Casual Soapbox

Casual Soapbox is a blog, the purpose of which is to provide me with a venue to expound upon politics, popular culture, religion, humor, and any other topic that boils my blood. I'd love to say I have big plans for this site, but I don't, except to bloviate pompously, deprecate myself and others, practice my verbal skills, and pathetically imitate popular people I admire. So, if any of that appeals to you, this blog's for you!

Name: Abram
Location: Austin, Texas, United States

He's just this guy, you know?

Monday, January 26, 2009

Missing the Blog

I miss it, but what can I say? I just don't have a lot of time these days. We adopted, and we had a foster placement for a few months. Work picked up. I'm singing in the Temple choir. I have two Dungeons and Dragons games going. And the next thing on the list is trying to exercise more.

It's not as if politics isn't incredibly exciting right now. I mean, we won. I can't remember feeling this optimistic. Ever. And I especially miss the Texas blogging scene -- Burnt Orange Report, McBlogger and you, scarecrow, most of all. They're doing some good work. Hopefully anyone who still checks back here will take the time to check them out. They're truly excellent sites.

I may still post here from time to time -- I can never seem to let go of the past -- but Casual Soapbox entered a new hibernation phase in early 2007.

Know that I am with you all in spirit. And I hope to blog again someday.

Shalom.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Why Obama?

So I'm supporting Obama. I voted for him in the primary and at my precinct convention. I'm an Obama delegate to the county convention. Here's what I like about Obama.

1. Obama is creating Democratic organization where none exists. He's bringing more new voters into the party, and especially young voters who tend to be more progressive than older voters on the issues I care most about.

2. Having an African-American president popularly elected with broad support from different racial groups would create a narrative about racial harmony that would be incredibly powerful.

3. Obama draws support generally from groups that have not had power within the Democratic party. Having a candidate who did not depend as heavily on business for funding as past candidates have would be a huge plus. The Democratic party as it exists has given us the lopsided anti-progressive atmosphere of today's politics, and that needs to change. Will Obama do that? I don't know. But I suspect because his support comes from outside traditional Democratic power structures that he would be more likely to. And does it help that the national Democratic blogs I like tend to support Obama too? Yes.

4. Obama would represent an end to the Dyanstic Era. The Bushes have dominated Republican politics after Reagan. The Clintons have to a far lesser extent done the same for the Democrats since 1992. Although I think we're still far from as a country having dangerous monarchical tendencies, I wouldn't mind just a little more distance. Obama would obviously represent a cleaner break with that part of the past than Clinton would.

5. And finally, yes, I'll admit I'm enamored of Obama's speaking style. He clearly isn't able to translate it into debate prowess, but nevertheless I look forward to Obama's Inauguration and State of the Union speeches.

But it was tough getting here. I can totally understand why so many of my Democratic friends and family are supporting Clinton. Here's what I like about Clinton:

1. Personality. I have always liked her personally. She just seems like a genuinely nice and caring person. To a certain extent, I can recognize that it doesn't always translate across television. But I actually credit that more to media hostility than any personal attribute of hers. This is just my opinion of course -- I've never met her. I must say she's also a woman with a long and distinguished career in the Senate and as an attorney, who is made more human by her struggles with her family life that have been publicly played out. I find it fascinating that the first thing most people say they like or dislike about her has to do with her relationship with husband.

2. First woman president. While I don't think it would affect the nation's psyche to the same extent to have the first woman president as opposed to the first black president, that does not mean it wouldn't be profoundly exciting and glass-ceiling-shattering. I mean, it is about time. And it would break through some of the harmful gender stereotypes we all have internalized.

3. Partisan rhetoric, fighter. Man it would be good to stick it the Republicans -- make them feel defeated. And what better way than defeating them with the candidate they idiotically think is the least electable Democrat? I also love the way she talks about fighting and about being a progressive. Almost like John Edwards. I wish she took some more progressive positions on issues, but she sure talks a good game. Not all touchy-feely-togetherness like Obama, which is actually what I like least about him. I don't want to be brought together with Republicans. I want to smite their ruin on the mountainside and shove their noses in it.

That said, I'm supporting Obama, and I find the prospect of an Obama presidency to be exciting and transformative. Generally I feel like an Obama candidacy will be better at generating future nose-shoving opportunities, even if he personally is likely to be overgenerous in his graciousness when he destroys McCain in November.

Anyway, I happen to think either would make a great president. Neither candidate strikes me as a more progressive candidate than the other, which I find a bit discouraging in that neither candidate's victory over the other will be portrayed as a victory for progressives, but also encouraging in that both are actually awfully progressive. I like both personally. I also think both would make a strong Democratic presidential candidate. And I absolutely plan to vote for and support whichever candidate we pick as a party. What an exciting time to be a Democrat!

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Precinct Convention 2008

So last night I attended my Democratic precinct convention here in good old precinct 301. Some of you may remember my posting about my experience at the 2006 precinct convention (here, here, and here). Well, let me tell you it was night and day. Two years ago, there were eight of us in a room, debating the hither-tos and whats-it-fors of platform resolution after platform resolution. Last night there were 71 of us in a room meant for 20. The lines to sign in blended into one another like a giant banana-voter smoothie. (mmm... bananacrats...) Our convention ended up split 36-35 between Obama and Clinton, which distilled down to a 4-4 delegate split... a bananacrat split if you will... And once again we debated platform resolutions into the night. It was quite an experience for me, but it sounds like other precinct conventions around town had far more attendees.

Once again, I shall be attending the county convention as a delegate this year. Since this is a presidential election year, I expect things will run a bit differently. For one thing, delegates were apportioned by presidential candidate support. And since the campaign is still ongoing, I expect there may be some maneuvering at the convention, which I can't wait to see. I'm wondering too if there won't be more people there overall this year. There certainly was room for more. And with interest levels running as high as they have been, maybe that will mean more attendance.

All this participation has inspired me to write again. Casually, of course. So who did I vote for? Who won the all-important Casual Soapbox caucus? More on that in a bit...

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Blast from My Past

Rita Moreno on the Muppet Show, singing Fever with Animal on drums:



When I was a kid, we had a tape of the Muppet Show's 30th anniversary special, and this segment was one of my favorites.

Monday, August 27, 2007

A Postpourri For Thee

  • Giuliani's lead in the Republican primary is based on a large lead among low-information voters, and thus he is at risk of dropping in the polls as people learn more about the candidates. Clinton leads in the Democratic primary even among voters who are familiar with all three, thus she is at less risk than Giuliani. (Pollster.com)
  • Chris Bowers, now at Open Left, releases his first list of 2008 top Democratic House targets.
  • Non-partisan political analyst Charlie Cook has resumed updating his list of competitive House seats for 2008.
  • The BBC has a neat map showing the status of gay marriage across the country. There is still a lot of work to be done.


  • According to non-partisan analyst Stuart Rothenberg's latest 2007-08 Gubernatorial Rankings, Democrats look likely to swap the Louisiana governorship for the Kentucky governorship in this November.
  • A team of astronomers have discovered the location of the big void in your life. No really.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Not Dead Yet

Just to let you know. I figure if you are still a regular reader at this point, you are either an extremely devoted follower, a close friend, or a stalker. And in that case, I'm sure you've noticed I let the blog slip away in about January. Although I can't possibly keep up with my previous pace at this point in my life, I plan to begin updating occasionally again soon. So... I guess... thanks for caring enough to be reading this, and watch this space for future musings. Or don't. Your call.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Next on Comedy Central: Joe Biden

Joe Biden makde it official today, he's running. His television debut as an official candidate will be on Comedy Central. Could it be more fitting? He'll be on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" tonight. Actually, I believe John Edwards announced in 2004 on the Daily Show. So it's not even original.

Anyway, Joe Biden never has seemed to have any problem getting money or media attention, so his candidacy can't be completely dismissed. But, has anyone seen any evidence of a passion for Joe Biden's candidacy among any segment of the population? I certainly haven't.

2008: More Purple States

Charlie Cook thinks there may be more purple states in 2008 than there were in 2000 and 2004. He lists 11 states that are becoming more purple:

Top strategists in both parties have identified 11 states as moving away from whichever party long dominated them. Seven that had been reliably Republican -- Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia, which have a combined 66 electoral votes -- are becoming less so.

Just four states -- Louisiana, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, with a total of 34 electoral votes -- are getting less Democratic. This amounts to a net shift of 32 electoral votes away from the GOP.


That couldn't be anything but a good thing, since it will force presidential candidates to campaign in places where they might not otherwise. Cook goes on to say this about Texas:

And given that non-Hispanic whites are now a minority of the Texas population, they eventually will be a minority of Lone Star State voters. Unless Republicans unexpectedly become dramatically more popular with Texas Hispanics or African-Americans, that state will become less reliably Republican within the next two or three presidential elections. Because Texas has 34 electoral votes, the prospect of its being in play would be terrifying to the GOP.

Too much to hope for? It sure would be nice...