Hypocrisy of the Democratic Party leadership

by Gary Boatwright, Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:25:16 PM EST

There is a huge disconnect going on between the progressive challenge to Joe Lieberman and the decision of the DCCC and the DSCC to provide campaign and fundraising support for conservative Democrats in primaries against progressive Democrats. The DCCC has committed a million dollars to Duckworth and the DSCC will spend untold millions backing Bob Casey in Pennsylvania.

If centrist Democrats do not oppose Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC spending a million dolars supporting Duckworth  in IL-06 or Chuck Schumer and the DSCC spending untold millions propping up Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, what is wrong with a primary challenge for Lieberman?

The DCCC completely ignored Steve Young in the CA-48 special election and only stepped in with very late help for Paul Hackett in his Ohio special election at the very last moment. Cegelis, Pennacchio, Young and Hackett are only the most prominant examples of progressive anti-war Democrats that the Democratic Party machine has tried to either block out of Democratic primaries or ignored in special elections.

Progressive Democrats are the ones being shut out of the "big tent" Democratic Party. It has been argued that just because Joementum kisses GOP ass that is not a good reason for the grass/netroots to support a primary challenge against him. Or that hatred of Joe Lieberman is simply a visceral reaction to hearing him criticize Democrats.

Am I missing something? Criticizing Democrats and kissing George Bush's ass isn't enough to despise Joementum?

How about the fact that Dick Cheney quotes Lieberman?

How about Joe Lieberman has been a frontman attacking Howard Dean?

Lieberman attacked Democrats for blocking John Bolton.

Joe Lieberman supports teaching creationism.

Lieberman took Jeb Bush's side about reinserting Teri Sciavo's feeding tube.

Lieberman helped Bush dismantle Social Security and was a leading figure of the Faint Hearted Faction.

Not only did Lieberman sponsor Bush's Iraq War Resolution, to the best of my knowledge Joementum is the only Senator who is still supporting Bush's immoral war.



Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 86 Comments :: Post a Comment


Gary I am going to state is simply (3.00 / 1)

It is not the DSCC nor the DCCC's job to elect progressive, it is there job to elect Democrats.  In the case of Casey it was the DSCC who recruited him to run on the condition he would not have a contested primary so do not by shocked to find out he does not.  As for Lieberman I hope you and others are not naive enough to think the party will be neutral should somerun against him.  You will see most of the Connecticut Democrats make public endorsement and see all kinds of national Democrats including Bill and Hillary, I know yes Lieberman did make a speech on the floor of the Senate in 1998 but that is ancient history, if you are prepared for that go ahead if not then do not be surprised if no one runs.
by THE MODERATE on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 02:09:16 PM EST

Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 6)

In his Party of Change diary, Matt pointed out that one of our problems is "the gutless faction in the Democratic Party conducting sabotage."

The biggest sabateur in the Democratic Party is Joe Lieberman. Job One of the grass/netroots should be taking him down. The success of The Club for Growth is predicated on their willingness and ability to run primary challenges against moderate Republicans.

Just as Matt predicted, Republicans are going to be running as reformers. The Club for Growth has a WSJ editoria that recommends Cleaning House: Banish the Abramhoff Republicans:

This week's plea agreement by "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff has Republicans either rushing to return his campaign contributions in an act of cosmetic distancing, accuse Democrats of being equally corrupt, or embrace some new "lobbying reform" that would further insulate Members of Congress from political accountability.

 Here's a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place.

 Yep. Matt's right. The GOP is already running as "reform republicans" while the DLC, DCCC and DSCC antagonize the Democratic base. They WSJ also reminds their readers that Democrats are equally corrupt:

This isn't to say we agree with the media hype that the Abramoff scandal is of "historic proportions." That's true only if your "history" starts around 1994, after Jim Wright sold his "book" in bulk to the Teamsters, after Tony Coelho of "Honest Graft" fame, after Abscam, the Keating Five, Clark Clifford and BCCI, and any number of other famous episodes of Capitol Hill sleaze. Mr. Abramoff and his pals are stock Beltway characters.

 Meanwhile, the lonely voices of progressive challengers like Busby, Pennacchio and Cegelis are effectively blackballed from the Democratic Party. If the grass/netroots is serious about getting any respect from the Democratic Party we have to adopt the same tactics as The Club for Growth.

Forget about supporting Duckworth, Casey or any other Democrat who the party machine backs. We can be the most effective by picking five or six races to the exclusion of everything else. If we help fund and support a primary challenge against Joe Lieberman and focus our resources on Cegelis, Pennacchio and two or three other candidates we can send a message to the Democratic machine. If we don't start playing hardball, Emanuel and Schumer will continue to snub their noses at the grass/netroots, because we will have demonstrated that we can be taken for granted and there won't be any consequences.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 02:53:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 2)

The club for growth is run by Former Rep Pat Toomey who in 2004 ran against Sen Specter, in the GOP primary, and to this day Toomey is still brooding about how the RNC came to Specter's aid.  So yes Gary the GOP does it also and that is the way the game is played.  Our political system is not based on the English Parliment and its system of party loyalty which out founders made an effort to stay away from, sometimes I think you and other wish we used that system though.
by THE MODERATE on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)

Also the GOP will probably come to the aid of Lincoln Chaffee. They will support Lincoln Chaffee, even though he votes like a Democrat, until the bitter end.
by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (2.66 / 3)

Amen! This is the problem with some of the radical left within our party. They have a purity test. A party cleansing.

If we followed their standard, we would have a 75%-25% & 70%-30% Republican Majority in the Senate & the House respectively.

They drove out the strongest Democratic candidate in Langevin in Rhode Island because he is Pro-life, they are NOW bitching & moaning about the Pro-Life Bob Casey in PA.

Its intolerance & radicalism at its worst.

by labanman on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)

The GOP is much more reasonable when it comes to being pragmatic. The radical left, unfortunately, still believes in "sending a message" and whining. You're right about that.

Most Republicans, even the White House, will support Lincoln Chaffee until the end. They realize that no one else could hold onto that seat.

by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

send a text message instead. see how much video you can cram-pack into that. see how long you get to sit around debating the finer points.

see the people all moving towards real government.
run, candidate run.

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)

Look at a rating system based on voting in the House or Senate like Progressive Punch.  Nearly all of the Republicans in the House are bunched within a 15 point margin while Democrats are scattered over twice the range of independence from 99% "progressive to around 50%.
by David Kowalski on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)

I wrote a diary about this asking for answers, but I still can't wrap my mind around it: is Iraq the only issue these folks care about? I'm not being smug; I'm really trying to understand why so many Dems seem willing to vote against otherwise progressive Democratic candidates. The anti-Lieberman left wing of the party doesn't have the numbers to actually beat candidates, so all they will succeed in doing is making Democrats look stupid in the national media. But, maybe they'll like that. Nothing they hate more than "the establishment"....
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its just a little war after all (3.00 / 2)

We shouldnt really be too concerned about it.  In war terms, is this one war all that bad?  It hasnt cost me anything.  No one I know has died.  My taxes havent gone up.  And we are spreading peace and democracy around the world and endearing ourselves in the minds of all good people.  

A few thousand Iraqi kids may have been killed, but they were poor, we didnt see their mangled little bodies on the news, and at least they died free.  So what are they complaining about?  

I think you are right Blue, its much more important that we do everything to elect Democrats, and make any moral compromise necessary to hold what we have.  I mean, after all, whats more important?  Ensuring that the junior senator from CT still calls himself a Democrat (assuming he doesnt become the neo-con's new Sec of Def) or making a futile attempt to participate in democracy by voting for someone else who stands for what we believe in.  

Those people who oppose Lieberman are just left wing nuts with no sense of perspective, and its just a waste of time trying to understand them.  

by Winston Smith on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please pay attention bluenc (1.00 / 1)

is Iraq the only issue these folks care about?

Why do you keep repeating that? I listed seven different diaries by seven different members of the MyDD community about seven different reasons Lieberman sucks.

This is exactly what I'm talking about:

The anti-Lieberman left wing of the party doesn't have the numbers to actually beat candidates, so all they will succeed in doing is making Democrats look stupid in the national media. But, maybe they'll like that. Nothing they hate more than "the establishment"....

You and labanman keep repeating propaganda from the RWNM and pretending you're Democrats. If you two really are Democrats, why don't you start acting and talking like one? You two are more critical of progressive Democrats than Limbaugh and Hannity, but you keep flapping your gums about a "big tent" and cry about being picked on by progressives.

I can't tell who is stupider and more incapable of reason, you or labanman. No matter what anyone says or links to, you both keep repeating the same RWNM propaganda. I think I understand why you two like Joementum. You have a kevlar lined brain just like Lieberman. Nothing penetrates it.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

All the reasons you list for hating Lieberman don't work because other Senate Democrats share his position. Some I disagree with, some I don't care about, but Lieberman isn't alone on that stuff. As far as me not being a Democrat, that's lame. I won't even respond to it. I don't go after right wing nutjobs here because this isn't an echo chamber. We're not here to confirm each other's opinions. This is because we're better than the Republicans.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

You and labanman are very strange Democrats. Have you read some of the dude's comments? Can you explain why the dude keeps shouting?
I won't even respond to it. I don't go after right wing nutjobs here because this isn't an echo chamber.

If this isn't a RWNM echo chamber, how do you explain the following statements?

Amen! This is the problem with some of the radical left within our party. They have a purity test. A party cleansing.

The radical left, unfortunately, still believes in "sending a message" and whining. You're right about that.

The anti-Lieberman left wing of the party doesn't have the numbers to actually beat candidates, so all they will succeed in doing is making Democrats look stupid in the national media.

You're trying to take down an incumbent Democratic senator. That's divisive and wrong.

What will it be Gary? Are we into sending messages & supporting symbolic candidacies by spending limited resources to support progressive Dems who cannot win? Or are we focused on winning back control of congress & stopping this Republican madness?

My problem is with Radical Left Wingers who THINK they are part of the progressive Democrat block but are actually way  out there on left field.

No! These Left wingers want to turn this country into socialism. These Left Wingers would LOVE TO SEE ALL Moderate Democratic politicians Lose Left & Right. They don't give a shit about any Democrat who does not conform to their radical views.

You are No Different than the Right wingers like the Jerry Falwell's, the Pat Robertson's, the Ralph Reed's.

If I was someone who had no idea of the election history of PA, Gary would mislead me to think that Casey is the neophyte politician with Zero Statewide winning record & No Name ID, while Pennachio was the veteran politician who has successfully won statewide office.

Look at the polls, for god's sakes.

The DSCC and DCCC aren't going to spend money on candidates without some track record.

The DSCC is not "subverting" democracy.

These were two candidates who might not have joined the NDC because it is too liberal for them.

Is that some of the most batshit crazy stuff you've ever read or what?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (3.00 / 1)

 Again Gary, who are you to define who's a good democrat & who isn't?

You call blueinc & myself as "strange" democrats. But let me just remind you for the nth time that your point of view is NOT the majority among Democrats. In fact, in reality, you are to the Left of even many progressives.

If it was, Liberal Democrats would be the majority among Democratic Governors, Senators & House members.
( Although you seem to be to the Left of even Liberal Democrats)

If it was, moderates John Kerry, John Edwards, and Wes Clark would NOT have finished 1,2,3 in the Presidential Primaries.

In reality, 15 out of 22 current elected Democratic Governors are DLC ! That's almost 70% of all Democratic Governors. Not to mention the other moderate Governors who are NOT DLC but are considered Moderates such as Gov. Schweiter of MT.

About 50% of All Democrat Senators are officially DLC. Not even including the Moderate, Pro-Life Democrats like no other than Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who is not DLC but is certainly a moderate Democrat.

Or let's look at the House. Currently close to Half ( about 48%) of all elected Democrats in Congress are members of either the DLC or the Blue Dogs. Some are members of both.

Not to mention Hillary Clinton, another DLC would not be leading ALL SURVEYS Nationally by Huge margins among Democrats IF people think like you!

Please. You can make All the noise you want. You can all all moderate Dems "strange", But that won't change reality.

AS much as many hear hate DLC, surveys done & reviewed by no other than Chris Bowers have shown that the DLC is NOT the enemy. DLC Senators & House Members vote in step with the rest of the party in higher percentages than people like Gary would like to you to think.

In fact, in the House, DLC have a much better voting record in terms of sticking with the party than the "Blue Dogs".

Stick to the facts. Numbers don't lie.

by labanman on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (3.00 / 1)

I am considered a "moderate", whatever that means.

However, I agree with Gary.  The DSCC and D3C should not be backing candidates in primaries.  They should allow the democratic (small d) process to run it's course and then back who the constituents choose.  

Also, it is our right to run primaries against elected officials who we feel are not reflecting our views.  Lieberman is hated by Democrats in the tri-state area.  He is very popular among Republicans and Conservatives.  If he is not representing his base then it is their prerogative to run a primary opponent against him.

Moreover, Lieberman has made a career attacking Democrats.  He is damaging to the party brand as a whole and we would be better off by either replacing him or having him run in a very competitve primary.  Call it the Toomey effect.  Club for Growth sent a powerful message.  Conservatives are willing to lose battles now only to win the war down the road.    

Finally, this "Fighting Dems" crap is just that - garbage.  A lot of these Dems are Democrats in name only who's only credential, if it is such a thing, is that they are military and/or Iraq war vets.  THAT ENTITLES NO ONE TO ELECTED OFFICE!

Cegelis came close to winning without D3C help.  Now they are backing Duckworth because Washington Dems are so narrow-minded they believe all it takes is a "silver bullet."  Running military vets will not bump up the Dems' "weakness on nat'l security" bullshit talking point.  

Dems seem weak on nat'l security because they are wimps!  They cowered before Bush and the republicans.  They dont stand up for what they believe and they use waffling language filled with loopholes so they can "clarify" what they said when opinions change.  

Until they stand up and defend themselves, even if what they are standing for is unpopular, they will not be trusted with standing up for the defense of others.  

So we should help Cegelis and other REAL Fighting Dems - those who fight for Democratic principles and teach the D3C a lesson.  This is our party.  Otherwise, if Duckworth ends up winning the primary because of D3C meddling, then I would advise not voting for her.  Sure, we may lose the seat now, but then it will prompt the D3C from getting involved and continuously ruining our chances with these bullshit "centrist" Democrats that stand for nothing.

by dayspring on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:53:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

>>Lieberman is hated by Democrats in the tri-state area.<<

But Lieberman doesn't represent the tri-state area.  The only people who matter insofar as Lieberman is concerned is Connecticut Democrats, and quite frankly, he's still polling pretty well amongst them.  So even if New York and New Jersey Democrats hate him, it doesn't matter.  Besides, I'm not entirely convinced the NY and NJ rank and file who don't follow politics as closely as the people who read blogs give a hoot about what a US Senator from Connecticut does; they're more concerned with what Chuck, Hilary, Frank, and now Bob are doing, since those are their actual representatives.

by sucopsucoh on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

Tri means three.  CT is the third.  Tri-state, get it?  CT, NY, NJ.  

A lot of Dems from CT that I speak to who aren't involved in politics hate Lieberman.  

He only polls well because the alternative is a Repub.  

by dayspring on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

This is bullshit about the DSCC and DCCC "not getting involved in the democratic process." The campaign committees are, by definition, charged to encourage and recruit candidates. This is what they've been doing. Do they encourage all candidates equally? Of course not. They'll encourage a previously elected official more than a crackpot who thinks he was abducted by aliens, right? We may not always agree with their decision (and it's rarely as cut and dried), but they're not subverting democracy, unless you think the crackpots should get the same amount of resources as the real contenders. They're doing they're job.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

So explain Christine Cegelis vs. Tammy Duckworth?  

The D3C handpicks their veteran who, as far as I can tell, stand for nothing except to get elected (no pun intended).  While Cegelis built a campaign from the ground up and could take the seat if she had help.

Why recruit candidates if you already have a strong contender?  

by dayspring on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

Cegelis can win it? So you say, but that's your evaluation. The DCCC may have looked at the race and figured Duckworth was a better bet, and used that evaluation to make its decision. Again, we don't have to agree (I don't really have a dog in this fight), but they're not subverting democracy. Somebody's gonna get more support. Even if they supported Cegelis and Duckworth equally, there'll be someone whining that the party is pushing them out, that they could win it with some help. It's a call these people make every two years.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please pay attention bluenc (none / 0)

I just wanted to let you 2 know that we have started a forum on just this topic over at Blue Force, the new group site devoted to Progressive Security and Security Progressives.

My opinion: with Security Dems (or Fighting Dems or whatever you want to call them) running in 42 districts that are either vacant or held by Republicans it doesn't make sense to focus so early on distrcits that have a strong grassroots candidate. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but it just feels clumsy and illconceived, and may hurt the very important meme of the Security Dem that many of us are trying very hard to nurture...

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

This is the problem with some of the radical left within our party. They have a purity test. A party cleansing.

It seems to be the reactionary radicals in the DCCC and DSCC who are brokering primaries and demanding ideological purity. Progressives like Cegelis, Pennacchio and Young are the Democrats being ostracized by radical wingnuts like Lieberman and the Zell Miller wing of the Democratic Party.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

As has been noted repeatedly, the DSCC and DCCC have one objective: to get as many Democrats elected as possible. This means supporting candidates that can win, not the dreamboat candidate of one faction of the party. Also, it doesn't work to tie in Lieberman with Miller. It's just not a relevant comparison. Look at the actual voting records. Lieberman is well to the left of Miller, and Lieberman has never campaigned for any Republican. Remember not too long ago when we were licking our chops because Toomey was taking on Specter and dividing the GOP? Now it seems many Democrats want to hand the Rethugs a similar gift in CT, except this time the GOP could capitalize by running Shays.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

You and Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer are the ones dividing the Democratic Party. Until the Reactionary Wanker Wing of the Democratic Party stops attacking progressives Republicans will keep winning elections and controlling Congress.

If Lieberman loses he has no one to blame except himself.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

You're trying to take down an incumbent Democratic senator. That's divisive and wrong.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is what's wrong (none / 0)

 Joe Lieberman is the most hated man or woman in the Democratic Party. He has no one but himself to blame. What is wrong is the DCCC interfering in Democratic primaries all over the country instead of letting the voters decide.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:30:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe is Most Hated? Says who??? LOL! (3.00 / 1)

"Joe Lieberman is the MOST Hated man or woman in the Democratic Party".

Gary, Gary, Gary! Wow! says who ? You must be some kind of Expert to definitely Conclude that Joe Lieberman is the Most Hated Man or Woman in the Dem Party.

Is Joe hated in the Dem blogs? Absolutely! He is probably despised by thousands among the Democratic activist in the blogesphere!

But we have one problem Gary. The Blogs is NOT the majority of all Democrats. In fact, the blogs are NOT EVEN a Quarter of All Democratic voters.

If the Blogs were the Majority of Democrats, Howard Dean would have been the 2004 nominee.

If the Blogs were the Majority of all Democrats, Russ Feingold would be AHEAD BY MILES among all Democratic contenders for '08.

Earth to Gary. What's reality in the real world?
3 Moderates including two DLC members(Kerry & Edwards) finished 1,2,3 a year and a half ago in 2004.

What's reality. Hillary is way ahead of everybody right now for 2008.

What's another reality Gary? Joe Lieberman  has a 65% approval rating among All CT voters & close to 70% among All CT Democrats.

Most hated??? Man, there is a WORLD outside of the blogs my man. In case you were wondering. Geez!

 

by labanman on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)

This "incumbant Democratic senator" is the divisive one. Not in his dissent with the positions of other Democrats, with which one may disagree... but is fine. No, it is his unremitting willingness to criticize them and disparage them in the media.  

This is the guy who said publicly in 2003 that if the Democrats "move to the left" they "don't deserve to run this country". It's no mystery why Bush would give him a hug.

If Lieberman has substantive disagreements with party leadership, he can hash it out within the caucus. Instead he gives every right wing shill in the media talking points to undermine the Democratic party leaders and the ability of the Democratic party to function as an effective opposition party.

And do we ever need an effective opposition party.

No one senator is more important than the entire Democratic party.

Challenging Lieberman isn't divisive or wrong - it's party self-preservation.

by Malacandra on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

The D3C and DSCC should stay out of primaries!  Let the people decide and then let them step in and support the person who was chosen by the people.

Handpicking people and stifling primaries ensures that we lose.

by dayspring on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are we into sending messages or taking control (3.00 / 2)

What will it be Gary? Are we into sending messages & supporting symbolic candidacies by spending limited resources to support progressive Dems who cannot win? Or are we focused on winning back control of congress & stopping this Republican madness?

BTW, why in the world are you forcing your agenda on CT Democrats when Joementum is obviously popular among majority of his constituency.

You hate him. I dislike him. Many here cannot stand him. But Mydd or KOs is NOT CT. CT Democrats have the right to support their Democratic Senator!

For the nth time, Not All Democrats are Liberals. Not All Democrats agree with you. Liberals DO NOT control the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party will NEVER win Congress back nor will it ever will the Presidency with an All Liberal team.

Do you want the party to work together & win back control or are you so hung-up with the Lieberman's & the Biden's?

by labanman on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please replace the batteries in your tinfoil hat (none / 0)

I understand how much you love being wrong, but I have absolutely no idea what is going on in that paranoid little brain of yours labanman. Walmart has a terrific sale on their new line of kevlar lined tin foil hats. You might want to stop by and pick up a new one.

I don't hate Joementum. I think he's a great big baby.

Do you want the party to work together & win back control or are you so hung-up with the Lieberman's & the Biden's?

Progressives have always been willing to work together with moderates for the good of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean has never criticized a single Democrat since he became DNC Chair. Biden and Lieberman jumped all over Dean for saying he hated Republicans and everything they stand for. So the rule for the Radical Wanker Wing of the Democratic Party is you can criticize Howard Dean for slamming Republicans, but you can't criticize Lieberman for kissing Bush's ass and criticizing Democrats.

Isn't it funny how much the Radical DLC Wankers act just like Republicans? The Radical DLC Wankers control all of the levers of power at the DSCC and the DCCC and they are trying to block anti-war progressive Democrats out of primaries, but they complain they are being picked on.

Are there any Democrats you have ever had a kind word for labanman? All you need to do to take the Buddah Challenge is come up with four favorable comments you have made about any Democrat besides Lieberman. That shouldn't be hard for a good Democrat like yourself, now should it?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are NOT a Progressive (1.00 / 1)

>>>Progressives have always been willing to work together with moderates for the good of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean has never criticized a single Democrat since he became DNC Chair.

Absolutely! I have no problem with Howard Dean or progressive Democrats. Howard Dean is an asset to the Democratic Party. The Progressive democrats are key to any possible success of Democrats.

Who said I have a problem with Dean or progressives?

My problem is with Radical Left Wingers who THINK they are part of the progressive Democrat block but are actually way  out there on left field.

They are a LIABILITY more than an Asset to the Democratic Party or the Democratic movement.

Their agenda is not about regaining Democratic Party control or Party unity.

No! These Left wingers want to turn this country into socialism. These Left Wingers would LOVE TO SEE ALL Moderate Democratic politicians Lose Left & Right. They don't give a shit about any Democrat who does not conform to their radical views.

What someone has to tell them is :

One, you do not have the numbers! You are the Loud minority within the Democratic Party.

and

Two, The Door is open. For every one of you who leaves the party, we attract 5 new mainstream voters into our party.

Sorry the truth hurts!

You are No Different than the Right wingers like the Jerry Falwell's, the Pat Robertson's, the Ralph Reed's.

You have everything in common with these right wing nuts EXCEPT for the fact the you are in opposite sides of the spectrum. Give me a break!

by labanman on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are NOT a Progressive (none / 0)

Of course. Silly me, I forgot that the DLC is trying to take over the name progressive. That's a little bit like Edsel trying to re-name his car Ferrari.

Do you have to yell so loud because your tin foil hat is blocking your ears or because it fits too tight?

I'm still waiting for you to find four comments you have made saying something kind about any Democrat except Lieberman. Are you Lieberman's crazy uncle or are you just crazy?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)

Busby is running in a heavily Republican district north of San Diego. Pennachio is a guaranteed loser against Santorum, and you wonder why the DSCC isn't supporting him? Do you honestly think that PA is going to elect Pennachio against Santorum? I don't see how he can win the election.
by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (3.00 / 1)


The best people to tell you that a vote doesn't count are the fascists. Karl Rove bases everything on baseball, he always tries to set the game up so there's a manic obsession sold ever so carefully to all the talk radio stations - packaged with manufactured hate - to sell advertising. And while people are cramming this stuff into their head to make the bad thoughts go away while they're stuck on the interstate, they're all the time wondering... maybe the salary of that baseball player isn't important..

Rove moves quickly to quash whatever free debate there is. There is only one game with Rove, and it is the game you're playing. You're losing. Chuck's winning. Know why? Because here's your golden boy that you say chuck can't beat.

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/santorum/

Caveat Lecteur mon sembable, mon frere

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

This is a strange post. Do you actually think Penacchio can beat Santorum?
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking Joe Lieberman down (none / 0)

Pennacchio is our only chance against Santorum. The GOPERS are going to crush Casey because he is such a weak campaigner. The DSCC is going to spend tens of millions of dollars backing the only politician in Pennsylvania who Santorum can beat.
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penncachio is our ony Chance??? (none / 0)

My Lord, Pennacchio is our only chance? Says who? Says Gary? I don't know whether to laugh or scratch my head.

For someone who eats & sleeps politics 24 hours a day, you sure are literally detached from reality.

If I was someone who had no idea of the election history of PA, Gary would mislead me to think that Casey is the neophyte politician with Zero Statewide winning record & No Name ID, while Pennachio was the veteran politician who has successfully won statewide office.

Unbelievable!

by labanman on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:11:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That explains it! (none / 0)

I don't know whether to laugh or scratch my head.

No wonder your tin foil hat isn't working labanman. You keep scratching holes in it.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penncachio is our ony Chance??? (none / 0)

The blogosphere is a bubble and too many stupid ideas go unchallenged for too long. In the end this creates people completely detached from political reality like Gary.
by upstatenydem on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:31:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penncachio is our ony Chance??? (none / 0)

In the end this creates people completely detached from political reality like Gary.

Unlike labanman, who is completely tuned in to political reality.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penncachio is our ony Chance??? (none / 0)

I think this personal stuff is stupid, but I have to agree that it's silly to suggest that Pennachio has a better chance of beating Santorum than Casey. Look at the polls, for god's sakes.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penncachio is our ony Chance??? (none / 0)

Look at the polls thirty days before Rendell kicked Casey's butt. Casey is a worse campaigner than Kerry. The man has no fire in his belly. Santorum is going to tear him to shreds.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary. Recommended n/t (none / 0)


by Seldom Seen Smith on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:40:42 PM EST

Answers (3.00 / 5)

CA-48: That seat was never winnable. Let's just be brutally honest about it. The DCCC has limited funds and wasn't going to spend a ton of money on a candidate that had no (realistic) chance of winning.

IL-6: On this race I agree that the DCCC should have stayed out of it until the general election. Ceglis had been raising money, and I don't understand why Emanuel got involved here.

OH-2: They probably felt the same way about Hackett that they did with Steve Young, although I disagree with that. To be honest, if you do look at the numbers of OH-2, it's very hostile territory for a Democrat. While I don't agree with their decisions to not send funds Hackett's way, I understand why they didn't.

CT Senate: The DSCC supports incumbent senators even Lieberman, whom you don't like. That's the brutal reality there. Lieberman is an incumbent and is going to get DSCC money. It's that simple. I know that people here don't like him--and even I have lost patience with him myself--but the DSCC would not support a primary challenger because he is the incumbent. And even though he is not popular he is well-liked in CT.

PA Senate: The other candidates running in the primary are jokes. No offense they lack the stature of Casey, who actually has won several statewide races by large margins. They lack the popularity that Casey has.

Why on earth are they going to support Pennachio, who is a sure-guaranteed loser on election day against Santorum? That's the reality of what the DSCC saw. Just because Pennachio is the favorite of some people on sites like these, that's not going to convince the DSCC to endorse and to spend money on candidates who have no experience and no (realistic) chance of winning?

I know that you love Pennachio, but the brutality is that PA won't elect him. Maybe if Pennachio actually had held office, had real elected experience and had a realistic shot of winning, the DSCC would not have supported Casey. The truth of the matter is that when you at the race objectively, Casey has a better shot of winning than Chuck.

The DCCC and DSCC have limited funds. They can't throw their money to every long-shot challenger. They also aren't going to go against incumbents.

When they decide who to support they look at whether candidates have rasied money, whether they have campaigns that have significant support, and what the political environment is where they are running. They then decide to allocate funds to candidates who, in their opinion, have the best chance of winning.

I don't agree with all of their decisions, but I do think they made the right choice in PA. I also do think that they were right in CA-48. I disagree with them in OH-2 and IL-6.

by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:23:38 PM EST

Re: Answers (3.00 / 1)

The way I understand the process candidates file, gather resources, campaign in their districts, and debate their primary opponents.  Voters then decide who will represent them.

What part of that process does the DCCC not understand?

by rba on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (3.00 / 1)

What part of that process does the DCCC not understand?

The part where the voters decide.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (3.00 / 4)

I think all of this reveals the truth behind the DSCC, the DLC, and DCCC, namely they are in the bussiness of winning elections.  Period.

That's the lens they sift data from.  Whereas we are free to sift the data from the perspective of our values and principles.

There job is to recruit the best candidates possible and to support people they think can win, and never, never to try to knock out an incumbent. Incumbents have a built in 80-90% chance of winning.  What party strategiest, whose job is to win, is ever going to think that is a good idea to knock out an incumbent?  

I think us progressives often put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to these issues.  We want the part and we want it now, whether or not we have a candiate who is capable of winning or not.  

Here's what I believe we need to do:  win at the local level with progressive politcs, move up by having those winning candiates win things like corporation commissioners and such.  Then, when we have a bench of proven candiates, and we will not be ignored.

The battle, in the stratigists mind, isn't centrist democrats versus liberals.  The battle is between gimmicks (fighting dem) and proven candiates (Casey) on one side versus ametuers on the other.  I am proud to be an ameteur, but I still know that party building isn't immediate and must begin from the bottom up.  U don't take much stock in gimmiks, but I don't think you can easily trade actual experience in governing.

With all of that said, I still think what is going on in IL-06 is a travesty.

by give em hell Huddleston on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clarification (3.00 / 1)

I think all of this reveals the truth behind the DSCC, the DLC, and DCCC, namely they are in the bussiness of winning elections.  Period
-------------------------------------------------

First of all the DLC is a think-tank. It doesn't endorse or run candidates for any office. So they are different from the DSCC and DCCC.

But you're right about the roles of the DSCC and the DCCC. They are in the business of winning elections. The mandate of both organizations is to increase the number of Democrats who are elected into both chambers of Congress.

They don't debate ideology or whether candidate X or Y is progressive or not. Their concern is winning the most elections and spreading out their resources in a way that maximizes their chance of victory. I don't know why it's a such shock to everyone here that that's how the DSCC/DCCC operate when choosing which candidates/races to support and to fund and which candidates/races to write off as unwinnable.

The DSCC was never going to support Chuck Pennachio in PA. Pennachio has never been elected dogcatcher and yet people here expected him to receive the same institutional support that Casey has gotten. It's just not going to happen. The DSCC and DCCC aren't going to spend money on candidates without some track record.

by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The real Prime Directive (none / 0)

Well said, if an unpopular analysis. The Prime Directive: Get Elected (My Practical Politics strikes again.)

Once we have the House and hopefully the Senate by the end of the 2008 cycle then perhaps having something more than the Democratic Votes to elect the Speaker of the House etc will be posssible to debate.

I dislike Joe Liebermann as much as most and lay the blame on our loss in 2000 squarely on his back. Yet the ultimate responsibility was the Presidential Nominee who showed an enormous lack of insight with his VP choice.

That said, if there is Primary oppo in CT...that's up to CT.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

It's just not going to happen. The DSCC and DCCC aren't going to spend money on candidates without some track record.

I guess that explains why they are dumping all of their resources into the Duckworth campaign.

They don't debate ideology or whether candidate X or Y is progressive or not.

Of course not. They don't pay any attention to ideology at all. It's just a coincidence that the head of the DCCC for the last twenty years has also been DLC. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

Do you even know who the past chairs of the DCCC are? What about the DSCC?
by upstatenydem on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

Lyndon Johnson and Tony Coelho were the only two Democrats prior to Rahm who became DCCC Chair at the end of their freshman terms. I believe that these are the others:

1981-1986 Tony Coelho
1987-1989  Beryl Anthony  
1990-1994   Vic Fazio
1995-1998   Martin Frost
1999-2000   Patrick Kennedy
2001-2002   Nita Lowey
2003-2004   Robert T Matsui
PRESENT       Rahm Emanuel, III

I believe they were all DLC. Any other questions?
     .

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

Right, I forgot that you think all Democrats to the right of Chuck Pennachio are DLC. Which I guess is why you think Ted Kennedy's son is DLC.

Rahm was selected to be DCCC chair for a very good reason, he had previous stints as the DCCC's field director and the DCCC's executive director.

by upstatenydem on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

What do you mean by "all DLC?"  I'm beginning to think that "DLC memmber" means "Gary doesn't like him/her."

From the members you mentioned, Lowey and Kennedy aren't members of the NDC (the DLC caucus in the house).   Frost, while not a progressive, was not a member in 1997.  Emanuel and Matsui were.  All this signifies nothing.

Since the DLC was formed in 1985, Coelho probably wasn't a member either.   In any case, he was working diligently to elect Democratic members of congress while you wore working to elect Ronald Reagan, so I would maintain that he deserves no criticism on your part.

by Jay on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

 I'm beginning to think that "DLC member" means "Gary doesn't like him/her."

That's about right. I use DLC Dem or DLCer as short for DLC type Dem.

I also use the perjorative "DLC Democrat" very broadly for two reasons. One, all that is required to join the DLC is a $40 membership fee of something. Two, there are plenty of Dems like Biden who are not DLC, but vote and act just like them. Thus, DLC types.

Martin Frost, for example, may not have been a DLC member, but like Biden, Frost was a DLC type Democrat. I ran across references to a Patrick Kennedy from RI and one from Mass. I'm not familiar with either state or even if there are two Patrick Kennedys. That was only for one year, so it doesn't matter much.

I guess I should have been ultra specific, unlike any of my critics who speak in very broad generalizations without saying much, and said that the DCCC has been dominated by DLC types for Most of the past 20 years.

As far as Coehlo, I ran across plenty of reasons to criticize him. If he wasn't DLC, he certainly sounds like a typical DLC type Dem.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 06:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

Ok, "DLC type" Democrats have existed since the New Deal. The DLC didn't invent the moderate Democrat, they just repackaged the idea. There have always been Democrats criticized for being too conservative. Hell, Truman thought Kennedy was a right-winger. This isn't some nefarious scheme; it's a prevalent strand of thought within the party.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

Gangsters are nothing new either. They've been around since Al Capone. Does that make gangsters OK?
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarification (none / 0)

haha wha?
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

CA-48: That seat was never winnable.

With nothing better to do for about six more months, would it have broke the DCCC bank to pony up $30,000 or $40,000 grand in seed money? Steve Young put up a little bit over $100,000 out of his own pocket and is carrying over his campaign right into the November general. Maybe the DCCC wouldn't be having so much trouble filling slots for uncontested elections if they were a little bit more forthcoming with even small amounts of seed money. The goal should be to leave no district behind.

At least we agree on IL-o6 jiacinto. Emanuel just gave every single Democrat who is considering taking the plunge another reason not to trust the Democratic leadership. Just like Paul Hackett, Cegelis stepped forward in '04 and proved that the IL-06 could be competitive. The thanks she got was a stab in the back.

OH-2: They probably felt the same way about Hackett that they did with Steve Young, although I disagree with that. To be honest, if you do look at the numbers of OH-2, it's very hostile territory for a Democrat. While I don't agree with their decisions to not send funds Hackett's way, I understand why they didn't.

You never know when lightening is going to strike, especially with all of the corruption and scandals the GOP is contending with. It should be a priority to fill vacant spots even in hostile territory.

CT Senate: The DSCC supports incumbent senators even Lieberman, whom you don't like.

I never suggested that the DSCC should not or would not help Joementum. I am saying the grass/netroots needs to take him down in the primary and even support Weicker in the general if he decides to run.

When you get right down to it, the Democratic Party's biggest problem is self hating Democrats who spout Republican lies about Democrats.

PA Senate: The other candidates running in the primary are jokes.

You have made your opinion about Pennacchio quite clear jiacinto. The Democratic leadership has to decide if they are going to give the voters a chance to vote for their candidate or subvert democracy in Democratic primaries.

The truth of the matter is that when you at the race objectively, Casey has a better shot of winning than Chuck.

The old "electability" argument? We all know how well that worked out. The objective truth is that Bob Casey is a terrible campaigner and the GOP already has their plan in place to swiftboat him. Casey will be even more lackluster on the campaign trail than Kerry was. Casey is probably the only Democrat in Pennsylvania that Santorum can beat. The DSCC is going to be pouring tens of millions of dollars into the Pennsylvania race because Casey cannot energize the Democratic base. A candidate who is merely NABA [Not As Bad As Republicans) is not the answer to winning back Congress or the White House.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (3.00 / 1)

I don't see what Chuck brings that makes him so electable. He has never been elected dog-catcher. You all expect someone like him to be taken seriously when he hasn't even run for anything else before in his life. Yes, Chuck can perhaps energize the "true believers"; but he won't appeal to swing voters. Santorum would take Chuck to the cleaners. I don't see why you can't see that.

If Pennachio really wants to be a viable candidate he would run for something lower--like State Legislature or Congress. He would build a record that could then make him competetive for the US Senate. Right now he comes in very inexperienced against Casey. Even though you don't like Casey, put yourself in the place of the DSCC. Their choice: either support someone who has the following of the fringe left and no one else really (Pennachio) or someone who has won several statewide elections by landslide margins and who is popular (Casey).

The DSCC is not "subverting" democracy. I bet that if you were to poll most PA Democratic primary voters, Casey would have a very large lead. It's not the DSCC you have an issue with; it's with other voters of PA or other Democratic primary voters, who simply will not support someone like Pennachio.

I just don't see how you think Pennachio is so valuable. To me he is the type of Democrat that Santorum will have a field day with. Yes people like you would vote for him; but, unfortunately, most PA voters don't share your values.

by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ignoring Reality (none / 0)

The DSCC is not "subverting" democracy.

Maybe if you bothered to be a little better informed you wouldn't be so ignorant. How can you pretend to know anything about the Pennsylvania primary if you haven't heard how the DSCC is [http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/4/115154/6755 subverting democracy in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

As for Steve Young, again, I don't necessarily agree with the DCCC's decision; but their funds are limited. They can't support every long-shot challenge out there.

Some seats are too Republican for a Democrat to win. It's great to have a "leave no seat uncontested" philosophy, but some seats are so Republican that a Democrat running is all but a sacrifical lamb.

Think of TN-1, which has not sent a Democrat to Congress since 1860. First of all getting someone to run is going to be hard because the seat is all but hopeless. Someone running enters the race knowing that there is a 90% or more chance of failure. Why would someone go through the brutally and taxing long hours for a campaign with little success? And why would the DCCC waste money on a seat like this?

Unfortuantely funds are limited. I do agree, though, that the DCCC should look and research second and third tier seats more aggressive for overlooked opportunities.

by jiacinto on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

Unfortuantely funds are limited.

Funds are not limited when it's time to knock off a progressive Democrat in a primary. If Rahm would stop spending so much time and energy knocking off Democrats, maybe the DCCC would have better luck recruiting.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

What money has the DCCC spent to knock off any progressive Democrat? Please point to any dollars spent.

If you think the DCCC is having trouble recruiting, you need to get your head checked.

by upstatenydem on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

I guess you haven't heard of Tammy Duckworth.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:02:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

Show us the exact expenditures of cash and party resources. They don't exist.

The DCCC, for better or worse, picked a Candidate and encouraged them to run that apparently they feel will have a better chance.

That's their job.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

I don't know why you keep insisting that the DCCC is not helping Duckworth Big Dog. Her website was up way too quick to have done it herself. There is no way that an inexperienced first timer got a campaign up and running practically from her hospital bed in the time Duckworth did.

I'm not talking about strict cash contributions from Rahm Emanuel's personal checking account to Tammy Duckworth. I'm talking about Obama and Dorgan pledging to fund raise for her. I'm talking about in kind contributions without which she wouldn't even be running. I'm talking about personal phone calls from Rahm Emanuel to big contributors. Don't even think about trying to tell me that doesn't count.

For a small fraction of the time, energy and resources the DCCC is pouring into this primary the DCCC could provide $20,000 seed money to a dozen candidates.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

These are resources expended to help a candidate. The DCCC is encouraging a candidate it thinks can win, not knocking off a progressive.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

Why is the DCCC interfering in a Democratic primary? According to their own policy the DCCC does not interfere in contested primaries. Why does the DCCC have a problem with letting the voters decide?
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

Martin Frost thinks the DCCC and DSCC should contest every election.

Rahm is also forcing Christine Jennings who used to be a Republican on the FL-13th. In fact, it sounds like Rahm is jamming up every primary in Florida;

The bottom line is that the DCCC is trying to buy off every single Democratic Congressional primary in Florida. Apart from angering good candidates and their supporters, this whole strategy is counterproductive. Florida has a very late primary, this election cycle on September 5, 2006. Typically, if there is a Republican primary and no Democratic counterpart to capture the attention of the media and the voters, there is simply not enough time to mount a viable campaign before early voting starts in mid-October.

If you think the DCCC is having trouble recruiting, you need to get your head checked.'

I guess Stuart Rothenberg should get his head checked  too:

Many of the DCCC's allegedly strong recruits have also raised no cash. Larry Grant (Idaho 1st) showed $11,453 on hand through Sept. 30, while Tim Walz (Minnesota 1st) had $41,150 in the bank and Jack Jackson (Arizona 1st) had $44,244 on hand. Yes, it's early, but these and other mediocre fundraisers have plenty to prove.

About half of the names on the DCCC's list of 45 strong candidates are warm bodies who actually may be able to take advantage of an electoral wave. After all, the GOP tsunami of 1994 swept in such lesser lights as Steve Stockman (Texas), Jon Christensen (Neb.), Dan Frisa (N.Y.), Wes Cooley (Ore.) and Enid Greene Waldholtz (Utah), none of whom survived more than two terms before being washed away again. But these Democratic recruits will have to demonstrate that they can win a race on their own.

As for the suggestions of 80 or 100 districts being in play next year, you probably can cut those numbers almost in half.

Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved


by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Christine Jennings link (none / 0)

My bad. Here is the link to TPM Cafe's story about Rahm stacking the deck in Florida primaries.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:26:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Doing what's right (none / 0)

Schneider lost two races against a weak incumbent and did worse the second time. How is she deserving of another shot?
by upstatenydem on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers (none / 0)

With nothing better to do for about six more months, would it have broke the DCCC bank to pony up $30,000 or $40,000 grand in seed money?

Actually, yes.  $30,000 x 435 is more than $12M, which is kwan that the DCCC just doesn't have.  The DCCC doesn't provide seed money for every longshot race because they can't.  

It isn't just progressives that the DCCC ignores, by the way.  They also pretty much gave the specials in PA9 and AR3 in 2001 a pass even though they were much closer.  (Conklin lost by 52-46 and Hathorn lost 56-42).  These were two candidates who might not have joined the NDC because it is too liberal for them.

by Jay on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:18:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Progressive (3.00 / 2)

My mama always used to say, progressive is as progressive does.
by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:26:18 PM EST

Good diary (none / 0)

It appears almost certain that Lamont will run. The key questions are

  1. whether elements of the party establishment will try to handicap him certain ways
  2. to what extent we in the netroots can shore up his challenger campaign. I am quite optimistic about this.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:58:55 PM EST

Duckworth getting a million (none / 0)

Is DCCC (or DSCC) allowed to give preferential treatment (in particular monetarily) to candidates in primary races?

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:01:13 PM EST

Re: Duckworth getting a million (none / 0)

No. They can't donate a dime to either candidate. That doesn't mean they don't have valuable non-monetary things that they can teach a candidate.

But generally once there's a contested primary...it's hand's off.

Sure as hell no one's getting a million.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duckworth getting a million (none / 0)

National party committees like the DCCC and DSCC can make coordinated or in kind contributions that seems to have a $20,000 limit.

Are there limitations on what another politician can donate? It seems like DeLay was fundraising and donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to other Republicans. Obama and Dorgan have both pledged to fund raise for Duckworth. How do they separate their own fund raising from Duckworth's?

Is there anything that prevents Obama or Dorgan from contacting their contributors and asking them to contribute to Duckworth? How about Rahm Emanuel. Isn't it possible for him to make a few calls and solicit contributions to Duckworth?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Contested primaries (none / 0)

I'm not sure that rule applies any more Big Dog. I found this diary about conduit contributions:

Opensecrets.org gives the appearance that we gave $3,500 to Russ Carnahan's campaign in the very competitive primary campaign to fill Dick Gephardt's seat in Missouri. Unfortunately, despite the ability to just ask us what the deal was, he instead assumed we were up to mischief and painted us as bad guys once again. Not true.  The DCCC has a policy of not contributing in contested primary elections unless it is an incumbent - and those are mostly in-kind contributions in the form of candidate services such space to make phone calls at the headquarters office or assistance stuffing mailings).  Here's what the $3500 to Carnahan was: the DCCC provides a courtesy to any candidate or contributor who asks to simply pass along checks from donors for the sake of convenience and security. If ANY donor hands a check to the DCCC to then hand over to a candidate, Federal Election law requires that we disclose that as a "Conduit Contribution".

Of course the DSCC has already stepped into the Pennsylvania primary and the DCCC jumped into this one. I think the new rule is that they won't interfere or contribute in any primary unless there is a progessive or anti-war Democrat Rahm or Schumer doesn't like.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contested primaries (3.00 / 1)

Jesus Gary...all that said was that if the DCCC or any other Party org received a check for a candidate it would pass along the check!

It wasn't party resources! They passed along a check received from a private party or PAC.

You know exactly how much $$ Casey has received from every possible Party arm? Check www.fecinfo.com.

The Answer is Zero.

This mantra of the DCCC and DSCC dumping millions into races or even much smaller amounts during primaries is a fiction. Period.

Urban Legend strikes again. Find PROOF of party expenditures, of party cash or resources, to either Casey or Duckworth and I'll apologize on any blog you want. It doesn't exist.

And the reason they didn't contribute to the Young campaign was the overwhelming reasonable probablitiy of loss. I oughta know. I was the one doing most of the negotiating. I know....repeat know...how most of this stuff works.

There is no vendetta against so-called 'progressives', a word that doesn't even have a commonly accepted definition. The Party is only interested in Victories.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contested primaries (3.00 / 1)

Your interpreting fund raising more narrowly than I am Big Dog. Check out Josh Marshall's post on Florida.

Sorry Big Dog. I do not believe the DCCC and DSCC are only interested in victories. They are playing way too many games in Democratic primaries that they didn't used to play.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:24:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What is the deal with Joementum? (3.00 / 3)

Thanks for the Diary Gary.  Here are a couple of thoughts in response to the Joementum crowd herein gathered.

1.  You have to be far-left to be opposed to Lieberman.

Joementum people.. a simple question.  Who's ass are you pulling this shit out of?  Personally I am not on the left end of the political spectrum.  I am pretty squarely in the middle of things.  I may lean a little left or a little right on some things, but I consider myself a Clinton (Bill) moderate.  The far-left crowd may oppose Lieberman due to his support of the war, but many moderates and conservatives in CT are opposed to the war, and would vote against Lieberman on this basis alone.   My father, a lifelong Connecticut Goldwater Republican left his party due to the illegal invasion of Iraq, and he was about the most conservative guy I knew in the state.  He voted for Nader, being unable to bring himself to vote for a Democrat.  Being opposed to Lieberman and his pro-occupation stance does not make one a liberal... not in Connecticut.

2.  The War:  Its just one issue.  Joe is such a good liberal otherwise.

I wonder what it would be like to not have empathy.  I am glad that you all dont spend time worring about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by the war.  It rips my guts out everytime I think about it.  The invasion and occupation of Iraq is not a defensible political position.  It is the manifestation of the most violent and extremist aspects of neoconservatism.  You dismiss this as if we were discussing fine points of tax policy.  It is not a small issue.  It is the defining issue of our lives.  If we allow the neoconservatives to define how the US interacts with the rest of the world, it will be a far worse world in every respect.   Call me an isolationist if you will.

3.  Lieberman can't be beaten in a primary.  

Are you kidding me?  Have any of you Joementum folks ever voted in a CT democratic primary?  I voted in a Democratic primary for governor once, back in the nineties.  After I voted, I hung out with some friends at the school where the voting took place.  For two hours, no one else showed up to vote.  If Lieberman has a strong opponent, and Move-on, et al mobilize for him, Lieberman is going down.  

4.  Dont risk Lieberman's seat.  Keeping that seat Democratic is more important than voting your conscience.  

Idiotic pleading desparation.  Do you Joementum people support the invasion and occupation of Iraq?  Just say it if you do.  Or are you just willing to compromise your ethics for the sake of political expediency, like so many Washington Dems?  The Democrat who knocks off Lieberman in a primary is poised to become the next Golden Boy of the party.  I doubt any Republican would be able to complete.  If a GOP candidate put up a serious contest, they are likely to be opposed to the war.  We are talking about Connecticut here, not some bible-belt state.  I would risk Lieberman's seat being won by a Republican from Connecticut, with the understanding that a Republican who can be a serious candidate would be in the mold of Rell or Weicker (Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, and anti-war.)

by Winston Smith on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:37:14 AM EST

Re: What is the deal with Joementum? (1.00 / 1)

  1. It's obvious that most of the clamoring for a primary challenger in CT is coming from those who fall on the left of the party's spectrum. Let me reiterate that I have no love for Lieberman. I just think it would be monumentally stupid to devote money and resources to beating him in a primary.
  2. I see no reason for you to self-righteously decide you're the only one who is torn apart by this war. Fuck you, I know kids who lost their dad in Iraq. You don't own compassion.
  3. If Moveon, et al. line up behind a challenger, all that means is the DLC, the DSCC, and every other national Democrat will do everything they can to help Lieberman, thus taking resources away from our fight against the GOP.
  4. I've never supported the war. I've also never been able to easily condemn supporters of the war to hell. I operate in the real world, where people honestly disagree about important issues.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:07:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is the deal with Joementum? (3.00 / 1)

As for your first point, so what if the opposition from Lieberman comes from the left wing.

As for your third point, shouldnt you criticize the DLC and DSCC for "taking resources away from our fight against the GOP" and not Moveon or other progressives.  For progressives, Democratic Party contol of Congress is a means to an end, but not the end itself.  The ultimate goal is enacting progressive legislation.  So, I do not view it as a waste of my money to donate to Lieberman's opponent.  If the Democratic establishment feels it necessary to waste its money supporting Lieberman, there is little I can do about that.

Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No Blanket Solutions (none / 0)

I dont agree with absolutes in political strategy.  For example, I support a primary fight against Lieberman.  If he has a credible opponent at all, this will be my highest priority in terms of donations and blogging during the primary season.  He is truly a DINO and there is every reason to believe a progressive can be elected there.

Yet, as a whole I am not critical of the DCCC or DSCC recruitment efforts.  While Casey is too moderate for me, I am glad he is running and dont blame the DSCC for backing him as the best hope of beating Senator Satan. I think the choice of Casey et al is not made so much for ideological reasons as practical ones, existing name recognition and the ability to fund raise. Further, I think as a whole Schumer and Emanual have done well with candidate recruitment, certainly much better then their Republican counterparts.

This does not mean I have no criticism of these two organizations, I do.  My criticism is more directed to their over polled, ultra cautious issue positions they are advocating.  As this is beyond the scope of Gary's entry, I will save this discussion for another day.

Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:11:07 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.

Login
Username:

Password: