08-09-2019, 07:34 PM
There were about 200 to 250 people in attendance in downtown Charleston, SC. My general impressions follow. He is very intelligent (as one would expect of a Stanford graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and a Yale Law graduate). He is articulate, for the most part speaking smoothly with clear enunciation such that even when the microphone cut out, the audience in the back could understand his much fainter voice. He spoke for about 10 minutes then took questions for the remaining 75 minutes or so. During his answers he looked directly at the questioner even as the questioner returned to his/her seat, and continued to address his answer to them directly. His mind is facile; he can think on his feet.
Although his answers started as spontaneous responses that generally aimed at the questions posed, after 2-3 sentences his answers transitioned to talking points and his proposed policies that are expounded upon on his website. To be fair, most questions were related to common Democratic Party issues (expanded healthcare, labor rights, income inequality, etc) posed by obvious democrats, so Booker had little trouble with them. To prepare for the possibility that I might be able to ask a question, I had PMed with fellow MRFer deckeda to come up with a question that might tell me something more than I already know about the Senator's thoughts as articulated in the debates and on his website. And indeed, I lined up and in due course I posed my question about the issue of gun control [direct quote from my phone recorder]: “You know that a pragmatic approach is probably going to be required against our republican opponents who paint us as wanting to take away everyone's guns. The question is: how do we convince them that we are demanding safety for ourselves and our children, but also protection of the second amendment.”
Booker's response: “ Two things I want to say on this. One is, when you poll NRA members, about 84% have said that we should not have a nation where people can buy a gun without a background check. So we know that most of the issues of my plan, most of them, are supported by Republicans themselves, NRA members, gun owners, anyone in the Republican party, but their leadership does not. And the reason why their leadership doesn't, is because I think they're afraid of the consequences of going against the NRA. And so the way we deal with this is to show them that there is a greater consequence for going against the American people. In the last election, the mid-term elections, there was a whole bunch of contentious house seats. There were a lot of folks, Moms Demand Action, a lot of them, who organized against people who would not support background checks. And I think they won something like 90% of those contests, all around the country, in congressional districts that had voted overwhelmingly in the previous election for Donald Trump. So this to me is, is number one we need to speak practically to our friends on the other side of the aisle. Anybody that wants to demonize all of Republicans I don't want anything to do with that. Because there are good people on both sides of the aisle, and neither side is [as radical ?] that it has a monopoly on the truth, and a monopoly on the best ideas. My first fundraiser I ever did in Washington when I was running for Mayor was done by Bill Bradley and Jack Kemp, two athletes that had a connection to me, through that, through that bond. And so the second thing though is that sometimes you gotta fight. And we've gotta roll up sleeves and do it the electoral way to let folks know, if you're Republican, your constituency is going to demand that you do something about guns and if not, you're going to be out of office. And that's why elections are so important and that's why this election out here, your senate race, this is why Jamie Harrison to me is a champion [loud clapping]... So I don't think you would ever want to take away somebody who wants a gun for protection or a law abiding citizen who wants it to hunt, but he does know the difference between having loopholes in the law where somebody who has been convicted of stalking their girlfriend shouldn't be able to use a loophole to go out and get a gun and then kill her. That's the difference we need to make, that's the common sense, that's what we need in our leadership. I, for one, am willing to bring the fight to the NRA and the corporate gun lobby like they have never seen before and I have faith that we will win.
Did he answer my question? No, he didn't address what tack I could take in discussions with those who fear loss of 2A, but alluded to his ability to work with legislators across the aisle (he alluded to this ability several times during the evening).
Also several times he came back to the idea of “And we've gotta roll up sleeves” and work at the grassroots for change.
I recorded about 2/3 of the meeting. If anyone wants to know what else he said, I can scroll through it and transcribe pertinent parts.
My conclusion after re-listening and mulling it over for several days (the meeting was Monday night) is that, for me, Cory Booker is a viable candidate.
Edit: Misspelling: Jaime (not Jamie) Harrison, Candidate for US Senate (SC)
I've done expert witness work in the past and this bit of advice seems to apply to this situation...
"Don't ever try to do math while being questioned by a prosecutor in front of a jury". Basically, this refers to being under pressure in an unfamiliar environment. You can screw up answers to the easiest questions simply due to the stress of being questioned. Therefore, it makes sense to stick with the rote answers that you previously memorized, just as Cory did here.
Although his answers started as spontaneous responses that generally aimed at the questions posed, after 2-3 sentences his answers transitioned to talking points and his proposed policies that are expounded upon on his website. To be fair, most questions were related to common Democratic Party issues (expanded healthcare, labor rights, income inequality, etc) posed by obvious democrats, so Booker had little trouble with them. To prepare for the possibility that I might be able to ask a question, I had PMed with fellow MRFer deckeda to come up with a question that might tell me something more than I already know about the Senator's thoughts as articulated in the debates and on his website. And indeed, I lined up and in due course I posed my question about the issue of gun control [direct quote from my phone recorder]: “You know that a pragmatic approach is probably going to be required against our republican opponents who paint us as wanting to take away everyone's guns. The question is: how do we convince them that we are demanding safety for ourselves and our children, but also protection of the second amendment.”
Booker's response: “ Two things I want to say on this. One is, when you poll NRA members, about 84% have said that we should not have a nation where people can buy a gun without a background check. So we know that most of the issues of my plan, most of them, are supported by Republicans themselves, NRA members, gun owners, anyone in the Republican party, but their leadership does not. And the reason why their leadership doesn't, is because I think they're afraid of the consequences of going against the NRA. And so the way we deal with this is to show them that there is a greater consequence for going against the American people. In the last election, the mid-term elections, there was a whole bunch of contentious house seats. There were a lot of folks, Moms Demand Action, a lot of them, who organized against people who would not support background checks. And I think they won something like 90% of those contests, all around the country, in congressional districts that had voted overwhelmingly in the previous election for Donald Trump. So this to me is, is number one we need to speak practically to our friends on the other side of the aisle. Anybody that wants to demonize all of Republicans I don't want anything to do with that. Because there are good people on both sides of the aisle, and neither side is [as radical ?] that it has a monopoly on the truth, and a monopoly on the best ideas. My first fundraiser I ever did in Washington when I was running for Mayor was done by Bill Bradley and Jack Kemp, two athletes that had a connection to me, through that, through that bond. And so the second thing though is that sometimes you gotta fight. And we've gotta roll up sleeves and do it the electoral way to let folks know, if you're Republican, your constituency is going to demand that you do something about guns and if not, you're going to be out of office. And that's why elections are so important and that's why this election out here, your senate race, this is why Jamie Harrison to me is a champion [loud clapping]... So I don't think you would ever want to take away somebody who wants a gun for protection or a law abiding citizen who wants it to hunt, but he does know the difference between having loopholes in the law where somebody who has been convicted of stalking their girlfriend shouldn't be able to use a loophole to go out and get a gun and then kill her. That's the difference we need to make, that's the common sense, that's what we need in our leadership. I, for one, am willing to bring the fight to the NRA and the corporate gun lobby like they have never seen before and I have faith that we will win
Did he answer my question? No, he didn't address what tack I could take in discussions with those who fear loss of 2A, but alluded to his ability to work with legislators across the aisle (he alluded to this ability several times during the evening).
Also several times he came back to the idea of “And we've gotta roll up sleeves” and work at the grassroots for change.
I recorded about 2/3 of the meeting. If anyone wants to know what else he said, I can scroll through it and transcribe pertinent parts.
My conclusion after re-listening and mulling it over for several days (the meeting was Monday night) is that, for me, Cory Booker is a viable candidate.
Edit: Misspelling: Jaime (not Jamie) Harrison, Candidate for US Senate (SC)
08-09-2019, 08:12 PM
Thanks. I like him, but I also think he's a bit too much if a political concoction to win. Meaning he'd lose in the battle of public opinion when it comes to being able to scrap with the junkyard dog.
08-09-2019, 09:16 PM
^^ I think I agree
But I don't necessarily have a preference yet for any of them except to note each one could be asleep and be a better President than the current splat.
I have no doubt there's a disconnect between what politicians think people want vs more closely knowing what corporations want. The NRA is a prime example. If a majority of their members "want" more gun control but the NRA does not, two things strike me as interesting about that.
1) Why isn't the NRA being told what its members will want, and if they are, why isn't the NRA ignored?
2) Another question might be why people join an organization that doesn't actually fight for them but for itself.
3) What we know is that on Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre was telling Trump his voters would not like any regulations etc. Tuesday, he was right there working to shut it down and gaslighting the president.
Regarding the "how," I'd think it should be a relatively simple matter to get fairly hard poll numbers for NRA members and if they truly support saner laws, never cease to us that in advertising aimed at getting Republican leaders to realize it. What Republicans need is to break the leash the NRA has placed on them They need cover. We can provide.
But I don't necessarily have a preference yet for any of them except to note each one could be asleep and be a better President than the current splat.
I have no doubt there's a disconnect between what politicians think people want vs more closely knowing what corporations want. The NRA is a prime example. If a majority of their members "want" more gun control but the NRA does not, two things strike me as interesting about that.
1) Why isn't the NRA being told what its members will want, and if they are, why isn't the NRA ignored?
2) Another question might be why people join an organization that doesn't actually fight for them but for itself.
3) What we know is that on Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre was telling Trump his voters would not like any regulations etc. Tuesday, he was right there working to shut it down and gaslighting the president.
Regarding the "how," I'd think it should be a relatively simple matter to get fairly hard poll numbers for NRA members and if they truly support saner laws, never cease to us that in advertising aimed at getting Republican leaders to realize it. What Republicans need is to break the leash the NRA has placed on them They need cover. We can provide.
08-09-2019, 10:32 PM
This is so cool that you went to hear Booker! I think he's a great candidate. He did very well in the last debate. I also support Jamie Harrison for Senate against Lindsey Graham, I've sent him some money.
On the NRA. Forget them. People are confusing general NRA membership and the NRA political victory fund (these are legally two separate organizations). The latter is a PAC founded in the 1970s and is the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers. They do not give a fig what general NRA members think about anything. Also - contrary to what Booker implied in his comment not all NRA members are Republicans. Plenty of Democrats own guns and want to keep them.
Here's what I have personally witnessed work very well to get gun responsibility legislation passed:
Call it gun responsibility, not gun control.
Say you support responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
Talk about it as a public health problem and bring real numbers.
Talk about how law enforcement, doctors, and teachers want gun responsibility.
Talk about laws that have been proven to work. There is a group of laws that when applied together can save a lot of lives. Focusing on one thing, such as background checks or assault weapon bans, won't really do it.
Show that states with gun responsibility laws have significantly lower rates of gun violence than those that don't. (Giffords Law Center has a good chart on this)
Know that mental health and video games and racism are not responsible for our outrageous rates of gun violence in the United States. Our people are not uniquely violent, it's just that Americans with violent impulses can act on them too easily. let's make it a little harder.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/
On the NRA. Forget them. People are confusing general NRA membership and the NRA political victory fund (these are legally two separate organizations). The latter is a PAC founded in the 1970s and is the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers. They do not give a fig what general NRA members think about anything. Also - contrary to what Booker implied in his comment not all NRA members are Republicans. Plenty of Democrats own guns and want to keep them.
Here's what I have personally witnessed work very well to get gun responsibility legislation passed:
Call it gun responsibility, not gun control.
Say you support responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
Talk about it as a public health problem and bring real numbers.
Talk about how law enforcement, doctors, and teachers want gun responsibility.
Talk about laws that have been proven to work. There is a group of laws that when applied together can save a lot of lives. Focusing on one thing, such as background checks or assault weapon bans, won't really do it.
Show that states with gun responsibility laws have significantly lower rates of gun violence than those that don't. (Giffords Law Center has a good chart on this)
Know that mental health and video games and racism are not responsible for our outrageous rates of gun violence in the United States. Our people are not uniquely violent, it's just that Americans with violent impulses can act on them too easily. let's make it a little harder.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/
08-10-2019, 01:40 AM
I've liked Booker ever since he was mayor. You do need to remember that these candidates making the rounds of many public town halls are highly fatigued by the endless questions and are apt to fall back on their canned answers. Sounds like Cory did pretty well here by at least partially answering your question with a fairly thoughtful response. Imagine yourself in his place doing this day after day. Better than "covfefe".
08-10-2019, 02:14 AM
davester wrote:Not to mention the danger of speaking extemporaneously when the internet, and specifically Twitter, is just waiting for people to misspeak or misstate so they can virally crucify them.
I've liked Booker ever since he was mayor. You do need to remember that these candidates making the rounds of many public town halls are highly fatigued by the endless questions and are apt to fall back on their canned answers. Sounds like Cory did pretty well here by at least partially answering your question with a fairly thoughtful response. Imagine yourself in his place doing this day after day. Better than "covfefe".
08-10-2019, 02:28 AM
$tevie wrote:Not to mention the danger of speaking extemporaneously when the internet, and specifically Twitter, is just waiting for people to misspeak or misstate so they can virally crucify them.
[quote=davester]
I've liked Booker ever since he was mayor. You do need to remember that these candidates making the rounds of many public town halls are highly fatigued by the endless questions and are apt to fall back on their canned answers. Sounds like Cory did pretty well here by at least partially answering your question with a fairly thoughtful response. Imagine yourself in his place doing this day after day. Better than "covfefe".
I've done expert witness work in the past and this bit of advice seems to apply to this situation...
"Don't ever try to do math while being questioned by a prosecutor in front of a jury". Basically, this refers to being under pressure in an unfamiliar environment. You can screw up answers to the easiest questions simply due to the stress of being questioned. Therefore, it makes sense to stick with the rote answers that you previously memorized, just as Cory did here.
08-10-2019, 03:13 AM
Booker has improved a great deal since opening his campaign. So have others. Mayor Pete is still the cleverest and best spoken of the bunch. At 37, will make a good VP choice.
08-10-2019, 03:47 AM
Yup, Mayor Pete has a candor and a naturalness that is refreshing and that Booker and others don't have. As well as the ability to think very quickly on his feet and answer a question from the heart. Still, he doesn't have the fighting instincts that will be necessary in the general election.