In yesterday’s first part of this diary, we talked about the 1912 Progressive Party Platform. About how starkly its wording applies to the conditions under which we now live, 100 years later. About what real Progressives believe in and fight for. In short, what Progressives do.
And we promised, here in part two, an object lesson in the lengths to which false progressives and other protectors of the “profits before people” status quo will go in quashing dissent. In other words: what true Progressives don’t.
The lesson comes by way of the blog at the website of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).
On June 14, one Mike Hersh – who is identified variously at the PDA site as the group’s “Maryland State Coordinator,” as “PDA Staff,” and as “PDA National Staff” – put up a post called “The High Cost of Voting for Spoilers.” (Hersh is also – although “hopes to be” seems more accurate, based on his own web site – a political campaign consultant.)
The PDA’s blog appears to have begun in January; I could find no archives dating further back. In those six months, no post has come close to Hersh’s in terms of reader comment. Despite being open for comment literally for months – they are still open, in fact – few have received more than eight replies.
By contrast, “The High Cost of Voting for Spoilers” got 89 comments in just one week, and would have had more – but Hersh shut it down Tuesday night.
That’s right. This “progressive” shut down the Progressive Democrats of America’s most-discussed blog post of the year. In mid-debate.
So, what happened?
After throwing everything in the cupboards – and then the kitchen sink – at the six commenters who took issue with his post (five, including the author, supported it) Hersh knew the jig was up – that’s what happened.
Too many commenters – too many for Hersh’s liking, at least – refused to accept his “facts,” let alone the smarmy, know-it-all, accusatory style so symptomatic of so many who purloin the term “progressive” for their narrow interests. You know their rigmarole:
- Gore lost because of Nader voters.
- Democrats are the better choice and anyone who doesn’t see that is willfully blind – but saying this is not the same as promoting lesser-evilism.
- The (insert name of neolib org here) supports and encourages open debate and discussion. (Unless, of course, we shut it down.)
So, after providing numbered answers to “three questions” Hersh thought crucial, and which he excoriated his critics for “refusing to address” (though we had, repeatedly, with the sum of our comments); after it was clear that any point which discredited his thesis would be met with obfuscation at best; and about 36,000 words into the Hersh Vortex of Circular Logic, I got a notion (and yes, I’m kind of embarrassed it took me so long).
I posted the following:
OK, Mike, let’s try this. A simple yes or no answer will suffice. No qualifications or explanations. After you answer, I’ll ask you another question. Fair enough?
Do you consider a vote for Canada’s NDP “voting for a spoiler”?
Just a reminder: yes or no.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
His response:
Anthony—
I already answered that, [no, he hadn’t] but here it goes again. No, voting for NDP was not “voting for a spoiler.” Under the very different Canadian system, and considering they were already an established, effective party with seats in parliament, and representing more than 1% or 2% of the electorate: No.
(Good thing I asked for no qualifications or explanations, huh?)
Hersh continued:
Everyone—
At this point, let’s all admit some of us are not talking about the same things. A few people on this thread are unwilling to agree with the basic premise. As long as those people refuse to accept the terms, this is a waste of time.
[Translation: So many people are telling me my basic premise is flawed that I don’t have time to keep responding!]
At this point, I am closing this thread and inviting people to learn more about PDA, comment on the other blog posts, and get on with their lives.
Clearly, about midway through typing in his 50-word answer to my yes-or-no question, it dawned on the poor guy what my next question would be:
“So, Mike, if a vote for the NDP in 2011 was not ‘voting for a spoiler,’ because ‘they were already an established, effective party with seats in parliament,’ a vote for the NDP at its founding 50 years ago, when it had no seats, would, by your definition, have constituted ‘voting for a spoiler.’
“My question, then, is exactly how new political movements and parties can come into existence without being what you degrade as ‘spoilers’? If you got your wish and no one supported new parties, how would anything ever change?
Hersh knew the legs supporting his premise had been cut out from under it, and didn’t want to admit it. So he picked them up and ran away.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is not what Progressives do. On the contrary, it’s how major-party operatives, and those who seek to be, have co-opted, fear mongered, and quashed populist movements – like the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries – out of existence.
We must take back the Progressive mantle from these “Falsies” – false lefties, false liberals and false (a.k.a. small “p”) progressives.
Me must again imbue activism with the meaning, and with the peaceful militancy, which made that first Progressive Era the most beneficial period in our nation’s history – by far – for working Americans.
That era, not coincidentally, also united the largest percentage ever of people of all political stripes in pursuing and advancing the common good. It brought together Americans who embrace non-intervention, industrial justice, environmental protection, equal access to education, and care of our youth, our aged and our downtrodden.
True Progressives must reclaim this proud heritage. The first step in doing so is exposing “small p” progressives and other duopolists for the enablers they are, and the hateful things they do. Things true Progressives don’t.
By the way: Last Monday – one day before he shut down dissent at the PDA blog – Mike Hersh began shilling posting right here, at MyFDL.
Anthony Noel
NPA Facilitator



137 Comments

“By the way: Last Monday – one day before he shut down dissent at the PDA blog – Mike Hersh began shilling posting right here, at MyFDL.”
In fairness, I would like to point out that I invited Mike Hersh to post here.:
“Please consider writing a diary about what you call fallacies of supporting spoilers, and posting it at my.firedoglake.com, where you will doubtless get responses from people who have more time than I do to respond to all your points. Firedoglake is a hotbed of progressives who don’t respect the Democratic Party, and have consequently lost some or all of their fear of inadvertantly helping Republicans.”
Indeed, I hope he continues to post here, if for no other reason than to draw attention to the PDA. I’d like him to be less dodgy, though.
I’m a member of PDA (even though I’ve never been a Democrat), and generally approve of their efforts. As I mentioned in “The High Cost of Voting for Spoilers.”, my criticisms of PDA were limited in number, and motivated by my desire to see PDA be more effective:
“I’ve not questioned the PDA’s good intentions, nor presumed that they are not serious. And I certainly do have an idea of what PDA does and stands for. Why are you making stuff up?
My criticism of PDA is that it’s not aggressive enough. It doesn’t work to get rid of the worst Democrats in general elections, thereby implicitly supporting lesser evilism. Such a strategy is stupid. That doesn’t mean that everything else that PDA does and stands for is somehow negated.
I want the PDA to be more EFFECTIVE. That’s not too hard to grasp, is it? If PDA has dropped even their anti-Baucus PRIMARY effort, which seems to be the case, that’s another sign that PDA is limiting itself.
I participated in on a PDA conference call re health care, that was so positive it was exciting. However, one of the planned actions – demonstrating in front of a healthcare company office – seemed to me utterly pointless. I don’t want to go into why.
I’ll just end this post by saying the question of what constitutes EFFECTIVE activism is very important, but not thought about, enough. One happy exception is Denis Rancourt. See:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/search/label/activism
The question which I hope would interest you and the PDA leadership is not “Does PDA do any good?” But rather “How can PDA do the most good?” Your many posts don’t lead me to believe that you care about the latter question. Note, e.g., you show little interest in proactively contacting de Mesquita, or a fellow traveler of his, on your own”
and
“If you do a Google search on “PDA” and “metamars”, you will see that I have been generally supportive of the PDA, literally for years. In particular, I have praised PDA for “sticking to it’s guns”, and have criticized progressives who moan about politics, but generally support Democrats, for not joining. My criticism of PDA is focussed almost entirely on it’s lack of aggressiveness ito voting strategy, and also not growing as quickly as I think it could have. To that I’ll add another criticism, which is that PDA doesn’t do much to organize and proselytize a “take over” of the Democratic Party, along the lines that the blogger “Rayne” of firedoglake.com wrote about in her “Angry Left” series. (Well, AFAIK. I’m pretty sure that the regular communications to members don’t push getting volunteers for what Rayne has called for, though local PDA leadership may be thus directed.)”
The NDP are currently holding a Canadian-style (real) filibuster (overnight!!) holding up the summer vacation after a very short session, that was busy covering the formalities of convening a new Parliament, following the May 2 election. We have a contract problem at Canada Post and the Conservatives are forcing an end to the labor and lockout actions with back to work legislation that includes a salary figure LESS than the last offer from CP management. This is the Canadian anti-labor push well in play.
The NDP will “lose” this fight eventually. Or will they? In the meantime every member of the caucus is participating ~ some of whom are literally in training as young and new members of Parliament. And the whole country is watching.
I am *thoroughly* delighted with the NDP’s performance as the opposition party, already. You might also note that the NDP have held previous prominent roles in the last 50 years at the federal level, but before this recent election, they had been polling lower than the Greens at times.
Want to eliminate spoilerism: Institute IRV with ranked-choice voting. Of course, doing this would eliminate the GOP’s main reason for supporting progressive third parties, which is to siphon votes away from the Democrats, but what the heck.
The TEA Party we keep hearing so much about started out as a libertarianish and secular revolt against the Republican establishment, and actually was a separate party in its own right. But, before it had a chance to do any damage in the 2010 elections by siphoning off GOP votes, the Koch brothers (whose father helped found the John Birch Society) stepped in with Dick Armey’s help and co-opted the movement’s message and a fair number of key leaders, essentially reabsorbing most of it back into the GOP fold:
Yes, the NDP is what Lefties with backbones look like!
PW, what’s your sense of the willingness of the Democratic Party’s national leadership to support IRV? Just curious, because it seems to me both parties (at the national level) have a vested interest in keeping it out.
Indeed. Here’s a link to comprehensive coverage including video feed of the debate. I’m not sure of the rules, but there were some “house orders” covered mid-debate so “Question Period” may come up between 2pm and 3pm Eastern, and that would mean the Prime Minister may appear.
http://www.cpac.ca
The Green Party leader who was just seated in the May 2 election was speaking earlier ~ for these purposes Elizabeth May is probably caucusing with the NDP.
The NDP is blaming the Conservatives for the whole problem, including locking the workers out ~ they had only been on rotating strikes before that!!
Wow. Harper thought majority government would make things SO very much SMOOTHER. LOL. I guess not! It’s making me very happy.
)
New Progressive Alliance
This central point that you all make is CRITICAL to moving forward.
Let me be crystal clear here. THE PDA Progressive Dems of America are the folks who helped destroy the Green Party. I watched it happen. I work with former Greens who know this is true. This group of activists are called NSNP Nader Supporters New Party. As an aside, I am the “token” Cynthia McKinney supporter and former Green Party National Delegate.
My point being that those voices of EXPERIENCE who watched the Democrats apologists destroy the GP can and should carry that voice and experience into NPA.
As for the NDP in Canada, could not agree more. However, to put it in an American experience is much more relevant.
The Vermont Progressive Party is an active, strong and organized political unit in Vermont..
The state of Vermont has just introduced Single Payer to the state. They are the very first and in fact at this moment the only one to do so.
Canada has strong organized opposition to their corporate duopoly. They get Single Payer. Vermont has strong organized opposition to the corporate duopoly. They just gain Single Payer (which has to fight the Obama Bill to become legal it must be noted which is why Dennis Kucinich opposed the Obama Bill until he took his airplane ride. Check out the Kucinich Amendment that got nowhere nationally)
Is this a coincidence?
Hell no it isn’t.
Strategically speaking, having an active organized opposition that says to hell with “lesser evilism” has been proven to be the ONLY thing that works. That applies with Single Payer and it must be noted that that worked with ending the Viet Nam War.
Or did the protesters chant “Hey Hey Nixon, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?”
No they did not. They chanted “Hey Hey LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today.”
Can any of the “lesser evil supporters” tell me that I am wrong or that my political analysis is incorrect?
In point of fact, there are different factions of the Tea Parties. Of course, powerful players are trying to coopt as many of the rank-and-file Tea Party types as they can. This is an ongoing struggle, which even the Tea Partiers don’t know how it will turn out. The ‘Contract with America’ Republicans were basically all coopted, AFAIK, so that particular precedent is not good for sincere Tea Party types.
Do you think Michelle Bachmann, the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, is not 100% sincere? (Well, she did vote for the Patriot Act, so clearly she’s not a libertarianish type Tea Partier.) Do you think she’s 100% coopted?
Having a 50 year head start over the NPA didn’t hurt them, either.
It seems to me that with supporters in the millions, who will understand very easily how the US Democratic Party is corrupted, the NDP could successfully be appealed to, to inject a large sum of cash into NPA.
Surely, with your charm, you are up to the task, no?
” THE PDA Progressive Dems of America are the folks who helped destroy the Green Party”
I’m a PDA member, and on their mailing list, and I don’t remember ever seeing or reading anything about helping destroy the Green Party.
Would please elaborate and substantiate, preferably in the form of diaries?
Have you thought of contacting political science departments, and asking their students to join in your campaign as documenters of the sort of knowledge needed to run a successful campaign, but which gets obscured behind layers of dysfunction and, I assume, an old boys network that doesn’t want to make it clear how an upstart can kick over the tables?
Please see the “Angry Left” diaries by Rayne, here at FDL, for more insights about what needs to be documented (presumably in the form of wikis). If you can make a compelling case for professors to enlist student documenters, you may further be able to establish relationships that will encourage at least the Dem leaning professors to support a Full Court Press (FCP). I.e., they may be sympathetic to getting their students to run as minimalist FCP (or similar) candidates for US House of Representatives, but with the additional requirement that they document their new found knowledge.
A successful FCP effort in 2012 will help feed volunteers into an NPA network in 2014, no?
BTW, I also believe that progressives should be running a variant of the Full Court Press in Republican primaries. If you live in an R+10 district, and are bound to get a Republican to represent you, shouldn’t it be one who will keep Social Security and Medicare intact?
So, there are other options for shaking up the system, quickly, in addition to jeffroby’s original FCP.
metamars, with all due respect, if you were involved as an NPA volunteer at more than just arm’s length, you’d know that we are daily receiving queries from across the Progressive spectrum. The whole point of the NPA’s approach for 2012 is to draw attention to the fact that there is a national organization seeking to unify all the smaller ones under a single platform. We may very well field candidates in local, state, or federal races – if we have the outreach and volunteers to pull it off.
By shouting from the sidelines with your self-imposed, only ancillary knowledge of what’s going on, you do more harm than good. But if you’re waiting for (another) personal invitation from me to get to work, don’t hold your breath. I’m busy enough as it is, and the NPA’s highly functional web site – with its private area for volunteers – is all you need to know to get involved.
Until you’re willing to put your time and effort where your mouth is, please at least do the NPA the courtesy of asking yourself, as you compose your posts, if you actually know the facts surrounding what you’re talking about. Just because you are not aware that the NPA is taking a comprehensive approach DOES NOT mean that’s the case.
Thanks,
Tony
Even if assumptions that I’ve made about what exactly NPA intends to do have already been anticipated by NPA, there is still value in throwing them out there. I find that the level of creativity, in general, employed in addressing political problems, is limited. I say that judging by what people post, and making inferences. So, e.g., having never heard of PDA looking to throw an incumbent Democrat under the bus, I assume that PDA leadership has a culture of lesser evilism, as I have defined it to Mike Hersh.
Now, even if I was wrong, the very fact that I’m a member of PDA indicates that membership in general does know this. And furthermore, and more relevantly to this conversation, the wrong-headedness of lesser evilism is pervasive on the internet. So, a non-PDA’er who reads our conversation, and becomes aware, e.g., that Bueno de Mesquita has confirmed the stupidity of lesser evilism, can take that into whatever sphere of associations and organizations he/she normally deals with.
It’s not really clear to me that NPA would adopt my suggestions, even if NPA does, in fact, successfully pursue a “comprehensive approach”. Furthermore, the jury is out on whatever NPA’s “comprehensive approach” turns out to be, both from a conceptual POV, but also from the POV of how well manned the NPA’s efforts are.
I would like to see a Full Court Press aggressively pursued for the 2012 election cycle. The chances that NPA would embrace this are about zero, based on my conversations with you. My hope is that, by writing about it, somebody else might get inspired to do exactly that.
Indeed, I was thinking of writing a diary about FDL and PDA joining forces, with a common area being the Full Court Press, more or less as originally described by jeffroby, though obviously they’d chuck his list of 5-6 platform points, and substitute the big PDA ones. Such an effort would have, as a point of intersection, doing the sort of documentation that Rayne called for in her “Angry Left” series.
Although you and NPA leadership have completely given up on the Democrats, PDA has not, and I believe that most of the FDL front pagers have not. Consequently, both PDA and FDL should be very interested in a joint effort.
In a public forum, I reserve the right to write about anything that I think would help the public, in general. I am more interested in fixing a broken democratic system, than I am in promoting one group, or another. That means that I make suggestions that can help civic groups who are enemies on 1 or more issues. It also means that I criticize groups, even while simultaneously trying to make them more effective, and/or more democratic.
First sentence is way off. Should have read:
Even if assumptions that I’ve made about what exactly NPA has no plans to do, have actually already been anticipated by NPA, there is still value in throwing them out there.
IRV isn’t perfect either. What I would love to see in some state is an official study with several voting systems being tested out – communities could volunteer to test IRV, range voting, approval voting, and proportional representation, or something along those lines. After a few election cycles, the results could be compared. But that’s just daydreaming.
To Michael Cavlan, I would add that there are also certain intangible things that contribute to a third party’s success and the success of opposition to corporate rule. In Vermont, not only is there a successful third party, but there is something close to genuinely democratic (small d) institutions. The Democratic governor, when he was elected president of the Senate, only spent $2500 on his re-election campaign. That’s less than a tenth of what it cost to run a losing (although still strong) Green campaign for a normal state house seat here in Philadelphia!
“Although you and NPA leadership have completely given up on the Democrats, PDA has not”
Fair enough, that is your right, but there is really no room for a joint effort. The Democratic Party has expressed nothing but contempt for our views and has confirmed it by their actions. It is now, as it always has been, into blaming everything on republicans and pleading its case of helplessness. By blowing a once in a lifetime opportunity the democrats cannot now claim that maybe in another 30 years if they get a similar break things will be different.
Ed2291
You have no idea how happy I am to see you say that.
Ask any of the Ralph Nader supporters in the Green Party National Committee about how the PDA and their “allies” acted and helped destroy the spirit of resistance in the Green Party.
It explains, in part why the Green Party have virtually disappeared from the national scene and have not released any financial statements since 2009.
Like I said. The voice of experience in an organization working “with” the PDA.
As an aside. Just sitting here listening to Paris. His song
Sleeping With The Enemy.
Bad asses tune. Seems appropriate too.
Grin
To what end, metamars? So the PDA can co-opt Jane and FDL? Magical thinking. You’re deluding no one but yourself.
Even before false progressive Mike Hersh perpetuated the fairy tale detailed in the above post, the PDA lost me at the second letter in their acronym: “Democrats.”
The NPA wants enlightened – or more accurately, awakened – Democrats. Those who have awakened to the fact that the party is complicit in our oppression, not fighting against it.
If the PDA was truly independent, metamars, do you think superrich sellout John Kerry would have expended the time and staff expense to put together this crock of shit, expressly for the PDA?
If the PDA challenges him or any other Dem too much, the Dems defund them. Simple. As. That.
Wake up, metamars.
I don’t know any Green Party National Committee members, so I can’t (easily) ask them about the PDA. Since you have made a claim that seems completely foreign to my experience with the PDA, I have asked you for the details.
In case anyone wants to know what REALLY happened in the thread Anthony refers to, please feel free to visit the link and read for themselves: http://www.pdamerica.org/blog/view/the-high-cost-of-voting-for-spoilers/
When people are simply repeating the same things over and over, and “talking” past each other, there is no debate. When some insist on explicitly rejecting definitions of well-established terms, there’s no point in trying to discuss the matter.
Anthony Noel’s personal attacks, refusal to discuss issues with anything close to respect or reason, etc. made it untenable to continue babysitting the thread. To get a taste of Anthony’s “contributions” to the thread, consider his post, copied and pasted in its entirety, and decide for yourself if this is what a progressive does:
“Mike, you bring new meaning to the words ‘pompous ass.’
“Does it make you feel good to employ the same diversionary and untrutful tactics you decry in conservatives? To say something won’t work – after getting the proof that it can, which YOU asked for? Apparently so, because your original post and your comments since would do any cligning-for-dear-life-to-power corporatist proud.
“Enjoy it while you can, its days are numbered. Such tactics didn’t work for Jason Rosenbaum at FDL before he left for a job where he could securely wedge his head up Congressional Democrats’ asses so far that he couldn’t be sure where he stopped and they started, and it won’t work for you, here.
“But keep denying the reality outside your door, Mike. It’ll make breaking it down all the easier and more satisfying for the growing crowd that’s gathering outside it.
“Goodbye – and good riddance.”
By Anthony Noel on 2011 06 20
———-
Mr. Noel returned again, pretending I hadn’t answered questions and asking them again. Of course he’s free to flame people and troll, but life is too short to dignify tantrums. After a dozen of similar posts, it was time to call an end to that thread and get on with our lives. Some people are too obsessive/compulsive to just agree to disagree or walk away. By closing the thread, I did Anthony Noel a favor.
Re: PDA and the Green Party
I’ve been with PDA almost since its launch, and never saw anything like someone was asserted about PDA undermining the Green Party. I invite whoever believes that happened to please substantiate that.
Re: LBJ and Nixon and Vietnam
Yes, protestors chanted “Hey Hey LBJ….”
Battered by Democrats who supported Gene McCarthy, LBJ abandoned hope of re-election. He stepped aside, Hubert Humphrey won the nomination, and Nixon won a very narrow victory in 1968. The Vietnam War continued until 1975.
Driving out LBJ didn’t end the war which continued for several years! Once progressives forced out LBJ out, and after RFK’s assassination, why didn’t the left unite behind Humphrey? Nixon set the nation on a reactionary path.
Since then, we’ve seen the rise of the Imperial Presidency. Wages declined, regulations and unions and progressive policies were blamed. Nixon realigned the “Solid South” for the GOP, kept that troubling trend moving by appointing racists to important offices (including the Supreme Court), and surrounded himself with thugs.
Reagan continued this rightward march, as did George W. Bush–all aided by spoilers. We’ve moved steadily to the right ever since Nixon defeated Humphrey. So what is the lesson? Is this the template for more progress or less? This is my concern about people who base their approaches on quasi-history and other points that are inaccurate, irrelevant, or both. If their approach is so certain to work, why aren’t there ANY examples of it working in the USA in the past 50 years (or longer)?
If someone advocates an approach which has led to unmitigated disaster over and over, why shouldn’t they rethink their approach? And why should they lash out at anyone who questions their repeatedly disastrous, self-defeating approach? Is that logical, sensible, or progressive? I don’t think that’s what a real progressive does.
“To what end, metamars? So the PDA can co-opt Jane and FDL?”
No, the end would be to get better Democrats elected. Although Rayne doesn’t seem to blog here, anymore, she wrote a series of very important diaries, her “Angry Left” series. I don’t want to look up quotes, but she used to find talk of third parties annoying, due to their lack of success. She clearly wanted better Dems, and furthermore, one of her “Angry Left” was a “roadmap” on how to achieve that.
You write as though Jane Hamsher doesn’t want better Democrats, and as though she has given up on the Democratic Party. I don’t want to speak for her, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that that would constitute “magical thinking”, to use your phrase. Certainly, her and her editors’ benign tolerance of NPA diaries doesn’t mean that she’s down with NPA philosophy, any more than Rayne would have been.
I hope PDA seriously studies the Rayne “Angry Left” diaries, and looks to systematically implement them. As Rayne’s POV is probably closer to Jane’s, and most front pagers at FDL, than it is to your POV, FDL would be a natural ally.
nixon supported raising minimum wage, and created the epa, so lets not confuse the post reagan republicans with the republicans of that time. He was not a disaster for the working class that post reagan dems and republicans have been.
humphry also promised to support the war so uniting behind him would not have stopped it.
There was no third party candidate in 68 so humphry did not lose to a nader figure.
Humphry only proves that dems have been ingnoring progressives for decades.
Mike, please. You are ignoring the point and obfuscating again. And you know it.
You shut down the debate – and this is America.
But by all means, let’s “get on with our lives.” Let’s NOT have a conversation even suggesting our system is flawed, let alone what ails it. Let’s talk about sports and cars and women (or men). NOT about the major parties’ complete abandonment of and complicity in the oppression of workers, the poor, our veterans – what the hell! Everything’s hunky dory, right?
I’d say you are without clue – but you clearly know exactly what you are doing, and that’s the shame of it.
To Mike Herch with the PDA
I thought that what Noel posted was quite appropriate. In fact the only people who would have a problem with that would be the Democrat apologists that he speaks of.
As for how the PDA helped to destroy the Green Party, well that is a post for another time. It will be an entire story all to itself.
However it will wait till later.
Because there are some of us who are to busy, building an opposition to the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system like we really mean it.
To waste any more time on corporate apologists like yourself.
Good job Anthony. Thought you did a spectacular job in this thread.
As the originator of the Full Court Press (read the original at the link if you wish), here’s the issue. I think the FCP approach is viable and correct in the long run. But one of the practical problems it faced was that it counted on individuals in each congressional district stepping forward to run in the congressional primaries. (It left open the question of supporting Dems vs. independents in the generals).
Individuals did not come forward. Now, one can argue that they should have, but I believe the FCP approach asked for too much AT THAT MOMENT. The isolation flowing from heroic individuals running alone in a district was just too much. Now, one can blame people for not being smart enough to recognize the brilliance of my plan, and that might be comforting in the dark hours of night.
But it is more helpful to recognize that the plan was overly ambitious, and retool. So we get arguments that the NPA plan of running a challenger against Obama in the primaries and backing an independent in the generals is more ambitious than concentrating on local congressional races. But in fact, by concentrating mainly on the presidential, the NPA can have its forces working together and not be subject to that isolation which, in fact, has to be recognized and dealt with.
That the NPA is active and growing is at least partial proof that its focus on the presidential is correct. Still, there is no reason that local forces already existing, or coming into existence on their own, cannot join up with the NPA.
But it takes more to join up with the NPA than being a good fellow or gal. It takes more than being a good progressive. It would require (by my personal interpretation of the NPA perspective) being willing to embrace the NPA platform in the Democratic primaries, and THEN supporting the independent NPA presidential pick in the generals.
So, meta, when you press the issue of the NPA expanding its scope to include congressionals, you do not include these local candidates adhering to the NPA perspective of Dem primary PLUS presidential independent in the generals. If you did that, I think you would find that your field of prospective local candidates would shrink quite a bit.
Again, I am not saying that the NPA embracing local races should be rejected out of hand, but involvement in local races should only be undertaken where it ADDS to the NPA presidential efforts, not SUBTRACTS from it. In your enthusiasm for local races, you have not yet adequately engaged this.
By The Way
I followed the PDA link about John Kerry.
Dear God. I was one of the Official Green Party Observers in the 2004 Re-Count in Ohio. John Kerry and the Democrat establishment abandoned the integrity of the electoral system itself in Ohio and elsewhere 2004. So seeing PDA actually having John Kerry asking them to mobilize the “progressive vote” is a sad pathetic joke.
So speaking of such things Mr Herch, tell your good buddy David Cobb that we say hello and to thank him for the lessons on how political organizations are corrupted.
We learned a lot from him..
I have a slightly different take on “democrats.” I believe the Democratic Party is strategically dead. But frankly, many of the democrats, ordinary people, voters, rank-and-filers, remain within its clutches because they do not see a better alternative. Ordinary people do not leap to act on merely an idea, or join an organization that they do not know even exists. They have to see strength in action before they abandon the little they have.
Thus I have given up on the Democratic Party, but I have not given up on democrats. In fact, the NPA engages those democrats through its hopes to find a primary challenger to Obama. And I hope it continues to find tactical ways to engage those democrats over the long haul even as it builds its independent wing.
Using the term “spoilers” is all an intellectually honest person needs to know about your BS. It’s insulting to people with actual principles who are themselves independent of the corporate state.
The idea of “spoiler” infers that there are some candidates that are “legitimate” (read: corporate approved, just how you like it, Hersh) and “unserious” (read: non-legacy party, so of no benefit to the consultant class, or consultant wannabe’s like you). That’s a bullshit premise. Every single candidate for office is as entitled to votes as any other.
None of your circular arguments mean jack shit if you’re just going to try to delegitimize legitimate candidates for public office. Go sell stupid somewhere else, there’s no market for it here.
This is yet another example of why the left can’t move forward united. It is incredibly disturbing to see a conversation worth having devolve into a personal argument, complete with name-calling, that can’t be won. Bad enough in private, but taking up space on public blogs makes us lefties look like we’re idiots. Sheesh, talk about playing into the right wing’s hand.
When will we learn that we can disagree with at least a modicum of respect for each other. Why would anybody support lefties from any Party when this kind of discussion (PDA blog post) takes place in a public arena?
I am the Deputy Director, and a co-founder, of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).
PDA fills a niche in the political culture of this society. That’s all, and we never claimed any more than that. People will either agree with us or disagree with us in this marketplace of ideas, and we will succeed or fail depending on that. Do we have “the solution”, do you have “the solution”; time will tell. But it is far more likely that “the solution” will include myriad strategies from myriad organizations and individuals converging to form the solution we’re looking for, if we can just quit the infighting and focus on the future.
While people are free to debate the merits of what we do, our goal is to work inside the party to push it leftward, and to work outside the party to build a progressive people’s movement. We are allied with dozens of organizations, working on issues of common cause: Medicare for All, ending war and occupations, stopping climate destabilization and creating sustainable energy sources, clean, fair and transparent elections, creating a sustainable, green economy, and ending corporate dominance of our political system. We also work to elect progressive Democrats to Congress.
PDA works closely with some well-know Greens (David Cobb, Medea Benjamin, Ben Manski, and others) because we understand the value of working together where we can to move our positions forward. PDA has never actively opposed any Green candidate unless that candidate is challenging a PDA-endorsed progressive Democrat for Congress. If the Green Party fails or succeeds, it will have nothing to do with PDA, as we generally support the Green Party platform. In fact, there are a number of current and former Greens doing some excellent work within PDA, and I assume the reverse is true with them.
The important thing to remember about PDA is that we are grassroots driven. There is not an executive calling the shots. The issues we work on depend entirely upon volunteers doing the work. The Max Baucus effort is ongoing, but the folks in Montana are the ones that will catapult this on to the national stage through their own work and determination. This is the ebb and flow of PDA’s grassroots structure.
The inside the Party work is tough going as the Democratic Party is not Roosevelt’s Democratic Party. It is a long and hard slog through machine politics and is totally dependent on involving progressives within the party. One organization cannot simply take over a Party without the numbers in place to support it. So no, we don’t charge in and say we’re here to take over, we identify ourselves as the insurgency inside the party and work to pass resolutions, change Party rules and the platform, and elect progressives to Party and public office. We do what we can with what we have to work with, and it would be far easier to move the Party if progressives would start participating in it en masse. It’s not easy undoing the decades of damage wrought by the DLC. If PDA members should decide to leave the Democratic Party to join in the formation of a new Party, we want to make damn sure that the old Party is unable to effectively rise up against us.
Before concluding this comment, readers should know that PDA policy allows for dissent, we just don’t allow bad manners (from anyone) on the pages of our blog, which is why the original post was closed. Note that the post was not removed.
Whatever avenue a person may choose to fight the right, the important thing is that the person becomes active. And the most important thing is that the left needs to agree to disagree and work together on common issues. Circular firing squads don’t help the left’s public image.
Ahhh, yeah, there was a third party candidate. A major one. Named George Wallace. That being said, most of his votes probably would have gone to Nixon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968
First of all, thank-you for posting here, and addressing many of the questions about PDA that have come up.
2nd of all, I basically agree with the following, provided it’s not interpreted as sugar coating a point of view:
“And the most important thing is that the left needs to agree to disagree and work together on common issues.”
I would even go further, and say that “left and right need to agree to disagree and work together on common interests”. Jane Hamsher has practiced this common sense notion, at times, and took flak from tribalistic Dems and lefties for it. It was Jane Hamsher who impressed me, during these incidents, and not her irrational critics.
Some more points:
I think PDA and FDL (former?) blogger Rayne would get along very well. Please acquaint yourself with her “Angry Left” series of diaries, especially the Roadmap one. I think PDA would would appreciate the breadth of her notion of what “get involved”, in an organized fashion, with the Democratic Party, entails. Furthermore, by fleshing out Rayne’s roadmap, more, and educating PDA’s membership about what controlling, or influencing, the Democratic Party would look like in an inside-organizational sense, I think at the very least you’d inspire PDA membership on the need to grow itself. How else could all those various functions be adequately staffed?
There is certainly a rich vein of progressives who can be reached, online, who enjoy political discussions. I came to the conclusion, years ago, that many preferred whining – endlessly – about Republicans (and, increasingly whining about the Democrats), to actually doing something about it. However, they can’t all be like that. It still is almost stunning to me that non-Veal Pen groups like PDA would still not get frequently mentioned in blogs and forums like FDL. Note, e.g., that Rayne didn’t mention PDA, either!
IMO, FDL would be a very good place to change that, and get recruits into PDA. FDL, like every other major political blog or forum that I know of, is anemic in political organizing. (Indeed, they tend to suck even at self-promotion.) I don’t want to get into it too much, right now, but no matter what I suggest, it’d probably be better if FDL and PDA bigwigs had a conversation, along these lines: “FDL is good at information dissemination to progressives, but very weak on political organizing. PDA is good at political organizing, but is not a common destination point for progressives to keep abreast of the latest information about politics. How can we leverage each others’ efforts?”
Finally, as I mentioned in Mike Hersh’s blog, I hope that PDA reaches out to Bueno de Mesquita and kindred political game theorist professionals. PDA’s implicit voting strategy is too timid. PDA might attract some of the large numbers of progressives who have completely given up on the Democratic Party, if you were to eschew lesser evilism, and be willing to work at throwing at least some bad Democrats under the bus in general elections.
Another aggressive voting/electoral strategy suggestion, that I will make (again), is for a joint PDA/FDL effort, to adopt a modified Full Court Press. The Full Court Press, in it’s original design, as expounded by jeffroby only targeted Democratic primaries. It is thus less aggressive than efforts that would throw a Democrat under the bus in the general election. By allowing minimalist candidates, attention can be focused on leveraging their Congressional campaigns on getting enduring political messages out to the public at next to no cost, instead of raising large amounts of money to get transient, candidate-specific messages out to the public, thus making a win on Election Day plausible. Additionally, participation in debates would help flesh out non-progressive positions held by the incumbent. Ralph Nader is looking to dredge up a slate of Democrats to challenge Obama, for basically this reason.
Benefits of an FDL/PDA Full Court Press in 2012 would be increased awareness and participation in both FDL and PDA, correct?
Spoiling the race between a corrupt, captured Democrat and a corrupt, backwards Republican is something I relish, frankly. No apologies.
I am no longer willing to contribute to my own political opression by voting for someone who *will not* and (most likely) *can not* represent my interests just because that person has a D after their name on the ballot.
Nixon–facing impeachment due to Watergate–tried to appease the Democrats to save his job. That explains his “liberalism.” He cared nothing for working people, even though he came from a working class background. Like Reagan. The election of the “Watergate Babies”–new Democrats to Congress–further forced his hand. Nixon was as much of a disaster as he could be, especially to working class people who happen to be African American. Like Reagan, Nixon stoked the fires of racism and division to hurt all but the powerful elite. His “Southern Strategy” remade politics in the USA for the worse. A dishonest, divisive, destructive force in our nation, Nixon was certainly a disaster for the working class.
What did you do about the 2004 Ohio effort?
PDA worked with Rep. John Conyers to investigate electoral abuses on the ground in Ohio.
Please don’t make things up, Michael. PDA is not having John Kerry asking them to mobilize the ‘progressive vote,’” we are engaging in a constructive dialog with a powerful elected official. If you really don’t know the difference, then that’s your problem, not ours.
If you find constructive engagement beneath you, that’s your right. Please respect our right to achieve progress in ways we know work well.
@jeffroby
“Individuals did not come forward. Now, one can argue that they should have, but I believe the FCP approach asked for too much AT THAT MOMENT. ”
Another POV is that you and I had no budget for getting candidates. At all. To support NPA, on my own I spent $125.00 for craigslist ads for backup candidates to primary Obama. Not a huge amount (I’m still poor…), but enough to generate a significant number of replies, some of which were highly encouraging. I’d say roughly half were willing to run, themselves, and the other half were merely interested in supporting the effort.
“The isolation flowing from heroic individuals running alone in a district was just too much. Now, one can blame people for not being smart enough to recognize the brilliance of my plan, and that might be comforting in the dark hours of night.
But it is more helpful to recognize that the plan was overly ambitious, and retool. ”
I don’t think the plan was overly ambitious. I think, rather, that we failed to successfully pitch it to even a minimum of people who had the resources to give it a firm start.
“So we get arguments that the NPA plan of running a challenger against Obama in the primaries and backing an independent in the generals is more ambitious than concentrating on local congressional races. But in fact, by concentrating mainly on the presidential, the NPA can have its forces working together and not be subject to that isolation which, in fact, has to be recognized and dealt with.
That the NPA is active and growing is at least partial proof that its focus on the presidential is correct. ”
I wrote a diary on a modified Full Court Press, for use by the NPA. However, nobody even commented on it. Also, NPA is a very new organization, and its not like it’s already achieved a size that’s overflowing with volunteers. Furthermore, communication from Anthony Noel made clear that it doesn’t fit in well with NPA’s current plans for growth.
I’ve continued to mention and write about it, but not with the idea that NPA will seize upon it, in this election cycle. However, I’m still convince the idea has merit, in this election cycle, in a non-NPA modified form. See, e.g., my comments below to Laura Bonham, where I urge PDA and FDL to join forces, in particular in the form of a modified Full Court Press. The “modified” part would simply reflect the PDA’s priorities, rather than the priorities that you settled on, months ago.
Methinks I have more faith in your idea than you do!
“Still, there is no reason that local forces already existing, or coming into existence on their own, cannot join up with the NPA.
But it takes more to join up with the NPA than being a good fellow or gal. It takes more than being a good progressive. It would require (by my personal interpretation of the NPA perspective) being willing to embrace the NPA platform in the Democratic primaries, and THEN supporting the independent NPA presidential pick in the generals.
So, meta, when you press the issue of the NPA expanding its scope to include congressionals, you do not include these local candidates adhering to the NPA perspective of Dem primary PLUS presidential independent in the generals.”
Ahh, have you read my not-so-famous diary NPA could profit from a Full Court Press shotgun approach in 2012 – True or False?
Following the strategy described for the Presidential election, minimalist NPA Candidates must commit to supporting an NPA approved candidate in the general election (not the Democrat that they lost to in the primary). If there is no NPA candidate to run in the general, then the losing primary candidate might simply say, “I do not support the winner of my Democratic Party primary, as the Democratic Party is corrupt and my challenger is another go-along-to-get-along career politician, who doesn’t give a hoot about you. So, vote however you think best, and may God have mercy!” Such a concession speech, alone, will probably make the papers in a quarter of the country.
OK, I didn’t explicitly mention supporting the final NPA candidate for President, but I don’t see where that’d be a problem for any candidate who is committed to supporting the NPA candidate in their own race.
” If you did that, I think you would find that your field of prospective local candidates would shrink quite a bit.
Again, I am not saying that the NPA embracing local races should be rejected out of hand, but involvement in local races should only be undertaken where it ADDS to the NPA presidential efforts, not SUBTRACTS from it. In your enthusiasm for local races, you have not yet adequately engaged this.”
Well, no need to address if for 2012. It’s not in the cards. Thus, I have moved on to proselytizing a non-NPA FCP in 2012.
Again, please stop making things up, Michael. PDA is the opposite of a corporate apologist. Please visit our website and get active with our progressive efforts: http://www.pdamerica.org/get-active/iot
When asked to explain your allegations, you made up excuses. Why am I not surprised you refused to substantiate your accusations?
Laura Bonham explained PDA’s relationship with the Green Party movement very well. I urge everyone to read her comments on this thread, and discount any and all fabricated accusations to the contrary.
Your refusal to understand this says more about you than about anything else. Your behavior splinters the left and alienates potential allies. It is destructive. If people like you and Anthony Noel didn’t exist, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, and the Chambers of Commerce would have to pay someone to play your role.
Those who want to achieve progress by building a winning coalition have problems with any style of “debate” which employs name-calling in lieu of logical or factual argument. Refusal to consider important information and refusal to support one’s assertions with anything more than wishful thinking and pure speculation hardly qualifies as “discourse.”
Rejecting established definitions of terms (spoiler) and facts (spoilers have tipped close elections to reactionaries), plus failure to understand important factors (Canada’s system is different from the US system) renders rational discussion impossible. Anyone who doesn’t have a problem with that is either very confused, unreasonable, or maybe even a useful pawn inadvertently advancing reaction and corporatism.
Defending Nixon as a means to question Humphrey misses the point and makes no sense to me. LBJ used his influence over his VP to curtail Humphrey’s anti-war public position.
In 1968, LBJ was close to reaching an agreement with the North and South Vietnamese to pull out American forces. Knowing that ending the War would ensure his defeat, Nixon and his team–including Henry Kissinger–urged the South Vietnamese to refuse any settlement. They told SVN that if elected, Nixon would give them a better deal. They also lied to the American public, saying they had a plan to end the War. They didn’t.
Had LBJ been re-elected or had Humphrey won, the war would have ended much earlier than 1975. That’s just about the War. On the full spectrum of progressive issues, Nixon was a disaster, and set the stage for worse disasters. Humphrey, by contrast, was a pioneer for racial equality, the working class and much more. He sponsoered the Humphrey-Hawkins Bill!
Getting Nixon in a narrow election over Humphrey was a monumental tragedy, one enabled by a catastrophic decision by many on the left. We should avoid repeating such a horrible error in 2012 and beyond.
Louisiana has run off voting–not instant. The results there are scary. I hope IRV can guarantee better outcomes than RV in LA.
This is complete BS, Michael: “Let me be crystal clear here. THE PDA Progressive Dems of America are the folks who helped destroy the Green Party.”
When we asked you to be clear or factual at all, you refused. Why?
I urge anyone reading this thread to understand that the attacks against PDA are unfounded. Please visit our website, get involved and help achieve progress: http://www.pdamerica.org
That’s one opinion. This is our experience working with Democrats:
“The most progressive elements of the Massachusetts Democratic party chalked up some satisfying victories at the recent state party convention. Among the items added to the party’s “action agenda”—which the party calls its “road map to electoral success in 2012″—were four measures heavily promoted by the Progressive Democrats of America, addressing such vital issues as healthcare, clean energy and the role of big money in elections.”
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=13691
The DNC voted to adopt Rep. Barbara Lee’s resolution to end the War in Afghanistan.
http://peaceandjusticeonline.org/2011/02/17/barbara-lee-bernie-sanders-war-in-afghanistan-war-on-the-middle-class/
DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/27-0
Wisconsin Dems Pass Corporate Personhood Resolution
http://www.pdamerica.org/get-informed/view/wisconsin-dems-pass-corporate-personhood-resolution/
TIME FOR PEACE! CONGRESSWOMAN LYNN WOOLSEY INVITES THE NORTH BAY TO A FORUM ON ENDING PERMANENT US WARFARE (GUEST SPEAKERS: Veterans for Peace * CODEPINK * Iraq Veterans Against the War * State and Local Officials * David Harris * Roni Krouzman *
Norman Solomon * Dolores Huerta (invited) * Daniel Ellsberg (invited))
http://pdsonoma.org/article/time-peace
Just to show this has been going on for several years:
Anti-War Resolution Passes California Democratic Party Convention http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141×9188
and My California Democratic Convention Report http://mydd.com/users/malacandra/posts/my-california-democratic-convention-report
This was my introduction to the NPA, posted at the PDA blog, cut and pasted verbatim and completely:
***
Mr. Hersh:
If Noam Chomsky knew you were using his words of years ago to try to boost the Democratic Party of today, he might very well sue your a$$. I know, because Chomsky supports the idea of primarying Obama and supporting an Independent or third-party candidate in 2012.
Trying to head off dissent is the opposite of democracy, sir, and by doing so you are only perpetuating illegal wars and corporate giveaways. Suggesting that the “lesser of two evils” argument is still viable at a time when the evil has already taken over is irresponsible at best, complicit in that evil at worst.
People seeking a real alternative – in other words, real progressives – would do well to visit http://www.newprogs.org. and see what we’re cooking up for Mr. Obama next year.
By Anthony Noel on 2011 06 16
***
Threats of lawsuits. Accusations that posting an opinion–with countless examples and facts in support on a blog with open commenting is “Trying to head off dissent” and “the opposite of democracy” as well as “irresponsible at best, complicit in that evil at worst.” And it went down-hill from there.
Anthony Noel may be an exception to the NPA M.O. but he’s hardly a model for ways to appeal to Democrats. As visitor to the Progressive Democrats of America blog, he did nothing to encourage anyone to support the NPA. His tone and approach were off-putting and haughty, bordering on elitist and abusive. If that’s how the NPA plans to build an alternative movement, count many people out. If not, then NPA should encourage its advocates to avoid alienating allies.
just because you say it would have ended sooner does not make it so. That is wishful thinking on your part, since supporting prowar candidates would have destroyed the antiwar movement like it did with obama. So they the prowar people would have had no effective opposition.
spoilers have only tipped elections to reactionaries when you have reactionary democrats like Gore and Obama.
Is this “What Progressives Do?”
This was my introduction to the NPA via Anthony Noel, posted at the PDA blog, (cut and pasted verbatim and completely) from here: http://www.pdamerica.org/blog/view/the-high-cost-of-voting-for-spoilers/
***
Mr. Hersh:
If Noam Chomsky knew you were using his words of years ago to try to boost the Democratic Party of today, he might very well sue your a$$. I know, because Chomsky supports the idea of primarying Obama and supporting an Independent or third-party candidate in 2012.
Trying to head off dissent is the opposite of democracy, sir, and by doing so you are only perpetuating illegal wars and corporate giveaways. Suggesting that the “lesser of two evils” argument is still viable at a time when the evil has already taken over is irresponsible at best, complicit in that evil at worst.
People seeking a real alternative – in other words, real progressives – would do well to visit http://www.newprogs.org. and see what we’re cooking up for Mr. Obama next year.
By Anthony Noel on 2011 06 16
***
Threats of lawsuits. Accusations that posting an opinion–with countless examples and facts in support on a blog with open commenting is “Trying to head off dissent” and “the opposite of democracy” as well as “irresponsible at best, complicit in that evil at worst.” And it went down-hill from there.
Here are some of Anthony Noel’s comments:
“Are you big enough to get over yourself?”
“Still afraid of the site, eh, Mike?”
“More notale is the fallacy that Al Gore would have been better then GWB. Both are corporatist, elitist stuffed shirts committed first to their parties and second to the people. Not what the constitution declares, just in case you haven’t read it recently, Mike.”
“Wow, Mike, you sure must like the sound of your own keyboard – and have not very much to do with your days – if both the verbosity and inanity of your responses here are any indication.”
This was his second good-bye forever post: “I’ve got far more pressing matters than talking to a wall. Perhaps you’ll open your mind to what could be, to paraphrase JFK, and ask Why not’?”
This was his storm-off post:
Mike, you bring new meaning to the words “pompous ass.”
Does it make you feel good to employ the same diversionary and untrutful tactics you decry in conservatives? To say something won’t work – after getting the proof that it can, which YOU asked for? Apparently so, because your original post and your comments since would do any cligning-for-dear-life-to-power corporatist proud.
Enjoy it while you can, its days are numbered. Such tactics didn’t work for Jason Rosenbaum at FDL before he left for a job where he could securely wedge his head up Congressional Democrats’ asses so far that he couldn’t be sure where he stopped and they started, and it won’t work for you, here.
But keep denying the reality outside your door, Mike. It’ll make breaking it down all the easier and more satisfying for the growing crowd that’s gathering outside it.
Goodbye – and good riddance.
By Anthony Noel on 2011 06 20
***
Then he complained here I closed out the thread comments explaining: “At this point, let’s all admit some of us are not talking about the same things. A few people on this thread are unwilling to agree with the basic premise. As long as those people refuse to accept the terms, this is a waste of time.
At this point, I am closing this thread, and inviting people to learn more about PDA, comment on the other blog posts, and get on with their lives.
By mike.hersh on 2011 06 21
***
Anthony Noel may be an exception to the NPA, but he’s hardly a model for ways to appeal to progressives. He did nothing to encourage anyone to support the NPA. His tone and approach were off-putting and haughty, bordering on elitist and abusive. If that’s how the NPA plans to build an alternative movement, count many people out. If not, then NPA should encourage its advocates to avoid alienating allies.
Note: Anthony Noel’s personal attacks against Al Gore seem at odds with this:
Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take ‘Bold Action’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/al-gore-obama-climate-change-rolling-stone_n_881947.html
Al Gore would have been no better than Bush? Did I miss Bush’s Rolling Stone article criticizing Obama from the left?
There are alot of democrats that become good lefties when they are out of power and cant change a darn thing anymore. Nevertheless when Gore was in office he did nothing to stop climate change. He opposed Kyoto. Obama theoretically opposed wars when it didnt count too.
i should say global warming rather than wars. Though it is the same issue with the war. Gore had neocons running his political campaign. A neocon dem was also has vp, and neocon foriegn policy adivsors. His dlcers were universally supportive of the war.
I can’t understand anyone who insists George W. Bush is even close to as progressive as Al Gore. While I respect the right to hold any opinion, to me this sounds like someone saying the Yankees spend too little money on players, the Beatles were too unpopular, or John Waters is way too uptight as a filmmaker.
Al Gore never “opposed Kyoto.” People rely on, repeat, and believe these canards, but this only makes bloggers seem uninformed.
There’s no shortage of false information about Al Gore who was the target of particularly vicious attacks from the right, and from agents on the left who were in part funded by the right. Beware of the disinformation about Gore from CounterPunch writers and others who supported Nader’s spoiler campaign in 2000.
In any case, repeating these attack make us seem absurd in the eyes of people who nkow what’s going on. It undermines all of us, and hurts our cause and reputations. Please see: http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Nov%2098/111298c.htm
NOVEMBER 12, 1998 12:00 Noon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Vice President Al Gore
Office of the Vice President, 202-456-7035
Gore Statement on U.S. Signing of Kyoto Protocol
WASHINGTON – November 12 – The following was released today by the Office of the Vice President:
Our signing today of the Kyoto Protocol reaffirms America’s commitment to meeting our most profound environmental challenge — global climate change.
U.S. leadership was instrumental in achieving a strong and realistic agreement in Kyoto — one that couples ambitious environmental targets with flexible market mechanisms to meet those goals at the lowest possible cost. At the close of the Kyoto conference, President Clinton and I made clear his intention to sign this historic accord. In the eleven months since Kyoto, the evidence of global warming has grown only stronger, and so has our resolve. The recent budget agreement provides more than $1 billion for our domestic climate change efforts — a 25 percent increase. And a growing number of leading corporations are pledging voluntary cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.
With talks now under way in Buenos Aires to continue the vital work begun in Kyoto, our signing of the Protocol underscores our determination to achieve a truly global solution to this global challenge. We hope to achieve progress in refining the market-based tools agreed to in Kyoto, and in securing the meaningful participation of key developing countries.
Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. As we have said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification without the meaningful participation of key developing countries in efforts to address climate change.
We are confident that in time the nations of the world will arrive at a course that maintains strong and sustainable economic growth, respects the needs and aspirations of all nations, and protects future generations from the threat of global warming.
Yes. You’re wrong and your political analysis is incorrect.
the dirty fucking hippies did not vote for wallace, imho.
I knew LBJ. He was a friend of my father’s. He didn’t run again because he KNEW he had screwed up in Vietnam so badly. He escalated the war because he feared being labeled as “soft on Communism” by the Republicans, and because he allowed himself to be persuaded by the likes of Westmoreland that a successful intervention was possible.
He always had his doubts. His primary goals were to eliminate poverty by taking some change from the rich, who he hated, and to push through the Civil Rights Acts because it was just the right thing to do. He initially viewed Vietnam as something of a sideshow.
He was wrong. He screwed up. He knew it. He felt horrible about it. He thought he had screwed up so much that he did not deserve re-election, and he was right. He knew the antiwar protesters were right by mid-1968.
Why didn’t the Left unite behind Humphrey? Simple. Their candidates had been RFK, who was murdered, and Gene McCarthy, who had lost too many delegates. Humphrey was LBJ’s VICE-PRESIDENT, and therefore was logically expected to continue LBJ’s policies, THAT’S why. The Left saw no real difference between Humphrey and Nixon on their biggest issue, which was the Vietnam War, so they supported neither.
You have no more evidence that Humphrey really would have ended the involvement in Vietnam had he won any earlier than Nixon actually did. Just as you have no evidence that Gore would not have invaded Iraq anymore than Bush did. We will never know what really would have happened unless we come up with travel to alternate universes.
You also fail to note that it was white backlash to all of the civil rights acts in the South, and to the Fair Housing Act by traditional white ethnic minorities in the North and Midwest that helped do Humphrey in.
As far as Obama goes, he’s every bit as corporatist as Bush ever was, maybe more so, and so are the national Democrats. There is no difference between them when it comes to my standard of living. Therefore, I won’t support them. If there’s a Republican President in 2013, IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. Not for my standard of living. And not for imperial foreign policy.
And don’t give me social issues. They are largely irrelevant at this point. Economics and inequality of wealth trump all for millions of voters like me. I’ll take a Social Democrat like Marcy Kaptur who is pro-life over a pro-choice Fascist like Barack Obama any day. Don’t like it? Tough.
As far as your last paragraph goes, look in the mirror, you damned fool. Voting for the lesser of two evils has led to the unmitigated disasters of both the Clinton and Obama Administrations if you consider, as I do, the advance of corporate interests to be an unmitigated disaster.
You may well advocate anti-corporate measures, but you continue to back candidates like Obama who are unflinching running dog lackeys of the corporatist regime. Which makes you one as well, oh Democratic Party Agent of Third Party Voter suppression.
And you will not succeed in your attempts on this site.
i dont care whether you understand something i did not say.
Bullshit. Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in 1970, two years before Watergate was ever even an idea in his political advisers’ beady little brains. He actually had a deep-seated hatred of rich people who had inherited their wealth, and kept their inheritance taxes high.
“…our goal is to work inside the party to push it leftward…”
Impossible. A fool’s errand and a waste of time and resources. Give it up and I’ll join you. You can’t reform sociopathic people. And the corporatist Democrats are sociopaths. They don’t care about people like me. They are my enemies every bit as much as the Republicans are.
Anthony has some rough edges, but were it not for his passion, NPA would be just another idea that was tossed around on the internet. While I have have some differences with NPA – the key one being that I consider their strategy too aggressive, by being too anti-Democrat – the lack of strong leadership in this country against the God-awful CORRUPTION of the Democratic Party is appalling.
E.g., when Obama stabbed us in the back with his healthcare perfidy, cutting a deal with Tauzin, where were the strong progressive voices screaming bloody murder, and demanding that Obama apologize? Where were the unions? Where was MoveOn? Anthony doesn’t suffer from this particular defect of reticence.
At FDL, many if not most readers are familiar with the notion of the Veal Pen. We know why certain players wouldn’t dream of doing this – at least not for more than a day or so, until the White House leans on big Democratic donors to turn the screws on ostensibly progressive organization, who are supposed to serve in a watchdog role.
The betrayals inflicted by the Democrats and their Veal Pen willing victims accumulate in one’s psyche. Some people simply despair, and drop out. Others get angry, but don’t try to harness their anger in a productive direction. Neither of these two groups will do much to benefit their fellow citizens.
But others, like Anthony Noel, get angry, and get active. If enough anger is – how shall I put this – not properly channeled toward the “get active” activities, it may spill out in less than endearing ways.
I can think of worse sins….
A good deal of the skepticism of making deep changes within the Democratic Party is justified. Making deep changes within either the Democratic or Republican parties will involve displacing or marginalizing the “pros”. Just getting good candidates to run, and even aggressively throwing the worst incumbents under the bus, will not fully excise the plutocratic, cancerous rot underlaying the legacy parties. PDA seems to be weak in this area (i.e., attacking the underlying rot, consisting of outside-the-limelight “pros”), which is part of the reason I have suggested PDA embracing Rayne’s Roadmap. I interpret implementation of her roadmap as being capable of partly exposing and neutralizing the “pros” spoken of by John Emerson in the following. (Please read the whole diary on Indispensable Enemies, if you haven’t, already.)
//////////////////
Indispensable Enemies is a wild ride, and very few will want to stay on all the way to the end. Karp has no respect for either of the major parties, and his low opinion extends to such Democratic heroes as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and even McGovern. He was politically unaffiliated, but identified with the Progressive and Populist traditions, and nowadays he seems to be admired mostly by paleocons and right-libertarians. But his insights into the two-party system can help dissidents of any stripe understand what’s wrong with our political process, and more specifically, what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.
The basic idea of the book is that when you’re trying to understand American politics, you don’t want to start with the candidates and elected officials, or with the voters and public opinion, or even with the lobbyists or with the media, but with the political parties. Karp overstates his case considerably, but there are few who could read his book without learning something from it.
The parties and the pros work for themselves first, last and always, and a party’s ruling group would always rather maintain control of a losing party than win and lose control. Parties do not depend on elected officials for funding. Quite the opposite: elected officials who don’t have their own organizations and who can’t self-finance are pretty much dependent on the party. (This is especially true of low-seniority members of the House, who are little more than but peons.) The party gets its funding from donors, and donors give money as often to prevent action asthey do to get action: sometimes all they want is nothing.
By and large party leaders do not want reform, progress, or change, since anything new makes their job harder and threatens to bring in new and competing leaders. The two party oligarchies support one another against the dissident forces in either party, and often their disputes are choreographed dog-and-pony shows leading, like pro wrestling, to foreordained conclusions — as we have seen with free trade, tax reduction, and deregulation, often the two parties are in agreement on the issues.
Some examples of what party leaders will do in order to keep control:
.
.
.
A. Sabotage a popular candidate of their own party, either because he is in some way dissident on the issues, or just because he seems likely to try to take over the party organization.
.
.
.
D. Build campaigns around wedge issues, peripheral to the real business of government, which set a bloc of voters in one party against a bloc in the other party. Wedge issues aren’t a Rove invention: for decades after the Civil War, the most visible issues were prohibition, foreign-language schools, and anti-Yankee or anti-Reb sentiment. Wedge issues cost little or nothing, and if the level of animosity can be kept high enough they’re the gift that keeps on giving.
For example, the Republicans have been flogging abortion for three decades now without delivering much of anything. They do not really want to win, because if they do, they’ll not only anger their own moderate voters, but will also lose their leverage with anti-abortion voters. Peripheral issues of this kind are decoys allowing allow the two parties to quietly achieve goals that they really care about.
/////////////////////
(emphasis mine)
Clinton/Gores real record. Signed at last minute after gutting it.
Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore’s compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse gases, and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty. These would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporations that build nuclear power plants. It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn’t stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change affects big corporate contributors.
Meanwhile, when the presidential debate touched on oil exploration, Gore “bravely” defends the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that focus groups have shown him he cannot give up. Under cover of that stand, though, he has opened up the Arctic National Petroleum Reserve, 2000 miles of southeastern Alaska coastline, and parts of the California coastline, not to mention selling off the Elk Hills Petroleum reserve to Occidental Oil, his family’s patron company, in the largest privatization in American government history. Now Gore seems poised to break another promise and allow drilling along the Florida coastline, which he has promised never to do. As long as it’s not ANWR, it’s likely at risk under a Gore administration.
The Clinton-Gore Administration did not even propose any across the board fuel CAFE standard increases during its 8-year administration. Thanks to that freeze and the effect of the exemptions given to SUVs, average fuel efficiency is now down to 24.5 mpg, the lowest level seen since 1980. Clinton-Gore in their 1992 campaign, promised that in 2000 A.D., the average would reach 40 mpg.
Gore’s support for truly clean alternative fuels has never matched his promises. Instead of fighting for expanded solar energy and conservation budgets, he and Clinton have wasted over one billion dollars in a giveaway to GM, Ford and Chrysler for a clean energy project that never produced even a single prototype. Taxpayer subsidies to fossil fuel and atomic power companies continue unabated. He cannot even make solar…..
http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/naderopenletter.html#globalwarming
In my opinion, PDA is nothing but a group that is funded by a bunch of well-heeled wannabe liberals in order to try and keep a large segment of progressives trapped “under the one big tent for all.”
PDA did the dirty work for Obama and the corporate Democrats in helping those like Roger Hickey and Robert Borosage derail the single-payer universal health care movement by working out a back-room deal during talks about what the Democratic Party Platform should include.
Leaders of Progressive Democrats of America and the Campaign for America’s Future were well aware— as was team Obama— that 72% of the delegates to the State Convention of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party had passed, after a six year battle with the corporate Democrats in the State and Nationally, the most advanced single-payer universal health care resolution in the country which we intended to have taken onto the floor of the Democratic Party National Convention in Colorado.
PDA worked with the likes of Leah Daughtry, the National Convention CEO who was hand-picked by none other then Frank Schreck of Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck, to make sure single-payer never got to the floor of the National Democratic Party Convention by working out wording calling for “affordable health care for all.”
In fact, it was members of PDA-Minnesota who forced us into a compromise on single-payer when most Minnesotans clearly are in favor of:
No-fee/no-premium, comprehensive, all-inclusive (prenatal to burial) universal health care that is publicly funded, publicly administered and publicly delivered.
Resolutions to this effect were passed in over 300 precinct caucuses across the state in all 87 counties in Minnesota yet, members of PDA-Minnesota working together with the Minnesota DFL State Chair and what I call “the Summit Hill Club” (the area where all of the wealthy Minnesotans live including our present liberal billionaire Governor Mark Dayton)refused to allow such a resolution to be voted on.
In fact, as I carried this resolution from county to county visiting all 87 Minnesota counties picking up about 400 people to run for delegates to the MN DFL State Convention, I was red-baited without let-up by members of PDA-Minnesota and the only thing our resolution articulated was exactly what Frances Perkins had advocated in the way of health care that was supposed to have been one of the components of the New Deal. In fact, Frances Perkins had extended an invitation to her long-time close friend, Minnesota’s socialist governor Floyd Olson to come to Washington to plead the case for a national public health care system to Franklin Roosevelt. Olson, quite literally, got up out of death bed to meet with FDR to no avail.
PDA pushes this noble idea of “Healthcare not warfare.” However, PDA refuses to support a national public health care system paid for with funds derived from ending these real wars which would create around ten-million new, good, well-paying jobs providing primary care through around 30,000 community and neighborhood health care centers supported by a network of some 800 specialized health care centers.
PDA has refused to acknowledge that the United States government must become the employer of first choice by putting people to work providing the services people need, solving their problems and social problems with PDA choosing to hone in on supporting Obama’s phony “green economy, green jobs” initiative from which Wall Street will again reap tremendous profits courtesy of the U.S. tax-payer.
On the PDA board sits Carl Davidson who pushes the idea without any substance or merit of “high road capitalists and low road capitalists;” progressives, Davidson says, should work with Obama’s good high road capitalists.
PDA does not want any part of creating a new political party offering liberals, progressives and those on the left a Canadian-style New Democratic Party which in fact is historically linked to the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.
It was PDA working with its “partner,” “Progressives for Obama” who by their own admission printed for all to see on their website reached out to millions of progressives Americans planting in people’s minds the idea that Barack Obama is a progressive for peace insinuating he was for single-payer universal health care. In fact, it was from Carl Davidson that I received a YouTube video of Barack Obama advocating for single-payer universal health care at a meeting in Chicago. And on their web page front and center is a photograph (still there) of Barack Obama speaking at a peace demonstration— the implication being for all to see, that Barack Obama is for peace when in fact Barack Obama by his own words has always been in Wall Street’s pocket.
In fact, it was these very PDA leaders claiming a membership of tens of thousands, who told us they were going to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire;” apparently none of them dared strike the first match to light this fire.
Ouch.
I’d appreciate a point-by-point rebuttal by a PDA’er who is in position to know what they’re talking about. Preferably somebody like Laura Bonham, rather than Mike Hersh. (I’ve found Hersh to be dodgy.)
This will probably get buried considering how that happens with the nested comments. And I’m not getting into the pie fight that’s going on (too much reading)
But about your last link Mike. I was there. I was at that convention. And in regards to this
I wasn’t at this meeting, but from what I recall of being told of this from a very good source (someone named in the post), is that the person most adamantly opposed to this resolution was Christine Pelosi. Again, I wasn’t there and this is from what I remember being told, but one of the speakers who was in favor of this was, or was almost driven to tears by the aggressive invective response by Ms. Pelosi. Something about how Democrats will lose big if they’re antiwar. How it’ll destroy the party. Yada, yada, warmonger rhetoric
And the impeachment resolution. If you happened to be one of the hundreds to attend the impeachment forum at the Crest Theater, our DFA/PDA group was the one that did the grassroots work putting it together
http://warisacrime.org/node/10043
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/impeachment-begins-at-home/content?oid=56818
I should also add, and I’m not speaking for anyone else, and I’m not inferring anything on you or your comments, and this is just a good opportunity to say it but
FWIW, pigs’ll fly before I ever vote for Obama or any Democrat (or Republican) for President or Senator again
I have been a supporter and worked for the New Democratic Party when I lived, for ten years, in Manitoba, Canada. The NDP is a great party with a very diverse constituency including liberals, progressives and leftists.
I would encourage everyone to read an excellent new book written by Howard Pawley who served as an elected member of the New Democratic Party for almost 20 years… first as a member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, then as the Attorney General for Manitoba and finally the Manitoba Premier (pretty much like a governor here in the states but with more power).
The name of Howard Pawley’s book is “Keep True, a life in politics.”
“Keep True” is a very unique book in that the author is as critical of himself as he is of the opposition as he turns this book into an educational tool for political activists who believe the purpose of running for public office— and the purpose of government— really is about making life better for people with politicians being part of the struggle of people for better lives.
In my opinion there are two very good examples for those of us looking to break free of this two-party trap: the New Democratic Party in Canada and our own Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party whose socialist governor was preparing, at the time of his untimely death from cancer, to run for president on a national Farmer-Labor Party ticket against Franklin D. Roosevelt because Roosevelt’s reforms were not enough to solve the problems of working people, family farmers, professionals and small business people.
Unfortunately neither of Minnesota’s socialist governors were able to write books like Howard Pawley has done.
There is no way to stress enough how important Howard Pawley’s book is to people seeking to be free of the Democratic Party.
My grandchildren, who live in Winnipeg, made a sign to hang on their front door: “We support our mailman.” While they are very young, like many Canadians— including working class children their age— they are very aware of Jack Layton’s and the NDP’s recent historic “orange crush” at the polls. My grandson is proud to drink Orange Crush, carry around the bottle with pride, which he identifies with Jack Layton. I bring this up because it demonstrates a kind of very important working class culture that develops alongside a labor-led people’s party willing to stick with it over the long-haul.
Read Howard Pawley’s book “Keep True” and you will quickly learn the importance of “hanging in there” over the years with a real labor-based people’s party like the NDP.
I would also note that at their recent national convention in Vancouver, NDP’ers voted to keep “socialism” as part of their constitution.
The Canadian CCF, the forerunner to the New Democratic Party has its roots in a meeting that took place in a barn in Saskatchewan to organize the “Farmer-Labor Party” after a group from Saskatchewan and Manitoba met with Minnesota’s socialist Governor Floyd Olson.
So, those who say that the United States isn’t Canada have not a clue or an inkling of real alternative politics in this country and the huge mistake that now needs to be corrected which was the merger of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party with the Democratic Party— quite likely the biggest blunder ever made in U.S. politics as far as working people are concerned.
As our neighbors to the north learned from us over 75 years ago, we now need to learn from them about real progressive politics free from Wall Street dictate.
This is a terrific discussion and now that PDA is at the table we should hear from them why they derailed the single-payer movement since the question they will once again be forcing upon progressives is what will be their call to re-elect Barack Obama— although one of their own has published his idea that they should find a “candidate” to pretend to challenge Obama in the Primary which should lead us to be very leery if some candidate happens to pop up.
We need to look north of the border for a solution to our dilemma not to those like PDA and the Progressives for Obama— or, as they now call themselves— Progressives Rising… another phony scheme because these fake progressives have never risen to the challenge of trying to force Obama to do what he— with PDA, CAF and PR’s help— led voters to believe he would do.
Now we are told Obama’s great progressive rising is to take place during his second term. Lies; all lies.
Yes; a point by point rebuttal from PDA would be good; I welcome this.
“We need to look north of the border for a solution to our dilemma not to those like PDA and the Progressives for Obama— or, as they now call themselves— Progressives Rising… another phony scheme because these fake progressives have never risen to the challenge of trying to force Obama to do what he— with PDA, CAF and PR’s help— led voters to believe he would do.”
“Progressives Rising” will be competing with the wondrous-sounding, newly announced “Rebuild the Dream” movement, which will be led by Van Jones, but have supporters like MoveOn and the AFL-CIO. With a Veal Pen organization like MoveOn in their corner, what could possibly go wrong?
Can’t say that I’m optimistic, though they say some of the right things.
“Jones and MoveOn.org will officially launch the new “Rebuild the Dream” campaign in New York City tonight. This morning I interviewed Jones and MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben about what the campaign will look like and what they hope to accomplish in the coming year.
Jones, a former green jobs adviser to the Obama administration, envisions “Rebuild the Dream” as a progressive response to the Tea Party. “The entire DC establishment, in both parties, has been captured by the bad logic of war and austerity, and the gravitational pull of the Tea Party,” says Jones. “The peace and prosperity agenda that most of us voted for in 2008 doesn’t have a center of gravity anymore and that’s why people feel so demoralized. But we’re about to re-establish that center of gravity.” The aim is to “change the conversation” by building a movement for economic justice that will advocate on behalf of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, college graduates who can’t find a job, Americans who’ve lost their homes or whose mortgages are underwater, and embattled cops, firefighters, nurses and teachers.”
True.
dodgy is an understatement.
He is a marginalizing hippie-punching neoliberal and I stand by every one of my own words he cites above in trying to show that it’s my unwillingness to accept the premise of his bullshit theory is is somehow unfair.
He wrote the piece at PDA, he got comments he didn’t like, and he took his ball and went home.
Period.
Here’s what Noam Chomsky said about spoiler-backing in 2004: “These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them.’ That’s a way of saying, ‘Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you.’ Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about Alan. On what basis do you make your outlandish claims? We’re a PAC, all our funders are on the record. None of them are “well-heeled wannabe liberals.” It’s these kinds of totally fabricated, untrue and misleading attacks that undermine the reputation and effectiveness of some on the left. Such reckless disregard for the truth hurts everyone on the left, and only helps the right wing.
I take those attacks from the likes of you as the highest praise. I’d be worried if someone with your tenuous grasp didn’t attack me at least some of the time. The rest of the time you come up with things like this:
“I’ve enjoyed our exchange, MIke. You’ve made your points, I’ve made mine, and I once again bid you peace and happiness.”
By Anthony Noel on 2011 06 17
Alan claims: “PDA did the dirty work for Obama and the corporate Democrats in helping those like Roger Hickey and Robert Borosage derail the single-payer universal health care movement by working out a back-room deal during talks about what the Democratic Party Platform should include.”
This is the exact opposite of what happened, and a complete mockery the truth. PDA never wavered from 100% support for Single Payer Healthcare. Never.
In fact, we stormed the Democratic Platform drafting process and forced through language demanding universal healthcare and deleting references to universal coverage. We took over “Take Back America” forums on healthcare to push for Single Payer.
Alan–why are you doing this? Do you really not know the truth or do you just not care? Once again, this is the exact reason the left cannot make progress we should. People attacking those who are actually getting things done, with reckless disregard for the truth.
Alan claims “In fact, as I carried this resolution from county to county visiting all 87 Minnesota counties picking up about 400 people to run for delegates to the MN DFL State Convention, I was red-baited without let-up by members of PDA-Minnesota….”
I call BS on you Alan. Who were those members? What did they say, exactly? I challenge you to substantiate these accusations.
Alan claims: “PDA pushes this noble idea of ‘Healthcare not warfare.’ However, PDA refuses to support a national public health care system paid for with funds derived from ending these real wars which would create around ten-million new, good, well-paying jobs providing primary care through around 30,000 community and neighborhood health care centers supported by a network of some 800 specialized health care centers.”
This is complete nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about PDA knows about PDA’s tireless work for “a national public health care system paid for with funds derived from ending these real wars.” Alan is 100% wrong about his accusation. PDA supports the Bernie Sanders healthcare bill, and John Conyers’ HR 676. I’m personally working with Rep. Conyers and his staff on that.
Alan claims: “PDA has refused to acknowledge that the United States government must become the employer of first choice by putting people to work providing the services people need, solving their problems and social problems with PDA choosing to hone in on supporting Obama’s phony “green economy, green jobs” initiative from which Wall Street will again reap tremendous profits courtesy of the U.S. tax-payer.”
This statement is patently false. PDA has done no such thing. PDA supports John Conyers’ “Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act,” and I’m personally working with Rep. Conyers and his staff on that.
Alan claims, “On the PDA board sits Carl Davidson….”
Check out our board: http://www.pdamerica.org/about/advisory-board/ Carl is not on it. He’s not listed as an emeritus member. Who is? Media Benjamin, Thom Hartmann, Tom Hayden, David Swanson, Steve Cobble, Jim Hightower, Jodie Evans, Andy Shallal, Lila Garrett, Mimi Kennedy, and several of the most progressive members of Congress. But no Carl Davidson.
“PDA does not want any part of creating a new political party”
Well that much is true, but Alan Maki does not want any part of doing what PDA does. What is PDA?
Progressive Democrats of America was founded in 2004 to transform the Democratic Party and our country. We seek to build a party and government controlled by citizens, not corporate elites-with policies that serve the broad public interest, not just private interests. As a grassroots PAC operating inside the Democratic Party, and outside in movements for peace and justice, PDA played a key role in the stunning electoral victories of November 2006 and 2008. Our inside/outside strategy is guided by the belief that a lasting majority will require a revitalized Democratic Party built on firm progressive principles.
Alan wants to undermine all of that with untrue, unfair attacks.
Alan relates “In fact, it was from Carl Davidson that I received a YouTube video of Barack Obama advocating for single-payer universal health care at a meeting in Chicago.”
Considering we support single-payer, why wouldn’t we make a point that Obama advocated for it? It’s part of holding his feet to the fire–something we do every single day.
Alan claims: “And on their web page front and center is a photograph (still there) of Barack Obama speaking at a peace demonstration— the implication being for all to see, that Barack Obama is for peace when in fact Barack Obama by his own words has always been in Wall Street’s pocket.”
So many misleading comments in one short statement. Please everyone–look at PDA’s website and see for yourself. It’s http://www.pdamerica.org/ and if you can find this photograph let me know where it is. Also, showing Obama did speak out for peace and contrasting that with his policies is part of holding his feet to the fire–something we do every single day. Or did I just say that? We criticize Obama for pro-Wall St. policies and appointments. We organize campaigns for progressive policies, including Amending the Constitution to end Corporate “Personhood.” None of the claims Alan makes are accurate or fair.
Alan complains: “In fact, it was these very PDA leaders claiming a membership of tens of thousands, who told us they were going to ‘hold Obama’s feet to the fire;’ apparently none of them dared strike the first match to light this fire.”
We have well over 100,000 members. We hold Obama’s feet to the fire. See our website. Don’t take my word for it. Check out http://www.pdamerica.org/
You got it, metamars. I did my best to correct the outlandish accusations against PDA. Ouch indeed!
I shouldn’t have to dignify such unfair and reckless attacks with any response, but I did so. I wonder if Alan Maki has the decency to apologize for all of his attacks? Why do I think not?
I’d appreciate something from you, metamars. Since you now know more about what PDA does and doesn’t do–that we’re grassroots and depend on people like you pitching in–will you help with the Primary Baucus effort? If not, why not?
Anthony–
Anyone who wants to can verify that you’re accusing me of doing what you do. You walked away from the thread after posting flames and insults three times! http://www.pdamerica.org/blog/view/the-high-cost-of-voting-for-spoilers/#comments
PDA believes the exact opposite of what you keep claiming we believe. Why do you insist on misleading people, Anthony? At this point, you cannot claim ignorance of PDA’s goals and achievements. You have to be just lying.
Everyone reading this: Don’t take my word for it, check out our website: http://www.pdamerica.org/
PDA is dedicated to reforming our system, just as you claim you are. The difference is, our approach is working. It’s been working. We’re going to keep working on these strategies that work. Everyone reading this: Don’t take my word for it, check out our website: http://www.pdamerica.org/
You have nothing to support your contentions, Anthony, except your opinion and your tenuous grasp on reality. So you attack PDA, with reckless disregard for the truth. Everything you plan to do imperils the people you tell yourself you’re supporting–workers, the poor, our veterans.
You have at most 1% of the public with you. Everyone else sees through your elitism. Everyone else understands your impotence in nearly every situation–except for the rare occasions when you can bamboozle enough people to vote against their own interests and spoil a close election.
That you so aggressively advocate empowering extreme right wing elements betrays your real concerns, and shows you have no consideration for workers, the poor, our veterans. You eagerly sacrifice their well-being, even their lives, in your schemes.
PDA is successful doing things you claim aren’t possible. By refusing to paint everyone with a broad brush, and by working with people who can actually help us accomplish things, we’re making real progress. No wonder you lash out at us, Anthony. Still, you should be ashamed.
PDA has done and will continue doing what Laura said. We’re not telling anyone they have to do anything and we’re not attacking any other progressives for trying things their way. We’re doing the hard work of building effective coalitions. Like with our rally and lobby day with the National Nurses United for single-payer healthcare. Like with our letter to the Senate for Healthcare NOT Warfare with 25,000+ signatures. Like with our work on United for Equality’s call-in and lobby day for the ERA coming up. Don’t take our word for it, check out our website: http://www.pdamerica.org/
You’re entitled to your opinions, but I strongly disagree. Obama won. Gore would have won, had the Supreme Court not stopped the full, fair recount in Florida.
Nader was able to spoil the 2000 election because it was so close–and because Nader kept it close enough for the Bushes to steal it.
If you think you’d be better off with McCain and Palin in office rather than Obama and Biden, and if you think you’d have been worse off with Gore rather than Bush, then you’re entitled to believe that.
You’re not entitled to tell those of us who care about the damage done and damage avoided that we can’t or shouldn’t care about all of that. Damage to women’s rights–especially choice. Damage to the environment–especially global warming. Damage to the economy, Social Security, and much more. You don’t have to care about any of that. Many of us care a lot.
“Rough edges” is an understatement After dozens of posts on a blog which is read by 1,000s if not 10,000s of progressives, Anthony Noel failed to delineate anything positive. He had plenty of time to insult and attack PDA and by extension people who work with us and our board members–even people he works with himself! Like David Swanson. Anthony admitted his approach could take decades, but showed 0 concern for the real suffering it could inflict on innocent people. Still, he lashes out at people who dare to question his approach.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about PDA. We get no funds from the Democratic Party. None. We have have and never will. We support progressive candidates against DCCC-backed candidates. We help candidates the DCCC ignores or opposes like Christine Cegalis (IL), Andrea Miller (VA) and Debbie Cook (CA) and Marcy Winograd (CA) and Norman Solomon (CA) when (almost) no one else will. We bring in our allies to support them as well. I’ve personally worked for all those candidates and more. I’ve traveled across the county, sacrificed financially, stayed up all night, pounded the pavement in the hot sun and bitter cold.
We go after incumbent Democrats. We carried Ed O’Reilly’s challenge against John Kerry. We helped elect Donna Edwards over Al Wynn. I personally worked on both of those efforts as well. Check our website and see all of the ways PDA is not “just another idea that was tossed around on the internet.”
Anthony’s penchant for attacking people who actually get things done reveals he’s a coalition splitter, a 1 percenter. Those who think he’s fighting for them should think again. As far as I can tell, NPA is “just another idea that was tossed around on the internet.” Unless it’s must better and different from the convoluted authoritarian mess Anthony portrays, it should be tossed away.
Then what did you say if not Al Gore wasn’t worth supporting over Bush? If that’s not what you meant, then please illuminate me.
I just gave it, revealing you were completely wrong.
Care to explain why you attacked PDA with such misleading and erroneous statements?
“I’d appreciate something from you, metamars. Since you now know more about what PDA does and doesn’t do–that we’re grassroots and depend on people like you pitching in–will you help with the Primary Baucus effort? If not, why not?”
First of all, where is the Primary Baucus effort, in cyberspace? As I’ve previously mentioned, the links in the PDA email to me that announced it are dead. I also did a quick google for it, and did not find it.
Secondly, I live in NJ, so direct action for me in such a distant state is all but impossible. The best I could do is phone calls.
Thirdly, as somebody who is a through and through outside-the-box type, and who has been thinking about the problems of the systemic rot of our democracy for a few years, and who furthermore has many of the skills, and is sacrificing to acquire the remaining skills, to implement prototypes of some of my many ideas, it wouldn’t make much sense for me to abandon my projects, and instead prioritize a Primary Baucus campaign. It sounds vain, but unless I come into some substantial $$, and so could pay somebody else to implement my ideas, they’re not going to happen. My honest opinion is that that makes no sense, as I’m confident that some of my ideas are more important than primarying a single Senator.
Fourthly, if I have $$, I’d certainly be favorable to dropping some of it on a Primary Baucus campaign. As should be obvious, unlike some other participants in this thread, I’m not opposed to trying to clean up the Democratic Party. However, right now, I can’t cover my rent, which is due in about a week. So, funding Primary Baucus couldn’t happen until I get my next job, anyway.
Now, I have a question for you: Is PDA willing to consider a Full Court Press, or not? This is somewhat more aggressive than what I’ve seen from PDA, so far, but wouldn’t require PDA to throw any Dem under the bus in the general election. It could also help dramatically grow PDA’s membership (as well as FDL’s, if you take my advice and forge a partnership with them.)
First; of all the picture of Barack Obama speaking at a peace demonstration is on the Progressives for Obama’s web site; I never said it was on PDA’s website.
Second; explain the relationship of Carl Davidson to PDA. Davidson insinuates he is a leader of PDA in many places. Let us have it from you his relationship with PDA. Davidson in many of his Progressives for Obama’s list serve suggests there is an organizational relationship with PDA; what is this relationship?
Third; Tom Hayden one of the PDA board members who is an initiating member of the Progressives for Obama along with Carl Davidson, has stated he intends to support Obama for re-election; is this the position of PDA?
Fourth; posting something on a blog is not the same as bringing people into the streets to hold Obama’s “feet to the fire.” There is simply no evidence your claimed 100,000 members have been brought out in an organized way to accomplish this.
Fifth; you support Obama for re-election. Let us see the communications between PDA and Obama which would lead you to continue supporting— rather than opposing— Obama’s re-election.
Sixth; each and every member of the MN DFL Progressive Caucus which claims to be a member of Progressive Democrats of America has engaged in vicious red-baiting; all twelve members beginning with its current Chair Steve Linnerooth, Joel Clemmer, Grace Kelly and Dan Brown all of whom claim to be members of PDA; are they or are they not?
In fact, PDA along with Donna Smith and John Conyers agreed to not include single-payer in the National Democratic Party Platform and you agreed to the present language which refers to “affordable” health care.
I will let everyone judge whether PDA an organization claiming 100,000 has done what a 100,000 member organization could have done— and should have done— to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire.” At least we all now know exactly what you mean by “holding Obama’s feet to the fire;” you mean you will make a blog posting. Fair enough; thanks for telling us this now we all feel better and have more confidence in PDA.
Quite frankly, an organization of 100,000 members would have much more political clout than PDA has even if this membership was no more than these people paying dues and reading your web site nodding their heads in agreement.
In fact, PDA is nothing but a rubber stamp used to “prove” the Democratic Party has “progressives” under its “big tent.” That is your one and only function. You agree to let Obama do what pleases Wall Street without hindering him while telling your “members” you are holding his feet to the fire.” Obviously Obama does not believe you have 100,000 members who will do anymore then read your blogs.
I am glad you brought up Tom Hayden because I was going to do this. How does Tom Hayden fit in with PDA? For many, many years Hayden has been a patsy for the Israeli killing machine. As a matter of fact, while the Israeli killing machine was butchering the children and their mothers in Gaza PDA was holding a conference and speaker after speaker spoke; they were questioned— but not once about what was going on in Gaza. You allowed members of Congress you proclaim to be “progressive” come in and make their speeches about “peace” yet no one from PDA asked them their position about the Gaza carnage.
Tell us; how many members of PDA were delegates to the Democratic Party national convention? I would suggest that if you can’t even get single-payer included as part of the National Platform with 100,000 members who are committed to taking over the Democratic Party as you claim yet you can’t even get one thing like single-payer as part of the Platform— how many members of PDA do you think will be required to take over the Democratic Party to the point where the Democratic Party will come out in support of single-payer?
How many county chair positions across the United States are held by members of PDA?
How many of these PDA members actually go out to participate in their precinct caucuses, county and state conventions?
You are so full of bullshit it isn’t even funny.
It is impossible for progressives to ever take over the Democratic Party if with 100,000 members you can’t even get one little resolution in support of single-payer included in the National Platform.
Here in Minnesota it took us SIX YEARS, thousands of volunteer hours to pass one resolution for inclusion in the “Action Agenda” only to have the Chair of the MN DFL who claimed membership in the Progressive Caucus which claims membership in PDA arbitrarily insert “affordable” after the resolution was passed!
Now; let us take this health care issue from Minnesota and PDA a little further. Both Laura Bonham and Tim Carpenter sent out e-mails proclaiming the legislation authored by PDA member State Senator John Marty to be “single-payer” when it is nothing of the kind which even John Marty admits will require monthly premiums of around $750.00 from those making $30,000.00 a year which gives us a very good idea what PDA considers “affordable healthcare.”
Anyone can go back and look at the newspaper accounts leading up to the Democratic Party National Convention to see how PDA’s Donna Smith working with John Conyers schemed to undermine single-payer. Why didn’t your Minnesota members insist that the Minnesota resolution on single-payer become the wording of the Democratic Party Platform? If it was good enough for the Minnesota DFL’s “Action Agenda” it certainly was at least worth considering as part of the National Democratic Party Platform; was it not after being passed by a whopping 72% majority.
As for Humphrey-Hawkins— it has no teeth to make full employment enforceable.
If you really had 100,000 members you could put them to work supporting a national public health care system as I have described. With 100,000 members you can’t even pack a legislative hearing on health care?
If PDA had 100,000 members who are progressive, a member of PDA would be chairing the National Democratic Party right now. I doubt you have one-hundred PDA members sitting as county chairs all across the United States.
You must think we are all completely stupid, Mr. Hersh.
I do appreciate you making it clear that Carl Davidson is not on the PDA board.
And I do appreciate you making it clear that PDA does not want to see a new progressive alternative to the Democratic Party hit the political scene.
That none of you in the PDA know absolutely nothing about the history of the Democratic Party is completely apparent in Laura Bonham’s statement, “The inside the Party work is tough going as the Democratic Party is not Roosevelt’s Democratic Party.”
In fact, the Democratic Party under Roosevelt was even more undemocratic and more corrupt and just as corporate dominated as the Democratic Party is today which only goes to prove you are full of shit when it comes to your talking about progressives ever having the dominant voice in the Democratic Party. It was Roosevelt’s Democratic Party that led the drive to impeach FDR’s own Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins! And it was this same Democratic Party of Roosevelt’s era they gave rise to the Dies Committee!
All you people are is a bunch of envelope stuffers looking for a way to bring in contributions misleading people into believing progressives can become the dominant voice in the Democratic Party.
At least Laura Bonham could have cited the Democratic Party of George McGovern— but, then again, this Democratic Party refused to support its own progressive Democratic Presidential candidate! McGovern was a real progressive something Roosevelt never was in spite of the fact he was FORCED to do what was right and just by people who really understood what was required to “hold the feet of corporate Democrats to the fire.” But when Laura Bonham holds up the Democratic Party of the Roosevelt years as something to be welcomed now we finally have it in writing just what PDA means when it says it is possible for “progressives” to be the dominant voice in the Democratic Party.
You make me laugh Mr. Hersh when out of one side of your mouth you talk about progressives becoming dominant in the Democratic Party and out of the other side you admit PDA wants no part of organizing a real progressive party.
Here in Minnesota we could get 72% of the delegates to support single-payer; at the same convention we could only achieve a 52% vote for a resolution for U.S. troops out of Iraq. At the same convention we could only get 25% of delegate support for a resolution for repeal of “at-will hiring; at-will firing.” And your PDA members here in Minnesota opposed us on all of these resolutions!
… posting something on a blog is not the same as bringing people into the streets to hold Obama’s “feet to the fire.” There is simply no evidence your claimed 100,000 members have been brought out in an organized way to accomplish this.
*
Quite frankly, an organization of 100,000 members would have much more political clout than NPA has even if this membership was no more than these people paying dues and reading your web site nodding their heads in agreement.
*
…how many members of NPA do you think will be required to take over supplant or challenge the Democratic Party to the point where the Democratic Party will come out in support of single-payer?
*
If you really had 100,000 members you could put them to work supporting a national public health care system as I have described. With 100,000 members you can’t even pack a legislative hearing on health care?
—————————-
Just copying and pasting with a search-and-replace of PDA with NPA for the above the line comment.
With the same requirements applied to NPA, Alan Maki, can NPA really assure results counter to PDA? Certainly NPA is not at 100k members at present – or is it?
And with the arguments you brought, are you arguing that with l00k members NPA will do better? How can you assure that?
I’m not seeing sterling organizational leadership from you, Cavlan or Noel in this dust-up.
Oops, sorry, no edit function, I also added “supplant/challenge” language in the above comment.
One more thing NPA – you do realize what you’ve just done is put David Swanson in-between a rock and a hard place; he sits on NPA’s Steering Committee and PDA’s advisory board.
So did you knowingly, or unwittingly put, someone who is a “…false progressive(s) and other protector(s) of the “profits before people” status quo…” on the NPA Steering Committee?
It’s rare that an organization, especially a new one getting its footing will make such a vetting mistake…/s. More to the point it’s usually not a great move to create a wedge between a senior advisor of one’s own organization with another organization, unless it’s to force said Member out.
i see no evidence the dems are doing much to protect us against global warming or protect us from the catfood commissions which they appointed themselves. In Gores case choice is a stretch as well since he voted for Scalia as chief justice.
Kelly,
My point is that I doubt PDA has 100,000 members. If they did we would be seeing a lot more activity if the intent was as stated to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire.”
It is PDA making the claim that progressive voices can become dominant in the Democratic Party. I know this will never happen. If you think it will I wish you luck in trying to achieve this but we are better off trying to organize a labor-based peoples party similar to the socialist New Democratic Party in Canada.
I am not adverse to continuing to work inside the Democratic Party— I do this myself and am active at the precinct caucus level and until recently I was an elected member of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party’s State Central Committee.
Working inside the Democratic Party is one thing; misleading people to believe it is possible for progressives to be the dominant voice in the Democratic Party is dishonest because there is no basis for believing this is possible. Someone advocating this like the PDA’s Laura Bonham should at least know something about the history of the Democratic Party before advocating such a futile policy.
Why does PDA boast of having 100,000 members if these members are not being led into activity?
Quite frankly, I am a member of a statewide peace and social justice organization here in Minnesota with around 80 members which accomplishes a heck of a lot more than PDA with its claimed 100,000 membership.
I am not posting here representing New Progressive Alliance. If I was I would be signing my posts and comments as such. As far as I know, no one from NPA has made any grandiose claims using inflated membership figures. It is a very modest and small fledgling effort intending to try building something much bigger. Every movement has to begin someplace; right?
In fact, at present it is darn near impossible to get people involved in the Democratic Party let alone take it over because so many liberals, progressives and leftists want nothing to do with the Democratic Party largely because outfits like PDA helped sell Obama as something he never was and never will be: progressive.
Quite frankly, I don’t believe under any circumstances Barack Obama will bend towards justice. I don’t care if PDA has a million members or twenty-million members.
I have questioned from day one how anyone can claim they are building a progressive movement— inside or outside the Democratic Party (or both)— by supporting a thoroughly reactionary Wall Street politician like Barack Obama.
Usually people endeavor to build progressive movements by advancing progressive programs and platforms and by supporting politicians who support these progressive programs and platforms.
Now here we are with organizations like PDA, Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America’s Future and this new “Dream” outfit of Van Jones all saying they are for building a progressive Democratic Party while supporting a reactionary Barack Obama.
You see; I believe their support for Barack Obama is very real and it is their claim to be working towards building a progressive movement that is bogus intended as a gimmick to suck people in to supporting the reactionary Barack Obama. How else can any of this bizarre behavior that defies all logic be explained?
The other thing that bothers me is this advancing the idea progressives can take over the Democratic Party which seems rooted in the same kind of dishonest posturing leading people to think Barack Obama was something that he is not.
If someone expects people to really become engaged in a legitimate effort to make progressive voices (even liberal voices would be most welcome) becoming dominant in the Democratic Party, I think we need to know how many people this is going to take because between PDA with its 100,000 members; the three to five thousand of CAF; the “millions” being influenced by the Progressives for Obama and the 13 million in the labor movement, another couple-hundred thousand peace activists, the hundreds of thousands in the civil rights movement, who knows how many among environmentalists all with a strong presence in the Democratic Party and it takes years just to get simple resolutions passed which the corporate Democrats just ignore even when these progressive concepts become part of the program and platform of the Democratic Party; well, where are we going to get more people from?
Please, someone, anyone, explain to me how it makes more sense to continue trying to take over the Democratic Party instead of just starting a real progressive party reflecting real progressive ideas aimed at creating the kind of country we really want?
And now comes a founder of the Progressive Democrats of America pining for the Democratic Party of the FDR era which was anything and everything except liberal or progressive.
Laura Bonham and Mike Hersh obviously don’t want their ideas challenged when it comes to the soundness of their advocacy of trying to take over the Democratic Party. They haven’t explained what they intend to do differently than the MILLIONS who have already tried, and they fear and detest standing their ideas next to the competing idea held by millions of people in this country that what we need is a labor-based people’s party bringing together liberals, progressives and the left capable of advancing an agenda in competition with Wall Street’s agenda of wars paid for through austerity measures.
I could care less about the PDA, Democratic National Organizations of any kind, or Obama.
Lotta words here Alan, not answering what I asked you, and you’re on the NPA Steering Committee, right?
You’re not speaking as an NPA leader?
Kelly,
How many times do I have to say that I am not blogging here as a “leader” of NPA. NPA is a very small part of my life but I think its goals and objectives are very important. I hope a whole lot of people will come together around NPA who NPA would most likely be a small part of their lives, too, and all of our small contributions would add up to something very substantial. You know; like one little rain drop doesn’t amount to much but look what happens when it pours.
I am not intentionally avoiding your question about numbers but I don’t want to appear rude by stating that the questions you asked about numbers as to how many activists it will take to win against the Democrats isn’t relevant. How could anyone answer that question? If you know the magic number then you tell us. If the leaders of PDA who must have some reason for touting their membership numbers know the answer then let them tell us.
Anyone can mock NPA for being small in numbers at this point but anyone with half an brain understands that every organization starts out small— a few people put their heads together and try to figure out how to go out and find like-minded people to increase the influence and strength of the organization. This is where NPA is at right now.
The objective is to build around ideas and concepts of the kind of country we want with the objective of bringing together as many people as possible… there you have my number: as many people as possible.
Electorally, the objective is to put together campaigns that can win at the polls not to try to get more members then PDA.
For most of the American people who we are concerned with reaching out to, PDA has no relevancy at all. I could knock on doors all day, every day for a month and probably not find one single person who ever heard of PDA, CAF, Progressives for Obama let alone know what they stand for.
The real role of PDA and these other outfits is to hoodwink and disorient activists into supporting Obama and a bunch of politicians who proclaim themselves to be progressive only because no one ever won an election by proclaiming themselves as reactionary.
The role these outfits serve is to try to keep people in the Democratic Party’s “big tent.”
Now, if you and other people actually believe you are going to be able to take over the Democratic Party per PDA’s bull-shit to use Mike Hersh’s own words that is your problem not mine.
Why hasn’t Hersh, Bonham or Carpenter come on here to explain the relationship between PDA and the Progressives for Obama?
Let’s get real here; these three words “Progressives for Obama” mean something very important. I am questioning how anyone claiming to be progressive can support a reactionary Wall Street flim-flam man like Barack Obama and then conclude this support for Obama is contributing to building a progressive movement of any kind.
You do not build a peace movement by supporting a warmonger for president.
You do not build a progressive labor movement by working for a president who pushes austerity measures unto the working class to pay for Wall Street’s dirty imperialist wars.
You do not build a civil rights movement supporting a president who has instructed his Department of Justice not to enforce Affirmative Action pursuant to Federal Executive Order #11246.
You do not build environmental movements by supporting a political party and its candidates who advocate allowing our air, streams, rivers, lakes and the land to become more contaminated as a convenience to Wall Street’s mining companies, mills and manufacturers.
You do not build movements to fight for jobs by joining with the “high road” Wall Street “private market” advocates when the only way to create jobs from a progressive perspective when you have over 14,000,000 people in the country unemployed is to make the federal government the employer of first choice by putting people to work solving our problems— Obama AND the Democratic Party are opposed to this approach.
Isn’t it our objective as progressives to build an electoral base from which we can at some point begin electing candidates from amongst our progressive movements who can be relied on to fight in the halls of congress for what we fight for in the streets and for the kind of country we want?
You want me to answer questions about a numbers game when the question that needs to be answered has to come from PDA to this question I have asked: How do you build a progressive political movement by supporting a thoroughly reactionary politician like Barack Obama who is completely opposed to our progressive agenda?
Does anyone really believe a clown like Norman Solomon who actually believes the George Lakoff bullshit that politics is about properly framing issues without providing specific solutions to very real problems can get elected to public office or that politicians will actually run on the resolutions PDA is boasting they got passed in Massachusetts? No. In fact, PDA has no intent to push politicians to run on these progressive platform points because the politicians would then have nothing to do with PDA.
Do Mr. Hersh, Ms. Bonham or Mr. Carpenter expect us to believe that their work in getting resolutions passed at local, state and national Democratic Party conventions helps to “light a fire under Obama” or any other Democratic Party politician if those politicians don’t understand there are consequences as they ignore the platform of their own party? What consequences are there that assure accountability? They are not going to get votes and they are going to be challenged at the polls. Now, if we can’t primary them how much of a threat is it to these politicians if we don’t challenge them with candidates running on another ticket in the general election?
Let’s get real here. Joe Lieberman was challenged— by a progressive— and defeated in the Democratic Party Primary.
Now, think about this all of you PDA supporters opposed to going outside of the Democratic Party— did Wall Street fear going outside the Democratic Party to get Joe Lieberman to do its dirty work? No. In fact, Obama went outside of his Democratic Party to campaign for Joe Lieberman.
Ha! PDA will not move outside of the Democratic Party in the electoral arena to defend progressive values and a progressive agenda but Obama will go outside the Democratic Party to defeat a progressive Democrat!
Let PDA provide a list of the Massachusetts politicians who will run for office on the resolutions it just got passed. In fact, PDA would have to go outside the Democratic Party to find politicians willing to run on its platform resolutions but here we have its leaders unambiguously stating that it will not do that so we must assume the work PDA did around these resolutions was aimed, not a building a progressive movement for real change but keeping progressive trapped with-in the confines of the Democratic Party where they an be manipulated and controlled to support candidate with an agenda that is just the opposite of progressivism.
In fact, what this discussion has finally brought out is the fact that if we are going to have politicians who will run on progressive platforms we need a new political party to accomplish this; a real progressive political party with a progressive program and platform that people— because they are progressive— will run for public office defending an alternative to Wall Street’s reactionary agenda.
What PDA under the guise of proclaiming itself progressive is out to accomplish in the electoral arena is the same as labor “leaders” who see no role or use for strikes.
When workers agree to give up their right to strike they live and work at the mercy of management.
When progressive voters state, as PDA has done, that they will not move outside of the Democratic Party to get progressive results on Election Day no one is going to take them seriously.
We saw where this leads with the PDA betrayal of single-payer. PDA was the very first organization to betray the single-payer movement when if caved to agreeing that “single-payer” not be included in the national Democratic Party Platform. Just as PDA provided the cover for politicians to call themselves progressive as they not only remained silent as the carnage in Gaza was taking place, but provided the “progressive” cover for these same worthless politicians to actually sign a resolution supporting this barbaric carnage.
Now, along come these PDA staff people lecturing us about a circular firing squad; too bad these PDA people were not as concerned about lecturing their “progressive” politicians about the Israeli killing machine when their real bullets— not ideas— were being pumped into the bodies of small children in Gaza.
No Kelly, I am not speaking for NPA nor am I going to play your numbers game.
If I write too much for you to want to read then don’t ask me stupid questions insinuating that I am the dumb one— I may not be very smart as you insinuate; but, I am intelligent enough to understand that the way to build progressive movements is not by supporting reactionary politicians in a thoroughly corrupt political party owned by Wall Street.
Kelly; something just popped into my head. If you aren’t concerned about “PDA, Democratic National Organizations of any kind, or Obama” what is your concern in entering this discussion?
Great points. Attacking PDA means attacking David Swanson–one of their steering committee members. I know David pretty well, and I can’t imagine him staying for long with any organization that calls him a “…false progressive(s) and other protector(s) of the “profits before people” status quo…” This is the problem when people give in to the urge to rant and attack potential allies.
Unlike Alan, Anthony and the other NPA people I’ve encountered, PDA works with anyone who is willing to help achieve real progress. Rather than pick fights with and make accusations against effective progressives, we agree to disagree and get the work done.
Alan–
I’ve challenged you to substantiate any of your previous accusations from your last rant. Rather than respect the readers of FDL, you’ve ignored that basic request and launched into yet another rant filled with more unsubstantiated accusations. You should be ashamed of yourself.
WOW ALAN! I thought there were a lot of false accusations last time, but here you go with even more. I debunked your latest round of delusion and deceit, but I decided not to post it here.
After all your repeated false accusations I can’t take anything you say at face value. Neither should anyone else trust you on anything.
You have no idea what PDA does as you’ve demonstrated repeatedly. Why won’t you at least look at PDA’s website, and examine what we really do?
You asked if we support Obama for reelection in your third accusation. Then you pretended you know what we’ve decided in your fifth! Hint: you’re wrong. You’ve proved you have no idea what PDA’s positions really are. Why are you so contemptuous of FDL readers as to do this Alan?
I don’t know any of the Minnesota people you defamed, and you refuse to quote them or substantiate your accusations. PDA has well over 100,000 members, and I can’t know them all. You haven’t told us what they said or did. I could look them up in our database and ask them, but that’s a waste of my time. It’s much safer to just assume you’re making up more BS.
As I explained last time, Alan. Donna Smith, John Conyers and other single-payer advocates working with PDA led an effort to strengthen the language in the Democratic Party Platform. If you claim we could have done more, how can you also claim we have no power in the Democratic Party? Which is it? It can’t be both!
You post unreasonable, unfair attacks on a blog, and then you attack us for answering and correcting your attacks. No one with any decency would claim we mean to hold Obama’s feet to the fire by posting on blogs. You should be ashamed of yourself for misleading FDL readers like this, Alan.
This typifies your entire disrespectful, abusive, and dishonest approach: “You are so full of bullshit it isn’t even funny.” You should look in the mirror, Sir.
You claim Humphrey-Hawkins “has no teeth to make full employment enforceable.”
You again have no idea what you’re talking about. I doubt you’ve even read the bill.
You claim “If PDA had 100,000 members who are progressive, a member of PDA would be chairing the National Democratic Party right now.”
We do have far more than 100,000 members, all of whom are progressive. That we don’t have one of our own as DNC chair is not for lack of trying, and claiming that’s a reasonable test of our membership is insane. There’s no other word for it.
“You must think we are all completely stupid, Mr. Hersh.”
What is this? Projection? A guilty conscience? Is that what you think of FDL folks? I certainly don’t. But if you really expect them to believe that PDA either has the power to select the DNC chair or else we don’t have progressive members, it’s you who are insulting the intelligence of anyone who reads you.
“All you people are is a bunch of envelope stuffers looking for a way to bring in contributions misleading people into believing progressives can become the dominant voice in the Democratic Party.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about, again. This is totally made up BS, Alan. You show contempt for PDA–we get it. Do you also have to insult all our members and board members? Do you have to insult the intelligence of FDL readers? I hope everyone reading this knows by now that nothing you’ve said about PDA is even close to the truth.
Speaking just for PDA, we’re not doing anything Alan claims we are, and we are doing a lot of things he says he wants us to do. Why he hates us is anyone’s guess. This is a very angry person with a horrible grudge against anyone who won’t do everything his way. I’m sorry he feels his way, but he’s only reporting his own feelings. Nothing he writes about PDA is even close to true.
Considering the source, people would be wise to verify every last point Alan makes re: what organizations are actually doing. His accounts of things I know about make me take nothing he says at face value. He either csn’t tell the truth or can’t tell the difference between truth and his grudges. Again, I urge people not to take my word for it or Alan’s word for it. Check for yourself.
Google PDA and Gaza and Progressive Democrats of America and Gaza. Your results may differ, but this is what I get:
Dec 28, 2008 – Israeli Planes Strike Civilian Targets in Gaza; PDA Demands Enforcement of the U.S. Arms Control Export and Foreign Assistance Act
Jan 28, 2010 – Last night, I received confirmation from PDA’s National Director, Tim Carpenter, that the Gaza Freedom Marchers are scheduled to present
Jun 6, 2011 – The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) has issued a Resolution in support of the second Gaza flotilla, which is scheduled for June 20th
FARK.com: (PDA version) (4125501) Chronology of Israel’s …
Feb 27, 2011 – We will know peace only when we accept the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have every right to lives of dignity.
Gaza Freedom March | Progressive Democrats of America Blog
Dec 29, 2009 – Slideshow pictures from the Gaza Freedom March
Progressive Democrats of America – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to Views on Gaza and Hamas: … role in the upcoming Hamas Flotilla 2, which according to the PDA website shows support of the Hamas Flotilla
Donna Edwards – KeyWiki
Mar 23, 2011 – 8.1 PDA claimed successes. 9 Calling on Israeli Govt. to lift Gaza Travel Ban; 10 Supported Lifting the Gaza Blockade;
Phoenix Progressive Democrats of America
Apr 22, 2010 – During His Trip to Egypt, Obama Should Visit Gaza …
Progressive Democrats of America Congressional members Gaza …
Jun 6, 2011 – Tags: Progressive Democrats Flotilla 2 Audacity of hope boat, Progressive Democrats of America Congressional members Gaza flotilla, …
https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/…/progressive-democrats-of-america-congressional-members-gaza-flotilla/ –
Progressive Democrats of America Support Gaza Flotilla 2 against …
Jun 6, 2011 – Tags: Progressive Democrats Flotilla 2 Audacity of hope boat …
https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/…/progressive-democrats-of-america-support-gaza-flotilla-2-against-israel/
Progressive Democrats of America call for the siege on Gaza to …
Dec 17, 2007 – The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) released an “action alert” on Monday, urging people to take action and call on their …
http://www.arabisto.com/article.cfm?articleID=936 – Cached
Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Progressive Democrats of America …
Jun 6, 2011 – Progressive Democrats of America Supports U.S. (Inspired By Obama) Ship Joining The Next Flotilla To Gaza. Teh progesers h8 lil satan. …
weaselzippers.us/…/progressive-democrats-of-america-supports-u-s-ship-joining-the-next-flotilla-to-gaza/
Asking Obama to Protect Gaza Relief Ship | Progressive Democrats …
May 20, 2011 – Progressive democrats of america. Mobilizing the Progressive Vote. image description. Asking Obama to Protect Gaza Relief Ship …
http://www.pdamerica.org/get…/asking-obama-to-protect-gaza-relief-ship/
Progressive Democrats of America – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to Views on Gaza and Hamas: Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) condemned the Progressive Democrats of America for their role in the upcoming Hamas Flotilla 2, …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Democrats_of_America
Under The Holly Tree: Progressive Democrats of America Partner to …
Dec 17, 2007 – The Progressive Democrats of America have issued a PUBLIC STATEMENT against the BRUTAL siege of Gaza!! They have even partnered with the …
thehollytree.blogspot.com/…/progressive-democrats-of-america.html
OpEdNews | Progressive Democrats of America – Illinois
Progressive Democrats of America – Illinois logo …. “Lawfare” is the latest form of Israeli-AIPAC attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla …
http://www.pdaillinois.org › Home › Feed aggregator › Sources
progressive democrats of america – Big Government
Tags: CodePink, Gaza, Hamas Flotilla, progressive democrats of america, rep jan schakowsky. Posted Jun 14th 2011 at 10:47 am in Uncategorized | 28436436 …
biggovernment.com/tag/progressive-democrats-of-america/
Progressive Democrats of America « SpeakEasy
Mar 22, 2010 – … of L.A. Jews For Peace and a critic of Israel’s Gaza blockade, …. J Street Board member, Progressive Democrats of America Board member …
blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/tag/progressive-democrats-of-america/ -
Speaking just for PDA, we’re not doing anything Alan claims we are, and we are doing a lot of things he says he wants us to do. Why he hates us is anyone’s guess. This is a very angry person with a horrible grudge against anyone who won’t do everything his way. I’m sorry he feels his way, but he’s only reporting his own feelings. Nothing he writes about PDA is even close to true.
Considering the source, people would be wise to verify every last point Alan makes re: what organizations are actually doing. His accounts of things I know about make me take nothing he says at face value. He either csn’t tell the truth or can’t tell the difference between truth and his grudges. Again, I urge people not to take my word for it or Alan’s word for it. Check for yourself.
Alan ony answers the questions he wants to, and ignores the rest. He also spends a lot of time making things up. I guess that’s his way of achieving progress?
Mike,
Post the link of your conference. Let’s see how many of those who spoke about peace mentioned the Israeli carnage in Gaza that was taking place at the time of your conference.
Mike,
Post some links to newspaper articles about the role of Donna Smith and John Conyers and how they collaborated with the Obama people to keep the word “single-payer” out of the Democratic Party Platform.
Mike,
You are playing word games and everyone can see that.
Fact: PDA supports Obama’s re-election.
Question: Explain how any progressive organization can support a warmonger like Obama?
Mike,
Tell how how long you think it is going to take for progressives to gain control of the Democratic Party.
Then tell us what the turn-over rate is from the time progressive people become active in the Democratic Party until they get frustrated and leave the Democratic Party.
How many delegates who were committed to Barack Obama in 2008 are still committed to working for Obama again and will stand for election as a delegate committed to Obama?
In fact, organizations like PDA and Progressives for Obama haven’t been able to keep the original activists who they convinced to support Obama active in the Democratic Party.
You still haven’t answered my question: Is the Minnesota DFL Progressive Caucus a member of PDA?
You still haven’t explained why Tim Carpenter sent out a letter declaring the Minnesota Health Act to be single-payer when it is not.
Funny, you use “keywiki” the anti-communist red-baiting site established by Richard Mellon-Scaife to support your so-called responses to me.
Of course Scalia isn’t the Chief Justice, I think you meant Associate Justice. In any case, Reagan appointed Scalia, so that is a great argument AGAINST helping Republicans gain the White House with the power to appoint justices. So is Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts. The Senate very occasionally blocks a Supreme Court nominee, which is a very strong case AGAINST supporting spoilers and risking Republican control of the Senate.
Al Gore would never have appointed anyone like that. Had Gore served as the President, we’d have a 5-4 lilberal/moderate majority on the court. Thanks in large part to Ralph Nader, we have right wingers Alito and Roberts instead of moderates.
Alan–
PDA is an open book. Go to our website and do your own research. You’ve made so many untrue accusations against PDA, and asked so many questions–many of which predicated on untrue assumptions–I would have to quit working on anything worthwhile to keep up with all of them. I’m not going to do it. Look up the information yourself.
Claiming I “use ‘keywiki’ is beneath contempt. I said I used Google, and I did use Google. Then I copied three pages of hits. I explained that. Why do you insist on behaving with no decency?
You’re a nightmare, Alan. I hope everyone reading this can see you for what you are.
Alan,
Show FDL any proof PDA has endorsed anyone in the 2012 election. Everyone will see that you’re lying when you cannot.
Question: why do you insist on lying about people, Alan?
Alan,
Let me understand this.
You make false allegations attacking Donna Smith and John Conyers.
Then you order me “Post some links to newspaper articles” about BS you made up that never happened.
You’re kididing, right?
Alan,
You’re making no sense. You keep ordering me to post links and articles you claim will prove things that only you think happened. Things that never really happened.
I’m through with trying to reason with you. You’re not fair or reasonable. I hope you look into this OCD condition you have, and seek help. Seriously.
Mike
Note: Alan’s posted several times and never substantiated any of his accusations. He just keeps making more accusations.
Please look into PDA at http://www.PDAmerica.org or Google PDA.
Don’t take the word of Alan or me or anyone else. See for yourself.
I apologize, but I cannot keep refuting all the accusations against PDA, nor answer all the questions a few critics ask. Don’t tak my word for it, or Alan’s or anyone else’s. See for yourself.
Look into PDA at http://www.PDAmerica.org or Google PDA. Or both.
I notice that Alan carefully read the pages of Google hits I posted that completely refute his insinuation that PDA supports the attacks on Gaza. We know this, because he took exception to one of the links Google turned up.
Still, Alan will not apologize for trying to deceive FDL members about PDA’s positions on Gaza. No, instead he repeats his now completely debunked accusations and ignores all the evidence to the contrary.
I’m beginning to think Alan really can’t tell the difference between what only he thinks happened and what everyone else can easily prove really happened. In any case, everyone can either review the links for themselves, do their own searches, or just do what I’m doing–leaving Alan alone. Life is too short for this.
Firedoglake should be the last place where PDA’s ideas about supporting Democrats find a large purchase. That is, unless PDAers have never once read this site.
I mean, really – if you know anything at all about this place, you should know that the ‘We Suck Less’ branch of Democrats (and that is precisely who PDA is) is unpopular in the extreme to a great many people here.
When you try to salve the self-inflicted wounds by Democrats with lesser-evilism, and find a bar-fight instead of candy and flowers, well, tough. And you have come to the wrong place if you want applause for the pearl-clutching and manufactured outrage (a parasol and a fainting couch are all that is missing).
Go tend your own house if what you want is people who universally think that Ralph Nader, and not the Supreme Court (of Clinton, or Bush 41, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon) decided the nation’s fate in 2000.
Go recruit for a bigger ‘We Suck Less’ caucus elsewhere, if you are looking for people to swoon when told exactly what your organization represents: ‘At least we’re not Republicans.’
Mike,
PDA is NOT the “open book” you claim it to be.
Your main false claim is that the Democratic Party can be reformed.
Want proof of this: Just look what happened when the most progressive political party ever in the United States— the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party— merged with the Democratic Party.
Former socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party governor, Elmer Benson speaking on the merger: “The worst political mistake in history. The Democratic Party is a corrupt institution continuing to exclude the voices of the common people. The Democratic Party cannot be reformed…”
PDA stands exposed by your own leader, Laura Bonham who pines for a Democratic Party of Franklin D.Roosevelt’s era which was a thoroughly corrupt and anti-democratic Party controlled by a bunch of racists and fascists preventing the kind of full-scale reforms a depression era suffering people required.
PDA is led by fools misleading people.
As for you relying on the “progressiveness” of John Conyers— anyone can see what this jerk who used to be progressive has become. Karl Rove told this crooked bastard that he would be going to prison for taking corporate bribes along with his wife if he didn’t take the impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table.
Like anyone except a deluded few actually believe that Conyers will push H.R. 676 anymore than he pushed the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Come on, Mr. Hersh, give us all a break and stop trying to drag people into your cesspool called the “Democratic Party” which is Wall Street’s war party.
You and the rest of the leadership of PDA are delusional or dishonest in making “reform of the Democratic Party” your PRIMARY agenda item.
We here in Minnesota have experienced first hand just how dishonest PDA is. Your role here has been to advocate for reforms like single-payer UNTIL single-payer is actually placed on the table— and then you join with the likes of Amy “Republican Lite” Klobuchar and run in the opposite direction spouting the most vile red-baiting your stock-in-trade.
Just how “progressive” was it for John Conyers to have Cindy Sheehan arrested for trespassing in his office after she came to see him about building a movement to impeach Bush and Cheney.
You want us to believe your pious pronouncements that you are progressive because you proclaim it to be so and offer us your web site postings of the same… but, where do you explain on your web site how John Conyers was involved in corporate bribery along with his wife, and where does John Conyers explain on your web site why he had Cindy Sheehan arrested for visiting his office demanding he follow through on doing what he traveled all over the country telling people what he intended to do: impeach Bush and Cheney?
Everyone knows that PDA was the very first organization recruited by Leah Daughtry who was hand-picked by Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck to be the CEO of the Democratic Party National Convention and in her hands PDA became “putty” to be shaped into doing the dirty work Obama didn’t want to be associated with. PDA bailed out on the advocates of single-payer at the very time when the movement was most powerful, at a time when it mattered the most.
Just like PDA provided the cover for John Conyers bailing out on all of his promises to proceed with impeachment and prosecution of Bush/Cheney.
Come on, Mr. Hersh; do you really expect us to believe that it is coincidental that Obama used PDA to kill-off both impeachment and single payer using your beloved “progressive” (a has been progressive) John Conyers?
Hey, Mr. Hersh and Ms. Bonham, why don’t I find one single mention of Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck on your web site nor anything about who Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and the “illustrious” Frank Schreck are? Come on, Mr. Hersh and Ms. Bonham, tell us who these people are. After all, it was with Frank Schreck that you “cut the deal” on health care for the rest of us progressives.
Mr. Hersh; you keep directing us to the PDA web site to find out who PDA really is when it is Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck we need to be focused on and your dirty dealing with these dirty birds after you piously proclaim your intent to try to “reform the Democratic Party.”
Come on, Mr. Hersh and Ms. Bonham, explain to us how working with a corrupt scumbag like Leah Daughtry who is the mouthpiece for Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck is going to reform the Democratic Party?
Come on Mr. Hersh and Ms. Bonham; tell us, has PDA ever taken contributions from Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck?
Also, explain your relationship with The Century Foundation.
Don’t just steer us towards what you want us to see; steer us towards what we have the right to see and know about PDA.
While you are at it, tell us your position on the workers and the Indian Gaming Industry.
“Everyone knows that PDA was the very first organization recruited by Leah Daughtry who was hand-picked by Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck to be the CEO of the Democratic Party National Convention and in her hands PDA became “putty” to be shaped into doing the dirty work Obama didn’t want to be associated with. PDA bailed out on the advocates of single-payer at the very time when the movement was most powerful, at a time when it mattered the most.”
I’m a member of PDA, but I don’t know this. Would you please tell us how you know this?
“Come on Mr. Hersh and Ms. Bonham; tell us, has PDA ever taken contributions from Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck?
Also, explain your relationship with The Century Foundation.”
To tell you the truth, I don’t know anything about the funding of PDA, except that I get frequent requests for becoming a “Change Makes Change” subscriber, which I have no problem with, at all. Do you know if it’s possible to determine whether Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck funded PDA? Also, to tell you the truth, I’m not sure what the significance of dealing with Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck or the Century Foundation would be. Would you please explain this more?
Finally, I’ll note that PDA doesn’t have a strongly top/down control structure (AFAIK). It’s possible that MN PDA leaders are very corrupt, and in the employ of some rich fatcat, but in no way reflect the activities of the national PDA leadership. By analogy, if your Democratic mayor is accepting bribes from a prostitution ring, that doesn’t mean that this behavior is sanctioned by the national Democratic Party.
I did visit your PDA diatribe, Mike, though must admit that your verbosity caused me to skim a great deal of what you wrote. Anthony’s characterization of you as a ‘pompous ass’ was a refreshing point of clarity in a discussion otherwise largely marked by your substitution of evasion, misdirection, and insult for actual debate. Why Anthony bothered responding as long as he did is a mystery to me; why he eventually got sufficiently fed up to respond as he did is not (and I regret that this shortness of temper seems to have persisted after the fact in discussions with people with whom he has far more in common).
One point in particular annoyed me, which I would have raised there had you not cut off the thread. PDA began (as you should know if you have in fact “been with PDA almost since its launch”) with a commitment to ‘lesser evilism’ in its decision, however reluctant it may have been, to fall into line and support John Kerry in 2004. Many progressives vowed that this would be the last time they did this, and PDA seemed to agree.
Yet when 2006 came around, there was PDA once again directly advocating lesser evilism. I still have the quotes from Tim Carpenter: “In 2006, the progressive community must and can work to elect a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives” and “while PDA certainly understands the difference between a progressive Democrat and a DLC or centrist Democrat, the group urges vigorous work on behalf of all Democratic House candidates in November.”
So your vigorous denials (in this and therefore in other areas) just aren’t persuasive. While PDA seems to do SOME good, at other times, especially when the chips are down, it falls obediently into line rather than standing firm for its purported principles even if that means directly challenging the Democratic establishment. It’s hardly alone in this, of course – but it belies the suggestion that it’s something special in its behavior.
You personally, by contrast, bear many characteristics of an outright establishment shill. If in fact you’re not one, you really need to work on your manner of presentation: the image which it projects is flattering neither to you nor to the organization you purport to represent.
David will have to make a decision, and soon, about whether he continues to draw a salary from Democrats or becomes more radical. But that is David’s decision to make.
In the meantime, we are pleased to have him aboard, and should he ultimately decide that an alternative to the Democrats/Obama is not needed, we’ll part ways.
I’m sure even Kelly and Mike can understand this.
Well – maybe not Mike…
Anthony Noel
NPA Facilitator
The problem, Mike, is that PDA’s approach is NOT ‘working’ – not at all. It did not work in 2004, when the Kucinich supporters reluctantly went over to Kerry at the national convention and immediately became irrelevant and ignored. It did not work in 2006, when Democratic Congressional majorities WERE ELECTED and then did LITTLE OR NOTHING to reverse the policies of the Bush administration. It did not work in 2008 when even larger Democratic Congressional majorities plus a Democratic president dedicated to “change we can believe in” and “an end to business as usual” were elected: most of the Bush policies continued, some even got worse, and we got the added insult of seeing the ENTIRE Congressional Progressive Caucus bamboozled into supporting sham health-care reform “to preserve Obama’s presidency” (this was Dennis’s rationalization, anyway) rather than because it was anything like what they (and Obama himself, during his campaign) had PLEDGED to fight for (even after it could have been passed via reconciliation rules with only 50 Senate votes plus Biden’s).
By contrast, PDA’s vaunted accomplishments are mere crumbs from the corporate table – and often only symbolic in nature (let us know when some actually become LAW). Crumbs may be enough to keep the faithful in line for yet another round of lesser evilism, but they’re not enough for many of the rest of us and we’re not about to wait for the faithful to finally catch on. I’ve always thought that PDA’s heart was in the right place, but what it needs are gonads to match. Let us know when it grows some.
Let’s not forget OSHA and the proposed negative income tax. Nixon, for all his faults and unfortunate persona, was a considerably more progressive president than Obama is.
Oh, by the way: he STARTED winding down troop levels in Vietnam within about 6 months of taking office, even though it did take 6 years to complete the process.
“By analogy, if your Democratic mayor is accepting bribes from a prostitution ring, that doesn’t mean that this behavior is sanctioned by the national Democratic Party.”
Funny; especially since Harry Reid is a pimp.
Maybe so, in a metaphorical sense, but I’m sure you get the point of the analogy.
Now, would you please answer the question? You’ve made some pretty specific and serious allegations. You haven’t done much to substantiate all of these allegations. Even pointing to “anonymous sources” would be of interest.
I just googled: site:pdamerica.org Leah Daughtry
and came up with zero hits.
So, presumably PDA is hiding this relationship. That raises an immediate question. You said “Everyone knows that PDA was the very first organization recruited by Leah Daughtry who was hand-picked by Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck to be the CEO of the Democratic Party National Convention ”
How is it that “everybody knows” this alleged fact, but the PDA website is obscuring it? Presumably, there must be some other readily accessible and popular source of information so that “everybody” could “know” it, correct? What are these sources? I’d like to take a look.
I’m sorry, but you haven’t given enough details to make at least some of your allegations credible.
Another question: How do you know that Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck “hand picked” Daughtry to do anything?
Mind you, I’m quite certain that there are essentially plutocratic, old boy networks that vet and corrupt Democratic candidates. I had inferred so much from reports that Hilary Clinton was sure to win the Dem nomination, before she had even announced her run. More recently, I read of a vetting of Obama at blackagendareport.com, long before he announced a run for President.
So, I don’t have any sort of prejudice against the possibility of back room dealing, the notion that PDA might have been essentially a Veal Pen type operation from the beginning, etc. I’m not dismissing this out of hand.
However, I’m not swallowing it, either. Not without more substantiation.
I’ve never heard of Leah Daughtry doing anything with PDA. So as someone involved with PDA from it’s earliest days, I don’t know anything about this. Assuming that PDA is “hiding” involvement with her fails the laugh test. I could look at Maki’s Facebook and claim he’s “hiding” his connections with anyone I want to claim “everyone knows” he works with.
All these accusations are untrue, Alan. You’ve been told that how many times, yet you persist in your vendetta against real progressives who are making real progress.
I’m not sure why you want to alienate the vast majority of progressives in the USA who are Democrats, but keep marginalizing your 1% fraction of a faction. We’ll keep working to unite progressives and keep achieving progress while you fight with everyone online.
Everyone, the choice is yours: Join Alan’s 1% leading progressives into oblivion, or join with a growing and successful movement: http://www.pdamerica.org
metamars—
Thank you for asking for substantiation. These are Joe McCarthy tactics Alan and Anthony keep using against PDA. It’s shameful!
Anyone who wants to can verify all of my statements I have made here. This should be done by people themselves so they don’t have to take my word for anything.
Everything I have stated about PDA is easily verifiable.
Mike Hersh has distorted and twisted everything while choosing to ignore what I have stated.
I don’t care if PDA has ten members, 100,000 members or 100,000,000 members. The point is, PDA has not “held Barack Obama’s feet to the fire” nor do they intend to.
In fact, with only Mike Hersh, Laura Bonham and Tim Carpenter working together without anyone else or with a membership of one-million they would be doing just what they do: serve to cover up reactionary deeds with progressive sounding rhetoric. They have no sense of urgency when it comes to ending these dirty wars or putting an end to Israeli pogroms against the Palestinian people just as they have no sense of urgency when it comes to the problems being experienced by working people— for these people it is all about collecting money from 100,000 people under the pretense of doing something progressive. And most of their members are just happy they are not asked to do anymore than read their website.
Think about it: Why would any progressive organization be opposed to creating a Progressive political party bring progressive views and an alternative agenda into the electoral arena to challenge to two corrupt Wall Street parties?
Yes, yes; I know. The PDA claim is they intend to turn the Democratic Party into a bastion of progressivism but they don’t tell us how. They only keep telling us they have 100,000 members of which they have how many people active in the Democratic Party? Come on Mr. Hersh, how many?
Now, let us be very honest here. PDA keeps sending me e-mails. These e-mails call me a member of PDA… I guess here on the Internet this is where I am supposed to say: L-O-L !!!!
I don’t believe PDA has 100,000 members because they call me a member and if they call me a member how many other non-members are they calling a member?
I get e-mail after e-mail from PDA… all asking me to get involved. The way for me, as a member, to get involved is to give them money according to their e-mails. The more money I give the better activist I will be.
I have repeatedly asked to be taken off the PDA e-mail list to no avail.
John Conyers sends me PDA e-mails asking me for money after he takes bribes. Tom Hayden sends me PDA e-mails asking for money after his entire political career was bankrolled by AIPAC. The clown Norman Solomon sends me e-mails asking for money and asks me to buy his books.
I send an e-mail back asking PDA to send a letter to members of Congress voicing concern they have not rectified the injustices of casino workers and I get back a curt little note from one of the staff urging me to “be patient.”
I never said PDA supported the carnage carried out by the Israeli killing machine in Gaza. What I did say is that while this ghastly, barbaric, cannibalistic carnage was being carried out by the Israeli killing machine Progressive Democrats of America held a conference in Washington that included speakers from this so-called “progressive caucus” who spoke about “peace” without so much as a mention or condemnation of Israel’s pogrom against the people of Gaza.
Not only did the speakers and panelists not mention this; no one even questioned why it was not being mentioned.
We started phoning the cell phones of people we could identify (the conference was live streamed) until finally ONE panel participant finally mentioned this on the last day.
One need only look at how these so-called “progressive” members— so designated by PDA— of the House and Senate voted on the resolution to support Israel’s murder and mayhem.
Now, let me make something crystal clear to Mr. Hersh, Ms. Bonham, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Hayden. Just because progressives can work with this or that politician on selected issues does not automatically make these politicians Progressives.
Most of those elected officials that PDA identifies as “Progressive” are reactionary as hell.
A case in point is United States Senator Amy “Republican Lite” Klobuchar.
PDA even keeps referring to former Minnesota U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “Progressive.” By his own admission Paul Wellstone was a liberal. Paul Wellstone and I had a very lengthy discussion about this in Washington while we were attending a Campaign for America’s Future Conference.
I asked Paul Wellstone if he was a liberal or a Progressive.
To make a long story short, we both agreed on the definitions of “liberal” and “progressive.” Paul said, “Alan, I am going to have to think hard about this before I give you an answer.” Later we crossed paths on the sidewalk of a small Iron Range community— Biwabik, Minnesota. Wellstone said, “Alan, I have been thinking about your question for a long time. It’s stuck in my head. I have an answer for you. I am a liberal with some progressive ideas and a lot of times I find myself wanting to think like you ‘red’ Finns but life in Washington constrains me.”
Some of my best friends are liberals and Paul Wellstone knew that I would appreciate an honest answer from him not that it would interfere with our longstanding friendship that he was a liberal and not a Progressive.
Wellstone later wrote a book, not the conscience of a progressive; but, “The Conscience of a Liberal” and he sent a copy to me.
It’s a good book; not as good as Howard Pawley’s book, “Keep True, a life in politics” written by a true Progressive but Wellstone’s book is an excellent book none-the-less. I would encourage people to read both books.
This crap from PDA where they call every Tom, Dick, Harry and Amy a “progressive” just because once in awhile they happen to say the right thing depending on their audience is nothing short of political and intellectual dishonesty.
The same kind of dishonesty that leads Amy “Republican Lite” Klobuchar to call herself— with PDA in agreement— a progressive when her positions, for the most part, are reactionary as hell.
During our conversation on the sidewalk in Biwabik, Wellstone joked with me, “I hope you think I’m at least a little pink.” And I replied, “Perhaps the next time we cross paths you will have become a ‘red.’” He started laughing and gave me a hug. Last time I ever saw the last decent and honest United States Senator.
Too bad everyone just uses Wellstone’s name to cover their sorry political butts every time they vote for wars and to support Israeli pogroms against the Palestinian people.
95% of the members of the U.S. House and Senate who call themselves “Progressives” aren’t even liberals.
There isn’t anything “progressive” about PDA just like there isn’t anything “progressive” about the candidate they supported and continue to support: Barack Obama. Why would any Progressive organization support Barack Obama? No answer from PDA.
PDA is a federal PAC. All our fundraising is on record.
I cannot go through our records to find these people, but anyone who is curious is free to check our filings with the FEC.
I’ve never seen or heard of anything about Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck or The Century Foundation. PDA has no “relationship” with any of them. None of them has any involvement with PDA.
Re: Can the Democratic Party be reformed? Only those completely unaware of the history of the party can even suggest this isn’t possible. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was a bastion of pro-slavery confederates and Dixiecrats. Over the decades, the Party became the home to New Dealers, Civil Rights heroes, LGBT activists, feminists, environmentalists, and so on. Most progressives in the USA are Democrats. It’s true!
All these accusations are untrue, Alan. You’ve been told that how many times, yet you persist in your vendetta against real progressives who are making real progress. I’m not sure why you want to alienate the vast majority of progressives in the USA who are Democrats, but keep marginalizing your 1% fraction of a faction. We’ll keep working to unite progressives and keep achieving progress while you fight with everyone online.
Everyone, the choice is yours: Join Alan’s 1% leading progressives into oblivion, or join with a growing and successful movement: http://www.pdamerica.org
Mr. Hersh,
Because you were too stupid to know who was working behind the scenes to yank your strings doesn’t mean that you weren’t used by Leah Daughtry to sink the single-payer movement and what about the One Nation Working Together? Who were you working with in that? Are you telling us PDA never worked with Leah Daughtry?
Why don’t you explain what has happened with “One Nation Working Together?”
All these accusations are untrue, Alan.
PDA sends occasional fundraising emails, but we do not count anyone as a “member” unless they sign up as such. We don’t ask people who sign up as members if they’re lying when they sign up. If you don’t want to belong to PDA, click unsubscribe on any email you get from us. Alan–exactly how many fundraising emails have you gotten from PDA that said you must donate to support us to be a “better activist?” I’ll bet a hundred times the total donations you’ve made to PDA that the number of such emails is zero. Exactly zero is also the level of credibility you have.
Once more, I’m not sure why you want to alienate the vast majority of progressives in the USA who are Democrats, but keep marginalizing your 1% fraction of a faction. We’ll keep working to unite progressives and keep achieving progress while you fight with everyone online.
Everyone, the choice is yours: Join Alan’s 1% leading progressives into oblivion, or join with a growing and successful movement: http://www.pdamerica.org
Alan—
Calling me “too stupid” is no excuse for all the dishonest statements you’ve made about any number of things. First you claim “everyone knows” something. Now you’re throwing a fit because no one knows these fanciful tales you keep spinning.
Why should anyone obey your commands to research things that “everyone knows” never happened? You’re acting like a conspiracy theorist who thinks PDA is flying black helicopters over your house. Time to change your tin foil hat, Alan. I’ve got work to do.
Let the record show: while Alan Maki claims his accusations are verifiable, he refuses to provide any substantiation at all. No links. Nothing. Just his overheated rhetoric and ever changing accusations. He doesn’t have a single honest, reasonable point to make. If he did, he’d have made it by now. If he had any evidence for his accusations, he’d provide it. Instead he keeps changing his story, claiming “everyone knows” things which he’s made up, demanding other people answer questions based on total falsehoods, and provide “evidence” which doesn’t exist.
Alan’s story keeps changing as more and more people are dragged onto his enemies list. Much like Richard Nixon, Alan assumes people are “out to get him,” and that justifies vicious attacks against them. Much like George W. Bush, Alan thinks you’re with him or against him. He proves this by attacking any and all progressives who don’t agree with him 100% all the time. If you dare question his lemming parade, he will attack you too. Luckily the attacks are bizarre and laughable on their face. He has nothing which approaches accurate or reasonable evidence.
For the record–once again–PDA has endorsed no one in the 2012 presidential contest. Alan is LYING when he keeps claiming this.
If Alan is going to keep lying about such a simple, easy to debunk way who can trust him about anything else?
Mr. Hersh,
You stated:
“I could look at Maki’s Facebook and claim he’s “hiding” his connections with anyone I want to claim “everyone knows” he works with.”
You could also look at my blogs, newspaper articles, interviews or whatever about me and feel free to comment on anything. Go ahead and look at the file the FBI maintains on me for all I care. Anything you find objectionable you just go right ahead and put it all out here just as I have done with PDA.
Mike, unlike PDA, everything about me is out in the open. If you have a problem with anyone I work with please feel free to state this as I have done with my concerns about PDA.
I have been very explicit.
I haven’t given any “commands” to anyone.
I haven’t accused anyone, including you, of attacking me as you claim I have done.
I couldn’t care less what you think about me. I do care about getting truthful answers to my questions from you about PDA. I take it at face value that you state Carl Davidson is not on your board but you point out his associate Tom Hayden is on your board. But, you have yet to explain PDA’s relationship with Carl Davidson who attacks progressives without let-up simply because they oppose Barack Obama and he does this claiming PDA to be, “one of my organizations.” So, you must have some relationship with this Carl Davidson. You have to know he is an associate of Tom Hayden’s and you have to know he is claiming to be working with and for PDA. And you must know how he operates in attacking people who refuse to support Obama.
Next—
It is what people think about PDA that is what is at issue here because YOU made it an issue.
I’m not here asking anyone for anything; but you are. You are asking people to join PDA. I am merely providing my opinion of PDA based on concrete facts.
I never said you were stupid to cover up anything. I made an observation based upon your responses.
I just think it is best that lots of people start looking into PDA beyond what you post on your web site and the claims you make which I believe based upon my research and experience to be bogus.
If I tell someone to look into me, I suggest they look at my blogs AND anyplace else they want to and talk to whoever they want to. Asking someone to look at your website as a way to substantiate what you say seems a little self-serving to me— but, then again, you have hoodwinked 100,000 people into paying you dues doing this.
I can’t pretend to say what motivates PDA. I can only draw conclusions based on what I see of your activities (and inaction) and my experiences with people who claim they are members of PDA here in Minnesota who you will neither acknowledge or deny they are members even though you would be the one to know. You asked for their names; I provided the names. Now you say you don’t have time to find out if they are really PDA members. Ok; I accept that so we can’t go any further with this until you confirm or deny they are members of PDA— remember, it was not I who demanded names; rather it was you making the demand upon me.
I also asked you if the Minnesota DFL Progressive Caucus is affiliated with PDA; no answer from you.
Both of us know Minnesota State Senator John Marty who tried to pass off his proposed health care legislation as single-payer when after my criticisms Marty himself admitted his legislation was not single-payer yet for some reason Tim Carpenter and Laura Bonham continue to insist it is single-payer even though PNHP refuses to certify it as single-payer; but, Jon Marty is a member of PDA because he has stated this and Tim Carpenter confirmed this; so, I assume we can both agree this is fact.
Are you denying that John Conyers and Donna Smith went to work on the health care position for the Democratic Party Platform? Yes or No?
Are you denying they agreed with/accepted the present wording in the Platform? Yes or No.
I stated PDA supports Barack Obama for re-election; instead of telling us you do or you don’t support Obama for re-election you ask me how I know and to “prove it.” Place it in writing right here; if I am proven wrong I will apologize.
Let’s go through the process step by step:
1. Is Barack Obama a Progressive? Yes or No. If not, what is he?
2. Will PDA endorse a Democratic Party candidate for president? Yes or No.
3. Does PDA encourage a Primary challenge to Obama? Yes or No.
4. If Barack Obama is the Democratic Party candidate for president in 2012 will PDA be supporting him? Yes or No.
I appreciate your honesty in stating PDA will not seek to participate in any other political party other than the Democratic Party so I take this at face value.
Asked and answered, Alan
You’re demonstrating anti-progressive, anti-democratic (small d) behavior. You clearly exist to punish anyone who’s careless enough to pay any attention to you or give you any respect at all. By engaging in all this bullying, lying, and trolling, you’ve squandered any claim on my time you may have once had.
I urge everyone reading this to avoid getting entangled with Alan Maki and his lemming march of lefties off the cliff into oblivion, and join with PDA at http://www.pdamerica.org