I really do believe Dean is doing some of the things you speak of here, Ray.
Did you read the speech on race? There is an interview on foreign policy that I didn't send to this list but he really does seem to have some of these qualities. I hope it isn't just wishful thinking on my part. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 7:44 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Democratic 'Shadow' Groups Face Scrutiny > Its not unbelievable Selma, its just politics. Liberal have to be willing > to be less lazy than before. We've had it too easy. The answer isn't in > money but in ideas. We have to get out there, develop the ideas and most > of all ask questions. Claim the high road and on issues like abortion NOT > seem to be encouraging women to have them while supporting the right of a > woman to direct her childbearing life. Support freedom and then encourage > people to choose that which is best for both mother and child and if that > fails and it becomes a competitive choice between the two then allow them > the freedom to do so. Liberals have lost the morality because they have > been unable to focus on the underlying common sense issues that lie behind > the conservative codes. Don't hide in words like unbelievable or dirty. > Instead use words like "morality" with impunity and be so. If we are to > win we must be better at what we do than they are and for me it is that > simple. The Left had become corrupt and stupid in the sixties. I would > never have marched with any of those guys. They were disgusting. But > they are all on the right now and I feel better. > > REH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 7:21 PM > Subject: [Futurework] Fw: Democratic 'Shadow' Groups Face Scrutiny > > > > This feels like the first in a series of efforts that will attempt any and > > all strategies anyone can think of in this next battle for the American > > presidency. I don't think there is any kind of strategy that won't be > used, > > no matter how dirty or unbelievable, and, unfortunately, many of them will > > work. > > > > Selma > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 2:30 PM > > Subject: Democratic 'Shadow' Groups Face Scrutiny > > > > > > > GOP, Watchdogs to Challenge Fundraising > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/z65d > > > > > > Washington Post > > > Democratic 'Shadow' Groups Face Scrutiny > > > By Thomas B. Edsall > > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > > Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page A05 > > > > > > Leading campaign finance watchdog organizations as well as Republican > > > activists intend to challenge the new "shadow" Democratic Party -- a > > > network of independent groups gearing up to spend as much as $300 > million > > > on voter mobilization and pro-Democratic TV ads. > > > > > > The organizations -- the Center for Responsive Politics, the Campaign > > > Legal Center and Democracy 21 -- contend that the pro-Democratic groups > > > are violating prohibitions on the use of corporate and labor money for > > > partisan voter registration and mobilization drives. > > > > > > Trevor Potter, chairman of the Campaign Legal Center, said the groups > have > > > become "the new soft money loophole. . . . This is the beginning of an > > > important discussion about how these groups are going to operate." > > > > > > Judith L. Corley, who represents America Coming Together (ACT) and other > > > groups under fire, disputed Potter's contention. "The law has permitted > > > this type of activity all along," she said. > > > > > > Harold Ickes, who runs the pro-Democratic Media Fund, contended the > > > Republican and watchdog critics are "one, trying to tie us up; two, > divert > > > our attention; three, force us to spend money on legal fees rather than > > > electoral activities; and four, to try to chill our contributors." > > > > > > Republican activists have created a group, Americans for a Better > Country > > > (ABC), in part for the purpose of getting the Federal Election > Commission > > > to rule on the legality of the objectives and practices of the > > > pro-Democratic groups. > > > > > > "There is this gray area that right now liberal groups are operating > in," > > > said Craig Shirley, one of the founders of ABC. "We'd like to operate in > > > that area if it is legal. . . . We are still at the starting gate, and > > > they are four furlongs ahead of us." > > > > > > The 2002 McCain-Feingold law upheld by the Supreme Court last week > banned > > > parties from raising "soft money." Although supported by overwhelming > > > Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats were far more > > > dependent on those donations than the GOP, which has been more > successful > > > raising smaller, and still-legal, "hard money" contributions. > > > > > > New pro-Democratic organizations such as ACT, Voices for Working > Families > > > (VWF), America Votes and the Media Fund have stepped in this year to > > > attempt to fill the vacuum created by the soft money ban. These groups > are > > > accepting large contributions from labor unions that the parties are > > > prohibited from accepting. Most are explicitly opposed to President > Bush. > > > > > > In the process, ACT, VWF, America Votes and the others are taking over > > > many of the functions traditionally associated with the parties, > including > > > voter registration, canvassing, turnout. The Media Fund plans to run > radio > > > and television "issue" ads critical of Bush and supportive of Democrats. > > > > > > Now the watchdog organizations contend that ACT and some of the other > > > groups have become "pass-throughs" or "conduits" for labor unions > seeking > > > to use treasury money for partisan registration and turnout efforts. The > > > unions, they argue, are effectively violating federal law and FEC > > > regulations prohibiting corporate or labor treasury money from being > used > > > for partisan purposes with the general public. They cite FEC regulations > > > that say: > > > > > > "The corporation or labor organization shall not make any communication > > > expressly advocating the election or defeat of any clearly identified > > > candidate[s] or candidates of a clearly identified political party as > part > > > of the voter registration or get-out-the-vote drive. . . . The > > > registration drive shall not be directed primarily to individuals > > > previously registered with, or intending to register with, the political > > > party favored by the corporation or labor organization." > > > > > > Corley said the Campaign Legal Center and allied organizations are > "trying > > > to expand the soft money ban to all activities, but they are doing it > > > increment by increment by increment." > > > > > > "What we are trying to do is get the FEC to enforce the law as > intended," > > > said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive > > > Politics. "All we are saying is: Enforce this law as intended, and don't > > > repeat the mistakes of the past." > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
