I understand that they're spending a lot to run TV ads in swing states, ads that I won't see living in Washington. But still, I think it's crucial that these orgs close the loop with their donors and tell them how their money is helping the cause.

For example, when you "adopt" a child thru orgs like Save The Children they send you updates about the child you sponsored (name, age, where they live, how the money is being spent on clothing, education, food, etc) and even letters from the kids. Similarly, contributors to Amnesty International are sent periodic updates that contain excerpts from emotional Thank You letters from political prisoners and their families, and lists of people who are currently detained and what Amnesty Int'l is doing about it. Closing the loop in this way makes the donor feel good about their contribution and often encourages people to give even more.

Wouldn't it be powerful if the US Government closed the loop with citizens in this way and explained how our tax dollars are distributed? I believe that many of those that complain about paying taxes are disenchanted because they have no concrete information on how tax revenue is applied.

Imagine an IRS tax brochure that resembles an investor's prospectus. It would have photos of retierees on social security empowered with a decent minimum standard of living after 35 yrs working on the production line. Seniors getting perscription drugs and pregnant mothers getting pre-natal care thanks to health care provision. Tens of millions of Kids, high schoolers and college kids learning in public educational institutions. Beautiful national parks. Newly repaved roads, renovated public housing, etc, etc. This might make people proud to pay their taxes, instead of blindly voting for any candidate who advocates cutting taxes because they don't trust where their money goes.

[snippet from the article...]
Davidson says he has the ideal catalyst to motivate this vast, untamed voter demographic: rock 'n' roll.

Davidson plays bass for the popular Seattle band Radio Nationals.

"Playing rock 'n' roll puts you in front of an audience that is very receptive to the Driving Votes message," he said. "The people that we come in contact with are open to the idea of getting Bush out.

"If you provide them with a way to make a difference, it's amazing how many people are willing to get involved," Davidson said.

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."
Washington Post, Friday, April 9
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62524-2004Apr8.html

In addition, CBS News confirms that the President's Aug '01 month-long vacation in Crawford, TX was the longest Presidential vacation in 32 yrs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/18/politics/main607234.shtml

His rationale is that most Americans have decided long ago where they believe each of the two parties stand on the recurring national issues, and these preferences are hard to change. But terrorism is a new issue and many voters haven't yet decided which party's approach to the problem is most effective.

It made me think that perhaps we should highlight this issue when we encounter voters who are still on the fence. I don't think it's hard to argue that the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy is weak:

* more Americans have been killed by terrorists since President Bush took office than ever before
* the war in Afghanistan did not succeed in capturing or killing all of Al-Qaeda's senior leadership, including bin Laden
* the war in Iraq has distracted attention and resources away from the Al-Qaeda threat and the war against terrorism
* despite our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism is still a deadly threat to Americans, our allies and the rest of the world as evidenced by the attacks in Madrid, Bali, Istanbul, etc

Most Americans don't feel safer now than they did 1 yr ago. Perhaps we could hammer this point home by asking people "Do you feel safer?"

Transcript of Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! interviewing Richard Nixon's former counsel John Dean. In his new book, Dean charges that the crimes of President Bush are worse than his previous boss and are grounds for impeachment.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/06/1354218

Misleader.org presents "New Evidence Bush Pushed Iraq War Right After 9/11" with citations from Vanity Fair, Washington Post, CBS News, Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill.
http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df04062004.html

Peter Bergen
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/opinion/04BERG.html

Scott Armstrong
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/opinion/04ARMS.html

For now I'll simply post links to interesting articles or sites that I've encountered, with only a tiny bit of commentary. Hope you find it useful!!

I'll begin with some NYTimes pieces from this past Sunday edition (Apr 4). I want to get these pointers up now because their links only last a week or so, before the articles are migrated to their pay archives.

CHANGING ALL THE RULES By BRUCE BARCOTT
How the Bush administration quietly — and radically — transformed the nation's clean-air policy.
NYTimes Magazine April 4, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/04BUSH.html

[an excerpt...]

"Of the many environmental changes brought about by the Bush White House, none illustrate the administration's modus operandi better than the overhaul of new-source review. The president has had little success in the past three years at getting his environmental agenda through Congress. His energy bill remains unpassed. His Clear Skies package of clean-air laws is collecting dust on a committee shelf. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains closed to oil and gas exploration.

But while its legislative initiatives have languished on Capitol Hill, the administration has managed to effect a radical transformation of the nation's environmental laws, quietly and subtly, by means of regulatory changes and bureaucratic directives. Overturning new-source review -- the phrase itself embodies the kind of dull, eye-glazing bureaucrat-speak that distracts attention -- represents the most sweeping change, and among the least noticed."