Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

TN-09: Just What We Needed

by: DavidNYC

Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:14 PM EDT


It looks like former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton is playing with an entire deck full of race cards:

"To know Steve Cohen is to know that he really does not think very much of African-Americans," Mr. Herenton said in a recent radio interview on KWAM. "He's played the black community well."

Lovely - just what we need. But wait, there's more:

"This seat was set aside for people who look like me," said Mr. Herenton's campaign manager, Sidney Chism, a black county commissioner. "It wasn't set aside for a Jew or a Christian. It was set aside so that blacks could have representation."

Have these guys even listened to themselves? I'm just glad no one seriously tried to make the mirror-image of this argument with regard to Obama last year.

Anyhow, the Times glosses over this, but Nikki Tinker tried the same bullshit last time and got utterly pasted. Sure, Herenton is much better-known, but Tinker had the endorsement of EMILY's List (to their everlasting shame) and spent half a million bucks. With any luck, Herenton will meet the same fate.
DavidNYC :: TN-09: Just What We Needed
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
TN-09: Just What We Needed | 69 comments
I need to pull a McDonnell here
What the fucking hell is wrong with that guy?

Your go-to source for great sarcasm
I'm fed up with this bullshit
Chism is right about this:
It was set aside so that blacks could have representation.

But Steve Cohen represents blacks much better than Nicki Tinker or Herenton do.

Exactly.
The fact of the matter is that the only reason for this sort of race-baiting is that the black politicians running against Cohen simply can't come up with any other reason why Cohen should be replaced.  He's done an excellent job representing the voters of the 9th district.
[ Parent ]
Disgusting
Racism is disgusting no matter whose mouth it comes out of, white or black, Jewish or Christian... These people should really listen to themselves.
It's really unreal
What is this, 1950?
TN
Truly Disgusting.  I hope Obama comes out for Cohen much quicker this time.  As much as he is hated in the netroots, It would also be nice for Harold Ford Jr. to come out for Cohen as well.
Scandals
The 69 year old Herenton has had more than a whiff of scandal.  Newspaper articles speculate on when he will be indicted for profiting from real estate deals, city contracting deals revolving around the FedEx forum basketball arena, and of course the rumored affair as head of the Memphis schools before he ran successfully for Mayor.

Cohen looks like a lot safer bet for Memphis.

Umm
Does Sidney Chism think the African-American's in the district are not Christian? That might be news to a lot of them. This is ugly on many many levels.
Shameful
Just shameful.
Herenton will get destroyed
assuming his own scandals don't force him out of the primary earlier.

Cohen is very popular with the voters of this district and they can see through this kind of divisive trash.  "Pasted" doesn't even start to communicate just how badly Tinker lost.  It was 79-19%!

When Cohen retires, the odds are very good an African-American representative will follow him.  But Cohen has been a better advocate for his district's citizens than Ford ever was.  To call Cohen a racist is an insult to African-Americans who suffer very real racism every day in this country.

And let me add
Herenton is old enough to know of the long and honorable history Jewish-Americans have had in the civil rights movement.

Memphis deserves so much better than him.

[ Parent ]
Amen.


Stop complaining and whining and get to work.
[ Parent ]
Shut up, Willie.
The way the 2008 campaign went heartens me about the voters in the district, given how badly Tinker lost.  The optics of Cohen losing in the face of a campaign like this would be ugly, ugly, ugly.
Eww. Yuck.


Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
A poll in April showed Cohen easily winning
Of course it had a pretty small sample size.  Still, hopes springs eternal that Memphis will continue to reject racism like it did in 2008's primary.  
Did they learn nothing
from Niki Tinker?  
We're also forgetting
that there's another factor in here...Cohen is VERY socially liberal and it doesn't fly well with Memphis black preachers who are anti-gay and pro-life, two thinks Cohen is not.

Historically, black voters just don't
make their voting decisions based on those factors. (Unless confronted by the question directly, as with prop 8).
[ Parent ]
Which is why Cohen beat Tinker
because the voters don't care...the ministers and black political leaders, different story.  
[ Parent ]
You know
Whenever I'm working for a candidate or cause, or just sitting and talking with people, I find that I usually get more thoughtful responses, more considerate answers, and more willingness to understand and adjust their views on socail issues from blacks than whites.  It always miffs me how we've really failed to engage this vital block of our coalition on the social front.

Stop complaining and whining and get to work.
[ Parent ]
I bluntly disagree that was a factor
rather it was an excuse.  If the black had been socially liberal and the white socially conservative, these preachers would have been going all out for the black candidate.

Race is the fundamental issue here, as it for a large number of Southern whites.

[ Parent ]
I think Cohen should've been allowed into the Congressional Black Caucus
Herenton will get pasted just like Nikki Tinker did. I don't think Cohen is going to have to worry about it too much.
Not a good idea.
The CBC has a fairly specific focus, and Cohen entering would dilute it.  Whatever complaints might be leveled at it (inevitably, it acquires the same institutional clubbiness of the rest of Washington), there's still a very good reason for having an organizational mechanism to represent African-Americans by African-Americans.
[ Parent ]
Isn't That Herenton's Argument?
"there's still a very good reason for having an organizational mechanism to represent African-Americans by African-Americans."

Ah, isn't that precisely what Herenton is arguing? That the district (the "organizational mechanism") was drawn to have African Americans represented by African Americans?

[ Parent ]
If the point the CBC is to increase the influence of representation for African Americans
And to be clear, this is a good thing, doesn't this mean that the considerations of Memphis's majority-black population is now excluded from holding this extra influence for the sole reason that they decided to elect someone who isn't black?

I just don't see how the CBC would be harmed by including a member who is not black, but represents a large black constituency.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
You know, that's a good point.
I hadn't thought about it that way until you laid it out there so clearly.  I understand the reasoning behind the CBC, and frankly I can see why some would want to keep it all black (there's no equivalency to an all white group here-there's a difference between those who oppressed and those that were oppressed).  But you make a good point here and, as long as someone like Joe Wilson couldn't slip in and undermine the organization including people like Cohen could indeed strengthen the organizations hand.

You've changed my thinking.  Thank you.

Stop complaining and whining and get to work.

[ Parent ]
That same argument
Could be used to include many Congresman. John Barrow, a fairly conservative Dem represents a district that is 45% black. Jim Marshall, a very conservative Democrat, represents a district that is 33% black. Should they be included? On the other side, Phil Gingrey, Jack Kingston and Lynn Westmoreland are all conservative Republicans but represent districts that are 29%, 22% and 40% African-American respectively. Should they be included?
[ Parent ]
The Republicans don't seem all that interested in pursuing African American agendas
And the CBC is, for all intents and purposes, a Democratic group which operates within the Democratic party (remember, JC Watts was not a member of the CBC when he was a member of congress), so no, Republicans probably shouldn't become members (whether they be black or white or anything else).

As to whether those conservative white Democrats should be admitted, you should remember that in fact the CBC is not an ideological group per se, like the Progressive Caucus is, or the Blue Dogs, or the New Dems are (whether one agrees with their stances or not is a different question). Ideology doesn't seem to matter all that much either, since, after all, it's not like there haven't been conservative black members of the caucus (Harold Ford Jr., Artur Davis, and Al Wynn all come to mind).

I'm not opposed to the caucus being relatively exclusive (and this is something I'd also pose relating to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as well) but when that exclusivity is based entirely on the reprsentative's skin color, then it really serves no other purpose than to act as an institutionalized private club within Congress, and there's no reason to believe that is good for any group.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
With JC Watts
It was because him and some African-American congressman got into a pissing match. Plus, I'm pretty sure he did get invited but decided against it.

I agree with you that entrance into this caucus isn't based on ideology. Entrance also isn't based on what percentage of your district is black. Keith Ellion's district is 13% black, lower than every single person I mentioned. And that's the only reason anyone is saying Cohen should get in. If you want to say that the CBC should be disbanded, that's a seperate argument to itself. But if your going to argue that Cohen should be admitted but then disclude the people I mentioned especially Barrow and Marshall your not making a fully intellectually honest argument.

[ Parent ]
The only ones I said should not be included are Republicans
For partisan reasons, since it is a defacto Democratic caucus (maybe that's not a good thing, but that's the way it is). I actually think that Barrow and Marshall, should they desire to enter the caucus, should not be excluded.

I guess what I'm saying, and I should've been a lot more clear about this, is that while the CBC should be able to invite whoever they want, if people like Cohen (or Barrow and Marshall, if they so chose) ask to be admitted as members, then there should at least be a better reason to not admit them other than "they're not black".

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
The only reason is
That there are no elected Black republicans. If a moderate black republican got elected I'm sure he'd be invited to join the CBC, and there's probably a good chance he'd accept. If your going to make the argument that Cohen should get accepted based on the demographics of his district then you have to be willing to allow Lynn Westmoreland to enter based on the demographics of his district.
[ Parent ]
Well, if Westmoreland really wanted to join...
And I'd point out that I don't think it's necessarily a good thing that the CBC would accept a black Republican, so I don't really have to accept your premise.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm
[ Parent ]
I don't mean to be disrespectful
But you sound like a partisan hack. Its called the Congressional Black Caucus not the Congressional Black Democrat Caucus. It just so happens that there are no black republicans, but if I'd expect him there was one I'd expect him to join.
[ Parent ]
A few things
1. Yes, the CBC is, in theory, a nonpartisan congressional caucus, but in practice it does not function that way, and you know it (this would be true if the CBC had a nominal black Republican member or not).

2. I think that the CBC should allow white (or Hispanic) Democrats who represent large African American populations, that the CBC does allow black Republican members does not mean I have to accept that they should accept nonblack Republicans, on the contrary, since the CBC is a de facto Democratic group (hell, they could call themselve the Republican Black Congressional Caucus for all I care, it still wouldn't change that fact) they should stop pretending to be nonpartisan and stop accepting Republican members. There is absolutely nothing about what I've said that is not completely consistant with what I think the CBC should do.

3. Since the group's actual goal is to advance the agenda for African Americans, I fail to see how this goal is furthered by refusing to admit non-black members who represent large black populations (like Rep. Cohen, or even someone like Bob Brady whose PA-01 district is plurality black).

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
Its only a defacto
Democratic organization by circumstance. It doesn't have to be that way, I'm sure if you asked CBC members they'd say they'd be very happy if there were Black Republicans in Congress.

IMO the "defacto democratic group" argument is utter nonsense and I don't disagree with you that the CBC should consider non-black Congresspeople who represent districts with a large black population, I just don't see the CBC as a partisan organization.

[ Parent ]
Legally speaking
Are groups like the CBC even allowed to organize and 'officially' meet on public property if they have a racially/ethnically exclusive policy? Or maybe they just do it outside public property.
[ Parent ]
Although perhaps
groups like that arent officially exclusive.
[ Parent ]
It's a political question
No court would ever let itself get tangled up with that can of worms.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm
[ Parent ]
Congress runs itself
Moreover, as a coequal branch of government, Congress runs itself. It cannot be made to observe any law, unless it consents.
[ Parent ]
How the hell can there be
a 40% black district that is R+19.  That doesnt compute whatsoever.  Anyone able to explain that district a bit better and tell me how on earth it is so damn Republican when you've got 40% of the population being black.  Is this the one area where blacks are Republicans?
[ Parent ]
Those are the old district (GA-03 and GA-11)

Lynn Westmoreland has never represented a 40 percent black district that was Jim Marshall's old district that is now the 8th district a change that occurred due to mid-decade redistricting by the GOP, Westmoreland's current district is only around 20 percent black. Gingrey's district also was adjusted mid-decade and made significantly less black and more Republican. Here's a map of Gingrey's old district. John Barrow's district is around 43 percent black and Obama received 54 percent there so that's probably around what Obama would have received in the old 3rd and 11th, but certainltly not what he got in the new 20+/-% black districts.

 



Check out Georgia's best progressive political blog
[ Parent ]
My guess is that Obama narrowly lost the old 3rd
and lost the old 11th by 5-10 points. They were drawn to elect white Democrats, after all, and Obama probably didn't pull enough of the white vote in either.  
[ Parent ]
Pretty Nasty
It really isn't helpful for the argument that we are seeing a post racial America when it is actually black people playing the race card (i.e. Tinker, Bobby Rush during the Roland Burris fiasco, and now this...). All this does is give the right wing fodder to rile up the tea party base more.

Or we could go to my other theory, that Herenton is from a different generation of African American leaders that see the race issue through a more confrontational lens, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But Tinker was not from that generation, since she was much younger.

I really hope that Cohen stays in office until he himself is like 80 years old. For those people who thought TN-09 is a black seat, or even a Ford seat, it would really bring them back to reality.

There's no such thing as a post racial America.
Never was and probably never will be (and frankly I'm kind of glad about that fact.)  That was a media invention that sounded good during the last election, another aspect of the establishment saying "King gave his speech, they marched, it was beautiful, and all that is behind us now so we really don't have to do anything about race and if you bring it up you're playing 'the card'."  Race has been so essential to the development of our nation and so informative as to who we are as people, that we will never be post racial.  To me, that's a good thing in a way.  I don't want a society that's completely color blind, much less the false "post racial" society designed to sweep racial problems under the rug.  I want to see us become a truly pluralistic society, one where we uplift, understand, and celebrate our differences-a vision that I think Cohen and his representation of Memphis fits in nicely.

That said, I don't think we should just dismiss Herenton and other charlaitans who hide behind race while exploiting blacks in the same manner as white politicians as old school.  While the times they lived in have certainly shaped them, such great figures as Malcom X came from their generation and still stood up to such characters.

Cohen's going to pull this one off, there's no doubt about that.  Herenton has run Memphis into the ground, and it's a real shame because he and others like him give a bad name to all aspiring African American politicians.

Stop complaining and whining and get to work.

[ Parent ]
Feh.
Not to be racist, but blacks who try to exploit being discriminated against for political gain don't deserve to be anywhere near public office or in a public position. (I have the same problem with Bobby Rush and Al Sharpton, among others). Same with any other "protected class" group. It disgusts me that there are people in these groups that can't act like adults and have to cry "racism" or "sexism" or "discrimination" whenever they don't get their exact way 100% of the time. Using historical arguments promoting segregation and/or "revenge", i.e. "all whites are evil because their ancestors put my ancestors into slavery" or "all men are evil/pigs because women were discriminated against for centuries in Western culture" is another thing that I find repugnant. I'm sorry if my ancestor's second cousin fifteen times removed might've owned slaves or beaten his wife, but that has nothing to do with who I am as a person, or how I treat women, etc. To suggest equivalence in character based on ancestry alone is completely idiotic.

In any case, Herenton has been an embarrassment to Memphis for almost 30 years. Given Tennessee's current delegation, there's always room for one more embarrassment, but Cohen's 1000% better than anyone else in the delegation. I hope he can hold on against this scumbag, and I think he will.  

A bit of friendly advice
NEVER start ANY statement with this:

Not to be racist, but

It IMMEDIATELY makes you sound racist, regardless of what you follow it with. Moreover, it is completely unnecessary, as the rest of your thoughts speak for themselves eloquently and do not sound the least bit racist.

Having said that, one point I'd make is that this seems like somewhat of a diversion to me:

It disgusts me that there are people in these groups that can't act like adults and have to cry "racism" or "sexism" or "discrimination" whenever they don't get their exact way 100% of the time.

That district was designed for African-Americans to receive representation, and they're getting it. They have repeatedly chosen to elect Cohen. So individual black candidates who complain that black folks aren't being represented by electing the candidate of THEIR choice - irrespective of the fact that he happens to be a white Jew - are giving an argument that is not only racist but demonstrably false.

[ Parent ]
Yes, true, on both counts. Point taken. n/t.

[ Parent ]
Interestingly
If we used Instant Run-Off Voting universally, Memphis would certainly have gotten a black Congressperson in 2006.

For those who dont know how Instant Run-Off Voting works (it's big in MN but I havent heard of it being used anywhere else).

IRV is where instead of voting for the candidate you think is best, you rank all of the possible candidates from 1-whatever in your order of preference.  If no candidates gets 50%+1 based off of everyone's first preferences, then you knock out the bottom candidate, look at that candidate's ballots where he was ranked a 1, and then count all of the 2's on those ballots to see who those people wouldve voted for if their number 1 candidate wasnt on the ballot.

Like with the Franken-Coleman-Berkley race.  Let's say I voted Barkley-1 Franken-2 Coleman-3.  Barkley would be knocked out and then my vote would count for Franken now instead.

This wouldnt have allowed all the black candidates in 2006 to split the black vote and allow Cohen to sneak through the primary.

[ Parent ]
IRV (aka the Hare method) is not all sweetness and light
Here's one issue with it to ponder: you can switch your vote to the winner and cause him to lose.  
[ Parent ]
Sorry
Im going to blame this on being hung over like hell today (word to the wise, DEMAND that your bf makes you that pizza for dinner instead of just boozing away your hunger....).  But could you explain that a bit further because I dont get what you mean at all.  Spell it please  :)
[ Parent ]
With apologies because I'm still buzzed
OK, so here's two election examples with only minor differences

7 A B C

5 C A B

4 B C A

1 B A C

Then the last voter changes his profile to vote for the "winner" of the first election:

8 A B C

5 C A B

4 B C A

Different winner!  

[ Parent ]
The Question Is "Better?", Not "Perfect?"
Yes, IRV can have an odd result. But the question should be whether it produces odd results more or less often than other methods. No system is perfect; the question is which ones are better.

The flaws of IRV may be an example of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, though the discussion is a bit beyond me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

And if Florida had instant runoff, Gore would have been president since I doubt that very many of those Nader voters had W as their #2 choice.

[ Parent ]
Let's be clear: Gore got more votes in Florida
There were other structural problems that caused him to lose.

But as to IRV, the problem I identify is that it is not monotone. Put differently, you can vote for the leading candidate and cause him to lose.

One argument for plurality voting is that strategic voting has a more transparent impact: you usually know who the spoilers and the real candidates are. While with IRV you are lulled into a false sense that everything will work out in the end .  

[ Parent ]
Again, Every System Has Problems
Gore got more votes in Florida. There were other structural problems that caused him to lose.

Yes, but the Nader vote was a pretty big chunk. Had there been instant runoff, many of the other questions (such as what counted as a "vote") would have been mooted by the addition of thousands of votes.

One argument for plurality voting is that strategic voting has a more transparent impact: you usually know who the spoilers and the real candidates are. While with IRV you are lulled into a false sense that everything will work out in the end.

Yes, IRV may have its problems. But again the question is whether those problems are worse or better than what we have now--because Arrow (overly simplified) seems to say just about every system is going to have hypotheticals that get an odd result. Florida 2000 is a pretty clear example of the shortcomings of plurality voting, since it would seem pretty clear that a majority of those who voted and whose votes were actually counted would not have selected W over Gore if given the chance.

Whether the disadvantages of IRV are worse than those of plurality voting, well, I'm not enough of an expert to say.

[ Parent ]
More importantly
It distracts from very real racism and discrimination that is still an enormous and pervasive problem in our society.  And when those incidents arise, the few cries of wolf naturally give the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck and the fair number of whites that think like them something to fall back on.

Stop complaining and whining and get to work.
[ Parent ]
Is anyone surprised?
Herenton is also the guy who resigned being mayor to run for congress, then filed papers to run for the special election for his seat that was opened by his resignation.  If this man isn't by simple terms "unstable" or "dellusional" I don't know what is.  
Also,
There must be black candidates that would actually be good, thoughtful representatives for TN-09.  The fact that they choose not to run against Cohen, that only goofballs like Tinker and Herenton do, speaks volumes.  
Excellent Point
If you look at the wide range of black community leaders, including Christian religious leaders, who have stepped up and strongly supported Rep. Cohen, as you say, it speaks volumes.  Who is left?  People willing to be the tools of race-baiters (Tinker), or washed-up crooks like Herenton, who has a better chance of being in the Big House in January 2010 than he does the House of Representatives!
[ Parent ]
Black preachers
Seem to be very racially inclusive and tolerant. Many will gladly accept interracial couples and non-black congregants, for example. Afterall, MLK Jr. is a big hero to them.
[ Parent ]
I even attended a 'black church' with my dad
On one ocassion. About a decade ago. No one even much as looked as us funny because we were black.
[ Parent ]
Errr
Because we were white. My bad. Its 12:15 am damnit! lol
[ Parent ]
There is a special place reserved in Hell...
for folks like Herenton, Tinker, Helms, Limbaugh, Hannity and all those racist bomb throwers out there in nutjob-land.

Cohen is the most representive of that district in decades and he'll wipe the floor with Herenton just as well as he did with Tinker. God..sometimes, some black pols are so dumb, even black voters run away from them.

This is also about patronage
Don't get me wrong, race still plays a huge role, but I think it's often used as a cloak for ulterior motives.  Even though Harold Ford Jr. was a crappy Democrat who ideologically sold out his constituents time and again, he hailed from a politically connected family that could grease the wheels of the Memphis/Shelby County Democratic machines and bring back lots of pork barrel money to fund local pols' pet projects (there's a reason why he has so many family members that have been in trouble with the law before).  Hence, he was never primaried even though he should have been.

Cohen, having largely avoided most of that during his rise to Congress, isn't obligated to play ball in that way.  So some Memphis political types like Herenton would like to go back to the old ways of political patronage and cement their power.  Like others said, the respectable and mainstream black leaders in Memphis largely support Cohen, but the crooked types like Herenton will always look for a way back in.

To me, the scandal of the Tinker-Cohen race wasn't
that Tinker ran a disgustingly anti-Semitic race, far worse than anything Herenton has yet done. We all know that anti-Semitism persists among whites and blacks alike. The scandal, from my perspective, was that the pseudo-progressive Emily's List continued to support her for a long time after the Hitlerian nature of her campaign was obvious. They finally did bail, like rats fleeing a sinking ship, but it was far too late to mean anything by then. That race showed me the craven, stubborn, narcissistic, and unprincipled nature of Emily's List.  
Pot calling kettle black
Don't be going off about prejudice and then launch into an incredibly unfair (and prejudiced) tirade against one of the most influential women's groups in the country.  They didn't support Tinker "for a long time" either; they denounced her ads (which they had nothing to do with) almost immediately after they came out and cut their funding to her within the week.  Please, get your facts straight before opening your mouth and saying something stupid.  I'd also recommend you get to know a group before spouting off as well, as you clearly don't know EMILY's List.

Please, give me the facts supporting your baseless claims that they are "craven" or "unprincipled."  They thoroughly vet all of their candidates before supporting them, and have a staff of full-time researchers to weed out the bad seeds.  Unfortunately, Tinker was never an elected official before so no one could have seen this happening.  I have many friends and colleagues who have worked at EMILY's List, so I do take personal offense to you insulting a group that has done nothing but support good, progressive Democratic women and done so much in expanding the majority we enjoy today.  If you really feel that way about them and find it necessary to lob such degrading insults, go into their DC headquarters and tell them yourself instead of hiding behind your computer like a coward.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for responding to that wingnutty post. Sheesh.

[ Parent ]
What's the matter with you and your endorser?
Emily's List supported Tinker for weeks after her disgraceful campaign was in full swing--grotesque Christian supremacism and anti-Semitic caricatures right out of Nazi Germany. Why don't you look it up? It was a major topic of discussion on Open Left and here. I wasn't the only one angry at Emily's List then.

And perhaps you could explain to me how the strategy of supporting a conservative Democrat against a progressive could ever have done anything to expand "the majority we enjoy today." Even without the anti-Semitism, it was functionally an effort to replace a progressive voice with one friendly to corporate interests and, as it turned out, eager to appeal to prejudice--something Emily's List, if it had principles, should have foresworn the minute it happened.

And, finally, what's with the personal insults? I repeatedly made clear that I was expressing "my perspective." You're entitled to have your own, but your vilification of me is beneath you. I'm not hiding behind anything any more than you are. I did publicly address Emily's List at the time. My email address is listed in my profile. Is it simply that inconvenient truths must be vituperated into non-existence? I'm sorry if you have friends who work for Emily's List, but perhaps this incident should cause them to reconsider. This isn't the only stubborn and arrogant call that organization has made, though it is, again from my perspective, the worst.

[ Parent ]
What's with your insults?
Please, stop trying to play yourself as the victim in a fight you damn well started.  You called a group some VERY harsh names and have essentially linked them to Nazism - and I won't let that slide when it's with people I care about.  I think it's incredibly hypocritical to be condemning prejudice, only to use the same kind of broad, unfair generalizations towards another group of people that, quite frankly, you know little about.  If you want to disagree with EMILY's List's philosophy - that they support only pro-choice Democratic women - that is perfectly fine, and that debate is for another thread.  But "your perspective" that they support Nazi caricatures, are unprincipled, or are just a terrible group of people is completely unneccessary.  You were the one who started lobbing these insults and vituperations - if you don't like being personally attacked then maybe you shouldn't do it to other people.  I don't care if it was discussed on Open Left, this is no forum for that kind of behavior.  If you feel like that's "villification" then perhaps you should ask around here at SSP and see what others feel about that kind of talk.  And by the way, listing your email address is not some act of courage.  

Lots of people were angry at EMILY's List for their support of Tinker, but again, they had NOTHING to do with those ads and if they had any idea Tinker would have done such a thing they would have never supported her to begin with.  And I agree that people have a right to be angry at them over Tinker, but it doesn't give you license to sully their otherwise strong record.  They have helped elect hundreds of pro-choice, progressive females across the country at all levels of government.  They have been a huge source of funds, training, and logistics support for campaigns that would have otherwise had none, which has lead to countless victories against Republicans we may have never had.  They have also helped start "baby list" groups such as Ruth's List, Annie's List, and Lillian's List, all of which have helped elect progressive females in state-level legislatures, and thus have become one of the Party's most valuable allies during the state leg and redistricting battles for 2010.  And EMILY's List alumni have gone on to win races for Democrats around the country, thanks to the knowledge and training they received.

You keep mentioning their "arrogance" but tell me, what is so arrogant about them?  Can you name several more instances of their "arrogance" as you keep alluding to?  There's a reason why a lot of folks support them, you should try to understand that instead of demonizing them.  If anything, it's quite arrogant to make such a broad judgment of a group where you openly profess you know no one within.  Yes, they do sometimes support a female candidate who is primarying an incumbent Democrat, but their mission is to elect pro-choice women.  Do you also call labor unions "arrogant" when they support pro-labor primary challengers?  In the TN-09 case it wasn't about expanding the majority per se, but I can tell you for a fact that primarying Cohen was a tough call for them behind the scenes due to his pro-choice record. Ultimately, they did so in the belief it would at least keep Cohen honest on the issue of choice in the future even if he did win.  And in the majority of their other races - see TN-03 this cycle as an example - they do support women in tough-to-win districts and are their main lifeline.  Barbara Boxer, Chris Gregoire, Claire McCaskill, Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Jennifer Granholm, Carol Shea-Porter...the list goes on of good Democratic women that they have fought for.  I'm not discussing this any further unless you put it on another thread as it has little to do with the original point of this discussion, but if you don't like my responses, tough.  There's a diverse group of Democrats here on SSP and you should be respectful of a mainstream group that a lot of people here (I'm not in the minority) support.

[ Parent ]
Tinker ran an anti-Semitic campaign, as you agree.
It was probably the vilest anti-Semitic campaign of the last decade. Emily's List was one of her chief supporters, financially. If you resent me for calling them out about that, that's your business. I think your anger is misdirected.

I have yet to see Emily's List apologize or promise to be more careful the next time. I could name other mistaken or questionable interventions done by Emily's List (Tsongas, for one), but I don't want to deflect attention from the seriousness of this instance.

At a time when the right flirts with a Hitlerian politics, we need to be vigilent against an apologetics for it here. As a Jew, I'm very sensitive to the kind of behavior and acceptances, the libels and incitements, that this episode generated and generates. Sorry if that offends you or others.

If you want to continue this discussion, let's do it privately. You know where to find me.

[ Parent ]
TN-09: Just What We Needed | 69 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

SSP on Facebook

SSP's Frappr Map

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Political Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox