I'm not sure who this is trying to convince, but this mail piece is xenophobic and unpersuasive.  Didn't we learn in 2002 and 2004 that uniforms don't convince people that Democrats make good Republicans?


Update: There's some great stuff in the comments. Here's the direct mail piece Duckworth is responding to:

And here's an article about immigrants moving into the district.

Since this post generated some heated discussion, let me clarify. I am personally against immigrant-bashing, which I see as veiled racism. Long term, the use of racism in our party is a terrible political and moral problem. I also don't think this ad works, for a lot of reasons, but the primary one is that the liberal heroic narrative has nothing to do with being mean to other people. If you use a right-wing heroic narrative as a Democrat, it is unlikely to do anything but sacrifice your own credibility as a candidate. If the goal of this mail piece is to turn off Republican voters who are worried about Duckworth's moderate stance on immigration, the right message is to attack Roskam and the Republican Party's credibility on the issue. The conservative base is quite upset that the GOP hasn't been able to get anything done on immigration, and if you are able to convince them that both parties are the same, you can drive down GOP turnout. Which is a more persuasive argument to a right-winger? Bush and the Republicans aren't conservative enough and can't get anything done, or Tammy Duckworth is a hardliner on immigration even though she backs McCain-Kennedy and will vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker?

Tags: IL-06, rahm emanuel, Tammy Duckworth (all tags)



Re: Sad

There are many reasons why this piece of direct mail is awful.

First, it attempts to fight immigration in the GOP's frame of 'amnesty'. We will never win if we continue to fight under the terms the GOP sets.

Secondly, she says 'personal injury lawyer' as though it's an insult. What the hell does she think John Edwards did? Who is one of the biggest backers of the Democratic Party? Lawyers have absolutely no incentive to give any money towards Duckworth now.

But lastly, is anyone really surprised? She's basically a protege of Rahm Emmanuel, who's a scumbag without any ideology.

It's a damn shame Christine Cegelis wasn't the nominee in IL-06. Hopefully she'll run again when Duckworth gets her clock cleaned...because running as GOP-lite won't win her any race.

by PsiFighter37 2006-09-03 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Secondly, she says 'personal injury lawyer' as though it's an insult.

JohnBoy can't be too happy about that.

by Sitkah 2006-09-03 11:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Imagine an Emanuel empty suit triangulating against Democrats showing leadership. I'm stunned.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I don't think this is so bad. But I don't like the triangulation...

It seems that Tammy is running on the Clinton-Emanuel ticket.

Oh well.

by JackBourassa 2006-09-04 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

We have met the enemy and they are us. -- Pogo

by Sitkah 2006-09-04 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Voters in IL-06 don't care about John Edwards.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Look at the district that she's running in. She's runnning in the home of Henry Hyde, which is historically heavily Republican. She's not running in a heavily Hispanic district or in district based in downtown Chicago. She's running in a district centered on suburban Cook and eastern DuPage county, hardly a place supportive of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I don't know the issues of this race. But maybe Roskam might be attacking Duckworth for not supporting "tort reform". Maybe she might be trying to expose his hypocrisy.

Like Chuck Pennachio in PA, who lost to Casey decsiviely, I know that Cegelis was a favorite of the far left here. But honestly there was a primary. Your candidate didn't win.

I even stated that the DCCC was wrong to meddle in this primary. I don't know what their reasons were. I didn't think they were right to endorse Duckworth, as, unlike Chuck Pennachio, Cegelis had support and had run before. That being said, though, she had the primary to prove her level of support.

Cegelis lost. The voters wanted Duckworth. Some of you are just bitter that she didn't win. Like with Casey it seems to me that some of you actualy want Bean, Duckworth, and other "less than perfect Democrats" to lose. Why else do you bash these candidates at every opportunity you get?

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I want Bean to lose. Our Party deserves no less.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Typical far left attitude. You are a martyr liberal. Of course most Republicans want their candidate to win, even those who are more "moderate". But no, Democrats like you love to lose. That's one thing that I really don't understand about the left and what I admire in the right. The right actually wants to win. The left wants to push impossible litmus tests and its candidates who are less than "pure" to lose. For some fucked up reason Democrats like you like losing.

The reality is that Bean is probably the only type of Democrat who could actaully win in IL-8. Again this is a heavily affluent, suburban district centered in suburban/exurban Chicago. It is home to CEOs, corporate headquarters, and very affluent voters.

They aren't going to elect someone bettter suited for a Chicago, lakeshore liberal based district. Bush polled 56% of the vote there. The district is probably very hostile to labor.

But of course, when it comes to "Democrats" like you, the type who have this martyrdom complex, you don't realize that this is a heavily GOP district. Bush II carried this district with 56% of the vote. This district is hardly sympathetic to the politics you support.

But of course you expect Bean to ignore the majority of her constituents to appease people like you 100% of the time on every issue, who are an extreme minority in her district. She can't do that--and hope to win.

Then again, of course, people like you have to "punish her" because she actually has to (somewhat) represent the majority of her constituents.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many Democrats think like you. Does the right ever act like this? No, because they actually want to win. That's why the likes of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Chris Shays, Arnold Schwarznegger, Bill Weld, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Nancy Johnson, Ed Simmons, and other Republicans in heavily blue parts of the country, by and large, get the support of the far right. Does the far left think like that? No, of course not. They have to attack their own and cause them to lose to "send their message".

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Bean's seat won't control congress, but making an example out of her will be good for Democrats whether we are are control or not. When Tester and Angelides won, it showed that even the best funded DLC candidates couldn't win open seat primaries in neither red nor blue states. When Lieberman lost, it showed that even a former VP nominee could lose in a primary, despite all of the advantages of incumbency. When Bean loses, it will show that progressives realize a single seat won't change anything and are willing to play the job of whip that Steny Hoyer fears. Open seats, challenges, and walking away are the three tools necessary to the future of the Democratic Party.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Sigh. The end result that people will you get is Robert McSweeney (R) (is that his name)--someone completely hostile to every "progressive" cause out there. And yes you will be able to be self-righteous at this and other "progressive" boards about how you  "sent a message"--a message that most people in the real world won't listen to, care about, or hear. And you will get someone hostile to eveverything you care about. But then again, as long as you caused the "impure Bean" to lose, why does it matter that McSweeney will support everything you oppose?

This whole "walking away" mentality is what helped Richard Nixon win in 1968. Of course Hubert Humphrey wasn't "perfect enough". It is what helped Bush to squeak by in 2000 because the fringe left had to run to Nader. And of course the end result was more of the same: every policy that people like you claim to oppose is enacted. And the policies you all supposedly oppose become law.

Hoyer, the DSCC, and the DCCC won't honestly care about the "message" that you will all send. What they will probably think, if Bean and Duckworth fall is, that they simply were running in districts that, even though they may be more friendly to the Democrats than they used to be, were historically heavily Republican. They won't think of running someone like Christine Cegelis or Chuck Pennachio. If that's what you want them to do, they aren't going to do that. In fact they'll probably do more of the opposite.

And frankly, if Cegelis couldn't win the primary against a late starter like Duckworth, in spite of her name recognition, then maybe she wasn't the "dream candidate" that many of you made her out to be. Again I don't agree with how she was treated; but if her support was as "strong" as you all claimed, she would have won.

But I guess that liberals like you will always find a reason to "walk away". No candidate is ever good enough for you. I never get the mentality of people like you: punish people who support most of your goals because they aren't there 100% of time so that you can get someone there instead who is supportive only 0-20% of the time so that you can send a "message". It is so illogical.

Then again, for some fucked up reason, the far left likes to "walk away". Somehow losing = winning. The far right actually likes to win. I just wish that sometimes the left actually cared about winning to the extent that the right did.

by jiacinto 2006-09-04 12:04AM | 0 recs
You have to inspire activists

You have to inspire acivists. If you can't, they'll find another race to work on -- and though I wish I could just mind-control them, I can't. Even if I could convince them to work for a particular campaign without inspiration, they wouldn't show up as often, they wouldn't make as many calls.

So do I blame activists for "staying home?" No. Because for every one doing it vindictively there are 50 more who just plain weren't inspired.

Oh, and the whole "send a message" thing -- when you start putting up serious challenges to incumbents like Al Wynn and Joe Lieberman, you get the message out pretty quickly, not the the public, but to D.C. When our elected officials and candidates start appealing to the people, they'll get activist support whether the netroots is present or not.

by msnook 2006-09-04 01:18AM | 0 recs
On "staying home"

I agree that you have to inspire activits. But I keep reading this idea that if we're not volunteering for Duckworth (ala Big Dog to me on this thread) then it will be our fault if Democrats like her lose because we'll be sitting at home.

Guess what? I don't know anyone around here (IL-06) who's sitting this election out. But believe it or not, there are many races in this area that people can work on. And guess what? They are all helping Democrats.

Just in IL-06 there are two Illinois General Assembly candidates to work for (Here & here.). There are several County Board races (DuPage has an all Republican county board). In the area there are even several house races to work for (For example here & here.)

No body I know is sitting home. They are all working. So if there is any blame to be given out for a loss (or a win), it should go to each individual candidate and the campaign they run, not the volunteers their campaign didn't turn out.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: On "staying home"

See some of the posts in this thread saying that they "can't wait for Bean to lose".

by jiacinto 2006-09-04 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

"making an example out of her"

Who the heck remembers what example was made?  Bob, the political savvy of 'what mattered to make the difference' doesn't revolve around your head-- it's much more blunt... such as, which party won?

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-09-04 12:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I'm confident the unions who are taking her down will go out of their way to remind the right people of why Bean lost.

The only problem with Bean being run out of office that that Steny Hoyer isn't leading the charge, and as whip, he should be. But Hoyer himself sold out on many of the same issues as Bean, so it is up to a ground up movement to punish Bean until we can get somebody as whip who is willing to do the job of whip.

The Democratic Party is stronger without her.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-04 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

That's a  horrible attitude.  You might as well come out for Nader in 2000 or the Green Party in PA this year.

My guess is that you are a troll, only someone who wants Republicans to control the House would post these thoughts.

by Robert P 2006-09-04 02:09AM | 0 recs
Not a Troll

There is a vestige of self-destructive Marxist ideology in the Nader wing of the left.  The (dumb) idea is that things have to get worse before they can get better. If only things get bad enough the workers will throw off their chains, etc. In fact, the unions were busted by outsourcing jobs to places where moms didn't have enough money to pay for food for their kids. Communist countries failed because concentrated power leads to concentrated corruption and bureaucracy. But the dumb idea that things have to get worse before they can get better lives on in the minds of clueless nadirist losers.

by FishOutofWater 2006-09-04 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Troll

Yours is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is generally meant when a lefty invokes the "things will get worse before they get better" mantra.

Whenever I've heard it or invoked it myself, what is meant is that neither major party, Republican or Democrat, represents working-class people, and therefore that the choice is not between folks who would improve our lot and folks who are actively undermining. Rather, the choice is between folks who actively undermine it quickly (the GOP) and those who do so less directly and less obnoxiously (the DLC/Tom Friedman/Nafta wing of the Democratic party).

In the 90's, with a decade of Al From/Bill Clinton/Terry McAulliffe party under our belts, you didn't have to be a Marxist, just a decent lefty, for the phrase to be seductive.

PS, I understand when I see right-wingnuts red-bait, but it is rather unbecoming, on a putatively progressive forum, to see folks gratuitously engage in that sort of behavior. Socialism is a major part of the soul of what made the Democratic party strong in the 1930's and beyond, and to see folks who claim to be Democrats not only turn their back on that heritage, but further, to insult it and to discredit it, is pretty sad. With so many voices similar to yours in today's party establishment, I suppose its small wonder that the left wing of the party, systematically marginalized the past few decades, is less loyal to your party than you and your lot might like.  

by redstar67 2006-09-04 09:02AM | 0 recs
Just the facts m'am

I understand just fine.  You need to learn more history and stop whining.

I have no respect for Nader, the failed politician, and the fools that support him.  Nader is a wealthy man who has treated the workers he employed poorly. Nader did good respectable work in his early years before he got rich. Since then he has been an egotistical, self-serving ass.

American labor history is an ongoing fight (struggle) between those who would give workers just compensation for their labor and those owners and managers who use law and politics for personal gain.  Right now, we are all losing to the oligopolists and their tools. Profits are way up but total compensation has dropped under Bush.  The ultrawealthy are spending hundreds of thousands a year on SPA TREATMENTS because it is just so hard to be rich.

The fight for social justice is thousands of years old. Early Christianity was communal. Acts 4:

32: Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

  1. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
  2. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold
  3. and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.
---------------------------------------- --------
 The early Christian movement was based on earlier Jewish traditions.  I support social justice as does any person with a hint of spiritual concern.  What we see now in America is a perversion of Christianity by right-wing social clubs that call themselves Christian churches. They are Christian in name only.

Marx was a late arrival and was given more credit than he deserved. His theories were abused by murderous thugs in China and the USSR, and smaller states like Cambodia. Millions were murdered in the name of Communism. That's a fact.

Today we honor workers and the labor movement. Everything earned by labor has been fought for and won by hard work, organizing, education and hard-ball politics (much of it socialist).  That's what we must do here if we want to win.

by FishOutofWater 2006-09-04 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Just the facts m'am

Most Naderites are really lefties; very few, if any, are "Marxist".

You really should get out more; your admonition to "go and read up on history" shows you to be quite callow.

by redstar67 2006-09-04 12:35PM | 0 recs
I don't disagree in general...

 ...but I think you're missing a key point here.

 The problem with the Duckworth mailer isn't that it's not sufficiently "pure" and "liberal"; the problem with the Duckworth mailer is that it's ineffective. It's NOT LIKELY to convince an on-the-fence voter to cast his ballot for the Democrat, because it doesn't draw a DISTINCTION with the Republican candidate.

 We've been down this road before -- in 2002 and 2004. The Democrats did everything they could to blur their differences with the Republicans -- and got slaughtered for their efforts. We don't win without establishing a contrast.

 Surely there must be a reason Tammy Duckworth is a Democrat. Surely there are things about the Republicans she strongly disagrees with -- if there aren't, then why is she a Democrat in the first place? A smart campaign startegy emphaszies hose contrasts. You've got to give voters a REASON to consider you -- and mailers like this decidedly don't do that.

 I want Duckworth to win. I agree with Matt that this mailer isn't going to help her towards that goal.

by Master Jack 2006-09-04 04:38AM | 0 recs
Once again you put it so well

Thanks jiacinto. Very often I find you to be the lone voice of reason in the all-too-common "circular firing squad" threads.

I'm more of a moderate myself, but not nearly so eloquent. Your writing is greatly appreciated by at least one reader here!

by OfficeOfLife 2006-09-04 01:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Design of the piece rather than content is my problem with it.  Every election has national themes but you still have to play to the local views of the district to win.  Not knowing IL-06 well, I am loathe to comment on content.

However, the design is bad because it is too busy and the print is too small and hard to read.  Most people will only look at the piece for 5-10 seconds so you message needs to pop off the page.  It doesn't which is my problem with it.

by John Mills 2006-09-04 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

That is exactly what I thought when I saw that piece. Horrible design work! I have no idea where to start or stop reading.  The only thing legible at first glance is not the candidates name, but the words "Opposes Amnesty." And she's dressing in military uniform sitting in a chopper. Does she oppose amnesty for al Qaida? For U.S. Army helicopter pilots? I'm confused...and thus, most folks won't read it.

by SouthernStar 2006-09-04 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Exactly! It looks like it was done by someone who just discovered this cool program called "photoshop". It looks like something I would do, meaning it sucks.

When I first saw it, I actually thought it was a Roskam flier! The only thing I saw was the "opposes amnesty" and I without any context or thought, I thought that was a bad thing to oppose amnesty. Obviously I know the issues there, but that was just my first split second thought.

The reason is, because usually these direct mail pieces are hit pieces, so whenever you put "opposes" something it usually is a bad thing, not a "good thing".

It is also INCREDIBLY stupid to use personal trial lawyer as an epithet. What's that old adage? Give a voter a choice between a republican and a Democrat who sounds like a republican and they'll pick the republican every time. Just what the hell are they thinking?

I hope Duckworth wins, but this ad is just f*ing horrible.

by adamterando 2006-09-04 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Exactly my thoughts too. I had to click on it first and when reading it fully, I realized it was BY Duckworth and not AGAINST Duckworth.

I'm usually way quicker than that ;)

by jedinecny 2006-09-04 09:29AM | 0 recs
Drop the "there was a primary" crap

This has nothing to do with the primary. The ad is bad on a number of levels. I do know the issues in this race, and I live in IL-06. This has nothing to do with Cegelis. This is a bad ad on many levels. Here's what I wrote on Soapblox Chicago:

These ads don't work on several levels in my opinion, and actually worry me. Although I like calling out Roskam, and the GOP in general, I'm probably not the target of these ads. I think these ads will hurt more than help:

1. The attack is personal. This is politics as usual in most people's minds. By calling Roskam a liar ("he will lie about anything"), she opens herself up to attacks that she is mud slinging and going negative by personally attacking Roskam's character. She goes negative first in a big way with this ad.

2. The defense is personal. Rather than clarify her position, contrasting it with Roskam's position, and standing strong for what she believe, she raises the standard "he's attacking a vet theme" in spades. She refers people to her website to learn more about her position, and never really calls Roskam on what he does actually say about her position specifically. There is little contrast between what Duckworth stands for and what Roskam stands for in this ad.

3. He said, She said. By not clarifying her position by contrasting it against Roskam's statements and position on immigration, she opens herself up to the "walks like a duck" line of attack. Roskam will still be able to distort her position on immigration by obfuscating the specifics of her position, devolving the argument into a he said, she said, debate, rather than one on the actual position or record.

4. Target Audience. This ad to me reads as though targeted at Republicans. The strong graphic and language that Tammy "opposes amnesty" may be viewed by Democrats and minorities negatively. No matter what her true position, this allows Roskam to again attack Duckworth in a way that puts her in a no win situation: He can confuse her true position as noted above, and the more she defends that she opposes amnesty, the more she will hurt her own base among Democrats and minorities by driving a Republican wedge into her own campaign.

5. Using GOP "new McCarthyism." No one is questioning anyone's patriotism at this point. Yet in this ad Duckworth clearly states that Roskam is questioning hers. This is an overreaction at best, and a complete duplication of the GOP's use of 9-11 fall in line questioning of the patriotism of anyone who dissents. This is a red flag to me personally, and again gives Roskam a line of counter attack. It angers me when Republicans do this, and dissapoints me that our own nominee would use such tactics.

6. Which party? There is no party identification in this mailer (correct me if I missed it). Again, this povides little contrast with Roskam, and none between GOP and Democratic parties. This misses several opportunities. It does not help any downticket races by contrasting Democrats with Republicans. This approach does not incorporate the anti-Republican sentiment in the electorate. This does not tie Roskam to the Republican party in any way.

I would have rather Duckworth took a statesmanlike approach to this, called Roskam's attacks distortions, then contrasted her position (and those of the Democratic party) with Roskam's record and that of the Republican party. This would have blunted his attack, kept the debate on the actual position and record rather than estimations of others character (lead the voter to these conclusions rather than say them outright), not allowed Roskam to claim Duckworth is mudslinging, and not potentially alienated a good chunk of Duckworth's base.

I'm not arguing not to be aggressive. But in doing so, Democrats need to be careful not to give their opponents plenty of opportunity to counter attack as this ad does.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 06:30AM | 0 recs
This is the NRCC ad this is replying to

From Bridget at SbC:

Note the difference in the copy for both ads. The NRCC ads appears to be factual, citing sources, etc. It calls Duckworth a Democrat.

Duckworth's copy by comparison appears to be a character attack calling Roskam a liar and doesn't mention party affiliation at all.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 07:51AM | 0 recs
Duckworth Has the Edge - She is a Winner


If you think that Roskam isn't going to go negative and personal against Duckworth in this race, I have some DuPage County Forest Preserve property to sell you.  

To you other armchair critics, the term "personal injury lawyer" is a lot different than trial lawyer.  Personal injury lawyers are ambulance chasers, trial lawyers do heavy lifting.

This piece is setting the ground work for "combating" future Roskam distortions.  Duckworth is building the case that Roskam will lie about anything so eventually "voters" stop believing his crap.  133 comments and not one dumbass can actually attest to who this flyer went out to.

Guys, just shut up and let Duckworth run her own race and save all the "expertise" to something you may know more about like computers or websites.

Michael, here's a challenge to you and your "army" of progressives.  Bush is coming to Glen Ellyn (Il-06) soon to campaign for Roskam.  Organize the biggest protest DuPage County has ever seen. Bush has negatives at about 65% in IL and highlighting Bush support will reinforce the rubberstamp image of Roskam.  If you succeed, drinks are on me.

by riverred 2006-09-04 04:30PM | 0 recs
RR You're not dead!

You dropped off the face of the blogs on March 22nd. Where you been?

I have an army now? Love the sarcasm in that statement. Especially on a progressive blog. Respect. Love it. I've missed you so.

Well, let's hope you're right. But calling someone a liar without much of any substantiation, and being the first to go negative, doesn't seem like a great way to lay a foundation.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: RR You're not dead!

Me dead, better Red than Dead.

Duckworth isn't the first to go negative, this piece is coordinated with Roskam and the RNCC. It's a tagteam.  They have been going negative on my dear little Iraqi war veteran for about a month now.

The point I was making was that if Duckworth calls him on the lies now, people are less inclined to believe his crazy upcoming lies in the future.  What's Roskam going to run on, his war record or service to Tom Delay?

by riverred 2006-09-04 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Look at the district that she's running in. ... She's not running in a heavily Hispanic district or in district based in downtown Chicago. She's running in a district centered on suburban Cook and eastern DuPage county, hardly a place supportive of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Oh really?  

I'll let this article from the Chicago Sun-Times do the talking for me (though I did add the emphasis):

Immigrants flock to the suburbs

August 30, 2006

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter

The melting pot is bubbling over in the suburbs of Chicago.

The number of foreign-born U.S. citizens jumped by nearly 38 percent in the suburbs over the last five years -- leaping almost 50 percent in DuPage County alone and doubling in Will and Grundy counties, according to an analysis of Census information by a pro-immigrant group.


Most important politically is the rise in the number of immigrants who have become U.S. citizens, making them eligible to vote. In the last five years the number of naturalized citizens in Illinois rose 23.1 percent, to 736,161.

But the real growth has been in the suburbs.

While Chicago only experienced a 4 percent increase in naturalized citizens of voting age during the period, the suburbs saw a boom of 37.5 percent.

The 48.2 percent rise in DuPage County means that 14.4 percent of its voting age population are naturalized citizens. In Will and Grundy counties, the number of adult naturalized citizens doubled, making them 6.3 percent of the total voting age population.

This ad will backfire.  And as a Democrat, I am embarrassed that my party would stoop to this level.  That's what the GOP is for.

by ChicagoJason 2006-09-04 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

6.3 % are naturalized aliens.

That means, putting on my math hat, that 93.7 % are not.  And since 60-70 % of the 93.7 % are NOT in favor of an aggressive amnesty program, any democrat who assumes an aggressive amnesty program will get slaughtered.

Pro-amnesty programs will not work.  They were tried in 1986, and didn't work.  We don't need to repeat this failed experiment.

Duckworth seems to be doing a sensible job.

by dataguy 2006-09-04 04:26PM | 0 recs
Not sad at all except for Stroller Analysis

Given the District and the fact that:
A. Americans will give a War Hero, expecially one that made a huge sacrifice and came through it with a good attitude a HUGE amount of credit for intelligence and strength. Both qualities are needed to survive such an experience emotionally and spiritually intact.

B. Given her District, and perhaps her personal belief system, this may well be her personal statement of belief on an issue which divides many people.

C. Stroller calls it patheitc. I call it an overly visually busy piece that could be better...but I would not quibble with the content, and neither should Stroller, as we aren't in the RACE. And Stroller will judge any ad SOLEY based on policy...when policy has never won races. Witness Bush's victories even in Texas.

All Districts are different. We should admit that. What Candidates say in each District will be different. The results of ONE poll in ONE very unique, High Income District do not equal the entire nation.

We are supposed to be the 'Big Tent Party'. That's according to Chairman Dean too. So where's the Big Tent?

She has a view some here don't like. So what?

Are in the District? Do you have I vote? I don't.

If you are...will you vote for the Repubican or waste your vote on another candidate and help the Republican cause?

One thing Republicans have in common! They stick together.

One thing Democrats have in abundance...they don't stick together.

Up stream someone said they WANTED a Democrat to lose. My god....That is....unthinkable in an election where the future of the Constitution could be at stake. If we don't get some Balance of Power back in the much MORE damage can Bush do in 2.5 years before he leaves office?

Do I support her position on Amnesty? Hell, no. Do  I support her as Democrat? YOU BET!

by BigDog 2006-09-04 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Not sad at all except for Stroller Analysis


You are right on.  IL-06 is a myriad of white suburban Republicans and blue collar suburban Republicans and lots of independents. Democrats are in the minority.

People who say they don't care if the Democrats don't take control of the House because of ideological purity issues are dilletantes in my book. They don't give a rats ass if workers, seniors, immigrants get ground into a pulp.  

by riverred 2006-09-04 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

She's running in my district, dude. And half my neighbors are immigrants. If you think I'm voting for this piece of shit, you're nuts. I don't have to speak against her to the half that are immigrants. And most of the other half are Republicans. The few white Democrats like me hate the war and are sick at her glorifying it. I'd just as soon have a right-winger who'se honest about being a Republican as have a Lieberman-lite.

by antiHyde 2006-09-04 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Anti_hyde or Principled Hyde:

We are all boat people!!  

by riverred 2006-09-04 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I'm sorry, what's wrong with this piece of mail? I don't favor amnesty either, and Roskam has been exploiting the issue and distorting Duckworth's positions. I think it's good for her to stake out a clear position on immigration. She supported McCain-Kennedy, so this is hardly a GOP wannabe.

by Ament Stone of California 2006-09-04 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Are you a district where illegal alient status matters? just curious

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

No, this is a heavily lily white, comparably rich district with small pockets of hispanic populations that generally are not eligible to vote.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Too bad the actual voters seemed to disagree.

by BigDog 2006-09-04 12:42PM | 0 recs
I too am unimpressed
Do we know who this is being sent to?  I suppose sending it to Republicans might make sense, but I doubt it would be very convincing.  It makes no sense to send this to independents or Democrats.
To think tens of thousands of dollars are being wasted on this, probably drawn from the people who got Kerry's e-mail and thought they were supporting a good candidate.
by John DE 2006-09-03 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I too am unimpressed

Kerry showed exactly how out of touch he is when it comes to this race. What an idiot.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

If Democrats adopt this anti-immigrant (racist) crap, they cede the future of the Party. Stupid and noxious as well as sad.

by janinsanfran 2006-09-03 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

God, I can design mail pieces and frame issues WAY better.  But, alas, I don't work for, worship, or in any other way service Rahm Emanuel.

Awful candidate.  As bad as Casey.  As a jack-of-all-trades, including being a lawyer, I LOATHE the motherfucking of our people.  Afterall, most, if not many civil rights, equal rights, voting rights, fair housing and environmental rights we have achieved were through LITIGATION.  The fact that the buch can fly a copter in war was probably brought about by liligation, so women can enter combat zones like the men.  NOW, WE get the shaft.

No money from me.  Casey may get a reprieve if he still wins, but Ms. Duckworth will be known as a politically incompetent candidate if she ruins her race.

by jgarcia 2006-09-03 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

>>>>buch = bitch.

sorry, it's late and i get steamed when I hear disparaging remarks about trial lawyers from people, esp. by those who are supposedly on our side.

Prediction:  Tammy Duckworth will NOT win this general election.  Period.  DO NOT count her toward your totals for much we need to won to get control of the House.  She ain't gonna be in that freshmen class.  And, that's not all bad, IMO.

by jgarcia 2006-09-03 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

WOW an expert! I'll write it down! What staff you head? What candidate YOU work for with all this expertise? What's your K Street address?

Sorry but get off your high horse and support your Party. Whether you like it or not, this is OUR nominee. She deserves our support if we wish to take back the House.

That's true of every other Democratic Nominee in the Nation.

by BigDog 2006-09-04 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Please. It's almost like you want Casey and Duckworth to lose because your picks in the primary didn't win. Casey is the Democratic nominee in PA because more than 80% of PA Democrats picked him over Chuck Pennachio. Duckworth won her primary, albe it much more narrowly.

Not every far-left candidate is going to win every primary. As hard as it is for some of you to realize it, sometimes the candidates beloved on this and other "liberal/progressive blogs" aren't as well-liked by those out there in mainstream society. Maybe ordinary Democrats may not have the same enthusiasm that people here did for Chuck Pennachio and Christine Cegelis.

Did it ever occur that some of you may be out of touch with ordinary Democrats, who may not be as liberal as you are on all issues? After all it is ultimately the voters who rejected these candidates, not the much-maligned "establishment".

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

65% of voters do not even read any blog...much less the political ones.

Yes out of touch is a 'possibility'. It's a tendency we all have to guard against.

by BigDog 2006-09-04 12:47PM | 0 recs
Where is that figure from?

I would venture to say that the percentage of voters who don't read blogs is FAR higher than 65%.

The bottom line is that blogs are not on the radar of the average voter unless the blogs themselves or issues raised on the blogs are funnelled to the mainstream media.

I do not buy the idea that blogs directly influence the average voter.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 07:24AM | 0 recs
Overly harsh on the flyer

It calls Roskam a liar.  Always good not to mince words.  

Also, saying you oppose amnesty and want to defend the borders is not xenophobic.  Saying immigrants are cabbies by day and terrorists by night is xenophobic.  

by bosdcla14 2006-09-03 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Yeah, wow, this is a bad flyer.

by Ryan Anderson 2006-09-03 10:43PM | 0 recs

if this mailing was sent out by any candidate, other than the one that beat Cegelis, I highly doubt it would be front paged.

by jkfp2004 2006-09-03 10:47PM | 0 recs
That must be it

I was looking for a YouTube button to click. When I realized it was merely a flyer, my first thought was there had to be an agenda or a bias.

How many examples do we have, "that uniforms don't convince people that Democrats make good Republicans?" Be very careful about making faulty evaluations based on a tiny sample. Even if those Democrats in uniform didn't win, they might have come closer than they would have without it. And in a year like this when the natural advantages are ours, as opposed to against us, a little boost may be just what it takes to put a candidate over the top.

There's far too much comparison to 2002 and 2004 on liberal sites. Cutting both ways. Much of it is skeptical regarding the results, due to inflated expectations that weren't fulfilled. But we are also improperly applying strategy conclusions based on 2002 and 2004. Those years featured a party ID tilt toward the GOP due to 9/11 and national security concerns. It was screamed in surveys by PEW and others in studies prior to those elections, even while liberal bloggers tried to dismiss security moms as a myth, while embracing genius like hidden cell phone users for Kerry.

In 2006 the gender gap has been restored as those women have returned to our side, and we can win even more of them if we emphasize the economy as opposed to so much on Iraq. Right now on CSPAN I'm watching another finding in that regard, released by Fingerhut. They said Democrats by 57-32 want less emphasis on Iraq and more talk on the traditional Democratic issues.

by jagakid 2006-09-03 11:59PM | 0 recs
Re: That must be it

Show me how that Uniformed Service doesn't motivate voters?

Name one that lost limbs? Max Clellan got elected and lost only because of the worst kind of smear.

Duckworth has shown her courage. Worked more more than one in Congress.

Hackett had it in his hand and couldn't control his comments which brought huge amounts of media into the race from the RNC in retalition. And he lost by a handfull. If the media barriage hadn't been there....

So show me how...with all our proud Fighting Dems this year...that they don't matter?

by BigDog 2006-09-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Rahm Emanuel is a piece of crap for forcing this shit upon our party.

At best, she'll be Mellisa Beaned in two years.

But damn, is there any ends to the lengths Emanuel will go to force DLC losers?

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

P.S. Many of us realize that there is a 1 in a million percent change of Bean's loss changing control of congress and Duckworth is Bean two years ago. The sooner the netroots realize that Emanuel is the problem, the better. Bean and Duckworth are Emanuel's vision of the Democratic Party, yet -- either in the majority or minority -- we are better of without them.

Duckworth's entire campaign is fruit from the poisonous tree.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:02PM | 0 recs

You say there is "1 in a million percent change of Bean's loss changing control of congress" yet there are only 435 House seats. You can argue about the ideogical costs of running triangulating Democrats but it's blatantly false to suggest that one House seat is insignificant in the struggle to regain a majority. It's pure hyperbole to talk about '1 in a million' chances when it's clear that there are only 435 House seats. Of course every seat matters.

by joejoejoe 2006-09-04 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

This article was in the Sun-Times on Wednesday about immigrants moving away from the city of Chicago and out to the suburbs. IL-06 is made up mostly of Dupage county, and the article says that the number of "foreign-born US citizens" in Dupage County is up 48.2 percent since 2000. I can't see that statistic working very well with this mailing, to say the least.

by uberblee 2006-09-03 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

The mailer:

  • Too busy.  There's four foreground elements in front of a full background photo of a partial helo cockpit.  Visually, very congested.
  • Visual composition placement.  The four different text box backgrounds fight against a badly framed photo.  The mailer has visual weight that pulls you to the left, with the only white space on the right.
  • Three disctinct typefonts and five different font sizes, as well as three different types of emphasis within the main type font.  Want to link Tammy Duckworth (underlined) with OPPOSES AMNESTY?  Make the emphasis the same.
  • Too confusing a message.  Roskom is a dirtbag, or Duckworth opposes amnesty?  She'll work to secure our borders, or guys like Edwards are scum?
  • Bad personal photo.  Take off your sunglasses.  Let us see your face.  Lost your legs serving our country?  Don't just say it, show it.  You choose to use the handicap, yet don't use it graphically?  Every advantage needs to be pressed in a political campaign.
  • Confused message within topic.  Against amnesty refers to people in-country, mainly from central america, that work and live here.  Border security is about the GWOT.  She'll make border security her top priority by calling for 12,000 more border patrol agents.  Why should that be a top priority?  Where is that spelled out on this mailer?

These are just my thoughts.  I look at this and wonder who thought that's a good piece of campaign composition.

And yeah, I thought Edwards, too.

by markt 2006-09-04 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Labor is making an example out of Bean, which is a critical role in the emergence of the new progressive infrastructure.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Yes, and by sending a pointless message in a district extremely hostile to labor, they are going to elect someone extremely unsupportive of their issues. Bean was probably the only Democrat who could win an election in a district like that: Home to CEOs, affluent voters, and other white collar employees not into the union stuff.

But of course labor doesn't realize that IL-8 is hardly a hotbed of support for the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO. And of course they want to get rid of her because of course they can't get Richard Gephardt.

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

I can't wait to see Bean lose. It is too bad Emanuel's conflict of interest will mean he will waste DCCC money, but oh well. Bean's loss will be a great day for the Democratic Party.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Sigh. I guess you would rather have GOP control of the House if it means that Bean loses? So is "purging the impure Bean" worth losing control of Congress?

I guess that for you it probably is. But such is the attitude of a martyrdom liberal like you. You'd rather lose than than win because you can't get the candidate you wanted.

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Worst Straw Man ever.

When was the last time the House was decided by one vote?

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

I don't know if it has, but it could happen this year.

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Up by one vote or down by one vote, we are still far better off without Bean. I can't wait to see her lose. Either Labor is irrelevant or she is going down.

With the happy thought of Bean losing in my mind, I'm calling it a night to enjoy happy dreams imagining how pathetic Emanuel will look as he wastes good money for incumbent protection of a complete piece of crap in IL-08.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-04 12:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Yep. Sometimes I wonder why people like you even bother supporting Democrats or even pretend to be Democrats. For honestly it seems like you hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. That you would even give up control of Congress to get rid of Bean clearly speaks of your priorities.

I guess that labor wants someone 100% hostile to their issues elected because Bean has to actually stay electable enough to win in office. I guess that people like you actually want hostile legislators to purge the "impure" out. I guess you would rather have someone push the labor agenda farther back.

I honestly don't see the logic of liberals like youl. You would all rather lose than win. You would rather accomplish nothing than something. That you would even give up control of Congress just so that Bean doesn't return speaks of flawed priorities.

I am going to bed now too. I guess that I know where you stand: You hate the Democrats more than the Republicans. And so honestly, how do you ever hope to acheive anything?

If you do come back to this thread tommorrow, I'd like to know that. I'd like to know how you would get a far left Democrat elected in a such a hostile district like IL-8, where Bush II won 56% of the vote?

by jiacinto 2006-09-04 12:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

you hate Democrats more than Republicans

Actually, its Republicrats like Emanuel and Duckworth who hate ordinary Democrats.

by Sitkah 2006-09-04 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Emannuel and Duckworth "hate" ordinary Democrats? Again I don't like how they meddled in that race, bur "ordinary Democrats" chose Duckworth over Cegelis in the priamry. Those "ordinary Democrats" voted for her in the primary.

by jiacinto 2006-09-04 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

When con artists trick people, it isn't because they love them.

by Sitkah 2006-09-05 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

"Labor is irrelevant or she is going down."

For the record, what labor is doing with Bean is nothing particularly new.

In 2000, for example, the Teamsters and UAW withdrew support for Dennis Moore after his vote on trade with China.  

The Teamsters did the same with Lois Capps.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-09-04 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

The last tie vote was June 14, 2006.

Frank, D-Mass., amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to implement a regulation that would provide a certain type of Section 8 housing voucher to replace demolished public housing units only if the units were leased prior to being demolished. Defeated 214-214.  (Vote #282, June 14, 2006)

Not very exciting.  But there are many other, and more relevant, examples.

For instance, in 2004, there was the Sanders amendment to prohibit to government from snooping in library records.  One more vote and the amendment passes.  

Sanders, I-Vt., amendment that would prohibit funds from being used under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to acquire library circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet records, bookseller sales records or bookseller customer lists. Defeated 210-210.  (Vote #339, 7/8/04)

Also in 2004, there was an attempt to implement PayGo to the budgeting process.

Thompson, D-Calif., motion to instruct House conferees to accept provisions in the Senate version of the budget resolution that would subject any tax cut or mandatory spending expansion to either a pay-as-you-go offset or a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. Defeated 209-209.  (Vote #97, 3/30/04)

And then there was the attempt by Bart Stupak in 2003 to give servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500.00 bonus.  Defeated 213-213.  (Vote #554, 10/17/03)

Of course, there was also the House version of the Republican drug plan, which passed 216-215 and could have been stopped with one more vote.  (Vote #332, 6/27/03)

There are a lot more, but you get the point.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-09-04 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

I'm sure it's happened before and it's completely in the realm of possibility this year. There's a reason they froze the number of House seats on an odd, not even, number.

by falsified 2006-09-04 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Idiotic comment.

by BigDog 2006-09-04 02:14PM | 0 recs
Matt.. I disagree

 She actually was in the military and nearly lost her life (she did loose many parts of her body and is an inspiration to many)... yes she is green in the ways of politics.  I see no problem with this unless you are absolutly against anything military.

This type of mailing would not appeal to me but it does to others.  Look at the bigger picture.

Also.. why is that so many people... left and right... like to throw this word around?: xenophobic

by kevin22262 2006-09-03 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Matt.. I disagree

Because it's one of those words that has a definition that you can smudge to fit whatever you were trying to say.

While I think he and others are right about ceding the term "amnesty" and how that's a shame, I don't think it's necessarily a conservative issue to put a focus on border security - it's pretty obvious to me that if you get a clean-shaven Arab wearing Western clothes, he looks a lot like a Mexican.

Actual border SECURITY is an issue the Democrats could even run on, such as fixing the porous Canadian border, while having a more humane approach to immigration in general.

All in all, it could have been a better flyer for sure, and I'm not sure what the target audience is, but there's worse out there and I think some of the complaining is Cegelis nostalgia.

by falsified 2006-09-04 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Matt.. I disagree

Do you know the border least protected, and the oen through which the terrorist of 9/11 came over here? It was Canada- what makes your comment racist is the focus on the one border over the other.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Matt.. I disagree


by BigDog 2006-09-04 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Matt.. I disagree

Didn't happen to read the second half of my comment, by any chance, did you?

by falsified 2006-09-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad


Tammy was born in Thailand and grew up in several countries in Southeast Asia where her father, Franklin Duckworth, worked for the United Nations and international companies. Tammy's mother, Lamai, was a native of Thailand. Tammy has one brother, Tom. At the age of 16, Tammy and her family moved to Hawaii where she finished high school and attended college. Tammy followed a long family tradition, going back to the Revolutionary War, of serving in the military. Her late father fought as a U.S. Marine in World War II and Vietnam. She joined ROTC in 1990 as a graduate student in Washington, D.C. and was commissioned to the Army Reserve in 1992 in Illinois. She decided to become a helicopter pilot because it was one of the only combat jobs available to women. Tammy holds the rank of Major in the Illinois Army National Guard.

by kevin22262 2006-09-03 11:15PM | 0 recs
mixed feelings

tammy duckworth is running in a republican-leaning district.  Henry Hide's current district as a matter of fact.  It appears that her strategy is to muddy the waters for the Republican voters in the district. At least that's how I see the amnesty thing.

I could accept that, but I feel more uncomfortable about the attack on trial lawyers.  It seems particularly counterproductive because there is no distrust by and large in the general public about trial lawyers.  Only the republicans think there is, and that is why they mention trial lawyers at every turn, although it may be more because they are trying to turn the public on trial lawyers than that they are stirring an existing resentment against them.  

I give the ad a D.    

by gobacktotexas 2006-09-03 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: mixed feelings

So we can sell out Mexicans because they aren't as hated as lawyers?

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:21PM | 0 recs

but it could be a poorly executed semantic trick, like being against amnesty but being for some sort of legalization.  no one is supporting amnesty on either side anyway.  

by gobacktotexas 2006-09-04 06:23AM | 0 recs
Duckworth's actual postion

A portion from Duckworth's website:

While we strengthen our borders, we also need to pursue realistic and effective policies to deal with those who are in our country illegally.  Much as some would like, we cannot wave a magic wand and deport the 11-to-12 million illegal workers currently in this country.  We need a more realistic and orderly approach.  I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants.  The immigration reform proposal that I support does not provide amnesty.  Its lead sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has been adamant on that point.  Instead, it requires fines, criminal background checks, and that all back taxes must be paid.  Immigrants would be compelled to learn English and take courses in American culture and civics.  If -- and only if -- an immigrant meets all of those requirements while continuing to be gainfully employed, he or she would be allowed to pursue legal status.  Even then, these applicants would have to go to the back of the immigration line. 

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: no

actually a lot of democrats and republicans think a lack of anemnesty where you are going to 'get rid of the illegals' mentally is a) fantasy (michael bloomberg said that and he's a republican) and b) would be economically detrimental. but don't let facts or the opinion of actual peo dealing with illegals win out over political rhectoric- and certainly use language that pisses off the legal immigrant community that can vote as much as it does the illegal. that's just dumb politics. but hey what do i know i just live in one of the most diverse cities in the US.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:25AM | 0 recs
Kennedy/McCain isn't "amnesty"

From all the rhetoric I've seen both Kennedy and McCain refer to their bill as a "path to citizenship". There are requirements for illegal aliens living in the US to meet before they can become citizens.

'Amnesty' in this debate has come to mean blanket amnesty, waving a wand and making all the illegal residents of the US citizens. Tammy Duckworth, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi all oppose 'amnesty' in that context. Singling out Duckworth is bogus IMHO. Blame the Democratic leadership for losing the language debate on amnesty and citizenship, not Duckworth.

by joejoejoe 2006-09-04 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I'm going to weigh in with the minority here. Military uniforms aren't a silver bullet, but for a non-white woman, they're an important validator, especially in an election season in which immigration is a prominent topic of discussion. I'm pretty stunned you missed the gender politics of this, Matt. I don't like the obvious xenophobia but then again I don't like much of the way immigration is debated in this country. The fact that she's taking an issue that the GOP intended to exploit and is pounding them over the head with it -- I like very very much. Last I heard, being a fighting Dem didn't require you to achieve an appropriately liberal score on the NPAT.

by blueflorida 2006-09-03 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

She isn't pounding the GOP over the head on immigration, she is letting the minutemen pound her over the head. A Fighting Dem has nothing to do with combat experience, it means whether or not you will fight against the GOP. Duckworth is too busy listening to Emanuel to fight. She is not a Fighting Democrat, she is a DINO who has seen combat.

by Bob Brigham 2006-09-03 11:25PM | 0 recs

If it is pissing the far left on this board, then maybe her ad is effective. For frankly the people on this board aren't the audience she's trying to reach. She is running in a historically Republican district, where sympathy for illegal immigrants is quite low.

I am against amnesty. I don't see why illegals who broke the rules should get preferential treatment. It's not fair to those who played by the rules and waited for years.

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

YOu are funny- this cite isn't a fall left board. That you think it is suggest your views are the problems. As for amnesty- as Michael Bloomberg and several other Republican and democrats who actually have to deal with illegal immigrants have said- it's fantasy to think you are going to get rid of the illegals who here now or to think that you are going to do anything but continue the status quo. But hey, Bloomberg a Republican  must be far left by your standards too. It's funny how you use the rhectoric of the Republicans- ie, anyone who disagrees with you is far left as much as some here use the language in reverse- anyone who disagrees with them is far right. Most here are using language where they are simply criticizing her use of this ad and wondering who is really behind this.

By the way- the actual polling data on Latinos, asians and other groups who come from recent immigrant backgrounds is that when the republicans started attacking immigrants- it hurt the Republicans. Someone above posted an actual article from the Chicago papers in which they indicated this district is becoming more, rather tthan less diverse. Your comment along with other knee jerk analysis that you have written here - is just that knee jerk.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:32AM | 0 recs
To voters in IL-06...

...this would be considered a "far left" board. They're point of view is really all that matters in this election.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

There is nothing fair about U.S. immigration policy, period. There never has been. Amnesty, or no amnesty is irrelevant to the process that lets the rich who hire lawyers become citizens.

Remember how we treated Hatians?  Pure racism.

So please don't talk about fairness. It's crap.

by FishOutofWater 2006-09-04 05:45PM | 0 recs

For anyone who is at all familiar with IL-06 (or lives here as do Michael and I both), it is very apparent that the "far left", "left", or even "marginal or moderate left" will not have a damn thing to do with deciding this election.

I don't think that Tammy should worry about pissing off the left in IL-06.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Jiacinto isa GOP troll..Go watch lou dobbs, you bigot freak.

Anyway, i cant see the pictures.

Has duckworth morphed into tom tancredo? umbelievable.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-09-03 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

How intolerant. I guess that I'm a "racist and bigot" because I voiced opposition to illegal immigration. I've been posting here and at Kos for years.

by jiacinto 2006-09-03 11:47PM | 0 recs
Dude, seriously

The whole "martyr-Democrat; you only like far-left candidates" thing -- you said that at least 5 times. I don't see another word for that other than "troll".

I'm fine with people disagreeing, but there are ways to do so which ad to the discussion, and ways which do not. The arguments you're making are deliberate strawmen, you're repeating them over and over again to multiple commenters.

You're being rude.

by msnook 2006-09-04 01:53AM | 0 recs
This is uncalled for

you have no diary and comment history whatsoever and then you accuse another commenter on being a "GOP troll"? Good Lord!

by jedinecny 2006-09-04 12:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Depends on who it is targeted toward. If this is going to Republicans only, it probably works; if it's going to democrats too, then the direct mail company is ripping off the candidate.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-09-04 12:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I agree with you Jerome that this ad is probably targeted to Republicans. But with immigrants moving to DuPage in large numbers, this ad will be used by Roskam against Duckworth.

He'll make her defend her position by obfuscating it, and get her to say repeatedly that she's against amnesty. He'll hammer her on this, and she'll have to repeat that statement over and over.

While this might help her with Republicans, they still have Roskam to chose, as he is solidly in the Republican "punish the illegals" camp. But when Duckworth starts defending that she's against amnesty, she's going to turn off a good deal of the independents and immigrant population in DuPage.

Strategic mistake. Big one.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 06:45AM | 0 recs
Who's getting this ad?

I personally don't like the ad, especially the reference to trial lawayers.  I also don't know much about Duckworth or her relationship to the Dem establishment.  As Jerome notes, a key question is who this ad was sent to.  Unlike broadcast TV, direct mail can be highly targeted.  Let's remember that our critiques are happening without much sense of local context and, in the case direct mail pieces, any knowledge of who the target audience is.

I disagree with comments that argue it'd be better if she lost.  I think winning the House is so overwhelmingly important that this perspective makes no sense to me.  I think we need to simultaneously fight to win back Congress AND to move the party in a progressive direction. The two goals aren't always neatly matched in every race, but I think we need to balance them as best we can.  Sometimes that may not be as emotionally satisfying as a more purist perspective, but that doesn't mean it's not the smartest and the best strategy to pursue, both in the short and long term.  This is a long-term war we're fighting on many fronts.  We need to keep in mind our goals and think clearly and strategically, not be driven blindly by ideology and frustration.

by mitchipd 2006-09-04 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Who's getting this ad?

Duckworth isn't targeting her direct mail. It's a shotgun barrage. Some days I get three or more (once it was six) pieces of the SAME mailing.

by antiHyde 2006-09-04 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Who's getting this ad?

I've not received a single piece of mail from Duckworth since the primary. I am a Democrat, so I assume that she is targeting if you have received mail and I haven't. It would be wasted on me.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Who's getting this ad?

I am also a Democrat and I voted this March, so who is she targeting?

by antiHyde 2006-09-05 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Ask Mark green in NYC about how targetted ads such as flied or mailings can come back and bite you in the ass on explosive issues such as this. He still, rightly so, trying to get over the racial tinges of his 2001 campaign for mayor that essentially pissed off a lot of Latino and African American voters- and openned the door for Bloomberg to win. These things if they blow up don't stay with the targetted audience. Ask Allen in VA also about what happens.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

THe THREE direct mailers that went out in the district went out to every resident. This has been confirmed to me by a friend who knows what to look for as far as Voter Vault coding.

I don't know if these are going out to everyone as well. I suppose I will find out today when I receive the mail (they are supposed to arrive today).

I disagree that they shouldn't be sent to Democrats. Democrats need to know that their candidate isn't sitting back and letting herself get swiftboated. There's some morale issues here, too.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
I live in the district as well

and have not received a single piece of campaign literature from either Duckworth or Raw-scum ... not that I am complaining, mind you.

by pascal1947 2006-09-05 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I live in the district as well

Weird. Where do you live? I live in Bloomingdale which is a typical Republican stronghold.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I live in the district as well

Wheaton near College of DuPage.  I can't speak for other Wheatonians, but I haven't received any campaign lit whatsoever...not since the primary, at least.

by pascal1947 2006-09-05 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I live in the district as well

Maybe Roskam isn't bothering with Wheaton because his base is so solid there? I'm going to email some friends who live in Wheaton and see if they've gotten anything.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 02:50PM | 0 recs
Thats what happens...

when you hire inside the beltway consutants who are insulated from the real world.  they should make a donation to greenpeace for chopping all those trees for worthless shallow palm cards.

by optimusprime 2006-09-04 02:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Thats what happens...

"when you hire inside the beltway consutants who are insulated from the real world.  they should make a donation to greenpeace for chopping all those trees for worthless shallow palm cards."

Actually, her mail firm appears to the Strategy Group, which is based in Evanston, Illinois.  

So, the Beltway is about 700 miles away.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-09-04 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

The ad works, and here is why:

First, if it is a comparison between a brave veteran and a 'trial lawyer and career poliitcian', there is not a district in the country, red or blue, where the veteran does not come out ahead.  If only 2004 could have been a 'veteran vs. failed businessman' contest......  

Second, there is broad-based opposition to amnesty, from all voter segments.  She refutes her opponents' assertions vigorously, credibly, and simply.  

Third, oppostion to amnesty does not preclude support for honest, compassionate, and workable immigration reform.

Fourth, it's time for the uber-left to shut the f**k up about IL-08.   If you can't say anything nice about this race, say something nice about another.

by CLLGADEM 2006-09-04 03:16AM | 0 recs
Ah, just a small issue

It's IL-06. IL-08 is Bean's district. If you're going to tell me to shut the fuck up, at least show me the courtesy to get my district correct.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, just a small issue

I apologize for getting the district number wrong, but not for either the content or the tone of my comments.  

You see, this is bigger than IL-06, or IL-08, or GA-08.  This is about Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Rangel of Ways and Means, Chairman Conyers of Judiciary, etc......or the lack thereof.  

Victories by Duckworth AND Bean make the former scenario far more likely.  Besides, Jim Marshall in GA-08 is FAR more conservative than either Ms. Duckworth or Ms. Bean, and he needs to win too!

Again, volunteer for and tout a Democrat you can support.  Be positive.  JMHO

by CLLGADEM 2006-09-05 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I'll respect the service, but when she calls fighting in Iraq "Defending our Country", she reveals herself to be a female version of Joe Lieberman.

by antiHyde 2006-09-04 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I kind of liked the ad.  I don't think the uniform hurts at all.  The fact that she is a woman, and a small woman at that (from appearances) only makes the uniform and the setting more powerful.

As for the xenophobia thing... After CA-50, you should know how important that issue is in some Republican-leaning districts.  I assume Illinois isn't the same as CA-50, which is very close to the Tijuana border, but in CA-50, immigration is the only issue for a lot of people.  A little bit of insulation can be necessary.  And immigration isn't necessarily defined as a progressive or conservative position, right now, although it appears to be heading that way, at least in the blogosphere.

by Dumbo 2006-09-04 03:38AM | 0 recs

Saying "it's not amnesty" is a boilerplate defense of the McCain-Kennedy bill. I don't know why this ad has you so exercised. It's a direct mail piece targeting Republican voters in a GOP-leaning district.

More on 'amnesty':

"Some say it's not amnesty. I say it is. It's a backdoor approach," Grassley said. Specter's bill, he said, "doesn't force illegal aliens to go home. If it looks, acts and smells like amnesty, then it is amnesty." - 3/2/06 Fox News

Sen. Specter: "It's not amnesty ... because these undocumented aliens are going to have to pay a fine. ... We're facing a difficult situation, because we have approximately 11 million undocumented aliens here, and we've got to find some way to deal with them"  - 3/26/06 ABC.

"JIM LEHRER: It's not amnesty?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I'm not for amnesty. I don't think that there are many people in Congress who would support amnesty. This isn't about amnesty. It's about paying a price, paying a fine, proving, by working for six years, that you're here, and then getting in line behind everyone else for legalization." - 3/30/06 PBS

So what is the big deal about saying you oppose amnesty? Amnesty is a twisted characterization of the McCain-Kennedy bill and NOT the Democratic positiion.

I think your criticism is over the top on this mailer. Tammy Duckworth's most recent experience was serving in the military. What is she supposed to cite for her experience? It's HER experience. To compare Tammy Duckworth's reference of her military service from a current conflict to John Kerry's reference to Vietnam which is 30 years old is to make an inaccurate comparison.

If you are going to do critiques of direct mail pieces don't do it half-assed. Come up with criteria like the Ad Watch series and use the district race in the title and keep the titles consistent.

Sad? Nobody who actually makes these ads is going to take the legitimate messaging critiques in this piece seriously if you lead a story about a disabled military veteran with "Sad". Only the most insider of insiders in the MyDD world know you are criticizing the messaging in the ad and not making a personal attack against your own candidate.

by joejoejoe 2006-09-04 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

The soldiers in Iraq are NOT defending our security.

They are NOT protecting us from terrorism.

They are not defending our freedom.

The smart ones who went there realized that they are there for OIL, empire, power.

The courageous one tell it like it is.  They were duped.. or they were mislead.. or they believed some myth about their "mission".  They come home and speak out, resist, go AWOL... refuse to serve.

I resent the idea of "following orders" and not taking a position about the war they are "told" to fight.

Any deployment to Iraq is illegal.  END OF STORY

by DefJef 2006-09-04 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Soldier-bashers are the lowest form of scum. Have a zero.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-09-04 02:45PM | 0 recs
Anyone ever hear of Wheaton, Illinois?
  It's in DuPage county, THE county with the most republicans (population, and percentage) in the entire country... I live right next to it and spend quite a bit of time there (used to go to school and work there).
  For all these comments about how she isn't more progressive... yea, that sucks. But lets deal with it. I didn't hear any republicans bitch and moan about Giuliani or AH-nold not being more conservative in their respectable areas... the same works for IL 6, believe it or not. We can't be bitching about how we want her to be more progressive, cause frankly, she won't have a chance to win there.
  This ad does work, trust me guys and gals. It will help, and this race is going to be too close to call in November.
by Legionnaire 2006-09-04 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Anyone ever hear of Wheaton, Illinois?

actually the republicans do bitch about Bloomberg Guiliani and others- and as 2000 showed they picked the more conservative Bush over the so-called more liberal McCain- but hey why let facts stop a great analysis- please continue.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Anyone ever hear of Wheaton, Illinois?
Wheaton is full of Republican robots. There are no votes for any Democrat in wheaton. The only votes for a Democrat come from places like Addison, Streamwood and Naperville. Addison and Streamwood are full of Mexican immigrants. They won't like this ad. Naperville is full of unemployed programmers and engineers. Cegelis, coming from the IT industry, could have spoken to them about high tech jobs. Or is that "too far left" for the Emanuel shills here?
They won't want to hear about "Defending America in Iraq". They want to hear about jobs and reviving the telco industry.
by antiHyde 2006-09-04 06:55PM | 0 recs
Not precisely true

If the March 21 primary results are any consideration.

There were two DuPage townships which Cegelis won quite handily.  Milton Township (containing Wheaton) was one and York was the other.

Duckworth won the the remaining DuPage townships, including Addison.

Each of Milton, York and Bloomingdale Townships cast more Democratic votes than Addison Township, suggesting that Addision might not be such a hotbed of Democratic voters.

In DuPage County as a whole, Duckworth won over Cegelis by a scant 218 votes (out of 27,106 Democratic votes cast).  

However, the closeness of the 6th District race in DuPage County was eclipsed by the results from those townships which were in Cook County, especially Elk Grove Township which, by itself, gave Duckworth another 604 votes to add to her lead over Cegelis.

by pascal1947 2006-09-04 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I don't know, I like the bright red tagline at the bottom ("If Peter Roskam will lie about a veteran's commitment to securing our borders, he'll lie about anything.") I like that she's coming out aggressively against the would-be swiftboaters, I like that she's not afraid to use the word "lie," and I think that the pictures of her in uniform may not win the election, but they don't hurt either, especially not for a female candidate--it may reassure some people, especially older male voters, that she's tough.

What I don't like is A) attacking Roskam as a lawyer, which is a cheap shot at a profession there's nothing wrong with, and B) repeating the Republican frame about amnesty for existing immgrants having anything to do with protecting our borders, which is incorrect and fuels the fires of aggression towards immigrants. Bleah!

by tjekanefir 2006-09-04 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad
I think that people miss the point. It isn't that the progressive are spoilers by not suffieinetly supporting carpetbaggers such as duckworth but that the DCCC under Emmanuel was so afraid of a progressive that he used DCCC money that was needed elsewhere against rethuglicans to promote a losing sock puppet that will cede the district to a rethuglican.
The true blaim for this fiasco is that the DCCC who took a poor candinate that they could control and with the use of money, that was meant to be used against rethuglicans, bought themselves a primary.
No lectures on how progressives don't want to win when the DLC money people showed they would rather waste money preventing a progressive from winning then take a seat away from the rethuglicans.
Stick a fork in her she's done, She was done as soon as she accomplished her purpose of stopping Cegelis with hundreds of thousands of DCCC money. Let her shrink back into the obscurity that she deserves.
But as she fades from the scene remember it wasn't progressives who lost this district for the D's it was Emmanual who has shown he would rather be a minority in a rethuglican congress then to be in the majority with some real progressives.
This is the classic example of why I, and many I know, will never give money to the party but only to individuals.
by Rational 2006-09-04 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad


by antiHyde 2006-09-04 06:56PM | 0 recs

Do you want to be loyal or effective? I want to be effective. Questioning who the nominee is and who to support is not productive at this point. I'll swallow that.

But tactics and crap like this needs instant feedback. Inneffective and outright bad ads can hurt. Ads that don't contrasts Democrats and Republcans can hurt. Ads that turn off your base or use Republican talking points can hurt beyond the race they are used in.

Feedback is necessary to be effective. Especially in key races like this.

And to use your own advice: How is this ad anti-Republican? I completely agree with you. But where in this ad does it mention Duckworth is a Democrat and Roskam is a Republican? Where does it contrast the Democratic postion on immigration with the Republican position on immigration? Where does it call Roskam a Republican and tie anything to his Republican record?

It doesn't. That's a large part of the problem.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

I agree with you. But, sadly, many in the party are thin skinned with tin ears uncomfortable with the idea of any real ability to adapt. Why do you think it is that the Republicans are so easily able to rattle us?

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

Michael you haven't given up. Neither has your critique...

Are you a Duckworth Volunteer? The answer will tell me a lot.

Want some impact? Be a GREAT volunteer...then give your opinion directly to the people who make decisons.

by BigDog 2006-09-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

Nope. I guess my critique of Duckworth's ads must be because I'm still pissed over the primary, right? Couldn't be that the ad is that bad or anything... Got any other defense for this POS ad than attacking the messenger and telling everyone to fall in line or they're a bad Democrat. If not, go to hell.

Oh, and believe it or not, there are other Democratic candidates in my district (and state) I can and am do work for.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

But since you were HUGELY loud in your support of Cegalis, who has endorsed Duckworth, you don't campaign for her at all?

Shame on you. After all that action.

by BigDog 2006-09-05 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

I should modify the above to say, "After all those attacks on Duckworth, in support of Cegalis (who has now endorsed Duckworth), you won't even work on the campaign!

You're only contribution was negative.

Shame on you.

by BigDog 2006-09-05 07:24AM | 0 recs
Bite me

It's called a primary for a reason. You highlight where your opponent contraticts themselves or is weak. All my "attacks" were based on things Duckworth said in the press or in public.

And what exactly was your positive contribution to this race? Pointing out how bad the candidate I was supporting? What did you get out and do in IL-06? I did plenty, and I'm still doing what I can for other candidates. If standing up for a candidate in a primary is negative, then why bother have primaries?

I've had plenty of people thank me for my coverage of the race and the work I did. If the only thing you saw was negative, then you weren't paying attention or you are against strong primary races. You also haven't talked to anyone who knows me.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-05 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Bite me

I tried, unsuccessfully, to mediate some sort of sanity in that Primary. I didn't have a candidate.

I was sick at the site of one side trying to tear down another in the most sickening of ways. It poisoned the water for a long time.

by BigDog 2006-09-05 03:30PM | 0 recs

Sorry for my comment title. Appologies for the lack of respect.

It was a bitter primary. It's over. But critism of a candidate's campaign can be valid on their own, and my critique of this mailer is just that. It stands on it's own. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

I stand by what I said elsewhere that this type of focus on ads done at MyDD is proactive. I want to win too. This ad doesn't do it for me in a big way and to me again highlights the shortcomings of this campaign.

Will it change anything? Who knows. I hope. But it's been said.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-05 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

It might also be nice to provide the context in which this mailer is going out, no?

Is your position that supporting McCain-Kennedy, opposing putting the National Guard on the border, and strongly denying that either of those positions is either amnesty or abdicating control of the borders, is xenophobic? When she's accused (falsely) of supporting amnesty in a district where that charge is going to carry a great deal of weight, what do you want her to say in response, exactly?

A) Your point about the utility of uniforms would be more convincing if N were >2; B) We learned in 2002 that undisputedly heroic military service doesn't convince voters to ignore instances where a candidate's issue positions are unbridgeably different from theirs (Cleland), and we learned in 2004 that very much disputedly heroic military service doesn't convince voters of one's strong character (Kerry).  I think using one's undisputedly heroic military service to rebut character accusations (specifically, accusations of lying) is different from either instance.

by MHS 2006-09-04 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

What's wrong with the uniform if it is part of her reality?

Isn't this really about the fact that people really don't like her?

by aiko 2006-09-04 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

There's nothing xenophobic about this ad. And a lady who loses her legs for her country has every right to tout the uniform, and placing uniforms solidly in the democratic camp is not bad at all. Isn't that what the "fighting dems" is about, veterans of Iraq who can say first hand what is wrong about the war. Wes Clark has stood solidly with Tammy Duckworth and we should do likewise. Dems in fact do not support blanket "amnesty" for illegals and the McCain-Kennedy bill does not do that. What I don't like is the symbolic and ideological "purity" tests that color the progressive blogosphere. That reinforces the view of a kind of leftist extremism that is not helpful.

by cmpnwtr 2006-09-04 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

She lost her legs fighting for Bush and Cheney, but does seem to have the brains to realize it. Her gung ho attitude on the war in Iraq shows that she is in the wrong party.

by antiHyde 2006-09-04 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I don't see where getting wounded while blindly obeying illegal orders to pursue an illegal war is a apositive. I regret her wounds just as I regret any person who because of thier absence of any moral fiber is injured while committing a criminial act. Be it a gangbanger in south central L.A. a mafiaso "soldier" involved in gang wars or the US's merc's.

Sorry the only people in the US military that are showing any courage and principles are Lt. Wataba and his companions who are risking all to save the soul of the uniform of our fathers. Those intellectually blind, morally bankrupt and ethical deficient people who are besmirching the legacy that had been associated with the US uniform they are leaving a reputation of torture, murder and atroicities that will generations to overcome.

by Rational 2006-09-04 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

We should have you run the DCCC.

I'm sure we'd make major inroads all across the country with you directing our message.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-09-04 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

"We should have you run the DCCC.  I'm sure we'd make major inroads all across the country with you directing our message."

I love sarcasm.

by Politicalhack06 2006-09-04 10:02AM | 0 recs
take away the text

and it looks an ad for one of the hands-on exhibits for kids at the Intrepid museum.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-09-04 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Gross

I fucking hate how casually all the politicians are using such a sensitive issue to their own benefit. It's grossssss. grito/2006/09/vernon_robinson_illegal_im migration.html  

by Nezua Limon Xoloquinta Jonez 2006-09-04 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

It might be worth considering what Duckworth is up against before condemning her. I don't know what her racial/ethnic background is but she does not look at all like her opponent.  She is running against a lily white, `nice looking' republican man (the kind that usually turns out to be a sleazy criminal). No matter how many metals she has won in the service of her country, no matter how many limbs she has lost, the Republicans will use her appearance to their advantage. Ned Lamont (who I fully support) does not have the disadvantage that Duckworth has. He almost looks Republican.  Duckworth would be doomed if she took an overtly "Liberal" position on immigration in a largely Republican district.

The `amnesty' tactic was designed by the Republicans to turn a politically weak position--undermining US workers by in-sourcing cheap labor and out sourcing jobs--into a winning-racist position. Liberals help them by making it impossible to debate immigration policy in terms other than race. Because Liberals cannot understand or clearly address the economic fears that underlie mass immigration they are helpless against Republican tactics. I am getting tired of knee-jerk Liberal reactions even though I consider myself a Liberal/Progressive.

What should Duckworth do--not run?

by anothergreenbus 2006-09-04 08:33AM | 0 recs
Understand but disagree

I've posted the NRCC ad somewhere in this thread so you can contrast the two mailers.

I understand your concern about bashing Republicans not Democrats now. But I disagree with what you are calling "self-loathing navel-gazing."

Critiquing GOP ads would be a wast of time. We have no influence there. Fact checking, great. But there is no point critiquing any ads but those of our own party.

Although our critique may not have the weight you'd like, the weight of the netroots is growning. We want to win, and the only way we are going to do that is to challenge the way things are done. By calling out ads for their strengths and weaknesses we provide feedback, reflection, and many minds on each problem.

Sure this may not be embraced. Yet. Ripping candidate's to shreads after they've lost is what we always do. I'd rather take this approach and be proactive than reactive and try to influence the race before it's lost.

We do have to make our course as strong as possible. That means calling out ads like this early, before a theme develops and more ads like it are produced. How a message is presented is fluid, not locked in stone, and can have a course change on a dime while mainting the same overal message.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Understand but disagree

that's exactly correct- mark green- lost to bloomberg in NYC in 2001 over a flyer sent out in October which allowed the bloomberg (r) campaign to label green as  racist (at least hte free media did that for him). green's campaign never adapted but instead denied denie denied and put their head down hoping for the best.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

so you are saying- that bloggers have no influence, is that your point? okay- so why do you care what matt has said if it's just "bitching"?

I find the criticizes of Matt's efforts here (on ad watch in general) to be interesting thus far. Let me see if I can catagorize them:

a) there is your school of thought- its too late to criticize- just put your head down and hope what we got can win - I call this the lack of adaptation argument- most people generally think the last 8 weeks are win elections are won because now is when voters are paying attention- if we can not adapt to voters then we cut into any potential wins. but I suppose your point is that people in charge iwll not change. okay, and? not to be flippant, but how does change happen? I mean I could lift your comment- as I have said and put it on any day of the week and any year since 2004. There is never, for some peo (not you), a good time to make sure things are running well, not just running. Or has my high school teacher used to say- its not enough for the dog to just try to cross the street as ongoing car rushes toward him. Essentially we have two things here- your position is that we have to get the dog across the street by putting our head down and just fight to get there. Matt is saying that we aren't going to get across the street because the dog is chasing its tail in circles int he middle of the street. I don't always agree with his analysis- but I do understand the value of making sure we aren't chasing our tails no matter how close we are to a race's conclusion.

b) the Jacinto school of thought- this person posts both here and Daily Kos about the far left this, and the far left that. Essentially thats his frame for everything. I mean nevermind there isn't a far left of any particular power in this country and we are controlled by the far right. That's a little like someone in nazi germany worrying that the 2 communists down the street may take over. Which is interesting because the amnesty issue plays out differently depending on who you talk to. For city mayor and governor- including Republican ones- who actually deal with this- they tend to say the federal solutions regarding no amnesty tend to be dealing in fantasy and will continue the status quo. Also for the immigrants who are legal- they read this differently than here.

c) there is my candidate walks on water approach. this one is self evident.

I see others, but these are the main three. I must re-emphasize that I dont always agree with matt but I do think these things are valuable to see what reaction that people are having to teh ads.

the point is that the hope is that it will be heard by some campaign, even if this one chooses to ignore it, and that it will improve our chances.

I have to be frank- I am very political, but my test of things are my apolitical friends who represent the inconsistent publics way of doing things. Most of what Matt is writing is spot on for what they are saying to to me- not in specific brush strokes, but definitely in terms of the overall picture.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 08:56AM | 0 recs
ideological purity

Feeling righteous  and pure about one's views is not virtue in offering leadership to the country. If one were to look at many posts on this topic, the conclusion might be that too many people on the left would rather feel righteous than govern, and govern with wisdom a pluralistic diverse country with many ethnic origins and many symbols of nationalistic identity.

by cmpnwtr 2006-09-04 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Why is it pathetic to acknowledge that the immigration reform package being pushed by Bush is just amnesty?  I live in California, in the 50th district, and I am a life-long registered Democrat, but we need to do something about the wave of illegal immigration that is overtaking California and the rest of the country.  What we need are some 'Tancredo' Democrats.  Not because they would win, but because people need to wake up to the problem of massive illegal immigration.

by hansd 2006-09-04 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I lived in Los Angeles, and now live in NYC- there is no wave of illegal immigrants overtaking the country- thats just hyperbole - and I dont care how long yo uhave been a democrat. its an issue that need to be dealt with but when I read posts like yours- I see that its been reduced to over the top hyperbole.

by bruh21 2006-09-04 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Aren't there Tancredo Democrats? I could've sworn they were on the ballot just below the Buchanan Greens.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-09-04 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Nothing like a little racism to show that you're really a tough guy/woman.  Wow, I'm impressed.  Whoever came up with this idea should be fired and then ridiculed and then beaten.

by Jim Treglio 2006-09-04 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I thought highly of Cegelis, wasn't a fan of Duckworth, but I'm not sure what's wrong with this flyer.

In this era of neo-liberal domination of US socio-economic life, more than a few lefties are wary of unfettered immigration. Being against amnesty is not necessarily a right wing position - it depends on quite a lot more of what a given thinker or candidate believes about trade, economic fairness and social justice. When a Pat Buchanan or a Lou Dobbs formulates it, you're seeing more likely than not some bigotry. But when a Sego Royal talks about it, ideology becomes less obvious, and in any event I would think the Tom Friedman wing of the party wouldn't approve of this tack Duckworth is taking, so it's hard to describe this as being "DLC-influenced".

I'd be curious to see what Duckworth is being hit with by her opponent. But we know what the GOP does, we saw what they did with Cleland, and if anything remotely similar to that is happening to Duckworth, I can see this as being a good response. It shows her in "Fighting Dem mode, and it calls bullshit on her opponent's hypocricy via the immigration issue, via her service, and esp. via the personal-injury lawyer characterization.

It might not be effective, but then again who knows what's going on in Chicago-land with respect to immigration, and issue which is not purely an issue which cuts across ideological lines. Plus it's most likely a counter-attack, so different rules apply.

I still don't care for what Emanuel did in this district, but I don't find too much fault with this flyer. If you want to see real DLC milquetoast stuff, just take a look at Amy Klobuchar's (MN-Sen) lit.
In any event, Duckworth  

by redstar67 2006-09-04 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I agree that democrats shouldnt use anti-immigration republican talking point....Any democrats that supports mass deportation or the evil house bill which is very brand immigrants as felons, is just not a democcrat.

Althought i dont like duckworth republican talking point on immigration, we must all agree that she will have no chance if she doesnt try to refute being for amnesty.

The district is heavily republican and for the democrats to take over the house, they will need to win some of those red district.Being a liberal will not help.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-09-04 10:34AM | 0 recs

I'm an Hispanic who opposes amnesty.  Does that make me a racist?

by jkfp2004 2006-09-04 11:38AM | 0 recs

Why do you hate Mexicans? What is wrong with giving 20 million people free benefits? Nothing could possibly go wrong! Boy, you're dumb. You should become "enlightened" like everyone else here.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-09-04 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

This flyer doesn't seem at all xenophobic, and I personally don't think that opposing amnesty is xenophobic. A lot of people who call it that are IMO whacking away at strawmen. Just because Ron Paul was also against the war doesn't mean that we democrats should be tarred with some of his ridiculous positions. Similarly, just because a racist like Pat Buchanan opposes illegal immigration does not mean that those who feel that illegal immigrants harm wages for other workers are also racist. As to persuasiveness, I couldn't say.

When it comes to uniforms Matt, I don't think what you wrote is at all correct. First of all, convincing people that you can keep them safe doesn't make you a republican. Second, if in 2004 Kerry had gotten out in front of the Swift Boat story early, gathered a couple dozen veterans and held a press conference saying "When you attack my patriotism, when you attack my purple hearts, you denigrate all of our medals and everything we fought for", then it would have been a different ball game. He might even have won. It wasn't the uniforms that were the problem in 2004, it was Kerry.

by JRyan 2006-09-04 12:53PM | 0 recs
Mixed message = no message

I have no idea what that flyer is trying to say. Or who it's actually from. The look and feel is that of an attack on Duckworth, and yet it's an attack on her opponent.

The language of the issue confuses things: 'X Opposes Y', especially in that kind of font, usually means 'Vote for Z'. Not 'Vote for X'.

It's all over the place.

I don't mind Duckworth and her opponent having a pissing contest over who can appear meanest to illegal immigrants. Heck, get photos of her in her wheelchair running down brown people at day labor places if that's the campaign you're going to run for that district. I think, as an issue, that it's crap, and that it's driven by Know-Nothing gobshites like Lou Dobbs, but elections are elections.

by etagloh 2006-09-04 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Mixed message = no message

One more thing:

"I fought in Iraq" does not mean, by definition, "I oppose immigration reform". It just doesn't. It's a false equivalence. It's bad enough conflating Iraq with al Qaeda, but conflating it with Mexicans? WTF?

The implication is that the war in Iraq is a war against immigrants. Which is bullshit. There have been illegal immigrants killed serving in Iraq.

What's an effective message, then? Probably one that picks up on the Republicans' big business interests and their support for cheap illegal immigrant labor. Oh, and Bush's supposed support for 'amnesty'.

by etagloh 2006-09-04 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I won't get myself in the middle of this conversation about the value of this ad, or Duckworth as a candidate, but this does all point out something very important: Illinois is the Achilles Heel of the Democrats efforts to take back the House.

Duckworth and Bean are candidates that do not enjoy the support of grassroot Illinois Democrats.  In the case of Duckworth, there is no reason for her to be running in this district -- we all know the story here.  But the real issue continues to be the involvement of the Illinois Democratic leadership into races where there is strong grassroot support for another candidate.

In the case of Bean, clearly the fact that this woman is so hated by so many party members is having an impact.  She turned her back on her supporters the minute she entered the House and now is completely dependent on those who fear that her defeat will prevent the Democrats taking back the House -- hardly a great reason to go out a volunteer to work for someone.

The bottom line is that Illinois Democrats are demoralized and the Republicans are pouring money in because they seen an opportunity.

In November, if the Democrats fall a couple of seats short of taking back the House because of Illinois, don't say you weren't warned.

by PageUp 2006-09-04 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

The thing I don't understand about people's hatred of Bean is that she made it very clear in 2004 what kind of representative she would be; she's legislated and voted the same way she ran. Appearance-wise, if a bunch of liberal people ascribed virtues and positions to her that ran directly counter to the way she presented herself during the campaign, is that her fault? Substantively, no one is continually lambasting, say, Stephanie Herseth or Ben Chandler, right? So why is Bean different?

by MHS 2006-09-04 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Sorry, but you are assuming that she presented herself as a Zell Miller Democrat and everyone voted for this.

In fact, Bean had the support of union members and other "liberals" (even you use the word as a term of derision, guess you feel it best that all liberals leave a form a third party).  Bean campaigned on the issues of her opponent's incompetence and opposition to expanding NAFTA (which she went back on).

Bean won because she had representatives in the district everywhere.  Now, Bean has to use her money to pay people to represent her -- ala Joe Lieberman.

Yes, McSweeeny is a loon -- but Republicans in the district will support him because he is simply painting Bean as a "liberal".  

With Republicans bad mouthing liberals, and with Democrats like yourself bad mouthing liberals, why would it surprise you that liberals will be staying away from Illinois candidates this November?

by PageUp 2006-09-06 01:40PM | 0 recs
Immigration is a Molotov Cocktail this year

Let's take a look at this snapshot of feelings from SurveyUSA in December 2005.

Now, to be brief, let's go to the questions, and how people answered them in Illinois, broken down by party ID.

"Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more:
One: Immigrants take jobs away from Americans.
Two: Immigrants do jobs that Americans don't want."

Option 1 was picked by 41% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats, and 42% of Independents.

Option 2 was picked by 55% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 54 of Independents.

Heck, let's look at a map of how Democrats split on those questions (the color scale goes from lightest, indictating low percentages for option 1 and darkest indictating high percentages for option 1.

And for reference, the red dots are placed in states where a plurality or majority of Democrats selected option 1.

(And ignore the DC part too)

Anyways, two things factor into the mix for this.

If you're in a state which is close to the border or deals with a lot of immigrants, you'll have a lower percentage for option 1.

If you're in a state which is either Union-dominated, or more rural than average, then the percentage for option 1 is higher.

Nothing like immigration to bring together Union states and "Right" to Work states.

Basically, the whole catch here is that there's still a segment of Democrats who are union members who are still unhappy about things like NAFTA.

Some of that could carry over to immigration views.

My own opinion on immigration issues: I haven't found a good enough proposal to support.

But, in conclusion..

Immigration politics becomes more tricky in states where the Republicans are more sympathetic to the immigrants.

by RBH 2006-09-04 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Immigration is a Molotov Cocktail this year

You are missing the different political nuances of CD's in Illinois. The majority of the population is centered in Chicago which is heavily blue. But collar county areas like IL-06 are not at all representative of the majority of the population of IL. We do not have ONE SINGLE ELECTED DEMOCRAT in IL-06. Not ONE.

You absolutely cannot point to the whole of IL as representative of IL-06 (OR IL-08, for that matter!).

The majority of the actual area of IL is very, very red. We're in a lot of trouble if the interior of the state populates between Chicagoland and Southern IL.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

It's a crap ad even if it is targeted to Repubs. If you're lucky, people are going to look at direct mail all of 5 secs. before they toss it- so right off, you've failed at your job if the ad's that hard to read visually.

 And then, when you do look at what's been given graphic heirarchy, it's 1)"opposes..." and 2) the other guy's a liar. So she's painted herself as someone who negatively reacts rather than leads. What's that rule about the most optomistic campaign always winning?  

by sb 2006-09-04 03:30PM | 0 recs
I don't completely buy this argument

If Democrats running House races in Illinois don't win, it won't be the fault of the grass roots in Illinois. It will be the fault of the candidates and how they run their campaigns. Their ability to turn out voters and GOTV efforts is their responsibility. If they can't energize their base, then it's the fault of their campaign, not the grassroots volunteers, the ones I know who are all working on campaigns for some Democrat (or two) somewhere in the state.

I'm seeing this argument being thrown around now and again and it bothers me. This thread is an example. The critique was of Duckworth's ad - not Duckworth. There's a difference between attacking the Democratic nominee at this point in time, and attacking what in many people's eyes is a poor ad.

The idea, at least for me, is to be proactive and bring some heat on her media people to get on the ball. That's called wanting to win. I can volunteer all I want (ala Big Dog's taunt above) for her campaign, and if her ads surpress her base, give Roskam ammunition to attack  her (he'll lie about anything??), and cost her votes among the growing minority population in DuPage, then I could volunteer full time and then some and I'd be wasting my time.

If you all want to believe that we should do what we always do and fall in line and shut up, and allow campaigns to drive themselves into the ground, then I question how much people want to win. Doing things as Democratic conventional wisdom always has in the past - saying nothing but positives about everything a campagn does during the race, then bitching about everything they did wrong after they lose - then you're just looking to repeat our losing ways.

I want to win. This ad, in my opinion, is going to do more harm than good and that pisses me off.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 03:47PM | 0 recs
Put Up or Be Quiet Please

In case you missed my earlier comment Michael, here's a challenge to you and your "army" of progressives.  Bush is coming to Glen Ellyn (Il-06) soon to campaign for Roskam.  Help organize the biggest anti-Bush protest DuPage County has ever seen (for you folks outside of Illinois, there is some irony in that statement).  You don't even need to soil your hands with the Duckworth campaign.  Drag all those grassroots folks you keep talking about to a 1st Amendment pen that will be set up.Trust me, you'll get on TV here.  Bush has negatives at about 65% in IL (probably about 55% in the District) and highlighting Bush support will reinforce the rubberstamp image of Roskam.  If you succeed, drinks are on me.

by riverred 2006-09-04 05:00PM | 0 recs
Put out, you mean

What exactly does this challenge to me and "my" army have to do with my comment that if a candidate loses it is no one's fault but that of the candidate and their campaign?

Surely Tammy can turn out her army for a Bush protest. I'm sure it will get her on TV as it should.

And I've been plenty quiet until this ad. I'll go back to being quiet until the next one.

And I don't drink.

But good to see you back in the IL-06 threads again. Got an official title with the campaign yet?

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Put out, you mean


My comment about your "army" wasn't specific to the statement.  I was just injecting something adhoc here.  I am not much for formality.

Duckworth shouldn't get caught up in Bush protests and such.  This kind of crap sucks the oxygen out of campaigns. I think it's a loser for Roskam personally but he might garner some cash.

My title, VOTER!!! That should be enough to scare anyone.  No interest in titles on campaign staffs. I hear it's rolling along pretty good though.  Phenominal fundraising effort on Rahm's part.

I quit drinking at least once a week. I'll have one for you before I retire tonight.

by riverred 2006-09-04 06:15PM | 0 recs
Once again, we agree on something

Roskam has had Cheney, Laura Bush and now soon to be George Bush out here. The guy's campaign must have a death wish. He is handing this to Duckworth on a silver platter. That's why I'm so frustrated with ads like this.

by michael in chicago 2006-09-04 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

Matt, the kind of argument that you would have preferred her to make (as set out in your update) wouldn't do the trick either.  

1) If Roskam is a true conservative on immigration, which it sure looks like he is, you're not going to be able to tie him to Bush and accuse him of not being conservative enough. He'll just get up in front of the Republican base and say that while he doesn't like what Bush or McCain has proposed any more than they do, he is a true conservative on immigration and border security who agrees with them and will fight for them, and Duckworth is a true liberal who believes in "amnesty for illegals."  Attacking the rest of the GOP just lets him triangulate against them, in a Republican district. That's not a winner.

2) What you're proposing is a negative mailer that effectively runs to Roskam's right on immigration. If you think that Duckworth's mailer is xenophobic, picture a visually effective mailer that pounds the Republicans for not getting the job done on securing the border and dealing with illegal immigrants. You think that's an improvement?  Besides: you're not going to win a fight about who can be tougher on immigration when you're the one who supports McCain-Kennedy and Pelosi for Speaker. This mailer isn't trying to paint Duckworth as tougher than Roskam, but rather that she's tough enough; that's a different story.

3) Attacking Roskam for Republican failings on immigration lets stand his basic attack on Duckworth, that she's a lying liberal who wants to give illegal immigrants amnesty and your hard-earned tax dollars. That ratifies Roskam's basic charge that Duckworth can't be trusted, which exacerbates rather than minimizes the weakness caused by her issue vagueness, and weakens her specifically as someone who's taken an extreme position that's out of touch with the district.  It also opens the door for him to say, while the GOP hasn't been the greatest in Congress, at least they're not calling for the dreaded.  Again, that's an improvement?  

by MHS 2006-09-04 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I think the chocolate shake in the NRCC ad is racist.  Why's it gotta be chocolate, man?

by hoose 2006-09-04 05:13PM | 0 recs

It's not, it's vanilla, lol.

by bridgetdooley 2006-09-05 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

I realize this ad doesn't really connect with the left base of the party, but I can't help but disagree with the assessment.  I want the democrats to win.  I dont care if they are moderate or liberal, we need to get the majority back.  I would rather have a congressman who represents my democratic beliefs 90% of the time than 10% just to make a point.  It is time to stop "making a point" and stand with democrats no matter which end of the democratic spectrum they are on.  This is the reason that democrats are having a hard time, we are eating our own.  Lets stand up for the party, and when we get the majority back we can start talking about how to shape our policy in a more progressive fashion.  Until then, we need to stand together.  QUIT EATING OUR OWN, WE CANT AFFORD THIS!!!

by clundquist 2006-09-04 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

You are right. Unfortunately, for some reason among way too many "liberals and progressives", there is an ever-present "matryrdom complex".

by jiacinto 2006-09-04 11:04PM | 0 recs
for president!

Strom Thurmond Whatever.

by delmoi 2006-09-05 12:58AM | 0 recs
Hyperbole n/t

by JRyan 2006-09-05 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad

And the cherry on top symbolizes all the young maidens them foreigners will plunder and pillage.

by notime4lies 2006-09-04 08:40PM | 0 recs
Yuck, that ad is gross

I certanly won't be donating to this girl. Not that I have any money to start with but still.  Anyway, hopefully they had the good sense to only send that mailing to people they knew were xenophobes.

by delmoi 2006-09-05 12:56AM | 0 recs
the 6th District - thelast word

As a Personay Injury lawyer, a minority, and a person who grew up in the 6th, I am voting and campaigning for Duckworth. I am not offended by her comments and applaud her efforts to WIN. YES WIN.  The primary is over. Yes, the most progressive candidate did not win, but nor could the most progressive candidate EVER win in the 6th. A progressive agenda does not represent the people in the 6th. Never will.  As has been shown in this thread, the 6th District is a very conservative district. VERY.

Thus, any effort to make Roskum NOT appear to be a "right winger" (ie. ambulance chasing), is going to help get the swing votes, or at least prevent the ""right winger" from coming out on election day.  That does not make her "Republican-light". Her being an actual vet will neutralize the War/Security issue.  These two issues alone, the personal injury litigation issue and the Iraq War, will allow those in the 6th District who have never voted Democrat to perhaps CONSIDER voting DEM for the first time in 32 years.  I know it has for my father, a long time Republican in the District.  

Finally, as far as the "immigrant" issue, I think a native of Thailand will be more sensitive to immigrant rights than Mr. Roskum, if not more sensitive than 90% of Congess.

by shoeshine boy 2006-09-08 12:51PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads