Some may feel we have not adequately addressed one issue or another in an email, but that doesn’t mean that we’re indifferent or, as one person cynically accused, are “waiting on the polling.” I believe when you look at the candidates and campaigns we support, our positions are quite clear.
A couple of people have noted that some of the language on our web site is unclear. We are aware of this, and it’s something that we are currently working to fix. In fact, we’re in the process of overhauling our web site completely, and look forward to rolling out some new online tools to help progressives organize and make a difference on the ground in important races.
I am glad we progressives have such energy and passion for politics, but let’s use that energy and passion constructively. 2008 is our best chance since 1974, (the Watergate year) to really change Congress for the better, and hopefully win the White House. We at 21st Century Democrats are excited, and I look forward to working with you along the way.
Dan Lucas, Political Director at 21st Century Democrats
Dan, on this blog and others, you can expect to get a lot of skepticism on whatever you put up, including expressing love for mom, apple pie, bunnies and kitty cats.
<
p>
I read that thread, and there was pretty much one person giving you grief. That person’s points may or may not be correct and well-taken, but in any event, I hope you’ll continue to positively engage with the netroots as a whole.
I don’t believe it! Provide a link!
Thanks, Charley. We’re certainly not going to let ourselves be discouraged by naysayers. I just wanted to make sure that we were clear about what it is that we do at 21st Century Dems.
<
p>
And your hopes that we will continue to engage the netroots are well placed. Like I said, we’re currently working on some new online features, and we’re all very excited about connecting the netroots and on-the-ground campaigns. We believe they’re a natural complement to each other and, together, will help elect more and more progressive candidates.
But I don’t like apple pie and kitty cats make my eyes itchy. I only skepticize 50% of charley’s stuff.
I really don’t get this. Instead of dealing with the questions I raise, in, you know, a conversation, you guys come back defensive and all upset about my “nastiness”.
<
p>
1 I’m criticizing how you communicate. If you guys are going to have a presence on the web, you cannot get all hissy if I take your website seriously, weigh what you write, and then express a lot of skepticism about it. You’re communicating with us now over the web and if your website is not to be taken seriously, please tell us why or take it down or something.
<
p>
2 Your website alarmed me for another reason. Campaigns are about communication. If your website presents Democratic issues in the mushy way that has proven not to work and that sounds more blue dog than progressive, that’s a problem. As I’ve said, the slowness of your organization to acknowledge Iraq as a major issue in fundraising appeals to your base even suggests a timidity that is alarming. The time for triangulation has past. So either
I’m glad you’re addressing the problems with your website. Could you maybe not blame me for pointing out how it sounds to me?
<
p>
3 I like the candidates that you support. I’ve contributed to many of them myself. Going to MyDD, I found a few threads that say mostly glowing stuff about your trainings. (There was one question about sending Eastern establishment types to Indiana. Who can tell whether that’s significant?) But don’t you think it’s weird that I find myself running off to MyDD to check your progressive bona fides.
<
p>
4 Some or your replies are just plain disingenuous. It’s a strawman argument to say I thought your candidates were timid — and to say that in a “setting the record straight post” is ironic. I said that your not mentioning Iraq or Iran was timid, your generic definition of leadership was timid, your bowing to bipartisanship was timid, and your bullet on the environment was timid. I did not say Darcy Burner was timid. So argue honestly and give that a rest.
<
p>
5 I am all for working together. I’m for taking moderates seriously and convincing them. People on this website are probably tired of hearing my partisan defenses of Senators Kerry and Clinton. The issue for me, as a donor, is why should I support your organization rather than the DNC, say? The DNC had better be training activists. Or why should I send you guys dollars rather than DFA (with whom you guys work, I notice) or MoveOn? This is not a question of unity; this is a question of which institutions work for us. Your training may be excellent and it may have pushed folks over the top. I don’t know that. What I do know is that how you communicate your politics today is not up to the level of your founders.
<
p>
6 Look at our exchange on the environment. I noted no mention of global warming on your issues list. Your website asks for a clean and sustainable environment — a position any conservative could embrace. Dan replied with
Do you really think that the concern about global warming is my “personal” concern. Isn’t it something progressives see as a very high priority indeed? You quote Tester, but why isn’t your website as forthright as Senator Tester? Why such a shy statement on the web? Why don’t you please answer that question and stop accusing me of writing stuff I didn’t write or of being nasty?
Or are you just interested in your opinion being the only right one? Sheesh.
What do you think I missed? I really am trying to be fair.
about ideological witch hunts one more time.
I thought the “ideolgical witch hunt” statement was a bit hyoperbolic and unfair. I think KBusch is only pointing out issues a lot of people have because there are so many groups who are saying they are trying to advance progressive ideas. It gets a little undaunting. I read the criticism as constructive and not meant to say she is right, they are wrong.
doing. With success. With well thought out goals and actions. With feet on the ground. What the hell is the value of relentlessly questioning an organization’s goals without reading what they are all about and why? Why continue to besmirch their efforts when there is so much evidence of success to the contrary? To be contrary? For idealogical purity? For establishing a litmus test that is impossible to pass? Great. That’s really going to help make change.
<
p>
I reiterate: I find it ironic that progressives who yell the loudest about change are sometimes the least accepting of change.
DFA offers a training academy:
The list of candidates from 2006 does include Lamont. Their mission statement is strong and direct:
They have an upcoming training in Atlanta.
The Wellstone Action Network’s website provides some statistics on what they’ve actually accomplished. Their mission:
They have some very specific organizing proposals. You can decide yourself whether or not their methods are worthy of your support. This site is actually extremely concrete and useful and I recommend you read it. I feel sheepish about not having supported them enough.
You haven’t been trying to be “fair” since day one. If you really think that, you’re fooling yourself. All your comments come across as snide, bitter “gotchas” full of “when did you stop beating your wife” type questions. It’s no wonder someone took offense. I don’t have a problem with Dan’s “ideological witchhunt” line – that’s what KBusch’s whole thing came across as in the last post.
<
p>
21st Century Democrats has a bunch of lame, vague wording on their web site. So what? I’ll judge them by what they actually do, not the verbiage on a stupid web site. And what they do is actually pretty impressive – more than I can say for internet tough-guys who go around slagging off people who do more to help progressives in a day than they do all year.
Even if it’s justified, I find that kind of rhetoric tiresome. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re hunting witches. Sorry to state the obvious, but the tone of Dan’s message was rather Lieberman-esque.
Oh, give me a break.
Do you want to have a conversation about this, or shout down everyone who disagrees with you?
<
p>
Do you think I’m on an ideological witch hunt against you? Or are you on one against me? Maybe we can agree that the conversation should be broader, not more narrow, and not everyone who criticizes Dan is hunting witches.
<
p>
By “Lieberman-esque,” I was referring to Lieberman’s tendency to call people who disagree with him (or who think he should have stepped down when he lost the Democratic primary) “partisan.” That is a phony label that he uses to smear his opponents, like “witch hunt” is used to smear opponents.
We’re not to believe their website, okay. Not very 21st century that.
<
p>
Could you explain why they have a lame website or can you answer my original suspicion?
<
p>
Are they under new management?
<
p>
Did they just throw up a website and not review it?
<
p>
Did their fundraising duck Iraq in 2006 because they had a consultant they’ve since let go run it?
<
p>
Or are they just really bad at identifying the key issues but great at making phone calls?
The whole point of your complaint is that they’re not loud enough on issues, but they’re not an issue advocacy organization like the ACLU, as far as I can tell, they are an organization that helps campaigns with field work.
<
p>
So all your questions about wording and issues are just showing how much you don’t get. Thanks for playing, good night.
See my comments above
your criticism of of 21st Century Dems, you have me scratching my head on a couple of issues. You’re not happy with the way that they communicate via their website, but you’re also criticizing them in a couple of places for being “timid” in “bowing to bipartisanship” and for expressing a position on the environment that “any conservative could embrace”. If I’m understanding you correctly, you feel that they are not being clearly progressive enough in their positions, nor are they differentiating themselves from the DNC.
<
p>
In other comments and diaries you’ve stated clearly that you think that it is important for progressives to reach out to “moderates”, in order to get them to vote Dem.
<
p>
Since 21st CD has worked to elect guys like Tester (which is great), who has some positions (on gun control, death penalty, gay rights) that aren’t particularly progressive, I don’t understand your criticism.
<
p>
If they have positions which you deem not progressive enough, but those same positions attract moderates, why the angst?
If 21st Century Dems did not say they were a progressive organization, I’d say fine and shut up, but I wouldn’t contribute to them. If 21st Century Dems said that their website doesn’t really represent who they are, I’d say, “Okay, I’ll be quiet and wait until you say who you are.” If 21st Century Dems said that they were a moderate or even conservative Democratic organization that had a secret formula for winning elections in hard-to-win districts, I’d say, “If you show me proof, I’ll show you some money.” In the case of Tester’s victory, how much of it is attributable to 21CD?
<
p>
If you look at their history on BMG, you’ll see that they never responded to my comment on their June 21 post. Their August 1 post got me to look at their website. The suspicions I had felt back in June were amplified not alleviated by reading it. I said as much, but perhaps with too much ferocity (to borrow lolorb’s felicitous word). I didn’t expect anyone from 21CD to respond. I would have gone softer had I known. When you give to an organization, you feel connected to it somehow.
<
p>
A Google search shows that these posts appeared on a number of websites. The August 1 posting appeared on Daily Kos for example and garnered 2 comments and one of those comments was the usual tip jar comment from its author. So perhaps, they are not used to these sorts of discussions.
Yes, yes, I’m still for convincing moderates. I think the best way to do it is a clear progressive message rooted in a solid policy foundation that starts with progressive values and derives positions from those values. I don’t think one convinces moderates by contributing to centrists. (And I’m not saying 21CD consists of centrists. I just don’t know.)
…Let’s see. We have the Democratic National Committee, which blurts out a lot of incoherent mouthings. We have the DSSC, which refused to support the Democratic nominee for US Senate from Connecticut in 2006. There’s a similar organization in the US House, by the way, and it is obvous that they are nothing more than incumbent protection organizations. There is the Democratic Leadership Council (Republican lite) which managed to get Billary elected in 1992 largely because GHWBush was in the dumps, and again in 1996 because Bob Dull was so hated and because Billary had done just the right amount of gay bashing.
<
p>
Now we have the 21st Century Democrats? What in heck are they supposed to stand for? Mom and apple pie?
<
p>
I hate to tell you, but the sad fact is that the more that I look at the mess in the US national Democrat party, the more I would prefer a parliamentary system like they have here in Germany. At least the parties stand for something. The parties select the candidates, no primaries. Es geben–there are–party conferences at which party members (dues paying members!) select the candidates for the party.
<
p>
There are a number of downsides to a parliamentary system–mostly shown by the UK (Maggie Thatcher -> John Majors, and more recently Tony Blair -> Gordon Brown) but at least the parties here in Germany have policies, which the US Democrats do not.
The 21st Century Dems are our future. Read about them before knee jerk reaction. They are doing what we need to do. The hard work. The vision / mission / goals / actions of progressives. I applaud them for their detail. They are not just soundbytes! Comparison to DSCC, DCCC, DLC is an insult and blatantly misguided.
<
p>
<
p>
They may have directed more money elsewhere (say, Pennsylvania), but that does not constitute failure to support Lamont, who was well funded.
<
p>
I think you’re trying to refer to the Democratic party.
<
p>
And parliamentary systems have absolutely nothing to do with “standing for something”. You say Germany (which you remind us so often is so enlightened) is the exception to this even though the Free Democrasts/Freie Demokratische have historically jumped from one bed to another depending on where the power is. The CiU in Spain has done the same thing. As for the supremacy of policies, the Liberal Democrats of Japan and Fianna Fail of Ireland don’t stand for anything other than being re-elected.
<
p>
The lack of primaries is a woeful undermining of democracy in parliamentary system, unless you think money should be the most important element. In a leadership election, candidates for leader of a party (and thus potential prime minister/chancellor) buy memberships for their supporters — that’s right, they literally buy votes. These insta-members are then herded into meetings across the country which are as sensical as the Iowa caucus and controversial as a Vegas boxing match, where they shout and swagger for a while until a slate of delegates is supposedly elected. (Controversies in these riding meetings dominate the news during this period.)
<
p>
Those delegates all meet in a city, and examine those who have presented themselves. After horse-making and deal-trading, one of them emerges. In the recent case of the Canadian Liberal Party, it was Stéphane Dion, the third choice of the party faithful. The party exits the process exhausted, bleeding money, and bitterly divided in a way that doesn’t occur in the American system.
And parliamentary systems have absolutely nothing to do with “standing for something”…You say Germany (which you remind us so often is so enlightened) is the exception to this even though the Free Democrasts/Freie Demokratische have historically jumped from one bed to another depending on where the power is.
<
p>
What I wrote was that I decried the fact that the Democratic Party doesn’t stand for anything. You conflated that, via your FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) remark that the government doesn’t stand for anything. I’m sorry, but that’s a false analogy. If someone votes for a candidate (or a party, in Germany two votes are cast, one for the Direkt Mandat (who may or may not be a party member, and the other for the party, and the representatives in the Bundestag are roughly divided half between the Direkt Mandaten and the party representatives) they know what the party stands for. That the party might have to go into a coalition government with another party, which might dilute some of their influence, is a totally separate issue–the junior party in the coalition may be able to get some of their issues enacted. BTW, as I’m sure you know, the Greens and the PDS–the leftists–have to do it, too. As has the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) had to do it with the Bavarian CSU (Christian Social Union), and, more recently with the SPD (Sozialistische Partei Deutschland) in their “Grand Coalition”.
<
p>
So, tell me again, what does the national Democratic Party stand for?
<
p>
Going up a bit
<
p>
The 21st Century Dems are our future.
<
p>
Maybe. But all I read there was a bunch of platitudes. From remarks upstream, it appears that they have been around since 1981. Do they actually have a platform? Or is their only interest in getting Democrats of whatever strip elected? The thing that soured me on Kos was the fact that he actually actively supported a Democrat from South Dakota, who was virulently opposed to equal rights for gay people, merely because she was a Democrat.
<
p>
I don’t recall the DSCC refusing to support Lamont
<
p>
I was reading FireDogLake at the time (after the primary and before the general election) and they were decrying the lack of support for Lamont from the national Democrats.
<
p>
Whatever. It is unlikely that Lieberman will jump ship, if for no other reason that, after the Dems win the Senate outright in 2008, Lieberman would be sitting on the sidelines out of power. But he’ll be an annoyance in the meantime.
I’m well aware of the difference between parties and government. What I was saying — perhaps not clearly enough — is that the FDP entered into governments of very different ideologies, it strongly questions how strongly they follow a particular platform. Any party that can be in coalition with the SPD after one election, and then with the CDU/CSU after the next, doesn’t have consistent ideals. (At least the Shas in Israel and CiU in Spain are blatant about it — they’ll support anyone granting the most favors and money to their communities).
<
p>
Nobody “has to” enter into coalition government. Canada currently has a minority government, and Israel has had several. These parties choose to do so.
<
p>
<
p>
Yeesh…I could answer what the CDU stands for, and I’ve spent a grand total of 3 days in Germany. Regardless, Democrats stand for — among other things —
<
p>
Do I really have to go on??
<
p>
I can’t speak about DL21C, but about the DSCC I’m sure you recognize that an organization is different than its membership. The DSCC is obligated to support its nominated candidates, and that is precisely what they did under Chuck Schumer. Schumer and Reid steered DSCC money and their own presence to Lamont’s campaign after the primary.
<
p>
However, individual Democratic Senators chose to campaign with Lieberman after he lost the primary, including Ken Salazer and one Barack Obama. Others such as John Edwards put in symbolic appearances but steered clear of the campaign. I cannot find a senator who endorsed Lamont before the primary (though Congresswoman Maxine Waters was instrumental in his campaign.)
…and I will explain it with this excerpt from your comment
<
p>
What I was saying — perhaps not clearly enough — is that the FDP entered into governments of very different ideologies, it strongly questions how strongly they follow a particular platform. Any party that can be in coalition with the SPD after one election, and then with the CDU/CSU after the next, doesn’t have consistent ideals.
<
p>
It isn’t an issue of ideals, it is an issue of whether the minority party would want to get at least some of its stated principles (policies if you want) enacted into law. A party such as the FDP, which IIRC had a much lower than 10% vote in the last federal (German) election, doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a significant voice in the Bundestag unless it parlays its Bundestag representation into a coalition with a partner that might need it to form a government. By coalitioning, it might–just might–get some of its policies supported by the major party in the coalition. And that’s what they did when they were coalition partners with the CDU/CSU. They didn’t get everything they wanted, but they got something. And, as far as I can tell, they are still selling themselves to the voters on their principles. Maybe someday they’ll get a higher percentage in the Bundestag, but I doubt it.
<
p>
BTW, I’m well aware of the fact that some countries that have parliamentary governments have minority governments. As long as they don’t lose votes of no confidence, they can remain in power, but they are not exactly stabile. Israel appears to have an odd form of parliamentary government in which the Prime Minister (currently Olbert) is elected separate and apart from the parliament.
<
p>
Regarding your bullet points, they are mildly interesting but they are a series of platitudes, not policies. I’m not going to go into each of them individually, but I’ll merely point out that
<
p>
Re (iii), “paygo” is a nice platitude, but what happens if the earmarked funding source dries up? I’ve commented on that elsewhere here this morning.
<
p>
Re (vi), An education policy that puts decisions in the hands of teachers and parents, rather than bureaucrats you might regret what you wish for. Remember Dover PA and the Kansas State School Board? I’m referring to teaching creationism, of course.
<
p>
As to (vii), it would be nice to have an apolitical FDA, but one thing that you might want to consider is the fact that it was HIV/AIDS activists who pushed for faster approval of pharmaceuticals. That was in the 1990s.
<
p>
BTW, it’s interesting that you got an idea of the principles of the CDU on your Tempotour of Germany. They are, in European terms, a center-right party, but would be considered in the US a center-left party. Under Helmut Kohl (der Kohlkopf) they rail against social spending, but they do do nothing to reign it in.
Raj, I don’t care that the FDP enters into coalitions, but unlike the Greens, it has a history of entering into coalitions with anyone and everyone. That doesn’t tell you anything?
<
p>
I’ve given up trying to explain the Democratic Party to you. You dismiss real policy differences as “platitudes” and then say I didn’t give you policy differences. If you can say those policies and principles are those of the Republican Party then you’ve proven me wrong. Then you do a deke and a juke, and suddenly want to discuss how some policies can go wrong. That’s another discussion and proves little…democracy as a system can go wrong, and you’re living in a place that is the prime example of how it can happen.
<
p>
Of course the CDU/CSU is center-left from an American POV. So are the Tories in Canada and the UK, because our spectrum as a whole is to the right of Europe’s. I don’t need an “instatour” to understand that, I just need an introductory course in polisci.
Thanks for engaging with us. However, I think anyone who doesn’t approach your organization skeptically is wet behind the ears, and frankly I read the “attack” the other day and did not find it nasty at all.
<
p>
I think the frustration you read in these comments stems from the (necessarily) hierarchical structure of the party. It’s difficult for rank and file Democrats to be heard, and now you propose to add a new layer — a new barrier, that is — between us and our elected officials.
<
p>
I WOULD trust the organization if it was organized around a single issue (say, free speech) or a single umbrella (say, the Bill of Rights). But your list of issues, while sound, is too broad for me to comfortably distinguish candidates. Take Deval’s proposed restaurant tax — is that a fair tax? Would Chris Gabrieli be unfair if he opposed it?
<
p>
Consider EMILY’S List — they want to elect women. OK, I don’t always agree with their choices, but that’s their thing. Fine.
<
p>
I’m glad you’re aware the vagueness on your website is an issue, and I urge you to correct it. My standard joke, when I don’t know a candidate’s platform, is to say “He’s for fair taxes and better schools.” Your platform isn’t far from that.
21st CD’s IS NOT AN ISSUE ORGANIZATION.
<
p>
Read their vision / mission / values statements. Rinse, repeat. Then tell us why we should not support their efforts which are the basis for making change happen. OK?
we don’t know what they really believe, that’s why.
because it’s very clearly and concisely laid out in their vision / mission / values. I know more about their intent than any other progressive organization (with an exception or two). I know how much effort goes in to the process that they went through to establish their organization. I can see the positive results that they have achieved. What don’t you know about them? This is getting absurd.
Fine, good goal, one I support. But I find this talk about “bold leaders” maddeningly vague. Bold about what, standing up to the GOP? Achieving universal healthcare? Withdrawing from Iraq, and/or preventing war with Iran? What?
<
p>
In other words, if I want to achieve Democratic majorities, why should I give to 21st Century? Why wouldn’t I give my money to the DNC?
<
p>
You don’t have to answer that, it’s not your job. It’s Dan’s, apparently.
<
p>
Sorry to be “absurd” …
Like this might be definition of bold:
<
p>
But sorry, it’s too vague for me. My question remains, what specific issue or issues define our time? Bush has a “bold” position on the war, but I think he’s wrong, and I assume 21st Century agrees that he’s wrong. So what is their “bold” position on the war, by which they hope to pick our future leaders? Can’t you and I pick our future leaders?
leadership requires vision. It’s not just about the issue of the day. It’s about looking forward, basing decisions on a consistent set of values and following through with goals and actions. Being guided solely by the issue of the day is what gives us John Kerrys, who has never exhibited true leadership. He votes according to the sentiment of the day (or the polls, or his political desires). If he had been a true leader, he would NEVER have altered his stance on war so dramatically as to vote to give this idiot pResident authority to wage a war based on lies. What 21st CD’s are doing is giving value to the concept of vision and promoting that as a necessary quality for finding leaders. It’s f***ing brilliant, sensible and a much more positive approach to long term change than quibbling about what the hot topic of the moment is. It’s positively visionary.
It’s what makes me like Bill Clinton, even though I don’t agree with everything he does. I just want to know what 21st’s vision entails.
and those speak for themselves. They are the backers of progessive visionaries. Their vision is to encourage visionary leaders. We’re back to the purpose of their existence. It’s spelled out precisely. Arrggghhhh.
What is their raison d’être?
<
p>
If they just train Democrats, that’s a worthy goal, but why isn’t the DNC doing it? Does the DNC do a crappy job at it? Are they are cohesive team with a great methodology so that the redundancy is okay? We don’t know.
<
p>
If they are a progressive group that trains Democrats, why are they allergic to my examining their ideology. It’s not a witch hunt. It’s just a question of truth in advertising. Give me a reason why we need another organization that does some of what the DNC does. Even if there is some duplication, it’s quite possible they do excellent work. Evidence anyone?
<
p>
Further, if they are progressive — as opposed to being generically Democratic, why isn’t Donna Edwards’ primary challenge (MD-04) to the unnecessarily conservative Al Winn not on their list? There might be a good reason, of course, but their reason for being is too unclear. Lolorb wondered whether they’d support the challenge to Kerry? How might they decide that? What does it mean that Ned Lamont is not on their candidate’s list?
<
p>
Finally, if they are not an issue organization, what are they doing in politics to begin with? If they’re non-ideological and do whatever “feels” right, why should we trust them?
<
p>
I’m not asking these questions rhetorically. (Really.) There might be a very good reason to trust them. Just tell us.
Do visit the How We Choose page on their website. It is completely non-ideological way of choosing candidates. Read it and ask yourself (while holding your nose) whether Ronald Reagan doesn’t fit these criteria. The only way he doesn’t fit is based on how you answer certain questions that are, well, ideological.
<
p>
Again, this may be a great organization, but we cannot tell why from the website.
Reagan would fit the bill as a progressive? I’m done. It’s not even worth the waste of time. You win. We should not support this group that is successfully training the grassroots and getting progressives elected. You win. We must question them to death because they haven’t met your specific criteria for what they should be doing and saying, despite pages worth of evidence and description of their very specific vision / mission / goals. They just cannot be trusted. Can you do me a favor and go over to a few of the red sites and work on them? Your efforts would be much appreciated.
The five criteria on the site are: visionary, boldness, authenticity, integrity, extraordinariness, and effectiveness (edited for parallel structure). Reagan was all of those things, a hideous president for sure, but all of those things.
I’m not “questioning them to death”. Nor is it my power to destroy them. I’m not Ming, Evil Dictator of the Universe, or even an RNC plant. I guess my writing is sharper than I thought and I apologize for that.
<
p>
At base, I’m asking a different question. Should you and I urge people to contribute to them? I assume you have only so much money to contribute. Suppose you had $500 to give. How would you allocate it among DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DFA, MoveOn, and 21CD? Does 21CD do something the first five I listed do not do? What is that thing? How important is it? Does their existence tell us something is wrong with the Democratic Party organizations?
Read my comments. I didn’t say we should NOT support them, I said we should approach them skeptically.
I’d like to know what you do to help get Dems elected. I mean, besides bad mouthing other people who actually do.
<
p>
As far as being suspicious, I’d say someone that spends so much energy bashing people who actually get things done is a lot more suspicious than these guys.
Welcome to BMG, Jack Roche. I notice that today is your first day here. I leave it to you to determine whether I’m an RNC plant or not.
The “RNC plant” thing was an example of how ridiculous it is to be “suspicious” of groups that are clearly working to help Dems.
<
p>
The fact that you totally missed that doesn’t surprise me.
Maybe you haven’t read the previous go around on this. Let me try to set the context.
<
p>
In the 2006 elections, the DCCC in particular was very reluctant to make an issue of Iraq. The general view among centrist Democrats was that Democrats polled well on domestic issues but were seen as weak on foreign policy. The McGovern loss in 1972 still stings. Taking the side of peace looked foolhardy to them. They miscalculated that it would lead Democrats into losing again as weak on defense. Besides, centrists thought Democrats could run on the corruption issue.
<
p>
Progressive Democrats, who by the latest polling (Pew, for example) are not a huge part of the party or its leadership, noted that support for the Iraq occupation was collapsing. As a real world event, most everything was going wrong there. Again we had groups like MoveOn and sites like Daily Kos and MyDD trying to push the DCCC to campaign on Iraq.
<
p>
It is in this context that I, a past contributor to 21st Century Democrats, received a fundraising appeal from them that did not mention Iraq. With the progressive wing of the party pushing hard to talk about Iraq, I get an appeal from a group that tells me it is progressive and that is silent about Iraq. There’s something wrong with that picture.
<
p>
I wonder. Is this a progressive group or not? I will contribute to non-party Democratic groups because I want a bigger voice for progressives, but it’s a much harder sell to to get me to contribute to non-party Democratic groups that support the five criteria for leadership because, as I wrote above, they are vague enough to include Reagan.
<
p>
My goal here, of course, is not to “destroy” 21CD. This is not an awards banquet either. I’m asking for clarification from them. Apparently, my writing style can be too barbed and so we are getting a lot of heat but too little light. For that, I apologize.
<
p>
If you could provide clarification here, I’d be appreciative.
done. If I were Dan, I would just ignore you.
This makes more sense. I still disagree with the underlying premise that not mentioning Iraq in a fundraising email two years ago somehow means they’re secretly not progressive Democrats considering what I have seen them say. But, I understand how, in the 2006 elections with the consultants telling people to play to the right of the Republicans, your suspicion meter might get a little overly sensitive.
<
p>
As a longtime lurker, first time commenter, I was really put off by what seemed like unnecessary beating up of fellow Dems. I agree that there’s been too much name calling and not enough talking, and, now that I’ve had a glass of wine and a walk, I too apologize for being overly barbed.
<
p>
I did think some of your questions were kind of loaded, and certainly more aggressive than seemed necessary. I can’t provide any clarification about 21st Century Democrats, but I to be fair I did think that these were pretty good questions, so I’ll re-ask them for you.
<
p>
* We’re not to believe their website, okay. Not very 21st century that.
<
p>
* Could you explain why they have a lame website or can you answer my original suspicion?
<
p>
* Are they under new management?
<
p>
* Did they just throw up a website and not review it?
<
p>
* Did their fundraising duck Iraq in 2006 because they had a consultant they’ve since let go run it?
<
p>
* Or are they just really bad at identifying the key issues but great at making phone calls?
<
p>
Dan?
Thank you.