i'm running for congress-- please check out my site, give feedback

My candidacy has not yet been filed, and is somewhat on the DL still, but I couldn't resist... Not all of my writings have been proofread yet, so please excuse any typos-- they'll be fixed before my site is officially launched.

http://www.jay.seagraves.com/2004.htm

The REAL URL will be either jasonseagraves.com or seagraves.us, which do you think is better?

The Democrats of my district are complete DINOs-- completely! On top of that, the poor working class people from the rural communities of my district (90%) are distrustful of the Democratic Party. I abhor the two-party system, which has allowed the Republican Party to become so right-wing and forced Dems to the center, and thus, for all of these reasons, I will not be running as a Dem.

I have a very progressive, populist platform-- but I put it in a "traditional" framework, as to not alienate my people. Like Dean says, we need to unite the working poor behind a progressive agenda, but the traditional "liberal" method of doing this is completely ineffective-- trust me, I'm with the Ohio Kucinich campaign, and the majority of the "white guilt, Park Avenue liberals" are clueless when it comes to the people of my district.

As for my pic.. I sharpened it. I think it looks better. I was born with a face only a blind mother could love, but hey, what am I gonna do?

Where's the 7th in Michigan?

Branch, Calhoun, Eaton, Hillsdale, Jackson, Lenawee and parts of Washtenaw County-- the parts NOT including the Democratic strongholds of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

The cities in my district are: 1. Battle Creek, 2. Jackson, 3. Delta Township (spillover from Lansing), 4. Adrian (my home town)

UM - class of '96.

Despite the fact it is made up of almost ALL poor people... Non-union workers who are hostile toward unions... Almost all white people.

By the way, I'm from the same district that Nick Smith (the Repub who was attempted to be bribed). He is actually from my OLD home town, where I went to high school, Addison-- home to fewer than 600 people! Both the Repub and Dem from the 2002 election were from Addison.

*nm*

Funny pic of Dean.

Looks like me when thinking about Wal-Mart, though.

Y'know, do ya think you change any minds with that shit? I am undecided and I am listening to all the candidates. But your photoshopped slag just makes me want to read back posts and find out who you support and vote against them. Seriously, if people like you are taking so much time to degrade someone, and I'm not just talking fun with photoshop, that was a republican commercial, I just don't get.

make sense, parts do not. First, it took about 10 - 15 minutes to make this -- not 'so much time.' Second, and here's where I really start losing you, what's going on with the Republican commercial thing? You do realize that this sort of thing will be standard fare should Dean be the nominee. You'll be seeing it, and worse, on web sites, commercials, leaflets, fliers -- you name it. He just lends himself to this kind of thing. I actually thought this was mild, especially considering that people have been posting the original picture for several days now.

But whatever floats your boat. I was planning on changing it before going to bed anyway. :-)

you should insert your own picture in your "Demagogue" leaflet. That way you can campaign for the candidate you agree with most.
I'm sure whomever the candidate ends up being for the nomination will get worse than this; thing is you lend yourself to this kind of thing which makes you a copy and paste hero to the lazy enemy.

as an example of the very demagoguery you seem to be bothered by.

At last...

just like the repubs it's always different when YOU engage in these actions.

It's one thing to be a jerk from time to time in one's writings, but what are you hoping to accomplish by adding a permanent insult to every one of your posts? More Clark supporters?

Do you think this one is designed to attract people to Clark, or to express my attitude about the Bush regime? No answer is needed, by the way, as enough nonsense has been posted in this gentleman's thread; just asking a rhetorical question.

you sure have an informative site. Keep up the good work :-)

I'm trying to win on substance... Appealing to working people and showing I'm one of them and I'm different.

I think your website looks exceptionally nice overall. However, red text doesn't show up well against a dark blue background. I'd change that text to yellow. Also, the quote at the top of the page is apparently a graphic - but it's almost too small to read.

I didn't check out all your issues - I love "Abolish corporate welfare" - but your education platform sounds like the same rhetoric I heard during the sixteen years I spent in education.

You should be speaking out loud and clear against George Bush's NO CHILD LEFT ALIVE ACT and high-stakes tests - one of the greatest evils in education. When I ran for office, I also hammered the National Education Association. I know that's taboo among liberals, who consider the NEA an ally, but it really is evil.

Education is a sacred cow that NO ONE tackles, but I think you could at least safely challenge the No Child Left Alive Act and high-stakes tests. After all, they bilk taxpayers out of millions of dollars while screwing their kids even more severely than Clinton did.

I'm not all that well-informed on No Child Left Behind. Do you know where I can read up on it?

My new education reform website will be online at http://www.edrevolt.org - hopefully within a few weeks. I'll have lots to say about No Child Left Alive there. As with all of Bush's agendas, it's basically another corporate policy.

Also, you might be able to woo a few independent or even conservative votes by rethinking your position on school choice. I tend to support charter schools and even vouchers in principle. Saying they'll take money away from public schools is foolish when public schools are already squandering millions of dollars, due to waste, corrupt school officials, and on and on.

But here's the catch: Any new education agenda, be it charter schools, vouchers, or Libertarian supermarket schools, is going to be run by corporations. In other words, vouchers might work well if they were designed by concerned citizens, but they'll certainly be rigged to maim under the status quo. Consider the fact that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen bankrolled Washington State's last charter school initiative.

To put it another way, imagine a man who has dogs that are infested with fleas. He suddenly comes up with a brilliant plan to get rid of the fleas: He buys a new house and moves in with his dogs. Of course, the fleas come along for the ride.

That's how I perceive school choice - no education experiment will work until we get rid of the fleas: The National Education Association, corrupt school officials and, most of all, corporations.

Anyway, you might get a few extra votes by softening your stance - instead of saying NO SCHOOL CHOICE, just explain that genuine school choice is impossible under the status quo. The public needs to get involved and start demanding accountability from the present system. Without public involvement, NO education system can function properly.

thanks.. did you read my "Empowering America's Teachers" article?

Also, I didn't really want to touch this issue, but vouchers are going to cause some Church-State conflicts...

True, that could be a problem. I guess I look at vouchers as ideas that can be wildly modified by concerned citizens. A voucher bill could include a provision that monies not be used for religious schools, for example.

I don't think I saw the "Empowering Teachers" article, but that's an extremely tough thing to do. I spent sixteen years in education, and I finally gave up on my colleagues. I still care about the kids, but corporations have done a phenomenal job of driving the best teachers away and hammering those that remain into obedient servants that work for Big Business, not children.

I think teachers might be inspired to speak out if there was someone in elected office encouraging them.

clean,simple yet professional looking.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Although I find the isolationist stance to be a bit odd -- especially in the context of Perot's commitment to foreign relations (paying UN dues, committing peacekeepers to UN missions, giving foreign aid in amounts comparable to other nations)

Committing the resources to build a stronger international community is well worth the expenditure, and would not break the bank -- especially if cash was taken out of the wildly inflated defence budget.

Our involement elsewhere in the world is what has brought about most of the suffering abroad.

It probably prevented World War III, and in any case rebuilt Europe after a terrible loss.

Assault Weapons Ban?

I'm not a gun owner, do not see it as a huge issue, so I'm not as educated on it as I should be. Are assault weapons legal now? I didn't think they were. Furthermore, I didn't want to touch the "gun show loophole" issue because I have been told by some that no such loophole really exists. I need to do more research on these issues. Thanks for calling this to my attention.

"Assault Weapons" (that is, military weapons or military-style weapons) are legal in most states.

Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with people owning M16s and whatnot, so long as they aren't killing (or maiming, whatever) people with them. Not that I'd ever get one myself, they're like $500 or something.

And the "gun show loophole" was a situation where people could buy guns at gun shows without needing a background check. I don't know if that was closed or not.

*nm*

The Democratic Congress passed a ban on all assault weapons in the US. However, it also had a sunshine policy on it as well. The policy will sunset next year. Pres. Bush has said that he supports it, but the NRA and the rest of the gun owning Republicans have blocked its actions in Congress.

All the Democratic candidates have said that the ban should be restored. Wesley Clark said that if you want assault rifles, you can join the military: we have plenty of those there.

A large majority of Democrats support this ban.

In 1787 there were cannons and muskets and pistols. The founding fathers just came out of a war where they fought off a repressive government using whatever they could find.

Do you really think that they intended that the citizens of the future should not be able to own one or two or all three of the above just because people were killing each other with them?

Gun crime is not a new thing. It was happening in revolutionary America and it's still happening today. That doesn't change the source of the right, to empower the people to fight repressive goverment.

That argument would favor private ownership of RPG's, Fully-Automatic Weapons, and M-1 Abrams tanks...

And the problem is?

So that argument is moot.

And my rights under the North Dakota constitution are more expansive anyway.

I'm still working on the legal side (1934 Firearms act?)...

Limits to state power, perhaps, but not limits to individual power.

Federal law trumps states rights across the board, including but not exclusive to gun control. You can't legally own an RPG regardless of which state you live in.

First off, not every situation is the same.

Secondly, it could be argued somewhat that the Marshall Plan did not serve our interests. Some would argue that Germany and Japan are slowly winning WWII pt.2, the economic/educational war... I don't agree with this assessment, or at least, not the Marshall Plan as the CAUSE, but the argument can be made.

I think we need to rebuild both Iraq and Afghanistan. We must rebuild that which we've destroyed. But Iraq clearly did not need to be leveled, and the situation with Afghanistan could have been avoided if we weren't so involved in the past... We fund one group against another, weapons contractors make huge dough, then later we end up fighting that group which we funded, contractors make more dough, then we have to rebuild the country, more companies make more dough.. Americans die, and we have no health care.

I am not against all foreign aid! I'm simply saying that it makes no sense for us to rebuild schools in Iraq, give national health care to the people of Iraq, when we ourselves do not have it.

That we shouldn't send troops abroad. And I'd agree with that -- and I'd even support sending the UN money rather than peacekeeping troops... But then there would be no real point in maintaining such a massive lead in military power if we aren't going to use it.

We shouldn't NEED to send troops abroad. We're still going to be dealing with past errors, though... The Afghanistan action was justified, it's just that it could have been avoided if steps were taken twenty years ago to avoid it.

America's only potential threat at home is terrorism, and a military can't fight terrorism. Too many people these days think terrorism is what it's not: a war. No. It is criminal action, mass murder, and should be treated as such.

There is no need to keep such a massive military on standby simply for "defense" when we can maintain our deterrent with as little as a few hundred nukes and some commando teams and strike bombers for the more threatening situations.

The only reason to keep such a military is for foreign intervention. Which you oppose

but if the military were drastically reduced the threat of invasion would become more real. I'm not saying I'm for nuclear weapons, but we have them for defense, not offense.

And I'm not talking about ONLY defense on U.S. soil. Afghanistan was a defensive measure, or at least, a retalitory one. That's different than pre-emptive action or interventionism.

Afghanistan was not retaliatory, rather it was something to lash out on after 9/11. We didn't get Osama, just more problems.

And I'm all for nukes as a deterrent BTW -- although something cleaner like fusion or antimatter would be nice in the future.

if we had no military whatsoever, you don't think another nation may choose to invade us?

Reduction of the military increases our chances of being invaded; sure. Building it up reduces those chances. But that is not to say that it cannot be safely reduced.

Look at the world! Unless you're really afraid of China there is no country on Earth with the means and desire to invade the US, even after our relations have been so tarnished.

The only actions that will be perpetrated against the US are terrorist in nature and as I said before, they cannot be fought with traditional military power.

So how are we set off bad with just the nukes, the commandoes, and the bombers?

I think we agree more than we disagree, but this discussion is pretty much going nowhere, and probably deserves a thread of it's own.. Agree?

Good night, man. No need for excuses.

Your Affirmative Action ideas concern me somewhat, but I guess that is just your platform. I just think that Democrats shouldn't be changing their mind on this issue. At least you have a plan to replace it.

My plan would not take away from ANY PERSON who deserves the benefits of Affirmative Action. Not one. It would extend the benefits to poor whites, and remove some benefits from middle class to well-off minorities.

This is bad?

I disagree.

Furthermore, I think a lot of liberals fail to realize that you are LOSING the "Nascar dads" on this issue, big time. They see Affirmative Action as "reverse racism," and it is just counter-productive. A more inclusive plan that targetted those who really needed it would be superior, and the Republicans would no longer be able to divide poor Blacks and poor whites.

Affirmative Action was put in place to combat institutionalized racism, a problem that still exists today.

Welfare is the opposite of empowerment.

Racism is a scourge of society. But from my experience, race-based legislation, though well-intended, only perpetuates it. Affirmative Action attacks a SYMPTOM, rather than dealing directly with the root cause. Education, empowering the poor, etc... Rural working class whites, who dominate my district, are very hostile toward Affirmative Action, and it helps them rationalize any racist tendencies they may have.

It's not. Why not create something that works along side AA but acts for economic justice? Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

the world isn't colorblind, but it could be in the future... The sooner we can move away from race-based legislation, the sooner the wounds can begin healing.

Do we really want to have AA 100 years from now?

for a future that may or may not fit your vision? If AA isn't needed in 100 years then get rid of it then. As long as middle-class African-Anericans are getting turned down for bank loans because they are Black, AA is needed.

AA will always be needed so long as it exists. It's a catch-22.

Can't we enact some sort of legislation that more easily prosecutes discrimination, rather than policy that favors members of ethnic groups? I'm telling you, I have seen first-hand how this stuff does more harm than good, and I DO NOT mean that in a "reverse racism" way, but in a REGULAR "racism" way.. It validates racist ideology and perpetuates the notion that minorities get things they don't deserve. I do not believe this, but I can tell you that a LOT of poor, rural whites who should be voting progressively do think this, and it gets the Repub's their votes.

I was just pointing out why AA is needed and separate from economic justice.

I appreciate your perspective. I do feel AA is a very tough issue. I fully understand that it has its benefits to society. But honestly, when weighing the pros and cons, the cons win out. Furthermore, from a purely philosophical standpoint, it is wrong, and I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. I work in the hip hop industry, so it is not as if I am immune to the concerns of African Americans-- I am fully cognizant of racism in today's world. I witnessed a racially motivated police brutality incident in Cincinatti that probably led to the riots of 2000-- it was clearly and unquestioanbly incited by the police for "fun" or some other alterior motive, without question whatsoever. But I think there are other remedies that can address racial injustice. If it is wrong to counter violence with violence, then how can we justify countering racial injustice with another form of racial preference?

with your hands down and SMILE... current one looks like a wrestling shot ;-)

other than that looks good, gl :toast:

peace

I don't get the hands in the photo. It looks unnatural, even a little defensive. I would do a simple portrait, just head and shoulders, or a candid with some voters, as long as it's clear who in the picture is you.

n/t

Looks do matter and sorry but, you look like a young Rush Limbaugh. Grow your hair longer on top and put your hands down, you look like a preacher looking for money.

"Platform" problems:
Don't say "Restore America" to anything, it sounds like you think America already "lost" something.

Addiction isn't a "social ill", it's a real disease.

Teachers will never make as much money as doctors and lawyers, drop it.

Say "Education is my #1 priority" not "it should be the nations".


"Small Business Problems:
The "family unit" is diverse now and, in case you haven't noticed, women like to work. Re-word the "family unit" stuff.


That's all the constructive criticism for now. Best wises & good luck.

Your suggestions might be helpful in Frisco, but not in my district.

Looking like Rush can help me in my district too. haha

Drug addiction is a disease, I agree, but drugs are a social ill unquestionably.

America HAS lost something, and the people of my district are well aware of this.

The family unit has "diversified" aka "broken down."

Women can work all they want. The issue is, TWO PEOPLE should not have to work when only one had to in the past.

I understand from an earlier post that you're in a republican stronghold and that you'll be trying to get votes away from GOP candidate(s). Looking and sounding just like them doesn't offer the voter any real alternative so, they won't vote for you.

If you're in a gop stronghold, it may take several attempts at running before you get elected. Make a name for yourself now as someone who really is different. It may not get you elected this time but next time, your differences will make you stand out.

BTW, the "frisco" comment was just as bad as calling someone a "fag". Maybe you've been in the GOP stronghold a little too long.

That "fag" comment was completely uncalled for. I was completely civil. Frisco is a liberal city-- just as D.C. is. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Good job on your attempted smear.

Secondly, only a lifelong D.C. or Frisco resident with blinders on would not be able to see the substantial alternative I present not only to Republicans but to Democrats as well. Then again, I'm a Rush Limbaugh homophobe who thinks women should be in the kitchen, so what do I know?

The other criticism and critique in this thread has been greatly appreciated. Your smears are not.

Okay, sorry to jump on something negative right away, but that photo jumped out at me. It's obviously staged and kind of a creepy pose. If you want your hands "caught" in mid gesture, look at an imaginary audience a little to one side. If you want to face the camera, relax and make it a nice portrait. As it is, I imagine you saying, "Geez! Who let that camera in here?"

Also, you're a young guy. Don't accentuate your age -- wear a coat.

Extremely well written. I don't agree with every point you make (many, I do), but the writing is compelling and appealing. (Not sure about the 10 point font though. I can see why your designer likes it, but 11 would be easier to read.

How about a spot for active content? You have a little room to the right, why not utilize it? You can put upcoming appearances there, snippets from the latest blog entry, fund raising updates. It would serve your purpose but assuring that important messages aren't bried, and it is more appealing to the visitor because it looks like "something's happening."

How about a few more pictures? You have a lot of text which can appear a little cold and daunting. Break up those big blocks of text and warm the site up with some pix of you helping granny across the street, kissing a baby and refering a soccer game -- you get the idea. They don't even have to all be you. Since you used FrontPage, avail yourself of MS's free clip art library and drop in some professional shots of happy families, a young couple, a guy in a hardhat -- you get the idea.

jasonseagraves.com

And get those contact/contribute/communicate functions going -- you'll need them.

Good luck. I hope this helped.

The photo is not for real.. It's an at-home shot.

Already got tons of suggestions of how to appear older from DU, and one of them was the coat deal. When I get my pro pics, I will try to look older.

Probably will up the font size.. I agree.. It looks good, but anyone over 40 may have trouble reading.

Thank you for your compliments on my writing. I have been able to use my writing skills to faciliate success in the business world, so I hope I can do it here as well.

I don't have more pics, but when I do, they will not be as lame as the one on the main page.

I'd say you're doing your best to offer a more progressive/ liberal alternative in a relatively conservative district.

I found the site well written...

I definetely agree with the comments about the photo...and add more as well...

Hmm, otherwise...I think you known your district better than most of us here...so

Good luck!

Thank you, but I want to clarify that I am certainly not saying anything I do not believe in in order to try to get elected. I'm articulating what I feel is a progressive platform-- it's just the way that I'm articulating it that's an attempt to appeal to a traditional/ conservative voter-base.

But the site looks too drab and boring to me, there is alot of text, it could be broken up a lil better. Since you are obviously young, you should also appeal to the younger voters with a more graphic rich design. In the same token, you dont want to go overboard. Perhaps a pictorial header instead of that picture on the front page? Maybe instead of just a face and hands shot, you could try a full body shot with the same image size dimensions, with a cool american landscape background? Or just do a bust shot and work it into a graphic image?

Use pictoral bullets, something a little more snazzy then the fill in the dots. Also, if you can fit your text into a standard 800 x600 resolution, it tends to look more professional. On the text pages, having a graphic paragraph header that is uniform across the site adds a nice flair. Also, if you are going to make your pages that long, something filling up the sides would be key :)

In anycase, I dont know who your opponents are, perhaps you dont even need to make any changes.

Just my opinions. :)

It looks very Congressional.