Look Peter I understand what you're saying. I was in the PIRGs for much longer than you, and I really did take a lot from it (not withstanding my comment upthread at DailyKos). And I totally believe you that on the MoveOn campaign the PIRGers kept their offices together better than the fresh recruits. You are right that it is hard to find better implementers. But Greg asked me a while back why I thought the model collapsed so badly, and my first reflexive answer that it was because the PIRGers took over--because all they know how to do was implement and manage. We're not good at adapting 'strategically,' as you yourself admit. So when the real world didn't match up against the model, they weren't able to adapt and it all fell apart. The question that really should be asked is whether those PIRG-run offices were actually working better to get out votes, or whether the PIRGers were managing the staff well enough so that they didn't quit. One is not the other. (Did you read my post? It's pretty relevant here.)
Greg has asked a series of very specific questions about what we did and didn't do right. Considering how much I put into these organizations, I'd like to see a satisfying answer to those questions. I personally saw the failure that many people on this thread have described-- only for a few days but that was more than enough. I hate to think that Greg's claim (that the breakdowns were somehow caused by the leadership) is true. But I hate to think a lot of the things that these threads have made me think. On the DNC end, Greg went point by point through a campaign that I helped run and gave ways in which it could be run better -- I was unnerved to find that I agreed with him almost every step. I'm getting over being unnerved. I've decided I'm going to stop hating these thoughts.
As you know, the people at the top of GCI have been doing this for years, and it's all their show. Furthermore, the model is built so that people who have the will to do the work can succeed. If it wasn't working, and it never got fixed, then I can tell you it is not the fault of the people who signed on. Keep in mind that you're talking about young people who wanted more than anything to beat George Bush. Who were willing to do anything--if it would help beat Bush. Key word there is 'if,' people. And frankly, Peter, when you talk about them as if they were just 'not tough enough,' I kind of hate you a little bit. Some of those 'quitters' you're talking about were my staff, and they were tough as shit. I did everything I could for them, and they for me. And I know that some of them kind of hate me now, just for being part of GCI. So if any of my former co-workers are out there wondering where I get off posting this -- that's where. Deal with it -- bring a better game to the table, or start asking these questions yourself.
