DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again.

So if you're Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC, and you've just triumphed over a local progressive Democrat in IL-06, what do you do now? You go to NY-24, rinse, and repeat. From the Hill:

The Democratic primary in the race to succeed Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) is shaping up as a contest between a political insider supported by the national party establishment and an unproven outsider who could have broad appeal to independent voters in the general election.

The really frightening aspect of this article for me is how eerily familiar this is. Just like in my district, the DCCC has gone out of their way to recruit against another Democrat while Republican seats go unopposed, and is neck deep in a contested primary trying to influence the outcome of a local race.

The comparisons are much too similar for my comfort. Les Roberts, a political outsider and anti-war  candidate vs. DCCC recruit and political insider, Michael Arcuri. And just like in my district, it's all there laid out in this one article:

Step 1: Find a district with little Democratic party organization, a retiring Republican incumbent, and a Democratic challenger in place:

NY-24:

Les Roberts, a nationally renowned expert on public-health issues who has never held elected office, approached the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in November, hoping to convince it that Boehlert, who had not yet announced he would retire after 24 years in the House, could be defeated and that he is the candidate who could win in a GOP district. Republicans have held the district for four decades, and President Bush won 53 percent of the vote in 2004.

IL-06:

The absence of a Democratic Party organization in Illinois's 6th Congressional District has made Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) the kingmaker in what could become a bruising Democratic primary.

[...]

The district, which includes DuPage County and a sliver of Cook County, has been a long-running GOP bastion and a counterweight to the Democrats' rule in Chicago. In the 1988 presidential election, Vice President George Bush garnered 68 percent of the vote here.

Since then, the Republicans' grip has weakened, even though no Democrats have been elected locally...

Step 2: Recruit other candidates until one accepts:

NY-24:

But DCCC operatives were shopping for other candidates to run as it became more likely that Boehlert would retire. When Jeff Miller, the Democratic nominee in 2004, passed on the chance to run again, the party reached out to state Rep. RoAnn Destito (D).

Destito told The Hill that the DCCC approached her twice but that she passed on running because of personal and family commitments.

In mid-November, Oneida County District Attorney Michael Arcuri, another candidate considering a run, hired pollster John Zogby to gauge his chances in the district, according to campaign-expenditure reports. By year's end, Arcuri had filed to run.

IL-06:

With the announced retirement of Hyde, Rahm Emanuel began his quest for an alternative to Christine Cegelis. Sources report that the first attempt was with Illinois a Democratic State Senator who did not reside in the district but who's district included part of District 6...

Next came Peter O'Malley an attorney who works with the Illinois Mediation Service...

The next potential recruit was Brian McPartlin...

The fourth and what looked at the time to be the final challenge attempt on Cegelis was rumored to be a local businesswoman capable of self-financing her campaign...

Finally in November, with the help of Senator Durbin, Congressman Emanuel would unveil a candidate.  Tammy Duckworth...

Step 3: Have your chosen candidate deny they were recruited:

NY-24:

"No one was recruiting me," said Arcuri, 46, who is serving his fourth term as prosecutor. "[The DCCC] was very helpful to me and gave me advice and answered general questions, but they made it clear they don't get involved."

IL-06:

UPDATE: Duckworth claims she and her husband made the decision to run back in August/September. "I know the speculation out there is that the DCCC reached out to me, and that's not the case."

UPDATE 2: On the speculation that she was asked to run: "Nobody's drafted me for anything I've done in my life."

Step 4: Have party heavyweights tout the chosen candidate in the local media:

NY-24:

In February, Emanuel spoke highly of Arcuri in the local media, and Democratic heavyweights Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer offered their financial support.

Last week, DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel told the Utica Observer-Dispatch, "This is a very strong priority for us. ... I don't know if Mike Arcuri will be the nominee, but he is a really strong candidate and we plan on spending the resources to pick this up."

IL-06:

"Every so often, you meet someone in public life who's truly extraordinary, someone you know will make a difference," Obama says in the 30-second spot. "A person of conscience and proven courage, Tammy Duckworth's a leader we can count on."

Step 5: The DCCC doesn't get involved in the contested primary:

NY-24:

Now the DCCC is heavily invested in Arcuri, albeit in subtle ways...

[...]

During the recess week, a DCCC press secretary traveled to New York to advise the Arcuri campaign and provide resumes of potential staffers.

IL-06:

John Lapp (DCCC executive director): I'm a huge Duckwroth fan...

[...]

"We have been actively working with veterans running for Congress. We couldn't be more proud and excited about people like Tammy Duckworth and Patrick Murphy to name a few. Helping them build good teams, providing strategic advice, and building the resources necessary to run a modern campaign."

So again the DCCC has chosen a candidate, and is going to throw resources at making sure their chosen candidate wins the primary. All the while Republican districts go unchallenged.

Brilliant.



Display:


Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (2.40 / 5)

Emanuel's campaign against progressives and grassroots Democrats has been pervasive, systematic and vehement. And, far beyond IL-06 and a district here and there. It never fails to astound me that bloggers supposedly paying attention completely fail to see that Emanuel is the greatest evil inside the Democratic Party-- an absolute brand killer (unless the brand is "we can be as anti-democratic and corrupt as the Republicans")-- a kind of mirror image of Tom DeLay-- with the hapless and pathetic Pelosi playing the role of Hastert.


by DownWithTyranny on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 11:10:02 PM EST

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 1)

Gee guys, if Rahm Emmanule didn't spend his time recruiting "establishment" candidates for Democratic primaries, you might actually think he's doing a good job and then you'd stop attacking him. That might lead the Congressman to believe you didn't like him anymore.


by spirowasright on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 11:18:23 PM EST

Stupid comments (2.00 / 3)

Gee guys, if Rahm Emmanule didn't spend his time recruiting "establishment" candidates for Democratic primaries, you might actually think he's doing a good job and then you'd stop attacking him.

And if my Aunt had balls, she would be my Uncle.

That might lead the Congressman to believe you didn't like him anymore.

Which "Congressman" are you referring to? Is there anything about your comment that makes sense or has any relevance to Michael's diary?


by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stupid comments (3.00 / 1)

I was referring to Congressman Emmanuel, Gary.
Seriously,I'm sorry if this casual observer sometimes gets a little saracastic when I read these intramural-warfare posts. You guys are going to have to drink from the same well at some point and all this complaining gets l little old at times. I realize I'm probably not in the mjority here, I just find it annoying. I weas also trying to get a rise out of a few people.
by spirowasright on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recruit against Republicans (2.50 / 6)

Recruit candidates to run against Republicans, not Democrats. If there is a Democrat in place, especially where the Democrat went to the DCCC to raise awareness of the district, then don't get involved in local primaries by trying to game them to the advantage of one Democrat over another. And especially drop the BS about how the DCCC doesn't get involved in contested primaries. It's manipulation of local politics.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recruit against Republicans (3.00 / 2)

Are you familiar with what the DCCC's job is?  Do you seriously think national democrats should completely refrain from recruiting additional democratic candidates simply b/c someone (anyone) has filed to run first?  That's ridiculous.  

Incidentally, how in the hell do you know that the DCCC recruited candidate isn't progressive?  Seems to me you're letting your hatred and bitterness over Ill. cloud your judgment here.


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recruit against Republicans (3.00 / 3)

My hatred and bitterness have noting to do with this, but nice try to discredit my opinion. I have a simple premise here, that was only reinforced through my direct experience with it:

Do you think it is right for the DCCC to get involved in contested Democratic primaries?

I do not.

Let the candidates run and stay the hell out of it. Don't send staff, provide media and PR people, shut down fundraising, refuse to return calls, or show favoritism to one candidate over another.

Let the voters, not the DCCC, pick who represents a district.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recruit against Republicans (3.00 / 1)

Micahel, your personal attitude notwithstanding, that other poster has a point. Don't you think it's possible that the DCCC is recruiting against a Republican by trying to get a potentially stronger candidate into the race?


by spirowasright on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recruit against Republicans (3.00 / 0)

It COULD be possible, but seems unlikely.  We learned what happens when we trust that Uncle Rahm knows whats best for us.  So, instead of good, progressive Democrat in IL-06, we have a wind-up photo-oppportunity.

I, for one, would like to know what the locals in NY-24, feel about this.  I had my fill of uninformed national bloggers weighing in on the IL-06 primary.  I would rather know what the stakeholders feel about the DCCC actions in their district, especially DFA chapters and the local Democratic Party.  

Please post any relevant links.


by pascal1947 on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 05:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recruit against Republicans (3.00 / 2)

In a word: Yes.

Absolutely that could be the case, and those recruiting candidates I doubt are doing it with some grand sinister plan, but insted a belief that they are doing what is right.

But I question this. I question the effect of influencing Democratic primaries based on what "they" think, rather than letting the primary play out without influence and letting the voters decide who they want to represent them.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recruit against Republicans (none / 0)

FYI - The DCCC will provide resumes of potential staff to any Dem candidate that asks.  Same for trainings.  They are open to all Dems.


-Tracy Joan

Tomorrow Begins Today! John Edwards for President!
by Tracy Joan on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 05:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC isn't FREE (none / 0)

Absolutely! Glad someone finally brought that up. I'm afraid many think the staff is FREE to the candidate. And you and I know that isn't true.

Tracy Joan: I don't have any contact info for you. I'm trying to get a handle on some stats from Ciro's race. Could you contact me here.


just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 5)

So let me get this straight.  You are upset with Rahm Emmanuel because he is backing the Oneida DA who is from the largest county in the district and has proven he can get elected over a public health official whose website bio mentions work everywhere in the world but the 24th CD of NY.  

Unless I missed something in all the threads about IL-06, one of the major complaints about Duckworth was that she was an outsider who did not have deep roots in the district while Cegilis has run once and worked hard locally.  

It appears in this race that Arcuri is the one who has worked hard locally while Roberts has recently returned and decided to run for Congress.  If I have this wrong, Roberts really needs to re-write his website bio because most voters care a lot more about what you have done locally than your work in the Congo.  You may not like that but it is true.


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 12:14:14 AM EST

Stupid comments II (2.00 / 4)

If I have this wrong .  .  .

Of course you have it wrong. Anyone who attempts to defend Rahm Emanuel's heavy handed tactics against progressive Democratic candidates in Democratic primaries has it wrong.

Rahm Emanuel is a a corporate tool who recruits corporate whores to run in Democratic primaries. Emanul's actions and conduct are indefensible.


by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stupid comments II (none / 0)

If I have this wrong .  .  .

Nice twisting of my quote.  So Gary you know that Les Roberts has strong local roots that are not mentioned in his bio?  Please share!


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stupid comments II (none / 0)

Gary....sounds like this time he has the winner in candidate selection from what the poster describes.

Not everything someone does is always wrong.


just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (2.40 / 5)

See my comment below. The DCCC's focus should not be actively recruiting Democrats to run against Democrats, nor should they be involved in Democratic primaries acting as gate keepers and king makers.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:04:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

CMBurns (3.00 / 1)

Explain why the comment above deserves a "0"


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 02:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW (2.00 / 3)

They didn't just go out and back the DA here. The actively recruited candidates until they found one who would run against the candidate in place.

And this "publiic healrth official" happens to have some pretty impressive foriegn relations and policy experience:

Les started his distinguished career at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researching health problems and formulating health policy.  He has since worked in over 30 countries, including eight during times of war. This work led him to testify before Congress, and he has briefed the National Security Council, the Department of State and other federal agencies on dozens of occasions.  His work has been described in front-page stories in The Washington Post and The New York Times. Highlights of his career include playing an influential role in ending the war in the Congo (the world's deadliest war since World War II), and documenting events during Rwanda's genocide.  His work following the recent United States deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq has been cited in thousands of newspapers worldwide.

Yea, just some public health official. They all brief the NSC and the State Department dozens of times. I can't see how this type of experience would be useful in the US Congress...


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:10:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTW (3.00 / 3)

Roberts credentials are great but can he win an election?  He seems to have done nothing locally which is important.  Remember all politics is local and he seems to have no local roots except having grown up there years ago.  If he does he should re-write his bio to reflect them.

Also, it is the DCCC's job to identify strong candidates in open seats.  That is exactly why it exists and what it has always done.  I know people here are upset about IL-06 but you shouldn't take what happened their and extrapolate it to other districts in the country especially when the candidate you are bashing has strong local roots and the one you are supporting appears not to.

Les Roberts can run in the primary - all he needs to do is get the 1250 valid signatures you need to get on the ballot in NY.  It is really pretty easy having done it for many candidates over the years.

I once lived in a neighboring district to NY-24 and I can tell you winning this is doable but will not be an easy feat.  It still leans slightly Repub.  I don't know either candidate but looking at both their resumes, I would say Arcuri is better suited to the district than Roberts but that is up to the primary voters to decide.


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTW (3.00 / 3)

Oh, here we go with the "electability" argument. That has served us so well in the past. He's great, but can he win?? Obviously he isn't the strongest candidate if the DCCC didn't recruit him. Sorry, I've heard that line before. If all politics is local, explain IL-06 to me again.

So in your first comment you note Roberts is just some "public health" official, and now he's got great credentials. Which is it?

This is a primary. Who the strongest candidate is should be left up to the local voters, not gamed by the DCCC throwing resources and endorsements behind their chosen one.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTW (none / 0)

Did you read the comment you were responding to?  He admitted the candidate I gather you favor (or do you just hate the one the DCCC recruited?)had solid credentials but pointed out that the other candidate has excellent credentials himself and has actually won elected office before.  How exactly is that an irrelevant or specious argument to make?  

Reasonable people can and will differ regarding who the strongest/best candidate is in a particular instance.  But this whole "the DCCC gave someone resources so therefore that person must be opposed" thing is getting more than a little old.  Party committees are designed to recruit candidates to win races - even where another Dem has already filed for the race.  Why are you surprised/appalled by any of this?    


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTW (3.00 / 1)

Roberts seems to have impressive public health credentials.  In fact, he looks like he would be a great CDC director.  I see nothing in his resume that tells me he would be a great candidate for Congress.  Two very different things.  Yes, electability is one factor to be considered.  It is not the only factor but if we want to win the seat back we need to run strong candidates.

I refrained from commenting on Il-06 until after it was over because I didn't know much about the district dynamics but what I read constantly was that Duckworth was an outsider who was pushing the local person out of the way.  I live in NY and have a decent understanding of the political dynamics in the state.  Local roots are very important.  Arcuri clearly is the local guy in this race whether or not the DCCC is backing him.

Just because you are upset about what the DCCC did in IL-06, you shouldn't extrapolate it to every open seat.  The dynamics of each race are different.  One major difference is that Cegilis was the LOCAL person who took on Hyde two years ago and proved she could run a credible race.  That is not Les Roberts.  There will be a primary and whoever wins will be the Dem nominee.


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. (none / 0)

Whatever.  It's not as if they're not recruiting everywhere.  With our full dance card in Georgia, we're down to 16 still unopposed races and counting down.

Seems to me, Roberts or Arcuri would each make a fine new Congressman against Bush. Let the good people of the district decide which to send.  And if it turns out Roberts can't beat Arcuri, why would you think he could beat the Gooper?


by admiralnaismith on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 12:31:06 AM EST

Up or down vote (2.25 / 4)

Same logic here. Let's just let the voters decide. We'll give one candidate all the national resources and backing. We'll cut the other one off. But let's just have the voters give them an up or down vote and decide.

Been there. It's a BS argument unless the playing field is level.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:19:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up or down vote (2.00 / 1)

The playing field is NEVER level, and you know that if you're as involved in politics as it seems like you are.  Someone is ALWAYS the establishment candidate, and yet those candidates still sometimes lose.  Just think about Feingold's first Senate campaign for a good example.  

Seriously, when did anyone say that primary elections should be "fair?"  That's not politics and never has been.  Part of being a good candidate is cultivating important donors, the DCCC, interest groups, etc.  Doing that admittedly won't make you a good elected official, but it's a prerequisite for getting elected and always has been.  Why are we acting like Rahm Emanuel invented these requirements?


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up or down vote (3.00 / 2)

So, from your comment, can I assume that you feel it is right of the DCCC to get involved in a contested Democratic primary, and essentially choose which candidate should win by tilting the playing field to their chosen candidate's advantage?

I think if Acuri is the candidate who resonates with voters, he will win the primary WITHOUT the DCCC's help. I understand Acuri was just elected DA and will not step down and run for the Representative  full time. So is it right to have the DCCC interviene on his behalf and influence the outcome of a Democratic primary when their chosen candidate won't even run full time for the position?

Let the voters decide and keep the DCCC out of contested Democratic primaries.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up or down vote (none / 0)

"The voters" never decide in a vacuum michael - and I guess that's my point.  Money does matter in politics, whether it should or not.  Political endorsements do matter in politics, whether they should or not.  Personal relationships with important people in/outside a district matter in politics, whether they should or not.

Running for office never has been and never will be solely about "merit."  SOMEONE - whether it's the DCCC, a union rep in a labor heavy district, the chamber of commerce in a conservative district, or some obscenely wealth individual in some other district - is always going to tilt the field in favor of one candidate or another.  And often for far less noble reasons than - as is the case here - that entity thinks their candidate has the best chance to beat a Republican for the seat.  

Oh, and just to specifically answer your question I don't think the DCCC should officially endorse candidates in contested primaries.  However, I think they absolutely should try and recruit additional candidates where they think a stronger candidate is needed.  Doesn't mean the DCCC will always be right or that I'll always agree with their decision, but the Party needs a MORE active and effective leadership - not one that's less active and effective.  


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up or down vote (3.00 / 1)

I think we are closer to agreement than not on this issue. I'm makng an ideological argument, and you are making a practical one. I can see your point and hope you can see mine. They both have merit.

But at some point, the indeological argument has to start to challenge current practice or current practice never changes. There is a difference between what should be and what is. However, what is will never change if not challenged.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up or down vote (none / 0)

I definitely see your point and - my sometimes overly heated rhetoric notwithstanding - appreciate the thoughtful way in which you've brought up this issue.  

I guess my only additional comment would be that perhaps we can start hashing out those ideological differences once we pick up a few more seats.  And ultimately, I really do think the only solution is to take big money out of politics.  Even thinking about actually doing that, however, makes my head swim at the moment...


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up or down vote (3.00 / 1)

"I really do think the only solution is to take big money out of politics.  Even thinking about actually doing that, however, makes my head swim at the moment..."

See, we totally agree on this point.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 07:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeebus, you children should grow up. (2.60 / 5)

Of course, Spitzer and Schumer and Emanuel are going to get behind Arcuri.  He's been elected before, which means they know that he can raise money and run a campaign and actually connect with some voters, as opposed to a "public health expert" who might be able to raise money and might be able to run a tight campaign and who is a complete wild card with respect to how the public will react to him.  

It's the Moneyball approach to candidate recruitment and you don't need any wild-eyed conspiracy theories about Rahm trying to control the world to understand why the DCCC is more interested in Arcuri.


by Jay on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 12:47:29 AM EST

Re: Jeebus, you children should grow up. (none / 0)

Well said!


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeebus, geezers should wake up (1.75 / 4)

Maybe we should just refuse to accept top down mismanagement of the Democratic party by corporate tools like Rahm Emanuel.

Your so called Moneyball approach to candidate recruitment is a thinly disguised effort to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the GOP. If we wanted to vote for Republican lite corporate whores, we would be quite pleased with Rahm Emanuel and the corporate whores he is recruiting and supporting in Democratic primaries.

Since we prefer voting for genuine Democrats who will support Democratic issues, we'll just continue pointing out the defects and political flaws of the current Democratic Party leadership. But hey, thanks for your inane and outdated political analysis. Supporters of Emanuel and the DLC are always good for a laugh.


by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:42:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, geezers should wake up (none / 0)

Your so called Moneyball approach to candidate recruitment is a thinly disguised effort to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the GOP.

If you don't understand the reference then you shouldn't say stupid sh-it about it.  By the Moneyball approach, I refer to taking a higher return, lower risk approach to candidate recruitment by leaning towards proven commodities rather than taking for the high ceiling but high risk choice, like the Oakland A's do when they draft college prospects instead of high school players.

And you shouldn't be telling me that I want a party like the GOP.  You were the one who was the delegate to their conventions and voting for their candidates as recently as 2003.


by Jay on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If it's nothing but money (2.25 / 4)

If a candidate's worth is based only on how much money they may raise then ordinary Americans might as well submit to be ruled rather than governed.

The idea should be to recruit Democrats to run against Republicans, not try to game the primary in favor of the candidate Rahm deems to be the best fit based on how much money he can raise. If this is the key attribute of a good candidate, then why not just auction off the seat to the highest bidder?

Lowwer risk, high return politics is what bought us the government we have right now and put our party in the minority for the past decade.

And BTW, respond to the comment's content, rather than basing your argument on discrediting the author of the comment.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (none / 0)

It is not just about raising money.  Arcuri has won three elections in Oneida County, the most populist one in the district and a Repub one at that.  Roberts has never run for elected office anywhere which means he could be a great candidate or an utter disaster.  You never know until they get out and do it.  

Oneida County has been traditionally Repub so getting elected as a Dem is not an easy feat.  My initial reaction is Arcuri has strong political skills having won for DA 3 times.  Upstate NY is traditionally Repub just like the south was traditionally Dem until the late 1980s and early 1990s.  Their views are closer to the Dem party today but the shift on the local level is happening very slowly.  Most people not from NY don't understand that upstate NY is not as liberal or as a Democratic as downstate NY.  It is still not easy to win as Dem upstate because Dems are seen as these "horrible city slicker" types.

Just out of curiosity, is this issues driven or Emmanuel hate driven because from their websites I can't see much difference in policy positions?


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (3.00 / 2)

It's pattern driven as noted in the post. My opinion is that the DCCC should stay out of contested Democratic primaries, not expend resources on a  one "chosen" candidate in an effort to influence the outcome.

The voters of the district should be the ones to decide, free from the influence of the national party. If Arcuri is the stronger candidate (which I'm not saying he isn't), then let him run against Roberts on his own. Let the people of the district, not the DCCC, decide who's the candidate their want to represent them.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (2.00 / 2)

Getting on the ballot in NY is relatively simple.  You need to get 1250 signatures from registered Dems in the district.  Petition period starts the first Monday in June and goes for 5 weeks.  If Les Roberts gets his signatures, he will be on the ballot.  The DCCC cannot do anything to stop that.  

If you love Les Roberts so much, I suggest you start helping him by raising money and providing volunteers for him.  Since you keep talking about living in IL-06, I suspect that is unlikely.  


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (1.00 / 1)

Um, where in my post am I declaring my love for any candidate? The post is about the DCCC geting involved in a Democratic primary in a manner that is quite familiar to me.

So why do you care so much is some guy in IL-06 calls attention to this? Why the hostility. Why the attack on me for supposedly "loving Robers so much."


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

I meant that post to be more sarcastic than hostile so I apologize if I offended.  I have read your previous posts and I know you are very upset about IL-06.  In that case, you had a candidate who worked hard locally that was defeated by a come lately candidate supported by the DCCC.  Here you seem to have the opposite.  I am very active locally and I always lean toward candidates who do the hard local work over the ones who get the bug to run and drop in after having been gone for many years.  Arcuri clearly fits that bill over Roberts regardless of who is supporting him.

In an ideal world, it would be great if DCCC stayed out of local elections but they'd be stupid not to be trying to find the best candidates to run in open seats like NY 24.  This is our chance to win back Congress and stop Bush dead in his tracks.  There is a lot at stake this year so I must admit I am a little more tolerant of DCCC interference than I normally would be.

Regardless, I have no doubt Les Roberts will get on the ballot and the voters will have a choice.


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 07:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (3.00 / 1)

Hard to reply to "content" when a post is merely calling anyone with a different viewpoint a corporate whore.  Not sure what that even means - is it similar to how anyone that disagrees with you folks is a "DLC shill" too, regardless of whether they're liberal or not?  


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (2.00 / 1)

Mr. President, where did I call anyone a a corporate whore?


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (none / 0)

I was referencing the post I assumed you were referring to.  I understand you didn't use the term, though you are also a bit quick to judge people's political leanings based solely upon whether they hate the DCCC.


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it's nothing but money (3.00 / 1)

Hmm. Sorry if I gave that impression. Not trying to judge anything, just pointing out a consisten argument about money that I feel is flawed and corrupting our democracy.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then work for Public Funding (3.00 / 1)

Unless there is public funding for both primaries and general elections (neither is likely and it will never happen for primaries), then cultivating donors (whoever they are), special interest groups, and leadership support will always be (and has always been)important.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but even in the race you're discussing now (and involving Duckworth)the DCCC itself did not officially endorse either candidate or directly give any candidate money.  Did they hook their favored candidate up with donor lists, help them get a ground game set up, etc.?  Of course they did.  Just like any powerful individual or group in a district also does once they choose a horse in a primary.  

The fact that the "establishment" candidate usually gets more financial support in a primary is nothing new and - IMHO - not necessarily a bad thing.  Since you are - justifiably - concerned with legitimately challenging every republican in the country I'd like you ask you a question.  If the DCCC is trying to recruit top-tier candidates that can compete, doesn't it make sense that they'll have to provide some assurances of resources?  How else do you talk someone into running for a position.

Finally, should it really be relevant who filed to run in a district first?  The idea of "calling shot gun" as another poster put it is really quite silly.  I want the BEST candidates (which does include, but is not limited to, the ability to win)not the first candidates.    


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The crux of the argument (3.00 / 2)

This is a good discussion to have. The basis of the argument is who should be deciding who is the best candidate for the district? Should it be those in the DCCC who obviously know who is the stronger candidate? Do they have a secret "top-tier" candidate list somewhere? I'm being sarcastic, but I'm trying to make a point.

Why is a candidate "top-tier" just because the DCCC picked them? Often after several other candidates they tried to recruit turned down the title.

What makes the candidates they choose the strongest? Does it not have something to do with telling the "insiders" who fund candidates or PACs that this is the person to endorse and donate to and not the other candidate?

It's self fulfilling in so many ways. DCCC endorses and covertly aids candidate A. Candidate A raises the most money, has the loudest PR system, and attracts the most donors.

Who files first is not the issue here. It's how the DCCC chooses the candidate to back and the influence they exert on a Democratic primary by opening working for their chosen candidate. This provides a false choice for voters by giving one candidate a platform others do not have. It's closer to a coronation than a Democratic process.

That's the issue.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsflash (2.00 / 2)

NOT ALL CANDIDATES ARE CREATED EQUAL.

If you can't understand something that simple, than you should quit politics.


by upstatenydem on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The crux of the argument (1.00 / 0)

Why is a candidate "top-tier" just because the DCCC picked them? Often after several other candidates they tried to recruit turned down the title.

You have everything backassward.  Arcuri isn't top tier because the DCCC recruited him.  Rather, the DCCC is interested in him because he has assets that he brings to the table.  Tangible assets that are obvious whether or not he has DCCC support.

Look, you have some negative hagiographical view of the DCCC.  The DCCC isn't the end-all, be-all of the Democratic party.  They are just a bunch of Democrats like you and me.  OK, so they have a lot of money and access to more and a considerable amount of expertise and access to campaign resources that you and I just can't deliver, but still, they are just a bunch of Democrats (who also happen to be in Congress, but hey...).    And they have an interest, just like you and I do, in the outcome of congressional elections.  Maybe even more of one, since they have a vested interest in being in the majority.  So they have so much of an interest in these elections that they decided to get together and form a PAC and help some people get elected.  What is the matter with this?

If you don't like it, form your own damn PAC and get some people elected.  If you do this enough, then people will start listening to you more and more often when you have an opinion about who should run for Congress in some of these districts.  It is how the world we live in works.


by Jay on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 07:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The crux of the argument (none / 0)

"You have everything backassward.  Arcuri isn't top tier because the DCCC recruited him.  Rather, the DCCC is interested in him because he has assets that he brings to the table."  

Exactly.  


by John Mills on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 12:45:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, geezers should wake up (none / 0)

The A's moneyball approach is all about getting "hidden value" so a $50 million payroll can compete against the Yankees $200 million.  A's players, for example, are likely to have lower batting averages but higher on-base-percentage (more walks, less hits).  They are not flashy five tool guys.  The Yankees have the three highest paid players in baseball (total over $60 million).  The A's often make the playoffs spending less than that for their whole team.

Cegellis, who ran a competitive campaign against Henry Hyde on bake sale proceeds (well $186 K, total) is a "moneyball candidate.  The flashy, highly funded, Tammy Duckworth, is the Steinbrenner candidate for IL-6.

Putting that out of the way, Arcuri does not strike me as being the kind of outsider that Tammy Duckworth is.  He comes from the district.  What Arcuri is, or seeems like, is the standard pol.  He's been a successful candidate for something like 20 years and he's not that old.  When Arcuri declared for this seat, my thought was "there's blood in the water."  Boehlert was hesitating and a successful career pol decided he was out and this was the opportunity of a lifetime.  Not a high chance, high risk, race.

I haven't looked at Roberts web site.  I have looked at Arcuri's.  A lot of things struck me.  That Congressman Arcuri thing at the top makes it look like (without much thought) that he's an incumbent).  And he's been a local office holder for a long time.  Second, the man's political credentials clearly exceed his academic ones.  Look at some of the neighboring seats we've been discussing on the web and the candidates are loaded with Harvards, Yales, Georgetowns, and Notre Dames on their resumes and national level achievements.  Arcuri has SUNY-Albany and New York College of Law.

Do we have  a class thing here?  The pol vs. the outsider.  The classy, national level guy vs. the local kid?  Harvard vs. SUNY? (PS - I have a grad degree from Harvard).  Street smarts vs. school smarts?  


by David Kowalski on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 08:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, geezers should wake up (none / 0)

he A's moneyball approach is all about getting "hidden value" so a $50 million payroll can compete against the Yankees $200 million.  A's players, for example, are likely to have lower batting averages but higher on-base-percentage (more walks, less hits).  They are not flashy five tool guys.  The Yankees have the three highest paid players in baseball (total over $60 million).  The A's often make the playoffs spending less than that for their whole team

Have you actually read the book or just a review of it on ESPN?  Part of the A's approach is that when working with limited resources it is important to minimize uncertainty whenever possible.  This leads them to draft college hitters rather than high school pitchers even though the potential upside of the latter is much greater, because the risk associated with the latter is also much greater.  

We are in an analagous situation here, where Arcuri is a somewhat proven commodity whereas Roberts is a complete wild card.


by Jay on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 08:50:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, geezers should wake up (none / 0)

Neither.  I read a magazine article about Moneyball and lots of Bill James books.  James' baseball work is the theoretical underpinning of the whole Moneyball (and also Red Sox, BTW) school. David Ortiz, when he was plucked from the Twins is a perfect James guy.  Doesn't look like much but he can play.  

James, by the way, has long been a big advocate of drafting college players rather than high school players because long term studies show that college players have a significantly higher average value than high school players.  A long term strategy of picking college players gives you a better team because high school players are overrated.

In my mind, Cegellis and Arcuri are better picks just from the political standpoint.  Established commodities.  It cost a million bucks (or so I've seen here) to slide Tammy Duckworth past cegellis.  That would have elected Cegellis and maybe somebody else.  We still don't know how she'll perform in the general election.  Arcuri strikes me as somebody who will be a long-term congressman and no more.  He's stayed in the county attorney job.  This is a nice pay check, not a chance to change the country.

That's OK.  We need 15 seats and more to get legislation through.

What's your problem?  At the end of the day, we both see Arcuri as a local pol who seems likely to get elected.  Not fabulous but OK.  If you start arguing and getting personal with those who agree with you, it is a long climb.

In my mind, this is a different issue than the Cegellis-Duckworth battle.  That was a ridiculous waste.  More of a struggle for political clout, perhaps, within Illinois, than outside.  Rahm got allied with the big boys (the Daileys and Durbin) and used Obamas image.  Since he led this coup, it added substantially to his local clout as slight expense (Cegellis carried little weight with these guys).  It was more of an old school thing.  Read Royko and O'Connor's books about the real mayor Dailey if you have any doubt.


by David Kowalski on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, geezers should wake up (3.00 / 2)

Why is it that "progressive" candidates rarely win local office and gain the experience and networking needed before they run for higher office?


by flyoverperson on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, geezers should wake up (none / 0)

Why is it that "progressive" candidates rarely win local office and gain the experience and networking needed before they run for higher office?

Exactly.  Running for the house is pretty much starting at the top.  Some exceptional candidates can start out there (or higher, such as John Edwards) and succeed, but the majority will get the brush-off from the DCCC and other people with connections to resources when they want to run.  And why shouldn't they?  Why should we take everyone equally seriously as candidates when some people obviously bring more to the table than others?

And also, while we are on the topic, why do some people view congressional elections as purely local affairs?  As someone who desperately wants to see Democratic control of Congress, I have almost as much at stake in NY24 as someone actually living in NY24.


by Jay on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 07:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeebus, you children should grow up. (1.00 / 1)

You've got it all right. It would be nice if some of these bloggers would figure that out.


by spirowasright on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is wrong with being an "insider"? (3.00 / 1)

"Insiders" are the people who win elections. "Outsiders" are the people who run and lose. If they win, they officially become "insiders".


by OfficeOfLife on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:13:29 AM EST

definition (2.50 / 2)

So would you call John Conyers an insider? By your definition, Howard Dean was an insider when he ran for president as he won election for Governor multiple times.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:16:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes and yes (none / 0)

Apparently your defintion of "outsider" is "a person I like". I don't see that one listed in Websters, however.

Dean was governor for how long, 8 years? He's the definition of an "insider". Being an "insider" in and of itself means NOTHING, and is certainly not bad. Being a corrupt asshole like Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney is what makes someone a bad politician. There are good insiders and bad insiders, good outsiders and bad outsiders. Ken Lay has never held elected office, let's support an "outsider" like him!


by OfficeOfLife on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 07:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And another thing... (none / 0)

Why are you quoting stories from The Hill.  The Hill is a Republican paper.  It's editor is also the head of the American Conservative Union.  It's publisher is Hugo Cox, the husband of America's Worst Mother(tm).  They are not our friends.  They have an interest in stirring sh-t up and turning us on each other.  I have no interest in what they have to say about Democratic affairs and neither should you.


by Jay on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:30:26 AM EST

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 3)

Roberts clearly called shotgun. And apparently, that's all that matters now.


by PantherDem on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:31:28 AM EST

Nope (2.25 / 4)

What matters is that there are plenty of Republican seats going unchallenged, yet the DCCC is actively recruiting candidates to run against Democrats and getting involved in contested primaries. Rahm's leadership of the DCCC is actively taking a role as gate keeper and king maker in Democratic primaries.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

You know what kills me? How the "contested primaries are good for the party" crowd suddenly sees things differently when its on of their favorites getting challenged.


by PantherDem on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

A-fucking-men.


by DavidNYC on Thu May 04, 2006 at 12:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

There aren't tons of seats going uncontestsed. And frankly, most of those seats are totaly unwinable.

The DCCC saw a winable seat where the only Dem had few local ties and had never run a campaign or held office before. They went out to find a better candidate, so that this winable seat didn't get lost because the Dem candidate was a political neophyte.

I had some sympathy for you in the Duckworth case. But here I think they made the right choice. inexperienced candidates are far to risky, even those who look great on paper (see Hackett, Paul) for such an important race.


by dantheman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Republican Seats-UnChallenged (3.00 / 1)

Republican House Seats that are unchallenged
Alabama-6(Spencer Bachus-R)- Filing Deadline Passed
California-42(Gary Miller-R)-Filing Deadline Passed
Florida-7(John Mica-R)-Filing Deadline-May-12
Florida-12(Adam Putnam-R)-May 12
Florida-14(Connie Mack-IV-R)-May 12
Louisiana-4(Jim McCrery-R)
Louisiana-5(Rodney Alexander-R)
Louisiana-6(Richard Baker-R)
Louisiana-7(Charles Boustanty-R)
Missississippi-3(Chip Pickering-R)-Filling Deadline Passed
Oklahoma-1(John Sullivan-R)
Pennsylvania-9(Bill Shuster-R)-Filing Deadline Passed
Texas-11(Mike Conway-R)-Filling Deadline Passed
Virginia-4(Randy Forbes-R)-Filing Deadline Passed
Virginia-6(Randy Goodlatte-R)-Filing Deadline Passed.

7 Republican House Members are running unopposed.


by CMBurns on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 12:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republican Seats-UnChallenged (3.00 / 2)

7 Republican House Members are running unopposed... as of today's date.

The recruitment of candidates began long ago, as noted in the article.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 03:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time to defeat Emanuel! (1.80 / 5)

Obviously, Emanuel and the rest of the DCCC are going to keep going like this until they are sent a clear message that the crap they are shoveling isn't going to work with progressives.  We need to make sure that Emanuel himself is defeated, even if it means we take a hit and a Republican wins the seat for a term.  I know this sounds like "eating our own", but sometimes the long view requires a really good house-cleaning.  Perhaps if Emanuel and his hand-picked candidates like Duckworth lose, then their lack of success will allow the insurgents to gain the credibility we need the next time around.


"Bipartisanship is another term for totalitarianism." -- Historian Howard Zinn
by 1truthteller on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:09:26 AM EST

Re: Time to defeat Emanuel! (none / 0)

And maybe if Al Gore loses, the party will realize it can't win without the Naderites.  How'd that work out?

I wish the Democratic Party was more progressive myself, but for the people who like to "send messages," there will ALWAYS be a message to be sent.  And the Republican majority will go on wrecking this country while we send message after message trying to create the most ideologically pure party we can.  No thanks.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 12:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to defeat Emanuel! (none / 0)

Def: "send messages": Make another totally symbolic and powerless gesture during losing.


by flyoverperson on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to defeat Emanuel! (3.00 / 1)

Since the naderites weren't running in primaries, this is a silly statement.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 08:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to defeat Emanuel! (none / 0)

Read the post again.

We need to make sure that Emanuel himself is defeated, even if it means we take a hit and a Republican wins the seat for a term.

Throwing elections to "send a message" - a feel-good strategy that simply doesn't work in the real world.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to defeat Emanuel! (3.00 / 1)

Your right, but I will still throw everything I have against him in the primary, and I will call on money from the national net roots to do it.  I am not a Naderite because of it.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to defeat Emanuel! (none / 0)

Is this the guy running against Darth Rahm?

http://www.kevinwhiteforcongress.com/

If so, he must be running some kind of covert campaign.  I had to dig into the Cook County Election Commission 2006 Primary results to find out which Republican won the 5th District.


by pascal1947 on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 3)

OK, so you hate Rahm Emanuel - I get that.  

And you apparently hate anyone that he supports - I get that.  

What I don't get is how that has anything to do with the job that the DCCC is doing or with who is the better candidate in this race.  Seriously, what the hell should the DCCC be doing if not ACTIVELY RECRUITING the strongest candidates in vulnerable districts.  Should they refrain from encouraging any stronger candidate from getting into a race simply b/c someone else has already filed?  That's just stupid.

For what it's worth, I have no idea who the "better" or "stronger" candidate in this race is.  But deciding that based purely off of who Rahm Emanuel is supporting is ridiculous.  I really wonder what all you Rahm haters are going to do when the Dems do win control of the House in November.  I imagine I'll see a lot of posts saying "Yeah, but we would have won even MORE seats...."    


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:13:23 PM EST

Ratings Abuse (2.14 / 7)

I notice many comments on this thread have been unfairly rated.  Perhaps debating the problem instead of abusing those with whom one disagrees would make the arguments of those who aggressively support Rahm more compelling.  But their abuse of the ratings system leads me to believe that they are intolerant of dissent and criticism.  I also believe they should refrain from ad hominem statements and other slurs.  


by illinois062006 on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:21:14 PM EST

Re: Ratings Abuse (none / 0)

I think the ratings point is a good one and that some of the ratings in this post are clearly unfair.  However, giving a shitty rating to a post that is nothing but an ad hominem attack (which have been launched equally by Rahm-haters) is entirely appropriate.  Debate is good.  Completely emotional attacks unfounded by even an attempt at logic deserve to be shot down.


by HSTruman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ratings Abuse (3.00 / 0)

I love the sweet irony that this post got you troll rated.

I gave you a 3 though


by dantheman on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 02:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 3)

les roberts would have absolutely no chance versus State Sen Maier.  Acruiri is the MUCH stronger candidate.


by yomoma2424 on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 02:28:49 PM EST

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 2)

I concur. Acuri is a well-known countywide elected official with, judging from his site, fairly progressive views on the issues. It goes w/o saying that he has actually WON elections. What has Les done to warrant so much support? Or is it simply that Acuri is supported by Rahm and that's enough to condemn him?

The claim that because of primaries like this, republicans are going unchallenged, is pure BS. there are only 7 seats where there will DEFINITELY not be a Dem candidate. I'd call that pretty damn good.


by elessar on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 05:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Acuri is a huge pickup (3.00 / 2)

I know little about Les so I won't comment.  However, being a former Syracuse University student and Upstate NYer, I am familiar with Acuri who is very popular in the community and has received positive reviews as the county DA.  Plus he runs marathons so you know he has the endurance and wont quit.

This is no Duckworth redux so lets stop slamming how brightest hope to retaking the House!


by optimusprime on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:27:52 PM EST

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 3)

I like how the blogosphere never obeys what it preaches in regards to staying out of primaries, and has openly endorsed Jon  Tester in the Montana primary despite the fact that very few people in the blogosphere actually live in Montana and Morrison was in the race first.  Nor did we stay out of the Virginia Senate race: no, the blogosphere actively recruited Jim Webb even after Miller announced his candidacy.   It's not like the blogosphere has been a shining example of even-handedness or local control, it's just that we don't have as big an influence as the DCCC, and I guess that makes some people bitter.

I think Tester should be on the Netroots funded page, because he's the better candidate and I don't think it's unfair of me to make that decision even though I don't live in Montana and even though Tester announced after Morrison.  And I think it was right for us to draft Jim Webb and we should definately support him now that he's in the race: it wouldn't be fair for him to jump in on the premise of some broad netroots support only to have us snub him when it comes time to raise some funds.  And no, there's no reason we should wait until after the primaries to support these candidates because early money counts a lot more than last minute fundraising.

Isn't our goal to increase the influence of the netroots in our party?  And if we're successful in doing so, will we stop recruiting candidates in races where we already have one?  Will we stop supporting candidates who have yet to pass their primary?  Or will we at least stop bitching when other Democrats do the same?  I hope it's the latter, personally.


by Ryan Anderson on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:06:58 PM EST

Start naggin Stoller and Mydd now (3.00 / 1)

to start promoting this candidate unstead of bitching about Rahm doing this, after the candidate has gone down in defeat like you did with Cegelis. He won't stop doing this because you bitch so lets nationalize the campaign, on both sides.  This is all about the war.  Rahm and Schumer are hawks, who have both been part of neocon front groups.  They're goal is pretty transparent. They are trying to deny the antiwar movement a choice of having a candidate to vote for.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:15:39 PM EST

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (none / 0)

also why don't you post this at boomantribune and myleftwing.  mydd and kos are the least progressive of all the scoop blogs.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:19:10 PM EST

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 1)

MLW and Booman are great. But this is where I post outside of SoapBlox Chicago. I like Chris and Jerome and the place they build best. And I don't remember nagging Stoller about this race ever.

The post is about the DCCC getting involved in Democratic primaries.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Recruits Against a Democrat. Again. (3.00 / 1)

I guess it was Chris Bowers. You were very upset that they wouldn't frontpage the Cegelis story so she would have more support against the dccc.  

Chris Bowers is someone I'm confident is a supporter of candidates like Christine.  But yet even he, and the "few other bloggers" he spoke with, still bought the storyline out of Washington that Duckworth would win and win big. He ignored, as did other main line bloggers, the word coming from the activists on the ground that Cegelis was for real and the race would be close.

You were completely correct about this she needed national support if she was going to fight the outside interference of the dccc.  She needed netroots cash bad, and not just from her district.  

Also it isn't either or, when it comes to posting at those other websites.  Things can be crossposted.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 08:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hold Up (3.00 / 3)

By your own citations Arcuri and Roberts were getting into the race at the same time. So how could the DCCC be recruiting against Roberts?

The fact of the matter is the DCCC went out and tried to recruit a good candidate, which is the DCCC's job.

The fact of the matter beyond that is that Roberts is a crappy candidate and a poor fit for the district. We need a Brian Higgins, not a Maurice Hinchey to win the district. Of course none of you probably get the reference because you dont know Upstate politics and you don't know the district.


by upstatenydem on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 06:34:37 PM EST

Agree 110% (none / 0)

I know enough about upstate politics to know it could not have been easy for Arcuri to get elected Oneida DA in the mid-1990s in the heyday of the D'Amato-Pataki era.  He clearly has political talent.

You know Maurice Hinchey had a tough time holding that district early on b/c he wasn't a great fit.  The Gingrich Congress over reaches in the early 90s and the changing demographics around Woodstock helped him solidify it.


by John Mills on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 07:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree 110% (none / 0)

Hinchey has the People's Republic of Ithaca in his district now too.


by upstatenydem on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree 110% (none / 0)

Good point. I forgot he has that as well now.


by John Mills on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 03:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC is anti grassroots (