Sarah Palin's One Nation

Are we as a party going to address Sarah Palin having the gall to ride around from

state to state with her bus displaying One Nation when it's clear that she is a white

extremist which is displayed at all of her gatherings.  There are never any minorities

in the crowds.  Come on everyone.  How long are we going to sit passive and accept

these public insults.  Integrity matters.   

 

Ann Stevens

More Observations

I respect Stuart a great deal. I think that Stuart is a gentleman and very articulate. I'm attacking the Democratic Party in Anderson, unfortunately Stuart is the leader.   The bottom line is that we must make changes. More people must get involved. This is where I'm attacking Stuart. Stuart agrees with me when I say we must make changes, but, it pains me to say this, he has not made any changes.

This leaves us to what kind of changes we must make.
In politics you must have hard skin. I believe if a person spit in my face, I would ask him why he did it. The point: Stuart must take everything I say negative about him with a grain of salt. It's not him, rather the policies.
Now, let's talk about changes: What I see is that a person runs for some kind of elected position in the Democratic party, and the Democrats send him or her out there like a lone wolf somewhere in Alaska looking for food. This is totally wrong. The next election we must gather around the candidate and coach. We must funnel our creative resources to make that person a winner in the election. It's not about that candidate, it's about us. That candidate is representing us.  In closing, I see very clearly that Stuart loves the Democratic party. He has a passion for it. I don't want to see Stuart leave, I'm just asking that we change direction. Keep the same leaders, let's just change the direction of the leaders.

This goes for Dave the Democrat. Clearly one can see that the Democratic party is his life. Let's just try to make his life more fuller by adding more elected officials to the Democratic party in SC. 








A change that I propose is that we make a commercial. I will produce it, and edit it. This means that we will not have to lay out any money. i will do it for free. This is my profession, a filmmaker. From then on, I will use the word "WE." I need help to get our message out. We must get it out to the swing voters.
In order to get it out and have it watched, we need to make the video short and interesting. It must hit the gut.
I see the commercials that have been done for the SC Democratic party. They're terrible; they lack substance. 
Let's take the ex-governor-al candidate, Sheehen:
As soon as I saw his commercial, I knew it was doomed.
Why?
His commercial was clique. He showed a happy man with a family. What about sad people? What about the people without a family?
His commercial didn't relate to those people. As a consequence, those people probably didn't get his vote. And there's probably plenty of them.
On the other hand, look at ex-governor Bob Graham from Florida. His commercial showed a man down in the trenches with the common man. His video-commercial hit the gut. As a consequence, he won.
Let's look at Dick Harpootlian's commercial. He went about it totally wrong. He cuts down the governor and then uses hearsay to get his point across. If you want to get your point across, use the first person, not what others say about the first person. You can always get anyone to say anything about another. it's a lawyer's skill. Each side has an expert witness. The problem lies on which side has the more persuasive expert witness. 
I'm going to leave this as it is. I have my ideas, but I want input from others. 
Remember, the subject is to get swing voters, the theme is how we do it.
We will make this video short. Then, if we click, we will make another, then another. 



Posted by Max to GRASSROOTS CONVERSATIONS at May 28, 2011 7:30 PM

Reaping and Sowing

My dear friends,
I believe we have lost our way morally with integrity and honor. We are suppose to be the party that care about people, but our behavior is front and center,  "in yo face" individual(s) families, clicks, persons that are reaching up for self, ultimately, undermining and weakening our collective power. There are two old proverb, "United we stand, Divided we fall" and
"Sustained unity requires good leadership and sacrifice".
When people are truly only looking out for themselves, not really attempting or failing in there ability to muster the quality to make good moral decisions, which allows one to truly see the big picture, then we get situations where people are saying one thing and doing another, hence our Party.
I very rarely experience any of our leaders making a recognizable attempt to unity, listen or even care beyond they're own family, click or self. This has become our way. Many well respected minds has warned about this type of behavior but more and more people are subscribing to this way of life. I get mine, you get yours, by any means necessary, and no matter who you sacrifice.
Ultimate, we are sacrificing our own "People" who need someone to care about them.
This is what we've been repeating, the results have been the same and now many realize this insanity. This is the resultant of our elections. The question is, do we keep playing as if we are insane or are we going to be the " Party that care about people"?

Everybody wants the harvest, but you reap what you sow!

For what it worth,

Gregory Brown

Keeping It Simple

There are two approaches to running a campaign, putting your emphasis on acquiring money or getting votes.  If you have read and/or have heard me say on numerous occasions that money don't win elections but that votes do.  Let's use this for an example: Say, if you had four trillion dollars, not one of those dollars will or can cast a vote. First of all they are not citizens of the United States; secondly they are not registered voters; thirdly, they have know means of physically voting and/or expressing their will to vote. 

There are two types of Power perceived and actual.  Perceived Power is held by those who are elected and/or appointed into office.  There Power is only transfered from the voters to them and it is only actual as long as they are elected.   this is what I call borrowed Power from their constituents.  The problem is that to insure that this Power is perceived to be actual Power instead of perceived Power, those in leadership must convince those of us, who lend our Power to them to fulfill our demands, that their perceived Power is actual Power.  They do this by trying to take control of the mechanism that house and disperse the actual power that is collected from the voters who possess the actual Power.  That mechanism is called the Party.  No one person are small group of people can control this mechanism because it is by nature a collaboration of many separate individuals, groups, organizations and counties that do not always think alike but think similarly enough that they have chosen to join together as one.  

As County Chairs you are in control of the largest single block of voters, which make you the holder of actual Power.  But the only way that you can control this actual power is that the voters in your County relinquish that Power to you.  That will only happen if they believe that you care about them.  There are County Chairs among us who are physically over large and small County's, but do not have actual Power because they are not addressing the needs of their constituents.  The sad thing about it is that they appear to not really care if they address these needs.  They appear to be caught up in the bright lights of that small group of perceived powerful leaders who seek to control the Party for their own wishes.  We lose campaigns because we can not insure that our constituents will come out to vote.  Think about it.   

As always, this is just my opinion and it does not make it right. 

Lee Walter Jenkins

THE PARTY THAT CARES

The Democratic Party is called “The Party that cares about people”.  But, as County Chairs has that been our main focus.  Some would say that our main focus has been and should be only dealing with issues as it applies to someone being elected and/or promoting the growth of the Democratic Party as an entity.  I believe that if you concentrate on adhering to our motto then we will succeed in electing our candidates and helping the Party to grow.  I also believe that we should get away from the cheap parlor tricks and backroom deals and base our actions on what is right and what is wrong.   Contrary to what a lot of our political pundits and so-called experts think, the community at-large is not stupid they see and recognize the games that are being played on them.  But because they have been optimistic and hopeful that someone will step forward and do what is right they have taken turns not showing up to vote in hopes that there is a savior in one Party or another. 

As Democrats we must either adhere to the aforementioned motto by actively showing that we care, about people and their rights, or never use this motto again.  Not for one moment do I believe that we all, in the Democratic Party, care about people let along the rights of people.  But I do believe that there are enough of us who do care that we can enforce this on the few that do not. 

We are quickly becoming the Party that will not take a firm stance on anything and it is not our base that is portraying that image, it is our leadership.  To many of our elected leaders local, statewide and nationally will not adhere to the platform that they were elected under.  This has been done so much that it is becoming something that the Republican Party can depend on.  We develop campaign strategy not based on what successes that we have achieved or on what our base wants but on what the Republican media says is important.  In short, our political base is being asked to vote for Republican followers, as their leaders.  Contrary to what our so-called experts may think our base is not that stupid.  We are not losing elections because our base has failed us; we are losing elections because we have failed our base.  We try so hard to find that emotional issue that will bring people out to vote, rather than appealing to the fundamental reasoning behind their day to day decision making process.  That fundamental reasoning process is whether something is right or wrong for them.  Does it benefit their children, their family, their neighbors, their community, their church and yes even their race.  The Republicans whole campaign the last election cycle was based on what they were eluding as a benefit to their race and the Minority population saw this and they also saw that very few of our candidates were stepping up to question these actions and or defend them, so they did not come out to vote as they should have.  They felt betrayed so they stayed home, while both Party’s’ fought for the same White vote.  When that happens, it is a no brainer; the Republicans are going to win.  What makes the Democratic Party a favorite is, when it is doing what its’ motto alludes to; it will cut huge chunks out of the electorate in all population demographics.  But try explaining that to most of our experts and our so-called leaders. 

Just my opinion, it does not make it right.

Lee Walter Jenkins

RECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

In our society there is an on going battle between two past proponents of each other, who have become bitter rivals.  These combatants are called the community and the educational system.  Both are blaming each other for their failures and neither will take responsibility for their inability to work together for the greater good of all concerned.  For the record they are both right about each others failures and they are both wrong about the amount of responsibility placed on the other.  The truth is, it is both their jobs, to develop a working relationship based on a common goal of shared responsibility and resources. 

                                              

But, before they can do this they must find understanding and resolve to the following conflicting issues: the educational system believes that the community is doing a poor job of raising their youth and are allowing them to attend school unprepared to learn; the community believes that the educational system is doing a poor job of teaching their youth and preparing them for the future; the educational system says that the community is lazy and not capable of solving their own problems; the community states that the educational system believes that they have all the answers and is unconcerned about hearing suggestions from them, about solving their joint issues; the educational system states that the community is illiterate and functionally literate, because they do not choose to take advantage of the vast amount of free and accessible knowledge that is available for those who want it; the community says that the educational system lack understanding of their unique problems and are both condescending and uncaring of their needs and there conditions; the educational system says that the community is uncooperative and unreliable, when attempts are made to include them in research projects that will be used to enhance their quality of life; the community states that the educational community is only using them to make more money, gain notoriety and that to often their concerns are given to researchers who promise them the world, use their information and are never to be seen again except on television bragging about what they have accomplished.  They never make any positive reference of the community and those that help to make their efforts successful. 

All of these concerns carry a certain amount of validity but they both lack understanding of the issues that govern each other’s actions.  How did two entities so dependent on the support of each other, for their future growth and survival, get to this point?  For this to be answered we must give a brief synopsis of their shared past, in order to obtain a well examined and positive solution.

In the beginning it was the adult family members’ job to prepare each youth for their place in the tribal community.  As time passed and the population grew, hunting accidents and armed conflict with neighboring tribes began a steady depletion of the male population.  To insure that the young males were properly prepared for adulthood, alternative measures had to be initiated.  It became the duty of tribal elders to prepare the youth of the community for their place as an adult member.  This was not only the beginning of formal Mentorship Programs but also formal Education.  At that time a mentor and a teacher were synonymous with each other.  As time passed families became more mobile, wars were a common occurrence and different races and religions were in constant contact.  Suddenly there was a need for experts, while specialization became the norm and economic achievement became the priority.  The education of youth ceased to be the responsibility of the community and became a division of the state.  State and federal mandated regulations determined who would be qualified to be a teacher and where they were to be placed.  Thus, began the division between teacher and mentor.  Teachers found themselves in communities and in charge of children that they knew little or nothing about and had no vested interest in.  With the addition of curriculum, time restraints and stress to obtain additional degrees some teachers began to see their occupation as more of a job than a responsibility.  They were forced not to be concerned about the welfare of the total child, but only of the child’s performance in their class.  With the detachment of vested interest by the one entity that joined the educational system and the community, came a separation of interest by both groups in ideology and actions.  


The educational system began to court the support of the political and corporate entities to create their on identity outside of the influence of the community.  No longer were they to be seen as having a one dimensional purpose of relaying information gathered and created by others without any input on their part.  A movement and a strategy was developed to promote the importance of the educational system creating information and promoting ideas that changed the way people and organizations thought and operate on a day to day basis.  In the space of a century the educational system went from legitimizing the thoughts and actions of the community to dictating the thoughts and action of the total society.  Along the way they ceased being concerned about how the community felt or thought about an issue or whether they understood the issue in question.  Suddenly it was the educational system that developed policy and if you did not understand, then it was your fault.  


A new and constantly changing language was created by the educational community that only they understood.  Old words that the community was familiar with were replaced with new ones that only educators understood and if the community did not recognize them then they were made to feel less intelligent and inadequate.  This gave rise to words such as illiterate and functional literate.  In many cases it was not that the community did not know and/or understood the subject but that they did not know it by the words that were and are being used by educators.  The separation of community and educational system has caused a separate and unequal relationship that can be best described at this point as “Reconcilable Differences.”  This is a condition that must be corrected as soon as possible, for the sake of all concerned.

In today’s climate of accessing more and more information through the internet, print/news media and public television, you would think that the masses would be growing in literacy rather than shrinking.  Educators, Political Leaders and Corporate America are now learning that having access does not translate to having the ability to access, knowing what you have accessed and/or the will or perceived need to access.  Their initial conclusion is that our communities are both illiterate and/or functionally literate, while reading at a tenth grade level but comprehending at a seventh or eighth grade level.  Recognizing the failures in their earlier prediction that the advent of more access to information would bring about a steady rise in literacy, Educators have set out to fix the problem by attempting to use research to gain more reliable solutions.  Their early findings have been largely inconclusive due to faulty data gained through quantitative research errors and the uncooperativeness of the community to be involved in research projects.  This uncooperativeness can be traced to the negative past experiences between the community and researchers and the inability of researchers to find the proper channels to get their message across.  In short, they have lost their ability to communicate with the community, due to a lack of shared points of understanding.  


If Educators expect to gain the attention and support of the poor and working class community they must change their approach to soliciting their cooperation.  They must realize that their ways and the ways of upper middle and upper class citizens are totally foreign to working class and poor people.

COMMUNITY-BASED vs TRADITIONAL (Contrasting Concepts, Applications and Philosophies)

To often programs proclaimed as Community-based are really not.  Sure they have the title of being Community-based, but their structure and application seldom reflect what they are proclaiming.  The fact is that most individual/individuals who develop what they consider as a Community-based program do not understand that there are distinct differences.  They surmise that by developing a Mentorship Program and/or other similar programs and operate it out of a targeted Community then they have created a Community-based Program.  This assumption is both right and wrong, determining upon how you defined the word based.  If you are defining based as meaning having their place of operation in the Community, then it is true you have created a Community-based Program.  “But” if you define based as meaning, “developed to address the needs of the Community that it is operating in”, then it is not true that you have developed a Community-based Program.  Most people fail to understand that Community-based Programs have specific concepts, applications and philosophies which give each program a uniqueness of its own.  Every Community is unique unto itself and it is that uniqueness which causes a Community-based Program that was so successful in one Community to fail horribly in another.  Although each Community may share the same problems, these problems did not come about for the same reasons.  The reason that we have so many failed Community-based Programs is because someone or someone’s failed to address and/or incorporate the Communities unique concepts, applications and philosophies needed to insure success.

What is the difference between a Community-based Program and the more traditional programs we are accustomed to seeing?  Community-based Programs benefit all involved through inclusiveness and with everyone sharing responsibility for its success and/or failure.  Traditional Programs are exclusive by design and only benefit the select few, with the credit for its success generally going to the director and/or governing board members and the failures being given to lack of Community support, staff member(s) and/or staffing issues.  Below is a list of contrasting terms which exhibits the difference between Community-based and Traditional Programs:

Collective – Having the power or quality of bringing together.

Individual – Existing as an entity; single; particular.

Moral – Pertaining to character and behavior from the point of view of right and wrong and obligation of duty.

Policy – Any system of management based on self-interest as opposed to equity.

Moralism – The practice of or belief in a system of principles governing conduct.

Politics – The policies, goals or affairs of a government or of the groups or parties within.

Communal-esteem – The sum of ones personal favorable opinion or estimation on the basis of worth, especially those based on moral characteristics, acknowledged in them by their community.

Self-esteem – A good opinion of oneself; an overestimation of oneself.

Communal Responsibility – A shared state of being answerable or accountable, for the success and/or failure, between the community and its residents.

Individualism – Personal independence in action, character and/or interest; selfishness.

Consensus – Collective opinion; general agreement.

Majority Rule – Decisions made by the agreement of more than half of a select group.

Inclusion – The act of including; being a part of a whole.

Exclusion – The act of excluding; keeping from entering; shut out, as from a place or group.

Communal Leadership – Subservient to the wishes and needs of the Community; ensures that the decisions consensually agreed upon by the Community is carried out and goals are met.  The best servant is considered the best leader.

Traditional Leadership – Is not subservient to the wishes and needs of the Community; ensures that the decisions that they determine is best for the Community is carried out and the goals are met.  The most aggressive, charismatic, self confident and influential (economically, politically and/or socially) is considered the best leader.