Confession: I was an organizer for AAEI last summer.
Fact: when we got on the ground, the idea that AAEI was going to channel the peace movement for the sake of the Dem party was common. It was one of the first things we heard, and we never stopped hearing it.
The facts do not seem to bear that out, as various parties have already argued here. Many of us wished that the group had targeted at least one Dem, for the sake of balance. But the idea was to crack the base of Republican support for the war. And it may have worked. It did not prevent the actions of congress after Patreus's testimony. But there is an election coming. And Republican support for the war may prove to be sagging in the communities where we raised the visibility of the incumbents' antiwar votes. The yard signs are still in the yards!!
This great follow-up story from West Virginia's [http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=34819 State Journal] makes clear that API has more than just talking points up its metaphoric sleeve:
The organization plans to visit the state Capitol March 4 with a traveling, interactive display that is designed to answer questions about the oil and natural gas industries. ...
During the March 4 display at the Capitol, visitors will be able to use three-dimensional displays to do things like position a drilling ship in the Gulf of Mexico, [API's Denise] McCourt said. The exhibit will demonstrate the highly technical nature of the oil and gas industries. ...
Those advances have made it possible to drill for natural gas in the rugged terrain of West Virginia, she said.
Anyone planning on being in Charleston early next month?
I find this fascinating. Last week, some nut legislator in Mississippi(W. something Mayhall) introduced a bill prohibiting restaurants from serving anyone the state deemed "obese." He wanted to start a dialogue about the costs of obesity to medicaid. Of course it was a ridiculous bill with no chance of passing. Not to mention medicaid patients aren't the one going to restaurants. I keep telling people, OVER and OVER again, the most effective con men create distractions. It is not enough to lie and cover your tracks; to be really good, blind folks with their own vulnerability so they will never even look in your direction. Any coincidence this bozo was a former sales person for Dupont-Merc????
First, read the headline, which starts the spin: Democrats (All of them? As a Party? Some of them?) take over peace movement (All of it? Just AAEI and a few friends?)
I'm sure you know the head and the lead are what gets the spin spinning.
As you note, I'm very much in the peace movement, part of a coalition of well over 1000 groups and local coalitions, and 'Democrats' haven't taken us over one bit.
We've had people who are registered Democrats, people who vote Democratic, even people elected to various posts as Democrats, working as members or close allies going back to 2002. We've also had Socialists, Greens and Communists, and anti-any-party anarchists. The antiwar wing among Democrats, from top to bottom, has been there as part of a working 'Out Now' coalition all along and hasn't 'taken over' anything. And if we are serious about ending this war, we need many more of them to get involved. We suffer more from the lack of them than their presence--and I'm a Green, not a Dem.
I have no idea what AAEI did with its millions around the country, nor do I think they took money that should have gone to us. We're very familar with MoveOn.org and its circle and, at best, at least up to now, see them as on the fringe of our efforts, and they rarely listen favorably much to us in any case. So they oppose the war in their way, and we'll do it in our way, and we'll work together were we can. With it's 'Out Now' line, UFPJ likely knows it's too big a stretch for some donors, at least for now, and the last thing we need is resentments building up over who gets what grant. Our program is clear enough, and we get what we get. We always need more, as does everyone else.
But I do know what AAEI did with some of its money in Chicago. It hired fulltime organizers to go after the GOP's Kirk in the 10th CD, and they did a good job of it. Now as a byproduct, Dan Seals, a very good antiwar Dem, won the primary and will hopefully take him down. This was money well spent, and it doesn't count other smaller amounts they put into two large mobilizations in the streets we were involved in.
Criticizing antiwar forces among the Democrats for only targeting Republicans? And you're shocked? It just shows we have an antiwar movement made up of both partisan and nonpartisan forces. Please, I'd rather them do that than attack us, or do nothing at all.
Again, what's your strategic point here? To stop having anything to do with Democrats? To make them the target of the main blow? To make them 'equal' targets with Bush-McCain? The commander-in-chief and the various cabinet posts are still held by the GOP last time I looked--hopefully, not for too much longer. Or is your point that it doesn't matter?
Keep On Keepin' On
Carl Davidson
http://carldavidson.blogspot.com
You wrote: "First, all the groups listed are hardly 'the peace movement' or even a sizable piece of it. Most consist of a staff you can count on fingers and toes, a budget and a Beltway office. The grassroots antiwar movement working in neighborhoods, schools and workplaces most likely never heard of them, and haven't seen anyone claiming to represent them at local coalition meetings, where all the critical plans are made and decisions are taken. One exception, to a degree, is AAEI, but even here, the piece gets it wrong."
Actually, you get it wrong.
This article is all about AAEI, [[Americans Against Escalation in Iraq]], a coalition consisting of MoveOn and the other groups named that make it up, fund it, and hire the Democratic Party lobbyists and political organizers identified in the Rolling Stone article.
The point of the article is that AAEI is the vehicle by which well over ten million dollars has been spent in the past year on a failed effort that put almost zero pressure on the Democrats who control Congress, while concentrating on simply attacking Republicans. This was [[Tom Matzzie]]'s strategy and it failed, as Sheldon Rampton and I [https://www.prwatch.org/node/5865 predicted it would a year ago]. Rather than pressure Democrats who control Congress, it hung the war completely on Republicans, while allowing Democrats to continue to fund it but posture against it.
It's both interesting and disturbing to see a hard working peace activist like yourself fail to understand exactly who it is who make the funding, strategy and tactical decisions inside AAEI.
I suggest you re-read this information, take a more careful look at the claims and the facts and ask yourself: have the millions that AAEI has spent been to force politicians of both parties to stop the war in Iraq? Or have the millions been spent in a partisan fashion to lay the blame on the Republicans while failing to pressure Democrats, with a cynical eye toward simply managing the war and using it to defeat Republicans in 08 as in 06?
You seem to buy the idea that vanquishing the Republicans will bring about peace. What makes you think that a peace movement so weak it cannot or will not put pressure on the Democrats to stop the funding of war when they control Congress, will able to do much better after more Democrats are elected?
Finally, where is [[United for Peace and Justice]], your own nation-wide grassroots-based coalition, in all this? The millions of dollars in partisan Democratic funding that have poured into AAEI are not being made available to UFPJ, or the grassroots peace groups, obviously. As long as UFPJ and the grassroots peace groups who are members of it are willing to stand for the sort of betrayal described and decried in this Rolling Stone article, the peace movement will remain weak, fragmented, under funded and ignored by the mainstream media who see AAEI with its big budget, big names, and Democratic Party lobbyists as the 'real' peace movement.
The fact that most people who labor for peace in the trenches don't recognize the Democratic Party lobbyists and funders behind the failed AAEI strategy perpetuates the problem; those working for peace obviously need to take a more careful and critical look at the national peace movement and its funding, strategy and tactics.
Confession: I was an organizer for AAEI last summer.
Fact: when we got on the ground, the idea that AAEI was going to channel the peace movement for the sake of the Dem party was common. It was one of the first things we heard, and we never stopped hearing it.
The facts do not seem to bear that out, as various parties have already argued here. Many of us wished that the group had targeted at least one Dem, for the sake of balance. But the idea was to crack the base of Republican support for the war. And it may have worked. It did not prevent the actions of congress after Patreus's testimony. But there is an election coming. And Republican support for the war may prove to be sagging in the communities where we raised the visibility of the incumbents' antiwar votes. The yard signs are still in the yards!!
Not2Plato
This great follow-up story from West Virginia's [http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=34819 State Journal] makes clear that API has more than just talking points up its metaphoric sleeve:
Anyone planning on being in Charleston early next month?
I find this fascinating. Last week, some nut legislator in Mississippi(W. something Mayhall) introduced a bill prohibiting restaurants from serving anyone the state deemed "obese." He wanted to start a dialogue about the costs of obesity to medicaid. Of course it was a ridiculous bill with no chance of passing. Not to mention medicaid patients aren't the one going to restaurants. I keep telling people, OVER and OVER again, the most effective con men create distractions. It is not enough to lie and cover your tracks; to be really good, blind folks with their own vulnerability so they will never even look in your direction. Any coincidence this bozo was a former sales person for Dupont-Merc????
First, read the headline, which starts the spin: Democrats (All of them? As a Party? Some of them?) take over peace movement (All of it? Just AAEI and a few friends?)
I'm sure you know the head and the lead are what gets the spin spinning.
As you note, I'm very much in the peace movement, part of a coalition of well over 1000 groups and local coalitions, and 'Democrats' haven't taken us over one bit.
We've had people who are registered Democrats, people who vote Democratic, even people elected to various posts as Democrats, working as members or close allies going back to 2002. We've also had Socialists, Greens and Communists, and anti-any-party anarchists. The antiwar wing among Democrats, from top to bottom, has been there as part of a working 'Out Now' coalition all along and hasn't 'taken over' anything. And if we are serious about ending this war, we need many more of them to get involved. We suffer more from the lack of them than their presence--and I'm a Green, not a Dem.
I have no idea what AAEI did with its millions around the country, nor do I think they took money that should have gone to us. We're very familar with MoveOn.org and its circle and, at best, at least up to now, see them as on the fringe of our efforts, and they rarely listen favorably much to us in any case. So they oppose the war in their way, and we'll do it in our way, and we'll work together were we can. With it's 'Out Now' line, UFPJ likely knows it's too big a stretch for some donors, at least for now, and the last thing we need is resentments building up over who gets what grant. Our program is clear enough, and we get what we get. We always need more, as does everyone else.
But I do know what AAEI did with some of its money in Chicago. It hired fulltime organizers to go after the GOP's Kirk in the 10th CD, and they did a good job of it. Now as a byproduct, Dan Seals, a very good antiwar Dem, won the primary and will hopefully take him down. This was money well spent, and it doesn't count other smaller amounts they put into two large mobilizations in the streets we were involved in.
Criticizing antiwar forces among the Democrats for only targeting Republicans? And you're shocked? It just shows we have an antiwar movement made up of both partisan and nonpartisan forces. Please, I'd rather them do that than attack us, or do nothing at all.
Again, what's your strategic point here? To stop having anything to do with Democrats? To make them the target of the main blow? To make them 'equal' targets with Bush-McCain? The commander-in-chief and the various cabinet posts are still held by the GOP last time I looked--hopefully, not for too much longer. Or is your point that it doesn't matter?
Keep On Keepin' On
Carl Davidson
http://carldavidson.blogspot.com
Carl,
You wrote: "First, all the groups listed are hardly 'the peace movement' or even a sizable piece of it. Most consist of a staff you can count on fingers and toes, a budget and a Beltway office. The grassroots antiwar movement working in neighborhoods, schools and workplaces most likely never heard of them, and haven't seen anyone claiming to represent them at local coalition meetings, where all the critical plans are made and decisions are taken. One exception, to a degree, is AAEI, but even here, the piece gets it wrong."
Actually, you get it wrong.
This article is all about AAEI, [[Americans Against Escalation in Iraq]], a coalition consisting of MoveOn and the other groups named that make it up, fund it, and hire the Democratic Party lobbyists and political organizers identified in the Rolling Stone article.
The point of the article is that AAEI is the vehicle by which well over ten million dollars has been spent in the past year on a failed effort that put almost zero pressure on the Democrats who control Congress, while concentrating on simply attacking Republicans. This was [[Tom Matzzie]]'s strategy and it failed, as Sheldon Rampton and I [https://www.prwatch.org/node/5865 predicted it would a year ago]. Rather than pressure Democrats who control Congress, it hung the war completely on Republicans, while allowing Democrats to continue to fund it but posture against it.
It's both interesting and disturbing to see a hard working peace activist like yourself fail to understand exactly who it is who make the funding, strategy and tactical decisions inside AAEI.
I suggest you re-read this information, take a more careful look at the claims and the facts and ask yourself: have the millions that AAEI has spent been to force politicians of both parties to stop the war in Iraq? Or have the millions been spent in a partisan fashion to lay the blame on the Republicans while failing to pressure Democrats, with a cynical eye toward simply managing the war and using it to defeat Republicans in 08 as in 06?
You seem to buy the idea that vanquishing the Republicans will bring about peace. What makes you think that a peace movement so weak it cannot or will not put pressure on the Democrats to stop the funding of war when they control Congress, will able to do much better after more Democrats are elected?
Finally, where is [[United for Peace and Justice]], your own nation-wide grassroots-based coalition, in all this? The millions of dollars in partisan Democratic funding that have poured into AAEI are not being made available to UFPJ, or the grassroots peace groups, obviously. As long as UFPJ and the grassroots peace groups who are members of it are willing to stand for the sort of betrayal described and decried in this Rolling Stone article, the peace movement will remain weak, fragmented, under funded and ignored by the mainstream media who see AAEI with its big budget, big names, and Democratic Party lobbyists as the 'real' peace movement.
The fact that most people who labor for peace in the trenches don't recognize the Democratic Party lobbyists and funders behind the failed AAEI strategy perpetuates the problem; those working for peace obviously need to take a more careful and critical look at the national peace movement and its funding, strategy and tactics.
[[John Stauber]]
Pages