The DCCC members should pay up their dues, and pull their weight in helping to make a Democratic House Majority a reality.

I couldn't get your link to work, but I believe this is the article you're referring to.

would love to see excuses from these folks. really, i'd love to.

From the article:

E.J. Dionne notes that Democrats have a problem: the big money donors who contributed millions of dollars to the party during the 2004 race have largely disappeared now that the election was over. As Rahm Emanuel put it, "they walked off the field."

Based on the timid way too many Democrats have conducted themselves in the past decade of elections is it any wonder the big money bailed on them? But it's actually a good thing since the slack has been taken up by ordinary people whose only quid-pro-quo is that they govern like real Democrats.

BTW...I didn't even notice that the diary heading was in caps either. I think  "Please don't use caps in the future...Thank you," would have been a friendlier way to point it out.

I agree that safe Congressmen and those who stand to gain from a Democratic House should step up. But it hardly seems fair to criticize Dems like Stupak and Conyers, who represent very poor areas of the country and don't have a natural donor network to tap into.

Stupak's and Conyer's districts have median incomes of $34,076 and $36,099 respectively, compared to $41,994. This compares to All-Stars Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's $44,034 and Barney Frank's $53,169.

Of course a better measure might be the number of rich people living in the district. About %5.3 of Stupak's constituent's and %11.1 of Conyers's make more than $100,000. This compares to 21.1% of Franks's constituents and 17.1% of Wasserman's Schultz's.

I don't mean to demean the contributions of the All-Stars, but blaming people from poor districts for failing to bring in as much green as those from wealthy districts is hardly fair. The only ones who should realy be blamed are those who either could have raised the money or HAVE raised the money and are hording it (i.e. Pastor, Moran, Holden, though Holden represents an R+7 district and might genuinley fear a serious challenge.)

Are you telling me he couldn't raise the money the DCCC is asking for from trial lawyers and other groups he agrees with?

You mean shake them down -- or trade them something --  for it. If the DCCC needs more money they should act in a manner that will enable them to ask ordinary Democrats for it and not be blown off.

Howard Dean doesn't seem to be having trouble getting ordinary Dems to donate to the DNC by doing that.

And I believe that a Democratic Party with a demonstrated reputation of scrupulous honesty and freedom from special interests would beat the GOP every time no matter how much dirty money the Reeps raised.

Why should Conyers cough up any dough to the DCCC?

The head of the DCCC, Rahm Emanuel, is not serious about taking back the house.

In fact, as Chris Bowers points out today in a front page story, he is publishing a book that reiterates all the Republican talking points about the Democrats "not standing for anything" and "being just as bad as  conservatives".

Why should Conyers pony up money to an organization whose head is actively seeking to undermine and demoralize the very people he is suppose to be helping to elect?