U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 03, 2008 12:04 PM UTC

Why I Will Caucus In Iowa (And Why You Should, Too)

  • 9 Comments
  • by: NEWSMAN

by Chris Bowers: Originally posted at Open Left

Even though I haven’t been in the state since 1985, I believe I have every right to participate in the Iowa caucus. First, it would be consistent with the principle of democratic self-determination for the following three reasons:

The Presidency is a national office, and I am just as much of an American as anyone who lives in Iowa.

The Democratic Party is a national organization, and I am just as much of a Democrat as anyone who lives in Iowa.

In accordance with the principle of “one man, one vote,” after participating in the Iowa caucuses, I will not participate in the presidential nomination contest of any other state in the country.

Second, my participation in the Iowa caucuses are in keeping with the principle of retail politics often used to justify Iowa’s privileged position on the calendar.

I have seen every candidate speak in person. I have even talked with four of the seven candidates.

I have paid more attention to this campaign than about 98-99% of everyone else who will participate in the caucus.

Third, in keeping with the principles of democratic protest, this act of civil disobedience will be successful for the following reasons:

The vast majority of the country does not believe that Iowa should have such a privileged position in determining who is the President of everyone in the country. (Source, PDF)

What are the local authorities going to do? Arrest me for trying to vote? I’m sure that will look good, especially if several hundred people try to do this en masse.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Iowa really do much to try and stop this, anyway.

With all of this in mind, the only argument that

I can think of not to do this is that I don’t live in Iowa. Compared to everything else presented here, that strikes me as thin and anti-democratic.

People who live in certain areas of the country should not have more rights than people who live in other areas of the country. Even though Yespen ( http://www.desmoinesregister.c… ) seems in favor of it when it comes to choosing the next President, fighting segregation was one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement in this country, after all.

So, I’m going to caucus in Iowa, if I can figure out a way to get there. I think other people should join in, too. The more people who come, the stronger our protest will be. Are you with me!?

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

Tweet
Share

Comments

9 thoughts on “Why I Will Caucus In Iowa (And Why You Should, Too)”

  1. Do I dare ask why you posted this NM?

    Regardless, the only problem being that Mr. Bowers has no “right” to caucus in Iowa because, not being a citizen of the state, he has no right to determine who the state’s delegates are to the state and national conventions.  That’s what is being determined in Iowa Thursday night.  The state pays for the caucus, not the Democratic party.  It’s all well and good that he’s a member of the Dem party, but unless he’s somehow been paying taxes to fund the state’s costs of holding the caucuses, he has no “right” to be there.  And what will they do stop him?  Uh…just not let him in the room…no rocket science involved…

    I just loooove poorly though out stuff like this…

    1. AFAIR, one can sit and opine in the conversation, but without being a registered party member, not much more.

      I distincly recall such a case in the 2004 caucus at my table.  I think a man was registered Indy.  He was a good participant, but could not “vote” on issues.  

      1. I don’t know what the “rules” are in IA…even though I probably should.  The caucus I was at 4 years ago in IA stopped me from trying to “influence” Kucinich supporters only after they realized I was there w/ a campaign.  Some other folks w/ the Edwards camp were able to talk to the participants throughout the caucus at other locations.  Then, of course, there was my girlfriend who wasn’t even allowed in the room at the caucus she was “observing” in Ottumwa…

        I’m sure there are actual rules…but from my experience, “observers” and “monitors” seem to be at the will of the individual caucus directors.

    2. Funny…

      Do I dare ask why you posted this NM?

      Because it is funny, and thought provoking.

      I completely agree with you,

      that Mr. Bowers has no “right” to caucus in Iowa because, not being a citizen of the state..etc  etc

      but I love this sarcastic logic.  I am still not sure if he is serious, or putting us on.  I think the latter.

      PS Reason 2) I wanted to visualize you scratching your head contemplating the fact that NEWSMAN actually reads OpenLeft and the DailyKOS. I read the English language edition of Pravda too occasionally. Got to know what the other side thinks.

      NEWSMAN

      1. I don’t even read KOS or OpenLeft so I was scratching my head just a bit.  😛

        For me, it just doesn’t stand up as a really solid satire.  I imagine writing a satire was his intent, but there’s a little too much “logic” involved.  Mind you, my opinion is probably strongly tied to having an English degree and constantly having Swift or Alexander Pope quotes pop into my head faaaar too often…

        Anyway, it is interesting…

        1. Reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy’s comedy bit about how you can tell what women are thinking by looking at whats in Womens magazines.

          He says men are much less complicated than women.

          With women,their magazines are filled with storie like:

          How to get a good man, How to get rid of a bad man, How to turn a bad man into a good man,

          Mens magazines are filled with picures of naked wemen.

          1. Their mothers tell them what dogs we are because they have finally learned.  Then the daughters believe that their man isn’t a dog.  

            Woof.  Woof.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

145 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols