I assume this was a leak from Rahmbo, rather than some troublemaking mole.

In which case, why does it come off so half-baked?

Appreciating the help that senior reps give to their struggling juniors in neighboring districts sounds like an excellent idea.

Announcing a bureaucratic (not to say, bean-counting) system without making clear the use to which it's being put does not.

If indeed committee assignments are to be depending on the points system, the details will be understandable concern to reps. How many points will each desirable actitivity draw? If a rep goes to a neighbouring rep's district, say, does his points tally depend on how much cash he raises, or the number of people who hear his speeches, or who meet him personally, or what?

There are only a couple of hundred Dem reps. If things go swimmingly in November, there might be thirty more, tops.

Shouldn't Pelosi know her troops, the slackers and the grafters, without the need for a system inevitably either complex or unfair?

[More House Dem discipline difficulties over the lobbying bill that passed yesterday.

Pelosi read the Riot Act at the caucus meeting; an aide apparently said

There should be no reason for anyone to register a yes vote on the lobbying reform bill. If the Republicans win with Democratic votes, that is a slap in the face to the caucus.

Interesting, indeed.

The values associated with the points do matter, of course.  I wonder if they will be leaked.  I'm all for mentoring, but then again, it all depends on the mentors, doesn't it?  Sten Hoyer?  Screw that.

Of course, I've been told by someone with knowledge of the thinking inside the DCCC that the DCCC denies it does party message control.  That, they say, is the DNC's job.  But then again, enforcing caucus unity around an agenda, whatever that agenda may be, is message control.

What matters. of course, is the agenda, and also the way it is institutionally supported.

Many of us remain (ahem!) skeptical of the degree of anti-progressive, corporate-friendly politics in the party, though it is possible to imagine an inder-ist "progressive" party agenda.  This is what you descibe, Matt, of Pelosi's style.

But is it possible to sustain a progressive politics built on an insiderist foundation?  The Clinton years, and their aftermath (cough McCurry! cough!), suggest the answer is no.

Interesting times ahead.  There was no open source progressive political movement during the Clinton years.  We in the roots have not only a commitment to progressive values, but to progressive organizational systems.

We really need to do some targeting for primaries in '08.

An important point is being missed here.  This is NOT ABOUT FUNDRAISING - the article clearly states that leadership already knows and tracks what members give to the DCCC and fellow Dems.  

This is about taking it to the next level and rewarding members who go out and do the hard work of campaigning for fellow members in close races or challengers in GOP seats.  I, for one, think this is a good idea.  If done correctly, it can create a system based much more on merit than seniority and fundraising.  It also helps reward members whose strength may be political strategy, communications, policy or public speaking over the one who is solely a prolific fundraiser.  Take Member A and Member B, both in safe seats.  

Member A gives money to DCCC and a bunch of close races but does nothing else.

Member B also gives money but he/she also goes out and campaigns for members in tight races and lends staff to help on campaigns.  He/she identifies a like minded challenger and decides to mentor him or her.  He/she is interested in building a movement, not just raising money.

Isn't member B the one we want?  The Repubs have done stuff like this for years and it is a great way to build a party and reward hard working, younger members of the caucus.  

I worked on the Hill years ago and at the time my boss was a very junior member.  I and other members of the staff went out and worked on campaigns in Oct-Nov b/c we were in a safe Dem seat.  He got little credit for this b/c the system was based on seniority and fundraising.  Isn't this the cycle we are trying to break?  I don't know the details but on the surface this seems like a really good idea.

So exactly how many points are awarded to a member of Congress who travels to other districts for political work, holds press conferences in other districts, or  serve as a mentor to a challenger... that Rahm doesn't support?

Will it be OK for the DCCC to take sides in contested primaries, but a punishable offense for members of the House to support the "wrong" candidate?

So if Democrats retake the House, does this mean that seniority isn't going to get people chair's on committees everyone says it will - like all the progressives we hear about getting chair positions?

Until we hear how points are given, this needs to have a firm eye kept on it. It strikes me as a way to make sure Reps work and support the "correct" challengers and incumbents.

Again, this may have been the way the GOP built their lockstep party unity. But do we want to follow the GOP model based on the outcome it's given our government? Winning at all costs has a cost.

I'm skeptical of the political motivations behind this.

What's to get?  Pelosi IS an insider--she's the minority leader.  She is, by and large, also a  Progressive.  However, she realizes that the country is quite diverse, and her brand of progressivism, while very popular in SF, does not play well in all parts of the country.  So she makes allowances.  Above all, though, she is a partisan, and believes in party discipline.  To do that as a leader, she has to know when to demand loyalty and also when NOT to demand loyalty.  What she may be a little slow in appreciating is the netroots, particularly the part that is very vocal in its criticism of her.

And the program is not just based on fundraising, but also mentoring and campaigning in each others' districts where a member can be helpful.  It sounds very smart to me.  What I really like is that they are looking ahead to when they ARE in the majority, and that means they are beginning to think the Dems can win.  That I really like.

Isn't member B the one we want?  

But they so rarely are.

What if, say, you're looking at the ranking member on one of the big committees, whose district is now marginal thanks to redistricting. Are you going to dump this guy off his committee just because he's had not time to earn many points, what with his committee work and his own fundraising?

Or a ten Congress incumbent, say, in a deeply red district; dumping him off his key committee will signal to his constituents that he's over the hill, he loses funding and endorsements, the GOP are in like a rat up a drainpipe.

And if the 'punishments' indicated by the points system are always waived because of factors like these - it's soon brought into disrepute.

"The challenge for the netroots, which is ideologically oriented'  

I thought the netroots was about opening up the system and making it more democratic with a small d in order to reform the process and bring in new people.  Wasn't one of the major points of Crashing the Gate that the Dem party is too wedded to specific interest and ideological groups closing out generally progressive candidates like  Jim Langevin b/c they are wrong on one or two issues?  My experience with democratization is that it generally lessens ideological purity because it brings in people of opposing views and makes others more tolerant of them.  Maybe I am missing something.

As promising as this can be, I wonder if this leak is hyperbolic.  For everyone must already know who is not working on behalf of the caucus.  I can probably list two or three names right now.

But I do have a few concerns.  How can such a rigid, corpratist model account for age, health, familial constraints and other extenuating circumstances?  How does it account for different forms of outreach, such as blog postings, radio addresses, television interviews and newspaper editorials?  How does it account for different campaign philosophies?  And how does it account for someone who may be upset with the caucus for personal and/or political reasons?  

I also wonder if this draconian attempt to measure the commitment of caucus members accounts for the unpredictable contingencies of individual campaigns.  Do members who represent larger and more rural districts always have the time to travel to other states?  What of members who already spend ten hours a week on an airplane?  What if a member is embroiled in a competitive primary?  And what if a member has to challenge an egregious advertisement that suddenly surfaced in their district?

The tone of this leak is also hyperbolic, which leads me to believe that Emanuel and Pelosi are having a difficult time controlling the caucus.  But from what I can glean from the article, this system simply cannot work.  How will they measure the competitiveness of a district?  We all know numbers do not necessarily paint a complete picture.  But more importantly, what if a member does not raise large amounts of money for ethical reasons?  And what if a member is controversial?  Should they be punished for articulating an unpopular stance?  Are we trying to purify the caucus, purging it of its more vocal elements?

I don't get your remarks at all! While fundraising was, and is, an unequal platform to judge effectiveness, a system in place to encourage members to help other members is to all our benefit!

If Officeholder A is helping Challenger B in another District this is a huge help to Challenger B. Money has nothing to do with it.

The blogs are constantly ranting about the centralization of power, yet in this first decentralization of power, where an Officeholder is judged by his actual help to the Party and Party Challengers, we see the same criticism as if this is all just more of the same.

This is a brilliant step forward to force the backbenchers into the fight or suffer the consequences. It also puts the great fundraisers on notice that fundraising isn't enough.

I don't know what more any of us could ask for...

I have a Candidate where we are in contact with an officeholder in adjoining district and you can be sure my next conversation with his Campaign Manager with contain some casual mention of this new system.

IF...and only IF you are interested in PRACTICAL POLITICS...this is a fine new direction.

I think the key on this is how the points system is structured. Clyburn gives the example of how a money only system automatically lifts some up and holds others down. Party loyalty could also be used in a similar fashion.

It really depends on the fairness of the structure.

Will it be used to punish Democrats who are the lone vote against war or the diminishment of civil liberties?

I'd love to see more bluedogs brought in-line but I worry that this would be used in the other direction.