> The Sierra Club and the Human Rights Campaign? Aren't they a bunch of homosexuals
> and tree-huggers? That's the left/mass organization/movement you're talking about?
>
> Or maybe it's the AFL-CIO, the function of which was intended from the beginning by
> Samuel Gompers. I guess supporting the entire Cold War, and meekly whining about how
> the law doesn't permit them to organize, as the number of organized workers dwindles
> down to 8%, means they're not "ultra-leftists". The Democratic leadership could give
> a damn what John Sweeney thinks, why should anyone else?
Well put, Lance. Perhaps a crass way of stating the obvious, but there are still some progressives who think that these liberal Beltway nonprofits accomplish something. The fact is, almost all similar nonprofits located in Washington are absolutely worthless. If they aren't fucking over their employees, they are trying to play the power games of Washington politics, which they always lose. Their agendas are dictated by the corporate fucks who sit on their boards (i.e. Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy) or by the need to sell yuppie clothing (Human Rights Campaign).
The idea that any of these groups have any connection to grassroots movements is preposterous! The AFL-CIO was always a reluctant participant in the anti-globalization movement. When reps from the AFL-CIO showed up at coalition meetings, their reps would look at their watches and then leave as soon as possible in unison. Planned Parenthood's response to grassrotos participation in one of their rallies several years ago was to send professional security personnel to harass radicals who weren't on message. On a bigger level, it's pretty obvious that these nonprofits not only aren't part of some grassroots movements, they have scant contact with those movements.
Chuck