THE DCCC, THE BLOGOSPHERE, AND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS: A SINCERE THANKS AND CHALLENGE

From the diaries, a welcome to John Lapp's & the DCCC's response to the challenge to the DCCC to work with the netroots to contest all the Republicans in the House in 2004. There will also be a report from the ground of Ohio 2nd regarding the DCCC's role in the race; and on TomPaine.com, I've an article posted, More Hackett Jobs, that continues the dialogue, Jerome

I first want to thank Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga for taking the time to come by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  I truly enjoyed the opportunity to hear their views and discuss our vision for the 2006 cycle.  

Let me reiterate here, as stated in our meeting and on MyDD.com, I will keep my commitment.  On our website, by the end of the year, we will list every single Congressional District and those candidates who have the courage to file for Congress.  And we will do our best to update it on a timely basis when new candidates have filed, with the latest contact information so that the grassroots and netroots can get involved.

For those of you who don't know me, I have worked in Democratic politics for over ten years.  After serving as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's Deputy Chief of Staff, I managed Vilsack's successful 2002 re-election campaign.  Before moving to Iowa, I worked in congressional politics, managing the open-seat congressional race for Kentucky Congressman Ken Lucas (a 32- year Republican seat), thereafter serving as Lucas' chief of staff.  Lucas' seat was one of those that would normally have been overlooked by the DCCC, but we ran a disciplined campaign, raised the necessary resources, and aggressively engaged our opponent, squeaking out an upset with the Committee's eventual support.  So I know what it's like to desperately want and need the Committee's support and live in fear of not getting it.  In 2000, I directed the successful effort to take back New York's Second Congressional District (held for eight years by former Congressman Rick Lazio, when he ran against Sen. Clinton), electing Steve Israel to Congress.  Subsequently, I served as Israel's chief of staff.  Before coming to the DCCC, I worked at the media firm Murphy Putnam Shorr. In 2003, I served as the Iowa State Director for Dick Gephardt's presidential campaign.  Dick Gephardt is one of the most decent people I have ever worked for in politics.  Despite a valiant effort and an impressive field operation, we came up short.  I find that you often learn more from the defeats than you do the victories.  I came away more resolved than ever to fight for what we believe in - that's what makes us Democrats.  

I have never worked at the DCCC before.  So I take more of a campaign operative's approach to campaigns - rather than an institutional one.  

I'd like to take this opportunity to share my view of the DCCC, netroots, grassroots, and progressive movements.  For those who don't know, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) serves as the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives. We provide services ranging from designing and helping execute field operations, to polling, creating radio and television commercials, fundraising, communications, and management consulting. The DCCC is a committee organized to empower candidates - help them run successful campaigns and help candidates fight back against unfair attacks from their opponents and the National Republican Congressional Committee.  Help Democrats be the best campaigns they can be.  It is NOT about recruiting national candidates with a Washington message.

But we're just one committee.  One organization.  There's a lot we can do.  But so much more we can't.  That's why movements like MyDD, DailyKos, and others are so important.  We would love to fund every single race.  And when we say we want to expand the playing field we mean it - and we are.  At this time in the 2004 campaign cycle, there were four candidates filed in competitive districts.  This cycle we are well over thirty - not to mention the countless other candidates waging spirited underdog fights across the country.

We would love to fully-fund every prospect, every candidate, and fully contest every race in a meaningful way, but we do offer all candidates advice, training, and general consulting on message, fundraising, research, and organization.  Unfortunately, just as with any organization or enterprise, resources are not infinite.  That is why MyDD, the DailyKos, and the larger blogosphere are so important.  You are critical in the effort to expand the playing field well above and beyond the 30 or 40 districts typically in play.  I would be lying if I said we had the resources to compete in all 200+ Republican districts.  It simply isn't possible.  So I offer MyDD.com, DailyKos, and other progressive movements a direct challenge - help all Democrats.  Get involved.  Work hard.  Donate money.  Persuade.  Motivate.  Change minds.

Netrooters, blogs, and the progressive movement have the flexibility to pick and choose where they support, defend, and fight back.  And they can activate progressive Democrats at a moment's notice in a unique way - above and beyond what we can do.  To view the DailyKos, MyDD.com, and other progressive, activist movements as simply Internet-based ATM machines is to insult them and underestimates their power to inform, activate, persuade, and mobilize.  They are fully-loaded message machines.  Let me be clear - I value not only your financial support to our candidates, but also the larger role you provide in the Democratic activist community.  

Periodically, I send out a Battleground Brief to DCCC online subscribers.  In the brief, I feature candidates that have the best chance of succeeding in takeover opportunities.  We would be remiss in our mission at the DCCC if we didn't do so.  We also feature upstart candidates putting forth valiant efforts in underdog campaigns.  But we certainly do not have the monopoly on good ideas.

For instance, were it not for a strong grassroots and netroots movement, Melissa Bean would not be in Congress.  Thank you for your support in that effort and many other victories and near victories.  Campaigns matter.  The Democratic Party matters. And the progressive blogosphere matters.  There is too much at stake.  We must work together where we can.  Agree to disagree where we can't.  But at the end of the day we are family working together in a common cause.

I want to take a moment to discuss the recent special election in Ohio's Second Congressional District and the thoughts behind our strategy.  Here are the facts:

"Democrats nominated Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett.  But the August 2nd general election in this heavily Republican district was expected to be a mere formality."  -- The Almanac of American Politics, 2006.

Important Facts about the District:

  •     "The most Republican major metropolitan area in the nation over the longest time span has been Cincinnati" --The Almanac of American Politics, 2006.

  •     President Bush beat Senator Kerry here, 64% to 36%. --The Almanac of American Politics, 2006.

  •     In the 1998-2004 elections, former Congressman Rob Portman received over 70% of the vote. --The Almanac of American Politics, 2006.

  •     Out of the 18 districts Ohio districts, OH-02 is one of the three most Republican districts in Ohio, where Bush won overwhelmingly. -- The Almanac of American Politics, 2006.

  •     In the 2005 primaries, 45,000 Republicans voted compared to just 13,800 Democrats.  -- CNN Morning Grind, August 2, 2005.

  •     Yet ... the NRCC spent over half a million dollars to hold this rock-solid Republican    -- FEC Reports.  

    In nearly the biggest political upset in recent history, Democrat Paul Hackett came within just a few thousand votes of defeating Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio's Second Congressional District.  This is considered by many to be an early sign of widespread discontent with the Republican Congress around the country.  

As DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel said, "This election is a shockwave of voter discontent that will be felt all across the country.  Tonight we have seen rock solid Republicans say that they have had enough of a Congress that is in the grips of the special interests, roiled by ethics investigations and doing nothing to help solve the pressing challenges facing the middle class.  Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice."

We at the DCCC bucked the conventional wisdom and stood by Paul Hackett.

In an overwhelmingly Republican District, the Republicans were in the fight of their lives.  The NRCC dumped over a half million dollars into this race - one that just went for Bush 64%, only nine short months ago.  The combination of Governor Taft's fiscal mismanagement and ethical problems - not to mention the ethics problems facing Jean Schmidt had the Republicans pulling the fire alarm, emptying out their coffers, and spending over a half million dollars.  The National Republican Congressional Committee was so worried about defections from the base that they even took the extraordinary step of contacting every Republican household with robocalls from President Bush.  We stood by a guy who stood by his country in battle.  All along, we knew this had to be one of the districts where everything had to go right.  Because of what we were picking up on the ground, there were trends making it more competitive than the usual partisan generics ... people angry about the problems Ohioans are facing - Governor Taft, and even Schmidt herself.  And it speaks to the anti-incumbent, anti-establishment, anti-Republican climate all across the country. Everyone talks about the Democrats losing because of exurbs, and fast growing areas. That is one the principal talking points about the 2004 election.  This district includes all of Clermont and most of Warren, which are two of the fastest growing exurbs in Ohio. If Democrats can gain, even minimally in the exurbs, they will be able to score major gains in 2006.  Take a look at Paul Hackett - how much he outperformed Sen. John Kerry in these suburban and exurban counties:

Adams County
Kerry: 36 percent
Hackett: 52 percent

Brown County
Kerry: 36 percent
Hackett: 56 percent

Clermont County
Kerry: 29 percent
Hackett: 42 percent

Pike County
Kerry: 48 percent
Hackett: 63 percent

We are proud of what Paul Hackett accomplished ... what we all accomplished.  We knew if this race simply became weeks and weeks of Spy vs. Spy/NRCC vs. DCCC, it would become a Republican smear campaign of national liberal vs. Bush conservative, and we would lose that fight.  This needed to be a local race about local issues - pitting a principled Iraq War veteran against an ethically-challenged typical politician.  So we tracked, worked under the radar, and planned for a last-minute television and mail campaign.  That it was this close, in such a Republican District, should have Republicans worried - from coast to coast - particularly Ohio Congressman Bob Ney who is facing the possibility of an ethics investigation of his own.  The Republicans should have been able to put this away - without spending a dime.  That they had to spend over $500,000 in one week - speaks volumes.  That it was this close, in such a Republican District, should have Republicans worried - from coast to coast.

And we are targeting other historically rock-solid Republican districts currently occupied by the likes of GOP Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Bob Ney.  Allegations of ethical improprieties ... pay-to-play ... casinos ... and outright intimidation has left these members and many other Republicans much more vulnerable than they should be.  And we have good candidates who have filed against them or are on the verge of filing to run for Congress.  The only way to get more Melissa Beans in Congress is to take on the conventional wisdom and expand the playing field - challenging more incumbents and competing in more open seats.

After ten years of Republican control of Congress, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay and his allies in Congress are determined to undo all that we have accomplished. The GOP wants to eliminate Social Security; privatize Medicare; dramatically scale back needed investments in education; ignore our national energy challenges; and open up our air and water systems to industry pollution and consumption for profit. And internationally, President Bush and the Republican leadership would have the United States "go it alone" in dangerous conflicts around the globe ignoring the small interconnected planet on which we all live.  We cannot let Tom DeLay and the Republican Congress continue to derail and intimidate in their quest to overrule our American priorities.  Their abuse of power is shocking.  Their open contempt for what we believe in is astounding.  We can stop them.  But only with your help.

With only 15 seats to go, the DCCC is prepared for a very competitive 2006 election cycle. The failed economic policies and misplaced priorities of President George W. Bush and House Republican Leader Tom DeLay have improved the political climate for Democrats and created an opportunity to achieve significant Democratic gains.

We are counting on you to help us. The DCCC is supported by the contributions of individuals and other groups from throughout the country who are committed to returning the People's House to the people of this country. I welcome your comments.  And hope we have the opportunity to meet in person and online often during this campaign cycle.  And most importantly - work together.

Please be sure to visit us at dccc.org often.  Blog.  Criticize us when we're wrong.  Maybe throw us an occasional compliment if we're right.  If you haven't been there yet, please visit dccc.org and our blog at blog.dccc.org.  And I will be sure to continue to visit MyDD.com, DailyKos.com, and other political blogs often as well.

Thanks.


Display:


Maybe Bean (none / 0)

was not such a good example... considering that she bit the hand that helped her and voted for CAFTA.

This is not a one way street... nor an ATM. Candidates are funded and supported to uphold Democratic values. Bean and others may have damaged some of that trust in the actions in Washington.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:37:19 PM EST

agreed (3.00 / 1)

yea, you really don't want to use melissa bean as an example right about now.  

if you read the blogs, then you should know she is an object of our ire right now.  i don't give a crap whether she has a D next to her name; she voted for CAFTA and therefore she isn't getting a dime from me.  and she certainly won't get any "wow we gotta help bean get re-elected" posts either.

she sold us out.  screw her.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not ATMs (3.00 / 6)

This is certainly not a one way street nor an ATM.  And again, I want to reiterate that is a mistake and an insult to treat MyDD, DailyKos, and others as ATMs.  

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:40:11 PM EST

Re: Not ATMs (3.00 / 2)

Thank you for your reply.

We are desperate for strong Democratic representation in Washington. However, to me that does not mean "any Dem will do". I concurr with your assessment of the Hackett campaign. The one thing that stands out is that Hackett is PROUD to be a Democrat and did not throw overboard the Democratic Platform in order to "win at all costs". This is also why so many netroots and grassroots (Democracy for America played a big part in funding and feet on the street for Hackett.) came out in numbers.

Hackett shows integrity and pride in being a Democrat not a lite version of the GOP. According to popular myth this should have spelled disaster in such a "red" area... but it didn't. I hope that the folks at DCCC take notice and stop the knee jerk reactions of putting up GOP-lite Dems in reddish areas. As we see a Dem who is confident in being a Dem and is proud of the Democrat platform and who is qualified and has strength of character ...can run anywhere.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dccc is just one part of the team (none / 0)

this is a key point. Democrats should challenge every seat - but that doesn't mean the DCCC, with its finite resources, should do so. Blogs, the DNC, state and local organisations, DFA, all these groups must jump in as well.

I am encouraged, however, that they are at least expanding the field beyond what it has been in past cycles.

by swatdem on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:57:00 PM EST

Why wait? (3.00 / 1)

A bit complaint I'm getting is that the DCCC waits too long--I get your point above about entering the race early and entirely agree, but a lot of activists both on-line and off don't understand the dynamic between the Party's committees--could you explain a bit more why the DCCC waited?

And it's entirely fine to not do it today, but another point is explaining to such folks more transparently how decisions are made by the DCCC and the competing pressures.  

Thanks,
Larry Handlin

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:07:37 PM EST

Expanding the Field for Real... (none / 0)

So glad to hear that.  We'd love to play in every Republican District.  Unfortunately resources are not unlimimted.  But we will have the resources to be competitive.  But with more help, more support, more strategy, more mobilization, more ideas.  The more the merrier, in my opinion.  More players, more candidates, more battles.  MORE.  Go, fight, win.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:09:14 PM EST

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (none / 0)

We'd love to play in every Republican District.  Unfortunately resources are not unlimimted.

There are Democrats everywhere.  You're just making the same bad choices and claiming a lack of resources as the issue.

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (none / 0)

I would like to see all the seats in the House disected into 5 categories by the DCCC and the blogsphere. People living in these districts know better than someone in DC the dynamics that could make a solid Republican district vulnerable.  For instance,  KS-1 is a seat that it would probably be foolish to challenge, because Rep. Moran is a moderate and defeating him in rural Western Kansas would be impossible.  However, KS-2 & KS-4 are both districts, that with the right challenger and a good campaign are doable. KS-2 maybe more than 4, but both are less Republican that OH-2, and given a straight talker with a good organization, they can be had.  

I would argue that on the outside looking in, most would say that are a lost cause and time shouldn't be spent recruiting candidates and organizing.  If you believe that, then Democrats will continue to be in the minority.  Right now, people everywhere need to assess their own congressional district and decide whether it is in one of five places.  Solid Democratic, Lean Democratic, Swing, etc..  From that analysis, the progressive blogsphere need to organize around the districts that can be won and help find more Paul Hackett's and give them to help they need to win.  We won't win them all, but we can make Republican's defend themselves and in return have less opportunities to help other engandered Republicans.  2006 is the year to do this and it is incumbent on all of us to make sure it happens.

by sandzen on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

help candidates start (3.00 / 1)

>Unfortunately resources are not unlimimted.

You don't need unlimited resources to give $10k seed money to all Republican districts.  A small chunk, $200-300k would ensure that voters have a choice in every area of the country.  Obviously, you can't spend $1 million on every district.  But a small amount could go a long way towards helping the Democratic party.  Who knows?  There could be 4-5 Paul Hacketts in the 150 "not competitive" districts and a couple of them could win.

by hotshotxi on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (3.00 / 1)

We'd love to play in every Republican District.  Unfortunately ...

Will you please wrap your goddamn head around this simple concept:  THERE ARE NO REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS.

There are districts that, for now, have to make do with one of Tom Delay's cronies representing them in Congress.  There are districts where, in the past, Republican politicians haven't been called to account for their incompetence and corruption.  But there are NO districts that belong to the GOP.  

Language matters, and if you are content to describe a congressional district -- which almost certainly is home to tens if not hundreds of thousands of Democrats -- as a "Republican District," then you're talking the language of defeat.

We're fighting a political insurgency, and insurgents don't ever win by restricting their area of operations to a few limited districts here and there.  That just makes it easier for the government to concentrate its superior firepower and wipe them out.  

You may not be able to win everywhere, but you HAVE to be willing to fight everywhere.  Where we won't fight, we can't win.

I don't expect to see victory everywhere, but I'll tell you I damned well do expect to see us conceding nowhere.

by Californian on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (none / 0)

Yeah right. Try running a blue candidate in Utah. Your point of view is clearly californian.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (none / 0)

Have you ever heard of Orange County? That's where I live. You talk like conservatism is a foreign concept in California.

Orange County is home to B-1 Bob Dornan and Dana Rohrabacher. California has large swaths of very red counties. Rep. Bill Thomas has a safe seat. David Dreir has been re-elected for about 20 years now. Duke Cunningham had a safe seat until he got too greedy.

Like most large states our major cities and population centers tend to be blue with very big chunks of red and dark purple in between.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (none / 0)

Ah yes. Those large swaths of red California territory. The state of stem cell funding, gay marriage, and plenty of legal good icky sticky kind buds. How republicans always lose the state's electoral bounty when it is the very bosom of conservativism, the world shall always ponder.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Expanding the Field for Real... (3.00 / 1)

You don't need unlimited resources to run a candidate in every district. Set aside $200,000 and give $10,000 to get a Democrat on the ballot against every Republican held seat. It is not always about the chance of winning as Chris and Jerome have said over and over. It is about getting the message out and showing Democrats everywhere that the party cares about their votes whether it is in swing state Ohio or red state Utah. In fact, I bet if the DCCC held an internet fundraiser to raise $200,000 for this stated purpose, it could be achieved in a weekend.
by Matt42 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Candidate Recruitment (none / 0)

Another great bit--whether you can do it today or not, is to describe candidate recruitment.  Another constant refrain I hear is that the DCCC doesn't recruit very well.

The flip side of the complaint often made at the same time is that DCCC tries to sabotage legit contenders for their preferred candidates in open seats---obviously these contradict each other, but when I attempt to explain how the DCCC works and often defend decisions you all make, these are some of the biggest issues.

And yes, I can be critical of DCCC from time to time, but generally I'm rather amazed at what you can do with relatively limited resources.  

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:10:59 PM EST

Re: Candidate Recruitment (none / 0)

Recruiting is going extremely well -- with recruits in competitive districts all across the country.  And helping find good candidates is just the beginning.  We need to get these folks the resources they need to have strong first quarter showings, go toe-to-toe with the Republicans.
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candidate Recruitment (3.00 / 1)

Recruiting is going extremely well -- with recruits in competitive districts all across the country.

This is loser mentality.  Who determines competitive?  You do.  Are your metrics good?  Who the fuck knows?

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this really is a good question (3.00 / 1)

it would  be nice if you would lay some nuts and bolts out for us john.

like... what criteria do you use to categorise districts into "competitive", "non competitive", "on the edge", etc etc?

what is your threshold for backing a candidate financially?  for example we all know that sometimes the dtrip sits on their hands and lets a longshot or "on the edge" candidate prove they can raise money before the dtrip gets involved.  me, i think you could help more by raising the candidate's profile.  i think logically that once a candidate gets publicity it is easier for them to raise money in many cases.

i just don't get your criteria.  can you please elaborate?

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this really is a good question (none / 0)

I'd say this would be a great topic just for transparency--and maybe not today, but on the Stakeholder.  
by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i don't care, as long as we get answers (none / 0)

i just want to understand how their process works. i can only pontificate on what i see from out here in the hinterlands.  but once you know what's really going on you get a better perspective.  that's all i'm asking for.  hope they respond.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this really is a good question (3.00 / 1)

My position entirely.  It seems that the DCCC focuses on the races they deem important, while ignoring others that may be more important.  I think the people in  the state and districts have a much better feel for the vulnerability of a particular incumbent than someone in DC.  The progressive blogsphere need to help identify districts they feel would be competitive and help find candidates.  If the DCCC won't help, then let the netroots do it.  Many of these supposedly Goliath Republicans can be taken down with the right challenger and campaign.  
by sandzen on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

While I do concur, (none / 0)

I also know that nearly every person running thinks that they will win.

I mean... I would, were I running.  I also know that the DCCC has to decide, at the end of the day, where to put your power.

I'd just like to see some 'riskier' races get some love.

by teknofyl on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh yeah, "competitive" (none / 0)

How do you know what's a "competitive" district?  By your stupid analysis, Paul Hackett wouldn't have a chance and therefore, because of "resource constraints" wouldn't deserve any help.

Give me a break.  Fact is, there hasn't been a serious challenge to Republican control of the House  at all over the past decade, and the way you're going, there won't be one next year.

by hotshotxi on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candidate Recruitment (3.00 / 1)

What kind of candidates are you recruiting?

I live in CA-19 and if I'm not mistaken, the DCCC is going to run Lex Bufferd agian. Why?
That guy crashed and burned last time and was hardly worth the vote.

by Houston on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Dave Loebsack says hi (none / 0)

He was my college advisor.  
by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:12:36 PM EST

Re: And Dave Loebsack says hi (none / 0)

Say hello to Dave Loebsack for me as well.  I have been getting all of his e-mail updates.
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why we waited... (none / 0)

We made a strategic decision.  In order for Paul Hackett to have a fair fight, this needed to be about Hackett vs. Schmidt, not the Spy vs. Spy/DCCC vs. NRCC "national liberal" vs. "Bush conservative," typical NRCC playbook smear campaign.  Waiting until the very end (we monitored this closely and weighed in right at the last moment -- had prepared our ad and mail for a long time), allowed Hackett to establish a dialogue on his terms, as the straight talking vet vs. the typical, ethically-challenged politician.  After establishing the race on his terms, we provided him with air cover to tell the true story about Schmidt.  We were proud to stand by our guy who stood up for us.  Loved the contrast.  Paul Hackett is a great American.
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:14:33 PM EST

Re: Why we waited... (none / 0)

No, you waited until the blogs created a huge upswell and started generating massive revenue and interest in the campaign. Sorry, but I don't believe you for a second John. Your bragging about that sellout Melissa Bean is all the reason I need to doubt the effectiveness and good intentions of the DCCC. Knowing her traitorous voting record on issues so important to Democrats, will the DCCC look to run someone against her in the primary?
by Prison4BushCo on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we waited... (none / 0)

Median voter theorem might be one reason. Do you want Dave McSweeney or Kathi Salvi as the next representative of the IL-08?  I can guarantee neither of them would have gotten drilling in the Great Lakes permanently banned.  I can also guarantee that the will pursue a right wing social agenda.  

Bean's inexcusable vote was on the Bankruptcy Bill, but every other vote fits that District well.  Of all the anger out there, why not target those in safe seats who didn't have specific electoral reasons for voting for it?

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 3)

Melissa Bean and candidates like her IS the problem.  Forget about CAFTA - you still don't get our argument.

If you examine House patterns, you'll find that big shifts change the balance of power, but picking up seats here and there doesn't.  This is a House-specific trend (the Senate is different, but you guys are the DCCC).  This is because people won't vote against their local guy unless they think that there's a problem with the majority in power.  They'd prefer the pork.  We have to make a convincing case that giving up the pork is worth it.  Your strategy hinges on picking off seats here and there with local issues, but the Republicans will always have more to use to fight this battle.  We have to fight smarter and better, not make this an issue of resources.  The reason the netroots is different is not because we raise money - we really don't raise that much - it's because we leverage what we do have.

You guys don't do that.  And you should.

So I offer MyDD.com, DailyKos, and other progressive movements a direct challenge - help all Democrats.  Get involved.  Work hard.  Donate money.  Persuade.  Motivate.  Change minds.

If you want to not condescend to the blogs then don't condescend to the blogs.  We already DO this.

My problem though is that you're still looking at this as a resource issue, and it's not.  It's a commitment issue.  Sure you're willing to praise us, but we don't want praise, we want you to start acting competently.

Oh, and by the way, if you were acting in 'secret', why didn't you tell anyone in the blogs about it and ask them to keep it quiet, sort of like a registered letter?  I just have to take your word that you were secretly working on this fight despite an institutional history of fucking over competitive Democrats in non-targeted states.

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:16:12 PM EST

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

Sorry to hear that.  Please look at the FEC Reports.  As I said in my opening, this is my first time working at the DCCC.  I'm proud of what Paul Hackett did.  He's proud of the work of the DCCC.  And couldn't be more appreciative of MyDD, DailyKos, and other efforts.  I'm hoping we can use our energy in more constructive ways, helping each other ... instead of eating our own.  Makes me sad to think how much negative energy is being spewed out there ... resources squandered ... opportunities lost.
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 3)

That you are implying that I am not helping and that criticism is just negative energy shows just how much you have to learn.

If you want me to look at FEC reports you might want to be clear about what the hell you are talking about.

And why should I help you? I do remember the ads Gephardt's people launched against Dean in the primary.  Have you ever apologized?  Has Gephardt ever apologized for selling out the country and the Democrats in the approach to war?  I know what he did, swapping that resolution so he could stand with the President.  Why won't you admit fault?  What is wrong with you people that you call incompetence roses and then expect us to trust you?

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 0)

He wants you to look at the FEC reports because they will contain a written record of what assistance the DCCC provided and when they provided it to Paul Hackett, as well as to any other Democratic candidate.

And his point is that you don't have to just trust him on it. You can look it up.

by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

Why is he making me do the work to explain his behavior?  He came here, remember?
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

What, you want him to read them to you?
by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

I want him to explain the facts.  He didn't do that.  He just said 'go to the FEC'.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 0)

That's where the facts are. And you'll be able to read them at your leisure, and mull them over without having to have you both be at your computers to yell at one another for hours on end.

You want to know what the DCCC did and didn't do, and it's all going to be there in black and white. Why you think it makes you look more serious to insist he spoon-feed it to you, I don't know.

by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (2.00 / 0)

Oh fuck off and stop lying about what I said and what he said.  It doesn't suit you.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

Gee, that sounded awfully tough. Are you going to beat me up now?

Talk about not suiting...

by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

This is kind of not relevant, but I think it's kind of funny that two dudes named Kagro X and Socialnetworker are quasi-threatening each other on a blog about politics.

Could this get geekier?

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

It certainly could. One of them could realize how geeky it looks and try to put a stop to it, and the other one could say so out loud.

Anyway, so I did your homework for you. The DCCC spent almost $285,000 on the race.

by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

I don't see how that changes anything.  I never claimed that the DCCC wasn't in the race, just that their claim that they were in early and were secretive about it was suspect.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 09:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

Ah, see, now this is one of the reasons you shouldn't have other people do your research for you. Only you can keep straight what you're looking for. How many times over by now might you have retrieved the information yourself?
by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, but I know IL-8 relatively well, and I don't see what other kind of candidate you would have get elected from there---is a pro-choice woman who just worked to ban permanently oil drilling in the Great Lakes worse than Phil "the Fossil" Crane?

Beyond that, if you haven't noticed, one of the more effective issues DCCC has been concentrating on is corruption and using the DeLay and Cunningham scandals as a framing tool for 1994.  While the press talks about the Contract on America, I believe 1994 was more about scandals than policy.  

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

Archpundit is spot on.

It is critical that the story of pay-to-play, abuse of power, ethical scandals ... all at the expense of working people -- higher gas prices, sham prescription drug plan, stagnant wages ... is told.

We have a moral obligation to tell this story.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

Argh.  Stop giving me talking points and address my argument.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 1)

Oh come on.  Don't tell me that the only kind of Democrat that can win there is a pro-business Republican-lite.  Paul Hackett, by all measures very progressive, came within less than 4 points in the most conservative district in Ohio.  He didn't do that by triangulating and "moderating" his message or "moving to the center," he did that by telling it how it is and standing proud to be a Democrat.
Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

And how many Paul Hackett's are there that can be that dynamic?  

Beyond that, the infrastructure in that area for what few Dems there are like Bean.  Jack Franks is the prime example, but it's also much different from Hackett's district. The population in IL-08 are suburban moderates or exurban voters--no serious rural areas and no urban African-American areas even to be a base.  

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

And how many Paul Hackett's are there that can be that dynamic?

As many as we create and recruit.

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

You missed my point entirely.  I was making a strategic argument not ragging on Bean.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 0)

No, you miss my point which is also strategic.  Ignoring local issues and local concerns is just as stupid as only paying attention to them as you are accusing the DCCC of doing.  Bean fits her district pretty well. I think her vote on the Bankruptcy bill was a shame, but I get her votes in the other cases even when I disagree with her.  

We aren't going to get a Jan Schakowsky clone in IL-8.  

The DCCC is framing the debate more effectively than any time I can remember on corruption and that's an incredibly powerful issue in all districts, but also candidates who can first establish credentials as concerned about local issues have to be in place or they won't connect with a District.

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

WE CAN NOT BE JUST AGAINST THE GOP

DAMN IT!!! we need to stand up for something. and hell yeah that means we have to have an ideology...not just committed to wining elections at any cost.

I keep seeing this meme floating on the blogs that the Dems new raison d'etre is to fight corruption...

FUCK THAT

We have a hell of a lot more to do including protecting womens's reproductive rights, arming a defense for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2007, strengthening the economc, protecting the environment.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (3.00 / 1)

Last I checked running government above board is an issue and it's one that's worth fighting.  It's not the only issue, but it has many advantages.  

First, throwing the bums out and doing it based on being on the take has a long history of winning campaigns at every level.  

Second, it connects the entire party.

Third, the Republicans seem hell bent on leaving it for us to take and run with...never get in the way of a good self-immolation.

Fourth, it's the right thing to do.  

You are right it can't be the only issue and it isn't, but it sure provides a great frame to run on--and you'll notice it was used very effectively in Hackett's race.

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

It is a RUSE!!!

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but i don't trust you (none / 0)

What do you think caused the 1994 wave for Republicans?  Ultimately, reallignment was going to hit, but it had to be helped along by a specific strategy--attacking incumbent corruption.  
by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Curious (3.00 / 0)

You're done with Melissa Bean because of CAFTA.   What issue would have made you done with Paul Hackett?  Is CAFTA your only issue or is there an whole litany that every Democrat must support every time to be worthy of your support?

by InigoMontoya on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Curious (none / 0)

This was down right pathetic and not necessary. Since the DLC/NDN is prying our Dems away from a Democratic IDEOLOGY they just sell their votes to the higest bidder.

Bean's actions were disgraceful and LOW!!!

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Curious (3.00 / 0)

Your response suggests that the only explanation is a cynical one, that it is impossible for a Democrat to disagree out of conviction, and that corporate money is the only explanation for such a vote.

Obviously, this is a hot-button issue for you.  

But I ask again:  what other issues are you willing to impose a "my way or the highway" approach for support?  

Should I have not given money to Hackett because his is pro-gun?   Because he is not as environmentally liberal as I am?  Because he's tepid on healthcare?

Do you vote for someone to vote as you would or do you vote for someone to exercise their judgment?
 

by InigoMontoya on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you want a laundry list? (none / 0)

Here are my top favorite reasons to oppose the DLC and related Dem organizations:

CAFTA
Bankruptcy restrictions
Class Action lawsuit restrictions
The Exxon Welfare Bill
The Inheritance Tax

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

glad to see you trying for relevance (2.16 / 6)

My perspective on the OH-02 election is that the DCCC was fucking irrelevant because you were too cowardly to fight early. When Hackett came to you at the beginning, you blew him off. When he won the primary, you looked at the numbers and sat on your ass. When you did come in, it was great -- but way too late.

I love the ad you did, it would have been nice for people to see it before the final weekend. The DCCC sent some serious people at the end and they kicked ass, but it was too little, too late.

You fucked up, the blogs stepped up, and EVERYONE saw that your cowardly targeting was total fucking bullshit.

Right now, I think the DCCC is totally fucking irrelevant (members of the media can quote me on that as some of your colleagues already have). Get your shit together, but until that happens I don't think a single god damn dime should go to the DCCC and when I get home tomorrow I'm going to be working the phones, calling big donors with that exact message.

The DNC is kicking ass with the 50 state strategy and the contrast between the DNC and the DCCC couldn't be clearer.

If people want donate to some Fighting Democrats, here you go.

Thanks for posting on MyDD, this is a good start. But institutionally I think the DCCC is FUBAR. I could really care less whether you get your act together, because as OH-02 showed everyone, we'll step up and do it ourselves.

by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:18:04 PM EST

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Are you kidding me right now?  BLOGS DO NOT WIN ELECTIONS.  They are like yard signs; they do not vote!  If you're going to take credit for the Hackett race, you better be able to prove that you did something besides sit at your computer and fucking BLOG about it!
by Fancy McGee on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kiss my ass (3.00 / 2)

The netroots outspent the NRCC and if you just want to look at hard numbers, the netroots were three times as relevant as the DCCC.

More importantly, when Tim and I were on the ground, the campaign had the ability to communicate in real time. When Schmidt lied about Noe, who do you think found the info that let Hackett hold a press conference on the courthouse steps and call bullshit?

Tim and I are putting together a longer piece on the race, it will be up on Swing State Project soon.

by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kiss my ass (none / 0)

I'm fucking in for $100.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your giving to the DCCC (none / 0)

Didn't you see I just put up a virtual picket line?
by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your giving to the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

I'm giving to blogpac.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your giving to the DCCC (none / 0)

not until I understand where its "ideologies" lie. There has been some scary stuff floating around by some of the founders of BlogPac about "any Dem will do"... don't think so.
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

eh? (none / 0)

what are you reading?  links please?
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: eh? (none / 0)

this
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

gotcha (none / 0)

i don't claim to speak for markos, but i know exactly what he's talking about.  he's talking about the qualities that hackett embodied: strength, pride, and a willingness to fight.

honestly, at this point, that's about all it's going to take for me to support someone.  i can even write off crappy votes if the candidate or representative will just stand up and fight (ala dean, hackett, etc).

obviously you hope that said candidate will also be "right" on the positions (for me, that'd be pro choice, pro personal liberty, anti corruption, pro environment, just to name a few).  but you can't always be assured of that.

what we at blogpac have in common is the willingness to fight. we are not all ideologically on the same page, but we all agree that we have to fight hard to win and challenge every race that we can.  we won't support wimps, and i'm sure it's acceptable to the other board members if i say that out loud.

i dunno. if you have any more questions, feel free to get in  touch.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: gotcha (none / 0)

At blogPAC we know that the only viable alternative to the current admin in Washington is the democrats.

One step at a time.

Action for Reaction
by hfiend on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: gotcha (none / 0)

There is no right or wrong.

The fundalmentalist are attacking women reproductive rights in an unpresidented manner. This is not the time to niggle about who's right or wrong on this issue... there is only ONE way that is acceptable. We stand up for Roe or you can kiss this party good bye.

Because it doesn't just stop with Roe, is what these foolish idiots don't seem to grasp. They are already going after womens rights to use any and all contraception. They won't stop until are barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen...preferably wearing a shador.

College campuses have emerged as the latest battlefield in the nation's war on women's reproductive rights. Wisconsin has passed a bill entitled UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343. This bill prohibits University of Wisconsin campuses from prescribing, dispensing and advertising all forms of birth control and emergency contraceptives. Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced this bill based on the belief that "dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity."

So Kos, can cut deals with his own life and healthcare and leave mine and other women out of his losing "political strategy".

ROE IS NON-NEGOTIABLE

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks (none / 0)

I have to go catch a plan (because unlike John Lapp I flew into district), but don't worry, I'll have much, much more...
by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

Bob -- so glad you flew in.  I hope you had a good experience with the DCCC staff on the ground.  As you may know, I was working on the Independent Expenditure side of the DCCC -- therefore prohibited by law from coordinating with the campaign.
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (2.00 / 0)

Ah, I see. You're just a "staff puke," because you weren't "on the ground."

Where have I heard that ridiculous charge before?

by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

Sorry Kagro X. I think you may be reading a little too much into that statement. We have enough legitimate beefs with the party apparatchiks without manufacturing dittohead accusations.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:47:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

I think I'm not.

There are legitimate beefs, and there are legitimate beefs. In the fabulous age of the global Internets, where you park your hindquarters is among the weakest possible beefs to put forward.

Yet, here it is, front and center. Because weak as it is, it's also one of the very easiest.

by Kagro X on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

Kagro the snarkiness in your comments is hilarious, do continue.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

I like sly snark as much as the next guy, and I probably engage in it more than I should have, but this was actually meant to be taken seriously.

This was a low-down, baseless complaint, at least as it applies to Lapp. A cheap shot in the midst of what could actually be a substantive listing of grievances. Lapp's "rear echelon actions" put $285K into this race, and while there might have been more, or it might have come sooner, or what have you, it came. And from what latitude and longitude he signed the checks makes no difference to me.

But it was near at hand, so it got used.

by Kagro X on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (3.00 / 0)

Just goes to show some people are simply ungrateful babies. Some of them are questioning why there is a DCCC at all? I guess all that money should have stayed in the bank of donors.

I'm curious...is Hackett also complaining about the DCCC? Nah, didn't think so.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

Let's just say that it goes to show that some people haven't yet discovered the ways in which they can work constructively with the DCCC. And maybe those ways haven't been invented yet.

I'm not very happy with what's going on right now, and I think it refelcts a fundamental misunderstanding of what the DCCC is, what it isn't, what it can do, what it can't, and how to change what we can change about it.

The chest-thumping is irritating to me, but I also recognize that it's a tactic for attracting support, without which those engaging in it will have even less leverage than they have now in seeking to change the way the institutional arms of the party approach challenger races.

Working this out will require that they back off some. But it'll require the same from those on your side of the fence as well.

Me? I'm, uh, a superior being, or something.

by Kagro X on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kiss my ass (none / 0)

metonym, nowhere did I see Bob Brigham take credit for OH-02. He did take exception to Mr. Lapp coming out of the DCCC offices and taking credit and challenging bloggers to do something that they've been doing very well.

As far as your statement:
"I believe mobilization and organization wins a campaign.  I also believe a more egalitarian approach where real coalescence occurs instead of finger pointing, profanity and self-aggrandizement will win an election.  Blogging as I say it on the Swing State Project was comprised of statements about Bob Brigham's location and proximity to Hackett.  That is not valuable information, and frankly, no one cares.  What we do care about are locations for meetings, talking points, instructions for bombarding the media, instructions for doing productive research, organization brainstorming, etc."
 If you don't think that diaries on Swing State Project, Daily Kos, MyDD and others didn't provide mobilization, boots on the ground, useful information, links to media sites, loads of cash, etc., then I think you have had your head buried in the sand. (I'm being polite as I'm sure others will say you had your head somewhere else). It was various blogs that brought national attention to this race. As a matter of fact it was Tim Tagaris' blog "What a difference a day makes" that motivated me and many others to make their first of many donations to the Hackett campaign.

by Prison4BushCo on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

a springboard for their own vulgar bourgeois aspirations.

What kind of ridiculous accusation is that? Was There Is No Crisis and ego trip? If Bob Brigham is a huckster then he's my huckster.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

Hold your horses! Is this harsh language coming from the same guy who was troll rating people for using "vulgarity" in other posts? Shame.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What an ass (1.00 / 0)

This is a flame war you dip shit. Different rules apply and when did horse shit become profanity? Your snark is as lame as your comments.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What an ass (3.00 / 0)

Tsk, tsk. Anymore personal attacks and I will be forced to zero them out in the interest of upholding higher community standards.

A flame war! Ah, how juvenile. That explains why you would assume that "shit" is not profane -- indeed, likewise explaining why it is used so expressly on Nickelodeon.

Rules? Perhaps you'd like to point out the official MyDD rules that distinguish between levels of profanity and when such rules apply? Oh, there are no such rules? Conspiracy! It must be related to the DLC baby-eaters!

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:06:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What an ass (none / 0)

Btw, I know you're pretty slow on the news, but perhaps you noticed the recent uproar regarding Novak's "bullshit" outburst on CNN live tv that got him suspended. Perhaps you would like to argue that "horse shit" and "bull shit" are two very different things? Oh I know! If only Novak had said "that's horse shit" instead, we could all go about our business as usual.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What an ass (none / 0)

If you want to be the PC Profanity cop who rags on anyone who uses a variant of "shit" be my guest. It will keep you very busy. Since you object to horseshit, how about bullshit? Is bullshit on your PC Correctness Radar screen?

Is it acceptable to ask someone "No shit?"

Jeesh.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:21:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Split personality? (none / 0)

It's about time you migrate to sensible netiquette. Next time keep this conversation in mind when you think about troll-rating someone for using profanity, Mr. PC Profanity cop.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:06:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

let us know (3.00 / 0)

Bob, in your piece, I hope you will explain what you and Tim did for the campaign. That is, and I'm sure this will be perceived as unfair, my sense from reading your posts is that you were not actually knocking on doors or organizing in the field at any point. Now thats fine, not everyone does that in a campaign; you were obviously working hard to raise a lot of money and encourage others to volunteer.

But where I'm going with this is, to put in perspective for those of us who were not there, why the hostility towards the DCCC? My understanding, from your writing and other stories on this campaign, is that the DCCC helped Hackett set up his field operation and office after he won the primary and then waited to see if it would be competitive before committing more money, which it did then.

So I wonder how accurate all the claims are here about how the "netroots" made this race competitive and others did not.

I mean, all those DC surrogates, that 300k ad buy, those 200 - 500 volunteers depending on whom you read, whose work was all that?

EVery campaign is full of folks who hang out, report to the outside world how great they are doing, and claim all credit and pass on all blame at the end. I'm pretty sure you're not one of those guys but to help us move past this divisive debate, and work towards a Democratic majority, can you give some perspective on who did what and why you expressed such hostility towards the DCCC and why you think you and Tim deserve so much of the credit?

Thats not intended to sound snarky; its to try to get a sense of whom to believe and whom to support in the future.

I've always made my donations to the DNC and the committees; last year I started donating to individual candidates. I'd like to know if supporting the committees is counter-productive, as you seem to suggest, or if some of the rhetoric here is overblown due to the tension of a close election?

by desmoulins on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Fancy, you are absolutely clueless. You must have been out hiking in some remote place like outer Mongolia for the past flippin month if you didn't see the massive positive effect the blogosphere had on the Hackett campaign. No shit blogs can't vote, but the blogs sure as hell raised a shitload of money and put plenty of boots on the ground in OH-02. BTW, you wouldn't happen to be a staffer at the DLC or DCCC by any chance, would ya? Your attitude towards blogs leads me to believe so.
by Prison4BushCo on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Please refer to my comments about the importance of this being a Hackett v. Schmidt race and not a DCCC v. NRCC race.  If we had gone in any earlier, NRCC would have drowned out Hackett's message.  By allowing Hackett a chance to establish himself (and raise his name ID to an amazing 70%+ in a few short weeks), he had an opportunity to define himself before others defined him.

Thanks for disagreeing in such a respectful manner.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Thanks for disagreeing in such a respectful manner.

Your failure to admit fault and attempt to claim credit for what we did is awful.

But ohmigod Bob cursed!

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

zen warriors at the DCCC (none / 0)

Oh I see, the fact that Democrats give a shit is information must remain on double super-secret background.

[NOTE TO REPORTERS: My contact info is available on Swing State Project.]

by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: zen warriors at the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

I understand your feeling and I too gave a piece of my mind... but this is getting counter productive...

Take it off board.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: zen warriors at the DCCC (none / 0)

Agreed.

This entire discussion is getting to look like the Republican message boards in Illinois as everyone circles up and fires.

It's one thing to argue over tactics and over how to expand the playing field (Emanuel has already pledged to do this), it's another to treat people like a Karl Rove plant.  

by archpundit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: zen warriors at the DCCC (none / 0)

Y'all know the personal shit's hitting the fan when Parker says to take it elsewhere.  I agree.
Invest in nature
by NCDem on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: zen warriors at the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

Not in front of the company...
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good point (none / 0)

You're right, this should be in ink on some dead wood that is sitting on people's doorstep in the morning.

Fight in every district, in every state, every day.

And when Jerome and Markos bring up a really good point about the DCCC website, they shouldn't say it will happen by the end of the year, the correct response is that it will happen by the end of the week.

I'll check the DCCC website on Friday...

by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Constructive question (3.00 / 1)

Why couldn't the DCCC put more money in the race on election day for GOTV?

Even with the non-race of a race in 2004 the Dem candidate got 8000 more votes in the rural (and more Democratic eastern counties). That's the difference in the race! Sure this was phenomenal turnout for an off-year august election. But it was still 25% turnout! If we could have had an extra 50 to 100 people out there that were each responsible for getting about 75 Democrats to the polls we could have pulled this thing out.
And....can you imagine what that would have done for the party in the media sphere for the whole slow news month of August? Can you imagine the change in the beltway CW about BushCO?

I'd really appreciate a response because the track record of people from DCCC responding to any inquiry from me is nil.  

by adamterando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (3.00 / 1)

You really need to give Democracy for  America credit. Not only did they call for nationwide funding for Hackett but the local Ohio DFA groups came out in force. Blogs are great but shoe leather is irreplaceable.

No one entity, not the blogs, nor grassroot or even the DCCC can claim total victory for a campaign.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DFA was huge (none / 0)

Lots of others were huge, too. We'll give plenty of credit in our debrief paper.
by blogswarm on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (3.00 / 0)

Bob. clearly you are speaking from the heart, and you make certain valid points. But, I wish that you'd tone down the conclusion part, since in the end, it would have to be team work (provided every member of that team agrees with and stands by the core progressive, liberal, Democratic ideals and principles; exactly what these are and should be, we can sitdown and discuss), and we absolutely have to make the team gel in order to succeed in our ultimate goal of ending the one-party domination of the national politics, and instituing a more common-person friendly governance.

While at it, I thank John Lapp for the post, and would like to invite him to more frequent visits to this forum in order to engage in positive and beneficial dialogue and discussion regarding the vision, direction, action, and activism for and behind the party.

thanks
Neo

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Neo -- I appreciate your invitation and will check back periodically.  Weighing in where appropriate.  But I also want to listen, here other points of view.  I hope you'll also log onto our DCCC blog and check out the progress of Democrats throughout the cycle.  And weigh in there as well.  Jesse Lee is trusted DCCC advisor and a good friend.

It is indeed teamwork.  And I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate involvement from all sectors in all ways.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

I too want to invite you into this forum to explain yourself.

I look forward to future challenges.  

Why not challenge us to blog?

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Be easy on me, I'm not an expert when it comes to blogging.  It's kind of like asking your dad to jam.  I know some, need to learn more, but have a lot of respect for what you do.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (3.00 / 1)

I don't think that this accomplishes anything.

The national blogs weren't fighting this thing in the early days any harder than the DCCC. Most, such as Kos were discounting the relevance just like the beltway crew.

This comes off much more as positioning and power plays than anything else. In the last few weeks the blogs raised a lot of money, but as Hackett's campaign manager told me at the time, "I've already got enought money." He was focused on the ground game. There is only a limited level of saturation that you can get from TV ads. Hammering ads at the last second is only gets you so much.

There were four factors in this race:

  1. Behind the scenes Republican factions undercutting Schmidt
  2. Fundraising
  3. GOTV
  4. Party loyalty

The biggest factor was #1. Schmidt had very high negatives and their efforts really brought them out. There is a reason on my site I play to the middle. This allows us to play opposition factions against each other. That takes time... that takes patience. Not something that the national blogs are not able to deliver on. Also not something that they are capable of accomplishing since they are so focused on playing to the far left base by trumping up tabloid type of stories over issues of substance. (I don't care what anyone says. Slamming Joe Braun in no way helped Hackett. It helped blog traffic, but we're not trying to convince people who read DKos how to vote.)

Party loyalty ended up pulling it in for Schmidt at the last minute. Money had a big impact on the race, but the national bloggers are making the same mistake that the old school beltway Democrats make in thinking that money equals votes. We've become very effective in raising money, we suck at winning elections. Eating each other alive does not help.

What we need is more of a coordinated dynamic instead of this constant shredding to try to obtain dominance.

Here's my recipe

  1. Local blogs - concentrating energy on specific races 24/7 365 days out of the year
  2. National blogs - able to bring forward powerful messages from the locals and provide hard research on issues that effect the locals.
  3. Local Party - Focusing on building local inferstructure
  4. National Party - Sounding out on the Party's key message and bringing out the big guns on races that have proven worthy from the locals.

This requires a decentralized structure that is radically different than what the Republicans are doing. Our advantage is numbers. All we need to do is loosely coordinate them. We won't out Republican the Republicans. But we can eat them alive if we play to our strengths. The week leading up to the election showed us our strengths. The week after has shown us our weeknesses.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:14:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: glad to see you trying for relevance (none / 0)

Agree with a lot of what Igantzmouse has to say.  There is a lot of things we can do as an institutio at the DCCC, but there are a lot of things we can't.  I also appreciate the effort here and in other blogs to fight back against the so-called Swiftbat Vets against Hackett.  What a bunch of bullshit.  Glad Hackett responded.  Hackett was the real patriot in this race ... Schmidt was the typical ethhically-challenged politician.  She finally had to recuse herself from that cowardly, false attack.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Team Effort (3.00 / 2)

This was a team effort.  Blame is shared.  Credit is shared.  But more than anything, we should give the credit to Paul Hackett -- who is the real hero, here.

Again, it's frustrating when we can't focus our energies in a positive way on the real enemy.

Victory has a thousand fathers.

Defeat is an orphan.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:37:22 PM EST

Re: Team Effort (3.00 / 2)

Again, it's frustrating when we can't focus our energies in a positive way on the real enemy.

It's frustrating when you claim credit for something you fucked up and then blame us for it.

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is a virtual picket line? (none / 0)

Can I help paint signs?
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:38:24 PM EST

Re: What is a virtual picket line? (3.00 / 1)

You'd probably claim credit for them, and then go off and gently chide us for our negative energy.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep it Civil (3.00 / 1)


We're all on the same team. John works for the DCCC, not the DLC or the GOP. We may disagree on method -- and I do, thoughts to come -- but we should do so in a constructive manner.

Let's keep it civil.

Please.

by Democratic Wing on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:50:25 PM EST

Wow. Anger (3.00 / 1)

Back in 2000 the DCCC endorsed in a primary for what I understand was the first time in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, and lost.  Then they said that the district was a "target" that year and each of the two subsequent elections, but were no shows when the chips were down.

In fact, after the district was named a "target" by the DCCC in early 2002 the recently departed chair showed up in NJ7 with the targetted candidate, Mike Ferguson!  Bipartisanship is nice, but it doesn't win elections.

I think that, for me, the DCCC has to start keeping its word before I really trust it again.  I am glad to see Mr. Lapp here, and hope he can make a difference at DCCC.  But really my feeling is that we have to do this on our own, and if the DCCC can add some support that would be great.

by nathan on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:55:58 PM EST

Re: Wow. Anger (none / 0)

There are places we can work together -- and that is great.  And I'm sure there are places where you will have different ideas and prioritiese -- which is also fine.

Here's the deal.  I know what it's like to be working on a campaign, waiting for the DCCC.  Hoping.  Praying.  Waiting.  And I hope it is with this approach (that of an operative) that will make this cycle different.  Let me know how we're doing periodically, weigh in often, and make a final judgment at the end of the cycle.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Anger (none / 0)

I think the DCCC needs to focus on its one goal, elect more Democrats (That's capital D. I.E.. No centrists). Its the Hackett's that get the votes and do well not the Lieberman's. In my District the DCCC is once again running Lex GOP-Lite Bufferd.

The DCCC spends to much time promoting this cause and that and not enough time electing more Democrats to the House. Leave the issues and causes to the House Democratic leader.

by Houston on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Anger (none / 0)

That's an excellent point, but I think a little addition is necessary.

The DCCC should let the locals pick the best candidate and, at most, HELP in selecting someone.  The issues that matter locally are known locally and not in DC.  Sure, there is some general framing and the like that DC can do, but to win locally you need to know the backroads and the chicken coops.

by nathan on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Anger (none / 0)

Nathan, you have a representative here from the DCCC who is proclaiming his organization's committment to taking back the House. Don't just tell him that "if the DCCC can add some support that would be great." Tell him flat out that you have a shot at taking back the seat and demand that they provide plenty of assistance. They sat on their okoles while others generated big money and national interest in the Hackett campaign and jumped in very late when they finally saw that Hackett had a chance. Now Mr. Lapp wants to come here and challenge bloggers to do something they've been doing all along. Call them out and hold their feet to the fire. I hope they do help you and your candidate.  

by Prison4BushCo on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Anger (none / 0)

Except that DCCC is only one source of support, and I have seen that they don't come in here.

We're doing it on our own now.  If they want to play, fine.  They will be welcome with open arms.  

by nathan on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Bob Brigham? (none / 0)

Why aren't we working together to win?
by ron burgundy on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:57:13 PM EST

It has to be a partnership (3.00 / 1)

There is too much dislike for the DCCC among many bloggers. We all need to unite and work together and then we will win. Let us have an open dialogue and getting some bloggers involved at the DCCC and more DCCC people involved in the blogs couldnt hurt either.
by FairfaxDem11 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:58:06 PM EST

Re: It has to be a partnership (none / 0)

I haven't given up on the DCCC, but their cookie cutter approach definitely needs some big shots of creativity coupled with common sense. It makes me hopeful that there is serious talk about making each race LOCAL.

I have heard candidates and campaign staff members alike complain about the DCCC giving money and then demanding their own way with the message and means, often resulting in negative results because LOCAL knowledge and experience is lacking the DCCC approach.

I recommend starting early and LEARNING about the congressional district in detail. Listen and consider what the locals have to say about what will work and not work. Support candidates but give local folks alot of leeway in shaping message and tactics. Please.

Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you were really serious about this... (3.00 / 2)

The first step would be giving Jesse Lee, or someone that has good online relationships, a seat at the table--and at a 8senior staff level.8

When you are discussing strategy, someone should always turn to Jesse and say, "how can we work with the netroots to make this happen?"  That goes for field, message, communication, and yes, fundraising too.  But you don't.  He might be respected, and "everyone loves Jesse," but facts are facts--he doesn't have a seat.  That is a glaring omission that you still don't understand.

Further, please don't use Melissa Bean as an example.  I hope she isn't counting on netroots support this time around.  In fact, if I can get Sue Walton to run against her in a primary, I will do everything I can to help her against Bean.

So much more later.  But facts are facts, you might have had some good, well intentioned people on-the-ground in the last days--but it was too little too late.  Your reason for not getting involved until the end only holds water if you consider mass media is the only way that the DCCC could have supported Paul Hackett in the weeks, if not months, leading up to the election.

More later as well.

Tim

P.S. All those things you suggest we start doing in 2006, we have been doing for some time.

by Tim Tagaris on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:04:19 PM EST

Re: If you were really serious about this... (3.00 / 1)

Tim - I just got the "seat at the table" speech from Bob.  While it is true that I was not in on the IE campaign, and therefore could not legally talk to them about what was going on, the idea that i don't have a seat at the table is simply false.  And I'll even concede that I did not have a seat last cycle.

I am, in fact, in virtually every major meeting with senior staff that could conceivably involve the internet, and I'm not being cute, that is an awful lot of meetings.

I understand you guys are PO'd, but you can drop that plank from your picket line platform.

by jesselee on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you were really serious about this... (none / 0)

Well, nobody else may be pleased to hear it, but I am. It was always my hope that by working closely with you, personally, that the blogosphere would not only cultivate a friend on the "inside," but that by responding to you and your message, elevate the importance of our friend to the others on the inside.

That's something I've always had in mind, to the extent that I've worked with you. And it was what I had in mind when I prodded the DSCC to revive their blog as well.

Tim probably recognizes the strategy, since it's something I've discussed with him in the past, as well.

Patience is difficult to cultivate on internet time. It doesn't surprise me that it's in short supply. It doesn't encourage me, but it doesn't surprise me.

by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you were really serious about this... (none / 0)

i'm happy to hear it!

i'm a big fan of jesse lee and the stakeholder.  so glad to hear he's getting into meetings.  

i truly feel jesselee is a blogger, ie, one of us, and it's good  to have him at the dccc!

"blogtopia - yes, i coined that phrase!"
by skippy on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just one question (none / 0)

How would you compare the Republican use of the net and the netroots to create a constant Republican campaign at home, to that of Democrats?

I'm talking about two-way communication, decentralization, and net tools.

by DWCG on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree about Bean (none / 0)

I gave her campaign some $ last year and was pissed off by her recent vote for CAFTA.  I e-mailed her to ask how the trade agreement could possibly benefit her district and received an autoreply that she does not respond to questions from those outside her district.  
She'll take my $, but doesn't want to hear my opinion.
That's OK.  I'll just give to Chris Cegalis instead.
by ChgoSteve on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Goodbye for Now (none / 0)

I have to head into a meeting.  Really appreciated spending the past hour with you -- though I know it's brief.  I'll try to check back in later and respond to any unanswered questions.

Go, Fight, Win.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:05:29 PM EST

One Final Note (none / 0)

Jesse Lee has a huge seat at the table.  Those of you who know him well can see his impact all over the DCCC.  He is also a fantastic writer and one heck of a nice guy.

Thanks again.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:07:19 PM EST

Re: One Final Note (none / 0)

Wrong.

I know well enough to know that Jesse does not have a seat at the table.  He should be on senior staff just like the political director, communications director, field director, fundraiser, etc.

He doesn't have that, so please don't say he does.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Final Note (none / 0)

Reposted from above.

Tim - I just got the "seat at the table" speech from Bob.  While it is true that I was not in on the IE campaign, and therefore could not legally talk to them about what was going on, the idea that i don't have a seat at the table is simply false.  And I'll even concede that I did not have a seat last cycle.
I am, in fact, in virtually every major meeting with senior staff that could conceivably involve the internet, and I'm not being cute, that is an awful lot of meetings.

I understand you guys are PO'd, but you can drop that plank from your picket line platform.

...I am 25, and no, I am not a department director.  But that does not mean I do not have a seat at the table.

by jesselee on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Final Note (none / 0)

Then raise the boy's budget!
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to see something kinda specific... (3.00 / 1)

... from the DCCC.

I'd like to see part of the DCCC set up to follow certain 'riskier' elections.  I get that you have to use marshall the resources to produce some results overall.  But the volatile nature of the 24-hour news cycle, combinted with the phenomenon of blogswarm and netroots support... this means that there are some areas out there that can yield big results with a little investment.

Of course we're looking at Hackett... how much did the DCCC kick in... maybe 150 k$?  The advantage for the 2006 congressional campaign FAR exceeds 150 k$ worth of either advertising or organizing.

I know you're looking at challenging DeLay's district.  Good deal.  But how about Hastert?  Can we get a great candidate from there, and huice him up.  Let's start picking them off.

But... I'm glad to see the DCCC taking an interest in this corner of the universe.  I look forward to seeing where you guys go in 2006.

by teknofyl on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:11:15 PM EST

Recruit in NJ-7 (3.00 / 1)

There's a group of very active people who want to get rid of their Republican congressman in NJ's 7th Congressional District.  They've started a PAC, are raising money, and have a bunch of volunteers ready to fight.  All they need is a candidate.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/3/15249/20354
Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:14:12 PM EST

Stop the circular firing squad (3.00 / 0)

I agree with everything John Lapp said.  I also hold Bob Brigham in high regard, both from his work on this race and the other fine things he's done at the Swing State Project.  We need to stop trashing our own damn committees and start working with them.  Here the DCCC is sending a guy over to work with us, and you scream at him.  This is just as bad as the time Sen. Biden came by.  This is why elected officials don't want to get near the blogs: because it turns into this circular firing squad that does nothing but help the GOP.  John is absolutely right about why they couldn't go in there guns blazing, because we'd kill Major Hackett in the process. The DCCC was smart.

As for Congresswoman Bean, she votes with us most of the time, and a hell of a lot more than any Republican from that district would, and that's why she's a success.  You can't have Nancy Pelosi in every district.  But in the end, when we have the majority, these votes that divide us will never come up, and we'll be the ones w/90-100% loyalty scores.  'til then, I can live with moderate dems representing their constituants in conservative districts.

Personally, I'm going to donate to the DCCC.  They've got trained professionals there who will figure out how best to spend it, and I trust their judgement a lot better than I trust my ability to blindly pick candidates.  They've got the numbers, they've got the contacts, they want to take back the House even more than we do.  Let's let them do their damn job.

I'll also point out that donating to committees like the DCCC gets us "double credit" for fundraising; our committee #s look good, then they give the money to candidates at which point their numbers look good.  Sounds like a good investment to me.

But for what it's worth, John, please don't post in all caps again; it feels like you're yelling at us!

by LaX WI on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:15:46 PM EST

Re: Stop the circular firing squad (none / 0)

He's not here to work with us.  He's here to make excuses.  Still that's a start.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm glad he's here (3.00 / 0)

It's been said, but it's a start.

by teknofyl on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop the circular firing squad (none / 0)

Is voting for bankruptcy reform and CAFTA representing her constituents? Or is it representing big money corporate special interests? I'll consider your answer reliable as you likely know that district quite a bit better than I do.
by Prison4BushCo on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop the circular firing squad (none / 0)

Sorry about the all caps.  I didn't mean to yell -- think of it more in the spirit of A Prayer for Owen Meaney by John Irving -- my favorite book.  I understand your disappointment with our strategy and respect your right to disagree.  Just know that this was a real, intentional strategy and not a last minute pile on.  We wanted Hackett to establish himself first in his voice, run a race on his terms, without drawing the attention of the "I Will Bury You" NRCC.  I found the NRCC attack on his service and knock-off Swift Boat groups offensive.  I was so impressed with how Hackett conducted himself.  Grace under pressure.

The DCCC IE program can help, but it's not capable on its own of dragging candidates across the finish line.  This is yet another example of why the individual donations of the blogosphere and progressive movements to campaigns -- is so critical.  Candidates are truly the only ones who can speak in their voice -- talking to voters right to camera.  But they can't do it if they don't have the resources.  Committee ads are a helpful and necessary tool, but much less precise and to be honest, admittedly less effecctive.  Thanks.  I won't use all caps again.  Sorry about that.  Lowercase from now on.

by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's the "DCCC IE" program? (3.00 / 1)

you can point me to a link if you've got one handy.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's the "DCCC IE" program? (none / 0)

Good question -- it stands for Independent Expenditure.  It's literally a separate program, through which we did our own indepedent mail and television ads.  Those DCCC staff (I was one of them) who participate in the IE program can't coordinate with the campaign -- they are completely independent.  Other DCCC staff worked directly with the campaign and were prohibited by law from coordinating with the IE program.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop the circular firing squad (none / 0)

I wasn't criticizing your position, I was agreeing with it!  I completely agreed that it would have been foolish to come in there flying the colors, guns blazing in the week after the primary.  I agree with everything you've said about the DCCC (though, at the same time, I respect Bob and Tim and they're criticisms, I just don't agree with them on this one) and it's role on this campaign and others.  You've got enough critics on this thread; I'm not one of them!
by LaX WI on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop the circular firing squad (none / 0)

Thanks.  I appreciate the constructive criticism.  I can just tell you that in a race like this it had to be Hackett vs. Schmidt and not DCCC vs. NRCC.  That's why the blogosphere contributions to Hackett's campaign were so critical.  It's what put him on the air and kept him there through the end.  
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop the circular firing squad (none / 0)

John,

Why?  Is the PR backlash against liberal bloggers and the Moveon.org and DFA crowd somehow better than that against the DCCC?

by SocialNetworker on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bob Brigham was absolutely criitical in this race. (none / 0)

I don't think there should be a backlash against either group.  And I don't appreciate the snarky articles attacking the blogs -- like SwingState.  Though he may disagree with my strategy, I want to let him know how much I appreciate him and his effort.  Bob Brigham was absolutely criitical in this race.  But you guys knew that.

Folks -- What did you think of Rothenberg's piece?

Republicans Avoid a Catastrophe in the Buckeye State

August 4, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg,
Roll Call Contributing Writer

For those of you who thought my July 18 column on the Ohio GOP's problems was an exaggeration, we now have evidence that transcends polling. We have votes. And if you are a Republican, the picture is very, very ugly.

Former state Rep. Jean Schmidt's narrow 52 percent to 48 percent victory over Democrat Paul Hackett in this week's Ohio 2nd district special election certainly is a warning to Buckeye State Republicans about the party's prospects next year.

By all measures, Schmidt ran a pretty terrible campaign, and she was lucky to win. She bears a lot of the blame for the tightness of the race. Not all of the blame, but a lot of it.

I'm not quite sure why National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) allowed himself to be quoted in a press release as referring to her "impressive victory," except that Reynolds had to say something, and it's probably not politically correct to issue a release saying "hey, our nominee's campaign really stunk up the joint."

Schmidt was, as one Republican put it, an "accidental" nominee who won the GOP primary because the party's top two candidates destroyed each other.

Both before and after the election, Republican insiders called Schmidt's campaign amateurish, and she consistently refused to attack her opponent. In the race's final days, the National Republican Congressional Committee blasted Hackett in a late TV spot as "a liberal Democrat" who favors a number of different tax increases. Those ads may well have saved Schmidt from an almost unimaginable upset.

National Democratic strategists wisely held their fire in the heavily Republican district, content to let Hackett emphasize his military experience in Iraq and his personal qualities in his paid TV ads. President Bush's job approval in the district still stands at about 60 percent according to a recent GOP poll, making it unlikely that the special election's close outcome was a referendum on Bush.

"We couldn't afford three or four weeks of Republican TV calling Hackett `a Washington liberal' and her `a Bush conservative,'" one Democrat told me. Republicans "would have put the race away early if the race had been about that."

When the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did jump into the contest very late with an independent expenditure, the group's terrific TV spot linked Schmidt to widely unpopular Gov. Bob Taft (R) by noting her support for "the largest tax increase in Ohio history" and for "Taft's 27 percent gas tax hike on Ohio motorists."

Hackett was an appealing candidate with an interesting story. Democratic strategists say that his Iraq experience got voters to consider his candidacy, but they dismiss the argument that his showing constitutes some sort of statement about the Iraq war.

While Hackett raised substantial funds from left-wing Internet sites, he campaigned more as a moderate. That's why he ran as much as 20 points ahead of Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential race performance in some of the rural, conservative counties in Ohio's 2nd district.

Democratic insiders believe that voters saw Hackett as a vehicle for change, and that the ethics environment -- what Democrats like to call the culture of corruption in Columbus -- was a crucial part of that equation.

"This election showed that if we have a candidate who fits the district and is running against an ethically challenged, typical politician, we are going to be able to compete in places that normally wouldn't be on our radar screen," DCCC Executive Director John Lapp argued.

Democratic strategists believe Hackett's showing proves that their candidates, both in Ohio and elsewhere, can successfully run against GOP ethics, thereby widening the playing field to districts they haven't contested for the past few cycles.

Republican strategists counter that they won't have such weak candidates or poor campaigns elsewhere.

Schmidt's poor campaign, combined with Hackett's personal story and moderate message, turned a 20-point blowout into a squeaker. But Hackett would not have gotten as close as he did without the unintentional help of Taft, whose problems clearly have the potential to turn Ohio into a Democratic tidal wave next year.

by John Lapp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bob Brigham was absolutely criitical in this r (none / 0)

I can just tell you that in a race like this it had to be Hackett vs. Schmidt and not DCCC vs. NRCC.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood my inquiry.  I'm assuming that the reason is because your presence would have nationalized the race and in some way created negative PR for Hackett.  Why wouldn't the same problem apply to blogs and Moveon.org?  That is, I don't buy your explanation on the NRCC vs. DCCC thing yet, but I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

by SocialNetworker on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bob Brigham was absolutely criitical in this r (none / 0)

Sorry for the confusion.  Had we entered earlier -- the NRCC would have felt the need to respond in kind, match us point for point.  And I guarantee within the three weeks there would certainly have been boilerplate GOP playbook... Paul Hackett is national liberal who is a liberal and Schmidt is a Bush conservative.  By not nationalizing this race and antagonizing the NRCC, Paul Hackett was allowed to tell his story unfettered -- that of a maverick, straight talking patriot -- not beholden to anyone.

You may not agree, but that was our strategy.  And I think it was a successful one.

by John Lapp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

We're pretty good at being a circular firing squad. That's not in dispute.

Obviously we've failed before. And we should make sure that we win back Congress in 2006.

by RBH on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:17:39 PM EST

Well no one should worry about Hillary's seat. (none / 0)

CNN poll came out today with her leading the GOP candidate by 35 points. Yeah, they might as well not even bother. That's approaching Obama-Keyes territory in futility!
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:27:41 PM EST

Re: Well no one should worry about Hillary's seat. (none / 0)

Absolutely not. She's been a good Senator for us here in NY and I know a few Republicans who can't quite disagree despite their anti everything Clinton attitude.
by Prison4BushCo on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well no one should worry about Hillary's seat. (none / 0)

Exactly. She's polling well even with the upstate conservatives.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:44:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks John (3.00 / 1)

for the note and thank you for realizing the value and importance of the grassroots/netroots. Politics is changing and we are the one's changing it. We... most of us at least... would like very much to work with the existing power structures such as the DCCC... however... we will work around you and without you if necessary and I hope this point has become, or is becoming, clear.

We will be most successful if we can find a way to work together in a mutually respectful and mutually beneficial manner.

Let me throw a quick plug out there for you... please be sure and take a look at our candidate in NY-20. They have not officially announced but will soon. Like OH-02 it is a very difficult district for a Democrat... but it is also a winnable district and I believe in '06 we will win. We are already doing the prep work and several of us will be taking a close look at Hackett's campaign to see what can be applied here at home. The incumbent Republican should be very concerned. Hopefully he'll also be stupid enough to run for Governor and this will be an open seat race.

So keep NY-20 in the back of your mind.

The other thing I want to do is express extreme disappointment in Melissa Bean. I suggest that you take a better pulse of the blogosphere before posting next time around. She was a darling of the blogosphere in '04 but ever since has been an extreme disappointment. The CAFTA vote simply put her over the edge. I don't buy that manure about having to vote Republican lite and I see virtually no value in having her elected and certainly do not consider her to be a selling point for getting "... more Melissa Beans in Congress...."

I have no desire for more Melissa Bean's in Congress. I want Democrats that vote with the Democratic Party and vote Democratic values.

Organizations such as yours... and loose entities such as the netroots and the grassroots... need to have more communication. We both want the same thing but we need a strong two-way conversation going so that we can come to shared positions with shared candidates with shared values rather than working to cross-purposes.

I sincerely hope you and yours are ready to work with us because we are going to do our thing whether you come along for the ride or not.

Peace,

Andrew

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:48:36 PM EST

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

I want Democrats that vote with the Democratic Party and vote Democratic values.

When I hear this I'm reminded of that tiresome and overplayed rhetorical phrase: "the truth of the matter is...(insert subjective opinion here)". It's not the truth of the matter, it's an opinion!

What is "democratic values"? Because last I checked the liberal base and the moderate wing of the party disagree on many issues. Who gets to say which constitutes "democratic values"? Is it majority rules?

My favorite exampe is free trade. Look back 150 years and free trade was originally a democratic ideal with republican opposition -- up until Reagan and Bush Sr bucked the trend, the latter endorsing NAFTA. Traditional paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan still oppose free trade and embrace protectionism, ironically aligning themselves with labor on the left! Globalization and liberalization of trade is, duh, a liberal ideology. Multinational world bodies like the WTO and IMF were and still are the boogeymen of "one-world-government" that is still told to young conservative youths to scare them into being good boys and girls.

Many of you from the base say protectionism is the democratic principle. I say globalization and free trade are democratic principles and liberal ideology based on historical precedent. I wrote about this here:  http://vote-hillary-2008.mydd.com/comments/2005/7/28/183018/505/73#73

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

Nope. You read too much into my comments and not enough to what it is that liberals like me object to in NAFTA and CAFTA.

As a liberal it is clear to me that globalization is both inevitable and a good thing. That ain't a problem. However...

Free Trade isn't Free

American workers and liberals have spent the better part of the last hundred years improving standards and safety for workers along with environmental protection and standards and sane and reasonable regulation of business practices.

These are the things sorely lacking in the so-called free trade agreements. The fact that they are lacking means these agreements come with a heavy price both to We the People of the United States of America and to The People of the various nations we make these agreements with. The only folks that benefit are the corporate/plutocratic entities that pray at the alter of the almighty dollar and do not share the values of We the People.

Let me reiterate...

Free trade isn't free

Business, like government, needs to have checks and balances. A free market, like an open Democratic society, needs to have checks and balances. These agreements are sorely lacking and ill-advised.

Globalization is inevitable and I am all for it... but let's do it right shall we and not simply give in to the far right.

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

Free trade and environmental policy are often very separate issues. The Bush administration's support for CAFTA and opposition to the Kyoto accord is a fine example of this. In fact, our country's poor environmental initiative is a result of both corporate and labor protectionist lobbying. Corporations are concerned about the initial costs of investing in environmentally friendly practices, and labor is afraid that due to corporations reacting to increased expenditures they'll cut jobs. More and more, labor is proving to be a conservative interest group that is just as self-serving and short-sighted as corporate America. It should be an eye-opener when labor and Pat Buchanan are on the same page.

My position on free trade differs from republicans because I believe in free trade, but FAIR trade. Republicans are driven solely by corporate profiteering while I seek pulling up developing nations by removing unfair first-world protectionist trade practices. Labor at home is a non-issue to me. We are no longer in the industrial age that is driven solely by manufacturing -- we are evolving into a services-based economy. There are going to be growing pains and US workers will have two choices going forward: accept low wages and benefits for menial jobs that can be outsourced or filled by immigrants, or seek the skills desired by the new economy. Labor is shrinking in power and influence for a reason; they are becoming irrelevent and a relic of a fading era.

The problem I have with free trade is the disparate power that exists among the most powerful economies. They use free trade to open up foreign markets and access cheap labor, but often renege on their promises to provide poor nations an equal playing field by passing various legislation to protect domestic markets and pander to constituencies. An example is a few months ago when Congress passed legislation to slap tariffs on Vietnamese shimp in response to pressure from domestic shrimpers. As a consumer this means I must now fork out more money for shrimp because Congress conveniently abandons free trade principles of allowing market forces to determine fair pricing. As a pro-globalization free trader, I find this practice hypocritical, reprehensible, and bullying. The self-aggrandizing pro-human-rights EU is also guilty when it protects its domestic sugar farmers by slapping tariffs on African sugar farmers who hail from nations where sugar is their top export -- something that can't be said of the EU.

  Labor and anti-free-traders aren't advocating my position of free trade and FAIR trade. They simply oppose all free trade, period. They don't propose alternative free trade bills because they are only interested in protecting shrinking manufacturing jobs. It the same old argument that plays itself over and over as technology marches on and economies evolve. Recall the legions of typists who found themselves out of a job in the 1950s as computer automation began handling the burdens of information processing over long distances? Computers and robots were going to put humankind out of work while the corporations enriched themselves! Nonsense! Typists are pretty much extinct beyond courtrooms, but there is an entire new industry of jobs now in IT. And the economy? It has grown by leaps and bounds.

You make it sound like the anti-free-traders are somehow more open-minded and altruistic than free traders...you talk of checks and balances, yet all I hear from your side are checks and no balance. Globalization is inevitable as you say, so quit fighting it. You should be directing your energies into forcing multinational organizations to abide by their free trade principles by erecting sufficient oversight by NGOs and watchdog groups. That's the problem as I see it; like anything there are people who always try and abuse the system, and in the case of liberalized trade you have people who are enriching themselves and their own countries while the poorer nations are still getting little of the benefits promised them for signing on.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

I'll respond fuller tomorrow after re-reading your note. But I did want to say one thing right away... please... when responding my notes... respond to the words I say and not to words someone else said that your assume I agree with. Our conversation will progress much more constructively if you follow that simple rule.

I cite these two sentences as the primary reason for my saying this:

"You make it sound like the anti-free-traders are somehow more open-minded and altruistic than free traders...you talk of checks and balances, yet all I hear from your side are checks and no balance."

Peace,

Andrew

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:06:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

Well I have to infer based upon the gist of your posts. Otherwise I'd have to respond line by line and that's be inefficient.

You bring up "free trade isn't free". NOTHING in life is free, so I really don't see how this is relevent. Protectionism isn't free either -- literally. The other side of the coin when it comes to outsourcing and globalization, is that without either we as customers would be paying a hell of a lot more money on everyday goods.

Look forward to your reply, correct me if I misunderstood your position.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Simple Rule (none / 0)

respond to the words I say and not to words someone else said that your assume I agree with. Our conversation will progress much more constructively if you follow that simple rule.

Nobody is an anti-freetrader. Once again you are using the favorite tactic of high school debate team rejects, the strawman argument. You don't infer anything. You manufacture strawman arguments and use snide buzzwords. Maybe it impressed your high school debate coach, but it won't fly in the grownup world.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Simple Rule (none / 0)

Yawn. More senseless juvenile nonsense dribbles down the foul agape maw of General-I-can't-think-of-any-plan-Boatwright.

You're out of your league here, kiddo. We're talking policy, something far about your fantastical conpiracies about DLC ghosts and goblins.

Allow Andrew White to respond for himself, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A flaming bag of horse shit (2.00 / 0)

Labor and anti-free-traders aren't advocating my position of free trade and FAIR trade. They simply oppose all free trade, period.

That is total horse shit.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:42:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

As usual, your extensively well researched rebuttals are sooo convincing! More evidence I am right on the mark.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

Your remark was totally lacking in evidence or substance. Fair Traders like myself have a legitimate position that has more resonance in the Democratic party than position of the Bush sockpuppets who voted for CAFTA.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

Debating not your strong suit? Feel free to explain the evidence supposedly lacking in my argument, particularly by following the link above where I cited multiple historic instances that prove free trade is a liberal ideology.

As for your "legitimate position", let me guess...it's the DLC baby-eaters! No? Then do present your free-trade alternative. So far all I hear is your conservative protectionist talking points regurgitated from the hallowed wisdom of Pat Buchanan.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?  Here is the direct quote that I labeled a flaming bag of horse shit:

Labor and anti-free-traders aren't advocating my position of free trade and FAIR trade. They simply oppose all free trade, period.

Nobody in the United States is opposed to all free trade. I'm not sure anybody in the world is opposed to all free trade. You repeatedly manufacture strawman positions for people who disagree with you that absolutely nobody supports. Are you, a frustrated High School Debate team reject?  

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:51:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A flaming bag of horse shit (none / 0)

Unbelievable. You are a closet Buchananite and yet you are unfamiliar with his absolute dedication to protectionist policies. Have some principle for once and be proud of what you are.

You must have lost your homepage. Here's Pat's website again: http://www.theamericancause.org/

I'm sure you're familiar with the top entry.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

Andrew -- thanks for your interest.  I would be happy to meet with your candidate as well.  Feel free to give me a call at (202) 863-1500 if you want to set up a time.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks John (none / 0)

Wow!  The generic number to the DCCC!  What access!
by SocialNetworker on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

I love the drama coming out of the woodwork whenever Biden or someone like yourself posts on a liberal blog. Makes things interesting and an entertaining read.

That said, to the contrary of some of these guys who arrogantly assume that the far-left plank has a monopoly on the overall democratic platform, there are plenty of moderate centrists like myself who are more open to wide-ranging ideas.

CAFTA? Still undecided, but I'm a believer in liberalized trade and globalization. I favor NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and IMF. I'm an internationalist and support helping developing nations compete on a more level playing field with first world nations. I like to leave protectionism -- a historically conservative ideology -- to rabid right wingers like Pat Buchanan. That whole "who gives a shit about anyone but americans" outlook doesn't wash with my world view of humanity.

I have two main points on the Hackett candidacy:

  1. His #1 marketable trait was his status as the first Iraqi veteran to run for office. Republican peasantry equate military credentials with patriotism, and that immediately made Hackett competitive. Does anyone contest that if he were not an Iraq vet this race would have ended completely lopsided?

  2. I believe more energy needs to be spent going after seats that have closer margins in order to capitalize on a better bang-for-buck ratio regarding resources spent. It's great that the race was close in a historically red district, but given the dynamics of the race and the crappy GOP candidate I feel the significance is a bit overrated. If this scenario is repeated in other red districts across the country then I will accept a trend has developed. I can't help but notice that from 2004 to present the 16 candidates that DailyKos have raised great amount of funds for have all failed to win their races. This is becoming a running joke on the right-wing blogs. At what point are people going to begin looking at this trend and feel that they'd be throwing good money at long odds?

I feel it is in the greater strategic interest to capitalize on strong candidates like Hackett and run them in districts with close margins, and cede the very red seats to the GOP. We need a majority, not every republican seat which just isn't attainable.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:08:23 PM EST

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (2.00 / 1)

Yes, well, you're not a Democrat, so you really don't matter here.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

Oh that's right. Because unregistered independents that lean democratic are not only unimportant and a shrinking constituency, but also never give money to, or vote for, democratic candidates.

You're very good at whining, but very poor at executing logic.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

You don't matter here.  This is not a blog for independents, it's a blog for Democrats.  That you are not a Democrat means you have no credibility.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (3.00 / 0)

You can stop right there- look at ideological affiliation. A majority of people consider themselves conservative or independent, so if you write them off, just forget about ever winning especially in districts that are in red states.

Paul Hackett only came close by winning over independents and Republicans. With an attitude like yours, that will never happen.
 

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

I'm not targeting swing voters on this blog, I'm communicating with fellow movement people.
by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 09:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MyDD is not a Democratic blog (3.00 / 1)

Why do people keep saying that? Chris and Jerome have never said MyDD was a Democratic blog. The closest I can pin down their political leanings, at this point in time they are in agreement on a strategy that includes DFA and progressive Democrats to take back America.

I'm just guessing because Chris and Jerome are both very careful not to attempt to impose ideological hegemony on the MyDD community. Chris and Jerome are very staunch supporters of the First Amendment. They give latitude to an wider range of opinion than any blogsite I am aware of.

MyDD is not a Democratic site.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD is not a Democratic blog (none / 0)

Unlike "he who shall remain nameless"...
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

That is so lame, and one of the reasons the Democrats don't win.
by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (3.00 / 1)

Well I know one thing...infighting among various groups on the same side yet differing in methodologies isn't going to accomplish much, particularly in a general election. I hear so much talk from the base about party loyalty, yet I see zero discipline. If my candidate wins the nomination in 2008, I'll be collecting on all this "party loyalty" I've been hearing so much about.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

not every republican seat which just isn't attainable.

That's what I like about you moderates -- aspiring to mediocrity.


by cscs on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

Yeah. Kind of like Bill Clinton's two terms. Peace and prosperity is so mediocre.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

That has nothing to do with my statement. But, good try.

And, PS -- it's not 1992 anymore. Longing for the good ole days is not smart politics.

by cscs on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:55:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Lapp, stop by often. Bring Biden too. (none / 0)

Actually it has everything to do with your statement. Bill Clinton is a moderate and his aspirations let to 8 years of peace and prosperity -- hardly mediocre.

Longing for the good old days isn't smart? Oh really? That must be the most inane thing I've heard someone say in quite a while. Oh I get it, whining incessantly about sour grapes and spilled milk -- now that's smart politics! And the 16 Kossack candidates were swept into power on the tidal wave of public opinion...

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HIllary Clinton vs. joe biden (none / 0)

I assume that you are voting for Hillary.

How does sen. biden fair in your view?

Will he represent the working men and women or his corporate masters - the credit card companies, insurance companies, et al?

by dtlc on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HIllary Clinton vs. joe biden (none / 0)

Joe Biden doesn't have a prayer against Hillary and he has admitted as much in interviews prior to formally announcing his intention to run. In fact, he said he doesn't think anyone can beat her. Which begs the question why he's running at all? I know why: he wants a VP slot.

He would bring little to a ticket so I think that's out of the question. Personally, I don't have a big problem with him like most people seem to here. Actually, next to Boxer I kind of liked how he grilled Condi during her SoS confirmation hearing.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HIllary Clinton vs. joe biden (none / 0)

I agree - he would bring little to the ticket.

But he still is running.  Gotta be the big ego.

by dtlc on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

urgh (3.00 / 1)

Reading this diary, the tone, at least for me implies that the DCCC was the driving force in this race.

I dont know what plan you had up your sleeve 6 or 8 weeks out, but i do know when the DCCC stepped in, and it was long after everyone else was pounding away.

Then you make for me what is a HUGE contradiction.

You say that the activists and netroots are just an ATM - which is true, but then you say we can't compete in all districts.

If we are more than just an ATM, then those other attributes CAN be deployed in every district. But there is no talk of that !

Bob Bringham makes a good point about Blogpac. It is taking steps to setup state wide resources and has been instrumental in creating relationships with netroots through Ohio. We all know each other now, we talk all the time.

The DCCC could be doing that ! Should be doing that !

If you want to get a message out to a particular district form a candidate I bet you dont even know which bloggers to contact !!

How fricken cheap is that to do ! That doesnt require money - but i could stop a smear campaign or disseminate a message or get volunteers out.

when you say we can only compete in 30 or 40 districts, you're full of crap. You're too focused on the $$'s - which is exactly why i think it took you so long to jump into OH-02.

Chris Baker was out there on his own blogging OH-02 when it wasnt sexy, in the primaries. Would it have been too hard to drop a $100 ad on his blog ?! jeez the traffic from that ad would have paid for itself.

there is so much more you could be doing, but you are being left behind. You say we aint an ATM - but you really have no clue what else we are - maybe OH-02 was a wake up call...i hope so

Beause you have a lot of catching up to do.

the DNC and DFA get it. dkos and mydd get it. the DCCC and DSCC simply don't - not yet.

It shouldnt take the blogfather to tell you to put up a link to every district with filing deadlines and when candidate are filling those spots Jeez. that is just common sense and costs nothing. Especially if you are so busy recruiting people and training people.

IF you are sending non urgent messages out - give it to the blogs first before the press- that way the press will learn to check the local and national blogs and hear our message before crafting their own.

Now i think Bob Brigham is one of the toughest activists out there, a real pitbull and we need more of them - but i dont think folks should quit giving to the DCCC, that would be gutting our noses off to spite our faces - but i do think we need to see more than what you are offering to be honest - otherwise it is pretty obvious that the DNC and DFA and blogpac are better places to invest.

Licking County Pro-Active Citizens (Ohio)

by Pounder on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:31:34 PM EST

Re: urgh (none / 0)

Really enjoyed my time today.  Will come back to the Budweiser Hot Seat in the near future.
by John Lapp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: urgh (none / 0)

FYI, I wasn't asking for blog ads on my site. It was a proof of concept for targetted local blogging. I think that it was proven a success. I could still see a lot of room for improvement.
Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to admit (3.00 / 1)

I unsubscribed from the DCCC list some time ago, because I was unhappy with what I saw as their failure to support Morrison against DeLay.

My question is this:  If we can accomplish the kind of phenomenal results we saw in OH-2 with a good candidate and our own activism and donations....why do we need the DCCC?  It's a serious question, not snark.

by SusanD on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:42:13 PM EST

Re: I have to admit (2.00 / 2)

We don't 'need' them, but they would be enormously helpful if they pulled their heads out of their asses.  We could ship in $20K into every uncontested district in the country RIGHT NOW if the DCCC were run well.  That money could be used to party build and set up for 2006.  That's $4M, which isn't that much.  We did an eighth of that.

The fundraising model would be simple.  The DCCC could send out and email and ask its members if they think that's a good strategy and to take an online poll.  Then they could ask if members would fund it, and finally, ask for money.  All the while they would push process stories in the media.

And then execute.  But they won't.  So we have to build all the infrastructure they already have, from scratch, just because they are dumbass liars.  And they are paid and have health insurance.

by SocialNetworker on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to admit (3.00 / 0)

We need the DCCC because we can't possibly fund and organize for 435 campaigns at once. I really don't have a huge problem with the way the DCCC operates. They do what they do and we do what we do. The DCCC focuses on campaigns where their money can do the most good. The netroots can help progressive, fighting Dems like Ginny Schrader and Paul Hackett get to a place where the DCCC's money and organization can make the difference.
by Gpack3 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 09:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to admit (none / 0)

I'm sorry you feel that way.  But I would encourage more Democratic organizations rather than less.  
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to admit (none / 0)

Exactly. You don't see the DLC cheering at the demise of ACT.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my view on the 50 state strategy (none / 0)

I like 50 state strategy in some way and in others i don't  for one thing a republican should always be challenged by a Dem. no matter what office or how Republican lean it is. but also a problem is that there is limited funding. it's very hard to contest every seat with 435 house races 33 senate races and 31 gubenatoral races. and even more state leg. races. i think they should cover the close races with money and than move on to Darkhorse races for instance a 3 AM Bob casey jr. AD isn't going to help his senate race that that 3 Am money should go to strong Rep. races where it is very though for Dems. to win. >sorry if i am not making sense lol.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:53:28 PM EST

What kind of challenge is this? (3.00 / 0)

"So I offer MyDD.com, DailyKos, and other progressive movements a direct challenge - help all Democrats.  Get involved.  Work hard.  Donate money.  Persuade.  Motivate.  Change minds."

What do you think we've been doing? Why do you think we are so frustrated with the DCCC?

Thanks for the post, but really "help you?" What do you think we've been doing?

Support candidates that have support on the ground, not just those with deep pockets. Support candidates who choose to run in "losing" districts like Paul Hackett. If you lend you support, even just on your blog, early money will flow in taking the burden off the DCCC.

I'm frustrated, but hopeful that you have reached out as you have in this post. This is a good sign and a recognition of what the blogosphere can do.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:56:16 PM EST

Re: What kind of challenge is this? (none / 0)

I mean what I say.  Open to other suggestions as well, obviously.  Happy to provide briefings regarding the DCCC view, recently filed candidates, etc. as well periodlically if that is helpful.  Let me know.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What kind of challenge is this? (3.00 / 0)

Breifings. Great. Recently filed. Great. But I bet the Blogosphere will be ahead of the DCCC on all these things, posting them all before you get around to it.

Here's my suggestion: Change your game plan. Stop playing not to lose. Stop chosing seats based on how much fundraising the candidate "might" do, or on if the opponent is beatable or not. Think long term and realize the strategic victory of a loss like Hackett's. See that it energizes the base and grows organizations and grassroots volunteers in areas that are deep red and supposedly "unwinable."

Lend support to candidates early, especially candidates like Christine Cegelis who has built up name recognition and an army on the ground in her district. Even token support for candidates like this opens the doors to sources of fundraising. Withholding support, even token support, closes doors to fundraising and creates a DCCC self fulfilling prophesy of poor fundraisinig ability.

Support candidates who are not necessarily "centrist" or represent the historic politics of the district they are trying to win. Candidates who stand for Democratic principals, even ones who call the president and SOB and don't appologize, inspire others to action. Again, think long term.

The DCCC is probably doing some of this. But I'd like to see more. I like to see it embrace the 50-state strategy and the Blogosphere's passion and desire to take back our country and government. I'd like to see it become a partner in the building of the VLWC the way Media Matters or Think Progress or Air America or Swing State has. Be a leader not a bit player.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:00:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the narrative (none / 0)

I like to see it embrace the 50-state strategy and the Blogosphere's passion and desire to take back our country and government. I'd like to see it become a partner in the building of the VLWC the way Media Matters or Think Progress or Air America or Swing State has. Be a leader not a bit player.

All of the sources you quote are leading players in developing a Liberal Backlash Narrative. The DLC is trying to puppet the Conservative Backlash Narrative. The fundamental problem is that the Conservative Backlash Narrative has no appeal for Democratic primary voters. The DLC and the DCCC both have to get on board the Liberal Backlash Narrative because that's the only way to take back America.

We can't out Republican the Republican party.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:01:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've Done Being a Victim (3.00 / 3)

I don't blame anyone. I don't wait for anyone. If you believe that something is worth fighting for, fight for it. If you are onto something, people will join you.

That happened with the Ohio 2nd.

If you want to change America, pick a politician and become their shadow. Congressman, Senator, Mayor, Judge, School Board, it doesn't matter what. Don't wait for the next election. Don't wait for the right challenger. Start fighting now. If you blog it, they will come. Treat them the same way the press treats Bush. Shine the light into the dark places of Government.

Before you know it you will be THE expert on that race, and win or lose Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens will be listening to you. As I like to say, the first person to ride into Dodge is always the sheriff.

In the middle of a battle you don't just sit there and wait for the calvary. If they are coming, they will come, and if they don't that's because they were held up fighting somewhere else. Often times you'll discover later on that you were the calvary all along.

Editor
http://blog.oh02.com

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog
by ignatzmouse on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:22:48 PM EST

Re: I've Done Being a Victim (none / 0)

Oh my God. Hallelujah!
by Kagro X on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 11:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've Done Being a Victim (none / 0)

Really nicely put.  Editor, any chance you'd write up an extended paper at some point documenting in a single place the history of your involvement in the race?  Especially for those of us who live in "deep red" districts, as do I, I think it would be VERY instructive to hear more particulars about how this developed, laid out retrospectively from your viewpoint.  I know the Swing State Project guys are going to put something together, and that'll be a very interesting read, but as I understand it, you were involved very, very early.
by arenwin on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hachett, DLC, Sen. Biden (Corp/creditcard stoige) (none / 0)

1.  The DLC and the treasonous "centrist" Democrats are running scared.

They realize that you don't need to beg for their corporate dollars or sell your soul in order to run a strong, successful, "give'm'hell" campaign like Paul Hackett did.  Netroots can raise money.

2.  When Sen biden (D-MBNA and every other credit card company) begins his run for the nomination, let's ask him one simple question:

Q: Senator  baldy, errr...biden (a corporate stooge), while you filibustered against Bolton,
WHY DIDN'T YOU FILIBUSTER AGAINST:
a) CAFTA (which affects real people with real families losing real jobs. A bread and butter issue;
(b) the Gun Shield Law? (A safety issue);
(c) the Bankruptcy Bill? (It affects low income and middle income people.  Another bread and butter issue).

P.S. No need to answer, because it was a rhetorical question.  We know your true colors.

3. And oh, that toupee is disgusting.    

DO US A FAVOR AND DO NOT RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY

by dtlc on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:50:33 PM EST

Re: Hachett, DLC, Sen. Biden (Corp/creditcard (3.00 / 0)

Ah, yes "treasonous" centrist democrats. That's a familiar talking point. Of course, when the GOP uses it they are referring to all democrats.

If it wasn't for the religious zealotry, I'd have a tough time telling the two bases apart.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:35:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

Thanks for dropping by.  I'm glad that you have decided to open a dialogue.  Over time I'm sure you'll find yourself and the people here will come to a better understanding of each other.
by Lavoisier1794 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 11:33:44 PM EST

Re: Thanks (none / 0)

Will do.  Happy to go into greater depth as more and more candidates file.  
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hm taking a look at 2004 house districts. (3.00 / 1)

i did a little searching to find out what districts are most vulnerable well found out 9 Republicans and 9 Democrats won by 8 points or less 21 Republicans won by 12 points or less and 15 Democrats won by 12 points or less so where going to have to win in some of this double digit solid Republican territory if we are going to get a SOLID majority in the house and not win it by 2 seats.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 11:43:21 PM EST

Focus on the enemy (3.00 / 0)

It's not the "people" who disagree with you 40 percent of the time, it's the ones that disagree with you 60%.

Do you agree with everything your spouse, best friend, parent, cousin, preacher, teacher, favorite rocker, co-worker says, or vice versa?

Jesus effing christ!

And I'm especially talking to you, SocialNetworker.  

Who's going to vote in the Democratic caucus, Melissa Bean, Stephanie Herseth, or some goddamned republican?

The DCCC is not the enemy, nor are Biden and Lieberman and Kerry and moderates and Jesus Freak Lovin Religious Democrats.  Zell Miller, yes, enemy combatant.  

We have to win first, and that's going to take every Dem, Indy, and Chicago Dead Person.  Afterwards you can kneecap to your friggen hearts content.  But until then, get your head out of your fucking ass and go after Rove and Grover and Georgie Boy and Big Time Dick, and not DEMOCRATS!

Christ, if you can't say anything good about them (Democrats that piss you off), don't say anything.  Rove is just laughing his ass off at this crap.  

by DuckmanGR on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:42:10 AM EST

The DLC is the enemy (none / 0)

I don't know what rock you've been hiding under. Didn't you hear that the DLC declared war on the Democratic party?

Will Marshall is a huge Bush sockpuppet.

There's more at Seeing the Forest Hillary in the Crossfire.

How much evidence do you need? Jeesh!

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lessons to be Learned (Lesson 1) (3.00 / 1)

(This is the first in a series of posts)

Swept up by the excitement generated by Paul Hacket's amazing campaign for the Ohio-2nd District Congressional Seat, I could hardly peal my eyes away from my computer screen.  I found that the blogs were an amazing source for the latest news on strategies, fundraising, news, and results.  But when it was all over, I was left with a sour taste in my mouth by many of the progressives posting comments on blogs like MyDD, Swingstate Project, and Daily Kos.  It quickly became apparent that many of them dozed during some very important lessons that many of us learned during pre-school.

LESSON 1: DON'T BE A SORE WINNER!  

Immediately after Hacket's narrow loss, many of the comment-posters in the blogosphere (and bloggers as well) decided to use their success to continue their relentless war on the Democratic leadership.  Organisations like the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) and DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) were lambasted as irrelevant, and criticised for not getting involved in the race earlier.  Many posters peppered them with a spray of four letter words that will not be repeated here.  

The pettiness of this debate (if it can even be called that) is counterproductive for liberals and progressives alike.  One of the reasons why the Republican Party has been so strong in recent years is that its leaders and member have been willing to put aside their differences and fight for a common cause.  Libertarians, neo-conservatives, and the religious-right banded together and their causes were strengthened by their efforts.  

Some of the recent cracks in the Republican coalition have been particularly instructive.  In the Schmidt/Hackett race, for example, Citizens Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) urged conservatives not to vote in the election.  In addition, Schmidt's primary opponents reportedly gave her lukewarm support at best.   There is no doubt that these factors (in addition, of course to Hackett's strength as a candidate and his powerful grassroots support) had a significant impact on Schmidt's election chances.  What happened in OH-2 is not a peculiarity, but a reflection of a general strategy by certain interests within the GOP to consolidate the party.  

As much as they might not like to admit it, the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party can learn something from this Republican strategy.  By agreeing to disagree and spending their energy fighting Republicans rather than each other, they will be able to create a more united front against the Republican Party.  This does not mean that it would be beneficial for all criticism of party organisations to cease.  What it does mean, however, is that such criticism should be constructive rather profane.  It should take into account that, despite differences between groups within the Democratic Party, we share some important common goals.

Think about it...

by Robby Braun on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:47:19 AM EST

Tell it to the DLC (none / 0)

Will Marshall and Peter Ross Range should be very interested in your quaint theory.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And thanks John Lapp (3.00 / 0)

For posting, taking the divisive abuse, and not giving it back.

I know you can't do everything, I know you can't fund everybody, or please everybody.

You're not our Mommy, or our Daddy to protect us.  You're a TOOL of the Democratic Party, for getting Congresspeople elected.  A think the goppers have demonstrated with their half a million dollar expenditure that however it happened, whoever is to credit, they got hurt in the only place that matters to them, their wallet.

On the day after what was an incredible synergistic event, what should be a motivating and energizing outcome, I read this comment string.  Way to focus.  And I'm very disappointed in Bob Brigham's comments, very disappointed.  

Bob did a great job from what I read on the blog, and his blog is a great, yep, you guessed it, TOOL, to keep track of races and stuff.  

But I don't know, nor do I really care, about whatever the vitriol and cat scratching I just wasted 30 minutes reading is coming from.  Get over it, get together, and let's put bush and cheny and delay and santorum and frist and sensenbrenner and rice and hadley and limbaugh and rove and grover and reed and about i don't know how many more rethuglicans where they belong, in JAIL!

by DuckmanGR on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:52:44 AM EST

Re: And thanks John Lapp (none / 0)

Nice of you to say.  Again, appreciated everyone's efforts -- including Bob.  This race was a notice to Republicans that no one is safe.  Point taken on the idea of safe and what is competitive and not competitive -- I think this race turned the CW on its head.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And thanks John Lapp (none / 0)

I think this race turned the CW on its head.

So what changes are you making in your strategy?

by SocialNetworker on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With dems calling other dems traitors.. (none / 0)

...who needs enemies? Plenty of fratricide to go around. It's too bad the republicans aren't so eager to eat their young or they'd be the minority party today.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:52:54 AM EST

In response to Duckman's post... (none / 0)

...on enemies above. Mis-post.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:56:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

self-righteousness (3.00 / 0)

The self-righteousness here is amazing -- and disconcerting. I lost count at 6 or 7 how many posts claimed what "we" did and then used made-up claims to attack the DCCC.

Lots of folks here are here not because we're angry and want someone to blame; there's already a party, a tv network and a massive culture to do that.

I'd like either someone to explain to me in intelligent terms that doesn't use vagaries like "we" and "they" what is so god-awful about the DCCC. Its not their fault we're in the minority, and if it is, don't we as Democratic party members/ voters/ participants share an equal amount of the blame.

Or are folks like Kaus and Whitman right about these blogs, which I've been reading for over 2 years now, as just full of frustrated, aggressive and politically inept ranters?

by desmoulins on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:54:10 AM EST

Re: self-righteousness (none / 0)

Team effort.  
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Centrists destroy the party (2.00 / 1)

With all this talk about who to run in 08, I merely want to chime in.  The 1990's Democratic "Run to the Center" Clinton inspired policies destroyed the party in order to get one man elected president.  It was great for Clinton, but after his two terms were up, we were left with a party that was trying to cover up it's own identity to get the 5% of the electorate that are swing voters.

  Perhaps this is over simplification, but let's look at some 'facts'.  Starting with Gingrich in 94 and continuing through Bush II-Rove Et. All, the Republicans are not only proud of being Republican they overcompensate and end up running "super-Republicans", and guess what, they WIN.  Example #2 Hackett: We all know what happened here, He said "I am a Democrat you are an SOB" and...40 point turnaround from 94.

  When you run to the center, you inevitably end up trying to hide the "base" of your party from the media and "target voters".  Imagine here a parent with a favoured child that is always being shown off while the "bad" child gets locked in his room when guests are over.  Guess what, under centrist leadership WE are the ones locked away.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I can imagine that said "bad" child has little if any motivation to help out the parents when needed (the parents here being the Party and centrist candidates)

To fully develop my thoughts here would take far too long so everyone here please respond on my logic (or lack thereof) instead of the assumptions.

Next Generation Democrats
by Pitin on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:12:58 AM EST

Oops (none / 0)

end of second paragraph should read: "I am a Democrat you are an SOB" and...40 point turnaround from 04.  Not 94.  My bad
Next Generation Democrats
by Pitin on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:17:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh nonsense. (3.00 / 0)

Clinton won because most voters diagree with you, and they also disagreed with the GOP. Majority rules, and that's why Bill got 8 years. Sure that means you don't get everything you want, but then nobody ever does. I'm a centrist but I didn't get everything I wanted either. The alternative? You could have had Perot, Bush Sr, or Dole. Sure, try and run a Kucinich or Nader on the dem ticket. Those centrists you so dislike? They'll go to the right and vote GOP costing you the election.

At least centrists adopt some progressive policies and can be influenced on others. You'll get no such priveleges from the GOP. Unless you can triple or quadruple the size of the liberal base, that's the reality of a general election.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:39:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

IMO, the real lesson learned is... (none / 0)

How much money and email is thrown at a campaign aren't the defining factors that bring victory. That has been vastly overstated. Rather it's the candidate's resume trumping all else.

If the dems start fielding more candidates like Hackett -- and I'm talking with airtight military credentials -- in the current political environment, they will effectively disarm the GOP of its most effective weapons: questioning democratic committment to defense and patriotism. Both of these consistently poll as defining characteristics linked to foreign policy, the war, and homeland security.

Let's face it, if you take away Hackett's Iraq war veteran status, this race would not have been close. The Schmidt campaign had to resort to regurgitating Bush talking points because it was defanged on the typical republican course of maligning a dem candidate's fitness to protect national security. In fact, due to the Iraq war currently in progress and so deep in the psyche of most Americans, Schmidt had to be careful to praise Hackett's military service while trying to turn the focus to other issues...a futile effort considering Hackett's pioneering status. If you doubled Hackett's funds but took away his military background I bet Schmidt would have beat him by 15 to 20 points.

Unlike the Vietnam war for Kerry, a distant inglorious memory in the minds of voters and one that many would like to forget, Hackett's first hand military experience was such a positive asset that he able to both harshly criticize President Bush and still look patriotic enough that most of the heavily republican district gave him a pass! I'd like to see any other democrat pull off. I take my hat off to anyone that can call the president an SOB and still get within 4k votes of victory in a red district that's been GOP for 40 years.

Groom many more Iraq vets as democratic candidates over the next few years and I can't see any way the dems cannot take back both houses, short of the GOP doing the same. Candidates like Hackett are the only ones who can criticize the Iraq war and yet still look patriotic to the programmed sheep on the right. In fact, they're so conditioned to never question the integrity of the troops today that they'd probably almost feel unpatriotic not voting for him!

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:28:00 AM EST

Wrong dogbreath (1.00 / 0)

Candidates like Hackett are the only ones who can criticize the Iraq war and yet still look patriotic to the programmed sheep on the right.

Anybody can criticize the war in Iraq. They just have to have enough spine to stand their ground. The error is thinking we have to appease the "programmed sheep on the right." Our target audience is independents, not wingnuts. Independents are not buying into the Coulter/Hannity bullshit near as much as Democrats are.

If the Democratic Losers Club wasn't afraid of their own shadow it would be easy to criticize Bush's war.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong dogbreath (none / 0)

"Dogbreath", eh? Gary's infantile childishness continues unabated.

Your target audience are independents? Is that so? Your pal SocialNetworker has stated above that independents have no credibility and believes only the base is important. I guess you two need to huddle and decide on a cohesive message.

Ah yes, the DLC baby-eaters, responsible for the holocaust and slavery of blacks before that. How could I forget?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong dogbreath (none / 0)

Infantile is as infantile does. You and your friend NevadaDan should get together and plan your strategy for Hillary's losing primary campaign.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong dogbreath (3.00 / 0)

See, now only you could manage to completely mangle a Forrest Gump quote. I do look forward to 2008 -- rubbing the salt into your wounds as Hillary easily secures the nomination will rank second in enjoyment only to the angst of the GOP when she takes the oath of office!
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:35:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong dogbreath (none / 0)

Keep dreaming. A woman President will never be elected President in America during a war.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:33:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong dogbreath (none / 0)

Spoken as a true cheuvenist stuck in the 1980's. Oh, I greatly look forward to the increasing significance of my screen name as her nomination draws near. "I told you so" will be inferred in my every post!
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:22:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMO, the real lesson learned is... (none / 0)

Btw, thanks for the input!

If she's our candidate, hell yeah!  But I'm not sure if she should be.  Maybe someone more "liberal" like Howard (hahahahahahahaha!).

Let me think, is there anyone out there that is really a liberal fighter with street creds?  The Right tries to call all of these people liberal, but really, Hillary?  Howard?  Gore?  Cuomo, he's liberal, but, well, he's a liberal and can't make up his mind, so, no, that wouldn't work.  

Let me think....

by DuckmanGR on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:12:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMO, the real lesson learned is... (none / 0)

Well, I find it interesting that the base who once hailed Hillary as their liberal champion keeping Bill Clinton's centrism in check during the 1990's, now accuses her of being a moderate centrist due to her more moderate tack since 2000 as senator. Meanwhile, the Right Wing Noise Machine is accusing Hillary of dressing up as a moderate to cover up her long history of liberal activism.

I guess you can't please everyone all the time.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeeaaaahhhhh! (none / 0)

What a great little flame war! This is what we need more of. Instead of beating around the Bush with totally bogus appeals to party unity, we need to get to the bottom of our disagreements. Sometimes the only way to do that is with an air clearing flame war.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:02:18 AM EST

Re: Yeeaaaahhhhh! (3.00 / 0)

Now removing my flame retardant suit and heading back into a meeting.  Too many meetings.  Will try to check back often.  Hope you are well.  Thanks for letting me join it.  Appreciated the comments.  Helpful in informing our decisionmaking and strategy.
by John Lapp on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeeaaaahhhhh! (none / 0)

Now you're getting the hang of it!
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeeaaaahhhhh! (none / 0)

You are one of us now, John.  There's no turning back.
by SocialNetworker on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quixote Fund? (3.00 / 1)

So the experts here say that $10K is the minimum we need
to run a worthwhile campaign in a heavily GOP district with
a popular incumbent.

How many people here are interested enough in the 50-state
strategy to kick in money toward getting these candidates their
$10K each?

Here's a proposal -- now, during the recruitment phase, we
have the DCCC or BlogPac or somebody take contributions to
the Quixote Fund.  If we raise $100K, that goes to the ten
candidates in the country who are on the ballot but have the
least chance of winning (by some fixed formula, say involving
the previous race, the partisan index, etc.).  If we raise $500K.
we fund the fifty least promising races.

This fund stays neutral in any primaries -- the money goes to the Democratic candidate in the general.

I'd put $100 into this.  Maybe it's something the DCCC would
support with some matching money?

by DaveMB on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:04:20 PM EST

One thing that pissed me off... (3.00 / 1)

I attended the College Democrats convention in DC two weeks before the OH-2 election as an advisor to a CDA chapter in Hamilton County. We camed armed with volunteer signup sheets, stickers, & lit and couldn't wait to hear the DCCC representative mention Paul Hackett in her presentation on upcoming races. Not one mention. In fact, there was not one mention in any of the large-group sessions. To top it off, we requested a table to sign up volunteers, and CDA wouldn't allow it. We actually had to call the DCCC person in Ohio to have them call DC and tell them to get on the ball. Thankfully, through hard work and shouting Hackett's name at the top of our lungs whenever possible, we were still able to sign up and educate many of the college dems about the race and were able to get some volunteers to come to Ohio, but geez, not even one mention???
by onest on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:09:51 PM EST

My overall impression (3.00 / 0)

... of the Hackett race after reading the Monday Morning Quarterbacking here and elsewhere is that he did about as well as he possibly could have.

If the DCCC had gone into a heavily Republican district like OH-02 guns blazin' as early as some have suggested (in both respectful and rude, profane ways), the NRCC would have simply turned up the "liberal liberal liberal" crap we see each and every election cycle. Except they would have done it earlier.  

And as soon as that race would have become less about personalities and local issues and more about partisan identification, Hacket would have not have only lost, but probably lost by a wider margin.  

The apparently large numbers of Republicans who voted for Hackett likely didn't do so because they had suddenly become Democrats.  They probably did so for any number of reasons, ranging from the fact that Schmidt was a terrible candidate to the corrupt and slimy manner in which the Ohio Republicans have run things to the fact that Hackett is an Iraq War vet who has serious balls, speaks his mind and doesn't pull punches.

As a result, this race was allowed to develop into something other than the traditional Democrats vs. Republicans race, and Hackett was fortunate for that.  The longer that dynamic could be avoided, the better he was likely to do.

Having the DCCC drop earlier, larger amounts of money into the race would have therefore succeeded in accomplishing two things, neither of which would have been good:

  1. The partisan mudbog would have started earlier, hurting Hackett's (already long) chances;

  2. Like it or not, and despite some impressive fundraising by the DCCC (which some of you have insanely threatened to try to shut off), the NRCC will always have more money.  If the DCCC would have spent more (and earlier) in OH-02, the NRCC would have simply done the same. Tit-for-tat.  

And for the reasons explained above, the DCCC would have gotten less bang for their buck, not to mention the fact that the less money you have, the more it hurts to spend.  

So, spending more in a race like OH-02, a longshot from start to finish, would have meant less money to spend on other candidates around the country who are in much more competitive districts... and even less money for the longer shots that some have suggested the DCCC invest in more frequently.

(Of course, for those of you who think the DCCC is incapable of doing anything right ever, or are "irrelevant," having less money available for other candidates WOULD give you even more room to complain about the fact that your favorite / local candidate didn't get enough / any DCCC support in 2006.  And at that point, it simply becomes a question of what you enjoy more:  complaining about the DCCC or actually having more money available to fund competitive races and the occasional longer shots that become targeted.)  

So, looking at that bigger picture and based on the evidence found on this site and elsewhere, I can't find any real fault in what the DCCC did and didn't do in OH-02.  And if they did do things wrong, it sure wasn't waiting until they did before publicly entering the picture.

Think about it in these terms:  You're in a war, you have fewer soldiers, fewer resources, you're on enemy turf, and just beyond the trees is a big hill with a well-guarded compound at the top. You have to try to take that compound.  

Charging up the hill at that well-guarded enemy compound in broad daylight is basically like saying, "HI! KILL ME PLEASE!"

No thanks.  

If you're going to strike, you wait and do so strategically... at night, in the fog, with the element of surprise.  You fight on the terms that are most advantageous to your cause and give you the best chance of success.  

Which is what the DCCC did.

There's nothing cowardly, as some have bizarrely suggested, about taking that approach.  It's just smart, and at its most basic level, a case of prudent resource allocation and cost-benefit analysis.  

That was OH-02.  Enemy turf.  Outnumbered.  Little chance of success.  But with a great candidate, the right local environment and good strategy(by the campaign itself, blogosphere, the DCCC and the many other organizations who were involved), the GOP was put on notice, and there are things that can be learned from this race that will be beneficial to the Party in 2006.  

Candidate recruitment has already been strong, and this race will not only strenthen it, but provide a better sense of "the right kind of candidates" to recruit in some districts.  

Fundraising, for and by both the DCCC and the blogs has and should be strengthened as a result of this race.

There are lots of reasons to be optimistic about what happened this week in Ohio.  There are lots of reasons to be excited about what's possible in other districts, and how the lessons learned in Ohio can be applied elsewhere.  And there are lots of reasons to be fired up about beating a lot of Republicans next year.

Turning that fire on the DCCC (particularly for silly reasons), instead of at the sleezey, morally bankrupt and dishonest Republicans who are running this country into the ditch, just makes our collective job of winning back the House even harder.

People like Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and George Bush are the bad guys here, not the ones trying to remove them from power and deliver them to jail and disgrace... or Crawford.

by Politicalhack06 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:45:39 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.