I Want a Winner, Not a Whiner

[bfealk]

I think it's pathetic that a candidate with the wind at her back was only able to raise $400,000 and according to some on the inside of her last campaign was not doing her work of raising money to be able to put effective commercials on the air to defeat Joe Knollenberg. It's hard work to get on the phone and beg strangers for money every single day. When the issue was the war, Nancy tries to run an ad about the environment, but she didn't have the money to get it on the air. Joe was as vulnerable as he's ever been and Nancy still couldn't beat him. Yes, she came close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

There's a reason Nancy won't post the video from her first face-to-face appearance with Gary Peters.

We need someone who has fought the Republicans and won. We need someone who can raise the kind of money required and has the principles to beat an entrenched Republican like Joe Knollenberg.

Nancy has proven that she is NOT that person. She LOST!!!!!!! Twice. Once to 5 other candidates when she ran for her first elective office, the Senate of the United States, getting 1.2% of the vote. That means the people really didn't like you.

I want a winner, not a whiner.

That's all Nancy has been doing since she got in the race, whining about how the party didn't support her. Whining about how the DCCC didn't support her.

There's a reason the people that endorsed Nancy last time are not doing so this time.

Because there is a better candidate.

There's a reason that Gary Peters is raising the kind of money required to beat Joe Knollenberg.

Because he's a better candidate.

There's a reason that the party is supporting Gary Peters.

Because he's a better candidate with the experience needed to go after Joe Knollenberg.

Oh, Nancy will say that the big, bad Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is supporting Gary Peters because he a white male, good old boy. But you know what, the DCCC is supporting Gary because they know Gary has the numbers to beat Joe Knollenberg. That's not favoritism, that's just good politics. Go with a winner. Nancy has never served in elective office. There's a reason she's 0-2 in trying to get elected to public office. There's a reason she is no longer on the radio. There's a reason she no longer works in Dan Mulhern's office.

I don't just want someone that talks a good game. I want someone who can deliver on their promises and whip Joe Knollenberg's butt into retirement in Florida, where he can sip Pina Coladas and get out of the way for the change that is going to sweep over America next November if we work hard.

[noamnety]

1. flamebait

You're posting the same points over and over again here in multiple threads, which come off sounding like your own whining, despite claiming to be against whining. Maybe whining with a hint of bullying passive-aggressiveness would be more accurate at this point. (not that I'm above passive aggressive behavior myself on occasion :D but really, this is going overboard.)

Instead of saying "My candidate is the best candidate" with no substance, why not put some effort into actually informing people of your candidate's positions? This is a widely read forum, it would be an excellent opportunity for you to do that, and I feel like you are blowing it here.

He must have some positions. Talk about them. That's what people should be voting on - the issues.

I asked about that once before, about his position on issues, and all you really said then was that his website doesn't describe his positions very accurately. "I do agree that Gary's web site should more accurately reflect the positions he has stated in meetings with supporters." That's not really helpful. I don't know what to believe about his positions, or what he meant about needing "benchmarks" in Iraq to measure progress.

If this were a national election where we all knew a fair amount about the candidates' positions, it would be different. I've heard Nancy speak, but not Gary. Unfortunately, at the last town hall I was at in Pontiac with John Conyers, it's my understanding that Gary was invited to speak but opted not to. It's a shame, because it was a large audience. I really believe if he had asked to be a speaker, they would have let him - especially as he's a veteran. They let me speak, after all, and I'm not really anyone.

I care a lot more about voting for the person whose views are compatible with mine than voting for someone because they raised the most money. The idea that we should vote for the person based solely on their ability to fundraise or to get support from the establishment is a very capitalistic/classist notion that elevates upholding the status quo as the primary objective. I can't get behind that, and I'm surprised to see you of all people promoting the idea that we should vote big money over positions. If I wanted that, I'd just support Knollenberg.

[bfealk]

3. Why don't you e-mail Nancy and ask her to post the video

from the Troy forum. I think both candidates were able to lay out their position on issues and let each of them speak to you via the Internet, instead of me stating positions for Gary. I'll give you Nancy's personal e-mail if you like, or use the one on her web site. I'm sure she's be happy to respond to a supporter.

[noamnety]

4. Is it Nancy's job now to tell me Gary's positions?

If Gary was at an event and wanted the video from it, he should have planned ahead and had his staff film it. That's just basic common sense.

I know you probably don't speak for him officially, so I shouldn't form my opinion based on your words here, but all the same, your take on this process is making him look a little incompetent.

"I want to show you the speech I gave, but I didn't have my act together to film it. My opponent thought of those details ahead of time though, maybe you can get them to release their copy to you." If I told my boss I was representing our company at an event and I knew we would want a tape of it, but I couldn't be bothered to make arrangements to get one, my boss would not be impressed. He'd be even less impressed if I told him our competitor filmed it - go ask them.

I'm sorry if Gary wanted his talk archived for his later use, but it's really not the job of Nancy Skinner's campaign office to cover his ass if he screwed up. Do you really not see a problem with this statement?

I'd really like to see the video your team shot at the Troy Democratic Club forum with Gary Peters and yourself.

There's a good lesson learned there for Mr. Peters.

[bfealk]

5. Wow, what a spin job

I have to admit, that's a pretty good spin job. I would think Nancy's team would want to have everyone see the video. I'm sure they think she did a great job at the forum, why not post the video for everyone to see what a great candidate she is.

I don't think Gary has a position on this at all. Why don't you make it a point to attend a Peters event before you judge him and crown Nancy your candidate?

[noamnety]

6. I went to an event where he was invited to speak

but he opted not to, instead sitting in the audience like a wallflower at a high school dance. There was an audience of about 600 people from what I heard, which is a great turnout for a local event. He screwed up there.

The reason I'm turned off by Gary is because of the behavior of the people promoting him. I don't know if you are on staff or just a volunteer, but I get the sense you have personal contact with him and are speaking on his behalf in some way, and that he's aware of who you are. The fact that he hasn't asked you to change your behavior (or the other person who briefly posted on this board on his behalf), speaks poorly of him. The behavior his supporters are displaying is the sort of all-hat-no-cowboy flight-deck swaggering bullying behavior that makes me jump for the remote whenever I see Bush on tv. That's not the sort of person I want in office. I don't want someone in office who hires that sort of person for their staff.

The impression I get from his campaign is that they don't want to promote his positions. They'll divert direct questions, they'll blame other people for his inability to get his message out there, they'll tell us not to look at his website because it doesn't accurately reflect his positions. The impressive ability to not address any actual positions makes me wonder if y'all are in training to be the next WH press secretary. In the last week alone you've started three threads that say nothing of his positions at all - instead talking about everything EXCEPT his positions or where to find his positions. Instead we have this aggressive behavior blaming everyone else for not having access or granting access to what his positions are.

I haven't gone specifically to see Nancy or Gary speak at any events because it's not my district. However, I have seen Nancy speak again and again. She's like Conyers or Sandy Levin in that way. I see them around town all the time, whether I'm at an impeachment event, a union event, an anti-war event, or even events put on for other candidates - or radio or television.

Scanning through the page here, I see a number of threads where people are advertising in advance where and when Nancy will be speaking. And I see a thread where they lay out her positions on issues, and Gary's. They're talking issues. The impression this gives is that she wants her views known, her supporters want her views known, and they want people to see her speak. The impression I get from DU is that either Gary's not speaking in public, or his supporters don't want a big turnout when he is speaking for some reason. And then he's blaming everyone else that his message isn't out there - like I said, it's somehow been flipped into "It's Nancy's fault you haven't heard Gary's message." Well, no. It's Gary's fault. And it's not my fault I haven't heard him speak. He was there, he chose not to speak at an anti-war event hosted by Conyers. That sends a message in and of itself.

Your post is a great example of the flight-deck no-substance behavior I was talking about. Compare this: Why don't you make it a point to attend a Peters event before you judge him and crown Nancy your candidate? to this: Nancy Skinner to be on Randi Rhodes' show tomorrow. 5:30 if you stream it live or listen live on satellite; 8:30 if you listen to the delayed show on WDTW..

Gary's campaign has something to learn about aggressive in-your-face no-substance tactics, versus being informative, professional, competent, and knowing how to effectively promote an appearance. Attacking potential supporters is a poor campaign tactic.

Out of curiosity, I searched youtube for both candidates. I'm a little appalled at the state of the Peters campaign there. I see now why you are so desperate for other video clips. When I search Nancy Skinner on youtube, the first hit is her talking about Iraq on MSNBC. I see one of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaigning for her. She talks about the economy on MSNBC, and alternative energy on CNN. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=%22nancy+skinner%22&search=Search

When I search for Gary, the first hit is him walking through a parking lot in the dark, avoiding someone's questions and refusing to speak. Apparently that was shot by someone who went to the bfealk school of journalism - karma kind of bit you all in the ass on that one, eh? I see a low budget clip of someone else talking on his behalf about his resume, giving no details on his positions. I see more clips of him avoiding questions from students, closing the door in their face. There's a fluff commercial with no substance, which all the candidates do, I understand that, Nancy has some of that as well, but in her case they supplement what's out there; they aren't the entire library of videos. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Gary+Peters&search=Search

My campaign tip for Gary, if he reads DU, is to look for supporters who can promote your specific appearances. If you spoke at any event besides the forum that bfealk is all hung up on, put the video from that event up on youtube. You must have taped some of your appearances, no? Get those online. If you can't raise enough money to hire a professional crew to videotape your speaking engagements, at least get yourself a high school kid with a cheap camera - it would be better than nothing. If you don't have any appearances lined up where you are going to talk about specific policy positions, get the high school kid to put the camera on a tripod in your backyard and just talk into it about what exactly your positions are.

An effective campaign has to use both personal appearances and the internet. Right now you are blowing on it both fronts, by refusing to speak at public events, by not effectively promoting the events you are speaking at, by having information on your website that apparently doesn't reflect what you are telling people in person, and by not taking advantage of alternative forms of pop media.

[noamnety]

7. dang it

all hat no CATTLE.

I don't know why I wrote all hat no cowboy. I don't want any more cowboys. :D

[PassingFair]

2. Then you go ahead and VOTE for who you want.

It's your RIGHT to vote for that guy that LOST an ATTORNEY GENERAL'S race
during an election when there was a seated Governor from his OWN PARTY
in Lansing. How often does THAT HAPPEN.

Talk about LOSERS!

You vote for your loser,

I'll vote for mine.

Either way, the incumbent will go down in flames.

[maddogesq]

8. LIke I said in another thread, Brucey has too much time on his hands.

He keeps starting these threads, challenging Nancy to this and that, without the same challenge going to his boy Peters. There is no substance, and little basis for factual information coming from said poster. All of his accusations about Nancy this and Nancy that are hearsay at best.

Thanks lwfern for reiterating my point that tactics used by said poster are acts of bullying. It's too early, and the last person standing at the end of the primary will this time beat Joe. It's time, and the trends point toward it. I will bet my money on Nancy to be that winner, thank you very much.

[bfealk]

9. Nancy won't make it that far

[TahitiNut]

10. Now, now ... let's be fair. Somebody's just GOT to represent all the ...

... golf courses and country clubs in my district! (Yes, it's my district - I *DO* get to vote for whomever runs against Joe, the best congresscritter money could buy hereabouts.)

Now ... watch this drive!

:rofl:


I'm not FAVORABLY-inclined to look at a "resume" and see brokerage firms and investment banking ... and feel "wow! he sure knows the issues that face me!" Indeed, when I see Bloomfield Hills ... well ... that's really another planet from Pontiac or Clawson or parts of Royal Oak.

[noamnety]

11. He does have that lottery commissioner's experience, though.

Some people would consider that an optional tax on those who are less educated, lower income, and more likely to be elderly or people of color, but hey, whatever earned him a paycheck. And I guess he made record profits off them (edit: profits for the state).

[bfealk]

12. Are you saying

That Gary Peters somehow profited from turning the Michigan Lottery around? To my knowledge, Gary was paid a state salary and in that role would never profit from the turnaround he was able to accomplish, where the money generated went to fund Michigan schools.

[noamnety]

13. Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

Sorry for the confusion. I edited the previous post to make that clearer.

I'm saying it's a job I wouldn't take for ethics reasons. I oppose the lottery because of whose wallet it pulls from. When he was put in charge of it, he made record profits for the state off of people who are disproportionately less educated, minorities, lower income and the elderly to raise revenues. He lists that as an accomplishment on his resume, and I have an issue with it, because it's basically the opposite of a progressive tax.

Personally, I don't see support of the lottery as a progressive value. I don't know how other people feel about that. For me, it's a problem.

The lottery actually funds a very small percentage of the public education system. I don't know if people realize that - it's about 5% of the school budget.