OK, I'm From There. So What?

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 15:52


For the record:
  • All four of my grandparents were born in Batavia, New York, which is in Genesee County between Buffalo and Rochester. That is currently in the NY-26. If it makes a difference, my maternal grandmother, who still lives in Batavia, is both a hard-core Democrat and a judge of elections.
  • My mother grew up in Batavia, New York, and my father grew up in Albion, New York. The latter is in Orleans Country, New York, twenty miles from Batavia, and currently is in the NY-28.
  • Just like both of my brothers, I was born in Strong Hospital in Rochester, New York, (Monroe County) about thirty-five miles away from Batavia. That is also in the NY-28.
  • I spent the first five years of my life in Gates, New York, just outside of Rochester. Gates is currently in the NY-26.
  • At the age of five, I moved to Liverpool, New York (Onondaga County), along with the rest of my family. That is in the NY-25, and I resided there until attending college in what is currently the PA-06 at the age of 18.
  • Since the age of 18, I have spent a collective total of about three and a half years in the Central / Western New York region. I'd probably still be there now, only I did not receive the teaching assistantships I sought from either Cornell (NY-24) or my first choice, the University of Buffalo (NY-28) when I applied to both schools for graduate school.
  • During my life, I have visited the NY-23 (R-McHugh), NY-24 (D-Arcuri), NY-25 (R-Walsh), NY-26 (R-Reynolds), NY-27 (D-Higgins), NY-28 (D-Slaughter), and NY-29 (R-Kuhl) at least two dozen times each, as I have family and friends scattered throughout the area.  In the last year alone, I have been to every single one of those districts multiple times.
  • My master's thesis was primarily a series of longish poems written about Central / Western New York.

The reason I point all of this out is to ask several questions:

  1. If I had led the charge against Brian Higgins instead of Stoller, would my criticisms have been justified simply because I am from the region?
  2. Do I have more of a right than people not from the region to criticize members of Congress who are from the region? In other words, do people not from either Central / Western New York or the Philadelphia region have to seek my approval before making any criticisms of local elected officials?
  3. Do people who still live in Central / Western New York have more of a right to criticize the seven members of Congress in that area than I do, since I now spend most of my time in Philadelphia?
  4. Is my authority on the different congressional districts in the area proportional to the amount of time I have spent in the seven congressional districts in the area? And for the record, those rankings go as follows:

    1. NY-25 (sixteen years, three as an adult)
    2. NY-26 (six years, one as an adult)
    3. NY-28 (a few months)
    4. NY-24 (about two months)
    5. NY-23 (a few weeks)
    6. NY-29 (about a month)
    7. NY-27 (a couple weeks)

  5. If I am disallowed criticism due to the relative lack of time I have spent in each district, how long do I have to spend in each district until I am allowed criticism?
  6. Is there a gradient scale? More specifically, am I allotted an increasing amount of criticism the longer I stay in each area? What specific criticisms am I allowed or not allowed depending on how long I have spent in each district? For example, does one year in a district allow me to criticize a budget vote, two years allow me to criticize a vote on Iraq, three years allow me to criticize a vote like FISA, and four years allow me to make primary endorsements?
  7. Why I am allowed to help Democrats win general elections if I am not from an area, but I am not allowed to criticize Democrats if I am not from an area? What are the relative values of being a local in terms of criticism and support, general elections and primaries?

I ask all of these questions because I have noticed a tendency toward a reactionary, tribalist response to any criticism basically anyone in the national blogosphere makes toward pretty much any Democratic member of Congress, and also toward the sides we take in pretty much any Democratic primary. Somehow, our criticisms and our support are deemed irrelevant because we are not from the area in question and thus, I suppose, not one of the local, good ol' progressives. If this is the typical response we generate, I want to know the guidelines for the ratio of criticism we are allowed based on our current place of residence. I think such guidelines would be helpful to prevent these problems in the future.

Also, I want to say that I am from Central / Western New York, and I agree with Stoller's criticisms of Higgins. In fact, it would be easy for me to simply cut and paste Matt's quotes, and then put up an identical post of my own. At that point, would those posts become valid? Just asking. As a final note, I hope that question itself does not violate any sort of regional caste that I wasn't aware I was locked into. Please, accept my apologies in advance.

Update: Because there are always dangers and limits to what sarcasm can accomplish online, let me try to clarify the point of this rant. If someone is going to claim special knowledge over a local area or politician due to proximity of residence to that area and / or politician,  it is not simply enough for that person to dismiss the criticisms of others on the grounds that those others are not from the local area. Rather, if living in an area has provided you with special knowledge of that area, use that knowledge in the relevant argument, not your local credentials.

Of course, if someone is willing to make an argument that supporting FISA or Iraq will help member of Congress X get elected, or is somehow in line with the  residents of District X, I'd love to hear that argument. Warrant-less wiretapping and the lack of a timetable in Iraq are not only wrong, they are also extremely unpopular nationwide. Of course, if someone has local knowledge that says otherwise, by all means, please share it with the group. 

Chris Bowers :: OK, I'm From There. So What?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
OK, I'm From There. So What? | 36 comments
also (4.00 / 1)
Can someone explain the principle that makes a fellow American Democrat unqualified to comment on a Representative's votes yet allows that Representative to know what is best for Iraq?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Because (0.00 / 0)
Use any of the following excuses:
  • If the rep didn't vote that way, s/he would lose re-election
  • The rep is simply voting his or her district, no matter what the district might actually think about that issue
  • You are a dirty hippie, and not "serious."
  • Your criticism of Democrats makes you just as bad as right-wingers
  • Talking that way is way Republicans have an advantage on terrorism, and so you should be quiet.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but those are the ones that come to mind right away.

[ Parent ]
Last Questions First (4.00 / 2)
7. Why I am allowed to help Democrats win general elections if I am not from an area, but I am not allowed to criticize Democrats if I am not from an area?

Because you just don't appreciate the local Kool-Aid drinking rituals?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

grassroots vs netroots (0.00 / 0)
sometimes national netroots thinks they know more than they do. I am not enthusiastic about netroots getting involved in primaries. My preference would be concentrating on reelecting deserving Democrats (Just think how different things would be in Senator Fred Harris had had progressive netroots). My preference would also be for supporting progressive challengers where there is no primary.

I don't like the DSCC or anyone else playing kingmaker.

So, who is allowed to make primary endorsements? (4.00 / 2)
First, the DSCC and DCCC are official Democratic Party committees. Primaries, by way of contrast, are means of settling internal Democratic disputes. Official Democratic committees should not be deciding internal disputes within the coalition. Blogs are not official party committees.

Second, do you reject any candidate in a local primary who took support from Democrats living outside of the district in question? They all do.

Third, given the information I laid out above, which primaries am I allowed to make endorsements in, and which ones am I not? Your complaint is non-specific, and in order to avoid causing problems in the future, I would think clear guidelines would benefit us both.
[ Parent ]
too tired to give a proper response (0.00 / 0)
but the shorter version would be that everyone outside of the district should butt out of primaries except under extreme circumstances (Wynn primary in PG county is a situation where outside activism is merited)

It would be better to support progressive challengers and show that going with progressism is as winner. A perfect example is the race in Virginia's 13th House District. It is a rerun of a 2005 race and a great chance to replace a flatearth Republican with a genuine progressive.

This is a low turnout election, so a few well targeted mailings could very well save the day.

By taking down Bob Marshall (NOT RELATED!!!!!!) this year we would demonstrate that even in VA you can be too conservative. IT would be a huge blow to the Republicans and set us up to control redistricting.

IT is very rare that $10,000 can have so profound an impact on a state's political culture.

This situation perfectly illustrates how netroots can joing with grassroots Democrats to bring about meaningful change rather than play king maker and get into confrontrations with grassroots.

jus sayin'

[ Parent ]
Why should we butt out? (0.00 / 0)
Are you saying that the decimation of the Constitution isn't an "extreme circumstance?"  It seems to me that you're making an assumption that what happens "locally" doesn't affect anyone outside that Congressional district.  Clearly, that's not true, as it's the total number of Congressional (or Senate) votes that leads to *national* laws being or not being passed.  Therefore, a representative in a completely different part of the country from where I live does things that can clearly impact my life.  Why then should I remain silent when he or she votes to take away my Constitutional rights?

I realize, of course, that this is a very solipsistic response, and a more virtuous one perhaps would be to say that this country is not simply a collection of localities but that all our rights and responsibilities are intertwined.

[ Parent ]
Including outside donors and PACs? (0.00 / 0)
"but the shorter version would be that everyone outside of the district should butt out of primaries except under extreme circumstances (Wynn primary in PG county is a situation where outside activism is merited)"

Or is the money OK, just not the editorializing?

Grow up.  If the local race in question impinges on national issues - and, really, what congressional race doesn't - then national players will be involved.  Endorsing (or not) with words, gestures, and $$$.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
primaries are different (0.00 / 0)
were it up to me everyone outside the district would butt out. I know that isn't going to happen, but that is my preference. I am speaking of primaries, not general elections.

I can't say this strongly enough, national netroots thinks it knows more than it does. It is not always clear who the progressive is. Neither is national netroots the best judge of the strongest candidate, that is something you have to see in person, and even then you have to have personal knowledge of the area. Current personal knowledge, not you took summer vacations there as a kid.

The people on the ground are the best judge of their interests. Rather than play kingmaker it would be better to stay out of primaries and instead look for challengers who are genuinely progressive without getting involved in internal party politics.

[ Parent ]
it depends (0.00 / 0)
Do you fealty to New York state apples over Washington state produce? And don't get me started on New York cheddar. I was born in the Bronx, started school in Dutchess county, NY now live in Florida.
Honestly, I feel that we should all have the right to criticize our elected representatives where ever they or we are from or located at the moment. That said, I think we should be ready to defer to a local blogger's opinion on certain detailed matters that impact certain localities. Its impossible for anyone who is not on the ground to know what machinations, projects or policies will have what effect on south east Bronx residents for example. I'm sure that everyone reading Open Left will have an area of expertise that others will not have. No one knows everything about defence, NAFTA, net neutrality and the local sewer project in Flagler county, FL. or the impact of a cottage motorcycle industry in Orange County, FL, or Orange County, NY. Defer to the locals when they have  inside info. BTW Kool aid does not mix with Macintosh apples.

Why yes, I'm a liberal. Thank you very much!
The way I see it (4.00 / 3)
What bothers about this reaction is how utterly unprogressive and chauvinist it is. If locals have some sort of special knowledge on a district, on a local elected official, or on how a national issue intersects with a local district and a local issue, then by all means I think they should share it. I am more than willing to hear people out, and to defer to superior arguments when they are made.

However, the argument about localism is frequently being made in and of itself lately. Many people, such as the person Stoller quotes below, are not making an argument that local district X supports FISA or Iraq, or using the benefit of their local knowledge. Instead, the argument is simply that not being a local make us wrong in and of itself.

I grant that people can have more expertise in some areas than others. However, if someone is an expert in a given area or policy position,. there arguments should demonstrate the depth of that knowledge. Just as it isn't enough to dismiss someone's argument on a subject because you have a college degree on that topic, and the person you are arguing with does not, it isn't enough to just dismiss someone's criticisms of a local because you are from the area and s/he is not.

In more concrete terms, if people want to argue that, for example,  someone like Brian Higgins should not have voted for FISA, they should make an argument as to why either FISA was right, or why the local district supports FISA. To simply tell someone that s/he can't criticize someone who votes for FISA because s/he is from a different part of the country isn't an argument--it is chauvinism.
[ Parent ]
Point of clarification (0.00 / 0)
"What bothers about this reaction is how utterly unprogressive and chauvinist it is."

In this comment, I was referring to those who criticize Stoller and I in the way he quotes someone doing in the post directly below this, not to your actual reaction.
[ Parent ]
Local vs. Non-Local (0.00 / 0)
Your second round of questions are tricky, and my response colored by my experience with the 2006 IL-06 primary. I don't think it is right of anyone to criticize any blogger just because they disagree with the complaint and do not live in the district they have written about. If the post/comment are based on faulty logic or information, then blast the blogger right back with this information rather than residency complaints.

Where I do start to agree with the local vs. national bit is when the locals on the ground start to call out BS arguments that have made there way into conventional wisdom. Often these seem to be based on little more than talking to those who often define conventional wisdom in their favor or who are just plain wrong in their information, yet considered political "insiders" who are in the "know."

The example I remember that made me realize this most vividly occured on a minor point of fact that was repeatedly asserted.  I remember the discussion on dKos regarding how turnout for the primary was probably affected by the snow storm that hit us that day. In reality, there was no snow at all, just cold weather. Absoulutely none. This minor bit of telephone game spills over into information about a candidate's viability, and can easily wreak havoc on their ability to gain traction and credibility, and I can't help but see it being used to advantage of more well connected candidates as was done with Duckworth.

Those on the ground who go to the campaign events have a much better handle on what is going on locally. They often know their district better, especially regarding long term trends in not only voting history, but how their friends and neighbors views are changing. For example, conventional wisdom in 2006 was that DuPage was hopelessly Republican. In reality, in both demographics and change in views, the county is ripe to flip to the Democratic column. This was considered naive by those outside the district in 2005 but now generally accepted. (Unfortunately, we don't have a candidate this cycle to take advantage of it.) If one hadn't lived in DuPage for the past 10 years of so, it would be easy to have missed this changes which are happening quite rapidly now, where as in the past, DuPage was stable for a very long time.

Bottom line: bloggers outside a district need to really be aware of what their opinions are being shaped by, and not be so quick to discount the information from those who do live, work and are active in a district. Statistics are great and can give an objective viewpoint many times, but as the saying goes: "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."

If teaching is so easy, then by all means get your degree, pass your certification test(s), get your license, and see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.

Uh....excuse me but.... (4.00 / 1)
....statistics do not lie. This is a canard of those who don't understand mathematics.

It may be hard to interpret what the statistics mean and in that sense they can be misleading but....

numbers do not lie.

People do.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Speaking As A Former Math Major (4.00 / 1)
We all know that.  Really, we do.

We're not Republicans, you know.

Proof That A Ham Sandwich Is Better Than Eternal Salvation:
    (1) Nothing is better than eternal salvation.
    (2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
    (3) Ergo, a ham sandwich is better than eternal salvation.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Point taken! (0.00 / 0)
By some anyway, see the other response to my comment for....

...whatever.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
How To Lie With Statistics (0.00 / 0)
One of the greatest little books I ever read, How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff.  Read it when I was about 10 or so.

Effortless, elegant, memorable, life-changing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Let's not get carried away here.... (0.00 / 0)
...I have a question.

Does your radio/TV/Computer/cellphone work?

If so you 'believe' in statistics.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Who Do You Think You Are Arguing With? (0.00 / 0)
I did coursework in abstract algebra, real analysis, topology, number theory, some metamathematics, etc.

Why are you haranguing me?

Just curious.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Whoops...didn't mean to 'harangue' ya... (0.00 / 0)
we physicists just get a little annoyed when folks start with the statistics=lies meme. It's a pretty dumb one as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps some of my irritation with others 'slopped' over on you. Sorry about that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
DiffyQ's Too, Now That You Mention Physics (0.00 / 0)
Gettin' all non-local are we?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Still on the hunt for... (0.00 / 0)
...the universal field theory....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
Raw data (numbers) vs Interpretation (opinion) (0.00 / 0)
Your second line makes my point. Even with the best intentions interpretation of statistics can be misleading.

If teaching is so easy, then by all means get your degree, pass your certification test(s), get your license, and see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.
[ Parent ]
Correct interpretation can also be..... (0.00 / 0)
....informative.

Next time you turn on your radio/TV/computer/phone ask it if the statistics used in it's design are....

misleading.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
I go by the code of the hills (4.00 / 2)
You mess with me and mine (FISA, Iraq, and on and on), I can mess with you, and I don't care what hole you're hiding in.

But I've also been seeing a sneakier Blue dog defense.  "Your criticism of Congressman Shitforbrains is certainly valid (heh-heh-heh), but wouldn't your resources be better spent on the guy over there, who's even worse, or the gal next door, who's more vulnerable, or him or them or her or, or or [anybody but my guy]!"

Recall 2006 -- the year of the Kos.  The Beltway Bandits running the Democratic Party were oh so smart with their focusing on key or winnable races.  All they did was totally underestimate the American people.  But irresponsible and hopeless candidates stepped into the ring, Kos and others pulled in support from all around the country, and we ended up with an at least nominally Democratic Congress.  Yes, we picked up some aspiring bandits in the process, and I think the Kossacks have become more conservative off their success, but hey, that's progress.  I call it the first wave.

Now look at the drop in congressional support since January.  Because the Democrats wimped out on the war.  On FISA.  Those Democratic supporters are still out there, and they're pissed.  If we hit the Blue dogs at every turn, in every district where a progressive is willing to challenge them, I think the "don't go after my congressman" smartypants are in for another surprise.  If they aren't all beaten, they'll at least learn that they have to fear not only what's on their right, but what's on their left, like a dead rat nailed to the door.  We are the second wave.

And since I've been numbering things, one might ask what's the third wave?  2010.  We'll have a Democrat in the White House, a better Democratic Congress, the right wing thwarted for a while.  We'll have won a defensive struggle.  But we won't have Universal Health Care, the Middle East will still be a mess, we'll still be saddled with a right-wing Supreme Court, and America's infrastructure will still be shot.  For the third wave, we go on offense.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

One question... (0.00 / 0)
Where are those poems??
I'm from Colorado (0.00 / 0)
And I winced at the bashing Mark Udall got several months back. He is a good guy, votes the right way most of the time, and he will be our Senate candidate in 2008.

That said, I was appalled by the op-ed that started the cat fight. But mostly, I am depressed by the disconnect between the Beltway Democrats and the Progressive base. It's like they've never heard of Lakoff and framing and dKos -- what's worse, they still think the DLC playbook is the way to go.

The Colorado DLC is still influential, and most of our elected Democrats support it. On the plus side, the CO-DLC takes policy positions we can support most of the time, and their Progressive Straw Man bashing is less frequent than the DC-DLC. But still -- this is what we are up against.

Anyway -- that's why I'm depressed about the Democratic Party. It is getting better, but the consensus majority opinion couldn't buy a clue if it smacked them upside the head.

Thick Skin (4.00 / 2)
Once you get into the thick of things online you have to develop several protective (or sanity maintaining) procedures.

1. Never get into a back and forth with a troll. You can reply to criticism once, make your points and then that's it. What trolls want is exposure. If you don't take the bait they go away (at least until the next time).

2. If you think it's about you, it's not. Anyone who challenges sacred beliefs will get the same treatment. Anyone who seems likely to influence public perceptions away from the stories being peddled by the right is a threat and must be discredited. This can be John Kerry, Max Cleland or currently serving soldiers.

I have two phrases I use to encapsulate these maxims:

1. Don't feed the trolls.
2. Don't explain and don't apologize

Now go back to doing what you were doing. Those in the "any Dem is better than any Republican" school are starting to learn the hard way that the quality of the elected official matters. I expect to see a lot of unhappy Dems who have joined the activist movement in the past several years and haven't been through this before.

There are differences between the parties on some social programs, but they both support the fundamentals of our society. These are: that business is the driver of the economy and must be catered to, and that unlimited militarism is the only way to maintain our place in the world.

The fact that congress now has a lower favorable rating among Dems than even Bush must mean something. But I don't see any way for this discontent to get translated into policy changes. Your small effort may be a good first step.

Policies not Politics

Cold Front (4.00 / 1)
30 seconds ago I was sitting here, not really sweltering, but feeling clammy.  Suddenly, out of nowhere a cool wind (cold, really, by comparison) hit, and has not let up.  I can look out and see palm trees more than a quarter mile away flowing just like the ones across the street.

That's what it feels like sometimes, when a front moves in with a sharp dividing line.  When I lived in Florida, that's how the rainy season rains moved in, with a wall of water falling from the sky with an edge so distinct it was like an artificial waterfall in a sculpture garden.

And that's how political change is coming to this country right now.  Only some folks just can't believe that it's happening.  They're used to the weather changing gradually.  Heating up or cooling down a fraction of a degree every ten minutes or so, at most.

And then, they get all riled up, when we say, "Hey!  There's this monster cold front coming!  Going to be one heckuva storm, Brownie!"

"Nah!" They growl.  "Where's John McCain's birthday cake?"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Some very good responses here on this issue... (0.00 / 0)
...I only have one thing to add. When Rep. Shitforbrains goes starts spewing Republican spin and lies on a national level...say MTP or CNN then he/she needs to be whipped back into line and if Madame Speaker or 'Fittin' Harry Reid won't do it then I see no problem with we, the people, doing so.

Whether we live in ShitforBrains district or not.

It ain't the 18th century no more and all these 'outraged locals' need to recognize that fact. Almost every issue has national implications today. From the big ol' Army base bringing 'good jobs' to a district to Global Warming to Mr. Deciders destruction of the Constitution the people's representatives, if they call themselves 'Democrat', need to act like they represent ALL the people.

Not just Lockheed or CitiBank.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

"the national blogosphere" (0.00 / 0)
Please distinguish between "the national blogosphere" and the "other blogoshperes".  Be careful or the "the national blogosphere" might become like MSM. 
Nobody has a corner on information (4.00 / 1)
These parochial concerns on the part of defensive locals is absurd on its face. However, there is an issue lying underneath it that is relevant: information.

It's understandable that locals wouldn't want someone butting in who has no knowledge of conditions there, of why a certain person is in office, the history surrounding Democratic and progressive politics there, etc.

But those concerns are rendered more and more obsolete with the growth of the internet. It allows for information to spread much more easily. One no longer has to travel to upstate New York, or Minnesota, or suburban Seattle to understand the dynamics at work in a district. Contact between local and national activists is also made easier, allowing for even more information exchange.

For the last 6 years I lived in Seattle, and got to know WA-08 quite well. As this district has become a prominent topic of netroots discussion in the last week I have been consistently impressed by the amount of knowledge and accurate insights to the district and the race between Burner and Reichert, even though many of the writers engaged in this discussion aren't from the Pacific Northwest and have probably never been to Bellevue or even heard of Enumclaw.

To claim that a local is always superior to an outsider is a fundamentally anti-progressive notion. As long as the national person has good information their opinions is as valid as anybody's.

this isn't an abstract issue (4.00 / 1)
We're not talking about folks in California getting involved over road construction in Vermont.  This Blue dog campaign was triggered by a very specific matter -- the FISA debacle -- that is national in scope.

I can't imagine ANY local knowledge that would excuse the FISA vote.  If "local conditions" means that national pressure over a FISA vote gets a Blue dog replaced by a Republican, at least the Democratic Party won't get the flak for how that district votes, as it has been lately.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

critical point (4.00 / 1)
I've worked the for big time consultants doing races across the country and I've never heard any protests about whether they live in the district.

It isn't just a double standard, it is part of a larger problem where locals want the best and the brightest to try to win but when the online best and brightest point out that the crap some dipshit is pulling won't help them win then they whine about locality.

It really boggles my mind.

I have a similar construct, but it isn't based necessarily on geography but on presumed assumptions that I find counterproductive and seem to have a proximity to DC. Yet I'm not going to write off Stoller just because he lives in DC. I listened to what Matt said and after that I was proud to conclude he's right. Bowers might be a long way away from the west coast offense, but he's right. And serious props to Mike Lux for sticking his neck out for this site which seems to be pissing off all of his old buddies.

On twitter: @BobBrigham

postscript (4.00 / 1)
If Matt or Chris wanted to sell out to crap-ass politicians and kiss consultant ass, they would be buying starter-castle homes from which they would drive brand new cars to great offices that had their names on the door.

But they stand up for what they believe in. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that the netroots threw down to buy Bowers a laptop and about the same time I visited Stoller's dump ass apartment that didn't even have it's own bathroom but did have a batshit crazy landlady.

So while I agree 100% with everything OpenLeft is doing, I want to point out the inverse of the attacks is that they are putting themselves on the line to help the Democratic Party at great personal expense.

On twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Well Said (0.00 / 0)
Chirs - I am from downstate but I spent about 5 yrs in the Albany-Schenectady area which is not Western NY but is not NYC either.  I must admit I was shocked by Higgins vote on FISA.  I know that Jack Quinn an R used to represent that seat but Henry Nowak a D had it for 18 yrs b/f that and the Buffalo area that makes up most of the seat is known for leaning D. 

My point being this is not a Southern Conservative seat with a strong military presence and while I am still pissed over FISA I guess I can see people in those seats voting for it a lot more easily than a NE Dem from a traditionally Dem area.  Just my two cents as a NY State, albeit, not Western NY resident.

OK, I'm From There. So What? | 36 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox