Why I support David Sabados for Party Chair

My name is Wesley Song and I support David Sabados’ run for Party chair. I put my name here to be sure that there can be no question as to who I am and the reasons I support Dave. I have been a Democrat since I attended the University of Northern Colorado. I registered as a Democrat in 2004, shortly after the election before I started work in the Colorado state capitol as an intern. I am a Democrat because of David Sabados. While I was at UNC, I had held fast to being an independant. I was one of those independent voters that believed that both parties were screwed up and couldn’t do a damn thing. David showed me what it meant to not only believe in principles but to stand up to them. After we got to know each other and I worked with Democrats, I came to understand why he worked so hard. There are some great people in the party. The party has some great principles. There are things to be fought for. The things I wanted were the things that the Democratic party stood for.

Since college I’ve done work in campaigns, but I have primarily worked in the private sector and participated in politics like most people. I am not a high dollar donor, nor am I a super activist. I have mainly gotten my news from reading the Huffington Post, Colorado Pols, and the various local and national newspapers. I care quite a bit (as many of my facebook friends can probably attest) to certain issues. That being said, after the last election I have seriously contemplated leaving the party and returning to my independent status. It is my impression that the party has left some of the values that I most care about to the wayside in favor of better polling and a perceived greater appeal. I feel like the support for unions has become the crazy uncle type of topic that we push aside, except when we need their money and their support. It seems that we’ve forgotten that public education is what built the middle class in America. I don’t hear enough about what we are doing about income inequality and its tremendous effect on the middle class American. This last election, I heard almost nothing about what we stand for. I didn’t hear what it was to be a liberal or a progressive in anything. Maybe I missed some speeches, or some of the flyers got lost in my inbox. The fact is that I think we can win elections by running on what we believe in. I think that being a liberal and progressive isn’t about being a wuss as the right would sometimes have me believe. I think that leading by over polling our message is like the joke about the French revolutionary that says, “There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.”

So I’m going to support someone that I may not always agree with, but who isn’t afraid to lead and to work hard. I’m staying a Democrat as long as I know that we’ve got people in the party willing to make it better.

Massachusetts and Health Care Reform

This is some analysis from a Huffington Post article about a MoveOn.org poll of Obama voters in the Massachusetts election of Senator elect Brown.


Wanted to highlight a few key sections that I thought were relevant to this whole discussion about moving to the right on Healthcare and the referendum of the voters of Mass (Too lazy to type it all out multiple times).

The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care’s role in the election. A plurality of people who switched — 48 — or didn’t vote — 43 — said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went “too far” — but 36 percent thought it didn’t go far enough and 41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.

Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn’t go far enough; 39 percent weren’t sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.

I know everyone thinks that to pass this legislation we need to have the votes to win it.  I think that everyone thats looking out for their job is voting a Republican talking point, the country doesn’t want a public option, people don’t want expansive health care reform, etc.  Being a liberal, I want this.  In fact, Mass democrats sent their own message I think.  Vote what you promised, or we’ll stay home.

Something new from the Romanoff Campaign

Just got this in my email, thought I’d post it here for everyone to see.

I’m writing to share some exciting news.  I am putting Bill Romjue, a nationally respected political strategist and decorated veteran, at the top of our talented team.  I have enormous respect for Bill’s service to our country and his skill as a campaign manager, and I hope you will have a chance to meet him as well.

Bill earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam, where he served in the U.S. Army.  He brings more than 30 years of political experience, having organized more than a dozen statewide races around the country and played key roles in a host of national campaigns, including those of Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Bob Kerrey, and Jimmy Carter.  He also served as chief of staff to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt.

Bill will lead a statewide operation that is growing stronger every day.  We’ve hosted 75 house parties and added more than 700 donors in the past two weeks alone.  

Click here to show your support.  

Bill knows how Washington works – and he’s just as determined as I am to change it.  He rejects the “pay to play” system that allows powerful special-interest groups to bankroll Congress and block reform.

He shares the outrage so many of us feel as we watch one senator after another cut deals with the drug lobby, cave in to the insurance industry, and compromise the health of the American people.

It’s time to take a stand.

Bill and I believe that Coloradans – and all Americans – deserve better.

We deserve the best Senate that money can’t buy.

Click here to join our fight.  


Andrew Romanoff

P.S.: The 10 days that remain in this financial quarter are critical to our success.  Help us send a powerful message by contributing right now.

Health Care Debate

From huffington post.

The Senate health care bill is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage.

In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.

Link here

While I have been fortunate to have been part of a company that offers a good health care plan.  However many of my friends and acquaintances in the tech sector have not been as lucky.  Many of them work on contract jobs, hired through recruiters, which generally do not provide any health care.  With the removal of the public option and the attempted compromise of dropping Medicare to 55, it pretty much leaves all the young professionals just starting out with pretty much nothing unless they get in with a company that will offer some form of healthcare.

So here is my question to our current senators.  Why?  While I understand that seniority and position are important in a debate of this magnitude, why are we removing ways to include people.  The senate seems to spend more of its time debating ways to remove people and services from the health care bill.  

While I have been a democrat for only 9 years, I joined because I started to see that there were problems that the market was not addressing.  I voted for Obama hoping that this problem with health care would at least provide insurance for those that would be hard pressed to buy it on their own.  

So I again ask if they were so committed to the Public Option, why it was removed to appease Republicans who are no closer to voting for it than when we began this journey.  Mostly this is frustration talking.  I’m really hoping that someone can provide me with a legitimate reason why something this watered down took this long and all that “leadership” was squandered.  

Do you think the healthcare compromise is good enough?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

It’s not Hate if you don’t say it.

Here is a link to an article in the Dayton news about a 10 year old girl that was pepper sprayed in the face by unknown assailants.

Link after the fold.


Apparently it has nothing to do with the mosque being filled with muslims.  This could have happened to any religious institution here in America.

This also has nothing to do with the “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” that was mailed out to people in the area.

If you can’t tell, my dripping sarcasm is only masked by the anger I feel at reading stories like this.

The Role of Experience

With the nomination of a relative newcomer to national politics, ColoradoPols, along with just about everyone else in the nation has pretty much hopped onto the “experience” bandwagon.  How much does experience in politics affect a person in the role of an executive?

I thought I’d write this diary up about past presidents and their “experience.”  See if you can guess which president had which experience.

1. 12 years in Congress, 12 years in Senate and 2 years as VP.

2. 7 years in Senate, 6 months as Governor, 2 years as Secretary of State, 4 years as VP

3. 7 years as Secretary of Commerce

4. 2 years in Congress

5. 4 years as Governor, 5 years in Senate, 1 month VP

6. 8 years as Governor

7. 5 years as Governor

8. 8 months Senate President, 9 years in Senate, 2 years as Governor, 1 month as VP

9. 3 years in Congress, 3 years in Senate, 8 years as VP

While I agree that having a previous record allows the public to get to know how you will vote or have voted, it is not an indicator of how well you wield executive power.  Management of people can be done incredibly bad by very bright people.  Intelligence has not been a good indicator of how well a person can lead.  Neither is mere charisma for that matter.  The situations that the President of the United States will have to deal with are such that no job can prepare you for it.  Can some people cope with the pressures and the responsibilities better than others? Of course, not all of our Presidents have been gems, but we do not always know that til they get there.  So instead of harping on how well does Alaska compare to a community organizer, or is senate experience somehow more valuable than municipal experience, how about instead we get back to what we are good at, nitpicking their policy speeches.

Want to know who you thought would do well based on experience alone?

1. Lyndon Johnson

2. Martin Van Buren

3. Herbert Hoover

4. Abraham Lincoln

5. Andrew Johnson

6. Ronald Reagan

7. George W. Bush

8. John Tyler

9. Richard Nixon