Saturday, May 7, 2016

On Derrick's Fundraising

Mostly just putting this up for my comments. There's the guy running for Congress too, though.

“A lot of the things that Bernie stands for, I will also stand for,” Derrick said. “You may not get your first choice in terms of nominating a presidential candidate, but I’m still here.”

“We do the Bernie approach,” he also said during the event. “People contribute small amounts of money and encourage others to contribute small amounts of money, and it continues to snowball.”

The retired U.S. Army colonel began by informing the group that his campaign earned one of 37 spots nationally on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Emerging Races” program, which provides support to “top” campaigns around the country that the DCCC deems has the potential to unseat Republican incumbents.

“This race has taken off in the last three weeks,” Derrick said. “We were noticed as one of the races in this country that can be won by the Democratic Party. That puts us in the top tier of winnable races, and that makes a huge difference because the eyes of the nation are now on this race.

From your lips to God's ears, Mike. 

Anyway. My comments:

When he announced his run, Mr. Derrick had no idea how to answer when asked how he would be different from the incumbent.

I'll give you a for instance. When the Iran Nuclear Deal was being debated and demagogued by the right (including Ms. Stefanik), Mike Derrick came out in support of it. He could have easily ducked that issue. BTW, I never heard anything from Matt Funiciello one way or another on it. My feeling is that he does not often comment on an issue if he can't say Dems and Reps are equally bad.
I wrote several letters to the PS expressing my support for that deal, so it's clear which side I think is in the right. I would also mention the opening to Cuba. I haven't heard Derrick's position on that, but I suspect he is in favor of that as well. So yes, there is a difference between Derrick and Stefanik.

And the following are in response to Matt F at the thread:

I went looking for a definition of progressive and mostly found it to be a little nebulous. I like the idea thatit's a problem solving method. That's simple and direct. I like to vote for people I believe have the ability to solve problems.

At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.

Maintaining strong values is good, too.

95% of his individual donations are over $200

Mr. Derrick will have to speak to what his average donations are and I hope he does. The ones I've sent him were less than $200 and more than $23. Same as the one I sent to Bernie.


Being especially neurotic, I just want to clarify my comments. The Iran Nuclear Deal and the opening to Cuba seem to be progressive actions, to me anyway. They certainly are not conservative or, as I like to call it, regressive. Mike Derrick did come out in support of the Iran deal when he did not have to. Much as I liked Aaron Woolf, he would have ducked. Presumably, Mr. Derrick would support the opening to Cuba too, changing the moronic policy that was in place most of my lifetime.

As far as the definition of progressive, I take my cue from Humpty Dumpty.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

I'm not putting up MF's comment because he'd probably sue me for violating fair use if he found out. 

Haven't added a label in awhile. What'd I Say is in honor of fellow nihilist Repsac. Hope your well on Twitter, Reppie. 

No comments:

Post a Comment