for bringing out some of the related policy issues, as I see them. I would be very grateful for your comments and critique.

Scott Harper - Democratic candidate for IL-13

---

by: fight4fairness @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:05:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i know you are exploring questions... (4.00 / 1)

but, unless there is the potential for money/endorsement, campaigns won't fill out a questionnaire of the length suggested below.  we call it the 30 minute standard, taken from au's cmi -- if it takes longer than 30 minutes and there is no potential for cash, it gets filed in the trash.

in this case, you might want to make most question answers multiple choice with only a couple of open-ended questions.  trying to differentiate candidates/campaigns is a lot harder than it looks...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:24:03 PM CDT

we do come with cash (0.00 / 0)

Look at how much money is raised online.

I agree that we need to fight the temptation to put too much into a candidate questionnaire. And I'm open to telling candidates we only expect them to answer 60% or 80% of the questionnaire.

But if candidates want to get credit for having an open dialog with the net roots then they need to put in the time to have a dialog with the net roots.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:32:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

here's a possible workaround... (4.00 / 2)

after filing closes, candidates get a ton of these questionnaires, that they have to hurry to get out before the deadline.  we don't want to try to compete with that.

but if we can develop this relatively quickly, then by offering this early (before petition circulation closes), we won't be competing for a scarce resource (the campaign's time).

still, i think that multiple choice answers provide for more opportunities to directly compare candidates.  i'm just giving some feedback off the top of my head...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 17:35:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

which Qs are priorities? (0.00 / 0)

which would you get rid of?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:32:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

let's see what kind of feedback the community provides... (0.00 / 0)

my issue is obviously the iraq war (and bush doctrine).  i'd be interested in seeing what others think.

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 17:40:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Issues (0.00 / 0)

1. Bush doctrine (Unitary Executive, Preemption, Iraq, etc.)
2. Restoration of Constitution (Habius, FISA, etc.)
3. Economic Security (Energy, Jobs, Healthcare, etc.)

---

by: michael in chicago @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 18:20:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we are the media too (0.00 / 0)

bored, candidates respond to media questionnaires b/c they want to get positive coverage from editorial boards.

I think we can justify a slightly longer questionnaire b/c we are a media outlet too.

But you are absolutely right to call for discipline on the issue of asking too many questions.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:59:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i know that we feel this way... (0.00 / 0)

i don't know if campaigns share that impression.  remember, i tried to highlight down ballot races in 2006 and only had one campaign return my very, very brief list of questions...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:23:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here are some (0.00 / 0)

From when we tried this a couple of times ago.

1. What would be your primary focus in making decisions regarding legislation? What would be your legislative priorities?

2. What is your philosophy on when to be loyal to the party and when to be independent?

19. If you win the primary race, what do you think your biggest challenge will be against your Republican opponent?

20. What are your thoughts on expanding the Democratic and progressive base, both nationwide and locally? How do you hope to implement your ideas on this?

26. Why are you running now? Why are you running for this position? What political experience do you have that you feel qualifies you?

27. What is your plan of action should you not succeed in this election? Will you continue to work to forward Democratic ideals? How?

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:51:32 PM CDT

What would be your legislative priorities? (0.00 / 0)

This is a good question. It asks candidates to go on record about what they intend to work on.

The questionnaire should be written to apply to incumbents too. There's a few of them we should be holding accountable too.

I would prioritize other questions over, "What would be your primary focus in making decisions regarding legislation?" b/c I think the question invites platitudes about serving constituents.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:46:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe... (0.00 / 0)

I see lots of good answers to that question though you're right that they can resort to platitudes. But what I'm trying to get at is the way that candidates approach legislating? Do you pick a topic that needs to be addressed and hammer at it until you get SOME result (ala trade agreements or immigration) or do you only focus on getting exactly what you want or walking away entirely (like say the 90's Republicans wrt Clinton impeachment vs. censure).

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:37:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

loyalty vs. independence? (0.00 / 0)

I expect the answers we got would be meaningless to this question.

In theory, it's an important issue for screening candidates. In practice they are going to say party loyalty is good up to the point in conflicts with the welfare of constituents.

They are all going to say something that effectively means, "I reserve the right to make this judgment on a case-by-case basis."

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:49:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

biggest challenge in general election? (0.00 / 0)

money? media? volunteers? getting more votes?

Why would you prioritize, "If you win the primary race, what do you think your biggest challenge will be against your Republican opponent?" over an issue question?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:51:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because (0.00 / 0)

I believe that for the issue questions we can get the information elsewhere. Here for instance. (Schakowsky has responses.) The benefit to issue questions is that I think a candidate (or their campaign) is more likely to fill out a multiple choice test on their positions ("Do you support the Iraq war? Strongly oppose = 1, Strongly support = 5"). You'd have to really zoom in to specifics to get anything new and that's going to make it too long for most to answer.

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:34:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would leave "Democrat" identity out of the Qs (0.00 / 0)

Why include it? Why not just ask the same questions in a party neutral way?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:54:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thinking (0.00 / 0)

The thinking is that the way a candidate answers offers insight general thinking. Do you think that Bean and Schakowsky would answer the same way? What about Emanuel and Gutierrez? The reason to include this type of question is to try to identify candidates interested in expanded the Democratic Party brand rather than simply get elected. It is about showing pride and encouraging growth. (I also think that this is particularly important as most challengers to incumbents will be unsuccessful. If I have the choice, I'd rather support a candidate that will offer some silver lining to a loss.)

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:42:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More (0.00 / 0)

From another time:

What is your "best case scenario" for this election? How do you hope to make this happen?
Why do you identify with the Democratic Party?
What is your view of the role of [the elected office being applied to]?
How can representatives ensure that they are primarily beholden to their constituents?
What needs to be done to increase electoral participation?

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:55:13 PM CDT

i wish we could take all these questions... (4.00 / 1)

and prioritize them, voting some off the island as it were.  most candidates, and this is especially true of first time candidates, really only have one or two pet issues, and haven't put that much thought into all the other issues.  very few candidates (and that's including incumbents) have a coherent political ideology that they can articulate and is consistent across the board.

questions like why are you running?, what are your legislative priorities?, what caucuses would you join?, and what experience will you bring to bear in congress (or whatever)? are all good questions, but i think when you start to ask about policy, you need to make it as easy as possible for candidates to clarify their views.  on health care, for example, one might ask which current health care proposal is closest to their own view, with links to specific legislation in congress.  just an idea...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 17:55:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Generic (0.00 / 0)

The reason I put up the questions I do is because I think that they are our best chance at getting something unique out of the candidates. I agree that stuff like the Iraq war and health care are important, but what serious candidate is not going to have the "answer" to that question up on their issues page. On the one hand, that's part of why we'd get a response. On the other hand, what information are we really getting? Anyway, my two cents.

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 20:44:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quick notes (4.00 / 2)

1. I think it is important as a leading local blog that we do this and agree with bored that we should do this in a way that does not compete with all the other questionaires campaigns get comming up.

2. I think this is a good effort but is too long. KISS principle. Boil it down to key issues that candidates can differentiate on, and not along "standard" question lines either.

---

by: michael in chicago @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 18:22:57 PM CDT

Suggestions (4.00 / 1)

Let's try to partner on this with other groups who we can expect to also be interested in candidates' answers to these kinds of questions. The more people who are in on this, the more seriously we can expect candidates to take our requests for information.

The Illinois Coalition For Peace And Justice would be a good group to work through. A lot of good activist organizations are part of this. There is also IVI-IPO which already puts out a questionnaire to Chicago-area candidates.

As for your proposed questions, I think some of them are already assuming a certain view of things and might be better rephrased to be more open-ended. While I don't disagree with the viewpoint behind the questions, I'd rather hear it coming out of the candidates than just see them led into it.

Here's just one example of what I'm talking about:

Since the Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 elections there has been a push to cut taxes on the wealthy (income taxes and others) while pushing more and more onto local taxes (especially property taxes). There has been little push back from Democrats. What should be done to shift the tax burden from middle class homeowners to the people who are actually seeing their wealth increase as the economy expands?

Alternative: Do you think that the current distribution of taxes across different income groups is fair? What, if anything, would you do to change it?


"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone

---

by: Gary Kleppe @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:43:30 AM CDT

I'm for working in coalition when it makes sense (0.00 / 0)

I have some concerns about IVI-IPO.

1. The IVI-IPO questionnaire is way too long.
2. IVI-IPO policy is to keep questionnaire responses confidential.
3. IVI-IPO is an old organization that is often stuck in its ways and sort of arrogant when dealing with others and new ideas.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:38:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree your phraseology is superior (0.00 / 0)

on the tax question.

But I think candidates need to be prompted to make a connection between falling income taxes and rising property taxes.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:39:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

here's an idea for working together (0.00 / 0)

Maybe we could coordinate with ICPJ (and others).

We could leave more of the security issues to ICPJ and they could leave the issues that are further from ICPJ's core expertise to us and others.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:01:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The good ideas (4.00 / 1)

Here are the ideas from other comments that I like the best, plus one of my own:

--(bored) Multiple choice questions. Make as many as possible multiple choice, but with the option to expand on any answer or to reject the choices offered and explain.

--(Gary)Partnerships would be great and I like the two suggested.

--Also tying into the above suggestion, I'm channeling that the ICPJ would want a question about privatization in general, and about the privatization of the military specifically.

BTW I've had a lot of experience with test writing, which might have an application here, and if so I'd be glad to help with the specifics.

---

by: yinn @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:23:17 AM CDT

which Qs do you want to draft answers for (0.00 / 0)

so we can make the questionnaire multiple choice?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:40:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it may turn out that when faced with a (0.00 / 0)

multiple choice question the candidates prefer to give a short answer. Which is fine by me.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:41:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'd agree... (4.00 / 1)

what i was trying to do is to get it into the inbox (or to do box) instead of the circular file...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

---

by: bored now @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:27:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm. Would take a crack at (0.00 / 0)

the areas where certain pathways already exist. Looking over your questions one more time, I'd say party affiliation, health care, financial sector, spending, media reform. Possibly energy. Possibly labor.

---

by: yinn @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 15:37:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Norman Horowitz (0.00 / 0)

Yes or no questions at HuffPo:

Should we have gone to war in Iraq?

Should we start to bring our troops home from Iraq as quickly as possible, or immediately?

Should we in the near term preemptively attack Iran?

Should all Americans have health care insurance?

Should any American be without sufficient food to eat every day?

Should the activities of all Washington lobbyists be further restricted by congress?

Should all young Americans have a college education if they wish paid for if necessary by the government?

Should Americans condone torture or inhumane treatment of anyone for any reason?

Should we reaffirm that the Geneva Convention will apply to all of our "detainees?"

Should any prisoner "captured" in "the purported war on terror" be held indefinitely in prison without being charged with a crime?

Should we sanction gay and lesbian marriages?

Should we have a policy and intention to deport all of the people who are in this country illegally?

Should all Americans share equally in repaying our nine trillion dollar national debt?

Should we commit not to send American troops anywhere at anytime without an act of Congress or national plebiscite?

Should we allow the death penalty?

Should all government actions that contravened the letter or intent of the Constitution be reversed?

Should those responsible for the Constitutional violations be charged with a crime?

Should all candidates reaffirm that they will uphold the Constitution notwithstanding any "special circumstances?"

Should America allow all first trimester abortions?

Should the FCC allow still more media consolidation then we already have?

Should we return to the broadcast media fairness doctrine?

Should Americas Military "privatize" as many "duties" as it did with so much of our present wars?

Should we make a serious attempt to lower our national debt?

Should we pass laws in order to increase exports, and cut imports?

Should we as a national priority commit unlimited federal funds to stem-cell research?

Should we make the morning-after pill available over the counter to those under 18?

Should school prayer be allowed?

Should the Constitution be amended to allow school prayer?

Should we unilaterally reduce our nuclear stockpile of weapons?

Should all of our troops stationed abroad be returned to the United State?

Should our country consider introducing a military draft?

---

by: yinn @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:57:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

IL-13 weighs in on this version - what do you think? (0.00 / 0)

Should we have gone to war in Iraq?

No. At least not the way we did. It was a war of choice. We should not have gone without UN sanction. We should not have gone under the false pretenses that were drummed up. Even if weapons of mass destruction had been found, they were only likely to have been the chemical weapons that we sold to Hussein in the first place. They were absolutely no threat to us. I think that we could have had moral sanction to remove a dictator of Saddam's reputation. But Pentagon planners steadfastly refused to listen to Arabists in the State Department about possible consequences, to generals about what security would take in terms of troops, or even to the common sense measure of having a team and a plan. Read General Franks accounts of his 15 iterations of the war plan and his fights with Rumsfeld (at the very time when he should have been free to corner bin Laden) or Woodward's 3rd volume of Bush at War.

Should we start to bring our troops home from Iraq as quickly as possible, or immediately?

We should bring some home immediately, set timetables for withdrawal of others, and we should keep some brigades to protect the Kurds and the marsh Arabs from genocidal attacks. But we should insist of the Kurds in exchange that they not allow their territory to be a staging area for attacks into Turkey or Iran. As someone who thinks that we were morally craven to not protect the Hutus in Rwanda, and that we are equally failing the Darfuris, we should not pull every last brigade out of Iraq. Rather we should drop demands for a privatized, regional oil industry and for permanent bases, negotiate with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and begin to seriously engage the political process. Dropping demands and seriously negotiating, along with a timetable for withdrawal 'might' change the political calculus on the ground.

I think Democrats are mis-framing this issue. I recognize that the only practical power Congress has is the power of the purse, and as a tactic I support not approving these supplementals.

Should we in the near term preemptively attack Iran?

Not now. Not ever. How can we even be thinking of doing this?

Should all Americans have health care insurance?

Yes. I favor a single-payer system, with the supply-side kept private and competitive. I could also favor keeping the expertise of the insurance companies in the game, by, for example, having a nationwide pool, on which insurance companies could bid for a random 10 million insurees. The government could then negotiate terms with the insurance groups. It could even potentially be securitized and the risk pooled with the total asset pool of the securities market - hopefully with more integrity than has been shown to be the case in the sub-prime mortgage market.

This should be paid for out of general revenues, and the cost should come from trimming the defense budget, closing loop-holes in corporate taxation (that will be a tough fight), and if needed raising the corporate tax rate. Corporations currently (2006) only pay 7% of the total tax. That doesn't seem fair when business accounts for one-third of GNP. I would want to assure that corporations had a lower rate of tax than our industrial trading partners however, to assure that the US is the best place in the developed world to set up a new enterprise.

Should any American be without sufficient food to eat every day?

No. Of course not. I would favor a resurrection of an idea that came close to passage in the late 60s - the negative income tax. Everyone under a certain income level would get cash from the government. It could be made available weekly on a Visa/MC branded debit card to preserve dignity and cash flow, while also assuring choice.

Should the activities of all Washington lobbyists be further restricted by congress?

Probably. I'm not enough of an expert to say how - while preserving freedom of speech, right to petition the sitting government, and also making use of the expertise they provide. Public funding of elections (which I support) would certainly help though.

Should all young Americans have a college education if they wish paid for if necessary by the government?

I favor a plan where everyone who gets a 3.0 in high school gets a government-funded scholarship to a state school in their state. If they don't have those grades, they should be eligible for low-interest loans to the college or trade school of their choice. This latter could be means tested but at a suitably generous level.

Should Americans condone torture or inhumane treatment of anyone for any reason?

No.

Should we reaffirm that the Geneva Convention will apply to all of our "detainees?"

Yes.

Should any prisoner "captured" in "the purported war on terror" be held indefinitely in prison without being charged with a crime?

No.

Should we sanction gay and lesbian marriages?

I have sympathy for religious people who think that marriage is a religious sacrament and who have objections on grounds of violation of the separation of church and state. I think that the most sensible solution is to have the government sanction civil unions of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. That would then represent the maximum state-sponsored commitment. Then if couples also wished to get married under church/synagogue/mosque/temple auspices and could find a minister/priest/rabbi/imam to perform the ceremony - well and good. It wouldn't have any civil implications.

I realize of course, that this has little chance of passing any legislature bigger than the Berkeley city council, but it makes sense to me.

Should we have a policy and intention to deport all of the people who are in this country illegally?

Probably not. It seems to me that immigration is a huge muddle. Everyone agrees that the situation is problematic, and moral hazard considerations abound. We seem to need more (or different) workers than we have.

I would like to introduce two considerations into the debate that I haven't heard much discussed. First, in terms of self-interest, Canada's policy of welcoming (with their green-card equivalent) anyone with $2 million to invest in a business, with an intention to employ at least 5 Americans (Canadians in their case, obviously). That makes a ton of sense. I would add that we should welcome any graduate students to live here. We could specify only math and science, but I would support all of them being able to stay. What a boon that would be to higher education in this country.

Second, in terms of humanity, we could do much more for asylum seekers. 900 Iraqis in 2005, 7,000 in 2006 - come on. There are over 2 million in Syria, and they are bursting at the seams. And what about the lost boys of Sudan, or the democrats in Myanmar. If we took more in, (with suitable sponsorship by American families if needed), that might go some way to decreasing demand for less skilled labor filled by Mexicans, and relieve the fear that Spanish will somehow challenge English.

For the record, I welcome Mexicans and Central and South Americans. I think the whole language argument is fallacious and contradicted by the facts of second-generation kids of Latino extraction.

We need to get business and industry on side. I'm not sure that a guest worker program will work. We are too used to not caring that much who lives here, enforcement would seem cruel, as deportment seems now.

Let the people here now have a path to legal settlement and citizenship, make sure that business has the work force it needs through more generous immigration from the rest of the world, and also enforce the borders.

Should all Americans share equally in repaying our nine trillion dollar national debt?

No. We should pay down the debt in an orderly way out of general revenues, with the progressivity that we currently have in the tax system. Some debt is good, as it creates a market floor for bond rates. If it is being gradually and systematically paid down, our fiscal health will be maintained.

Should we commit not to send American troops anywhere at anytime without an act of Congress or national plebiscite?

That's a good idea.

Should we allow the death penalty?

I would be pleased to eliminate it. I think we can afford the imprisonment. What most offends me is the racial unfairness, and the number of people on death row that have later been found innocent by DNA testing. Surely that should give even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty pause.

Should all government actions that contravened the letter or intent of the Constitution be reversed?

How would we do that exactly? Isn't the whole point that the Constitution can be variously interpreted? Isn't that why the Supreme Court is as busy as it is? Do we want any ruling of the Supreme Court to automatically ripple back through every law, Presidential order, and regulation? I'm not sufficiently expert here, but it sounds like the unintended consequences of such a blanket edict would be manifold.

Should those responsible for the Constitutional violations be charged with a crime?

Maybe. Sounds a bit dicey though. There are other Constitutional tools for dealing with this. Maybe we should use impeachment more commonly and aggressively.

Should all candidates reaffirm that they will uphold the Constitution notwithstanding any "special circumstances?"

Yes.

Should America allow all first trimester abortions?

Yes.

Should the FCC allow still more media consolidation then we already have?

No. And we should find a way to roll back the consolidation we do have. We should also perhaps have a requirement or test of viewpoint diversity. We could judge the viewpoint of a new corporate owner on the basis of the editorial direction of the media outlets they currently own, and we could stipulate not-to-exceed percentages for conservative or liberal views in a given media.

Should we return to the broadcast media fairness doctrine?

Either that or ensure that the diversity of views are adequately represented. I'm skeptical of "objective journalism" and personally prefer the hurly-burly of the English print media, for example.

Should Americas Military "privatize" as many "duties" as it did with so much of our present wars?

Absolutely not. What's happening with Blackwater and other 'private security firms' is one of the most dangerous, and underreported mistakes of this administration. We have to fight it at every turn. Not only is it dangerous, it is fiscally irresponsible.

Should we make a serious attempt to lower our national debt?

Yes.

Should we pass laws in order to increase exports, and cut imports?

No. Government micromanagement of commercial enterprise doesn't work. We should police the playing field, we should embrace sound fiscal policy, we should keep corporate taxes below that of our industrial rivals, we should encourage unionization to bolster the consuming power of the middle class (and improve people's lives), we should fund research and development, we should improve the lab to commercialization cycle, review our patent system, keep talented graduate students in this country, stop regional trade deals but work hard to foster global ones, keep interest rates low, and exports and imports will take care of themselves.

Also, a very little understood bit of economic theory, highly abused by the media - balance of trade exactly equals the balance of investment, by definition. So the fact that we have a balance of trade deficit means that we have a balance of investment surplus (at a given interest rate and exchange rate). If more people, companies, or countries want to buy American assets than we buy foreign ones, we have to have a balance of trade deficit. If people stop wanting our assets, and we buy the same amount of goods and services from the rest of the world, then either the interest rate has to rise, or the dollar has to fall. In other words, it's not as grave as it sounds.

Should we as a national priority commit unlimited federal funds to stem-cell research?

Nothing should be unlimited. But yes, we should commit federal funds in rather large quantities to this effort, as we should to all sorts of bio-medical and basic molecular biology research. It is, and can become even more, a lever of American industrial growth.

Should we make the morning-after pill available over the counter to those under 18?

Probably not. If your teenager is living at home, do you want to relinquish even the chance to talk to them about their sexual behavior? If someone is in a conflictual relationship with their parents, they could talk to their doctor, or other adult that could retrieve the pill.

Should school prayer be allowed?

It depends what one means by school prayer. Public, in-class school prayer seems to obviously cross a line and discriminate against non-dominant religions or kids with none.

But I think differently about school clubs. If a Buddhist meditation group or a Christian bible study group wants to form along with the Chess club or the future biologists of America club, I think it should be allowed. I think the issue of faculty sponsorship here has been overblown. I could be wrong, but it seems that we should allow our students to form any kind of voluntary group they want, including religious ones. The Atheist club should be allowed to meet too.

Should the Constitution be amended to allow school prayer?

No.

Should we unilaterally reduce our nuclear stockpile of weapons?

Yes. And we should ban depleted uranium bombs, and land mines. Back to nukes - it seems we have the hardening technology to allow us to have no more than several hundred nuclear devices (instead of 10,000+). That would provide plenty of deterrence.

If I am rightly informed, the original NPT included the provision on the existing nuclear powers that they negotiate to eliminate their existing stockpiles. That was the carrot for the non-nuclear powers to pledge to remain so. The cold war changed the calculus, but the treaty was never changed, and it certainly wasn't re-approved by the non-nuclear powers. So we are hypocritical in our approach to Iran and N. Korea. One doesn't know, but it seems plausible to imagine that Iran at least, and perhaps N. Korea too, would be more amenable to negotiation on their nuclear programs if we unilaterally decommissioned 9,800 nuclear devices. And we could negotiate with the Russians to keep 10 each, say.

Should all of our troops stationed abroad be returned to the United States?

No. But it doesn't make sense to me that they don't rotate as divisions or armies to Iraq and Afghanistan, and that divisions or brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan don't rotate to Korea and Germany. Dependents could be on post, and training could take place. I don't understand why this is not in the discussion. Why are we completely stressing out our reserves and national guard units when we have perfectly good regular army divisions in Germany and Korea? They have training opportunities, they could orient their training more toward anti-insurgency operations, have their family with them, etc. It seems that we are being treated to one more attempt create a crisis so that we can push ever greater resources to the Pentagon.

Should our country consider introducing a military draft?

Yes. Under two conditions: as long as there was a flexible and liberally applied way for 18 year olds to opt for alternative service - like the PeaceCorps or Americorps. And as long as there were no exemptions, not for the rich or for the girls.

This would have two benefits. One, Americans would be more careful about vetting the wars we fight or the conflicts we adjudicate if the kids of the well-to-do and the middle class were more involved. Two, we live in a diverse society that is highly segregated by income. If all kids had a period of service with a cross-section of the country, they would come to appreciate the unique contribution that each of us can make.

-----

I enjoyed this process. It makes one think. I tried to both answer the questions directly, and use them as a platform for bringing out some of the related policy issues, as I see them. I would be very grateful for your comments and critique.

Scott Harper - Democratic candidate for IL-13

---

by: fight4fairness @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:02:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Diary (0.00 / 0)

Turn this into a diary. You can link to it from your campaign website and people googling for "Scott Harper" will more easily find it. If you want I'll help you format it... ltsply2 at yahoo dot com

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:15:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One candidate's view (4.00 / 1)

I just read through the proposed survey and the comments, and have the following observations. First of all, I'd be glad to answer it as it is. I thought some of the questions were quite thought-provoking.

I also agree with some of the commentators that it would take quite a while to answer it completely and 'safely' as it were. You might get boilerplate to some answers.

For example, I feel that I'm quite savvy about policy, but the way you've phrased some of the example questions would be beyond me. I understand the issues in financial services, like the sub-prime meltdown, the role of credit agencies in the mess, the fact that they are paid by the underwriter of the securities, who essentially shop around for the rating they want. How to craft a remedy into workable legislation that doesn't have unintended consequences in other areas, or that cedes NY/Chicago financial prowess to London or HK, for example, I just don't know.

Surely some of that is what Congressional staffs are for, what sub-committee markup sessions are for, and what some experience will bring. Aren't you really more aiming for philosophy, for a general sense of what kind of person, or progressive, that the candidate is?

I personally think that reaching out to the netroots should be more spontaneous than a typical questionnaire, that it should be a dialogue. But you would perhaps be surprised at how decidedly the conventional wisdom is to mouth platitudes or to keep one's mouth shut for fear that one's opponent will twist one's words to their nefarious purposes.

I don't know the answers to how to improve it, but I would be happy to respond to the questionnaire as it is, and if I don't have a good answer, just say that I don't have one yet.

Scott Harper - Democratic candidate for IL-13

---

by: fight4fairness @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:13:21 AM CDT

damn you (0.00 / 0)

i grew up in the 13th, going to DGN, and still have friends and family there.  now i live in Chicago and have a 2 week old baby girl, and i really didnt want to have to drive out there every weekend.  but if you keep talking like that, i will be forced to get out there on your behalf knocking on doors in Woodridge, Lisle, Downers Grove, and Bolingbrook.  ugh.

William J Maggos

---

by: wjmaggos @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 22:32:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not so far (0.00 / 0)

Though it's rough with a 2-week old baby, that's for sure. But I sure would welcome your help knocking on doors.

I spent 7 hours knocking on doors today in 4 different neighborhoods in the district, and it was great to connect with the diverse people of IL-13. The most encouraging was my time in Hinsdale, which everyone knows has a decidedly Republican demographic. But everyone who actually answered the door (except 1) was either decidedly for us, or was very open to a new alternative. Out of the 31 doors I knocked on in Hinsdale, 7 were answered, and 6 were willing to consider voting for me. What about the exception. It was Judy Biggert herself.

Of course I knew she lived in Hinsdale, but I purposely didn't look up her address for fear that I would either be overly deferential and avoid her neighborhood, or I would be overly aggressive and try to take it on.

As it was, she was the second person to open the door. But she was behind a dense screen and I couldn't see her. So I go into my spiel, "Hello, I'm Scott Harper and I'm running for US Congress in your district, and I'm just out today to meet the neighbors and hear what is on people's minds."

Judy says, "Well, I guess you've just met your opponent," and opens the screen door. I said, "Judy, nice to meet you. So I guess you don't want to talk about what's troubling you about Washington."

She sort of smiled and said that we would have time for that later. So I said that I'd see her on Monday at the Labor Day parade in Naperville. And she quite solemnly said that she is in that parade every year. So I wished her a pleasant weekend and I trundled off to the next house.

She may well have thought that I did that on purpose, but I really didn't. But I did think that it was pretty cool.

Anyway, William, in hopes that you will buy a Snuggly or equivalent baby carrier for your daughter and introduce her to the joys of canvassing at an early age, the campaign will welcome you with open arms.

That goes for all of you PSB folk. We're planning to have a lot of fun, be creative but disciplined, and run a campaign we can all be proud of.

Scott Harper - Democratic candidate for IL-13

---

by: fight4fairness @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 23:01:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what about the vote-smart questionaire? (4.00 / 1)

In the interest of not re-inventing the wheel, is there some way we could make use of the questionairres that are done by Project Vote-Smart?  For anyone who has not been to this website, it is a TREMENDOUS resource about elected representatives and candidates.  It includes lists of their key votes, their ratings by interest groups, transcripts of their speeches and other quotes, and a lengthy issues questionairre.  It includes federal and state level.  And it is a non-partisan organization, so it gets responses from Rs and Ds.

The one bad thing is that not everyone has filled out their questionaire, though we could perhaps help with that by pressuring those who havent.  Of course, the good part is that the surveys that have been completed are all online and already available to us. In other words, no work necessary by us! :-)

For example, here are some current Illinois congresspeople who have filled it out:

Tim Johnson (R), according to their survey favors public funding of federal campaigns but does not favor instant runoff voting or making election day a national holiday.
http://www.vote-smar...

Danny Davis (D), support universal health care, wants to continue the moratorium on internet taxation, and supports continued membership in the WTO.
http://www.vote-smar...

Don Mazullo (R), believes we should cut all funding for the arts, slightly cut funding for military hardware, but greatly increase pay for active duty troops.
http://www.vote-smar...

Phil Hare (D), supports the instant runnoff voting, the death penalty, and medical marijuana.
http://www.vote-smar...

Ray LaHood (R), supports making English the national language, and supports lifting the travel ban to Cuba
http://www.vote-smar...

Anyway, you get the idea.  Here is the link to their home page:

http://www.vote-smar...

Basic stuff: The common wealth should be used for the common good, not to enrich the well-connected few.  

---

by: Sandra_Verthein @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:05:38 AM CDT

Where have you been?! (0.00 / 0)

I did not know this resource existed, but after checking it out IMO this is the best idea yet.

None of the new candidates have filled out the survey. That indeed could be the next logical step, to ask them to do so.

---

by: yinn @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:43:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whoa.. (0.00 / 0)

Now I get it: candidates are asked to fill them out after the filing deadlines.

---

by: yinn @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:48:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lying right here on the floor (0.00 / 0)

I mentioned it here. As Yoda shows you though, most of the candidates don't fill it out. Nothing for Lipinski, Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr, Gutierrez, Emanuel, Roskam, Bean, Kirk, Weller, Biggert, Costello, or Hastert.

This is the basis for my earlier point that it isn't particularly useful for us to try to ask issue questions. The candidates have other, "better", opportunities to answer them (and still most don't).

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 13:38:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry I missed it (0.00 / 0)

Don't know how I overlooked it, 'cept for the sheer volume & length of comments.

Do you think the candidates we are interested in might fill out the surveys if they know we're interested & would actually read them?

---

by: yinn @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 14:54:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Challengers yes, incumbents no (0.00 / 0)

Do I think we could conceivably (if done well and short enough etc.) get a challenger to do this? Yes. I bet the Scott Harper obviously would. Laesch and Foster probably would. Pera might. Those campaigns have posted here this year so I have to imagine that they'd respond positively. The problem is will Biggert answer them? Lipinski? Obviously no. If they won't answer for a group like VoteSmart do we have any chance?

Again, I think that the way to make this useful and more likely to happen is to make it a place for challenger campaigns to show their stuff. A place to point people for further information outside of their website. Others know more about this than I, but that's why I'm approaching this from the angle that I am...

ltsply2

---

by: EricV @ Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:13:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

glad you liked it (0.00 / 0)

I try to point this resource out when I can.  Actually, one alternative to a candidate questionaire would be do to a candidate interview.  I know when I was working on the Cegelis campaign, the interview that E Pluribis Media (not sure if I'm spelling that right) was extremely helpful to us.  We had very little media coverage, and were able to link to it from our website as a place were people could read more about Christine. 

One nice thing about an interview is that it doesn't have to take up a lot of a candidate's time, and it has a more narrative flow than a questionaire does, so it is can be more interesting for the reader.  You could do it over the phone, and just ask permission to tape record it, then transcribe it and put the transcription up as a diary.  I would recommend letting whomever it is look at it before you put it out there, so that if there are elements of your transcript that they feel are not accurate they have a chance to say that before its a done deal.  I do that sometimes when I am doing write-ups of candidate's presentations at our DFA meetings.  I don't make every change they ask for, but if I feel the clarification is helpful I will add it.

Anyway, its a thought.

And, yes, I have been absent from here the last several days due to being very busy at work, and then being very tired from being very busy at work.

Basic stuff: The common wealth should be used for the common good, not to enrich the well-connected few.  

---

by: Sandra_Verthein @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 14:25:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]