Thursday, March 5th, 2009...2:05 pm
The Names
Jump to Comments
I recieved an e-mail from the authors of the A Stronger ADP website and they are ready to reveal their identities. They are a group of younger Democratic activists: Sean Bowie, Joel Edman, Geoff Esposito, Matt Herlihy, Devin Mauney and Todd Phillips.
35 Comments
March 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
A cheer for the young turks! give em hell fellas!
RRRRRRRR!
March 5th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Looks like it’s about time to pass the torch…
March 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Cheers and good luck to them.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Cheers, indeed! It was a well-written and compelling document that deserves to be widely discussed. By the way, didn’t Mauney run a very credible campaign for the TUSD Board not too long ago?
March 5th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
This story made HuffPo today…
March 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Not to get too Koom-bi-ya here, but I hope everyone takes a minute to reflect on the ridiculous amount of talent that we have on our roster. We’ve got all the tools for victory in 2010. The movers and shakers, a tremendous group of dedicated activists, battle-tested, seasoned pros and some pretty savvy YDs. I’m confidant that we can get behind our new chair to inflict maximum damage to the right wing. One Party. One Fight. One beat-down.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Yes, as long as the beat down has some spine to it.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I’m all for kids trying to help on campaigns and play a role, and I understand they are giving themselves kudos on this blog, but these are truly bad ideas that have no place in a party that should be focused on winning.
For example, Dem incumbent congressional candidates should mount only a “modest defense” of their seats and the state party should play no role in re-electing them so it can “shift 100 percent of our resources to legislative races and statewide races”? These writers can somehow predict in February 2009 (and without any research) what messages candidates should use to win in November 2010? Isn’t it naive to put “infrastructure” on the list but exclude “health care” and “economy”? Or, the Democratic candidate for state mine inspector should be as heavily promoted on slate lit as the party’s nominee for Governor? Aren’t we learning now that who is Governor matters more?
We can all agree that things were not perfect in 2008, but anyone worth a salt has to admit that consequences of implementing the really naïve and elementary ideas outlined in this document would make things much worse in 2010.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Old hand,
You sound more defensive here than anything else. Lets lay off of the condescension (just because they aren’t 50, 60 or 70 years old doesn’t make them “kids”) and focus on the bigger picture.
The fact is that this is the only real plan we have seen, from anybody, that has any merit at all. We certainly haven’t seen (or heard) anything from the so-called “old hands” who, by the way, didn’t really come through for us this year (what I’m getting at is your Name–old hand doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence or trust right now).
If this plan is not what you think it should be, try this: come up with a plan and submit it. All of these old hands who did so incredibly well this last time around are sitting on the periphery throwing rocks from their glass houses instead of actually engaging the problem and coming up with real solutions as these stronger adp people have done.
Instead of throwing the rocks (You have no idea how much or how little knowledge and experience they have, nor have you any idea how much research they have done), try contributing.
Problems aren’t solved by criticizing potential solutions.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
It should also be noted that nobody used the word “elementary” until now, when their names were released and they were revealed as younger members.
It’s no wonder that they wanted to remain anonymous.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Old Hand,
I also take issue with your tone and some of your language. These people are not “kids.” Yes, they all are under the age of 25, but they all have been helping the Democratic Party for some years now. They have witnessed the same things you and I have, a party that kicked some ass in 2006 only to be sent reeling in 08′. While some of their ideas may be unconventional, and some need a little work, it is a start.
I believe they’re main purpose is to not completely re-write our book on how to win, but to start a conversation on which chapters need some editing. A couple of these “kids,” told me a few months before the election last year, which legislative races we would win and lose. I told them they were pessimists and way off, but guess what, unfortunately, they were correct in every district. On election night as the Az. results rolled in, my jaw dropped.
So, before you call them names, put them down and categorize them as kids, maybe you should meet some of these young people and start a conversation. A small group’s ideas are never perfect, which is why you share them with others, discuss them and make them better. Now is not the time to be discarding the potential of the youth in this state. We would appreciate your cooperation in the future and some constructive conversation, without your patronizing tone.
Pat Burns
President, YDAz
March 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Whoever posted saying you guys were irrelevant, should probably post and explain that you are relevant now. Nice work……Huffington, big time. Lets hope something comes of this.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Look at ideas on their merits. Not on who is proposing them.
Are the ideas in “A Stronger ADP” good ones, that is to say, will they further the goals of the Az. state party, will it help get democrats elected, are they feasible–if not, why not? What are the strengths, and the weaknesses of the proposal? Ad homonim attacks have no place in these discussions; we are equals, because it is our ideas that matter.
And now a note to Old Hand, and those like Old Hand…please don’t call them kids. It’s so annoying. (and I’ve been guilty of saying something similar myself, since which time I’ve endeavored to stop.) Fresh energy and fresh ideas are priceless. Besides, we have the advantage of age…we have had the time to synthesize our experiences and gain the perspective that comes with time. This can be a comforting thing to remember when you are wondering to yourself…”how the hell did I get to be THIS age!”
And a note to the Young Dems…please be patient with us. You won’t know how disconcerting it is to see…that the cop who pulled you over for speeding doesn’t look old enough to shave…or that the surgeon who is doing the bypass on your husband looks about 16 years old…until it happens to you.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Hand,
I took issue with the Congressional portion as well. Although, I also took issue with your tone. Although it’s nice to know that even “old hands” have learned to enjoy the intellectually lazy bliss that is internet anonymity.
I think we need to honestly look at the role that Congressional races play in the coordinated campaign and evaluate what can be changed to help out our legislative candidates. Most decisions at every level (planning, tactics, etc.) are focused on the Congressional races. Which is only fair considering that they paid for the coordinated campaign. I don’t have a problem with that. And I think when we talk about our failures in ‘08, we need to keep in mind that from a Congressional perspective, ‘08 was a triumph. (Except for CD3, but hey — that was a pretty tall order in a year where Johnny Mac was at the top of the ballot)
What I think the folks at “A Stronger ADP” were getting at, was that a fundamental change is needed if we are going to get serious about taking back the State Legislature. I think it’s problematic to ask the Congressional candidates to take a back seat, but something needs to be done to help out our fledgling legislative campaigns. What is that? I’m not sure yet. I know it’s not what “A Stronger ADP” suggested (at least in this one particular instance). But they’re thinking out loud, and that’s commendable. We need to come together and continue this discussion.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Pat and Tucson,
It looks like you both are supportive of the plan because of the people behind it, not because of the ideas.
If you like the ideas, which one of you would like to volunteer to march into the offices of Giffords, Kirkpatrick and Mitchell and say “We don’t think the party should help re-elect you”? They have done so much for our party and you want to dismiss them.
Pat, how is it that the “party that kicked some ass in 2006 only to be sent reeling in 08′.” Giffords and Mitchell won big time in 2008 (close victories in 2006) and we picked up Renzi’s seat which could not be done in 2006. We picked up a congressional seat in a year that a GOP Arizonan was a presidential candidate. That is simply incredible. It would do the conversation about the party a lot of good to keep that in mind.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Old Hand,
Our purpose was not to say that the party should not help re-elect Giffords, Mitchell and Kirkpatrick. Far from it, their races had, as you said, some of the best results in 2008. Our opinion was that with diminished resources and with more competitive statewide races opening up that we should prioritize and put a focus on local contests. This was based on the understanding that the DCCC have already placed these seats in their top tier to protect and that each of them have proven to be excellent fundraisers. Adam really summarized it best though: we need to look at the role congressional races play in the Coordinated Campaign and see how we can modify this to best help statewide and legislative races.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
So the real point is:
How often do open discussions of the direction and priorities of the Party happen like this in such a both open and substantive way?
Will Bivens bring forth a plan of his own on Saturday? Or will he once he is Chair? Will anyone at State Committee ask him to do something to continue the conversation in a non-contrived, non-handled way?
Or, if that is too much to ask, will the new Executive Director?
Or, if nothing else, the truly underlying question to Bivens, or to anyone else, is this:
Is the ability to engage the grassroots, or even just a respect for grassroots activists, one of the criteria the headhunter was charged with using in finding us a new Executive Director?
March 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Geoff… why are you backing away from the ideas outlined in the plan?
In your plan you said that Giffords, Kirkpatrick and mitchell were all “safe” and that NONE of the state partys resources should be spent to protect them and that “100% of resources” should go to legislative and statewide candidates like mine inspector.
Now you’re saying that the party should “look at the role” they play. Which is it?
March 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Tucson Vice and Pat — nicely said. This isn’t an age issue. It’s about ridding ourselves of the old-school closed system at the state party that continues to say it’s ok to endure a statewide slaughter because we picked up seats on the national level. That’s “either/or” thinking, rather than “both/and”. I commend the authors of the plan for their dedication, and I hope to hell that Bivens, et al are listening, because what happened at the last State Committee meeting was NOT a fluke. Bivens’ apology was a good start, but if he is elected Saturday, there will be a renewed effort at holding leadership accountable.
And as long as I’m ranting, an ED who actually cares about our state as much as the national scene would also be swell.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Old Hand,
I don’t believe it is backing away at all. I believe that our congresspeople (more so Giffords and Mitchell than Kirkpatrick right now) are “safe”, but not in the same way that a legislator from LD 15 is safe. We used the term to imply that the odds are in their favor, hence why we used “relatively” before it. And while 100 percent may have been an over exaggeration for effect, we also made reference to the fact that playing defense IS necessary.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Old hand,
“It looks like you both are supportive of the plan because of the people behind it, not because of the ideas.”
Not true. I signed onto the plan and supported it on this blog (read back, if you like) before I had any idea who the authors were.
“If you like the ideas, which one of you would like to volunteer to march into the offices of Giffords, Kirkpatrick and Mitchell and say “We don’t think the party should help re-elect you”
Well that would be a tall order with me sitting here in Afghanistan, but I’m not sure that the Plan even calls for such a visit.
Please read back and look at my supportive comments before the names were revealed (you talk about THEM not doing research…this is pretty basic). I also think it’s interesting that you didn’t comment on this plan at all until after the names were revealed. I think that speaks for your motives.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I forgot to make the point that my comments here were for clarification purposes. This plan remains an outline of ideas, and we have already made revisions to the plan based on commentary in blogs and via email and I’m glad we are having this discussion because it is leading to a lot of progress.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Geoff– “exaggeration for effect”?
The congressional delegation statement isn’t the only thing you “exaggerated”. Before you revealed yourselves, your “who we are” page said that you were a group of “LD Chairs” and state committee members and PCs.
None of you are LD Chairs. One of you is a state committee member and only one of you is a PC, making the “s” at the end “exaggerations” too.
How do you expect your plan to have credibility if you can’t tell the truth about who you are?
March 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Why won’t “An old hand” tell us who he is and why should we consider anything from an anonymous critic to be valid?
March 6th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I also do not appreciate Old Hand’s tone. Being a young person in politics is difficult because so many people just assume you have no experience because you are younger. But I am a young person and I know that a lot of other young people do not agree with this plan. It is really flawed. I’m also disappointed that the same people who dismissed it now embrace it because it was written by their fellow “young” people. As much as Old Hand seems like a jerk, they have some valid points about the problems with the document.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Old Hand,
Here we go again, someone taking things another person said out of context. Nice job, what is this faux news?
When I said that we kicked ass in 06′ and not in 08′, I was talking about the legislature. I thought this was pretty obvious. Gee, I had no idea that us dems now hold 5 of 8 congressional seats. Thanks for the memo, I’ll make sure and get my TPS report in soon.
Also, I never came out in full support of their ideas, I simply said that some were unconventional and needed work but at least it starts a conversation about making necessary changes. These necessary changes need to happen because what the Legislature and the Governor do, affect peoples everyday lives in this state.
You can like the plan, hate the plan, like those who wrote it or not, but being demeaning, condescending and not appreciative that this started a necessary conversation is short sighted and exactly what is wrong with this party.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Kids?!?!?
“old hand” – you sure gave me a chuckle.
Next time I am at a bar and carded, I’ll think of you
March 7th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Yikes! Did you read that schoolhouse dribble? The document was completely devoid of any intellectual heft, cogent strategy, or tactical know-how. No wonder they submitted it as anonymous…they probably wished they stayed that way.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Pat– Nothing really changed in the legislature from 06 to 08. We don’t control it and never did. Losing a net of few seats didn’t change a thing in terms of policy in the state. Its hard to blame the party too when Theresa Ulmer wrote an email that her loss was her fault and had nothing to do with the party – but with problems on her own campaign.
I’m glad you finally acknowledge the “plan” is a flawed one. I understand that you want to defend young people because of your involvement in young democrats, but any person worth a salt has to understand that this plan would make our party weaker. The authors are now backpedalling on their statements about congressional races and I wouldn’t be surprised if they start backpedalling on other things too.
Thanks for the office space reference but I hope you’ll direct your efforts into getting the authors to respond to “Fact Checkers”’s accusations.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Is Old Hand ever going to get around to suggesting some creative or decent ideas to supplant the ones that s/he is spending time deriding? Or is s/he too busy hating on the young people to bother thinking about changing things?
Also simply because it is not a “glamour” office like Governor does not mean that an office like State Mine Inspector does not have a large impact on Arizona. We learned that in a tragic way in September of 2007.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Pat:
Love the TPS report, but it didn’t have a cover on that – yeah…. ummm, I am going to have to have you make sure there is always a cover on the TPS report.
Gary Cole actually went to my High School :rollseyes:
I am looking forward to “old hands” suggestions though.
On another random note – and when are my posts NOT random…. I always wanted to be a “Fact checker” when I grew up… I so wish I was generation X, where I could be/become anything I wanted to be/become
March 7th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Correcection: Generation Y not X
March 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
VW-
Yes, please, we Xers don’t want to be associated with y’all and your baggy pants and ear gages.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Old Hand, (sigh, again)
So, nothing changed in the Leg. this year, eh? The Repugs purged all but one moderate, we lost some seats and lost our Governor. Not only can’t we get some moderate Rebubs. on board for things like a fair budget, but even if we did it would be vetoed. You’re right, old hand, nothing changed in the leg. from 06′ to 08′. I know quite a few dems in the leg and they would beg to differ.
For clarification, again, I never said the plan was perfect or not flawed but that it starts a conversation on things that could change. Something needs to be done differently in the future to get ourselves a majority in the State House and Senate. If you don’t want to add to the conversation and instead would like to keep attacking all of us because of our age, then you are the one who is acting like a child. You never apologized for your tone or demeanor.
I am not just defending these people because they are young but because the party that we both belong to did make some mistakes and those should be identified and fixed. From my first comment, “While some of their ideas may be unconventional, and some need a little work, it is a start.” Did I fully endorse the plan, no. I simply meant that this is a start to fixing what went wrong. This will be my last comment, it is exhausting arguing with someone who is rude and has the type of tone that I loathe from people in this party. Also, I’ll go ahead and throw you a bone, yes, they should have not lied that they were all State Comm. members and LD Chairs, that was wrong.
If you’d like to talk in person sometime and reveal who you actually are, I am all ears. Maybe we can even work on a plan of our own to get this party back on track. Shoot me an email, president@ydaz.org.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
To clarify again for Old Hand and Fact Checker
“All combined, dozens of people were involved with crafting the document that you see today, ranging from state LD chairs to state committeepersons to Obama campaign staff.”
I believe this is the statement that they are referring to, and let me say there is nothing false about it. We had many people look over the plan before we released it, and yes, they include people from each of these categories. The six of us, however, were the main authors. We came up with the idea, wrote the first draft, and asked these people for their input before going public. I hope this clears up any misconceptions.