The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Periodically, I read stories about intra-Democratic Party committee battles.  They are basically all the same.  Rahm Emanuel (DCCC), and occasionally Chuck Schumer (DSCC), are tough, smart guys with metal testicles, and they are hard-nosed and mean.  They will do anything to win.  Howard Dean is ignoring them and their pleas for money to run TV ads for their candidates because Howard Dean is grassroots-y.  But party leaders are 'concerned' and Howard Dean doesn't care.

This storyline just continues to pop up every month.

Today it's in the Chicago Tribune, and it's titled titled 'Democrats fear rifts risk midterm victory'.  It's the standard mixture of whining and sour grapes by Rahm Emanuel that not enough DNC money is going to the DCCC.  

There are three basic problems with pieces like this.

1) If party leaders are going to complain about resources, they shouldn't spend money and time intervening in primaries.

2) I've hit this point before, but I'll hit it again.  Dean was elected by DNC members to support the state parties.  Party leaders had their chance to back a different DNC Chair.  They did not get their shit together in time, and Dean beat them.

3) It's transparent that this is a 'cover your ass' strategy to innoculate leaders against an electoral failure this cycle.  If Democrats do well, it's because our hard-nosed mean leaders are great.  If we don't, it's because crazy internet lefties drained resources from our hard-nosed mean leaders.  Insider Democrats can't lose!

Anyway, I imagine we'll see one of these stories every three weeks or so until the election, and I'll continue to point out that they are premised on bad faith assumptions.

Meanwhile, the MyDD/Courage Campaign polling project is in the field, and we're going to get some data soon on turnout and messaging in CA-50.  

Tags: DNC, Howard Dean, rahm emanuel (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

1) If party leaders are going to complain about resources, they shouldn't spend money and time intervening in primaries.

Preach it brother.

by Alice Marshall 2006-07-07 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

On Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 03:44:57 PM EST, Alice Marshall quoted thusly:


1) If party leaders are going to complain about resources, they shouldn't spend money and time intervening in primaries.

and then declared, "Preach it brother."

To which I can only add, "Amen, sister!"  

This is the KEY point. There is a battle going on over what kinds of Democrats will win in November, and who will control them. Paul Hackett was knee-capped in Ohio because he wouldn't kow tow to the Democratic establishment. Likewise Christine Cegelis. If the Netroots wing of the party wins, and mounts a Newt Gingrich style revolt, these guys know they will be out of the party leadership.

Bob in HI

by Bob Schacht 2006-07-07 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

I thought even the front-pagers have MyDD have already put aside that bullshit about Paul Hackett... Seriously, Paul Hackett was bigtime supported by everyone in the establishment for the House race, so it doesnt make sense he "was knee-capped in Ohio because he wouldn't kow tow to the Democratic establishment."  That's a huge crock--he was knee-capped because he couldn't get his shit together for a Senate race... We need to be honest with ourselves that as great as some of these first-time candidates look on paper (i.e. Francine Busby), many of them truly are third-string politicians who can't cut it on the trail.  Point blank, we lost CA-50 because of an unfortunate rookie mistake.  As Hackett proved by trashing Sherrod Brown after bowing out, we would be in for many more of those rookie mistakes if Hackett were our Senate candidate.  I think with more experience, Hackett can be great, but he's not there yet, and as bad as everyone talks about them around here, the "establishment" knew that.  And Brown is an EXCELLENT candidate with SOLID progressive credentials. Let's get behind him and drop this Hackett nonsense.  

by njfellow 2006-07-08 08:08AM | 0 recs
And by the way...

I'm not saying that we should "kow-tow" or not question or challenge the "establishment," but many times, they do know what they're doing (at least a little bit more than we think they do), and their recruiting is very important to getting top-notch candidates.  And sometimes they choose to financially support their top-notch candidates in primaries, and I respect that.  They recruit so that we don't end up with so many third-rate candidates as discussed above.  (And I'm not talking about how much I like them or how good of a person or progressive or activist they are when I use the term "third-rate"--I'm describing their sheer POLITICAL skill and nothing else)

Additionally, it's worth noting that 1996 and 1998 showed us that even if we get several of our third-rate candidates in Congress due to a national wave, many of them will lose future elections when no such wave exists.  

by njfellow 2006-07-08 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Amazing -- but I'm assuming as long as Dean makes the state chairs happier and happier, the job is his to keep (based on their importance in last election).

I think what would help 50 state argument would be detailing where Dean's strategy has resulted in viable candidates where there would have been none (if the status quo was maintained).  This can be on all levels.  Perhaps, the state chairmen (if they want to the money coming in for the 50 state strategy) would supply these positive case studies.

Also, is the DNC's charter broader than just the federal level?  Aren't they worried about all Democrats? Or is the DNC literally the organizing vehicle for only federal level elections? If they are a broader organization, than Emmanuel's argument makes no sense. Dean would not be doing his job if he ignored half of his orgs constituents...

by lojo 2006-07-07 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Dean has been detailing positive results of the 50 States Campaign through emails from people 'on the ground' in those states. if you aren't getting the emails, you may want to make sure you are on the 50 States email list. in the meantime you can find some of the stories here...

by jax 2006-07-07 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline
Or these articles could be MSM wishful thinking. Since the Democrats sometimes don't march in lockstep, the GOp-friendly media latches on to these kind of disagreements to try and delay or deny the inevitable spaking their side might receive.
But wht do I know? I'm just an independent observer trying to make sense among the nattering nabobs of negativism.
by spirowasright 2006-07-07 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

In the article Rahm is concerned about money for the ground game and a field plan, not TV. He is trying to get Dean to commit money to the states for field in 2006, not to the DCCC. Dean's response is that he is building for 2008 and the long term, not 2006.

I think Dean is making a mistake here, The DNC should be building a field program for 2006. Dean ought to be able to do the 50 state project and help win 2006.

by souvarine 2006-07-07 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

I hate to break it to you, but all of the state staff hired have clauses in their contracts that the DNC can grab them and move them. In other words, when election time approaches, they can and likely will be grabbed out of guaranteed vote states and flung into battlegrounds. So there are around 200 professionals for a ground game.

by ElitistJohn 2006-07-07 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 03:51:01 PM EST, "souvarine " declared:


In the article Rahm is concerned about money for the ground game and a field plan, not TV. He is trying to get Dean to commit money to the states for field in 2006, not to the DCCC. Dean's response is that he is building for 2008 and the long term, not 2006.

I think Dean is making a mistake here, The DNC should be building a field program for 2006. Dean ought to be able to do the 50 state project and help win 2006.

I think you're missing the point here. Rahm wants more of the DNC's money so he can defeat Netroots candidates like Paul Hackett and Christine Cegelis in the primaries, in order to stack the deck. Dean knows very well what Rahm is doing, and would rather spend money building the Democratic party.

Bob in HI

by Bob Schacht 2006-07-07 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Wow-- please dont take offense, but that seems wildly out of touch.  "Rahm wants the DNC's money so he can defeat Netroots candidates like Paul Hackett and Christine Cegelis in the primaries, in order to stack the deck."  WOW!  First off, who is he stacking the deck against?  Secondly, he wants the DNC's money simply to try to win elections, and sometimes, he believes that in order to field winnable candidates he should get involved in primaries. That's not to say I agree with his decisions in all cases, but as OUR campaign committee chair, he is well within his prerogative to make those decisions.  And when we disagree, we raise money to counter his efforts. BUT WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM.  

Additionally, I think what Dean is doing is great, and believed in the 50 State Strategy since even before Dean believed in it, but I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  The DNC traditionally provides more funding to the DCCC And DSCC, and 2006 is not the year to end that tradition.  

I feel like my sole job at this website is to put a stop to the circular firing squad.  It is KILLING us.

by njfellow 2006-07-08 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

njfellow wrote on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 11:46:01 AM EST :


Wow-- please dont take offense, but that seems wildly out of touch.  "Rahm wants the DNC's money so he can defeat Netroots candidates like Paul Hackett and Christine Cegelis in the primaries, in order to stack the deck."  WOW!  First off, who is he stacking the deck against?

I already told you, and you even quoted it. Netroots candidates. Progressives. Any Democrats who the Beltway Democrats can't control, that's who.


Secondly, he wants the DNC's money simply to try to win elections, and sometimes, he believes that in order to field winnable candidates he should get involved in primaries.

Isn't this the same argument used against Howard Dean and for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential primaries? And what did it get us? Opinions about who is "winnable" and who isn't vary a lot. It frequently is used by centrists (read: conservative Democrats) against progressives. Its a version of an old Rove trick.


 That's not to say I agree with his decisions in all cases, but as OUR campaign committee chair, he is well within his prerogative to make those decisions.  And when we disagree, we raise money to counter his efforts. BUT WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM.  

Yes, and once the primary season is over, I will support the winners of all Democratic primaries.

But I still am angry about what he did to Paul Hackett in Ohio, and how much DSCC money he spent in Illinois to defeat Christine Cegelis. And I am worried about how much DSCC money he's going to spend in Connecticut defending Lieberman against Lamont.


I feel like my sole job at this website is to put a stop to the circular firing squad.  It is KILLING us.

When it comes to circular firing squads, Rahm shot first.

Bob

by Bob Schacht 2006-07-11 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline
     If the people who are giving money to the DNC wanted it to go to the DSCC and DCCC, wouldn't they just, uh, give it to them instead?
     The point about funding primaries is unanswerable.
     And another thing--Schumer and the others should have been telling Lieberman before this week that he'd never get a nickel from them unless he pledged to support the primary winner. By sending the opposite message, they created a powerful incentive for Lieberman to split the party. And after the primary, the Democrats should make it clear that if Lieberman wins in November, he'll go to the foot of the line in seniority for committee assignments. That would take away Holy Joe's ability to argue that his seniority will do more for Connecticut, which he argued last night. Why should he be in line of Jon Tester and others who run as Democrats?
by Ron Thompson 2006-07-07 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Its been bugging me for a while, what the hell does 'WATB' stand for?  Someone please enlighten me.

by UTLiberal 2006-07-07 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Whiny ass titty baby, I believe.

Regular readers of the lefty sphere will know the phenomenon is no respecter of rank, ideology or coolness factor.

by skeptic06 2006-07-07 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Ew.  Can we not use that acronym anymore?

by njfellow 2006-07-08 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

I rather worry that your constitution might be a tad too delicate for politics in the raw...

by skeptic06 2006-07-08 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

Frankly Matt, I'm sick of hearing this same old shit myself.

Is there anyway we can get the "reality" out there?  That Dean's efforts are good for the party on the state and national level?

by dayspring 2006-07-07 01:02PM | 0 recs
How bout this story line...

NETROOTS PISSED OFF.

I am sick of these people in Washington, they don't give a damn about members of their own party.  It is all about them, their power, their ambition.  They are surrounded by an army of professional sycophants that enable them, and sustain them.  It is all very self serving, and basically makes me want to throw up.

If you get power, you need to use it in the service of something.  You need to have a mission and a goal, something to shoot for.  When these people get power they hoard it, they don't use it for anything except keeping themselves on top.  

It seems to me that Rahm E-Manual, Schumer, Hoyer, the DLC and a bunch of our national leaders goal is to gather power for themselves, and really don't care about Democrats in the rest of the country, particularly the Midwest.  Its almost like we don't exist here.  I am sick of it.  I will pay money to see someone stick an electoral shank in these bastards.

Lieberman ought to be a warning for these people.

by pjv 2006-07-07 01:04PM | 0 recs
Dean's Strategy has Costs

I agree that these stories get tiresome, but acting like Rahm and Schumer are idiots is also wrong.

The cold truth is that the 50 state strategy has costs. By putting resouces into Mississippi we are denying resources to races that are on the bubble this cycle. And we'll probablly lose a few close races becuase they didn't have the cash to put out one more mail piece, air one more week of TV ads, hire one more field coordinator.

Which is not to say that the 50 state stretegy is wrong. Philosophicaly I'm very attracted to it, even as I see a lot of good candidates hurting for cash. But the blogosphere needs to be honest about the costs: seats in '06.

I think most people will agree that this is an acceptable price for the nationwide build-up Dean is doing. But the opposite view is not an insane position.

by dantheman 2006-07-07 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean's Strategy has Costs

I think most people will agree that this is an acceptable price for the nationwide build-up Dean is doing. But the opposite view is not an insane position.

Actually, it is a 100% insane position. Einstein was right when he said the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Schumer and Emanuel are totally fucking nuts.

If people wanted to support their bossing of primaries and support of Indy Joe against a Democratic nominee, then they could donate to the DSCC or DCCC. People who want to win should donate to specific candidates or the DNC.

by Bob Brigham 2006-07-07 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean's Strategy has Costs

The problem is that that assumes the "lump of money" fallacy.  In other words - Dean has raised a lot mroe money than his predecessor, because people want to give to the 50 state strategy. That money would not be there for ads, and if Dean uses too much of it for ads, he hurts his credibility with his donor base.

Rahm and Schumer raise money for ads.  If people want ads - and want to fund Rahm and Schumer screwing around in primaries, they can give to the DSCC and the DCCC.

But, in fact, what I'm hearing is that a donor revolt is simmering for Schumer because people are sick of him screwing around in primaries.  If he has the money to screw around in primaries, he obviously has enough money.

But, back to the original point - there isn't one lump of campaign money.  Money meant for the 50 state strategy wouldn't necessarily have been there for an ad strategy (and wouldn't have been there for an establishment clone leader.  Party grassroots types give to Dean because they trust him.  As a group they don't trust Schumer and Rahm nearly as much.)

by Ian Welsh 2006-07-07 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean's Strategy has Costs

You brought up an interesting point with respect to where the DSCC, DCCC, and DNC get their funding.  It may be the case that the DNC has a totally new base of funding - small doners, grassroots activists, netroots, etc - while the traditional big-dollar DNC donors have moved their contributions over to the DSCC/DCCC.  I think it'd be interested to see the average contribution sizes for each organization, and how many contributions over, say, $500 each has.

by Fran for Dean 2006-07-07 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean's Strategy has Costs

But, in fact, what I'm hearing is that a donor revolt is simmering for Schumer because people are sick of him screwing around in primaries.

It has already begun. Many of the big donors in Virginia were Harris Miller supporters. They didn't appreciate the DSCC sticking its nose in. As it happens, Webb probably would have won the primary anyway; but Schumer & Co. made a lot of people mad. Those people are still giving money to Democrats, they just are not giving money to the DSCC. Now Schumer is ticking off netroots money because of Connecticut. Not smart.

Why does Dean continue to raise money? 'Cause he keeps doing what he said he would do. There's a lesson there.

by Alice Marshall 2006-07-07 04:25PM | 0 recs
"And we'll probablly lose a few close races

OR we'll win some races that weren't even on Rahm and Chuck's radar screens. After watching Rahm hijack the IL-6 primary, I'm cynical enough to think that those two might be MORE worried about this scenario -- an early, total vindication of Dean's grassroots strategy -- than they are about losing the races they're invested in.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-07-07 06:40PM | 0 recs
The story needs parsing!

What's the most striking thing you notice about this piece, that sets it apart from most newspaper pieces on internal political donnybrooks?

The key quotes are all on the record.

And, as I read it, both Dean and Emanuel gave Zeleny an interview for the piece. (Rather than him just picking up the quotes from Nexis.)

And the DSCC's executive director JB Poersch - never heard of him - is also quoted on the record.

In fact, from a quick scan, I don't think there's a single blind quote in the piece.

What does that suggest?

That the internecine warfare is now so bad that each side is prepared to destroy the party in order to save it?

That they've gone completely mental and have no idea what they're doing any more?

I suspect not.

I'd make room for the possibility that this is a dog and pony show dreamed up for the benefit of the tourists. To dampen expectations among the faithful of a win commensurate with the dismal scores that all parts of the GOP just keep on clocking up.

Mutt and Jeff. That sort of thing.

The aim, if so, would be to get the likes of MyDDers fired up for the campaign coming into the stretch, stiffening the sinews, prepared to go the extra mile - all that jazz. Meanwhile defending their hero, the good doctor, against the evil Rahmbo, showering him with contributions, working in the 50 State trenches.

Well - perhaps not. But there's something not entirely kosher about that piece. (Apart from the usual, that is.) Not to mention that not talking to each other thing.

Fishy.

by skeptic06 2006-07-07 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The story needs parsing!

Dean put his brother to raising money for Lamont.  Schumer supports Lieberman.

The disagreements are real, and simmering just below the surface.

by Ian Welsh 2006-07-07 02:37PM | 0 recs
Jim Dean is from Connecticut

He didn't need any prodding to support Lamont. He can barely contain his glee when discussing the race.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-07-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The story needs parsing!

Dean is doing his job as a Party Chair largely backed by the progressive wing of the party...

Schumer is doing the best he can running an organization largely funded by dues from incumbent senators (including Lieberman), an organization which serves his closest colleagues, allies, and friends, and which is influenced not only by the national movement and media, but also by personal connections.  Schumer has worked with Lieberman for many years, and whether or not he likes him, he knows that there is a VERY LARGE POSSIBILITY (whether or not we want to admit it--and I'm not happy about it) that Lieberman will be returning to the US Senate, and Schumer wants to be able to maintain a positive working relationship with him in the future and make sure we don't really lose him to the Dark Side (as in give up another vote to Mitch McConnell for majority leader)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
I want to take out Lieberman, but I am not willing to take out every single Democrat who's ever shared a cup of coffee with him in the process...  It's time for the "netroots" to get a reality check.  You can't change the system overnight, and you won't change it by going after every single one of our Democratic allies in the system.  CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD

by njfellow 2006-07-08 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The story needs parsing!

I'm not interested in going after any of our allies.

Of course, we may not agree exactly on who the allies ARE.

But for the record, I'm not hammering Boxer very hard for campaigning for Holy Joe.

And frankly, if Schumer had just said "we'll support the Democratic candidate."

But he didn't.  He made himself the issue, not us.  We aren't asking for very bloody much, and I'm perfectly willing to go after Schumer.  He's in a completely safe seat.

And he made a big mistake going after Spitzer.  Big mistake.  There won't be any need to build a machine in New York if there's a good candidate against Schumer.  It'll be there.

by Ian Welsh 2006-07-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: The story needs parsing!

The key quotes are all on the record.

Good catch and one that had passed me by. I think the reason for that may be a change in attitude amongst reporters, as in, if you want your point of view in my paper you have to go on the record, I won't use blind quotes.

That may very well be the most significant part of the story. The press is learning.

by Alice Marshall 2006-07-07 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The story needs parsing!

I only wish I thought you were right!

There was a time, three or four years ago - after old Dan Okrent arrived at the Times - when I could get very worked up about the issue. There actually seemed, following the Jayson Blair fiasco, to be a genuine desire at the top papers to tighten up journalistic practises.

It soon became clear that this thinking was delusional, and hunting down bad cases of anonymous infestation was a pretty futile exercise.

I'd not discount that there's been some tightening up since then.

But the key moral hazard remains: the more juice a story has, the easier journo and editor will find it to decide that use of an anonymouse is justified.

But - like I say, I'm a little rusty on it.

by skeptic06 2006-07-07 05:01PM | 0 recs
Hmmm...

  The Dems' chances this fall don't hinge all that much on whether Emanuel and Dean play well together; they depend on the national Democrats' ability to stand up to the Republicans' destructive agenda in Congress and convince the American voters that they offer a clear and distinct alternative.

  In other words, Chuck Schumer, the Senator, has vastly more impact on his party's fortunes in November than Chuck Schumer, the DSCC chief.

  My instinct here is that (a) the Dems in Congress are going to do a rerun of 2002 and 2004 when it comes to (not) acting like an actual opposition party; (b) they'll experience the same disastrous reults at the ballot box they did during those two election cycles; and (c) they're trying to make sure it's Dean who gets blamed.

 Or am I being too cynical?

 We need to understand that Dean is not all that big a factor this fall, win or lose -- he's building for the longhaul. If Rahm Emanuel wants to win this fall, he needs to complain less about Howard Dean and do a little more to throttle Dennis Hastert.

by Master Jack 2006-07-07 03:09PM | 0 recs
Not cynical at all

I don't think you are being cynical at all.  Nor are you being paranoid.

We are five years into the Bush/Cheney Junta, three years into a stupid and immoral war.  Bush's poll numbers are low and staying low.  The American public is sick of the war and want some one to come forward and take the country out of it.  Yet the "leading" Democrats still refuse to take any action or make any statement that genuinely and vigorously opposes Bush on the war.

I have read the polls that show low support for the Republicans in congress but my expectation is that the Republicans will still continue to control both houses of the congress after November, and that the Democratic response will be to purge Dean and any other Democrat who challenged their right to control the party.

The Democratic habit of regarding other members of the party as rivals rather than allies appears to be deeply ingrained.  There hasn't been a Democrat with any level of success in my lifetime whose rise was not accompanied by a steady stream of slander coming from other Democrats.  This goes back to 1968.

Republicans do not do this.  It isn't the only thing that makes them election winners, but it is a significant component and one that makes the other significant components work better.

by James Earl 2006-07-08 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

"If Rahm Emanuel wants to win this fall, he needs to complain less about Howard Dean and do a little more to throttle Dennis Hastert."

:-)

You should understand Howard Dean is more of a threat to the like of Emanuel and Schumer than Dennis Hastert.

It is quite comfortable to fight the same old enemies on customary turf.  The ruffians outside who don't play by the club rules threaten to change the game altogether and extinguish the club.

Those liberals who support the old crew bent on their destruction might be making a mistake.

The incumbent protection society extends to approved candidates.  That solves the riddle of Barbara Boxer supporting Lieberman.  Even Boxer is no agent of change.

The real scary people to this bunch are the like of Feingold and Murtha.  That latter, of course, is a reborn radical.

by terryhallinan 2006-07-07 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'Rahm Whining About Dean' WATB Storyline

"What I'm trying to do is build a Democratic team," Dean said. "And if you're going to build a party, everybody has to be in."

Howard is exactly right here.  The Tribune story is not the first to report about the recent dust-up between Howard & Emanuel.  Roll Call first ran it and it was picked up by Raw Story.  Here's what the Trib doesn't mention:

Emanuel, who reportedly stormed out of a May meeting with Dean, penned a letter, dated June 22, to the party chairman demanding $100,000 per targeted district from the DNC to defray the cost of the DCCC's proposed field operation, several individuals who have read the letter said.

[...]

In making his monetary request, Emanuel cited the example of 1994, when, he said, the Republican National Committee earmarked $20 million for then-Speaker Newt Gingrich's successful drive for a House takeover. By contrast, Emanuel suggested that Dean had offered a woefully inadequate $20,000 per district.

But while his allies argue that Emanuel, through his record-setting fundraising for the DCCC, deserves wide latitude in shaping '06 strategy, Dean loyalists took the letter as hostile in nature, coming as it did after months of coy suggestions by Emanuel that Dean and the DNC were shirking their financial obligations to the DCCC's election year effort.

Emanuel's a tool.  

by KimPossible 2006-07-07 04:34PM | 0 recs
50 state strategy is the way to go.

The conservatives / Republicans have taken 40 years to build their base, infrastructure, and to develop and spread their message.

The Democrats / progressives need to do also, starting when Dean started.  If a significant amount of the money that Dean is using in 50 states was put into, say, 30 races and the Democrats squeaked out a majority in the House, they would not be able to keep it as they do have foundations to reliably keep it.  The Democrats need to build the apparatus, then victories will take care of themselves in the long run.

Also it is not clear that putting a whole lot of money in very competitive races is the right thing to do even with a short range perspective.  Tying up Republican candidates in all 50 states drains their money for competitive races.  They had to spend $10 million to keep the a seat in a Republican district in a recent election in San Diego.

by edonyoung 2006-07-07 08:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads