Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Raine1967's Journal
Raine1967's Journal
August 27, 2015

Living room caucuses alive and well


(winning hearts and minds one house event at a time)

The campaign for Martin O’Malley held house parties around the state, one of which was hosted by Bob Beisch. Even in an age of technology, the basic laws of nature still prevent a person from being in multiple places at the same time. O’Malley wasn’t at Beisch’s home, though the campaign did plan a teleconference to bring him to the parties digitally.

What Beisch hosted was the image of the Iowa caucus campaign, where people gather in small spaces, living rooms and coffee shops and talk politics. Tyler Dillon, a field organizer for the campaign, spoke about pestering O’Malley’s early organization into a position with it because he believed in the candidate.

“I found that a lot of my personal, progressive beliefs aligned with him,” Dillon said. “It just kept going, a huge checklist. ‘Wow, I really like that idea. Wow, I had never thought about that in that way.’”

Not everyone who attended was a confirmed O’Malley supporter. Even Beisch, the former chair of the Wapello County Democrats, has not committed to his candidacy. “Chances are I will,” he said, “but I don’t know for sure yet.”

So what emerged was, in Dillon’s words, “a conversation within the Democratic Party.” Comments by O’Malley supporters aimed at persuasion, while the attitude from those who were not O’Malley backers was more “convince me,” than “you’re wrong.”

August 27, 2015

Virginia for O'Malley check in here!

I, and our fellow co-Host FSogol, attended a conference (along with a bunch of other people) call with the O'Malley campaign explaining how they are setting the ground work to get Martin O'Malley in the primary Ballot in Virginia.

Virginai is on of the stricter statesin the union when it comes to getting people on the primary ballot. I posted this in another thread but I think it is important to repost it again. These are the requirements for getting a candidate on the ballot:

Petition Requirements § 24.2-545
Circulate on or after Tuesday, June 23, 2015.

Must be on the form prescribed by the State Board of Elections (copy enclosed). It is suggested that the candidate or group complete the top portion of the petition form and then print or photocopy as many copies of the form as needed.

The form may not be altered in any way.

[font color="red" size="size" face="helvetica"]Must be signed by not less than 5,000 qualified voters in Virginia, including at least 200 qualified voters from each of Virginia’s eleven congressional districts, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate named on the petition.[/font]

Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign a petition, it is recommended that 7,500 - 10,000 signatures be obtained with at least 300 signatures from each congressional district.
there is a lot more here: http://elections.virginia.gov/Files/BecomingACandidate/CandidateBulletins/2016PresidentialPrimary-CandidateBulletin.pdf

I have pledged to gather signatures, but would be really happy if anyone would be willing to join me in collecting signatures. This requires actual boots on the ground.

Those on this conference call will be recieving ballot access packets in the mail. We would love to have volunteers come help us out.

Baltimore is already pledging over twenty pages of signatures!

We have people willing to help from Delaware as well.


Also mentioned on the conference call, and I am sure more details are to come, the campaign is hoping for house parties for the debate in October. once I get more details I will post them here.

I hung up feeling really energized, and ready to go. They are looking to grow the organization (grassroots style!), they are looking for volunteers and are really hoping to plan more local events.

PM me if you want to get involved!

Peace and O'MG!

August 25, 2015

When a Member has been PPR'd why are their OP's allowed to remain open?

Not sure if this has been asked before.

I guess the reason I am asking is that if an OP has been locked by a jury, people can no longer respond in said thread, is there a reason why a PPR'd member can still have responses made in a post?

This thread is an example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027107427

It came to the hosts as an SoP alert and we bounced it up to ADmins to check for the Copyrite issue, ultimately it was a leave, but now that Member is gone.

Thanks for your time and I hope you all are having a nice summer!

August 25, 2015

Fellow MO'M supporters! I am super exited!

I was just invited to be on a conference call with O'Malley tomorrow night to discuss gathering signatures to get him on the Virginia Ballot!

It's ON!

I will report back here with details after the call!

August 21, 2015

The NRA decides to go after O'Malley.

I think this could be interesting. Evidently the NRA (Like Jeb Bush and Donald trump) take issue with Martin O'Malley's comments after the NetRootsNation interaction (for lack of a better way of putting it).


The NRA's feature attacks O'Malley on two fronts, claiming that he poses a threat to Second Amendment rights and accusing him of taking the side of criminals in Maryland -- even though courts have sided with O'Malley on gun laws and violent crime fell significantly during his tenure as governor.

Angered by O'Malley's strong support for a package of gun safety laws enacted in Maryland in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the NRA claims O'Malley "imposed the most draconian new gun bans anywhere in the country" before offering attacks from the top two members of NRA leadership. (snip)

Violent crime actually fell 27.3 percent in Maryland while O'Malley was governor. Crime in Baltimore also fell significantly while O'Malley was mayor between 1999 and 2007. (snip)

The NRA concludes its attack on O'Malley's record on crime by claiming that as governor he "was quick to offer hope and change to convicted killers and criminals" and that "he also did his best to take away the last, best hope of innocent, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from those criminals."

In one final unhinged attack that ties together claims about O'Malley on gun policy and crime, the NRA riffs on O'Malley's comments on "Black Lives Matter" to argue that "the lives that apparently don't matter to O'Malley are those of law-abiding citizens":

In June, speaking to the United States Conference of Mayors' annual gathering in San Francisco--where the current mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, was sworn in as president of the organization--O'Malley said, "One of the sad triumphs of white racism is the degree to which it has succeeded in subconsciously convincing so many of us, black and white, that somehow black lives don't matter."

In truth, the lives that apparently don't matter to O'Malley are those of law-abiding citizens--no matter what their background.

August 21, 2015

Just to refresh MO'M members: About that Rain Tax….

Call me crazy, but I have a strong feeling after seeing the NRA going after O'MAlley for his stance on Gun control, (See here, I am going to make this an OP is it isn't already) someone is going to inevitably come after him about the raine tax (and no, it wasn't a tax on me… )

Bookmark it and make this link your friend.


But referring to the 2012 legislation in question as a tax on rain is misleading. The Post wrote in an editorial that the "rain tax" is "a good applause line" but "a tougher sell on the merits":

The "rain tax" is, in fact, a federally mandated levy on pollution caused by storm water run-off, one of the main culprits in the tragic, decades-long environmental degradation of the Chesapeake Bay. Established by state legislation passed in 2012, the tax applies to the state's 10 most heavily populated urban and suburban jurisdictions, places with an abundance of hard surfaces -- parking lots, roads, driveways. In those built-up places, storm water carrying sediment, nutrients, trash and a variety of other pollutants washes into nearby streams and rivers, which drain into the bay. Revenues from the tax are meant to help localities adopt programs and build infrastructure to limit the damage from that runoff in order to protect the body of water.

The Baltimore Sun wrote in a June 2014 editorial that "rain tax" claims are "nonsense" since "Maryland does not tax the rain. It has directed its 10 most populous jurisdictions to raise revenue to pay for stormwater management upgrades that will prevent pollution from choking the Chesapeake Bay, per federal environmental regulations." Washington Post reporter Jenna Johnson wrote in a fact check article that "it's more of a pollution tax than a rain tax."

The nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation called the "rain tax" moniker "blatantly false," stating: "The truth is that we are talking about a fee to reduce pollution from water that washes off hard surfaces and empties into local waterways. Runoff pollution is real--it is responsible for no-swimming advisories and beach closures in local waters, fish consumption advisories, and dead zones in the Bay that can't support aquatic life. It also causes localized flooding and property damage. And in many areas, it is the largest source of pollution."

The misleading "rain tax" talking point has repeatedly been used by Maryland Republicans, especially during Larry Hogan's successful run for Maryland governor. In May, Hogan signed SB 863, the "Rain Tax Mandate Repeal (Watershed Protection and Restoration Programs, Revision), which repeals the requirement that forces local jurisdictions to collect a stormwater remediation fee, and instead authorizes such jurisdictions to do so." The Sun reported that "environmentalists worked to get the proposal from an outright repeal of stormwater fees to the version that passed."





The Rain Tax is actually a TAX ON POLLUTION.

August 21, 2015

TITLE OF ARTICLE: Are Presidential Candidates Dodging the Issue of Torture?

This is an encompassing article, and I want to highlight the part I think is pertinent to the *** MO'M group. ***


Cards on the table: I personally agree with the people who say we shouldn’t even deign to treat torture as a policy debate. I think it’s a war crime, both ethically and legislatively speaking. Furthermore, I find it alarming that Ben Carson’s polls surged after last Thursday’s debate.

But even if you wholeheartedly disagree with me, I still believe you — really, all of us — have the right to know, at the very least, where every candidate stands on the issue.

This is a reasonable request not least because, back in June, the independent publisher Melville House sent every presidential candidate a complimentary copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s damning report of the CIA’s torture practices under the previous Bush administration. Melville House did so by telling the recipients: “We hope you’ll read and share these copies with your staff and advisers, and that they will help you clarify your position on the legality, morality, and efficacy of torture.”

As you can guess, the candidate who has spoken out most aggressively against torture is a Democrat. But it’s not who you might think— not Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton. Rather, it’s Martin O’Malley, who has declared the need for a special prosecutor from the Justice Department to investigate US officials who had committed torture. O’Malley insists that “there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn’t happen again.”

Here’s why a direct call for the prosecution of torturers matters greatly. By declining to advocate for such legal actions, we’re announcing our willingness to let bygones be bygones. Without any pursuit of accountability, there’s no guarantee that US officials won’t torture again with complete indemnity.

Even Obama, when pressed about the possibility of litigious measures, has consistently said he wants to look forward rather than backward.

The entire article is really good and delves into much more than our primaries, IT's a pretty radical site, I will make that clear as well.

It ends with:
Yet next time you attend talks by presidential candidates — whether Republican or Democrat — do press them about their positions on torture. We need to know, and the least we can do is ask.
August 6, 2015

MO'M SUPPORTERS: Regarding the debate tonite:

@jameshohmann 2m2 minutes ago
Martin O'Malley's rapid response team will tweet about tonight's debate using the hashtag #WWOMD, as in "What Would O'Malley Do?"

And this is important:
James Hohmann Verified account
National Political Correspondent for The Washington Post || Author of The Daily 202 || Anchor of @PowerPost || Minnesotan ||

Keep an eye out! #WWOMD
August 4, 2015

O'Malley to call for a voting rights constitutional amendment

First on CNN: Martin O'Malley to call for a voting rights constitutional amendment

Washington (CNN)Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley will call for a constitutional amendment "to protect every citizen's right to vote" at a campaign event with black leaders in South Carolina on Tuesday, campaign aides tell CNN.

O'Malley, a Democratic candidate for president, will mark the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act by arguing at a 20/20 Leaders of America meeting that the only way to protect voting rights against Republican efforts to "suppress the vote" is to guarantee the right with a constitutional amendment.

After the event, O'Malley will send an email to his supporters asking them to stand behind his amendment push.

"Last year, Republican state legislators in 29 states introduced more than 80 restrictive bills to require a photo ID, make voter registration harder, or reduce early voting," O'Malley writes in the email provided to CNN. "We know why they're doing this: because Americans without a photo ID are disproportionately low-income, disabled, minority — and Democratic."

August 3, 2015

Peacetrain, I am going to say something very unpopular here.

I have said if before, but not here in GDP.

I am a member of the democratic party. I am not ashamed of saying that.

Having said that, there is something that bothers me: While Sanders always caucused with Dems when he was elected to office as a representative and later as a Senator, he was never a part of trying to build and change the infra-structure of the Democratic party to what his vision is. He has always made it clear that he is not a member of the party. HE has even done as far to say that he is not a liberal…

The party has been very happy to have him caucus with us, but…

He has not helped with the legwork in building the party platform.

He is reaping the gains of the party without having contributed to the party as a member. Just to be clear, I am talking about PARTY politics. If anyone wants to know why party partisans are reluctant to say that he is a viable candidate, I think it's because he has never been willing to say he is a Democrat. I respect that — He's not.

Right now, to the best of my knowledge (and his words), he is running as a Democrat because this is his best chance to be elected on a national scale. I think is the first time he has ever run as a Dem — and he still is not an official member of the Democratic party. (I know, in advance — as a resident of Vermont he doesn't have to register in a party).

Sanders wants a political revolution in a party that he never wanted to be a part of. That really bothers me.

That is not a slam, this is a fact.

Considering we have O'Malley, and Clinton — both of which have been life long members of the party I affiliate with; both of which have worked to change and make the platform better, both of which have campaigned to get other Dems elected in local, state and federal elections — I feel a little uneasy about a man that is running for the nomination of the Democratic party that hasn't dome that. He hasn't gone out of his way to be a part of the party that he is asking the nomination for.

My personal preference for the nomination is Martin O'Malley; he has a track record with working across party lines to get things done. I like that. I appreciate that. I want that in a president. I would be fine with Clinton as well — and yes, even Sanders — however the issue I am responding to you about is something that I am honestly saying makes me feel uncomfortable.

His not being a part of helping to build and change the Democratic Party platform will become an issue for people who are Democrats. I agree with almost everything that Bernie stands for; Most Dems do — but he never wanted to be a part of the party I am in. Now he wants my vote. I don't know if I like that.

I know that we have a lot of people here on DU that do not care about party politics. I get that.
I happen to care about party politics because we still have a two party system, Sanders wants to have it both ways right now. If he wins, my concern is what is he going to do to help get other democrats elected in all levels of government? It's not just about the office of President, the way I see it, it is who the candidate can bring along and help get elected.

Right now, as I see it, O'Malley and Clinton have a record of doing just that. I am not seeing where Sanders has helped to build and change the party after all of his years in federal governance.

I am a liberal.
I am a progressive.
I'm a member of the Democratic party and I am looking forward to our primaries.

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Nov 12, 2004, 01:48 PM
Number of posts: 11,590
Latest Discussions»Raine1967's Journal