Skip to main content

U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut pauses during his remarks at a news conference in Stamford, Connecticut January 19, 2011 where he announced that he will not seek re-election next year. Lieberman, 68, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee who crossed the political aisle to back Republican John McCain in 2008 White House race, bolted the Democratic party to become an independent five years ago but still often sides with his old party.
We don't need more of these in Congress.
EMILY's List's chief job is to get more women elected women in Congress, and that's obviously awesome. I doubt anyone here would deny that we'd have more effective government if the roster of elected officials better reflected our society.

Speaker Pelosi project bug
But there is obviously more to it than just electing more women, otherwise we'd have EMILY's List backing Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. The reason it's important to elect more progressive women is because, as EMILY's List itself states in its mission statement:
Only then can we build a lasting progressive majority dedicated to social justice, civil rights, diversity, economic reform, and compassion -- and construct a society that values the contributions of all of its citizens.
But if that's their (very laudable) mission, and they're fighting for a lasting progressive majority full of compassion and social justice, then why are they aggressively backing Elizabeth Esty in the Democratic primary in Connecticut's Fifth Congressional District?

Daily Kos is backing Chris Donovan, the speaker of the state House, in that primary, and the reasons why are lengthy and particularly compelling. A sample:

• Passed 12 minimum wage increases and wants further hikes

• Established Connecticut's first-ever progressive income tax, which required millionaires to pay their fair share

• Closed a huge budget deficit last year without any layoffs of state workers

• Made Connecticut the first state to pass paid sick-leave legislation

• Instituted a state-level version of the DREAM Act

• Added transgender rights to state's anti-discrimination law

• Legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized marijuana possession

• Repealed the state's death penalty law

I doubt there's anyone running for Congress this year that has tangibly done as much to advance a progressive agenda as Donovan. If Esty was a similarly good Democrat, then whatever. EMILY's efforts on her behalf would be an extension of their mission, and one that few could fault. But she's not. In fact, Esty is the second coming of Joe Lieberman.

As you see above, Donovan lead passage of Connecticut's first-in-the-nation paid sick leave act. NARAL, Planned Parenthood and many other women groups supported the legislation enthusiastically. You can read Planned Parenthood's letter of support here.

Esty voted against it.

That vote wasn't an anomaly, either. The centrism-obsessed Esty really is Lieberman's heir. Go below the fold for more on how EMILY's List appears to have been co-opted by Grover Norquist on behalf of a terrible Democrat.

The Nation's George Zornick summarizes the whole mess:

[T]he left blogosphere is up in arms over a July 17 EMILY’s List press release, about an as-yet unreleased mailer, which levels a different sort of charge against [Donovan]—one that uses distinctly right-wing framing. It accuses him of being a “tax-raiser” and heralds Esty’s resume of “responsible budgeting.”

In 2009, Esty and Donovan were locked in a budget battle—Donovan’s version of the state budget didn’t touch state Medicaid funding nor education funding, and asked for a millionaire’s tax. Esty’s budget proposal, meanwhile, cut Medicaid and Husky health funding by $146 million, cut higher education by $54 million and raises taxes on millionaires at a lower rate than Donovan--her proposal would collect $736.7 million less over two years from top earners.

This is the sort of “responsible budgeting” normally heralded by Republicans in Washington—deep cuts to the safety net and education with little or no buy-in from the wealthy. With newly elected members of the House almost sure to take on massive votes on the Bush tax cuts and budget sequestration as soon as they arrive in Washington, it’s truly crucial what Democrats headed there believe.

Luckily, Donovan's budget survived, and he was able to close the state's deficit without layoffs or massive cuts to education and the state's safety net. Yet here we have EMILY's List lambasting Donovan for being a tax raiser and heralding Esty for her "responsible budgeting." Did Grover Norquist suddenly join the EMILY's board?

Funny thing is, Esty's budget wasn't even responsible. As David Nir dug up in today's Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest, a legislative budget analysis made clear which was the responsible budget:

Responsible budgeting? Hardly. Esty's alternative budget (designed only to burnish her "centrist" credentials) was empirically far less responsible than the budget put forth (and eventually adopted) by mainstream Democrats. It's not a question open to interpretation—it's a stone-cold fact. Connecticut's non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis compared the Esty budget (also known as the "Democratic Alternative" or "DA" budget) to the actual budget, and this is what they found:

The DA Budget's General Fund is out of balance by approximately $631 million because it generates approximately $1 billion less in revenue.

$1 billion less! And why was that? Because Esty refused to insist that millionaires pay their fair share. Meanwhile, Donovan's historic budget represented a huge progressive accomplishment that required couples earning over $1 million a year to do the right thing and pay higher taxes so that draconian budget cutbacks could be avoided. But EMILY says they support Esty precisely because she didn't want a millionaires' tax, and even though her budget would have raised far less revenue than the mainstream Democratic budget. That's a pretty twisted definition of "responsible."

It's exactly the opposite definition of "responsible." Otherwise known as "irresponsible," which is synonymous with "Republican." "Conservative" too.

That's who EMILY's List has inexplicably decided to support—a candidate who would rather slash Medicaid, education and other state services rather than have millionaires pay their fair share, all the while voting against the nation's first paid sick leave act—one strongly supported by women's rights organizations in the state.

It's an unfortunate decision, and one that brings back memories of their support of Tennessee Blue Dog anti-semite Nikki Tinker in 2008. It's not as if there's a dearth of strong progressive women running for office this year that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Digby has more.

And if you are interested in helping elect perhaps the most accomplished progressive candidate running for House this cycle, as opposed to a Lieberdem, chip in $3.

5:24 PM PT: Turns out that after Esty's budget scored so poorly, she went back and modified it. However, she didn't close the revenue shortfall by asking the wealthiest to pay for it. Instead, she increased the amount of budget cuts from $395 to $625 million. In other words, her final budget proposal was even worse. Now that might excite Grover Norquist and, apparently, EMILY's List, but there's nothing progressive about it.

Originally posted to kos on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Has EMILY's List .. (15+ / 0-)

    offered a better explanation for this? .. especially when presented with the fact that their information of Noquist-ian? .. I know they've put out a crappy PR statement or two .. I was just hoping for something of substance

    •  This is one reason I stopped supporting (10+ / 0-)

      Emily's List....

      they will always support questionable female candidates rather they support the candidates best for women.

      •  I think that, like the HRC, (6+ / 0-)

        they have become too enamored of maintaining their insider status, as well as appearing "moderate," when today "moderate" means right-wing and harmful to ordinary working people. Cuts to education and Medicaid disproportionately hurt women and children. I don't see how Emily's List justifies that.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 07:02:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It has nothing to do with moderate... (3+ / 0-)

          they just will never support a male candidate running against a woman.

          •  I agree on the basis of a friend. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tea and Strumpets

            I have this female friend who, in 2010, proudly told me that she had cast her votes for Reid and then an all girl ticket.  Now, I read up on all the candidates and 2 of those "girls" were terribly unqualified.  She told me that she didn't care, you gotta support the girls.
            That's what Angie's List is doing.

            "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

            by rainmanjr on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:53:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's true. If there were no women candidates in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nanorich

            the primary they wouldn't be active in that race.

            That wouldn't be supporting Donovan in any case.

          •  I can no longer uprate this. (0+ / 0-)

            I can no longer uprate this, but it's the simple truth.  They may not support crazies like Bachman, and given the choice of two women they'll support the more progressive, but they'll never support a progressive man over a questionable women.  It's the simple priority of their list.  Gender is is a heavier factor on their scale than the degree of progressive behavior.

            I am surprised that anyone else is surprised by this - I do not think they are hypocritical in their mesaures of candidates; their decision process is well enough known.

            “In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.” - Fran Lebowitz

            by Aramis Wyler on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 10:28:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  They explicitly rejected "centrism" years ago. (0+ / 0-)

          I can't find the email, or a link online, but I was there.  They changed their mission statement from electing "pro choice women candidates" to "pro choice Democratic women" with the explicit reasoning that supporting Republican women still supported Republicans, and the Republican party was simply too hostile to choice.

          Also, as far as candidate selection goes, this is at least their fourth questionable call.  Tinker is easy to hammer on, but Tsongas and a few others were not necessarily better than primary opponents either.

          At least their idiotic PUMA tactics turned out to be a non-issue.

          But NARAL's endorsement didn't please Emily's List, the pro-choice, Democratic group backing Clinton. "I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton -- who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade -- to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process," said Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm. "It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them."

          -7.75 -4.67

          "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

          There are no Christians in foxholes.

          by Odysseus on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:40:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  And this is why I have a problem (36+ / 0-)

    with pushes for "more women" per se in Congress. I want more people who support women's rights, opportunities for women and men, and progressive values more broadly. Those progressives can be men and they can be women. This example crystalizes the matter for me, because we're in a primary fight.

  •  This is completly irresponsible (2+ / 0-)

    and it should be noted that there is a swirl of corruption around Donovan's campaign. He's one of 3 things. He's either corrupt, unethical, or incompetent. He was either directly involved, condoned behavior, or didn't know what was going on in his own camp.

    Fact check on budget claims:

    The budget presented by Donovan and legislative leaders did raise taxes for people making more than $1 million a year, Schofield said, but only for those making more than $1 million, which she said was ineffective policy.

    In the end, that budget only garnered “80 percent of what they predicted,” Schofield said, because millionaires tend to make much of their money from capital gains, and “capital gains melted away.”

    ...

    Schofield confirmed that their proposal made significant cuts to higher education costs, but said some of that came from cuts in grants made to private colleges that have endowments, a proposal that was later made by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

    ...

    When it comes to social services cuts, Schofield said than many of those proposed savings — the elimination of the Lifestar subsidy, the elimination of coverage of most over the counter drugs under Medicaid, and other cost reductions — were later voted into law by Donovan and other Democratic leaders in 2011.

    Also, Emily's List response.
    Emily’s List, a pro-choice advocacy group backing Esty, and MoveOn, which backs Donovan, have been going back and forth on budget issues. Emily’s List first issued a rebuke of the 2011 state budget. Blogs Daily Kos and MyLeftNutmeg have both suggested that, in fact, Emily’s List was referring to the 2009 budget, though spokesperson Jen Bluestein confirmed that the mailing “that’s got everybody hot under the collar” (and “doesn’t even exist yet”) refers only to the 2009 budget.

    Bluestein said considering the “shocking number of arrests” this week, including two of Donovan’s top aides, “it’s no wonder his supporters want to talk about the budget.”

    http://ct5thdistrict.registercitizen.com/...

    20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

    by ndrwmls10 on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:14:19 PM PDT

    •  And the article has a link to the full (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Occam was an optimist, xynz

      scoring of the Democratic Alternative Budget. That full report, by the Office of Fiscal Analysis is here:

      http://www.scribd.com/...

      The proposal had such Lieberman-esque proposals like:
      1.) Ending the death penalty
      2.) De-criminalizing marijuana
      3.) Raising taxes on those making more than $132,500/year
      4.) Cutting waste in HMO care
      5.) Eliminating state grants to private colleges (eg Yale, Trinity) who have $200 million endowments.

      It's 16 pages long and the wonk in you will want to read the damn thing. Yes, I'm sure anyone can find something wrong that they don't agree with in there.

      This is the full report, not the summary that has been used and circulated by DailyKos and other blogs.

      •  Yeah, this is a FUN fact about Yale, isn't it...OT (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Stankus, rainmanjr

        5.) Eliminating state grants to private colleges (eg Yale, Trinity) who have $200 million endowments.

        Yale's endowment is larger than the entire state budget, AND Yale's property tax breaks are enormous, I'm sure.  And of course, Yale's endowment investments also enjoy tax free compounding.

        They recently took over the old Bayer campus and are converting it to a science park.

        But they might also be one of the state's largest employers...

    •  Thanks for posting the links, I looked at them and (0+ / 0-)

      I agree.

      He may be innocent but he's still responsible.  

      He's responsible for choosing his closest campaign advisers and for how they supervise their staff.

      We can sit here and say Donovan didn't know, and I've seen no evidence that he did know.

      But come on, this scheme was all about tax exclusion of a very small part of the cigarette market.  Whoever tried to pull it off, tried to do so because they thought it would work.

      If we think that Mitt Romney should be responsible for jobs outsourced by his companies he owned or invested in, then why aren't we going to hold Donovan responsible for poor choices and supervision of his campaign.

    •  This is disingenuous. It is (6+ / 0-)

      Donovan's gender, and none of these other things, that guaranteed that Emily's List would not back him.

      •  Agreed Donovan is not on EMILYs radar, but (0+ / 0-)

        accusing their candidate of a Norquist pledge is disingenuous too.

        Can we talk about the potential fall out of the scandal unfolding around Donovan?

        He's done a lot for the state of CT, but he may go down in flames.  How do we know yet?

    •  Seems the Esty supporters are out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Occam was an optimist

      funny how they're quick to call Donovan corrupt but fail to mention the fact that Esty has gotten ALOT of money from big polluting energy companies which her husband is supposed to regulate but hasn't.  No conflict of interest there.  

      She's beyond despicable.  Her people have been attacking Donovan despite the fact that she said she wouldn't.  Now when the shit flies her way she's crying foul and crying because she's getting swiftboated?  Give me a fucking break.

      I absolutely hate this bullshit gender based politics.  Frankly I don't care if a candidate has something swinging between their legs or not.  I care about their positions on issues and their record.  In both cases, on issues and her record Esty is a fucking piece of shit Lieberdem.  We're poised to finally remove the stain that has sullied the great state of CT for decades and now we have to contend with this shit.  Fuck her and her campaign.  I can't wait for the primary.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 05:28:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Haven't sent money to EMILY in years (6+ / 0-)

    and don't intend to start now.  There is no evidence that females make better legislators.  There's no evidence that females are more generous, prudent or humble servants.

    Electing politicians because they are good talkers is probably not the best criterion to go on.

    On the other hand, it does seem worth noting that the "balanced budget" mantra was a Democratic favorite during the nineties and since. When we're talking about wishes, balance is easy and meaningless.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:18:53 PM PDT

  •  Has Emily's list been infiltrated? Let's look at (4+ / 0-)

    the board and who has resigned or been hired in the past few years.

  •  they,ve done it before (6+ / 0-)

    a few years ago i was a regular contributor to emily's list and also supported individual candidates that i had been introduced to by emily's list. but then they supported a woman house candidate in maryland who ran against a jewish incumbent in a majority black district. she tried to run anti-semitic ads. they backfired. the district supported the incumbent. emily's list supported the challenger. i'm not especially interested in anti-semitism per se. any anti-ism is dangerous. i stopped giving. i think somebody ought o take a good look at how often emily's list puts gender above principle.

    •  That was actualy Tennessee and Emily's List (6+ / 0-)

      withdrew their endorsement of Niki Tinker and condemned her comments.

      20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

      by ndrwmls10 on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:31:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This guy knows nothing of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Occam was an optimist

        what he's talking about. There hasn't been a serious woman house candidate in Maryland besides Donna Edwards in a long time. I doubt he was ever a contributor to EMILY's List. It seems that every time one of these threads comes along, some commenters pop up saying "I used to be a contributor to EMILY's List but I stopped when..." I've gotten a lot more skeptical of these comments over the years.

        "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

        by randomfacts on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 03:37:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The same could be said about John Edwards - but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      would you ever say that Democrats who supported him put gender above principle?

      No of course not, if they supported him before his unethical behavior came to light.

      You can't expect any organization to know EVERYTHING about a candidate in advance.  

      That's what primary campaigns are for!

  •  Speaking of scary female CT politicians... (7+ / 0-)

    That WWF wrestling lady, Linda McMahon has been running tons of TV ads for her candidacy (is it for CT senator?) and it scares me because she appears to be the only person running ads at all. And she's making it sound like she gives a crap about the middle class. We need some counter-ads, and right-quick, IMO! Sorry if this is OT.

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:33:49 PM PDT

  •  EMILY's List Senior Leadership in July 2012 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, pademocrat

    Most recent change appears to be promotion of Stephanie Schriock to President taking over the role from Founder Ellen Malcom in 2010.

    Stephanie Schriock, President (promoted to current role in 2010)
    Stephanie Schriock, President of EMILY's List, has been described as "inspirational," a "star in American politics," and "a spectacular campaign manager." All of this, and she can make Senator Al Franken laugh while she's doing it.

    Ellen Malcolm, Founder and Chair of the Board (also served as President through 2010)
    As the founder of EMILY’s List, Ellen Malcolm has helped level the political playing field for women candidates; given women donors unprecedented influence in electoral politics; brought millions of women voters to the polls; and created a powerful movement dedicated to restoring progressive values to American government.

    Amy Dacey, Executive Director
    As executive director, Amy Dacey will ensure that EMILY’s List is prepared and ready for this challenging cycle, and help elect effective and exciting women to office throughout the country.

    Denise Feriozzi, WOMEN VOTE! Director
    Denise Feriozzi is the WOMEN VOTE! Director at EMILY’s List. In this capacity, Denise works to educate and mobilize women voters on behalf of pro-choice Democratic women candidates. This is Denise's third tour of duty at EMILY's List, having served as the Deputy WOMEN VOTE! Director in 2008 and helping to run the Campaign Corps training program during the 2004 cycle.

    Emily Lockwood, New Media Director
    Emily Lockwood is the new media director at EMILY’s List. Lockwood has worked in new media since 2003 working for government, political and non-profit organizations and has been with EMILY's List as Internet Director since 2008.

    Jen Bluestein, Communications Director
    Jen Bluestein is the Communications Director at EMILY’s List, working on behalf of pro-choice Democratic women candidates and to bring EMILY’s List to new audiences and activists everywhere.

    Jonathan Parker, Political Director
    Jonathan Parker is the political director at EMILY’s List, leading the department that works directly with pro-choice Democratic women candidates across the country and advising the EMILY’s List president on politics and strategy regarding these campaigns.

    Amalia Stott, Development Director
    Amalia Stott is the Director of Development at EMILY’s List. She leads the department that raises millions of dollars for EMILY’s List candidates and the political programs that help elect pro-choice Democratic women at the local, state and federal levels.

  •  Welcome to my world where people I thought (5+ / 0-)

    would back great candidates don't back great candidates.

  •  Greenwich, CT, which has the highest per capita (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO

    income of any city in America.  Connecticut has made many progressive changes but it also has to cope with the voting preferences of some very wealthy residents.

    Instead of carping about gender preferences, we should find out persuasive arguments that will make sure whoever wins the primary can beat their republican opponent.

    We need to find out what oppo research they have and how they came to their decision, in part so that we can support whichever candidate wins the primary.

  •  Emily's List in a primary between a man and (5+ / 0-)

    a woman will almost always support a woman no matter what the political views or accomplishments of candidates are. Even if the woman is a racist (e.g. Nikki Tinker).

    •  I thought they withdrew their support - NO? (0+ / 0-)
      •  After the big scandal. (3+ / 0-)
        •  John Edwards? Do we blame all of KOS for that (0+ / 0-)

          fxxkup?

          •  No but it's not the first time. They just don't do (4+ / 0-)

            much due diligence with the candidates imho.

            •  My point is that all the due diligence in the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FG, rainmanjr

              world doesn't always prevent charlatans from starting out on a progressive record and then showing their corrupted or bigoted ethics later.

              This is what primaries are for - to find out what different parts of the party think about the candidates.

              •  Yep but a group that automatically endorses (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Occam was an optimist, xynz

                candidates based (as I can see) solely on gender won't get any money from me.

                •  Well, you're entitled to your opinion - but what (0+ / 0-)

                  you wrote is just not true.

                  I don't think they've ever endorse a pro-life candidate, just because she was a woman, for example.

                  •  They endorse Democratic candidates (4+ / 0-)

                       who are women and support reproductive rights. The complaints come when there are more than one candidate who fit that description in a race or when a male candidate is much better but they put time, energy and money into the female candidate.

                         EMILY lost me permanently when they supported Tinker over Cohen in TN-09 a few years ago. I still support some of the candidates they support (see my comment abovethread) but not through them. Whatever...

                    Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 54, new CA-30

                    by Zack from the SFV on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 08:25:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK, but did KOS lose you permanently because (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Zack from the SFV

                      of support for John Edwards?

                      Of course Tinker was a mistake.

                      But we have our mistakes too.

                      Not trying to change your mind.  Just asking about your justification.

                      Not a supporter of EMILY's LIST (or any other list), I just want to know why they choose who they choose, before I directly support any candidate.

                      •  I made that mistake also (3+ / 0-)

                          but fortunately Edwards stopped running a week before the CA primary so for the first time in my voting life I backed the eventual nominee of my party. (Usually I support progressive populists with little chance of winning the nomination like Fred Harris, Jesse Jackson, Tom Harkin and so on since the CA primary never matters, coming too late in the calendar.)  In '08 I was being pragmatic, thinking Edwards had the best chance in the general election. That was the one year we had an early primary in CA. So I can make mistakes, too.

                            Now that we have the intertoobz there is less of a need for intermediaries to tell us where the interesting races are happening. I also no longer give to the LCV nationally (though still to the CA LCV) after they supported Lieberman in the '06 general election race. (I thought they were wrong in the primary but that was somewhat excusable.)  I read from different sources but won't support someone just because EMILY or Kos or Blue America or whoever says so. I have looked at the EMILY website on occasion but I won't give them any money. I support the NH ladies (CSP and Kuster); I just give them money directly rather than through EMILY.

                             I think that the Tinker-Cohen race was such an egregious mistake for them that they lost credibility with me. They also seem to mostly go for establishment centrists types, and I am not that kind of Democrat. I am a Fred Harris-Paul Wellstone-Barbara Lee Democrat or Bernie Sanders independent. EMILY is not a good fit for me.

                        Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 54, new CA-30

                        by Zack from the SFV on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 09:05:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Your analogy is either fundamentally flawed.... (0+ / 0-)

                        ....or disingenuous.

                        The analogy would only work, if there was a candidate who was more progressive than Edwards, but Kos chose not to back that candidate for reasons of gender or ethnicity.

                        Which candidate was more progressive than Edwards, but Kos didn't back that candidate because that candidate had the wrong gender or ethnicity?

                        This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                        by xynz on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 09:10:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Whoa.... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rainmanjr

                          Ummm, I think that's your analogy, not mine. But thank you for expressing what you thought you understood.

                          I didn't compare Tinker to Edwards.

                          I'm concerned about Donovan, and whether there is something that we don't know about, that will come out later after he wins the primary and it's too late to run a viable candidate.  CT has had corruption problems in the past.  What's coming out is not surprising to me at all.

                          He may be innocent, but IMHO opinion he is still responsible, and may be a fundamentally flawed candidate because of that.  

                          Someone in CT tried to do it pull that bribe with him, because they thought it would work.  That doesn't make him guilty, but I think that does warrant extra caution.  

                          Do you think a candidate is responsible for their campaign finance insiders?

                          •  Ok, disingenuous it is: (0+ / 0-)

                            First comment in this thread:

                             FG wrote:

                            Emily's List in a primary between a man and a woman will almost always support a woman no matter what the political views or accomplishments of candidates are. Even if the woman is a racist (e.g. Nikki Tinker).
                            You retorted that EMILY's list withdrew their support. But then FG pointed out that they only withdrew their support after the scandal. You then used the Tinker scandal to segue into the Edwards scandal. You wrote:
                             John Edwards? Do we blame all of KOS for that fxxkup?
                            Then down thread, Zack from the SFV says:
                            EMILY lost me permanently when they supported Tinker over Cohen in TN-09 a few years ago.
                            You response to this comment, was:
                            OK, but did KOS lose you permanently because of support for John Edwards? Of course Tinker was a mistake. But we have our mistakes too.
                            When I pointed out that your comparison of the Tinker and Edwards cases were a false analogy, you respond by claiming that you
                            ....didn't compare Tinker to Edwards.
                            It is now clear that your comparison of EMILY's list support for Tinker with dKos support for Edwards is as dishonest as your claim that you weren't actually comparing them.....even though you twice brought up the case of Kos/Edwards as a rebuttal to critiques of EMILY's list/Tinker.

                            Your mendacious behavior makes me think you are either a troll or a paid shill.

                            This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                            by xynz on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:56:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My ideas about supporting/endorsing a candidate (0+ / 0-)

                            are not so tightly wound up with being right, as yours seem to be.

                            You can write detailed rebuttals supported with expertly formatted quotes, taken out of context, if that's what it takes to make yourself feel relevant.  

                            But calling me a liar or a paid troll. Was that true? Kind? Necessary?

                            I don't know you and don't know whether you are genuine or not.  You have your own reasons for attempting to erect a wall that would end the discussion.  I don't intimidate that easily.

                            Please feel free to add to the discussion or to try again, as you see fit, but I like my head just the way it is and won't be banging it against your walls.

                          •  I notice that at no point, do you offer any.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....sort of fact based rebuttal to my comment.

                            Before we go any further, I want to disabuse you of another false analogy. We aren't disgusted with EMILY's list because it has made mistakes and supported flawed politicians. It is very clear that most of us are disgusted with EMILY's list because it supports less progressive politicians, when there is a more progressive option, simply because the less progressive politician is a woman and the more progressive option is a man. We are disgusted with EMILY's list, because it is putting gender considerations above policy considerations:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                             Your implication that our objections to EMILY's list are due to the fact that it has supported imperfect politicians, is yet another false characterization.

                            Returning to my exposure of your dishonest and false analogy, followed by your outright lie:

                            I didn't compare Tinker to Edwards.
                            When I  pointed out your lie, you responded by resorting to ad-hominem attacks, by claiming that what I wrote isn't true: because I'm a self-righteous meanie, who has unrealistic expectations of purity from politicians. That I am taking your quotes out of context so that I can (somehow) shut down the discussion.

                            But none of your ad-hominem attacks address the facts.

                            I'm not the one who wrote the following quotes, you did:

                            John Edwards? Do we blame all of KOS for that fxxkup?
                            OK, but did KOS lose you permanently because of support for John Edwards? Of course Tinker was a mistake. But we have our mistakes too.
                            When I questioned the suitability of your analogy:
                            [Your]analogy would only work, if there was a candidate who was more progressive than Edwards, but Kos chose not to back that candidate for reasons of gender or ethnicity.
                            You responded by claiming that:
                            I didn't compare Tinker to Edwards.
                            So not only was your analogy intellectually dishonest, but when confronted with that fact, you resorted to an outright lie:
                            I didn't compare Tinker to Edwards.
                            Of course, when I used your lie as proof that you were intellectually dishonest, you claimed that your statements were taken out of context. What "context" did I leave out?

                            I will admit I was wrong and sincerely apologize for calling you a liar, IF you can present a reasonable explanation for how your quotes are not in the context of comparing EMILY's list support for the Tinker candidacy to Kos's support for the Edwards candidacy.

                            Don't resort to ad-hominem attacks, don't resort to strawman arguments; just stick to the facts and the topic:

                            If you weren't invoking Kos support for the Edwards campaign in the context of EMILY's list support for the Tinker campaign, in order to compare and contrast the support for the different campaigns, then why did you invoke it?

                            What "context" in this comment thread, am I leaving out?

                            This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                            by xynz on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:42:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Jees, I already apologized to Kos if my... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...objecting to the EMILY's list pile on hijacked his thread.  

                            I thought the topic was WHY.  You, and others, made the topic EMILY's charter, which is in fact NOT NEGOTIABLE.  Maybe you all know Kos's sense of humour better than I do.

                            I've been holed up for a week, have contributed two diaries and lots of thoughtful and humourous comments.  Already stated my facts and my opinions in this thread and elsewhere.  

                            I concede that Tinker was a racist, there are other shitty male and female candidates, and will concede that Edwards pathological lying was in it's own league altogether.  Their betrayal of our party just disgusts me.  

                            Not gonna' bother to read your carefully constructed lecture, but I'm replying because I did see the word apology in there.

                            You may have an ax to grind, but it's not with me.  I'm not your audience either.  No offense intended.  

                          •  An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for (0+ / 0-)
                            An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1]
                            If a diary and posters want to attack EMILY's List because of their charter, then go ahead and add a RANT tag, so the rest of us can skip it.

                            I did NOT interpret Kos's Title question as a rant or an ad hominem attack on Emily's list.

                            If you are genuinely perplexed why an organization with their charter is not supporting a progressive male candidate,  then, sorry, there is nothing I can say or do to help you.  

                            I admit I actually looked up ad hominem because I've never been flamed before, here or elsewhere.  Congrats, you're the first.  If we were at a campaign event in Kos's home, I would just head to the bar and order another scotch, then take up residence on the opposite side of the room from you.

                          •  Pathetic. (0+ / 0-)

                            Ad-Hominem Attacks:

                            My ideas about supporting/endorsing a candidate are not so tightly wound up with being right, as yours seem to be.

                            You can write detailed rebuttals supported with expertly formatted quotes, taken out of context, if that's what it takes to make yourself feel relevant.

                            I don't know you and don't know whether you are genuine or not.  You have your own reasons for attempting to erect a wall that would end the discussion.  

                            And dishonest to the end, by invoking a strawman:
                            You, and others, made the topic EMILY's charter, which is in fact NOT NEGOTIABLE.
                            No, we made the topic the fact that EMILY was putting the candidate's gender ahead of policy considerations. But if you're going to claim that in EMILY's charter, a candidate's gender is more important than their policies, then I'll be more than happy to concede that the topic was indeed EMILY's charter.

                            This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                            by xynz on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 06:49:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What should the party do if Donovan wins... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the primary and then resigns?

                            It's called changing the subject, and as far as I know it's allowed.

                          •  Changing the subject is allowed, when the previous (0+ / 0-)

                            ....subject has been settled.

                            But in this case, it's just an attempt to escape from an argument that you are losing.

                            This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                            by xynz on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 08:06:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You might be right, I have a low tolerance for (0+ / 0-)

                            boredom.  I heading to the bar for another scotch, can I get you anything?

                          •  I know it's not personal. You're just having a (0+ / 0-)

                            little fun a new bloke in town, because you know your way around these parts.  I get it.

                          •  If you really believe... (0+ / 0-)
                            No, we made the topic the fact that EMILY was putting the candidate's gender ahead of policy considerations.
                            Then go ahead and write to EMILY's list about changing their charter.

                            But I'm more interested in what the party will if Donovan wins the primary and then resigns.

                            As for all the expertly formatted personal stuff, if overwhelming passion is an effective tactic I bet you've been winning arguments all your life.

                          •  See, this is what I'm talking about. (0+ / 0-)
                            No, we made the topic the fact that EMILY was putting the candidate's gender ahead of policy considerations.
                            Then go ahead and write to EMILY's list about changing their charter.
                            What I actually wrote was this:
                            No, we made the topic the fact that EMILY was putting the candidate's gender ahead of policy considerations. But if you're going to claim that in EMILY's charter, a candidate's gender is more important than their policies, then I'll be more than happy to concede that the topic was indeed EMILY's charter.
                            So are you claiming that "in EMILY's charter, a candidate's gender is more important than their policies"? If that is the case, then do you support that principle? Don't fob me off, by saying that I should write to them about their charter. These are simple yes/no questions that you can answer, based on your understanding of their charter and your own political beliefs. Here, I'll even make it easier for you: I'll stipulate that you do not represent  EMILY's list. So when you answer yes or no to the questions, they will not represent the policies of EMILY's list; they will only represent your personal understanding of the principles in EMILY's charter and your agreement/disagreement with those principles.

                            These are not "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. You aren't damned no matter which way you answer. Answering "No" does not put you into a position where you are affirming some kind of horrible, implicit premise.

                            So, do you believe that "in EMILY's charter, a candidate's gender is more important than their policies"?

                            If that is the case, then do you support that principle?

                            This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                            by xynz on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 08:36:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, by definition gender is an exclusionary (0+ / 0-)

                            boundary spelled out very clearly in their charter.  They are entitled to whatever criteria they chose.  Anyone who complains about what's spelled out in their charter is howling at the moon.

                            Do I think it's a flawed principle?  I don't know. I've never given them any money and I've not made any study of their success rate.

                            If Donovan stays in the race, wins the primary and then withdraws from the race, IMHO he's an ass. The scandal has already been building for 2 months, there were more arrests this past week and the primary is what, 2 weeks away?

                            I don't know enough about the 3rd guy to know who I would choose if Donovan resigns on the eve of the primary.  

                            IMO supporting him to stay in the race at this point is supporting the idea that party insiders should pick the Dem candidate for November rather than the voters.  

                            That's not cool.

                          •  No, this isn't about gender exclusion. (0+ / 0-)

                            You keep evading the core issue, which is another reason why I think you are dishonest.

                            Sure, they are entitled to only support female candidates. I don't have a problem with that and I doubt that many progressives at dKos have a problem with that. I'm sure Kos himself doesn't have a problem with that.

                            The issue that concern's EMILY's list isn't whether Donovan will withdraw or that he may be the candidate of the party insiders. How do I know that is the case? Because those aren't the issues that EMILY's list has focused upon.

                            WASHINGTON, D.C. -- EMILY’s List...will [send] five pieces of direct mail highlighting Chris Donovan’s record on taxes and raising his own pay. Three of the mailers will also showcase Elizabeth Esty’s commitment to Connecticut taxpayers:

                            "Chris Donovan’s 20 year record for Connecticut speaks for itself: exorbitant pay raises and the biggest tax hike in Connecticut history.

                            From EMILY's list own words, their issue with Donovan is his "tax and spend" record. In their own damn words, EMILY's list is attacking Donovan from the right.

                            Clearly, Donovan is the more progressive candidate. If EMILY's list had attacked Donovan for the reasons that you have outlined, then your defense of EMILY's list would have some merit. But we have to judge EMILY's list by its own words and actions. As the Tinker campaign showed us, EMILY's list is willing to overlook heinous behavior, simply to put a women into office.

                            BTW, when you thought EMILY's list withdrew their support of Tinker, you were wrong:

                            EMILY's List ... still has Tinker on its "Full Candidates" list inside the Web site. Cohen and many of his female supporters harshly criticized EMILY's List for entering the race against him in June, despite what they say is a strong record in support of women's issues.
                            The issue for Kos and most of the rest of us, isn't that EMILY's list exclusively supports women candidates. That's fine, there should be an organization that is striving to put more women in government. But that doesn't mean EMILY's list should support the every woman in the Democratic primaries.The issue is that EMILY's list has an established pattern of supporting women candidates who are running against more progressive male candidates.

                            When it does that, EMILY's list is putting gender considerations ahead of policy considerations.

                            That. Is. What. Is. Not. Cool.

                            That is an indefensible betrayal of progressive principles.

                            That is what you have been defending.

                            One way that you were defending EMILY's list, was to compare its support of Tinker with Kos's support of Edwards. For the reasons that I have previously outlined, that was a dishonest tactic.

                            Because you have repeatedly refused to see the fact that the issue isn't the fact that EMILY's list supports only female candidates. So when you claim that EMILY's list critics on this thread are:

                            complain[ing] about what's spelled out in their charter [and] howling at the moon.
                            You are using a strawman argument and it is a dishonest tactic.

                            Furthermore, just because it is in their charter to only support women candidates doesn't mean they have to support every women candidate. So your charter argument is not only dishonest, it is also weak.

                            Finally, when you try to change the topic, from EMILY's list pattern of bad behavior to the "concerns" you have with respect to the Donovan campaign: that is a dishonest tactic.

                            In conclusion: your dishonest means of continually arguing in defense of EMILY's indefensible behavior is why you are coming across as a troll or a paid political operative.

                            Once AGAIN. The issue isn't their charter. The issue isn't even this particular race. The issue is an emerging pattern of pursing gender considerations at the expense of policy considerations. There is no progressive defense for such a pattern.

                            If you insist on continuing to defend their indefensible behavior, then you will have proven my point about your purpose here.

                            This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

                            by xynz on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 08:01:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  With Donovan you've got a point. (2+ / 0-)

                            But Emily's prior support for gender over substance suggests they wouldn't have supported Donovan, anyway.

                            "Waiting her for Everyman, don't ask me if he'll show...maybe, I don't know." "You might think that it's (Earth) beautiful, if you didn't know. You might think that it's turning, but it's turning so slow." Both from Jackson Browne

                            by rainmanjr on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 12:32:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Agreed which is why I've never given any money (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rainmanjr

                            to EMILY's list.  I try to do my own due diligence.

                            I also agree JL was an opportunistic ass, and am very glad to see him go.

                            I just think we can't afford to dismiss their concerns based on their openly stated mission to elect pro-choice female candidates.

                            We need to understand what is happening in CT, which is progressive in many ways but also has the highest income disparity of any state in the nation.  Yes, higher income disparity than NYC.  

                            It's not surprising to me at all, that there would be sensitivity in CT to revenue based on taxing millionaires, which is largely a plan to tax capital gains.  

                            Tax reform will be easier if we can tax capital gains/carried interest on an even footing with earned income. IMO, investment is investment, and if investment income was taxed on a progressive basis it would stimulate job creation.  But tax reform at that level seems out of reach ATM.

                          •  Agreed, they won't support Donovan, anyway. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rainmanjr

                            If there were no other candidates, they wouldn't even be active in that race.

    •  Well, they can NEVER support a man. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG, Zack from the SFV

      That is not part of their charter. The best they can do for a good progressive man is to NOT support his female challenger.

  •  Has anyone actually signed the Norquist pledge? (0+ / 0-)
    EMILY's List appears to have been co-opted by Grover Norquist on behalf of a terrible Democrat.
    Without actual evidence of signing the Norquist pledge that's a very broad brush to smear a group that has done a lot to elect progressive candidates.

    If you think Esty is a Republican in Dem clothing - let's see more than a budget proposal.

    Note: I do concede that Esty's budget proposal is atrocious!

  •  Money? Power? Influence? Connections? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    The persuasiveness of single issue politics?

    Who is to say?

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 03:01:46 PM PDT

  •  I've pushed this since back in 2006 (3+ / 0-)

    when EMILY's list promoted a just-converted Republican in the Democratic primary in NY-19 instead of any of the real Democrats who were running. (John Hall, the second- or third-best candidate, won the election and took the seat. He was retired by Nan Hayworth in 2010, who had pretty much the same public positions as the EMILY's list candidate in 2006.)

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 06:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Donate to Chris Donovan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland

    Give your name, home address and occupation as well as employer when you donate.  If you're retired, put "Retired/Retired" down.

    Chris Donovan for Congress, P.O. Box 723, Meriden, CT06450

    If you send a check with that info, you don't have to give your phone number and email address which will mean that information won't be given out to other campaigns and/or others trying to get donations.

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 06:22:55 PM PDT

  •  EMILY's list did similar on NH-Gov. (9+ / 0-)

    Two pro-choice women running in the Democratic primary. EMILY's List endorses one of them and cites her adherence to the state's ruinous anti-tax "pledge" as a reason to endorse her over her non-pledging opponent. It's shameful.

  •  I used to be a "majority trust" (3+ / 0-)

    donor to Emily's List, or whatever they call it. Over the years though, I saw them backing shitty women Democrats over perfectly fine male Democrats. I came to the conclusion that while it is a noble thing to promote more women in Congress, this organization is basically sexist. When you favor one person over another ONLY because of their genders, that is sexism. I no longer give a dime.

  •  What's with the picture of Senator Palpatine? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed Tracey, davidincleveland

    (n/t)  ;-)

    "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

    by Technowitch on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 06:36:13 PM PDT

  •  I stopped giving to EMILY'S List years ago... (4+ / 0-)

    for this very reason.  Too often the "pro-choice Democratic women" they support are terrible on most other issues.  And very often, they support a right wing Democratic woman when there are true progressive candidates in the race, like in this one.  This is an extremely destructive role and, unfortunately, one that EMILY'S List frequently plays.  Our job is to elect Democrats (or Independents like Bernie Sanders) who will stand for the 99% against the 1%.  EMILY'S List does not do this.  We should contribute directly to progressive candidates.  Forget about EMILY'S List.

    "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end they always fail. Always." -Gandhi

    by Grandma Susie on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 06:48:14 PM PDT

  •  On a side note, my kids psychiatrist said he liked (3+ / 0-)

    Joe Lieberman during our session today.... my kid saw me roll my eyes. I told him I'm working on not doing that anymore.

    Why can't all Connecticut kids docs be like DemFromCT?

    As far as Esty, I don't know much about her, but shes got an ad running that mentions how she wasn't afriad to "buck her party". You gotta know thats a problem....

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 07:18:30 PM PDT

  •  Donovan, while more progressive, has had pretty (3+ / 0-)

    bad press that Esty has been exploiting.

    The FBI arrested six people and charged them in the case of alleged conduit contributions made to Chris Donovan's campaign...A total of $27,500 in illegal “conduit checks,” that is checks that hide the true identity of the donors, were all contributed to Democratic House Speaker Christopher Donovan’s campaign for the 5th District seat and were signed by 11 individuals, according to the court documents...The purpose of the conduit contributions — political donations made through a third party — was to influence legislation then under review by the state legislature that would have raised taxes on Roll-Your-Own tobacco smoke shops

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 07:21:44 PM PDT

    •  What about Dan Roberti? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Occam was an optimist

      Etsy doesn't look like a great Dem, but the fundraising scandal linked to Donovan scares the hell out of me.  I would rather any of the Democrats than any of the Republicans.

      White Male, 36, New FL-14 (Castor), proud father of a 4-year-old daughter. "Who let the dogs out? Who? Who?" - Mitt Romney, MLK Day 2008.

      by spiderdem on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 07:32:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disappointing (3+ / 0-)

    I live in the CT fifth district and haven't decided which candidate I'll vote for in the primary. The info about Esty was helpful in this post. However, for this post to never mention Donovan's current scandal is pretty disappointing. It's not the case of a perfect candidate vs. a terrible candidate like this post makes it out to be. I wish it were.

    •  The scandal concerns me too, even if he's innocent (0+ / 0-)

      because leaders are responsible for supervising their campaign insiders.

      Past CT corruption scandals were pretty clever, and that will be really sad if Donovan goes down over this and had no knowledge of it.

      You remember 2010 in Wisconsin, when Dem Speaker of the House, Russ Decker and Jeff Plale killed passage of Union contract legislation at the last freakin' minute.  I wondered what did someone have on them?  Something induced them to pull a fast one like that, screwing over their whole party and throwing the state into turmoil.

      Truth is Donovan is vulnerable, even if he's innocent.

  •  Well, their main point is to elect pro-choice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Occam was an optimist

    women, first and foremost. So in their estimation, all things being equal (both candidates being pro-choice), they back the woman.  I don't think there's ever been an exception to that.  There would have to be massive conflicts for them to endorse against a woman, exactly as you mentioned, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

    And what you quoted is NOT a part of their mission statement.  It's an expected OUTCOME of achieving the mission.  It's the ends that these means will achieve.

    Their mission statement is pretty clear:

    "The mission is simple, really: EMILY’s List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office."

    I'm not really sure why you're so confused.

    [Disclaimer: Proud Emily's List donor and Vagina owner]

    •  I love their founding concept - EARLY MONEY (0+ / 0-)

      IS LIKE YEAST, and I think they've done more good than harm over the long term, helping early career Dems to get a toe hold and get started.

      Early career progressive men have many other orgs that they can reach out to for support.

  •  I stopped giving to Emily's List YEARS ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland

    because of crap like this..........

    As of 02/22/2012 in Washington State pharmacists can exercise their "religious freedom" by denying women access to Plan B because the judge thinks there aren't any bigots in this state.

    by FlamingoGrrl on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 07:48:53 PM PDT

  •  It seems like conservative Republicans aren't .... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the only people who can be driven to bigotry, by the concept of a woman's uterus.

    This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

    by xynz on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 08:57:48 PM PDT

  •  Wait a minute-was I the only one who got an (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Occam was an optimist

    email from Chris Bowers a few weeks back announcing that DK and Emily's list were going to jointly support certain women candidates?
    I blew it off because I had decided to stop donating to EL because they had come out in support of Michele Lujan Grisham in NM over Eric Griego, who I'd already donated to and who was a progressive. Apparently it was a nasty, expensive campaign -especially on Ms. Grisham's part.
     Here's a link from before the Primary;
     http://www.nmpolitics.net/...

    Personally I don't trust Emily's List to put my donations where I want them to go

  •  EMILY's list is a hack and a cheat. They actually (0+ / 0-)

    started a few years ago endorsing and fundraising for some Republican women.

    I've given them the boot. On the subject of being bought off, they're no better then a bunch of guys with the social maturity of 14-year-old boys.

  •  I held my nose over Tinker the stinker in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    but this one is the final straw. Here is what I just emailed to EMILY'S List:

    I have just unsubscribed from your list after being a supporter since Celinda Lake introduced me to you in 1995. Your endorsement of Esty for the open U.S. Senate seat from Connecticut is COMPLETELY unacceptable to me. I am a man who has voted for women candidates by preference all my voting life because I believe we'll never have equality in this country until at least 54% of all state and national legislators are women.

    That goal, followed by me and preached to all my friends and family, as well as explained to strangers (I'm a lifelong political activist) has one limit: I NEVER vote for the less progressive candidate merely because she is a woman. In the past 17 years I've occasionally overlooked some of your choices which I felt didn't fit that limit. In the case of Esty I'm unable to do so, to the point of finding it necessary to sever my relationship with you, and my recommendation of you as a force for progressive change.

    I place Esty in the same category as Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell. YMMV.

    Thanks to already-built-in anthropogenic climate change, our planet will only be able to sustain half a billion humans in 2100 AD. Human population will probably reach 9 billion in 2050 AD. Will your descendants be among the 'lucky' one-in-eighteen?

    by davidincleveland on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:08:35 AM PDT

  •  Let's focus on the WHY part of Kos's question (0+ / 0-)

    than the WHO part of Kos's question.  

    Dismissing EL's choice based solely on gender is as narrow- minded as blindly supporting a choice based solely on gender.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site