Practical Issues >
Action Items >
Politics
This is an amazingly well written article
that speaks volumes. All those involved with animal protection
should read this and share it with others. Another article of
similar magnitude is found by clicking HERE! There is also a well written article along the
same lines on THIS
PAGE.
Humane USA
claims primary election defeat of California bear hounder Rico Oller
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 2004:
Humane USA claimed its first win of the
2004 federal election campaign in the March 2 Republican primary for the
open California 3rd Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Three candidates were entered: California state
senator Rico Oller, former California attorney general Dan
Lundgren, and Mary Ose, sister of retiring Republican
incumbent Dan Ose. "Humane USA has endors-ed Mary Ose, and is
targeting Oller with mailings, radio advertisements, and going
door-to-door in the district," Humane USA announced a
week before the voting. Humane USA targeted Oller, the announcement explained,
because "He has sided against humane advocates time and time again during
his tenure in the state legislature.
He has sided with dogfighters,
cockfighters, and puppy mill operators. He has even opposed
legislation to add a bittering agent to antifreeze, toxic to
companion animals and children. Oller hunts bears with hounds,"
Humane USA charged, "and has been the leading voice in the state
legislature against efforts to ban this practice." Ose lost, despite
reportedly investing $800,000 of her own money in the campaign.
Lundgren, however, was declared the winner over Oller, 34,978 to
32,194, after eight days of ballot counting and recounting.
Why You Should Vote in November by Julie E.
Lewin President, National Institute for Animal Advocacy President
and Lobbyist, Animal Advocacy Connecticut
How painful the
presidential campaign is! Again our noses are publicly rubbed in our
political irrelevance. John Kerry, now the Democratic
nominee, found time in his frantic primary campaign schedule to
"hunt," for all of five minutes, posturing to win votes from
hunters.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Chief Supreme
Court Justice Antony Scalia soon afterward participated in a bird-killing
spree. News media questioned not their thrill-killing, but rather
the impropriety of such ex parte contact between a judge and a litigant in
a pending case.
As in other election years, some
animal advocates angrily contemplate sitting out the presidential election
as a mute form of protest. That would be self-indulgent. Of
course we should vote. The presidential candidates vary greatly in whom
they would nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court, a life
appointment, and to the Federal bench.
The judges they select will determine
whether animal rights and environmental groups achieve standing to sue on
behalf of animals, as well as the outcomes of actual cases.
The candidates would likely appoint very different commissioners of
agencies that impact the environment, wildlife, and the care
of animals in factory farms, laboratories, and circuses.
The values and attitudes expressed by the President will also set the tone
and themes of future Presidential and Congressional campaigns.
We should, however, ask
ourselves why we are politically irrelevant, despite representing a
cause that receives donations from one household in four,
nationwide, and we should work to change this. Hunters were not born
with political power.
They created it by organizing into
national and state voting blocks, which lawmakers know can determine
the outcome of many elections.
Conversely, it is the shame of the
animal rights and animal welfare movements that for more than 130 years we
have clamored for laws and policies on behalf of animals, yet have
avoided the political arena. Why don't more animal charities form
auxiliary political organizations? Why do we not take a stand, role up
our sleeves, and set about the hard but necessary work of forming
state, county and municipal voting blocks for animals?
A voting block of just a few thousand voters
can swing a Congressional election. Many statehouse elections are
won or lost by 100 or even a dozen votes, as are municipal
elections. Lawmakers' fear of such elections gives organized
minorities their power. In Connecticut, my state,
approximately 2.5 million people are eligible to register to vote.
Barely two million have registered, meaning that 20% of the
potential electorate has yet to be mobilized.
Only slightly more than one million
people voted in 2002 for Governor, for our members of
Congress, and for state legislative representatives. Sixty
percent of the public failed to express any political choice. Surveys
indicate that women and young voters, the very populations most
likely to hold pro-animal views, were among the people least likely
to vote, even though their votes could have ousted several
incumbents with negative records on animal issues and enough accumulated
seniority to hold disproportionate influence on key legislative
committees.
Forty percent of Connecticut voters failed
to cast a ballot in the exceptionally closely contested 2000 Presidential
race, and did not express their views about who should control
Congress and the Statehouse, either. Only 722,000 people voted in
our 2003 municipal elections. Seventy-one percent of Connecticut voters
allowed as few as 15% to determine critical issues involving animal
control and wildlife habitat, among other topics, without even
expressing a choice.
At the municipal level, anyone who
could mobilize even 5% of the voters would direct a force that no
politician could ignore. Contact your state elections agency and your
local city hall or county seat to get the voter turnout statistics for
your own location. The potential for animal advocates to quickly
alter the political arithmetic should quickly become evident. As the late
U.S. Senator Paul Well-stone put it, "Dare to imagine what politics
can be!" And in the last words of early U.S. labor activist Joe Hill,
"Don't mourn--organize!"
Julie Lewin founded the National Institute
for Animal Advocacy in 2002 to teach political skills to animal
advocates. The next two NIFAA training seminars are to be held in
Connecticut on May 23 and July 24. Contact Lewin c/o
jlewin@igc.org ; 203-453-6590. Get further
information about NIFAA at Lewin, at www.aact-online.org
.
"Don't waste votes again."
Animal people who say they can't support a
hunter (John Kerry) for president scare me. Yes, I was deeply
disappointed to learn about Kerry's hunting. It was a reminder that
no pedestal is strong enough to hold any person for long. I fear this
single perceived fault could cost America four more years of Bush--a
disaster for the environment, international relations, civil
liberties, women, children, the economy, our
security, the military, working people, old
people, sick people, and animals.
It is dangerous to suggest there are "worse"
forms of hunting than others. But if you despise trophy and "sport"
hunting (canned or otherwise) as much as I do, you want Bush and
Cheney gone. They both engage in these despicable activities and
support them worldwide through their close ties with Safari Club
International. After working to save mourning doves from target
practice, I was shocked to learn Kerry had hunted them, as
well as pheasants.
I'm unaware of other animals Kerry may
have hunted. That is beside the point. Like it or not,
many Americans have grown up in a "hunting culture." Hunting
is a part of the American psyche that we must acknowledge and learn to
understand while we discourage it. To those who insist that vegan Kucinich
is "the one," I reply, "Wouldn't that be great?"
He won't be. Neither will Nader. We
must not throw the baby out with the bath water. It will likely be
Kerry vs. Bush (and now--damn it!--vs. Nader). Could you take
a repeat of election 2000? Wake up to the American political system.
Don't waste votes again. Votes not cast for Kerry can be considered
as being given to Bush--and against all forms of life not boasting a large
bottom line.
--Judy Reed AnimalVoices Speaking For Animals & Their
Environment