We have DFA endorsing four Progressive women. Very nice.
We have moveon.org sending out a poll, basically asking if we should be working on dumping right wing asshole democrats. Whoopeedoo!
But here in PA we have the DNC pouring millions into the campaign of the most right wing purportedly democratic candidate since Zell Miller-- Bob Casey jr. And none of these major "progressive" organizations, and not PDA-- Progressive Democrats of America-- are doing a damned thing, when there are two perfectly good candidates (Pennacchio and Sandals,) and my opinion, one superb progressive candidate, Pennacchio also declared and in the race. Shame on them.
This tells me how weak these progressive organizations are. It tells me that they are possibly not really progressive at all. Maybe they are even the wimpy democrats that the right wingers who write to me talk about all the time.
Moveon.org is already on my shit list for running a lousy excuse for a poll last year that was biased and set up to make Casey the winner. It failed to disclose the most important facts in terms of the candidates positions on issues. I KNOW from the scientific poll I ran, (OpEdNews/Zogby People's Poll )that when people DO know the positions, they drop Casey like a lump of hot coal. His lead on Santorum disappears. I later learned that there was a connection between the wife of the man who ran the moveon poll and Casey's campaign. Pathetic!! Moveon should make up for it by doing a similar poll again, only this time, do it right, maybe even use a third party organization like I did-- Zogby.
I can't help but think that across the nation, this same kind of failure on the part of progressive leaders must be playing itself out. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are just pathetic, leaderless failures in Pennsylvania. I know one groups says that every local group in PA must endorse a candidate before they will get behind a progressive candidate instead of Casey. One or two local groups have not agreed on the same candidate, so they don't have unanimous concensus. So they haven't made a decision. I don't call that grassroots decision-making. I call that unwillingness to commit or decide. Even if they are unwilling to commit to a progressive candidate, they should, at least, speak out against Casey, who is about as far from progressive as a candidate can get. And they should speak out against the centrist politicos who claim to be progressives. Well, maybe not speak out against them, but at least challenge them to prove they are progressive. This, of course, raises the important question, what makes a progressive a progressive?
We don't just need progressive organizations. We need tough progressive organizations which are willing to stand up to the hard boiled, cynical, sold-out-to-business Democratic regulars. We need progressive organizations that are willing to take a stand. Now, I am very pleased to see that DFA is supporting Christine Cegelis. The DNC really screwed her in picking a wounded and disabled female Iraq vet over her when Cegelis has done such a great job. But it's an obvious call. I want to see something done about the PA senate race. Even if the three organizations I've mentioned just take a stand and say that Casey is not acceptable, and recommend that, in the primary, progressives vote for either of the declared progressives (though, in my mind, Pennacchio is the obvious first choice) that would be better than stupidly, impotently, gutlessly standing by and doing nothing.
I hope I piss off someone in these big progressive organizations. I hope some of my readers forward this to people in those organizations, because if they don't do something about Casey, they don't deserve to be called anything but Progressive Wimps.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Eli and Joan are a couple of bored internet millionares who seem to get a kick from hobnobbing with the political set. Their scant few successes only show that this nation is thirsting for progressive leadership. They allowed their website forum to be beset by trolls and right wing flamers and did nothing to rectify the situation. I doubt if there are more than a handful of dedicated activists paying much attention to them. A real shame as they had an opportunity to really make a difference but allowed their momentum to dissipate.
The Democratic Party has shown an interest only in electing those within its club and refuse to even allow primaries to play out and allow the will of the people to decide. I give you Paul Hackett in Ohio as a prime example. Not to disparage Sherod Brown but there was a significant groundswell of support for Hackett in that State and Zogby polls showed him doing very, very well against DeWine. Until the leadership of the party, including Reid and Shumer, told donors not to give to Hacketts campaign and, seeing the handwriting on the wall, he withdrew. An Iraqi war veteran, a well spoken and outspoken progressive and he was cast aside like an old shoe.
I really truly believe that you waste your time with the Democrats.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 5:27:41 PM
As a representative of Progressives Democrats of America I take exception to some of the points you've made. Organizational decision making is a tricky and sometimes frustrating process, and quite often no one comes away from it completely satisfied. The official endorsement of a candidate cannot be rammed through without any regard for the effect it will have on that organization. The tactics employed by the DNC which you decry tend to push an endorsement from the top down regardless of how constituent groups really feel. Instead of being sensitive to the needs of all, the wielding of such power overlooks how delicate the balance of power is in a truly democratic (small "d") organization.
It does little good criticizing the efforts of activists and organizers trying to make a difference and struggling to pull together individuals who don't always agree on every issue or every tactic unless you can offer constructive advice on how to overcome such organizational difficulties. It's fine to talk about what should be, but you can only make that assessment fairly when you are deeply involved in the process yourself. If you have done any organizing you should be aware that coalitions are fragile, especially those which cede most of the decision-making authority to their constituent groups to allow for the autonomy of those groups. For an organization that is at the earliest stage of the building process, this is especially true.
Some might expect great things from PDA -- things which PDA has the potential to achieve when it has reached a critical mass of membership and support. But to believe that this endorsement process is a make or break element of the success or failure of a particular candidate or an organization when there are so many other factors -- and when the organization in question is limited in terms of the influence it can muster -- seems to me highly unrealistic. While I can understand your frustration, I think it would be wiser to offer constructive solutions.
For instance, what should be the criteria for an endorsement? Unanimity? Two-thirds majority? Bare majority? And should all member organizations/chapters be compelled to follow through and support only the candidate endorsed through this process? There are some who say that the only way an endorsement has "teeth" is if all the chapters get on board and work for the officially endorsed candidate, abandoning their own favorite. I don't like that approach myself. In fact, I tend to think little of the endorsement process when it focuses on candidates rather than issues. I would prefer to support candidates who support progressive issues and shun those who don't. I could go on and on about my belief that candidate-based organizing is flawed and rarely yields long-lasting and effective coalitions. I joined PDA because of the issues, not the candidates they support. If this doesn't make sense or it seems impractical, I'd like to point out that there is little evidence that a candidate-based approach has been all that effective in promoting our progressive agenda over the long run. Show me a candidate who is committed to building a progressive movement beyond the day he/she is defeated and I'll show you a very rare individual indeed. And if you do find one and he/she has the right progressive credentials, I will gladly volunteer to help that person.
In the end, though, what is an endorsement worth if the organization doing the endorsing lacks sufficient membership? And how do we build membership? This is something that takes time. PDA came together in the summer of 2004. It operates on a shoestring budget. The Pennsylvania organizers for PDA have only been working to recruit and form chapters for roughly a year. Because our structure is grass roots and loosely assembled, we have had to deal with the challenge of effectively networking and communicating. We are volunteers, not paid "professionals". If we fail to measure up to the standards of those who sit on the sidelines and complain about how nothing ever seems to get done, we can only invite our critics to join with us and help make our organization stronger and more responsive.
For the record I think the big push for Bob Casey as our senatorial candidate is a woefully bad choice and I'm not afraid to say so. But that's a personal view, not one which my organization can back at this time for one very important reason: we do not have a clear-cut process for arriving at that position. Our organization is new and lacks a framework for making and presenting such a decision to the public. You might call us weaklings and wimps, but we are trying to create a democracy, not a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. That may be impractical or a sign of weakness, but I would remind you that those looking for strong discipline and a narrow focus need to look no further than the RNC -- or the DNC. Real democracy is much messier and less satisfying for those who want immediate change, but it has the potential to bring a more lasting and far-reaching, fairer kind of change than forced agendas.
If you think you can do a better job creating an effective progressive organization or network, I'd be pleased to join and lend what support I can, but I warn you, it's a lot harder than it looks. If you think you can pull together an organization on the force of your will -- or your words -- alone and make that organization actually mean something other than a lot of bluster and bull, I think you need to look a little more closely at how politics actually works. What we need is an effective way to bring together voters who will back up our strong words. We need to get people involved in the actual process of political decision-making, and that means working locally and statewide, interacting with local, county and state committees and building an effective voting bloc. Anything short of that is a waste of time and energy. It's not as glamorous as batting around the big issues, but it's an essential part of the effort to transform society.
Right now the mainstream Dems hold the cards, regardless of what we say, but this can change if we make a concerted effort. Mainstream media works against us, so I'm glad we do have alternative media outlets such as this to state our case. Alternative media is a great way to pump up the team and preach to the choir, but it isn't reaching enough people to shift the landscape on its own. It can be effective, however, in steering progressives towards real action and therefore has a potentially vital role in this process. But we need to work together rather than against each other. We need to find ways to make our partnership more effective by applying our energy where it counts -- to the infrastructure of the movement. Isolated voices calling for justice are sometimes heeded, but many united voices can't be ignored.
Roger Balson
Pennsylvania State Chapter Co-coordinator
Progressive Democrats of America
by
Roger Balson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 11:01:50 AM
This country is in dire need of Progressives right now, not just in Pennsylvania. I feel let down by the Democratic party, and while they are infighting, a Republican cabal is running this country. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and all the other war criminals will tell us how to feel, act, and behave. We must all march to their drummer. It is time for the sheeple to awaken and take back their country. There are a few Dem's that I can agree with most of the time (Feingold especially) but he can't do it alone. The Congresspeople cave to big business, and want to maintain their status. Unless there is change, there doesn't appear to be a chance for the America that we knew. Globalization is here, if we want it or not. After all, don't we have to help complete Bush's "vision"?
by
lickspittle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments)
on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 7:25:41 PM
I don’t think PDA deserves Rob Kall’s vituperation, but it does need to rethink its sudden new policy on endorsements.
I’ve attended two PDA conferences in Washington and was happy that our local group in southeastern Pennsylvania, Chester County Democratic Coalition (2CDC), became a PDA chapter.
2CDC believes in bottoms-up organization, and that building consciousness and networks is more important than rushing to endorse candidates. This is just as speakers at the PDA conferences in 1/05 and 9/05 urged.
As of 2/06, 2CDC has not decided how to endorse candidates, because we want to put in place a procedure that will ensure that all present and future members of the group feel part of a meaningful process and can live with any endorsement decisions that we do take. Progressives need a democratic process, right?
Where Rob writes that “one group says that every local group in PA must endorse a candidate before they will get behind a progressive candidate,” he presumably refers to an item in PDA’s WEEKLY FIELD UPDATE 1 /2 8 /06 entitled “PDA Has Established New ISSUE AND CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY!”:
13. When multiple Chapters within the geographic region covered by the potential endorsement cannot agree on a candidate to endorse, no PDA endorsement shall be made.
I personally disagree with that policy. I think local groups should endorse whomever they choose in their own name by their own valid process and PDA should do the same by some sort of poll of chapters. I like a 60% endorsement level, because I think the other 40% can respect it. Requiring all PDA groups to agree on an endorsement is, as Rob says, a recipe for gridlock.
I also disagree with many other elements of PDA’s 1/28/06 “update,” such as the efforts to impose top-down procedures on local chapters and to open up local groups to any out-of-area people who wish to come in and vote on an endorsement.
I don’t hold these misjudgments against PDA as an organization, but I imagine that a few people at their headquarters had a bright idea that turns out not to be so bright. I hope they will recant.
But meanwhile, this discussion should be conducted on the level of principle and how best to build the movement. Just as PDA has taught, we are building for the 2020’s, not just for the next election.
All this said, of course, a lot of progressives surely won’t be voting for Casey in May or (if he’s on the ballot) November.
by
Nathaniel Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 8:07:41 AM
