Poor form

That's not something someone running a legitimate political group should be posting, it's classless.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:56:44 AM UTC

EMILY's List

EMILY's List has a great cause that should be invested in greatly but IMO the organization is a joke. Sure they have the ability to raise large chunks of money for their endorsed candidates but they screw up so many times by endorsing undesirable political insiders and running horrible campaigns.  

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  

---

by: GayTeen4Obama @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:10:16 AM UTC

does anyone here remember

them trying to get in the highly conservative Peggy Lamm over Ed Perlmutter, (who is completely pro-choice), in that primary? They really pumped her and fundraised for her, despite the fact Perlmutter was the strongest candidate and had the endorsement of countless unions, environmental groups, and a completely pro-choice rating as well as more on the ground institutional support and a better political base, (his former state senate district was in CO-07, Lamm's was not).  

---

by: jwaalk @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:06:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's bad

but by far their worst moment was supporting pro-choice but anti-Semitic/racist Nikki Tinker in the TN-09 primary in 2008. It was quite a relief when Steve Cohen kicked her ass.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:59:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's the one that kills me the most

I can't believe they wasted funds on Nikki Tinker instead of a spending it on a pro-choice Democrat taking on an anti-choice Republican. I support their cause for sure, but they have a CfG-lite approach to politics.

Plus, I can't support an organization that makes decisions based on a candidate's genitalia. It's wrong when men use that standard against women and I think that's true for the reverse as well.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

---

by: LennyLiberal @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 10:22:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nikki Tinker

Is about as close to unforgiveable as it gets in politics.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 13:01:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree, it's a permanent black mark on Emily's List......

There really was no reason to oppose Cohen in particular, as he's solidly liberal and solidly pro-choice and pro-women's issues without exception to my knowledge.

And there was no reason to endorse Tinker against anyone.  Only if someone the likes of David Duke were an opponent could a Tinker endorsement conceivably be justified.

And I don't think Emily's List has ever acknowledged it fucked up on that one.  That just makes it all the worse.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 13:33:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fortunately, she's also as close to FORGETTABLE as it gets

She seemed like a bright young woman, who was good in the main issues, etc. -- but just couldn't wait to get ahead, and was ready to savage Steve Cohen in, as you say, an unforgivable way to do it.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 15:36:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's silly. Their cause is just, and no different than...

...the causes of the NAACP or Hispanic interest groups and so forth.

Women are historically oppressed, and even today a slight majority of the American population and yet only a fraction of U.S. House members and Senators.

It's perfectly reasonable for them to make "being a woman" a criterion for electoral support.  It's just one group, people can give to their candidates or not, and all other vehicles out there promote candidates without gender as a criterion.

That's not to defend Emily's List's choices of endorsements, which have been horribly problematic, like the Nikki Tinker endorsement another comment pointed out.  That's a separate issue altogether and yes, draws justified condemnation.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 13:30:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Identity Politics

I have a huge problem with identity politics and this is a great reason why I have a problem with identity politics.  Emily's List has a record of ignoring policy stances and records while focusing exclusively on sex.  They should be focused on advocating their agenda and getting the most effective candidates to advance their agenda.  When you look at some factor outside of policy, you are bound to run into this issue.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 16:43:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely agree

Identity politics is divisive and shifts the focus away from meaningful issues. Consider NAACP/Congressional Black Caucus's involvement in the Tinker race, too. Steve Cohen has been an outstanding advocate for his African American constituents, which they recognized in the primary. He even sponsored a federal apology for slavery. But a lot of black lawmakers completely ignored his accomplishments because he wasn't black, which I find incredibly annoying.

I completely support black/Hispanic/women's rights groups, but I believe it would more ideal if they made endorsements based on candidates' perspectives and records. Gender and race have no significance as to how effective a legislator is and deserve less consideration than a lot groups give them.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

---

by: LennyLiberal @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 18:16:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those groups do exactly what you say, they judge on records......

You didn't see the NAACP or other black political groups support Michael Steele's Senate bid, or Lynn Swann's gubernatorial bid.

You don't see liberal women's groups support anti-choice candidates, except maybe in the oddball case where a woman is good on everything but abortion.

There are occasional stinkers of choices, like Nikki Tinker.  And I'm not aware the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus got behind Tinker in any case?  I thought it was just Emily's List?

Race and sex are meaningful issues.  That's why these groups exist.  My wife and I are contemplating have a 3rd child, and she's confident anti-discrimination laws will protect her employment if we have the kid and she goes on the required extended leave during late-stage pregnancy and post-natal recovery.  I'm actually still worried about it.  As a man I never have this problem.

As a man of color, I legally changed my name in law school from a hard-to-pronounce ethnic Indian name to a more Westernized name, so I'd have one less thing to worry about as I scrounged for a job in the early 90s recession.

There is no distinction between "identity politics" and "meaningful issues."  One's identity governs much of what happens to one in life.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 19:37:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I remember some CBC members supporting her

And in a very weak defense of Emily's List, I found this roaming through the SSP archives.  

EMILY's List president Ellen Malcolm issued a statement Wednesday evening condemning Tinker's most recent ad.  The group, which endorses Democratic women who favor abortion rights, has been Tinker's most prominent backer.
"We were shocked to see the recent ads run by the Nikki Tinker for Congress campaign. We believe the ads are offensive and divisive,"

From here.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 19:52:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plus, having members who are actually of whatever group

Are probably more likely to be responsive to issues that affect those groups for the simple reason that they themselves have experienced them (all Senate Republican women voted for the Lily Ledbetter act, IIRC).

Truth is, progressives should be more supportive of "identity politics" insofar as women are concerned simply because women really are more liberal than men. In fact, I (mostly) joke that I'd be willing to support a banning men (and possibly exclude it to just white men) from voting. True, in both cases, I'd be barred from voting, but that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make ;)

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 20:00:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand where you're coming from

and you have a very compelling argument. I recognize that identity politics organizations will more often than not support their own because they're more likely to deliver the goods. I'm perfectly fine with that.

What bugs me is when race and sex blur out the issues, as these organizations do every once in a while. I can't understand, for example, when EMILY's List wades into Democratic primaries where other candidates have proven to be equally capable advocates of a woman's right to choose.

Likewise, it bugged me when the CBC threw tantrums about Bill Jefferson and Charlie Rangel losing their Ways and Means Committee seats and Alcee Hastings being passed over for a chairmanship for past ethical impropriety.

More often than not, identity groups provide a valuable service in advancing important progressive causes. But I'm troubled by their occasional inclination to prop up flawed politicians or waste resources against friendly candidates because one candidate has particular physical attributes.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

---

by: LennyLiberal @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 20:25:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Occasional inclination" is just that: occasional. Political groups all screw up......

Everyone makes stinkers of endorsements sometimes.

Nikki Tinker was particularly horrible and hurts Emily's List badly.

The CBC certainly gets itself in trouble by letting personal chumminess get in the way of smart politics.  After all, the Members they get defensive about are virtually always in safe majority-black seats, and they're better off jettisoning problem children like Jefferson.  They paid a price in the form of a lost seat by not pressuring Jefferson internally to retire before he lost.

But what these and other groups do for the most part is a great public service.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:55:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I concluded that they solely support women.

Even if the man running in the primary has a flawless record on choice and is a big supporter of the feminist movement.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 09:25:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Im perfectly fine with that

As a gay guy, I am perfectly fine with these identity groups trying to elect their own.  What makes EMILY's LIST suck is that they have a terrible track record and how dare they endorse someone as odious as Tinker against a sitting incumbent who is a solid progressive.

I think they, like many interest groups, have very terrible political directors and they make giant fuck ups like that.  Losing the Prop 8 battle in CA was another big fuck up that happened because the LGBT interest groups dont know how to run campaigns, and they are a plural.  There needs to be ONE pro-gay group in CA because otherwise, everyone isnt on board.

A dream job of mine would actually be to work at EMILY's List and get them to not suck anymore.  They could really do a lot but instead they are a joke.  And I figured with Schriock that'd be different, because winning Tester and Franken were masterpieces.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 19:59:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fun fact

The Chief Gay at Gay Inc. (Gay Inc. = Human Rights Campaign, or HRC) is Joe Solmonese, who previously ran Emily's List. And he is a royal fuckup who has decided that his job is being the chief defender of the party to the gay community, instead of being the chief advocate for LGBT interests within the party. Frankly, if we blame anyone for EMILY's List turning into a bunch of boot-licking toadies to the national party's agenda as well as wasting resources on stuff that's not really in step with the group's goals, I think we should blame the guy who did the same thing to HRC.

But I disagree that there should be just one group. It's an all-the-eggs-in-one-basket problem. If we build a very powerful gay group (like HRC for example) with a big-ass budget and a lot of clout, it can be very easily undermined by a weak leadership, like HRC has been under the syncophantic Solmonese. We never would've gotten even that BS DADT compromise if it wasn't for smaller groups like Servicemembers United. And Lambda Legal has been kicking some a$$ for years now.  

Should there have been greater coordination among the groups battling Prop H8? Definitely. Is having one gay group to rule them all the solution? I would argue that it is not. Frankly, I think the solution (for both groups) is to hire an angry, ball-busting lesbian who is more interested in getting stuff done than scoring invites to cocktail parties.   (only half-joking about this part, actually)

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 21:43:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I like about MN

Is that we have one group, and while I have my complaints about them, I know they have a plan and have smart people working for them.  CA just seems like a disaster.  

The people who ran the Yes on 8 campaign won the Pollie award for best campaign for taking a huge deficit into a win.  That has to probably do a lot with  people lying to pollsters and the natural recession of actual votes from polls, but they knew how to run a campaign.

Pro-gay ads just dont have any bite while anti-gay ads generally have "compelling" story-lines and narratives.  We really do need a ball-busting lesbian to run these political campaigns and it certainly is time to save the cocktails for after we win.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:32:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Their

support for Terri Sewell over Shelia Smoot I think exemplifies how much of a Washington insider approach EMILY's List takes. Instead of staying on the sidelines like most interest groups would do when the 2 major candidates qualify 100% with the group's objectives, EMILY's List decided to endorse the insider in the race over progressive champion Shelia Smoot. I am however biased in my observations for I do still hold a huge grudge over EMILY's List after they pretty much hijacked Linda Stender's campaign in 2008 causing her to lose that congressional seat (by a wide margin too if I may say)in which she should have won, without excuses, so consider my opinions with a little salt. Also memories of their endorsement of Nikki Tinker still ring in my ears.            

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  

---

by: GayTeen4Obama @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:33:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for reminding me about AL-7

UGH!  Why are they so stupid?  I should chat with my one fave poli sci prof about her opinion on EMILY's List.  I used to inform her on stuff because of what I read here and I wonder if maybe many of these donors and supporters just dont know otherwise; they just get the email saying support this person!

Think about the women who support EMILY's List, no way in hell would they fall under the "moderate Democrat category."  They would want the most progressive one and EMILY's List is not delivering.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 20:03:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Groups and sex

I have little respect for any group that makes endorsements not on policy, but the reproductive plumbing someone has.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:31:44 AM UTC

Yeah.

The "yeast principle" is a great idea, but that's not what they're doing these days.

Good to know we all agree that EL is kinda bunk.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 17:28:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I saw this the other day

and thought to myself, well maybe they really are going in a different direction with Schriock and are really going to be going to bat hard for MAK.  And such a direction that they are going to be playing dirty and take on the Tinker role and be ridiculous themselves a bit.

Glad to see that's deleted.  And the title of this post isnt doing the Tweet justice.  There is a $ sign for a reason; she calls them Lazy Money Men, a reference to both Dayton and Entenza self-funding to pay for ads while MAK just got enough to be airing some after being quite behind.  No, sorry, our system makes people wait until we have an official nominee to donate; we aren't wasting our money on someone who wont even be the candidate.

Why does EMILY's List suck so hard?  Them and elements of the AA community (in regards to Tinker, Paterson, and Burris) get kind of sucky as they defend some pretty god awful candidates in the name of skin color.  LGBTers have the Victory Fund and they do act more like yeast and since there are only so many LGBTers getting elected, they never get in the way.  Maybe it's a good sign when these groups start to suck, it means they are at the point where it's time to protect their own (like an AA majority seat), instead of find where to elect them, like finally scoring with RI-1 with Providence's mayor giving them a gay candidate to get elected.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 20:14:36 PM UTC