On The Advocate, the New York Times Magazine, and with an inside story in the latest New Yorker (article by Jeffrey Toobin), I keep on running into Rep. Barney Frank. He's been on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.
In other words, he is making the rounds.
He is outspoken about his place in the Congress; his coming out in the late '80s; his own "prediction" about the progress society will be making in over-turning DADT, non-discrimination of LGBTQ people in jobs, and a hate-crime bill. All that is missing is civil unions!
I remember Barney Frank speaking out in 2004 at Duke University, where he made a dramatic appeal for us to vote and not merely hold rallies. According to Frank, while rallies are great fun and emotionally intoxicating, they do little to change things. Frank wanted us to know and remember that what matters most are the votes in Congress. What matters in a democracy is the vote.
This also involves money. Watching the Prop. 8 campaign in CA, it was clear that money was important in the act of getting-out-the-vote machine, with the pro-Prop. 8 folks having much more money. Money does not necessarily buy an election, but makes it easier. Just ask the Obama folks.
In a discussion with others in the Presby. Church (USA) at a gathering of More Light Presbyterians, the issue of money came up: who has more money at their disposal in the upcoming amendment votes among Presbyteries: the conservative voices or the progressive voices? The conservative side of the debate has far more money, and a better machine in getting news out to its members than do the liberal/progressive side.
Care to bet who will win?
Money and voting: in a democracy, they go together like butter on bread.
This is the lesson for the day.
Pace!
B
2 comments:
Interesting post.....one thing that runs thru my mind is that last December I don't think anyone would have pick Obama as the person that could raise the most money......nevertheless in the end he did......he went to the small guy and he won.
Reports he said to both small AND large donors. He crafted a good mixture of both, with the smaller giving donors able to say "we got him elected" while larger giving donors made up difference that had to be covered in terms of cost. In other words, it was both-and, not either-or.
B
Post a Comment