Comments & Questions Re: Duckworth's Campaign

UPDATE: Army regs are no longer an issue:

Tammy Duckworth, the Hoffman Estates pilot who lost both legs in the Iraq war, got her release from active duty in the Army Wednesday and will formally enter the race to replace Congressman Henry Hyde on Sunday. [...]

While starting from scratch a little more than three months before the March 21 primary, Duckworth is expected to get plenty of help from Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel. He’s the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who recruited Duckworth into the race and has assembled a top-flight team of Democratic operatives to jump-start her campaign.

Duckworth’s decision to run leaves fellow Democrat Christine Cegelis, a Rolling Meadows technology consultant, in a tough pos ition. If Cegelis wins, she’s angered Emanuel, who controls the money spigot for Democrats nationally that Cegelis would need to take on the well-funded Roskam. An under-funded Cegelis got 44 percent against Hyde last year.

Over at Capitol Fax, Rich had a post up yesterday afternoon about the media coverage Duckworth was getting in the Daily Herald. What caught my attention was a couple of the comments to the post. First was this comment by 'inish' which I shortened for brevity:
A servicemember may not run for political office. It is a directive of the Dept. of Defense 1344.10

Until Duckworth has been discharged, she can not be a candidate. Discharge papers are "misplaced" all the time. I am the wife of a retired servicemember. It took almost two years for our retirment to be approved.

4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others...


The bold part (emphasis mine) is what caught my attention. I've said this before, but I'll say this again: How is Duckworth, with no announcement, getting 50 volunteers circulating petitions, paying for a-list consultants working on her campaign, media outreach sufficient to get her on This Week, and a campaign spokesperson and publicist? All this costs dollars. Big dollars. So how is she paying for it if, according to Dept. of Defense 1344.10, Section 4.1.2.1, she can't solicit political contributions from others? How is a big-dollar fundraiser held for her at the Hilton Towers in Chicago last week? Is the DCCC laundering the contributions or am I reading the DoD regulation wrong?

Someone help me out here.

The next comment that caught my attention was this one by 'bored now' again edited for brevity, not content:
(rahm has been collecting petitions for her. i am told that he -- and madigan -- had 50 people out "gathering" signatures for duckworth at one cook county train station a week or so ago. commuters felt like they were running a gauntlet, and i doubt very many of them refused to sign! given where it was, though, one has to wonder how many signatures were valid...)

Can anyone else verify this? It seems odd to me that the ABC 7 News piece noted her "friends and family" were out getting signatures for her. If this is correct, than Emanuel and Madigan (Lisa or Mike?) are now relatives and family friends. And they are gathering signatures in Cook County no less! For the record, Cegelis had 200 volunteers gather nearly 4,000 signatures to get her on the ballot. I don't think they were all relatives and family friends though. Just part of the Democratic base in DuPage.

Now I know Duckworth was allowed to circulate petitions by her commanding officer. But again, how does this jibe with DoD regulations? If anyone has a greater understanding on this topic please comment.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Rahm's friends
and my guess is Mike, not Lisa.  Mike is the chair of the Democratic Party in Illinois, and therefore he'd be the one providing "family members" to Duckworth for her petition drive.  
by Maven 2005-12-15 06:03AM | 0 recs
Rules of engagement
It is good to have a primary but dont destroy each other.  The primary should be use to strengthen the eventual nominee.

Other districts dont even have a Democratic challenger against the Republican candidate.  I think it is great that there are 2 people who wants to be the candidate.  

May the best candidate win in your district.

by jasmine 2005-12-15 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
Agree, with caviots.

It's one thing to have a primary with two candidates (in this race there are two right now, and Duckworth will make three). The issue here is not Duckworth wanting to run. That's perfectly acceptable and admirable.

However, when one candidate is being undermined so that Rahm's chosen candidate, in this case Duckworth, can be annointed there is a problem in the system. I am not trying to attack Ms. Duckworth, but the way she is entering the race, which I feel is a completely charge. As I say in the post: How is Duckworth, with no announcement, getting 50 volunteers circulating petitions, paying for a-list consultants working on her campaign, media outreach sufficient to get her on This Week, and a campaign spokesperson and publicist?

I think that is a valid question.

by michael in chicago 2005-12-15 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
And that's Major Duckworth to you.

And the issue is why Rahm feels he needs to work to undermine a viable, homegrown candidate in this race.  

by Maven 2005-12-15 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
Hey, that's a question I've had. I usually refer to candidates just by last name. When I don't, what is the proper way to refer to Duckworth? Someone help me out here who knows the proper ettiquette.
by michael in chicago 2005-12-15 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
Until she's formerly released from the USANG, it's Maj. Duckworth.

Before she got injured a year ago, it was Cpt.

Before "Rong" Emanuel & "Turbin" Durbin got a hold of the Maj., all she wanted to do was fly Black Hawks.  

There's nothing lower than a grounded pilot.

by Philosophe Forum 2005-12-15 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
Careful with the insults. She is owed respect. It's Rahm this quarrel is with.

Seriously though, when not just last name, is it:
a. Tammy Duckworth
b. Maj. Duckworth
c. Retired Maj. Duckworth
d. Democratic Candidate Tammy Duckworth

What's the AP style on this?

by michael in chicago 2005-12-15 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
There's no insult.  It's a pilot thing.  There's only 1 place they want to be -- with altitude.

She's not retiring.  Until she formally resigns her commission, she's Maj. Duckworth.  After that, it's Ms. Duckworth.  All DB searches in official records would use Ladda Duckworth since it's her first name.

by Philosophe Forum 2005-12-15 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
And the issue is why Rahm feels he needs to work to undermine a viable, homegrown candidate in this race.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that all of the candidates that the DCCC and DSCC have either blocked or refused to help were progressive, anti-war candidates. If anyone knows of any anti-war challengers who have received help from the DCCC or the DSCC shout it out.

The DCCC and the DSCC are both dominated and controlled by DLC Democrats who largely base their decision on the ideology of the candidate. Progessives and anti-war candidates need not apply.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-15 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
...or maybe they're just grizzled veterans who know how to win, and want to put up someone they think has the best chance of winning.

Rahm Emanuel is a genius, and I have a lot of trust in his judgment.  Apparently, so does our entire house caucus.  He didn't become DCCC chair this quickly by accident...

The D-trip has supported plenty of anti-war candidates.  I suppose it depends on what you mean by anti-war.  But, if you agree with me that there are plenty of anti-war democrats in the house right now well I hate to break it to you but the D-trip has their backs.  Also, it is no secret that the DSCC likes Hackett -- would you call him pro-war?

I wonder if you all will still be saying these things about Rep. Emanuel if he is sworn in as Speaker of the House next January.

by rapid response 2005-12-15 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
See Gary, your mistake is not realizing that Emanuel's reign is a benevolent dictatorship.  Who needs democratic principles when Daddy knows best?  
by Matt Lockshin 2005-12-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules of engagement
Really?  When did Chuck Schumer join the DLC?

On the list of progressive, anti-war challengers helped by the DCCC and DSCC, follow the links.  

by Adam B 2005-12-15 12:06PM | 0 recs
A formality
Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are not formal members of the DLC. That means nothing. They are all following the same pied piper of "robust liberal hawks" and corporate lapdogs.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-15 04:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads