Thread by @JGreenbergSez

A thread on how AIPAC functions at the Congressional District level. I served as AIPAC’s Midwest Poltical Director from Feb of ‘08 to Sept of ‘11. I handled 95 CDs in 9 states (98 in 10 states during the ‘08 cycle bc I had three Pittsburgh-area CDs).
1/

https://twitter.com/jgreenbergsez/status/1095087233965715456

Important points to start with:
- I haven’t worked at AIPAC in over 7 yrs. This is just reflective of my time there, tho I think most of it is still relevant.
- AIPAC doesn’t rate, endorse, or give money. No joke. No wink/nudge.
2/

Every mtg, my goal was to get the candidate to issue a position paper, discuss issues and policy, and (if appropriate) make a connection to local leadership (if one didn’t already exist).
3/

AIPAC’s model rewards friendly incumbency and that term is applied with *extreme* generosity. Friendly incumbent example: Jan Schakowsky was a “friendly” incumbent despite being horrible on the issues.
4/

A friendly incumbent meant more or less that the community dealt with the Member and not their opponent. Someone running against a friendly got a mtg, but usually that was it.
5/

Many races don’t take shape right away and others are clear from the previous Election Day. I prioritized races that were both clearly contested and competitive - open seats and vulnerable incumbents where one or more strong potential nominees were in.
6/

From the start, I worked those races in consultation with my local lay leadership. They helped me figure out which races the community needed to be involved in. AIPAC served as a clearing house for info and connection. The local leaders handled the relationship-building.
7/

I literally never went in to a mtg & discussed $ other than to ask how the cand planned to raise it. It wasn’t my job and I had nothing to offer them. They’d ask & I’d say the individuals in our community are politically active & sometimes choose to get involved financially.
8/

I’d ask for a position paper. Esp when a non-incumbent knew they might not have the support of the community, they might ask why they should do one. I told them it saved me from characterizing them to our activists.
9/

I also told them that, if they won, it would start the relationship out the right way and, next time, they’d be benefiting from friendly incumbency. Nobody ever liked that answer, but it was true. We stuck by our friends even in certain defeat (Blanche Lincoln comes to mind).
10/

In only one mtg - an open solid-R dispositive primary - did a cand ever ask what would happen if they didn’t submit a paper. “You’re gonna come after me?” I explained that the community builds relationships. That dude won, btw.
11/

On position papers: the overwhelming majority of people who run for office know nothing about foreign policy or the Middle East. My briefings obviously presented the issues from AIPAC’s viewpoint.
12/

I’d always try to befriend someone on staff so I had a contact point with the campaign/office. I got to know Schakowsky’s district director pretty well & he sent me a vaguely threatening shitty note when I left to run for office...nice fella.
13/

Not only was money not central to the interaction, it wasn’t even tangential. I was there - our lay leaders were there - to build a relationship. Besides, most people who run for Congress have run for other stuff and are known-quantities.
14/

So the idea that there’s something nefarious or threatening or untoward going on is simple Jew-hating conspiracism or even simpler sour grapes from Israel-hating dickheads who keep losing political fights and want someone to blame.
15/

Lastly, all of this is public info. I’m not sharing trade secrets here. If you’re one of these people who pretends you know what you’re talking about blasting AIPAC, ask yourself why you don’t bother actually learning something. Or don’t. Bc we all already know.
16/16