Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator Debbie Stabenow and Debbie Dingell Endorse Gary Peters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 10:45 AM
Original message
Senator Debbie Stabenow and Debbie Dingell Endorse Gary Peters
Click on the link below to watch the video of Debbie Dingell and Senator Debbie Stabenow endorsing Gary Peters for Congress from the 9th Congressional District of Michigan.

Debbie Dingell and Senator Debbie Stabenow Endorse Gary Peters for Congress

If you'd like to contribute to Gary's campaign CLICK HERE
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am not suprised.
Edited on Sun Dec-16-07 08:45 PM by maddogesq
Nancy got no real help from MDP last time, so why should I expect anything to be different now?

Look, I have a world of respect for both Debbie's, but this is just them in their busy schedules thinking about money flow from MDP and DLC and whatever. Brewer planted his seeds early on this race, IMHO.

By the way, Skinner got an endorsement from this national organization, which in my judgement is pretty influential:


http://www.nwpc.org/ht/d/Candidates/pid/940


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. NWPC endorsement means virtually nothing
Edited on Mon Dec-17-07 04:14 AM by bfealk
I looked for their criteria and there is absolutely nothing on their web site about how they choose their endorsements.

Apparently all you need to be endorsed by them is female genetalia.

As far as Debbie Dingell and Debbie Stabenow, I would think if Nancy had all the female support she claims, that two high-powered women from Michigan would have endorsed her. I believe Stabenow did endorse Nancy last time around. I believe Stabenow's endorsement was much sought after by Nancy last time around, so for you or anyone else affilaited with Nancy to say Stabenow's endorsement isn't important to Nancy's campaign is being highly hypocritical. Why was it important last time to Nancy, but not this time? I'm not sure about Dingell.

The endorsement that might mean something is EMILY's List, which is an endorsement Nancy didn't get last time, and is unlikely to get this time around either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Don't put words in my mouth.
Edited on Mon Dec-17-07 08:07 PM by maddogesq
I DID NOT say those endorsements weren't important. I said I wasn't surprised based on my belief that MDP amd Brewer biased this race from the start.

Did I not say I had high respect for both Debbies? I havr met and talked with Stabenow many times, and she knows me by face and last time by name.

Putting words in my mouth is....bullying. That's one of the things bullies do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. If you re-read my posting
I don't see where I put any words in your mouth. That's one of the things Republicans do is say things that aren't true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Nancy's support
Whoever you are,

First, Mark Brewer gave personally to Nancy's campaign. Second, I think how it works, the candidates have to earn their support. It's not just given to them because they're the nominee. Nancy has never been elected to public office before. Her first run at anything, she runs for the U.S. Senate and garners just 1.2% of the vote. I think you'd agree, not a good start.

I have already addressed the NWPC endorsement, which I'm not at all impressed with. It's a women's organization endorsing a woman. There are no criteria on their web site for how they choose which candidates they endorse. Apparently all you need to receive their endorsement is female genitalia. The endorsement that might have meant something is EMILY's list, which is an endorsement Nancy did not receive last time and will probably not get this time.

Usually inexperienced candidates do not fare well in politics. The ones that do best are people that have served in elected office previously and have trained in the minor leagues and eventually jump to the bigs, so to speak. Gary Peters has done exactly that.

Gary's support is partly a result of polling that's been done and the results have been very positive. Did Nancy do any polling to support her run? I worked on another campaign last time that was running against Nancy and we did do polling and the candidate graciously gave the polling information to Nancy when he dropped out. To my knowledge Nancy never did any polling of her own.

Let's say Nancy did, by some miracle get the nomination, do you think after she's been running around criticizing the party at the state and national level, they would turn around and support her candidacy financially? Should she even accept their money on principle, again, since she's been running around criticizing their lack of support for her in '06? I would think if she had any conviction she'd turn down their money if offered.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-24-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. you change the rules for who you support. It's ridiculous and you know it.
Frankly, the amount of money a candidate has is not as strong as the inherant support someone already has.

I hope Nancy KICKS your guy's ***, not because your guy suck but more because his supporters lie, they want to polute the system with their money, and they basically just change the rules as they go.

What a deal for the 9th!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Okay, um, yeah.
I'm not a huge Stabenow fan, so her endorsement doesn't mean a ton to me. She was my house rep growing up and then my state senator. I competed in Equations (math geek game) against one of her sons, I've met her a few times, and I have to say that, while she often says the right thing to the right people, she doesn't always seem the brightest bulb in person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. That's interesting
Because Nancy did have Stabenow's endorsement last time and she mentioned it and her other endorsements as often as she could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm in the Seventh District, so I'm not up on all of that.
I just thought it a bit odd Debbie's backing anyone this early.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-24-07 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. it's the network that trys to support the people who will vote the way they TELL them to
and not the people who will vote their conscience.

Look at Stabenaw...she's a prime example of being beholden to corporate interests. One of the dems who voted for the bankruptcy bill, voted for torture...

Corporate Dem supports a future corporate dem.

Wow. What a surprise, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Stabenow is a little right wing for me.
Some of her votes (in support of torture, for instance) were unacceptable.

Always good to get an endorsement of course, but at the end of the day I don't want someone who has drifted right along with the bulk of the party. I know, Bruce, you said before when just Nancy was running that you didn't want anyone that progressive running in the district, you wanted someone more to the right of her.

The democratic party is definitely more to the right of me, and more to the right of where it used to be, so I am not surprised to see who they (or you) are endorsing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I never saıd anythıng about her beıng too progressıve
Show me where İ ever saıd that. İ never saıd that ever. İ am not always happy wıth Stabenow and her votes but İ do know that Nancy sought her endorsement last tıme so İ thınk to say now that Debbie ıs too conservatıve ıs quıte hypocrıtıcal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You have said that in the past, in previous election cycles.
Specifically, you said that Nancy Skinner was "waaaaaayyy to (sic) liberal for the 9th" and that you favored a "a more middle of the road candidate."

Just based on that alone, when I see you supporting a candidate for the primary, my gut tells me to support their opponent if I don't want republican lite, more democrats who support torture, fund the war, vote for NAFTA, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-21-07 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. İ thınk you got ıt mixed up
Gary ıs certaınly no Republıcan lıte. Gary is just as much a progressive as Nancy. Nancy may even be less progressiıve on health care. My personal opinion is that Nancy comes across as further left than Gary perceptually. İ think that Gary ıs just a more professional campaigner and has a more calm demeanor when speakıng. Nancy ıs more of a shrieker and screamer. As a progressive Democrat myself, İ am comfortable wıth Garys positions on the issues you mention.

İ thınk had Nancy posted the video from Troy you might have seen what İm talkıng about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-21-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. One thing that bothers me about your posts about Nancy
- and it's not just this post - is that you tend to use highly gendered language when discussing her. I'm not sure if you are aware of that, or how it reflects on your posts in general. Might be something to watch in yourself.

I remember when you were actively trying to frame her as a "cheerleader" - and multiple posts from you would use that term. In one, which I thought was actually very funny, you, as a man, were telling us that women didn't react well to her "cheerleader" style.

Here she is with a strong staff of women activists, and I've always known her to have that, so it is kinda funny, even you have to admit that, for a man to be telling us we don't like her.

That makes me laugh, but also the whole situation makes me sad, and reminds me of a conversation I heard you having with another activist outside Knollenberg's office once. She was a woman who had left activism during Vietnam specifically because of how women were dismissed and belittled. She was trying to explain to you that you could pull more people into the anti-war movement, pick up the women who were disenfranchised the last time around, if you (and at that initial point she was using a more generic you, you as in the antiwar movement as a whole) were more willing to discuss how war effects women, how gendered discrimination feeds militarism, and so on.

And I watched while you did exactly the same thing that had been done to her 30 some years ago, you told her you weren't interested in some "special interest" issue (that's the exact term you used, never mind that it's half the population), and that you needed to stay "on message" and you basically told her to STFU. She walked away pretty upset. I don't know if you know that, but that's a person who might have just withdrawn (again) from politics, from seeing directly that really nothing has changed. Women are perceived a certain way, dismissed a certain way, spoken about a certain way. She was so angry afterwards that her voice was shaking. I haven't ever seen her again. I think that was the first protest she'd gone to over the Iraq war.

That was about the same time I was reading a book one of my students loaned me, about gendering. One of the points in that book was that women tend to connect different issues. We see how the war affects environmentalism - we use up our resources, we resort to imperialism to get other people's resources. We see how environmentalism relates to oppression of women. Anything organic is "womens stuff" - subsistence farming, breastfeeding, cleaning up people (dealing with diapers, working as nurses). Anything industrial and high tech and resource-intensive is associated with men, and given higher status. Corporate farming, synthetic formula over breastfeeding, disposable everything, medical treatments that are from big pharma companies rather than natural remedies ... it relates to resource use, to militarism, to economic systems, etc.

So anyway, we see how all things are connected more typically (not every person every time, but typically - and lord knows I love the men who get it), and men tend more to see a single issue as a single issue, and a different issue as its own separate issue. Each issue a special interest unto itself.

That pattern, you know, that was exactly what played out in that conversation between you and that woman at knollenberg's office. There was that sense that her style of viewing the issue was not only not your style, but it needed to be summarily dismissed without further consideration because you were "in charge" and you'd decided that only the male gendered way of looking at things would be tolerated in these protests. I suspect you were blissfully unaware of all those dynamics.

Then I log on here, see, and there is post after post of you saying Nancy is acting like a "cheerleader." I don't even know what specific behaviors you are referring to there. How do cheerleaders act? I assume you have some stereotype in mind that you want us to draw on, but I'm at a loss. I've never seen her spelling out words letter by letter using her arms, or showing up someplace with giant pompoms, if she's ever finished a speech with a dramatic jump off the podium landing in a split, I missed it. All I got is that she's female, cheerleaders are female, cheerleaders are looked down on and trivialized ... therefore you'd like us to make that association.

Now we have this morph from "Nancy Skinner is too progressive, we need a more middle of the road candidate" to "well, she ACTS too progressive, in a gendered female way, but she's really not too progressive. Don't vote for her, she is a shrieker."

I'm sorry Bruce, that doesn't carry any content. If Gary is as progressive as Nancy, then you shouldn't have been slamming her for being too progressive. What you wrote here is that you wanted a more centrist person, and now you show up with the new person you are supporting, what are we supposed to conclude? Claiming he's just as progressive as she is makes you sound hypocritical. If your issue is that she sounds too gendered you need to look inside your own self, because if your reason for voting for a person is that they sound more manly, you got your own issues to cope with. We can't fix those for you here. And maybe that's why you actively divert conversations about issues into these personality wars, I don't know. Maybe you can't hack it by discussing the issues, because that's not Gary's strong point.

It's no surprise at this point that there are a whole lot of folks who are turned off by your hypermasculine behavior patterns (controlling, bullying, stalking, putting down women in highly gendered ways, patterns of unilateral thinking, expecting people to do things because you demanded them, acting as though you are aggressively hoping for confrontation if you see posters here in person at events, etc).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-21-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It has nothıng to do wıth Nancy beıng a woman
As far as cheerleader behvıor, the very fırst tıme I met Nancy as a candıdate was at the Farmıngton Hılls Democratıc Club and she greeted everyone as she came ın late to the meetıng, was HI, DEMOCRATS. Women who have seen Nancy campaıgn have made the same comments I have made about Nancy's cheerleader behavıor. Nancy has come very close to spellıng on N-A-N-C-Y at varıous forums I've attended.

The ıssue you mentıoned at the protest was exactly the rıght thıng to do. We get so many dıfferent ıssues at some protests and sometımes press shows up. I have told the same thıng to people that come to MoveOn antı-war protests that want to talk about ımpeachment or other ıssues, so you are wrong agaın. And women have backed me up on doıng that.

My ıssues wıth Nancy as a candıdate have nothıng to do wıth her gender at all. If a male candıdate behave the same way, I'd have the same ıssue wıth the man.

The other thıng ıs. I don't know who the people are here because they use pseudonyms and I'm at least brave enough to use my real name, so ıt' completely unfaır to attack me anonymously.

I've been extremely effectıve goıng after Joe and who ever wıns the 9th Dıstrıct nomınatıon wıll benefıt from my actıvıtıes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-21-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. You had a problem with her saying "Hi Democrats"?
And from that, you decided that women don't like that because it makes her look like a "cheerleader?"

Then you write: "Nancy has come very close to spellıng on N-A-N-C-Y at varıous forums I've attended." Would you like to share how you could tell that?

Yeah, we can tell, nothing gendered about that statement at all. :eyes:

"The ıssue you mentioned at the protest was exactly the rıght thıng to do." Well, glad you solved that, then. Your viewpoint was right, hers needed to be dismissed without dialog. Cross that one off the list, good job there. ;)

As for feeling it's unfair for people to challenge your posts so long as you register with a certain name, that's bullshit. Sorry.

The people here can register with whatever username they want. You made a choice to register with your real name, which is fine, but it doesn't make you immune from criticism, and nobody is obligated to change usernames before saying they have a problem with one of your posts. This is another example I think of you deciding everyone is obligated to interact with you on YOUR terms, which, again, is a typically privileged male way of interacting with people. (And again - thankfully, most/almost all of the men here in the MI forum have evolved beyond that, for which I am eternally grateful.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-21-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Alternatives to "Hi Democrats." Please choose one:
a. Hi, children of a lesser God.

B. Hi, friends and commie pinko types.

C. Hi, fellow leftist traitors.

D. Hi, you other than Republicans.

:)

E. Any sarcastic response works well when dealing with Bruce, because his criticisms are just plain ridiculous and egotistical. By the way Mr. Fealk, I was at that meeting at the F.H. Dem Club you just brought up. Come one boy, can you figure out who I am yet? I know it drives you crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-21-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. LOL
I think I'd have to vote for anyone who used B or C at a public gathering. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bfealk Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Well
I certaınly am not goıng to change any of Nancys supporters mınds here. Ill let her lack of fundraısıng and endorsements speak for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Hey, don't sell yourself short
You singlehandedly DID change my mind about supporting Nancy. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-23-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. SNORT! I work sales by day.
Edited on Sun Dec-23-07 10:51 PM by maddogesq
It is a day job that was not my career of choice, but it was something that evolved over my working life. Your post confirms that the above poster need not get into my line of work...nuk, nuk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-24-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. he's also been on swing the state spreading lies about her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-24-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Stabenaw SUCKS! Her endorcement would make me vote for anyone else!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC