A year ahead the DSCC and the DCCC are clearing the races...

[madfloridian]

for their chosen candidates. Examples are Casey in PA, Lampson in TX, and another is the disabled woman veteran that Rahm is choosing over Christine Cegelis in Illinois. Christine and Pennacchio are running with grassroots volunteers and grassroots money. These groups are saying that it is not enough money....a whole year ahead.

Then when their candidates for whom they have cleared the fields win....they claim it is a win for centrism. But that is because they have gotten the other progressives out of the race because they don't give them recognition or support.

And of course those of us who would support them can't afford a year ahead of time to start seriously donating. We just can't do it this soon.

So they get away with claiming centrism won, when the reality is they manipulated all of it.

And if we say anything at some blogs, we get our heads snapped off. Everyone knows what is happening. They will make it almost impossible for progressives to run, and that is such a shame.

Here is an article that I found today, very interesting. I won't post snips but it is good reading. The article is called War Among the Democrats.
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/11/14/war_among_the_democrats.php#more

This same fellow wrote another great article a few months ago. I don't think he is Democrat, but he has a lot of insight. This one is called A Master Politician.

http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/06/10/a_master_politician_at_work.php

Gives a picture of what is going on in the party. Interesting stuff.

[Carolab]

1. The progressives need to make this distinction in their campaigns.

People love to root for underdogs. Especially if the underdog is on THEIR side and not that of lobbyists and corporations.

If the DSCC and DCCC are going to pick this fight, the progressives in the party need to fight back...just like Dean did/does...because it WORKS.

From the first link:

"To many there aren’t real ideological differences between these parties. That’s the mistake.

As before, the difference starts with money. Dean operates from the bottom up, the “establishment” from the top-down.

And that’s where the establishment is now attacking Dean, through the money issue. Never mind that Dean now chairs the DNC. (Goldwater ran with GOP party chairman William Miller.) Loyalty to faction means more in American politics than loyalty to party. Lobbyist Vic Fazio, a former Congressman, complained to The Washington Post that the Democrats are being out fund-raised 2-1.

It would be a valid complaint but for two facts. First, Fazio conflates corporate soft money with hard money figures. Second, Dean’s fund-raising is in fact a record for the party – it’s just that the moneymen of Bush have gone to Caligulan heights lately. (It should also be noted that a million from 10,000 people brings you 10,000 votes, while a million from 1 brings you 1.) The charge, however, resonated throughout the blogosphere.

On “Meet the Press” this week, Dean answered the charge, noting that the party will have operatives in all 50 states next year, that it will have plenty of money, and that the key will be having a message, which he then defined. Rhetoric will be under Dean’s control, just as it was under that of the New Right a generation ago.

Underneath all this is a concerted attempt by the establishment party to shut-out Deanlike candidates. You can see this in Illinois’ 6th Congressional district, where Christine Cigelis, who got 44% of the vote against longtime Republican incumbent Henry Hyde through netroots support last year, suddenly faces a primary challenge from the money party’s Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran."

****************

As is pointed out in the second link:

"No Democrat on Earth has Howard Dean’s political brilliance. No one else has his instincts. He’s not crazy, he’s not angry, he’s not mad. He’s giving people the truth, and those who hear it are responding.

Those who feed and depend on the current system, both Republican and Democratic – they just think it’s hell. Because when the time is right, and the inevitable contradictions between our assumptions and reality occurs, they’re all going to be thrown out of their Washington paradise.

Who will replace them? Those who hang on tightest to Howard Dean’s coattails will replace them.

You watch and see."

[PATRICK]

91. Money redistributed

away from the working class to the rich is being used. Ergo, some of our money is also funding the GOP. As a bit of malicious reasoning, if they had not been successful crooks they would not have the will or the swagger to beat us in fundraising. It is ONLY a matter of doing better than we have been in the past- which is true. Getting big money out which hurts but is a threat to all parties- done(irony). Winning in spite of money which can only be shown if you win with less- poised to display authentic integrity.

It has not been THAT long when the party veered to big money and big money ideology as a smart, comfortable move while making excuses about the little guy never giving- which even the Repukes had proved untrue. The persistence of the fool is what is on display here. The sign is using the lack of money to dominate or DIVIDE the party. That will sure solve the problem, won't it?

If they were honest Dems or thinking humans they would step down instead of using those feet to fill their mouths and corporate money to line their pockets toward the destruction of democracy.

The fact they are not purged, they think smugly, is due to their hold on big money and not the patience of real Democrats who need everyone(not everyone's buck) joined together.

[1932]

2. You take two leaps of logic with which I don't really agree.

You imply that they're picking centrists to win these races. I'm not sure that's what's guiding them.

They're pikcing candidates they think can win, regardless of their politics.

Santorum is an incumbent US senator with national aspriartions in a close state. The Democrats picked to beat him a candidate who set a record for votes in a statewide race in Pennsylvania. They are picking someone a lot of Penn'ians like. Trying to increase the margin of victory by picking a popular candidate is a good idea. You might feel like the point is to get rid of progressives. But if there were a progressive whom everyone liked, that progressive would be on the ticket. Furthermore, a LOT of progressive Democrats voted for Casey in his statewide race. He won progressive Philadelphia districts be a margin as big as he won conservative eastern PA districts.

I don't know about the two Congressional represenatives, but I suspect that it's the same story.

And why are the Democrats working so hard? Because the senate is a few seats away from being dominated by the hard right. Any resulting centrism of Democratic strategy is motivated by the desire to avoid being dominated by the hard right. I don't have a problem with that.

Your second leap of logic is that democrats would use the elections to sell centrism. I'm not sure that's the case. The democrats don't want to alienate the progressives in the party, so why would they crow about centrism?

[madfloridian]

4. Well, maybe you haven't seen the talk about VA.

Well, I said they were picking the candidates. Fact. True. Schumer and Reid picked Casey, Schumer said so. He said we did not have the luxury of worrying about issues...in this case Casey is anti-choice and anti-morning after pill.

Another fact, several candidates who got pretty good percentages last year have been "urged" to drop out, Morrison, Cegelis, Hackett are 3 who come to mind quickly.

Yes, they do spin wins as wins for centrism. Visit the DLC website and see the connections they make.

Of course some Democrats don't want to alienate progressives. In fact the New Democrats (DLC) call themselves progressives. But in the next breath they are calling us "activists" and calling themselves "centrists."

If they want to run their own candidate, whom they handpick, they should at least acknowledge the other. In PA Chuck has had to fight just to get his name mentioned at all by the DSCC.

I think they are picking "centrists", a meaningless word, really....not because they can win. They are pickng them, asking others to leave the race....and then claiming victory with a "centrist."

In other words, they are choosing who we will vote for and saying the primaries are too expensive. Trust us, they say.

[1932]

30. Schumer asked Ed Rendel who could win PA and Rendel said that "only one

guy" can beat Santorum -- Casey.

Peter Boyer writes about this in the most recent New Yorker.

[madfloridian]

45. Oh, there is a lot more to it than that.

Schumer's exact words are on audio at the fundraiser. He said that we could not afford to have check lists of about 18 things, or something like that.

Rendell told Schumer he would not want Casey to run because he was anti-choice....Schumer said they could no longer worry about it.

He is selling women rights away to win.

[DaveinMD]

48. of course

this could have been avoided if Rendell decided to run. He would have been unbeatable. But since he didn't run, the next strongest candidate was Casey. This is a fact.

[safi0]

52. The point

Schumer was making was that, every single candidate can't meet everyone's level of ideological purity.

Schumer's track record has shown that his main concern is winning. Whether it was recruiting the very moderate Casey to run in PA or throwing his support behind the ultra-liberal Bernie Sanders in VT. He wants the candidates who will win.

Also, about Ohio the DSCC did tell Hackett right out of the gate that he should perhaps step aside for Brown. That was wrong on their part, but they've now corrected their ways. Because of Ohio's very early primary and the fact that both of these guys are great candidates, the DSCC is staying neutral.

[madfloridian]

55. Hackett just stayed. He refused to get out....

I think it is good they are staying neutral, but Hackett had a good record. BTW why is Brown jeopardizing the house seat to run in the senate?

[sadiesworld]

57. Sherrod Brown has been leading the fight against

our disastrous trade policies for the past 15 years and has one of the most progressive records in Congress. There are quite a few of us who would LOVE to have another Bernie Sanders/Russ Feingold type of lefty in the Senate.

As for Casey, isn't it to be expected that an electorate that would vote for Santorum might be a bit to the right of the average DUer on social/cultural issues? He IS to the left on economic issues and IS NOT a corporado-in fact, the PA AFL-CIO has already thrown their support behind him. IIRC, they actually supported Casey over Rendell in '02.

If you want to criticize these politicians, fine. But please don't imply that they are supported by corporate interests when nothing could be further from the truth.

[madfloridian]

58. The candidates may not be, but the orgs are in large part.

Both the DSCC and the DCCC are ahead of the DNC moneywise, getting a lot more corporate money. Schumer outraised the Republicans.

I did not criticize Brown. I just wondered why he would give up his seat to run for senate.

I think all of us need to question the policy. Apparently only 3 of us on the thread think so.

[sadiesworld]

60. I'm usually the first to jump on the dems for backing

corporate suck-ups, but that doesn't appear to be the case with either of these guys (you did refer to Reid and Schumer urging Hackett out upthread). These orgs are always going to get SOME corporate money-generally just a 25% insurance fee in case the repub loses. Much to my surprise, I think Reid, Schumer, et al, are simply backing Brown and Casey b/c they think they can win.

Also, Casey DOES have a lot of grassroots and union support.

edit for spelling

[1932]

64. Casey isn't a corporate suck-up either. He's a very good friend of working

class, as you noted.

And for emphasis, Schumer is getting behind him because Pennsylvanians like Rendel and the record number of people who voted for Casey in his treasurers race already are behind him.

[1932]

66. Maybe Brown thinks he'll have more power to protect working class in Sen.

?

[safi0]

69. Hackett doesn't have a record

Unless your talking about his stint as a city councilman.

From what I understand about Brown's thinking was that Reid and Schumer were perfectly happy with a Hackett-Dewine race, but some Ohio Congressional Dems like Ted Strickland and Kucinich were still talking to Brown about running, which is what eventually convinced him.

[PATRICK]

3. And THEIR money

is dependent on big donor promises and assuming we will have to ante up.

This is what you get when you don't purge losers with vested power or curb the dog. It was obvious the upsurge of winning alternatives and regional pols disgusted with the effete, unpopular control of losing collaborationists stopped short with Dean and his grass roots efforts.
NOT dominating the "centrists" enough. McGovern! McGovern! Not, naturally, being able to raise the funds at this time and with the appeals coming as much if not more from the mainstream party leadership as opposed to progressive outside coalitions, I agree we have been undercut.

Undercut, slandered, and worse by presumptive losers intent on nominating yet another candidate worthy of everything except winning a campaign and functioning as a president. The effect as a whole is to force, force the perception of the need to start a new party- a disastrous split the GOP never would think of. Certain proud surrender monkeys need to attack the only ones prepared to suffer out the marriage, and know they can, putting self above reality and party, giving up any chance to become a majority party and intent on being the rational Conservative Party that in justice the GOP should be right now.

THEY put up with whack jobs and crooks and empty suits. Their pathetic imitators in our party, tragically sincere about real values, cannot tolerate idealists, the left, the populist majority or the naked truth.

I think Moveon had better get on the roll and raise money since campaign accounts are flexible even if mindsets are not.

[shance]

5. Thanks Floridian. Absolutely. They are circumventing the process

the primary and the will of American citizens by essentially picking the candidates.

Its up to all of us in each state to oppose the 'coronation' of pet candidates and say no to what these organizations are doing.

[Zynx]

6. This is a lot of high-minded idealism.

The fact of the matter is that we have to have our eyes on the prize. The Republicans have done this with their candidates and they have routinely beaten us for more than a decade. You know, I'm sick of seeing people like Rick Santorum gloating at their victory celebrations. I want those to be OUR victory celebrations for once. If you insist on running "pure" candidates like Pennacchio, we are taking a huge risk. I will apologize if Casey does not win and if it appears a more liberal candidate would have. Not only that, I will donate to a candidate of your choice the next time.

[madfloridian]

7. Perhaps a lack of high-minded idealism is taking away our rights....

as women, as minorities. They pick em you vote for em. That is what they want. It worked for Clinton, yes. But we lost just about everything there was to lose last year.

They picked Langevin in RI (he is out now) and he was anti-choice. They picked Casey, though Rendell told them he was anti-choice they said they did not care, I don't know about some of the others.

Cegelis got 44% of the vote her first time out last year as a DFA candidate. They want to run an unknown woman veteran against her because she was greatly disabled in the war.

Excuse me, but how does that necessarily make you a good candidate.

High-minded idealism, my hind foot. That is just the same as saying, we decide, you don't.

[safi0]

53. Groups like NOW and NARAL

Seeing them force Langevin out of the RI Senate race was absolutely disgusting. From a personal perspective, perhaps it was good for me because after that I resolved to never give money to special interest groups ever again, especially not single issue groups. Seeing them force Langevin out was single issue voting at its finest and why single issue groups make me sick. Langevin is a guy who has very conservative views on abortion, but is anti-IWR, pro stem-cell research, anti- bad trade agreements. Going down the list is a great Liberal on all issues except one.

[madfloridian]

54. Well, I think women are the biggest issue of all.

It makes me sad to think that our rights are expendable so easily.

[safi0]

70. Please. 90%

Of the Democratic caucus is still pro-choice one or two more pro-life Dems aren't going to change that.

I also think your criticism of Langevin's almost run is very contradictory to your support of Cegelis' campaign. When you talk about Cegelis you talk about how she shouldn't be pushed out of the primary, yet that is exactly what the choice groups did to Langevin.

[madfloridian]

76. Not exactly

The pro-choice groups are most definitely not the same as having the Democratic Party do it. They did not "force" him, they stood their ground.

[safi0]

78. No they forced him

They protested outside his fundraiser and threatened to endorse Chaffee if he declared his candidacy, basically making it known that if he ran they weren't going to shut about this one issue. Then after getting what they wanted the assholes at NARAL endorsed Chaffee anyway.

[madfloridian]

81. I am sorry you think standing up for our rights is wrong. War protestors..

do it all the time. I would think protecting women's rights is equally important to Democrats.

[safi0]

82. Don't be so dramatic

One Senator won't change the dynamics that much. I hate single issue voting, I think its idiotic and the Langevin situation was the perfect example of why special interest groups are bad for America.

[MH1]

83. Endorsng Chafee does not equal "protecting women's rights".

Chafee caucuses with republicans and votes republican for leadership positions.

'nuff said.

[blm]

65. Actually, mf, Casey is not a prolife crusader. He's personally prolife

but has no interest in litigating it or legislating it as an issue.

His father's legacy was just that - his father's.

[madfloridian]

75. He has stated he is against the morning after pill...

because it goes to when life begins. He is against stem cell research beyond the 2001 limits. He does NOT crusade against abortion, but he is against it.

The point being, which I think you would have picked up on...that they picked not caring whether he was or not.

[MH1]

84. Link to m.a. pill position? n/t

[madfloridian]

88. Here is his statement and a link.

http://youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/04/where-senate-candidates-stand-all-of.html

"But, and this is a big but, his aim to straddle the line with abortion gets him in big trouble. Because, apparently to Casey, the abortion issue is not about his religious beliefs, but about "biology," because he says "there's a life there." While this may be Casey's way of moderating his pro-life stance, he ruins it with this:

"Casey said he would, as a senator, avoid a litmus test on any issue in voting on judicial nominees. He would oppose expanding federally supported embryonic stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels. He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

By opposing the stem cell and emergency contraception, he is actually imposing his religous views.

[MH1]

98. Different question, although I agree that

allowing pharmacists to choose what prescriptions they will or will not fill, is something I strongly disagree with - they should just choose a different profession.

However that doesn't say anything about him being against the morning-after pill, just that he would give "pharmacists" leeway in not filling those scripts. (which is news to me btw so I thank you, even though the link you gave links to a source article for Casey's words, which "cannot be found" - presumably an outdated link).

[madfloridian]

99. Casey would allow pharmacists not to fill emergency contraception.

"He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

If you think that is ok, for a senator, then we have no common link. That is the most outrageous combining of religion and government that I can imagine.

[blm]

87. He may have said it, but I know he's not interested in LEGISLATING it

as an issue.

[madfloridian]

89. Please see my post just above.

http://youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/04/where-senate-candidates-stand-all-of.html

"But, and this is a big but, his aim to straddle the line with abortion gets him in big trouble. Because, apparently to Casey, the abortion issue is not about his religious beliefs, but about "biology," because he says "there's a life there." While this may be Casey's way of moderating his pro-life stance, he ruins it with this:

"Casey said he would, as a senator, avoid a litmus test on any issue in voting on judicial nominees. He would oppose expanding federally supported embryonic stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels. He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

[shance]

8. A Democratic primary with candidates is called "high minded idealism"??

What country are you originally from?

You are spreading inaccurate information that is more damaging and fear baiting. A primary has NO BEARING on the general OTHER than to name our candidate for the general.

THATS WHAT A PRIMARY IS FOR!!!!

THERE IS NO RISK IN A PRIMARY..........THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A PRIMARY SO WE CAN CHOOSE A CANDIDATE TO RUN FOR THE GENERAL.

[madfloridian]

9. Wow, I think Cegelis can hold her own with Rahm. No wonder..

No wonder he is seeing if someone else can run. I don't know the whole story on this, but here are two articles about it.

First, a little about Christine. She was a Dean Dozen, had plenty of volunteers, got enough money to get by...and got 44% of the vote against Henry Hyde first time she ever ran. Many of us will support her, Jim Dean posted in a blog he did, that DFA would be there for her. Well, they would have been there for Morrison as well, but he dropped out. A year is a long time for them to keep the pressure on.

Anyway, here is a blogger's pretty sensible take on the situation.

http://www.soapblox.net/chicago/showDiary.do?diaryId=573

"It's unclear what Duckworth would say about the Iraq war. When I asked her, she would not declare the war right or wrong: "There is good and bad in everything."

That sure is inspiring. A nice middle of the road vanilla non-answer. So over 2,000 dead US service men and women, 15,000 plus injured, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed, $200+ billion dollars drained from the US treasury, and the very real possiblity that the war is based on trumped up intellegence cherry picked by Bush and his Republican administration - and there's good in this?

With the support for the war falling fast, and DuPage having an active and organized anti-war effort, this type of talk is going to lose the Independents and Democratic base needed to win the district. The potential DCCC backed candidate looks to be positioning herself, in typical DLC fashion, to throw away a key issue she could contrast herself to Roskam with and hammer the Republican on his support for this unpopular war. Yet this is a better candidate?"

And Christine stood up for herself by speaking out to Rahm on this topic. I do not imagine she endeared herself to him. But you go, girl, we will be donating. I do NOT see why a person is qualified to run over someone like Christine just because they were disabled in the invasion.

My comment on urging a veteran just to be doing it:
You know the movement to run National Security Democrats? Yeh, you know what I mean...ones who will speak out against Iraq, but most likely won't favor doing anything about it other than criticizing the way it was done. It's a thing done to curry favor with the right wing, while damaging really good candidates like Christine.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/110905.html

An Illinois GOP campaign aide said Democrats are banking on Tammy Duckworth, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot who was critically injured in Iraq; she is a double amputee. Duckworth’s candidacy, the campaign aide said, could be modeled after that of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who narrowly lost to Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s strongly Republican 2nd District.

Cegelis, keenly aware that Democrats are looking elsewhere for a candidate, announced this week that she is stepping up her fundraising, launching a finance committee that, she said, will tap donors outside the district.

An Illinois GOP campaign aide said Democrats are banking on Tammy Duckworth, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot who was critically injured in Iraq; she is a double amputee.

Duckworth’s candidacy, the campaign aide said, could be modeled after that of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who narrowly lost to Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s strongly Republican 2nd District. Cegelis, keenly aware that Democrats are looking elsewhere for a candidate, announced this week that she is stepping up her fundraising, launching a finance committee that, she said, will tap donors outside the district.

Cegelis suggested the district is leery of Democrats from the big city, saying she’d rather not stump with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who represents the 5th District, in Chicago, and chairs the DCCC.

“Certainly, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama, they’re very well-liked here,” Cegelis said of Illinois’s two U.S. senators, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, both Democrats. “I think the congressman, you know, it’s a Chicago thing. I think that would be a little more difficult. We’re the suburbs.”

[DaveinMD]

10. oh the horror

the party committees are recruiting and the best possible candidates in their mind to win. There was and still is so much anomosity about the recruitment of Salazar to run in Colorado. You know what--It was the right thing to do. There was no way Miles would have won that seat.

[madfloridian]

12. Then we don't need to vote, do we? Stop the primaries, right?

You know that there should not be pressure on good people who got that much of the vote last time to drop out. This is what used to be America.

Get mad at me all you want. I am not especially liberal. I am actually pretty moderate, and the route this corporate group has taken this country is killing this once great nation.

[DaveinMD]

13. people are free to run

the party is getting good people to run. The party doesn't control who can file to run.

[madfloridian]

15. Don't be that naive.

All kinds of pressures are brought to bear.

[DaveinMD]

17. this is the way of the world

and its the best thing for the party. Republicans do this. All party committees do that. We need to run the best possible candidates. If that means some people need to run for lower offices, so be it. I shed no tears.

[madfloridian]

19. Best in whose mind?

That is the big question.

[DaveinMD]

20. its the party committee's job

to target candidates. I guess you would have been happier with Pete Coors in the US Senate.

[madfloridian]

21. Then why even have primaries?

Why even bother?

[DaveinMD]

23. those rules are set by state governments

that has nothing to do with the party making sure the best candidates emerge. What you suggest doing would lead to even worse results than we've seen of late. We need to close ranks like the Republicans do.

[madfloridian]

26. How do you know? Last I heard the GOP owned it all.

:shrug:

[DaveinMD]

27. the margins

could be worse if party committees didn't do candidate recruitment and targeting. You really need to get your head out of the ivory tower. We are fighting for our survival here the party committees have limited resources to support candidates. Democratic money is much more scarce than Republican money.

[madfloridian]

34. I work hard for the party.

There is no reason the DCCC should go with someone who has never run before, is not sure how she feels about the war, just because she is severely disabled and a veteran.. It makes no sense. Cegelis has a good campaign organization, and she will get support.

I am impressed with Paul Hackett, a veteran, because of who he is. I think he has a powerful voice. I am fine with that.

However, this new thing of getting veterans to run is bothering me. I don't see a need for it unless a natural like Hackett comes along.

Please don't diminish my contribution to the party because I differ on this issue.

[DaveinMD]

38. you seem

to only have harsh words for the people who work hard every day to do the best they can for the Democratic Party. Cegelis may have had a good organization, but didn't raise very much money. And she may not be the best profile for the district. The party committees are recruiting strong candidates. That is their job.

[madfloridian]

43. In your mind they may seem strong candidates. I have my own mind.

I don't see things your way.

[DaveinMD]

44. it is their job

to recruit candidates they deem to be strong. The heads of the party committees are chosen by leaders we elect. This is the result of Democracy.

[madfloridian]

46. It is my job as a citizen to question leaders.

.

[DaveinMD]

49. fine

question your leaders. But this seems much more like baseless complaining to me. And it seems endless.

[DaveinMD]

42. also

sometimes those who haven't run before are better candidates than those who have.

[lostnfound]

62. Close ranks around only the corporate candidates?

That's what it always ends up with. It's the only sure bet in American politics.

Need conservative Democrats running in red states? No problem, good idea.
But a first-run who got 44% against an incumbent sounds pretty viable. Is she being opposed because she's not viable or because she's too progressive?

[safi0]

72. About Cegelis'

Run. She ran against dinosaur Henry Hyde. Hyde had been in Congress forever and with the Newt revolution lost a lot of power. Cegelis ran an eneregetic campaign and did better than most expected. Having said that, I have two aunts and my grandma lives in this district and is one of the richest in the Midwest and still very Republican. Against a fresh face Republican she will in all likelihood lose, unless she moves to the right. When Melissa Bean ran in 2002 she ran very much to the left, similar to Cegelis run in 04. But as she gained momentum she began moving to the right and that was what put her over the top. Cegelis cannot win this district running as a Liberal and I think anyone who says otherwise knows little about this district.

[madfloridian]

74. Then how did she get 44% first time out? You are just assuming.

And just look at Melissa Bean now. She votes very much with the New Dems. Guess that is what you are saying, that she represents us?

[safi0]

79. Because she was running

Against a do-nothing dinosaur. She's not going to have that advantage in 04. When you and other DU'ers criticize Melissa Bean its stupid and uninformed. You don't know anything about the dynamics of her district. Her distrct is in Lake Forest aka the richest CD in the entire Midwest, your not going to get a Liberal representing that district, and she knows that. And yes I would rather have Melissa Bean in Congress than Phil Crane or whatever Delay disciple is going to run against her in 06.

[madfloridian]

86. You are reading a whole lot into what I say.

I did NOT say Bean was stupid and uninformed....where in the world did you get that?

Then if we elect Democrats who vote with Republicans, we need not to gripe or call them.

[safi0]

93. I didn't say

Bean was stupid and uninformed, that was the charachterization I used for those who attacked her because of the CAFTA vote. I'm not saying don't gripe or call them but when you do these things realize who her constituents are and whether or not her constituents would support her vote. My guess is that the majority of people in her district were all for CAFTA.

[DaveinMD]

100. the majority

of the Democratic Caucus is quite progressive. Maybe she isn't being supported because she showed no ability to raise money. Or maybe they've done polling and it shown that the other candidate gave us a better chance to win. It amazes me how people here think everything is a conspiracy.

[lostnfound]

105. Perhaps you are right but

did you read the articles? I thought they made interesting points about 'the money party' vs 'the movement party' in a historical context with the similar split among the Republicans.

You don't SEE any such split on our side?

[DaveinMD]

107. there is always a split

on our side of some kind. It sucks. The grassroots will always be upset because the party leaders can never do everything they want. I've been on both sides of this.

[lostnfound]

108. I think there's two reasons why they can't...

do "everything they want"
1) corporate funds are easier to get than money from the masses
and
2) enough "deep roots" work hasn't been done to counteract the rightwing economic ideology; the public can now recite 'trickle-down economics' in their sleep but doesn't realize how stacked the deck is or how little class mobility there is; they've lost a concept of a commons and they can't imagine any alternatives to a purely capital-driven economy.

[DaveinMD]

109. Both parties

do targeting. They put the most money into races that can be won. This is upsetting to activists working on races that aren't on the target list. The first congressional race I worked on was on one such race. The previous election, the incumbent had received 72 percent. We ended up holding her to 60 percent and we upset because it was hard for us to raise money because we weren't on the target list. But you know what, if we had raised some money on our own earlier on things could have been different. The Party Committees are in a tough spot because they don't have the money to play in all the races. And they certainly don't have the money to waste some on primaries.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. Those who dont have the spine to take the pressure

when they are candidates probably won't have much spine when they are elected officials.

[dorktv]

90. Not spine, it is heart. When you have your own party working

against you it makes you feel pointless and unworthy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. Those without heart need not apply

Politics is a rough business not suited for the weak.

[dorktv]

94. No it is not, but why would you want to run if you were being

actively worked against by your party? How can we get people to run if we eat our own?

That is my point, we have enough to deal with regarding republicans, so why should we be willing to let the party try to destroy someone just to get a "viable" candidate?

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. Because it is better than non-viable candidates getting the nomination

and then losing in the general election.

[dorktv]

97. So if the party picks a person, that means they are going to automatically

win?

THAT is not true, and one of the reasons we have been losing. The party should stay out of it completely and not try to have someone run against a proven vote getter such as Ms. Cegalis, only needs 6% to win. She should not be forced out because someone in the DCCC thinks this other person will win. No one was going to run last time, she took the chance so they are going to force her out? That is BS.

[dorktv]

56. From a candidate who was pretty much ignored by the DCCC

last time around, they pick who they want and if they do not want to bother, nothing will get them to help out.

Even when they do "help" it is in the nature of dropping the minimum of money they will require to help the person out.

[DaveinMD]

101. the supply of money

isn't there to support candidates in every district. That's why other funding sources are emerging.

[dorktv]

104. One of the people I talk to on the Nov. Victory list serv figured

that with a $2,000,000 to 2,500,000 investment on the DCCC's (and they have the money) part could give every candidate a seed boost of $10,000. Some would not need it but others (like Christine) would have been able to get that extra push that might have put them over the top.

I would have needed it right after the primary and even then I might not have been able to make it since I got 38.6%.

[DaveinMD]

106. I understand what you are saying

I've worked for a bunch of folks that haven't been on the target list. The problem is they don't have enough money to do what you are saying. Maybe DFA can do this. I don't know. I know its frustrating when the party tells you they can't help you, but the targeted races will always take the money. We need to develop funding sources for those second and third tier races.

[dorktv]

111. And to support those who have shown they can do the work,

make the effort to get the votes and then get a signifigant portion of votes.

I understand that people might think I was a fluke but some people really do a great job but get no help from the party. They raise around $100,000 and could use the extra oomph.

[Neil Lisst]

11. It never gets old!

Your chronic complaints about the 60% of the party to the RIGHT of you, that is.

The DSCC and DCCC are getting good candidates who can win. If we listened to you, we'd be a third party.

Why do you obsess about the DLC, the DSCC, and the DCCC? They ARE the Democratic party, along with the DNC. If you want to win elections, start by finding out how elections are won. They aren't won by people on either end wailing about party purity.

[madfloridian]

14. No, actually I am not known as a liberal.

That is what is so odd. I will say that if you are calling me a liberal, then how far to the right have we gone. Where did you get the idea I was a liberal? Because I speak out on issues?

I get just as frustrated with many on the left as I do with those on the right. Just ask some of them, the left groups here are always mad at me, too.

I just speak what I think is the truth, what I think needs to be said.....and let the chips fall. I am mostly pretty moderate, but I take stances on issues.

Hey, join the "mad at madfloridian club"...the line forms either to the left or the right...wherever.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

24. kudos

excellent post.

[Neil Lisst]

28. The first few years I was in the party, you had to pay your dues

That meant phone calls, that meant putting signs together, putting signs up, doing advance work, producing warm bodies for events, stuffing envelopes, canvassing neighborhoods, driving voters to the polls, getting donuts, etc.

No one wanted to hear your opinion of how you would run the campaign, they want to hear the sound of you doing your assignment.

Over time, you learn how it all fits together, and why no one pays much attention to any who hasn't paid their dues.

If you don't like the party, get busy changing it from the inside. There is always more work to do than people to do it.

I don't like to be busting someone's chops, but wasted energy is the biggest problem we have on our side. The Pubs will be outside doing their morning workout while we're still inside listening to one guy explain why he thinks we should do different exercises.

[DaveinMD]

31. The worst part of campaigns

is all the complaints about why didn't you do this or that. This is usually from people who aren't doing things. I work on a lot of campaigns. This is always the case. When people actually experience running campaigns, their complaints go away because they realize how difficult it can be.

[madfloridian]

36. Exactly what we are doing....changing it from the inside.

I have paid my dues and more, my friend. And the times they are a changin.

[madfloridian]

25. I'm a she and very active in the party locally.

Some of my best friends are leaders in the state party. We are working to allow the grassroots more access, but here in Florida it will take a long time.

I think that questioning our leaders is necessary, and I think I do it fairly.

Perhaps you need to examine why what I posted made you so angry. I did it with research and articles, and I was fair.

Yes, my hubby and I, and some of our kids and grandkids are quite active, thank you.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

41. Actually no, that is not true at all. Please be honest.

I am an active member of the local DEC, we contribute a lot to the party and to individual candidates. I am about as mainstream and sane a person as you could meet. I have no antipathy, just expressing my views about running out good candidates like Christine.

And yes, I am actually very mad. I am mad that our Democrats voted for this insane war, and have since voted for many things that hurt the people of the country. They are members of the groups I mentioned as well as other groups.

I am mad that I have seen people dying on rooftops because our Democrats gave Bush his agenda.

And I am mad that you are treating me as less intelligent than you.

[Cha]

33. You don't know what you're

talking about but that's obviously not stopping you from talking down to DU member.

Madfloridian has been keeping us informed for years on this Board what the Grassroots are up to..and that's important because we don't like the way al from and bruce reed try to take over and run things by sucking up to bush.

[DaveinMD]

35. that's funny

I didn't know Al From was head of the DCCC and DSCC. I see alot of ripping apart of good Democrats from so many here. I'm glad someone else is speaking out against such tactics.

[Cha]

39. No, al from and bruce reed are

the head of the dlc, but you knew that.

[DaveinMD]

40. by the way

I was fighting against Al From before most people here knew who he was. You see I used to work at the AFL-CIO. But the way people tar anyone who is remotely moderate is ludicrous.

[Neil Lisst]

47. The DSCC and DCCC have little in common with the DLC.

They all get money from people who have money, and that's the rub for many Dems. Raising money for this party is a thankless task.

[DaveinMD]

50. I know

but people here don't often make this distinction.

[Neil Lisst]

51. I know, I was merely agreeing with you.

I wish we had more Dems concerned about how members of our coalition, like labor, are getting screwed. Real wages continue to decline. Overtime is dead. Inflation makes the minimum wage less each year.

And is that a topic of outrage here? No, it's far behind THE GROWNUPS AT THE DNC WON'T LET ME RUN THINGS!

Our coalition contains the elderly, blacks, hispanics, Jews, labor, gays, and assorted progressives. We can't win with candidates that only appeal to one part of that coalition. Finding someone who can win is hard. It's HARD work.

[ulysses]

29. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The great and powerful Oz knows what is best. No need to stir up the base with a primary fight.

[Neil Lisst]

37. What is wrong with recruiting good candidates?

That is the purpose of the DCCC and DSCC.

They try to win elections every two years, and they seek to find candidates who will run and who can win. They also try to keep competing candidates from running against each other. They try to talk people into other races.

Instead of two good candidates fighting for the Congressional nomination, one runs for the State Senate, and they share support instead of split it. That is good politics.

If any Dem has a candidate they like, then by all means, get behind him or her!

[Awsi Dooger]

59. If it were up to me

there would be virtually no such thing as a Democratic primary on any level. The nominee would be anointed by an all powerful party chief or committee, case closed. That is easily the best method to spare fights and money, and win elections.

Once again I assail our lousy handicapping. The moonbeam philosophy that the people should decide is what guarantees the flawed candidate as the nominee. It's like here in Las Vegas when you've got a public handicapping contest. Let 500 or 1000 or more people take a crack at a pointspread result and it's almost always below 50%. I would much rather take my chances on someone who has demonstrated a skill in that regard, than the dart throwing masses.

Same thing in politics but obviously to critically important level. I'll always put my faith in someone who has studied the nature of the state including partisanship trends and determines who has best chance to be elected. It's almost never either/or, same percentage in the fall. I can't count how many times I've shrieked in frustration when we've nominated the wrong candidate via a crowded primary, especially in gov races. They are my ongoing priority, much more than senate. In 2002 we nominated so damn many lieutenant govs or former statewide losers for governor even though the numbers screamed the outgoing govs were incredibly unpopular and therefore anyone associated with them would likely be rejected. News flash: they were.

Karl Rove is way ahead of us in this game. I'm glad other DUers in this thread realize the importance of isolating nominees. I've posted frustration many times over the past few years that we're still prancing in the sunlight throwing daisies out of a basket and allowing primary races, while the GOP cuts our throat by isolating and nominating the one candidate who can and most likely will win. Now it's just a matter of finding a person or committee who can determine the correct candidate. We're probably 10 years behind in that regard but understanding the necessity is a great first step.

[lostnfound]

61. mad, thanks for posting these. Excellent articles

Particularly telling is the fact that they are attempting to float a primary candidate against Cigelis who actually has proven her viability as a first-time candidate with a 44% vote against a longterm Republican incumbent.

Others here who have claimed that it's simply a matter of identifying a viable candidate haven't run through the logic. There's a couple of factual tests of their theory: Do the DSCC and the DCCC ever support or select more progressive candidates over the 'money-party' candidates in races that are solid Democrat? Do they consistently favor corporate-approved Democrats over specific liberal candidates who have already proven themselves race-worthy?

I'm tempted to say 'FTMS'-- follow the money...

From the article:
Underneath all this is a concerted attempt by the establishment party to shut-out Deanlike candidates. You can see this in Illinois’ 6th Congressional district, where Christine Cigelis, who got 44% of the vote against longtime Republican incumbent Henry Hyde through netroots support last year, suddenly faces a primary challenge from the money party’s Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran.

All this talk about money, however, ignores the real issue differences between the two parties.

You can see that most clearly when you get to issues of technology. The “establishment” party supports industry, the phone and cable companies, Apple Computer, Hollywood. Dean-ocrats are users. They stand for Fair Use, for open source, for WiFi.

[Punkingal]

63. Last year in Nevada District 3,

Harry Reid's handpicked candidate was a former law partner of Kenneth Starr and Ted Olson, a protege of William French Smith (Reagan's attorney general), had at one time ran Merv Griffin Enterprises. He had gone to a Bush fundraiser in Las Vegas and contributed $2000.00 to Bush about 5-6 months before he annouced for the Democratic nomination for Congress.

I couldn't work for him. He was not a Democrat. I didn't vote for him, either. I didn't vote for the Republican. I just didn't vote in that race. And I feel bad about that, but my choices were 2 Republicans.

And I resent candidates being chosen for me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a primary and letting people choose the candidate. This is still America, after all, isn't it?

[1932]

67. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher is a huge firm -- 100s of people were Starr &

Olson's partners, and many of them were democrats.

Tom Gallagher only made three donations to federal campaign in the last 3 cycles: 2000 bucks to Democrat Steny Hoyer, 1000 to Democrat Ron Kirk, and 1000 to DCCC.

AFAICT, he hasn't donated to any republicans.

[Punkingal]

68. Actually, he was friends with Olson,

It was in the Vegas paper. Olson made some sort of statement about their friendship. And he damn well did give $2000.00 to Bush. He admitted it...I heard him. So don't accuse me of making something up. HE GAVE BUSH $2000.

[1932]

71. Check opensecrets.org

There's a tom gallagher in Reno who has gave 1000 to Bush once, but it's not the same T.Gallagher (this one's an engineer, according to his company's website). Tom Gallagher in Henderson and Las Vegas, whose employment (unlike that of Reno Gallagher) matches the biography for Tom Gallagher the candidate at the washington post's campaign site has only made donations to democrats.

Maybe he was saying that he gave to George Bush in '88? Opensecrets.org doesn't have data for '88.

Also, you can't be too mad at a guy for having collegial relationships with his partners.

[Punkingal]

73. Did you read what I said?

He admitted it..he gave to Bush at a Las Vegas fundraiser. I heard him discuss it at a MeetUp, and other places. He was (is) an elitist, who has a sense of entitlement. A lousy candidate.

Which is my point...I don't need my candidates to be chosen for me, which is what this thread is about.

[1932]

77. Did you read what I wrote?

Opensecrets doesn't have a record of him giving to any Republican as far back as their records go (1990). So maybe you misheard? Or maybe he gave to Bush in '88? Or maybe opensecrets doesn't have all the data?

I'm just telling you what Opensecerts says.

Also, I'm still not convinced that being a partner at Gibson Dunn, or Ted Olson saying that he considered you a friendly colleague makes a person an elitist and a lousy candidate. And, again, I'm not saying that he wasn't an elitist or a lousy candidate. I'm just saying that the things you cite aren't evidence of it.

He's a lousy candidate if he wants to the balance of power in favor of the powerful. If he wants to cut taxes on capital gains and dividends for millionaires, he's a bad candidate. If he wants to weaken unions so that people who earn money by selling their labor, rather than capital assets, have less money then he's a bad candidate.


Did he want to do that stuff?

[Punkingal]

80. Opensecrets does not have all the data..

I didn't "mishear," and I don't know why you have to be so condescending. And I don't know why you think I don't know what I'm talking about...I was there. Do you live in Vegas? Were you involved?

[1932]

102. Fec.gov doesn't have a donation to bush either.

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml

By the way.

And their records go back to '88.

I'm not saying he didn't give to Bush. I'm just saying that I can't find a record of it from the places where it should be recorded.

[Punkingal]

103. Here's a link for you...

http://www.campaignmoney.com/advanced.asp

Just type in Gallager, Thomas E for 2004, and on the bottom is his contribution to Bush, on 11/28/03. His official address at that time was Incline Village NV where he has a house. He rented a house in Henderson to be in District 3 after he announced.

[madfloridian]

96. To those who are upset with me over the choosing thing, read this.

I am pretty moderate, I accept differing views. But in this case, and in others down the road (if we take Schumer at his word about not having issues on the table).....here are two very upsetting things which Casey says he would do.

This will affect all of us in the country, if we elect enough people who feel this way.

http://youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/04/where-senate-candidates-stand-all-of.html

A few interesting things: One, is that Pennacchio is now regularly mentioned as an opposition candidate. (Congratulations on that to Tim Tagaris, who has forced the hand of the mainstream media on this issue. I hope if I ever run for office I can afford a high price consultant duo of Tim and Ben Waxman. I would be set.) Second, I think Casey clearly comes across as a decent man. Someone who generally cares about the average, hard-working Americans who want a decent home, the ability to see a doctor when they are sick, and a good future for their kids.

But, and this is a big but, his aim to straddle the line with abortion gets him in big trouble. Because, apparently to Casey, the abortion issue is not about his religious beliefs, but about "biology," because he says "there's a life there." While this may be Casey's way of moderating his pro-life stance, he ruins it with this:

"Casey said he would, as a senator, avoid a litmus test on any issue in voting on judicial nominees. He would oppose expanding federally supported embryonic stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels. He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

Science, eh? So you know no life is started for a few days after people have sex, right? Then why would you have problems with the morning-after pill, which simply prevents pregnancy from taking place? Pure, pure hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the idea that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a goddamned medical prescription is ridiculous. If they can refuse to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, can they refuse to fill it for normal contraception?

This is the kind of point I was making, and these statements make it...stem-research is off the table, and women have no right to emergency (and by extension) ordinary contraception pills. Yet this is the chosen candidate by the DSCC, who said we could not worry about such things.

[1932]

110. But if, as Rendel says, he is the only person who can beat Santorum,

then isn't it better to have a Democrat who would vote FOR all the protections for the working class, who will vote for accountability for corporations, who won't vote to bloat defense industries, who will vote to build the infrastructure, and vote for public education, then it is to have Santorum in the Senate?

Santorum believes that making people suffer is good for them. Not only is Santorum against women having reproductive choices, he believes that impoverishing working people to make theh wealthy wealthier builds the character of the poor.

[madfloridian]

112. No.

It is not better, not if it deprives women of the to take advantage of advances in medicine in the form of the birth control pills.

You are just wrong on that.

[AuntPatsy]

114. Great thread Madfloridian, especially for those with so much to learn...

heres a kick for you, I have thouroughly enjoyed the debate between all those here, a learning experience indeed....

[WCGreen]

113. That's politics... Plain and simple....

Just because you have a good idea doesn't mean you will be successful...

Part of the job of running for office is organizing institutional support...

The next part, raising money....

You have to show that you have a base from which to draw, a funding pool to show you have local appeal....

Is that fair...

Not to regular people who want to run for office...

But the reality is this: you have to prove you can attract people, money and media in order to get people to look at you....

The best thing to do...

Run for city council and build a step by step carreer... Or, get involved with your local party... All politics is local...

[madfloridian]

115. Duckworth is in poor health, undergoing surgery...no money to speak of.

Yet they are recruiting her, though she never ran before...has no organized campaign.

Here is a snip about her:
"Emanuel is instead recruiting Army Maj. Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth, a Hofffman Estates resident, who lost both her legs in Iraq. She has not yet accepted his invitation to run for Hyde's seat. "She expressed her interest. That's where it is," he said. Duckworth is undergoing physical therapy and faces many medical challenges as a result of her injuries. With no political experience, and having serious health issues, it's a mystery why Duckworth appeals more to Emanuel than the candidate who almost whipped Hyde's philandering ass last year."

Cegelis has a good group behind, its a full year ahead...she got 44% of the vote against Hyde before. Why are they doing this? Because they are going to keep on promoting war veterans.

Guess what, Rahm? Hackett was a unique individual. He did well because of the person he is. You, Rahm, think that if you just recruiting veterans to run..which is the Clinton mindset from last year...that everyone is going to fall over themselves voting for them. You are going into overdrive on this.