And One Last Thing...

by Chris Bowers, Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 07:41:55 PM EST

As you have probably noticed, I have not blogged a whole lot over the past month. I think nineteen months of nearly non-stop, seven day a week blogging, combined with a difficult new project I am working on, have finally resulted in my first temporary case of blogger burnout. As such I have decided to take my first-ever official vacation from blogging. I will return to the scene on January 5th, hopefully fully recuperated and ready to go for another full year.

Before I go on my vacation, however, I want to make one final post concerning an issue I have spent much of the day thinking about. I think that the DCCC supporting Duckworth against Cegalis is a truly horrendous move on their part, and I honestly believe that in response the netroots should fight back by supporting Cegalis in the primary in any way possible.

I have three basic reasons why I think the DCCC's move to support Duckworth is awful:

  • 1. It is an incredible waste of resources. Simply put, the DCCC's fundraising is not very good. While in the 2005-2006 cycle the DCCC has more money relative to the NRCC than they had in 2003-2004, our House committee is still taking a beating at the hands of Republicans when it comes to fundraising. Considering that the NRCC has a 60% advantage in total fundraising and cash on hand, spending any money in any Democratic primary is only going to stretch our resources even thinner come September and October of 2006. However much the DCCC is spending to help Duckworth, it is an utterly unjustified diversion of resources away from challenging incumbent Republicans and toward challenging other Democrats.

  • 2. It is a repeat of our losing 2004 strategy. I know that a lot of people are invested in the "Fighting Dems," narrative for 2006, where Democrats run as many Iraq veterans as possible for federal office. In some ways, it is a pretty good strategy, as theoretically it provides us with Iraq truth tellers in the face of administration lies, an image of national service, and potentially a counter to the old "weak on defense" charge.

    However, as familiar as I am with the theory, in practice I just don't think it is a winning narrative. With the possible exception of Paul Hackett, who I believe was boosted largely for reasons other than being a veteran, I can't think of any campaigns recently where being a veteran actually helped a candidate. I remember the weak bounce Kerry received after a convention that did little else but portray him as a war hero--a weak bounce that came before the Swift Boat Liars even started getting press. I remember the "draft dodger" charges against Clinton that never went anywhere. I never noticed Dole's service help him, or Bush II's lack of service hurt him. I remember Max Cleland being slimed to the high heavens despite being the ultimate image of a veteran who served his country. I just don't believe that being a veteran, however admirable it is, compels the electorate anymore. I further shudder to think that being a veteran was one of the main reasons why the DCCC decided to back her, even after Kerry, who was basically chosen by Iowa voters for the same reason, failed against a chickenhawk just last year. I think that as political activists we need to finally be honest with ourselves and realize that the era of Eisenhower and Kennedy is long over, and that being a veteran no longer helps anyone at the ballot box. This doesn't mean I am not going to support Democratic candidates who are veterans in primaries, but it does mean that I am not going to support Democratic candidates in primaries simply because they are veterans.

    In other words, not only do I not believe that Duckworth being a veteran is much of a bonus to her candidacy, I am actually horrified that we think we could win in 2006 using the same theory we had in 2004. If we are still deluding ourselves into thinking that someone will win because s/he is a veteran, then we didn't learn anything from the past. Are we really so uncritical of our past performances, and are we really doing so little to come up with new ways to run campaigns, that we are just going to use the same strategies from losing campaigns again and again? The lack of vision here is truly disturbing.

  • 3. It takes the base for granted. As a proud Deaniac, few things irritated me more during the primary season than the assumption often vocalized by the Democratic powers that be that, even if Dean lost, his new activist movement would be easily transferable to the establishment candidate that won. Admittedly, one of the things that irritated me about it was that anyone who said this was right: we all knew we wanted Bush out of office so badly that, pretty much unless Lieberman won, we would indeed work our butts off for a non-Dean nominee. And so we did, to the tune of tens of millions of volunteer hours, hundreds of millions of dollars, and god knows how much of our new, independent progressive media.

    In 2004, we did indeed transfer our new movement to the establishment, and I have a feeling that set a really bad precedent. I believe that many in the establishment came to believe that they could pick whatever candidate they wanted to run, and we would fall in line behind that candidate, causing the money, the activism, and the new alternative media to flow to whoever they wanted. However, in this race it can be different. If the netroots supported candidate can actually defeat the establishment chosen candidate, it will force the establishment to stop taking the base for granted. If we can defeat the establishment in at least one location, it would force them to actually negotiate with us in the future. This could help bring an end to bossed primaries. This could help the netroots to have a real say in the messaging and direction of the party. If Cegalis can win, then they will have to start actually coming to us and asking us what we think before they decide to waste our resources and use other bad strategies in both primary and general elections. The ice is already slightly cracking on their willingness to listen to us: a big primary victory like this could cause it to shatter.

So that is my case. I think for the DCCC to support Duckworth is a waste of resources, is a bad electoral strategy, and takes the activist base for granted. I also think that helping Cegalis win would greatly enhance the bargaining power of the netroots within the party. I honestly believe that if there is one primary we should focus on this year, it is the IL-06. Here is a link to her website. Please support her.

I am out of here now, but in the comments I urge you to offer your actual list of reasons you agree and/or disagree with this post. Please, no ten word responses. Please, no comment rating and flame wars. This is important stuff, and should be treated as such. Let's have a serious discussion.




Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 125 Comments :: Post a Comment


Thanks for your blogging (none / 0)

While I haven't always agreed with you, I think you've added more to the debate on Democratic strategy and tactics than any other blogger.  It's been fun reading about your adventures in the Philly Democratic Party, too.  I hope you get a chance to relax on your vacation, and that you come back with your fire renewed.

As for Duckworth vs. Cegelis, I'd still like to get the DCCC's side of the story.  Do they have oppo research on Cegelis?  Is there some reason that Rahm thinks Duckworth would fit the district better, given that he is from the area?  I don't want to make up my mind without hearing the other side of the story.

Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog
by ItsDrewMiller on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 07:57:17 PM EST

Re: Thanks for your blogging (3.00 / 1)

Is there oppo research on Christine Cegelis.

LOL....you obviously haven't met Christine.  There's more oppo research material on my grandmother than on Christine Cegelis.

by kb54010 on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for your blogging (none / 0)

Obviously not, I'm from Iowa.  :-)  Still, is there a reason other than just blindly pushing forward the fighting dems message?
Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog
by ItsDrewMiller on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 12:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i've added her website (3.00 / 1)

to my blogroll. will be making a post on this shortly
by Cedwyn on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:03:35 PM EST

Since this is about Primary Elections a bit (none / 0)

Can you throw me a list of schedules for states to hold there primarys and states Filing dates that would be great. Also on the fighting Dems I think that strategy can work i just think that will blow away the charges that we aren't patriotic or that we don't support our troops. As well as showing that the situation in Iraq is not as great as the Admin. says it is because if it was these Veterans would likely be running as Republicans. Also i'm doing what i can as a Floridian to get Paul Hackett elected in 2006. I hope the rest of you will join me in support of Hackett and the effort to defeat Senator Mike DeWine.  http://www.hackettforohio.com/
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:32:24 PM EST

Re: Elections Calendar (none / 0)

Federal Elections Commission Library page.  Link takes you to the page with primary election calendars.  As usual, in .pdf.
by rba on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 09:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

an Iraqvet is different than being a Vietnam vet (3.00 / 1)

While I agree with your general feeling that some Dem leaders view the 'netroots' as a wonderful new unquestioning ATM/volunteer base, i strongly disagree with your assessment of the 'veteran angle' for the 2006 elections.  

Kerry, and Cleland, were veterans of Vietnam, a war that is a distant memory for the public.  It is a case in American history that is closed.  The Iraq war is on going, and far from closed.  Running as an Iraq war vet is very very different than running as a vietnam vet.  Offering solutions to a current conflict, while being a veteran of it, is a much greater assest than being a veteran of a past conflict.  Combine that with Pres. Bush's recent rhetorical deference to the generals and soldiers "on the ground" to be the guides to his Iraq policy, and I see an effective campaign tool and an advantage.  (what happens when someone who "was on the ground" disagrees with Bush?  At least some effect free media coverage)

Now, being an Iraq vet will not be a magic pill that cures all a candidate's ills, but it will be a positive, no doubt.  

by padraig26 on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:34:31 PM EST

Re: an Iraqvet is different than being a Vietnam v (none / 0)

I was going to write a similar critique of Chris's analysis, but you said it much better than I would have.

To add on to what you said, though, I think the very fact that we can point to 20-30 vets running as Democrats will give us the credibility to stand up and say "you want to call us unpatriotic?  You don't think we support the troops?  How come almost all the returning vets are running as Democrats?"  That's much different than a single candidate running and being a veteran.  This could make it so that the Democratic Party becomes the party of the troops.

Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: an Iraqvet is different than being a Vietnam v (none / 0)

In addition, it becomes a much uglier enterprise for Republicans to start ripping apart veterans of their own ongoing war. Swift-Boating is gonna be tough when you're going after people that served your own cause.
by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: an Iraqvet is different than being a Vietnam v (none / 0)

You've listed Christine last on your list of beneficiaries. I hope that you will list her FIRST in your checkbook. The DNC/DSCC have lots of rich "establishment" dems feeding their coffers. Christine is struggling on her own.

I would hope that we will all MAX OUT our contributions to Cegelis, before we even consider donating to any of these other organizations.

We MUST support our own, first, last and always...They do.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~Mark Twain
by dabuddy on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 02:44:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about taking a stand on some issues? (3.00 / 2)

Nothing is going to overcome a muddle of the road position on all of the issues voters care about. The strongest reason voters select one candidate over another is the same as its always been:

What's in it for me?

Forget the symbolism and get back to the roots of the Democratic Party. Preserving the middle class, good jobs at good wages and no more corporate welfare. Kitchen table economic issues will win elections.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Email the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

I think we should also email the DCCC and let them know what you think.  I just sent them an email saying I'll be witholding my donations to the DCCC until they stop undermining Christine Cegelis and giving support to Tammy Duckworth's campaign.  In the meantime, my donations will be going to the DNC, DSCC, and Christine Cegelis.
Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:40:34 PM EST

Re: Email the DCCC (none / 0)

In the meantime, my donations will be going to the DNC, DSCC, and Christine Cegelis.

Why support the DSCC? They are doing the very same thing to Chuck Pennacchio that the DCCC is doing to Cegelis.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Email the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

Gary,
not being as up to date as I would like to be - are there any preliminary polls on the cegalis/duckworth race?  Are they close?  It seems to me, as a former Pennsylvanian that first and foremost wants Santorum out, that Jr. was always way ahead of Pennachio.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

If the Cegalis race is close, then that makes it a different story.  Having said that, I think the national party should stay out of all races until the local people speak.  Whomever wins, if obviously the best candidate and would appreciate the extra funds not wasted on a primary.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Email the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

I'm not aware of any polls, and this far out polls don't mean very much. The general election is a year away and the primaries are six months out. That's a long time.

The bottom line is that the DSCC manufactured a candidate when Schumer and Rendell twisted Casey's arm to enter the primary with the backing of the DSCC. Big surprise! Pennacchio's fund raising efforts ran into a brick wall and Casey is winning the money race. Same old story.

Casey's weaknesses are well known to the netroots and the RNC. He is a famously weak campaigner. If memory serves, he was leading Rendell in the '02 Democratic primary race for Governor by 17% in early polls and lost to Rendell by 12%.

There is a very good likelihood that Santorum will do the very same thing. Take it for what it's worth, but there are rumors that some Democrats are concerned that Bob Casey's race against Santorum will be a fund raising black hole that sucks up money from other races.

Pennacchio is an energetic campaigner that fires up his supporters. It's the difference between night and day.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Il primary mid March - less than 3 months out. n/t (none / 0)


Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue
by wegerje on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:36:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Email the DCCC (none / 0)

Your defense of Cegelis is undermined every time you bring up Pennachio. Cegelis and Pennachio aren't even in the same league, Cegelis has raised real money, Pennachio has barely raised enough to run a competitive race for a Democratic primary for a county level seat. Pennachio's lack of funds doesn't come from the DSCC or Bob Casey, it comes from the fact that he isn't a viable candidate.

Casey may have lost to Rendell, which is still only losing to Rendell, but Casey won all except for about 5 counties in the state.

Casey made mistakes before, but he has a better team this time. He has Mike Earley's campaign manager, who easily won re-election in NC, as his campaign manager. Pennachio is an energetic nobody firing up, basically nobody.

by upstatenydem on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 12:43:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cegelis/Pennacchio comparison (none / 0)

Cegelis has raised real money

Really? Last I heard she was getting shut out and was stuck at about $200k.

Casey won all except for about 5 counties in the state.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 5 counties, including the greater Philidelphia area, contain about 80% of the Democratic vote? That's like saying if you only lose California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania it's no big deal in a Presidential election.

Pennachio is an energetic nobody firing up, basically nobody.

We shall see. We shall see. I'm still putting my money on Pennacchio and so would the DSCC if they had half a brain. Casey's campaign is going to be an expensive television commerical driven campaign and he's going to do terrible in the debates with Santorum, if he wins.

Maybe Bob Casey should get some debate practice by accepting Chuck's offer? Don't the primary voters deserve to see their nominees in action?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 08:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Email the DCCC (none / 0)

I've meet chuck several times in the past year. He's a nice man but simply out of his league. He's even being out fundraised by Alan Sandals.

Rendell beat Casey in the primary in 2002 because one he had the support of all the ward bosses in philly, Pittsburgh and Allentown, 2 he had as much money as Casey, 3 he ran on a platform of keeping abortion safe legal and rare. 4. Rendell outraised casey 5.Rendell was able to confince people he was one of them.

Rendall won in the General election because Mike Fisher,was a complete loser as a candidate. 2. pa has history of never electing the same party to more than two consective terms. 3. See the reason Rendell beat casey

by orin76 on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 02:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Email the DCCC (none / 0)

The difference is, Christine was the candidate in 2004 and pulled 44.2% of the vote.  She already had an established campaign organization, volunteers, and donors.  Tammy Duckworth was installed by Rahm Emmanual after Christine was already well on her way.

In Pennsylvania, Chuck Pennacchio had none of those things.  For the record, I donated to Chuck's campaign, as I thought he was a better choice.  Since Pennsylvania is the DSCC's top target, they understandably want a good candidate.  Now, I disagree with the DSCC or DCCC getting involved in any primary, but in this case, it was the eventual nominee Bob Casey, or Chuck Pennacchio.  Anyone could have told you the outcome of that primary before the DSCC got involved anyway.

Furthermore, the DSCC has been doing a phenomenal job of recruiting great candidates to run in all the target states.  Do I agree with them supporting Casey so early?  No.  But overall they've been doing (I think) a great job this cycle.  The DCCC, on the other hand...

Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's exactly the same thing (3.00 / 1)

Steve Young is another example. Steve Young is not an Iraq vet, but he came from a military family. He is getting support from The American Legion, if not a formal endorsement.

Bottom line: The DSCC and DCCC have both turned their backs on progressive, anti-war candidates.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Email the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

Exactly.

Go directly to
http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

Do not visit the DSCC.

Do not contribute to the DCCC.

by Philosophe Forum on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree on all points (3.00 / 3)

1. Roskam is sitting back laughing at the DCCC blowing money, time and momentum on this race. We keep hearing about the limited resources they have. Yet they have, as rumored, upwards of a million to blow ousting A DEMOCRAT? This sets a really bad example for any hard working Democrat out there thinking of running. Cegelis quit her job, spent her life savings, and went to every township Democratic meeting, union hall, DFA meet-up and house party she could. That shows the dedication to service and courage we need in Congress. Undermining her campaign is reprehensible.

  1. They really think that Roskam won't attack her because she's an injured vet? Does the name Max Cleland ring a bell? Look what they did to Kerry. This also doesn't factor in the lack of military in the district, Duckworth not being a resident, only having lived next to the district for three years, and the drawing down of troops in Iraq. Add to this the fact that she volunteer to go fight in Iraq, and you'll being hearing "She volunteered to fight in Iraq before she thought it was a bad idea." from the GOP the day after the primary. Duckworth's position on the war and her status as veteran leaves her open to attack on this issue, and her key strength either neutralize or the waters muddied enough that the issues is moot. Cegelis on the other hand has been against the war since day one, supports Murtha's plan for withdrawal, and is a steadfast supporter of veteran benefits.

  2. They know that Roskam is a wingnut probably beyond Bush in scope and depth. They know Dems in the district want a Dem over him any day of the week. But I'll say it again, if Duckworth wins the primary (REALLY BIG IF THAT I DOUBT), then all she'll get is one vote from me. I'm not talking to my neighbors about her unless to relay what her campaign and Emanuel did to undermine the Cegelis campaign. I'm not giving one red cent. I'm not doing anything as this whole situation has soured me view on just how much power I really have. Emanuel has made it quite clear that my help is not needed or wanted.

Thanks for the post on this Chris. I completely agree with you.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:51:10 PM EST

Re: Agree on all points (none / 0)

She won't even get a vote from me. I'm not voting for the Chicago Machine's puppet.
by antiHyde on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly what I'm talking about (none / 0)

Precisely what I would have said, if I was as reasonable, insightful and urbane as Chris is.
by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 08:52:02 PM EST

a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

I agree with most of your reasoning, but not the conclusion.  I do think it's a mistake for the DCCC to pour money into Duckworth's campaign.  But I don't think the progressive blogosphere should organize to support Cegalis in the primary.  These are preliminary thoughts, and I'm open to reconsidering.  

I'm particularly responding to point #3 - taking the base for granted.  This point is important because it's the most clear-cut reason to actually intervene (e.g., it's not less of a waste of DCCC money if we're spending too).

I fear that your argument leads toward a scenario where we start picking districts within which to do battle by proxy with the DCCC leadership.  What you propose is dangerously close to making candidates like Cegalis little more than pawns in a larger game.  First of all, I frankly don't think this is fair to Cegalis, as much as it may be intended to benefit her.  Second, I don't think it's fair to the voters in the district.  Third, I think it's a terrible waste of limited resources.

Let me briefly elaborate on each point.

  1.  Cegalis needs to be able to define herself in term of local interests, not netroots interests.  Yes, of course I recognize that limited funding is a major roadblock to doing that.  But what you propose - effectively, making an example out of this primary - will redefine her as the candidate of the blogosphere.  If she comes forward and clearly asks for this kind of a full-throttle campaign by the netroots, then I'll put aside my objection.  But she has to be able to consider whether she wants to be our national poster child.

  2.  I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I also believe that except in extreme cases, primaries are best left to people in the local districts.  Just as I hear the beginnings of "war by proxy" in what you wrote in point #3, I would ask: do the people of the district become alienated in the process?  What, exactly, is involved in providing support in any possible way?  If it's just fundraising, then fair enough (but see my next point), and again my concerns are mitigated.  But "any way possible" - to me - suggests volunteers in the district, possibly advertisements, etc; I worry very much about contributing toward the hijacking of a primary that belongs to local voters and local activists.  It doesn't change my view that the DCCC may already be doing hijacking of their own; from my perspective, a war by proxy in the district adds to the alienation that the DCCC's actions may bring, rather than diminishing it.

  3.  This is probably my biggest concern - waste of resources.  There is not an unlimited source of funding in the netroots.  Donor fatigue will eventually set in.  I personally know a bunch of small-scale progressive donors who, like myself, are tapped out from the combination of 2004 and scattered fundraising drives this year.  For my own part, I'm willing to start donating again in the 2006 general election season.  But my ability to do so would be seriously hampered by significant investments in primaries.  Not everyone is in this position of donor fatigue, and it's not a strict zero-sum game; success can breed more success.  Nonetheless, in the end, dollars are limited.  I'm truly uncomfortable with the notion that fighting the DCCC is the best use for my resources, or our collective resources.  I want my dollars to go to fighting Republians.  I won't give them to candidates, even in the general election, who don't share my values - let the Dem establishment get the message that way.  But if I don't like the final candidate in a district, there are many, many others who need the money.  I'd rather send money to support Tester in a Montana general election than a Leiberman primary challenger.  I'd rather send money to support Nick Lampson against DeLay, than Cegalis against Duckworth.  That's even though from what I see, I like Cegalis.  The DCCC (and DSCC) are just not the enemy, nor is Tammy Duckworth.

As I say, I'm still open to being convinced otherwise, although it would take a lot of convincing.  I think it would be tragic if the netroots started acting like just another special interest group.  Without insult intended, point #3 in particular sounds like the response of an interest group, not a broad, inclusive progressive movement.  The value of what you, Jerome, Kos and many other de facto leaders in the blogosphere have helped create - a new form of grassroots activism - is gradually sinking in.  Impatiently going to battle against the establishment because they're not "getting it" quickly enough is, in my opinion, not the way to win.

IMHO.

by arenwin on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:01:36 PM EST

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

By the way, I figured I should clarify that when I said this:

But "any way possible" - to me - suggests volunteers in the district, possibly advertisements, etc; I worry very much about contributing toward the hijacking of a primary that belongs to local voters and local activists.

I didn't mean that I have a blanket opposition to the judicious use of outside volunteers, strategists, ad buys in elections of all kinds.  I recognize that as entirely necessary in the general elections (i.e., I'd still rather see as much of an emphasis as possible on local activisim, but I know how realistically important it is to put national muscle behind local candidates).  Yet in primaries, where it's about building up one Dem faction or tearing down another, rather than than building up local progressive capabilities and infrastructure in general, I don't believe it's necessary or important enough to be worth the cost of another up-tick in the national political arms race.  The fact that we must nationalize general elections to some extent doesn't mean that we must extend that strategy to primaries.

by arenwin on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (3.00 / 3)

I understand your points and appreicate the way you've always been respectful in expressing them. But let me take a crack at convincing your otherwise:

  1. Cegelis has defined herself locally, and worked hard to get the support of the local township Democratic orgs - some of which have been openly hostile to Duckworth's entry. This is one of the key points of contention among Cegelis supporters - that the locally supported candidate is being tossed out by Rahm and the DCCC. He's been undermining her campaign for months, and Duckworth is at least his 3rd choice (some say his fifth) entered at the 11th hour to knock off Cegelis. Cegelis has always reached out to the Blogosphere, and treated bloggers with respect and inclusion in her campaign. Duckworth doesn't even have a blog on her site.

  2. Letting the voters decide is a key point in this debate. Rahm has put his entire weight behind Duckworth's campaign. She will raise money through his support network, largely from outside the district in his district. This already is a battle between a local candidate inCegelis vs. a Chicago party boss anointed candidate in Duckworth. Rahm has worked to shut down Cegelis campaign and is pulling out the stops to undermine any support from the party she might get. Help from the Blogosphere would aid in leveling the playing field and truely letting the voters of the district decide.

  3. I believe the party is undergoing an interal struggle for itself. If you believe that the way Duckworth is entering the race is acceptable - complete institutional support intent on spending whatever it takes to take out another Democrat who primed the district - then we disagree.  I agree with Chris on this point strongly. At some point we have to stand up and stop voting for who they tell us to vote for. Duckworth has few ties to the district, and as spent only the last three years living outside of it. If we just abandon Democrats who give up everything to help build their local party then why would anyone continue to do that thankless job? I believe this is why Emanuel has yet to find challengers for every GOP district out there. Why bother? If you're not a chosen candidate, you'll get no resources, no help, and be made fun of and belittled for your your achievements. That's not the model for building the party that I believe in.

This isn't a quick rush to battle the establishment. This is a opportunity in which the grassroots have a candidate with an organization in place, volunteers fired up, and the support of local party orgs. This is winnable for us. This is a "pick-up" opportunity for the Netroots.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

I don't believe Duckworth's entry is acceptable, based on what I understand of it.  I similarly think it's not a good sign that her entry seems to be linked to the fulfillment of a fad - the fighting dem.  So we don't disagree there.

Let me try to draw the fine line between what does and doesn't concern me, linked to the first two points that I raised and you responded to.

The netroots, when their energies are marshalled, have a great deal of power.  The ability to unify effort and money from the many, many thousands of readers of Daily Kos, MyDD, Atrios, and the many smaller blogs is an inspiring phenomenon.  It was inspiring to see it work for Dean, and then for Hackett; you could just get this rushing sense of energy and purpose.  It's also tremendously gratifying that candidates and representatives are starting to pay attention, including some I have particular respect for.  (E.g., I have taken great pleasure at seeing Louise Slaughter reach out.  I've watched her political rise since I lived in her district during her first Congressional race in what... 1986, I think?  I wasn't old enough to vote yet, but she is one of those people who got me believing in politics - a great person as well as a committed progressive voice.  I hope she's there to run the Rules Committee when we finally kick the bums out.)  And Dean becoming DNC chair was a tremendous victory.

But with all that power and energy comes a real risk.  The netroots are still the small dog compared to the DCCC, at least in terms of $ and raw influence, and that's linked to all these problems, of course.  But compared to a local grassroots operation, when rallied, we're rapidly becoming the big dog; a kind of alternative national establishment made up of very anti-establishment types.

Not just in politics, when any kind of grassroots organization operating at a disadvantage against a large patron reaches out to another large patron for assistance, there's an assymetry in the relationship.  If the large patron comes in with something to prove, and/or with their own established interests, the risk increases that the strings attached to that assistance become overwhelming.  And this is even when everyone has the best of intentions, as I strongly believe is the case here.

Like I said to BigDog once when he argued with me on a marginally related point, I am in no position to second-guess the decisions by local activists about how and from whom to seek support.  I think the netroots are a fabulous base of support, filled with energy and enthusiasm and idealism that is so refreshing to a borderline cynic like me, and I've enjoyed becoming one of the more recent members of this community.  If Cegelis says, "I need a organized effort behind me to accomplish these things [...]," then fair enough - and at a minimum the first concern I listed is much diminished.

But she, and the local activists, have got to be clearly in the driver's seat.  There's a hair-width line between one grassroots organization helping out another, and the creation (even inadvertently) of districts as pawns in a bigger battle.  I worry about that because I've seen so very many examples - both from personal experience, and through my training as an Anthropologist - where outside help carries a heavy cost if those outside helpers have something to prove, or are pursuing strong interests of their own.

So, I've said my peace on this.  I appreciate your response; I'll keep an open mind.

by arenwin on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 12:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

I appreciate the well thought out response.

The key for me here is that I'm one of the activists on the ground in the district. Cegelis is no pawn, but truely represents her constituents. That's why I see this as such an opportunity just as Chris does.

The only way this primary is going to let the people of the distric choose their candidate - whom ever that may be - is to level the playing field between the candidate boss Emanuel has backed to the hilt and the citizen candidate that Cegelis is.

It would be one thing to throw resources behind a grassroot candidate in a David and Goliath approach to making a statement. Although this may work, the chances are that resource will just go into making a losing point.

This is not the case with Cegelis. Her campaign's established nature provides a real pick-up opportunity for the Netroots as she has an organization in place, the support of many of the Township Democratic orgs, and volunteers fired up and loyal to her ready to knock on doors.

By leveraging the Blogosphere's strength behind her campaign the primary playing field becomes level and her chances, already strong, become equal or greater to those of the DCCC's anointed candidate.

As has been mentioned many times, Emanuel and all the Beltway knows that we'll vote for a Democrat come the primary. That's why this race, and it's potential for the Netroots, is such a great opportunity. We can influence who that Democrat will be in the General. We have an opportunity to make the Democrat we vote for in the General one that is a real progressive who believes in and supports the Net/Grassroots.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

Here's where we run into trouble here- we have to decide whether or not we're actually on the same team. To look back at Chris' original points, by going to war here we'd be doing everything that the DCCC is doing wrong.

  1. It's a waste of precious resources to contest a primary race. It's even worse if we do it too. If the DCCC is really as Machiavellian as people seem to think, they won't back down. They'll pour more money and effort into it because if we make this district a battle for control of the party, then way more than this district or this election cycle is at stake and they aren't going to just roll over.

  2. It's a repeat of decades of failing strategy- specifically, a lack of unification within the Democratic party. Look at what Rove orchestrated over the past decade or so and you'll see success predicated on unity of message and purpose. Every Republican from City Council to President had the same three or four issues and kept hammering away. In the meantime, the left in general has gone after every little thing and can't figure out what sort of candidate they're looking for. Here we are, at it again.

  3. It alienates everyone EXCEPT the netroots. The big business and power brokers aren't going to just decide that "Hey, those assholes that just sunk my candidate? I should be helping THEM!" We're taking their support in a general election for granted just as much as they presume to have the full support of the grassroots.  Furthermore, to tie in with the second point, it reinforces for undecided/independent voters the notion that Dems still don't have their act together and that if they can't unite NOW against Repubs, then when? And given that, what's going to happen if the Dems gain power? Infighting and a lack of clearly defined legislative agenda which isn't, I would imagine, going to put people at ease who are going to want to see things turn around quickly if they vote against the current Republicans.

I'm not saying that it isn't an exceptionally raw deal being handed down from the DCCC- of course it is. I just worry that we're going to allow ourselves to miss the forest (golden opportunity to sweep out republican majorities) for the trees (not getting enough respect from the party leaders). If we as progressives and net/grassroots political actors really want to force wholesale change at the DCCC, a violent coup in the sixth of Illinois isn't going to be how it happens. It takes patience and it takes success at the local level. Stock the Democratic party with thousands of progressive city councils, state assemblies, mayors, AGs, comptrollers, etc. etc. who know where their clout comes from (us) and alluva sudden the leadership only has our choices to pick from.

Pissing off part of the party that is (whether we like it or not) more powerful won't help anyone and will set back the netroots movement. Pick your battles and, before you expect the DCCC to let you back your own candidates, find one and win with them. They aren't gonna dump $1 million into opposing every progressive, netroots candidate, especially as more of them pop up.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 05:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

You make good points. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, but thanks for the respectful dialog.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 11:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

by going to war here we'd be doing everything that the DCCC is doing wrong.

That's only true if the DCCC is on our side. As long as the DCCC and the DSCC are blocking our candidates the Democratic Party is not allowing our views to be represented in the party. They have declared war on us and if we don't fight back they will continue the war. We have to make their war too painful to continue.

In the meantime, the left in general has gone after every little thing and can't figure out what sort of candidate they're looking for.

We know exactly what sort of candidate we're looking for. Cegelis, Pennacchio and Young.

it reinforces for undecided/independent voters the notion that Dems still don't have their act together and that if they can't unite NOW against Repubs

That's Rahm's problem, not mine. I have absolutely no interest in a unified Democratic Party if Lieberman, Biden, Al From and Marshall Whitman are the voices the party unifies behind.

They aren't gonna dump $1 million into opposing every progressive, netroots candidate, especially as more of them pop up.

They won't have to. If we don't fight them here and now, progressives will stop coming forward, because they won't want to get creamed by the DCCC money machine. Steve Young put $100k of his own money into his primary run. How many progressives can afford that?

We don't have to match the DCCC dollar for dollar to win. We just have to make it so expensive for them to fight progressive Democrats in the primary that they stop doing it. If we don't make it too expensive for them to fight progressive Democrats in the primary, they won't stop doing it.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 05:42:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

"our side" is apparently different for different people. Lieberman, Biden, From, Whitman, etc. aren't my favorite choices for much of anything either but they're better than Bush, Cheney, Frist, Delay, etc.

You know exactly what sort of candidate YOU are looking for, but you don't necessarily represent the entire party or the entire electorate. Progressive candidates aren't exactly guaranteed victors even in the current climate and, at some point, winning needs to supercede ideology. Maybe this is the point, maybe it isn't, but an all-or-nothing political transformation strategy isn't likely to be very effective. Change is rarely sudden, especially when it requires a majority of the population to support it.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 11:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a fight by proxy? (none / 0)

No they aren't better than Bush, because they support the exact same policies, and because they are democrats, other dems won't oppose them.  
Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Knowing When To Walk Away (3.00 / 1)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you're not willing to walk away from the table, you don't have any power. This is basic and fundamental. Dave has a post at Seeing the Forest Negotiating When The Other Party Won't:

If one side just wants to win, and doesn't care about establishing a relationship or creating a structure that will actually work, for the other side "Getting to Yes" really means "Rationalizing your Concession". Whichever is most willing to walk away will always win a negotiation. Ask anyone who's ever done business with WalMart.

If we don't stake out our turf and demonstrate a willingness to walk away from distasteful candidates and fight for the values and candidates we believe in, the DCCC and DLC and Democratic Party will continue chop blocking candidates like Cegelis, Pennacchio and Young.

If you're not willing to fight for what you believe in, you don't really believe in it.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 08:59:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Knowing When To Walk Away (none / 0)

There are many ways to fight.    Nancy Pelosi does the right thing the vast majority of the time, and I want to see her become Speaker in 2006.  

I'll fight like hell for a Bill Bradley or Howard Dean in 2008.  I'm ready to go to the mat for a candidate of big ideas who will speak honestly on the war, fight for universal health care, and take poverty seriously again.

My calculus for house candidates in someone else's district is more pragmatic.  What use of my $ will go the furthest toward creating Speaker Pelosi?  I don't think supporting candidates in the primaries is the most effective use of $.  And I'll fund candidates in the general election that I believe in, rather than the DCCC; that's where I draw my line in the sand.

I also have strong beliefs, that I will fight for, in pluralism of views (i.e., the so called "big tent") and in local agency - legitimacy flowing from consent of the governed through their representatives and their democratic process.  Thus, my greatest concern here is the unacceptable way that the DCCC has been meddling.  michael in chicago's has laid out strong arguments for why what Chris proposes isn't, effectively, counter-meddling.  Not yet persuaded.

by arenwin on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:27:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Knowing When To Walk Away (none / 0)

Thus, my greatest concern here is the unacceptable way that the DCCC has been meddling.  michael in chicago's has laid out strong arguments for why what Chris proposes isn't, effectively, counter-meddling.

Counter-meddling? How is backing the candidate preferred by the local grassroots meddling? If we don't fight for Cegelis tooth and nail, the DCCC will continue to coronate their chosen candidate regardless of what the grass/netroots want. This is the time to hold on to our cards and play out the hand.

We bloody the DCCC's nose in the primary and force them to waste as much money as possible. If they don't have to pay a price that affects the entire ticket, there will be no reason for them to change their tactics and start to work with us, instead of against us. If Duckworth wins, we walk away from that race and focus on a progressive candidate.

If the decision was mine, instead of trying to support a ridiculous number, like the 88 I've seen bandied about, the netroots would support six or seven candidates and pour every dime into those races. Cegelis, Pennacchio, Young and three other candidates would be a good starting point.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 03:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Knowing When To Walk Away (none / 0)

If the decision was mine, instead of trying to support a ridiculous number, like the 88 I've seen bandied about, the netroots would support six or seven candidates and pour every dime into those races.

This part of your post I entirely agree with.  Of course, getting agreement on the six or seven... -chuckle.  But spreading support thin is a crazy strategy, as appealing as the Quixote fund sounds at first blush.

by arenwin on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 09:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Three Responses (3.00 / 1)

  1. As stated above, while it's clearly a waste of DCCC resources to be dumping money into this race, they're just going to have to dump more money into it while the netroots turn their pockets inside out if we dig in our heels here.

  2. While veteran status is certainly not an automatic win, neither is it totally irrelevant. If we're going to continue to talk about how the administration, Congress, and the conventional media are all faulty sources of information, there has to be some non-blog source of information for voters that withstand the credibility test. This is not to say that we should be blindly throwing veterans into races just for the hell of it, but neither should we discount their value in a time where we're best served by presenting a picture of everyone vs. Bush policies.

  3. There's no reason for the DCCC NOT to take the netroots for granted. No matter how much or how little a fight we put up, is any significant number of us going to not vote or flip to a Repub vote because we didn't like the way the primary played out? Of course not, because ultimately the biggest priority is getting SOMEone elected- even if it wasn't the best choice.

All that said, I don't think that just rolling over and letting the DCCC steamroll folks is a good plan either. Rahm isn't doing this because he wants to waste money or because he doesn't want to win. He's doing this for myriad reasons I'm sure, but high on the list has to be the fact that so far, the netroots has been nothing more than a complimentary wing of the left that isn't going to deliver an election but might help push someone over the top. It won't be until we can start getting our own candidates elected without the DCCC's attention that the respect will come.

Might it not be a better use of our resources to focus on putting up a successful candidate elsewhere than funding an internal war within the party that just sucks more money away from the broader goal?

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:45:01 PM EST

Re: Three Responses (3.00 / 1)

On your third point, I strongly disagree.  It's not just a question of the grassroots going out and voting for the nominee.  Sure, they'll do that pretty much no matter what.  The difference is that if you pick a candidate that doesn't inspire them, they won't be donating and volunteering nearly as much as they could have.

I would have donated and volunteered a lot more for Howard Dean if he were the nominee, for example.

Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three Responses (none / 0)

This time at least, we aren't dealing with a national election though. We're dealing with a couple hundred local/state races in which the grassroots will be largely contributing to races which do not directly impact them. For example, I'm not going to be doing much for Feinstein and Susan Davis in the next year, my Senate and House reps respectively, because they don't especially need it. I most likely WILL be mobilizing my nettime and checkbook for other candidates throughout the country (much like plenty of others I'm sure).

I agree with you that as the grassroots gets treated like crap more and more it's going to dampen the general spirit. I agree with the prevailing mood here that is fed up with the DCCC riding roughshod over the progressive wing because the Hillarys of the world have convinced them that sounding like Republicans will trick people into voting for Dems. What we have to remember though is that, ultimately, we're all on the same team. We aren't going to win the respect of the establishment by going to war with them. We're going to win the respect of the establishment by beating Republicans for them. We all want the same thing even if we don't agree on how to get there. If we believe that what we're doing is what we SHOULD be doing, then you have to put up or shut up and ultimately it doesn't matter if the grassroots can beat another Democrat one bit. Winning actual elections is where the focus ought to be because otherwise we're behaving just as wastefully and pridefully as the DCCC.

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three Responses (none / 0)

All that said, I don't think that just rolling over and letting the DCCC steamroll folks is a good plan either. [...] Might it not be a better use of our resources to focus on putting up a successful candidate elsewhere than funding an internal war within the party that just sucks more money away from the broader goal?

This, right there, is the poser, isn't it.  The goal is a more progressive government.  What's the best way to get there?  There's got to be some balance between working with and pushing back against the DCCC and other Democratic Party organs.

by arenwin on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 12:51:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three Responses (3.00 / 1)

The balance is important which is why we've got to keep it all in perspective. If there were still time, I would have preferred to fund a primary challenger for Rahm who would simply keep asking "Why do you think that the best thing for this country is to run over local politicians with big money?" and "Is dividing the Democratic party really a sign of good leadership?" and the like.

We need to get as many Dems elected as possible and, as mentioned above, Lieberman wouldn't be anyone's choice as a Democratic president but he's still better than virtually any Republican. There'll be time to fight the internal power struggle AFTER we take back legislative authority which means we elect as many as possible. Getting into an expensive battle for respect within the party just saps monetary and spiritual momentum towards the real goal.

For now, we've all got to do our best to keep our eyes on the prize and not let pride get in the way. We certainly should NOT forget this though and not give the DtripC a free pass. Nevertheless, the most effective and lasting success is by improving into the best choice, not by undermining the other choices.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 12:44:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three Responses (3.00 / 1)

There's no reason for the DCCC NOT to take the netroots for granted. No matter how much or how little a fight we put up, is any significant number of us going to not vote or flip to a Repub vote because we didn't like the way the primary played out? Of course not, because ultimately the biggest priority is getting SOMEone elected- even if it wasn't the best choice.

This is a good point - one which I had already realized subconsciously but did not fully appreciate on a conscious level until now. We always talk about the right-wing base "deserting" Bush - abortion's still legal, school prayer's still illegal, Hollywood is still poisoning America, etc. We always like to imagine that they'll "stay home" on election day, burned by too many betrayals.

But will they really ever? Deep in their hearts, they know that George Bush/Arlen Specter/etc. etc. are better choices than really any Democrat alive. Isn't it the same with us? Think about it this way: How much would you rather have even JOE LIEBERMAN be president of the United States than George Bush today? Scary thought, but in your heart, you know it's true.

It's a strange thing to admit - that we, the netroots, might fight the "establishment" at various steps along the way, but that really, in the end, any threat to quit and "take our ball home" is quite empty. It's almost ironic: If we weren't such fierce partisans, we wouldn't do all the things we already do - but because we're so partisan, we'll suck it up and support the lesser of evils in almost any case.

Now, I realize that this doesn't apply to everyone - it's a generalization, for sure. But I think it does apply to a sizable majority of the netroots.

by DavidNYC on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 12:56:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd rather have Bush than Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

If Lieberman was President right now, he would have marginalized and demonized progressives even more than they already have been. Lieberman has turned into a disaster for the Democratic Party as Senator and would be an even bigger disaster as President.
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 05:30:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three Responses (none / 0)

The dccc are the ones funding an internal war, by funding Duckworth.
Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Couldn't have said it better myself (3.00 / 1)

So I won't say it again, except to say I agree with every word, Chris.
by Revere on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:54:57 PM EST

I agree (3.00 / 3)

I largely agree with Chris' points, but I would add a different dimension to his third point. When the members of the Democratic Party establishment take the base for granted, they are acting as if the base is not a genuine stakeholder group in the Democratic Party.  Since the base will vote for any Democrat over any Republican, the base is just a feature of the party, not a constituency whose needs must be addressed.  

As far as I can tell, what the DCCC is doing in IL-6 is simply a more egregious example of what the DCCC is doing in CA-11.  There are numerous parallels between the two primary races, although I won't go into them here.  

My point is that in CA-11, the DCCC decided they were going to support Steve Filson before anyone in the district had even heard of Steve Filson.  There was no consultation process.  After Filson declared his candidacy, he did not try to mollify people in the grassroots who were upset that he had been imposed on the district by Democrats in Washington (and Ellen Tauscher, who lives in the neighboring district).  Indeed, Filson's overriding message to the grassroots has been: "Shut up, stop complaining, and start toeing the line."  He even told me that the Democratic clubs in his district are NOT stakeholder groups in the Democratic Party.  For him, the Democratic Party begins and ends with the elected officials.  

There is no fame and precious little glory in the grassroots of the Democratic Party.  Those of us who work at the grassroots do so because we believe in something greater than ourselves.  And it is our hard work that provides the fundament upon which politicians can run their campaigns.  

I do not doubt that Ellen Tauscher or Rahm Emanuel has more power than the grassroots people in CA-11.  But the fact that they hold power ought not to be used to justify a complete disregard for the will and desires of those who toil to give the Democratic Party life and vibrance--those who work to make the Democratic Party about something more meaningful than political power or crude political calculation.

I have no doubt that the DCCC can impose its will on various districts.  But having the power to do something does not imply a license to use that power for whatever ends you might want.  There is something paternalistic and deeply anti-democratic (and hence anti-Democratic) about the actions of the DCCC in these races.  

Ideology is not just what you say, it's what you do and how you do it.  By acting in such a crude manner, the DCCC is changing what it means to be a member of the Democratic Party.  And I deeply resent that.  And I know I'm not the only one.

We are in a historical moment where the possibility presents itself to bring back into the fold many erstwhile, or otherwise latent, Democrats.  We're not going to do it if our party leadership continues to crap on the grassroots and the progressive values we hold dear.    

Visit my blog Say No to Pombo
by Matt Lockshin on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:55:49 PM EST

That's six examples that we know of (3.00 / 2)

There are probably more. Here are the six that I know about:

  1. Chuck Pennacchio
  2. Christine Cegelis
  3. Steve Young
  4. The Filson primary
  5. Scott Mortenson in MN-06
  6. Colleen Rowley in MN-02.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

I'd give you a 4 if I could. Well said.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

Steve Filson, huh?  Pombo's opponents have spent $12,000 in 2000, $554,000 in 2002, and $154,000 in 2004 while polling 38%, 40%, and 39% respectively.  So much for the money is everything philosophy of Rahm Emmanuel.  Half a million just got us up 2%.

How realistic is Filson as an opponent without the grass roots even with all the money and contempt that the DCCC chooses to shovel into the district.  For that matter, Capri Cafaro spent close to $2 million and didn't crack 40% in a district in Ohio that was a lot friendlier than Ohio 2.

The secret of the right wing uis that they play to win for the right wing not for Republicans, per se.  Otherwise, here in NJ< Kean, Jr. would be an incumbent congressman not Scott garrett, etc. etc. etc.

by David Kowalski on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 05:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not hearing... (3.00 / 1)

Is Duckworth a good candidate? Do we know? Do we care? Cegelis has earned it to be sure, but I haven't heard much discussion on Duckworth's viability as a candidate outside of "stealing" the district from Cegelis. Seems to me that this is a significant issue to resolve before staking out the sixth as the war for the heart of the party.
by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:03:11 PM EST

Chicago Party Boss Candidate (none / 0)

I have heard this said about Duckworth before but I have a question about this.  I was under the impression (possibly incorrectly) that Emanuel and Daley were not necessarily close allies.  Is there some division in the Machine?  Could someone more knowledgable in this area clear this up for me.  Thanks.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:05:51 PM EST

Re: Chicago Party Boss Candidate (none / 0)

The reality probably doesn't matter in this case as much as perception and appearance. Emanuel lives in Chicago and Cook county, as does Daley. Emanuel is a part of the party establishment as is Daley. They both pretty much occupy the corporate leaning right side of the party.

"The Chicago/Cook county machine" is not what it used to be before the ascendency of TV in politics as well as anti-patronage court rulings against it. So yes there are splits and internal power struggles, most of which stay within the establishment.

That said, I'm not much of an expert either.

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue
by wegerje on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Party Boss Candidate (none / 0)

""The Chicago/Cook county machine" is not what it used to be before the ascendency of TV in politics as well as anti-patronage court rulings against it."

SAYS WHO???

Go to the Chicago Tribune Website and search for keywords "Hired Truck". The "Machine" is as big and bad as ever, although it's beginning to unravel in the face of these huge scandals.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~Mark Twain
by dabuddy on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 03:51:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Party Boss Candidate (none / 0)

Rahm made it to where he is today by hitching onto Daley's (and David Wilhelm's) coattails. His first big break in politics was doing opposition research for Daley's mayoral campaigns.

Without Daley...And more importantly, Daley's patronage army of precinct workers, Rahm could find HIMSELF vulnerable in '08.

That is a real concern for him, as Daley may well LOSE the next Mayoral election due to this huge scandal. Hell, Daley might even end up in prison...And Rahm has been indirectly implicated, as well.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~Mark Twain
by dabuddy on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 03:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Party Boss Candidate (none / 0)

Very cool. Above all else the Democratic Party should be pushing a Reform Democrat message. We can't do that if our party is controlled by hacks who are as corrupt as DeLay. It doesn't surprise me a bit to hear that Rahm is implicated in a scandal.

 Tell me more. Do you have a link?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 05:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you Chris (3.00 / 2)

As usual I am in complete agreement with you. The DCCC has made an incredibly stupid strategic error in Illinois-06. It is our job to make it abundantly clear to them so that they do not repeat this error in the future.

Happy Holidays Chris. Enjoy your well earned vacation.

Peace,

Andrew
Kirstin Gillibrand for Congress - NY-20
Christine Cegelis for Congress - Il-06

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 10:51:04 PM EST

grassroots support (3.00 / 2)

I got involved in local politics for the first time this summer at the age of 55. The first event I went to happened to be a DFA meetup and Christine Cegelis was there. I found her to be gutsy, smart, and refreshingly direct. It is a joy to be involved in her campaign and I am proud to support her.

Christine is a solid progressive whose base comes from the grassroots. Electing her will be a huge step forward in reclaiming our Democracy from the crooks, the fat cats, and the charlatans.

Regarding Major Duckworth, I say welcome to the process but I find your position statements tentative and vague enough that right won't get too upset. I hope you find some more bold and progressive values and then displace a Republican in some other district in '08; they are leading us to ruin.

by DrXyzzy on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:03:17 PM EST

People seem unfamiliar with Tammy Duckworth (none / 0)

Here's a link to a Crooks and Liars post of a video of an interview she did for an ABC show http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18.html#a6374 .

I honestly don't know enough about either candidate yet to take a side in this debate, but from what I DO know, this definitely isn't a Pennacchio/Casey type of situation at all IMO. Duckworth seems to be a standout candidate. But like I said, I'm still in the learning process.

by Parker Lewis on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 01:27:03 AM EST

Oh (none / 0)

I should probably also say that I know next to nothing about Illinois politics, which seems to be driving a lot of the energy regarding these two candidates. So my opinion is that of an outsider.
by Parker Lewis on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 01:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Illinois Political Primer:

Rule #1: Illinois politics is a FULL CONTACT sport.

Rule #2: See Rule #1.

As far as Duckworth goes, she is simply "window dressing"...Rahm's Purple Heart Poster Child, for his "campaign-in-a-can".

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~Mark Twain
by dabuddy on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 03:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatcha gonna do (none / 0)

To Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC:  Whatcha gonna do when Bush starts bringing the troops home?

What good will your Fighting Dems strategy be then?  You'll have made a lot of enemies for nothing.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 06:13:06 AM EST

The out of touch blogosphere (none / 0)

Don't call me a troll because I've been reading mydd since the '04 primaries, but I think this post proves the limits of the blogosphere, because how many of you have actually met Cegelis?  I know nothing about Duckworth, but I've met Cegelis on several occasions and she doesn't have "It"  I'm sorry for using a term like that, but Cegelis looks good on paper, she's got some good ideas but having met her she lack presence, gravitas if you will, and I've known several other people who thought the same thing.  It's also part of the reason why she never had a good full time fundraising director.  

It could be Duckworth has the same problem, I don't know, I no longer live in Chicago and haven't been following Illinois politics like I did last year.  However, before bashing the DCCC and everyone supporting them, do take some time to think about the subjective that you can't see by just looking at a person's website.  I hope we all know by know by now that presence and personality are just as important for a politician as their ideas.

by LittleOldMe on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 08:23:02 AM EST

Re: The out of touch blogosphere (none / 0)

I live in the district. I worked and contributed to her last campaign. I have heard her speak many times and I totally disagree with you.
by antiHyde on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It"? (none / 0)

she doesn't have "It"

That's ridiculous. Does Dennis Hastert have "it"? "It" is not all "that."

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 03:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Priority: Dem House & Senate (none / 0)

How can we stop the radical right wing policies of the radical Republicans--but have a Dem house and Senate in 2006.  This is a priority.

How can we demand accountability from what we think are abuse of power and the military and incompetence.  We need a Dem House and Senate!

Let us stop the bickering and namecalling and just have a clean primary that will eventually help the Dem candidate not handicapped them.

Duckworth is not Bush or a neocon or a RINO or a Wittman or a Zeill Miller or a Lieberman,  so if she wins the primary,  then grassroots should get behind her.

by jasmine on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:10:40 AM EST

Re: Priority: Dem House &amp; Senate (none / 0)

For a clean primary you need a level playing field. The DCCC has tilted it virtually on its side.

Contributing to the Cegelis campaign only tilts it back to level.

by antiHyde on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Dem House &amp;amp; Senate (none / 0)

Make the race close--to show the power of grassroots.
by jasmine on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Dem House &amp;amp;amp; Senate (none / 0)

Make the playing field level and we win.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 10:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Dem House & Senate (none / 0)

I've got news for you. No playing field in politics is ever gonna be level. You have to deal with what you're given.
by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 07:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Dem House &amp; Senate (none / 0)

I agree in principle, but still don't see undermining fellow Democrats as productive.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 11:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Progressive Dems (none / 0)

If Duckworth wins the primary, we dump her. Duckworth is the DCCC candidate and she is her responsibility after the primary. We should only support progressive Dems that the DCCC and DSCC abandon or ignore.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 03:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Progressive Dems (none / 0)

How is losing because of spiteful infighting better than electing the second best Democrat option? Roskam is not a better option than Duckworth. Talk about revisiting the mistakes of the past.
by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 04:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Priority: Progressive Dems (none / 0)

How is losing because of spiteful infighting better than electing the second best Democrat option?

That's a very good question for Rahm Emanuel. Why is he pouring a million dollars into supporting the second best Democrat?

Roskam is not a better option than Duckworth.

I don't know that. Nobody knows what Duckworth's position is on most of the issues.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 09:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too far Gary (none / 0)

Roskam is a first class Grade A wingnut. Most any Dem is better than that. Plus Roskam doesn't vote for speaker Pelosi.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 11:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's Rahm's problem (none / 0)

Not mine. Let's not allow this to get morphed into a blame shifting exercise by the DCCC. If Roksam wins, it is all on Rahm. I hope voters in Il-06 turn their back on Duckworth if she wins the primary.

If the Democratic Party tries to chop block Steve Young by funding a primary opponent in CA-48, I will actively campaign for the Republican in the general. My allegiance is to my values, not to the Democratic machine.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 05:51:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The big picture is Dem house in '06 (none / 0)

That should be the goal, yes?
by jasmine on