Bruce:
Your general message here is always a welcome one. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about strategy matters, frustrating as that can be when resources are very limited and it is hard to do "a little of this and a little of that" effectively. That circumstance should make us all slow to criticize choices made by those in charge. I introduced the issue of bias at national in support of Rob's observation about bias at the state level. "Alarm" is not too strong a word for my concern about what that bias may mean for the future of our Party, given especially the lack of awareness of that bias. Blindness to one's biases is not necessarily a moral disgrace--it's something we must all struggle with continually--but it does make the prospects for change very dim. I don't think it's inappropriate to say that that's what I see happening; but it sounds as though you may have perceived my remarks as more hostile than I did. I certainly meant all the supportive things I said in my message to Geoff; I have, in fact, much more often defended than criticized national, for the reasons both you and I have given. National office staff, for their part, have always been gracious and attentive in response to my communications, even if nothing was done. The nearest to an exception, ironically, was Geoff's message in response to your forwarding my e-mail to national, but I don't particularly hold against him what may have been a hasty response. Giving and receiving criticism are skills we could all improve, but I think the whole discussion here has maintained a pretty gratifyingly high level. At least that's my bias.