I don't think CBID helped itself by endorsing Jonathan Tasini in the primary over Hillary Clinton. By voting to endorse a clearly not qualified candidate over Hillary Clinton, who had done a commendable job her first term, purely over Hillary's vote on the Iraq war, it made the group look less mainstream and more like a fringe protest group. Further there was no point as I saw no CBID people doing any petitioning for Tasini and I would bet serious money that few of those who voted to endorse him at the meeting actually voted for him on primary day. Which is a way of saying that even some members of these groups don't take the endorsements that seriously and will endorse some underdog just to raise a little hell. DFNYC did the same thing endorsing Tasini purely as a protest. CBID and other groups shouldn't be endorsing candidates they aren't prepared to work for. IND opened themselves up to the same criticism for endorsing Suozzi over Spitzer. These kinds of bad endorsements hurt membership because new members might be intimidated from joining if they think the rank and file of the group has specific not always mainstream agendas.

Of course I tolerate dissent. I guess Bouldin chose not to read my comments when I openly and bluntly criticized Hillary for slightly modifying her stance on torture. She now says it is acceptable if MILLIONS OF LIVES are at stake. I disagree, and I was very upset at her. I have also been openly upset over her equivocating over the war. That said, she is our democratic u.s. senator, and don't you think new york democrats ought to have generally positive feelings about new york democrats? These are the people we elected after all. We do not get anywhere attacking our own, but Bouldin is a former (closet?) republican, so maybe he doesn't consider Hillary one of his own.

Also I have made it abundantly clear that for the reasons stated above I may not support her in the end, I might support Barack Obama, whom I also greatly admire. Or I might have supported Feingold if he ran.

getting back to the topic of cbid, maybe they ought to consider merging with IND, and maybe other groups. There is strength in numbers and it could be argued that the effectiveness of each group is diminished with the multiples of similar groups out there.

CBID needs to get bigger but not by joining IND. There would be way to amny egos if that happened. It needs to expand its base out towards Prospect Heights and down through Windsor Terrace and into Kensington. Some people will have to leave or learn to agree to disagree for this club to ever work again. Also, there needs to be a strong leader who everyone respects and believes is honest and fair. I don't think certain people believe that right now. I love josh and think he is great but I don't know if he has gotten enough power to stop all of this fighting.

CBID will not last long if they don't get new members and to get new members the fighting needs to stop. I think they will be fine in the end but I warn all of you now the fighting is between old nieghborhood people and if there is a massive influx of only new Brooklynights a third faction may be created. So, CBID needs to stop fighting, get new members both new and old residents of central Brooklyn and things should start looking up.

Josh I think is the person to do this and should stay as president for at least one more year.

Are the differences causing the schisms in these groups at core ideological? Are these disputes really centerists quarreling with liberals, using differences over other things as a smokescreen for what the real differences are? I can see this clash of attitudes in someone like Bouldin, who goes on and on here using the words "Park Slope Liberal" derisively. How is a Park Slope Liberal then supposed to be in a group where others have thinly veiled contempt for the extents of their ideology? Where is the common ground, except when issues come up that cut across the political spectrum (such as the war nationally or atlantic yards locally)?

This isn't just something the local groups should be discussing, its a problem in the national democratic party right now. You have people with different ideas and visions of what it means to be a democrat, and what things should be done locally and nationally with the party. Are these local groups trying too hard for a "big tent" mentality? Would it help possibly to draft a constitution for a group like CBID, that lays out the specific ideology that the group stands for? I think if a political group tries to be so "big tent" to get more members that you get to the point where you can't even talk politics there, that it has gone too far.

Ideologically CBID is pretty consistent. I think actually some of the ideological differences have come out of the personal fractionalization of the club. I won't go into why I think the club started to fraction in the last few years but I will tell you the date summer 2001 and the last two executive board elections are important things to think about. CBID needs to expand, and needs to make sure that they can squelch this corrosive infighting. If not, they will never be able to move forward in any meaningful way. New members will help a lot but I still think the right mix of new members is vitally important.

P.S. Don’t forget about Windsor Terrace and Kensington, CBID has more of an established base there to grow out of then Prospect Heights. That in mind CBID should move into Prospect Heights.

maybe the problem is CBID having an executive board at all. It seems to me that having too much infrastructure and roles/titles only creates the kind of friction you are talking about. It annoys me to no end people who get involved in these groups because they are resume building, they want the title of being able to say they are on the board, call it an "executive" board to make it sound more important, and then boast of whatever they do. I remember when NDM was first started, and I had a lengthy argument with Scott Powell over the steering committee meetings, because the fact of those meetings taking place weren't being publicized and the minutes weren't posted. He said, "we can't let the republicans know what we're doing" Which I found patently ridiculous. There was a power structure put in place so that certain people, those on the steering committee, could have more of a voice in the group's agenda than anybody else. With groups as small as these, you don't need to play politics like that. It doesn't encourage new members to participate if they think the agenda isn't the larger group's agenda, but the smaller (executive board/steering committee's) agenda.

I suggest CBID might have more members if they looked at the way the group is setup and removed as much infrastructure and as many "official positions" as possible. Emphasize the collective nature of the group, and don't encourage politicking by those who have their own personal motives.

Everyone else is playing American football, while you guys insist on playing soccer. That is why you have vitually no membership in over half your own Assembly District. The 44th AD has two Regulars (albeit liberal and often open to reform) District Leaders. All your lofty talk about party reform, and you don't even have a seat in the room, unless you count Allan Fleishman, who really serves the 52nd only at Joan Millman's sufference, and not because of any great base he or CBID has personally developed on the other side of the Gowanus Canal. Now, instead of developing some strnegth in neglected areas of your own constituency, you seek to try to influence another AD, where, frankly, your incursion raises all sorts of race and class issues. Are you guys so afraid of Orthodox Jews, Russians, Pakistanis and Albainians that you are afraid to set foot south of Church Avenue? If you want to be taken seriously lock up your own AD, and then provide aid and comfort to like minded pople elsewhere with troops and the example set by your success. You will never have a successful countywide movement if you do not expand beyond your YUPPIE/BOHO base.

Actually, I thought I was sort of supporting your comments.

The reason for clubs to organize along AD lines, is that is how the party is organized. If you really are serious about changing the way the party operates, you need to gain a foothold in the corridors of power, meaning the party exective committee. The way to do that is to organize organizations to win AD by AD. If you insist on showing up for a football game with your tennis racket, you can't beat the other side at the game they are playing. It is like trying to win a presidential elction by going for a higher popular vote, rather than by securing an electoral college victory. You may not like the rules, but they are imporatnt for a reason.

Once you've secured a base and a seat at the table, opportunities to lend a helping hand elsewhere are a great possibilty. It is my understanding that IND has not been shy about offering such help in years past; neither has Vito Lopez or the Jefferson Club. But, they have always (1) understood the importance of securing their own base first, and (2) have also understood that outside their base, they are helping friends, not themselves; Vito and the Jefferson club might have influence in other ADs, but they do understand that the way to have such influence is to foster allied organizations and coalition partners, not to expand their own borders (except at reapportionment time).

Ideally, you would be far better off providing aide and comfort for like-minded allies in the 57th AD than acting (in the words of Major Owens) as "Colonizers". I suspect that the move of some in CBID to cross Flatbush Avenue, rather than Church Avenue, stems from a cultural bias. They really feel they have more in common with Prospect Heights residents of all colors than with those who live in Flatbush. And, that is decidedly the case. But, as long as "Reform" clubs think that way, they will never expand beyond their YUPPIE/BOHO cultural zones, and they are doomed to failure.

The fact that CBID looks to Prospect Heights rather than Flatbush tell you all you need to know about why efforts at party "reform" are probably doomed to to have marginal impact at best.

Actually, reformers have always been procdure-meisters. First of all, those obsessed with process tend to dwell upon it; secondly, reformers have always been most successful in battles where they beat the regulars at their own game. Most of the best election lawyers (Connor, Berger, Goldfeder) started as reformers, and cut their teeth hanging the regulars with their own rope.

I would be careful implying the regulars are a criminal class. Some are scrupulously honest; others are scrupulous at abiding by the rules (which is somewhat different). And, over the years, we've seen several erstwhile reformers run afoul of the law. In the end, there are many non-reformers one must be willing to do business with if one is ever to accomplish anything worthwhile. Certainly, that is how the independent judicial screening panel was created in Brooklyn. If one hangs an evil label on the whole bunch, there isn't really anyone left to work with, leaving your efforts doomed to failure.