Tuesday, September 27, 2005

"Casey Will Win" ?!?!?!

See, this pisses me off.

(So as to avoid appearance of dogging someone for a comment passive-aggressively, I'll refrain from pointing you to the source page.)

I quote from a discussion of NARAL, Casey and a "broader movement".

Casey will win. The primary is a formality. Whether that is good or bad is not as important as the fact that it is. And we have to plan our politics accordingly; that is to say, who would we rather have win between the two who have a legitimate chance?

I'm not pissed at the speaker so much as the attitude. We scream and yell for progressive candidates, and then virtually IGNORE them when they exist. Of the 94 comments (to date) in the original discussion, Chuck Pennacchio is mentioned only twice. Yep. Twice.

And people from this particular blog community aren't unaware of him. Trouble is, a familiar defeatism is apparently creeping its way into the consciousness of the very group that could help him get elected.

Imagine if the blogosphere got behind Dr. Pennacchio the way it rallied around Paul Hackett.

Isn't the definition of "legitimate" based, in part, on our efforts to raise awareness about progressive candidates? I mean, what the hell are we doing here if not using our tools as "citizen journalists" (no matter how pretentious the term in some cases) if we don't pick up the slack left by the mainstream press?

It's up to us to talk about candidates that we support. It's up to us to do all we can to raise awareness in our local communities about choices outside of the usual contenders. And if we just roll over and blithely accept that progressive leaders are the stuff of fiction, then I swear I don't know why any of us feel qualified to pontificate about politics at all.


Lily said...

Well- it is often a matter of energy. not enough, few volunteers. Many people that talk but cannot get out there. They all have their legitimate reasons to be disengaged from the groundwork.
Its a tough situation, and there are many comments one could make about third party or 'snowball's chance in hell" candidates. Of course as 'progressives' we should rally around the 'better' candidate but often this means simplistically that it takes votes from the 'Democrat'. Yes, we have seen many political underdogs persevere. Not often, but it happens. The timing must often be right. Perhaps a conservative party that splits the repubs would hasten the departure of the liberal dems. They cannot seem to keep their religious horses at bay though. They are often too extreme. But not so with greens, despite the 'perception', many of you might find yourself into their positions once you saw beyond treehugging generalizations. Once I asked a progressive democrat what he rejected about the green platform, attempting to get to the bottom of some of these questions.
"it isn't that I oppose the greens, its that I don't think they can ever win, and cannot invest the time". He admitted he agreed with EVERYTHING. Surprise yourselves. You might too. Then how would you approach the question? Again, back to viability.
I would like somebody to answer THIS question- if its about platform and what a candidate stands for, and as your thought wish-list recommends- why are most progressives not registered greens? To go with your line of thinking, and if you read the green platform, you will see that there are few differences between a 'green' agenda and a progressive democrat... yet, people cannot make the leap. Why would you think them so readily able to make the leap for a candidate, where when its over, its over??? At least the green cause comprises a 'movement". And yet even with that in mind- most of you are not greens. What is it that they would have to do to court your support? If you can answer that you would better answer the question about why people are easily dismissive of good ol' Chuck.
Candidates like Chuck need to be kept in the loop after the primary, they need to continue to focus on the movement and less on their candidacy. They would build more of a following that way. Chuck should use the primary to reach out, participate in debates, connect to PDA's. Then next time be in a better position. The momentum has to be kept up by these candidates. They can't crawl away because they themselves did not 'win".
If the internet communities, networks, activists, etc. kept up the rebellious mojo- it would transform a campaign into part of a movement. Dean did this- and today DFA chapters are growing everywhere. DFA lets members vote on prospects for endorsement!

Lily said...

The link below is to the DFA website, where you can vote for early endorsements of candidates. They invite people to give feedback on who DFA should really rally for. I just think this is an interesting endorsement concept- letting members select the people they want the organization to put resources behind- very interesting to see new, innovative strategies.
They say:
The time is ripe for Americans to toss this Congress into the dustbin of history. But unless we offer voters a choice, we doom ourselves to more years in the minority -- and doom America to more years of failed leadership.

We want to challenge Republicans everywhere -- even in your own backyard. Come learn about the ten finalists and make your pick for the DFA Grassroots All-Star:Here to vote

Cantankerous Bitch said...

Thanks for posting these links, Lily. I paid them a visit the other day, and meant to drop in a referral. My gratitude for picking up my slack!

Lily said...

Interesting from "Disenchanted Forest"