The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

by cfinnie, Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 10:30:12 PM EST

That's right, on Tuesday, March 21, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the DCCC, won their first election--against another Democrat.

Washington knows best
They brought in the big guns. Hillary Clinton hosted a big-ticket fundraiser in New York. John Kerry sent out emails to raise more money. Barack Obama taped TV spots. By the end of the campaign, the Tammy Duckworth for Congress campaign had sent eleven different pieces of direct mail to voters in the 6th District in Illinois, covered the airwaves with commercials, and had spent close to $1,000,000.

They had to. Because Tammy Duckworth had no name recognition, no supporters, no track record in politics, and no consistent stands on the issues. She doesn't even live in the district. But the DCCC declared her the candidate against another Democrat with deep grassroots support who almost unseated Henry Hyde in 2004--Christine Cegelis. With all that, Duckworth got 43.8% of the vote to 40.4% for Cegelis. The margin of victory for Duckworth was exactly 1080 votes. The 6th District has 512 precincts, which means Duckworth's margin of victory was 2.1 votes per district. With the money her campaign raised and spent to win this race, the price tag on those 2.1 votes per district is staggering.

Blowing $1 million to defeat a Democrat
Imagine how many candidates the DCCC could have supported in the general election. Imagine how many seats the Democrats might pick up in the house if they backed existing candidates with viable local support.

But they're not. And Illinois isn't the only place the DCCC is doing this.

Next on the DCCC list, Jerry McNerney
In California's 11th District, Jerry McNerney is facing much the same situation.

McNerney also ran in 2004 against a sitting Republican incumbent nobody expected to lose. So nobody bothered to run. Except Jerry.

With little money or official Party support, he ran a write-in primary campaign and got a higher vote total than the last Democratic challenger to Rep. Richard Pombo in the general election.

But, as in Illinois, the DCCC decided McNerney had proven Pombo was vulnerable, but not that Jerry was the man to beat him. As in Illinois, the party came up with a complete unknown with no local name recognition, no local support, and no discernable positions on the issues. As in Illinois, the DCCC candidate has been duly endorsed by local politicians and has received hefty contributions by out-of-state PACs--mostly from Washington D.C. McNerney is running again with grassroots support and mostly small, local donations.

Does the Democratic Party believe in democracy?
The purpose of a primary election is to determine who local voters want to lead their party ticket. Who best represents their values and understands their local issues. It's not about who Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Ellen Tauscher, DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel, or the big-money donors inside the Washington Beltway think is the best candidate. It's supposed to be up to us, the voters.

Do you?
If you believe, as I do, that we need to send a clear message to the DCCC and all the Party insiders who think it's their job to tell the little people what's best for us--there's still time.

Cegelis lost her fight. But McNerney has until the June primary to show what a grassroots candidate can do. To show that the voters are still more important than the D. C. power structure.

In the interest of full disclosure, I worked for the Cegelis campaign and for McNerney. I know them both and admire them for their dedication to democratic principles. For their belief in this country and its potential. For their desire to solve the problems in their communities. I don't live in either district. Still, I can't help but support ordinary people who are willing to go to extraordinary lengths for what they believe in. I hope you feel the same.

To volunteer, go to www.jerrymcnerney.com

To donate, go to www.actblue.com/page/saynotopombo and add 11¢ to whatever you can give, to identify yourself as a grassroots donor.

Don't wait. Democracy is depending on you.

Tags: 2006, Congress, dccc, McNerney (all tags)

  • 117 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

117 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

You may recall how out of touch many poster here were with the on the ground dynamics of the Cegelis race.  Perhaps you should try to inform all the interests outside the district who are loath to supporting McNerney of such dynamics.  You may also want to contrast the two candidates positions.  Many people here and especially at DailyKos choose to remain out of touch, and it is up to you to demonstrate how out of touch they actually are.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 12:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

choose to remain out of touch

You misspelled "have day jobs and need to provide for their families."

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-03-30 08:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
"Out of touch" nothing

People like Duckworth and her positions. Not everybody is a die-hard liberal like you. This isn't France or Canada. Sorry if you can't get over that.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-03-30 08:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: "Out of touch" nothing

Now, now. This isn't really about "liberal" or "moderate". Individuals invested time, effort and money in a candidate they supported. Their candidate lost in the primary (for a variety of reasons - some under her control, some not - that's the reality of politics). As is evident by their posts, some individuals are still upset by the outcome.

They haven't yet learned that no one is "owed" anything in politics. Those who oppose you and/or your candidates will do so with all of the resources available to them, or not. Sometimes it's "unfair", or not. Sometimes you win, or not.

They haven't yet learned that political revenge does not consist of constant whining about the unfairness of it all. To take political revenge one must be cold and have a long memory [Joementum is finding that one out of late, eh?]. Political revenge means taking it out on some poor unsuspecting republican bastard in the general election. Viciously. Then come the next primary you call in your markers and start all over again - this time with more resources and more people.  Maybe you win, maybe you don't. But just maybe, next time, you make it happen.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-30 08:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: "Out of touch" nothing

Are you kidding?  What positions?  She failed to articulate anything that can approximate a position?  She vacillated when probed, and she has uttered conflicting positions when pressed by different audiences.  In other words, she is an equivocater, an opportunist, an unreliable politician.  But if you believe she has positions, I will allow you to enjoy your phantasy.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 02:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: "Out of touch" nothing

But I desire a government similar to that of Canada and France.  And no, I will not become complacent; I will not support idle Democrats who simply want a career in politics.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 02:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: "Out of touch" nothing

Go ahead and work to elect Republicans then. But it's going to hurt your cause.

Oh, and your desire to have a government like France or Canada fails to support the claim about "out of touch."

by mikeinflorida 2006-03-31 04:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Either/Or

Another thing I'm really tired of reading is this either/or logic. If you don't fall in line and work as hard for the candidate you just worked to beat then you are a bad Democrat and working to elect Republicans. That's BS.

I can work hard to defeat Republicans by working for any number of local candidates in my district. There are several Dems running for County Board, right now completely controlled by the GOP, that would have immediate impact for me locally, There are several state candidates running against incumbent GOP members of the Illinois State Senate who would have an impact locally. There are people running for Forrest Preserve seats as well that have a large impact on DuPage country land aquisition and preservation.

All of these races are going to recieve virtually no media, few funds, and little volunteer attention. Yet all are running against GOP candidates.

One of the reasons I supported Cegelis was that she invited these people to speak at her events and dropped lit for them with her canvassing efforts. She was building the party down ticket as well.

This is one critisism of Duckworth that remains for me. While her campaign sucks the volunteers, money, and focus away from the down ticket races, her campaign is doing nothing to help elect Democrats beyond her race. This needs to change. This is also part of being a "good Democrat" that is being ignored.

Roskam isn't the only nasty Republican around my neck of the woods. There's a whole country government full of them, and they've never been challenged in decades. So I can be a "good Democrat" and work to defeat Republicans in more than one way.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 06:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: "Out of touch" nothing

Have a "3". Not because I agree with your "die-hard liberal" label (I find these types of labels meaningless), but just to piss off your opposition.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-30 05:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Thank you kindly, sir

I'm pretty new around here, but the troll-rating abuse is outrageous. This crap would never fly at DKos.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-03-30 05:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Thank you kindly, sir

This is a relatively new phenomenon around here.

They're rather persistent of late - humourless and somewhat psychotic - sort of like some of the remainder denizens of the old Blog for America.

The trick is not to care.

If you're actually not a troll someone else will usually recognize the behaviorial trend and it'll all even out.  

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-31 12:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Abuse or use?

I gave you a "1" because your comment did not add positively to the discussion, was personally insulting to the comment you were responding, and used and reinforced GOP talking points on a Democratic blog.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Thank you kindly, sir

Um, ratings abuse is exactly the kind of crap that goes on at DKos all the damn time.  DailyKos is where I got troll-rated, then compared to Nazis for having a minor disagreement about the context of a quote.

by fwiffo 2006-03-31 06:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nice reinforcement of GOP talking points

Thanks for pointing out, just as the GOP does, that being a liberal is bad, and France and Canada are to be mocked and offer absouletly no models for anything for us to study or learn from.

Ken Mehlman would be proud.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 07:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nice reinforcement of GOP talking points

Too bad I never said "being a liberal is bad". I pointed out, very accurately, that many Democrats are center-left, and not ideological liberals like the vast majority of the blogosphere. Anybody not in lockstep with the most liberal elements of a particular blog are taken to the woodshed with the tired and mis-applied "DLC hack" label and many other juvenile remarks.

And just because I do not want France-style socialism in this country, does not make me a Republican.

Believe it or not, one can be a Democrat without automatically hating everybody who earns any money, or runs a business.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-03-31 09:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nice reinforcement of GOP talking points

Parse words all you want, but you used the term "liberal" in a negative manner to shut down an argument. The France and Canada line was well. That's a GOP tactic.

Now my turn to parse: Note I'm not calling you a Republican, and am well aware that there are plenty of Dems who are center or moderate.

Believe it or not one can be a liberal Democrat, or progressive Democrat, without hating everybody who earns any money, or runs a business too.

The GOP would have everyone think that liberal or progressives hate everybody who earns any money, or runs a business, a GOP talking point you again couch your comment in.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 11:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
DCCC and DSCC have worked to defeat many

There is a laundry list of candidates getting the shove which include: David Ashe, Paul Hackett, Chuck Pennachio, etc to name a few.  The list goes on and on.

Democrats need to live up to their name which stands FOR democracy not shoving out candidates who don't fit the matrix.

by puma 2006-03-30 02:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not all are the same

Cegalis, especially, had a certain credibility because this was her turf that she fought for in IL.

Chuck P?  Come on.  He hasn't earned it anywhere near the level that Cegalis earned it.  

Hackett is arguable, but on the principle that Brown said he'd stay out, that job was bullshit. But, what's Hackett's excuse for backing down?  He should have run against Sherrod Brown's word.

Cegalis is such an awful example of the Hunter S. Thompson take on politics that it's not even funny.  It's a classic example of what Thompson meant about politics being only for people who finds joke about moving bodies funny.

American politics is an odd world and we're still in the infancy of efforts by netroots to make it slightly less odd.

A few more Cegalis and Hackett types would do wonders.  But, you gotta win a few more, first.

I think netroots folks would be well served to start vulturing campaigns the DCCC won't go near.  Fish out next Hackett and the next Cegalis, take them to victory, and then tell the DCCC to pay up.

by jcjcjc 2006-03-30 05:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Chuck P?

The man is a little-known college professor trying to run for the US Senate in one of the largest states in the country. He has no prior public office experience.

The powers that be are supposed to step aside and not look for anybody more qualified? What a load of crap!

by OfficeOfLife 2006-03-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DCCC and DSCC have worked to defeat many

Well I will say that Cegelis did not receive fair treatment. I will also agree about Ashe and Hackett. I don't like how they were treated either. They both had compelling resumes for political office. They should have received better treatment.

But frankly Pennachio is a joke of a candidate with no chance of winning. The DSCC's mission is to elect Democrats, not to support third tier candidates with no experience who can't win. I can understand why they haven't given Pennachio any attention.

by jiacinto 2006-03-30 09:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DCCC and DSCC have worked to defeat many

That kind of bullshit attitude would never have put Paul Wellstone in a Senate seat. I'm fine with Pennachio running...and if Casey hadn't run, it'd probably a wide-open primary with Hoeffel, Hafer, and others competing as well.

by PsiFighter37 2006-03-30 11:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DCCC and DSCC have worked to defeat many

Actually Paul Wellstone had run and lost at least once statewide before winning in 1990 and he was a well known, statewide activist.  I know nothing about Pennachio and he has every right to run but you can't expect the DSCC to ignore a popular, proven vote getter when they are trying to knockout one of the most reactionary Republican Senators.  If Pennachio wins the primary, great.  I have no bone in this fight.  However, this idea of falling on our swords over this race when the Dems have a chance to take out Santorum is ridiculous.

Casey's not perfect but he is a huge improvement over Rick Santorum.

by John Mills 2006-03-30 05:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DCCC and DSCC have worked to defeat many

Pennachio is no Paul Wellstone, who was a political genius as well as a true hero for progressives.  Don't underestimate the importance of the political genius part -- just having principles and running against the grain don't get you elected.  

by HSTruman 2006-03-31 03:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Let me guess, he doesn't like the Iraq war right?  That is what this boils down to. The prowar dems want to make sure we can't vote for antiwar dems.

by Dameocrat 2006-03-30 06:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The DCCC?

I see Hillary Clinton.
I see John Kerry.
I see Barack Obama
I see Rahm Emanuel.

But I don't see the DCCC.

$1 million blown? I'll see $1 million in DCCC expenditures for Duckworth in the FEC reports?

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 07:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC?

And they all acted independently with no coordination, right? Get real. While it was Durbin who recruited Duckworth, that just solved Rahm's year-long "problem" that he could not find another Dem to take on Cegelis. Once Rahm had his candidate, he orchestrated the rest using all his contacts AS HEAD OF THE DCCC.

Trying to separate Rahm's actions in creating a campaign from scratch for Duckworth from the DCCC would be like saying Bush did something but "the White House" was not involved!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 08:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC?
So the only way Rahm, a former White House official and sitting US Congressman, was able to contact Obama, Kerry, Hillary, etc., was through the DCCC?
Baloney.
by OfficeOfLife 2006-03-30 08:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The DCCC is his current power base

Do you really not get that?!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 09:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

The DCCC isn't his power base. It augments his power base. But he got the DCCC chairmanship because of the power base he'd already established.

For all the punishment I see people aching to mete out to the DCCC, I see no one targeting the perps themselves.

That's because it's an automatic applause line to bash the DCCC, and hard work to target Emanuel, Obama, Durbin, etc. in a way that makes them understand your message about Cegelis.

So you don't do it. You do the easy stuff instead. And you lose. One after the other, after the other, after the other.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

I wish I could get Rahm to be on a huge ass conference call so he could defend himself against the constant blogsphere slurs when he's the only one that has ever been in politics successfully.

I'm so tired of the DCCC being 'evil' that it just makes me nuts.

All it means is that they did something the poster doesn't like.

Get over it.

They are in the business of winning elections. And they have more experience than 99.999999999999% of the posters.

by BigDog 2006-03-30 09:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

And Rahm was successful in IL-06. Ends justify the means.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-30 11:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

HE was successful? I thought the candidate the voters chose was successful and the loser turned out to be a real loser when she refused to campaign for a Democratic Victory in November.

You going to sit it out too?

by BigDog 2006-03-31 10:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

You want to point to where she said she wasn't going to endorse or support her? Not an anonymous quote from someone close to the campaign.

And just keep calling her a loser and you are going to help lots of people out here be just fine with a decision to sit it out. Just keep it up, you are fueling the divide in my district quite well.

Just keep it up and we can all be losers.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 11:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

The candidate he chose couldn't even get a majority of the vote with every Big Name Dem behind her, shoving as hard as they could and greasing the way with $600K.

The candidate he chose is a dud.

by Feh 2006-03-31 12:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

"They are in the business of winning elections"

LMFAO

Is that supposed to be a joke or what? As yeah, the DCCC has done one hell of a job lately kicking butt what the past 10 years? Woo Hoo!

If that is winning, then left is right and up is down!

by ajsuited 2006-03-31 01:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

Different leadership leads to different results.

Watch.

by BigDog 2006-03-31 06:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

IF there aren't different results, given the level of complete incompetence displayed by the current administration and Republican controlled Congress, then there is complete incompetence in our leadership.

There should be change in our favor with this type of climate. Attributing the success to any new leadership is really stretching the reality of the situation. It's more like they should be riding the wave that will yeild the results. But instead people like Rahm are dividing the base in places like IL-06. This is not a winning strategy.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 07:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

Wait for the results and the final tally. How do you know in advance that the Cegelis portion aren't going to help elect a Democrat to the seat?

Are you going to sit out and help elect a Republican?

by BigDog 2006-04-01 01:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

You are wrong.  Many, including myself, have targeted Obama, Durbin, Clinton and others, and we have contacted their offices.  I find your compulsive attempts to defend Duckworth very curious.  Do you reside in the district?  Were you aware of the on the ground dynamics of the race?  

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 02:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Duh.

There's no attempt to "defend Duckworth." It's about getting your targets straight.

I find your compulsive attempts to turn that into something it isn't very curious. Mostly because it so closely mirrors your attempt to turn the assistance Duckworth received into something it isn't, too.

So, you've "targeted" Obama, Durbin, Clinton and others? How? With phone calls? How's that going?

Not so much applause and mojo for that as there is for calling for DCCC boycotts, is there? But curiously, both are equally "effective."

It's fine by me if you continue to grope in the dark for another few years. I don't have any vested interest either in helping you refine your work, or in undermining it. I certainly don't have to lift a finger to do the latter.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 02:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Duh.

Unfortunately for you, I am yet to invest much time and effort in anything I may post here.  And frankly, I do not find your postings very edifying.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 03:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Well...

you can have my Kleenex. I'm not shedding any tears.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 11:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC is his current power base

"For all the punishment I see people aching to mete out to the DCCC, I see no one targeting the perps themselves."

You've obviously been overlooking MY Posts. I've been calling BULLSHIT on Rahm & Durbin...By Name...For MONTHS!

by dabuddy 2006-03-31 01:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
PROOF OF DCCC INVOLVEMENT

Just remembered: During the primary, Nancy Pelosi headlined a fundraiser for Duckworth AT THE DCCC.

Case closed.

DCCC apologists should now move from the "They didn't do it" defense to "So what if they did."

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 10:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: PROOF OF DCCC INVOLVEMENT

Case closed?

Show me the FEC report. THAT closes the case.

One million dollars. Show it to me.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: PROOF OF DCCC INVOLVEMENT

Kagro, you know that this was published in media, I sent you the article.

There was a fundraiser, originally schedule for a lobbyists office, that was moved to DCCC headquarters after Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times reported it.

The executive director of the DCCC even noted in an online chat that the DCCC was actively working to support Duckworth.

As we've discussed, it may not be the DCCC proper, but Rahm using his position as Chair. But the DCCC was involved. It's well documented. Not everythign shows up black and white where you think it should on an FEC report.

Funneling contributions, trading off maxed out donors, and bundling donors would take a great deal of work to track down, and then only be speculation if the only source is an FEC report.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-30 11:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Who you gonna believe?

The executive director of the DCCC even noted in an online chat that the DCCC was actively working to support Duckworth.

I'm sure Kagro would say we shouldn't take their word for it. The FEC report tells all! </snark>

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 12:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: PROOF OF DCCC INVOLVEMENT

Jim says a million bucks.

You say a room for a party.

What's the deal, fellas? A million bucks, or a couple hundred?

I don't particularly care whether you ever get this straight, because I have no particular interest in your ever becoming more effective at what you do. But it does bother me to see people spend their energy chasing their tails.

Not so much that I can't walk away, of course. It's your tail, after all. But when I happen across it on display like this, I'll say so. If you never want to refine your argument, you'll never get a different one. If that's where your comfort zone is, I'm willing to oblige.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 03:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: PROOF OF DCCC INVOLVEMENT

Here are all of Duckworth's FEC filings, totalling 517K in the door as of March 1.

Here are all the D-Trip's through the same date, detailing all expenditures.

If they want to build a case, that's where the data is.

by Adam B 2006-03-30 05:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not in the DCCC's own admission?

(see up thread)

No "case" there, right?

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 07:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not in the DCCC's own admission?

I remember that quote when it was first highlighted.  I still don't see anything close to $1M.

by Adam B 2006-03-31 02:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC? Not hardly...better candidates maybe

forget it my friend,Kagro X, these people don't deal in political reality. They'd rather field people easily defeated. And they never stop wasting our time.

Idealism over reality.

Reality is that the Prime Directive is: First. You Get Elected!

by BigDog 2006-03-30 09:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Duckworth is such a great candidate

that she needed $1 million, coaching by media guru David Axelrod, and TV ads taped by Illinois Golden Boy Barack Obama to win her primary by less than 800 votes (in the final count).

I'm sure Pete Roskam is quaking in his boots.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Duckworth is such a great candidate

And tomorrow we'll find out how much she STILL has on hand. Cegelis had nothing of substance on hand even before the competition. Ever think she was raising money for the General. We'll know tomorrow.

by BigDog 2006-03-31 10:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Duckworth is such a great candidate

PS: As of 3/1 Duckworth had 121K still on hand with Zero debts. BTW: Total receipts were 517K! Not one Million like the bullshit that's spread about this race. FEC reports are accurate to the dime.

Cegelis had $74,540 minus $39,179 debts= Cash on hand of $35,361 (assuming my math is right)
Total receipts= $318,418 after running for two years.

End of quarter stats will tell the tale.

by BigDog 2006-03-31 10:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Cegelis was defeated

But I wouldn't call it easily.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-30 12:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
And yet folks like Kos saw nothing wrong

with what the DCCC did in IL-6.

Tim Tagaris left a cryptic post on a diary here saying "Those close to me know exactly how I feel about IL-6" but then declined my invitation to elaborate.

Jerome never posted about this race, as far as I know. I would be interested in his take. Kos's postings make people wonder whether he's actually read his own book (some have even suggested it was ghost-written, although I wouldn't go that far myself).

I have to say that I now read Kos's posts in a very different light. He has lost my trust completely. I would be curious to know if Kos's posts on IL-6 have had a similar (or different) effect on others....

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 08:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And yet folks like Kos saw nothing wrong

I saw Kos at an event and asked him about the IL-6 race about a month before the election. Lets just say I was somewhat surprised and of course disappointed in his glowing portrail of Duckworth's candidacy, and essentially blowing off Cegelis.

by ajsuited 2006-03-31 01:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Seems eerily familiar with "what's up" here in FL-13.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is definitely trying to preempt the will of the voters in the State of Florida. Ignoring past election results and polls, the DCCC Chair, Rahm Emanuel, is trying to force conservative candidates - several in the nature of "pale imitation Republicans" -- on Congressional districts around the state. Are these "Trojan Horse" ("Trojan House"?) tactics on the part of Republican "wannnabe's"?

The currently best-known instance is the Florida 13th. Congressman Emanuel is pushing Christine Jennings, a retired President of a small bank with a high school education, over Jan Schneider, the Democratic nominee who ran better than any Democrat in decades in the district. Congressman Emanuel has given $2,000 to Jennings and has also persuaded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry to donate (although Kerry insists he was told that this was "a targeted race with no primary") and Senator Barbara Boxer to host a fundraiser for Jennings.

Schneider won the 2004 Democratic primary over Jennings by a margin of approximately 25%, spending less than one-third of what Jennings spent.

While Jennings was a registered Republican her entire time in Manatee County (having taken eight years even to register to vote), she did change her registration to Democrat on moving to Sarasota nine years ago; the bankers' PAC she headed, however, reportedly gave only to Republican candidates. Schneider, on the other hand, is a life-long Democrat, a Yale-educated lawyer (Clinton classmate) with a Ph.D in political science from Yale, who twice won 45% of the vote against Katherine Harris in a district with 52% Republicans to 32% Democrats; the 2004 Harris/Schneider contest was the closest Congressional race in Florida. How particularly ironic for a Congressman from Illinois to try to preempt the will of the voters in the district represented by Katherine Harris!

Another egregious example is the Florida 16th, where Emanuel recruited a wealthy Republican to change parties and run against two progressive Democrats. After Emanuel selected Tim Mahoney, a Republican venture capitalist reportedly willing to self-finance, Democrats Carol McLean and David Lutrin were reportedly asked to get out of the race to avoid a primary.

You already know about Phyllis Busansky in the Florida 9th, for whom Emanuel appeared at a fundraiser and to whom he donated $5,000. While Busansky, a former Hillsborough County Commissioner, is a great candidate, she is also 68 years old. Further, such blatant favoritism from afar in anointing one Democrat, in spreading rancor, may well kill any chance she may have of winning the general. There were already three candidates in the primary: Greg Rublee of Oldsmar, a former Defense Department official; Fred Taylor of New Port Richey, a real estate broker and veterans affairs activist; and Tampa lawyer Bill Mitchell.

The case of Ron Klein, Minority Leader of the Florida Senate, running for the Florida 22nd is also well known. Although there is a Democratic primary with two other candidates, John Glassie and Robert Watson, among other things, Emanuel gave him $2,000. The story is much the same with Charlie Stuart in the Florida 8th, to whom Emanuel also gave $2,000 despite a primary. There are also strong rumors that the DCCC is favoring Kathy Castor in the Florida 11th, whose primary opponents include Florida Senate Minority Leader Les Miller, as well as Scot Farrell, Albert Fox and Michael Steinberg. Similar rumors relate to John Russell in the 5th, against primary opponents Richard Penberthy and H. David Werder, but so far all that is known is that Russell was sent for candidate training.

The bottom line is that the DCCC is trying to buy off every single Democratic Congressional primary in Florida. Apart from angering good candidates and their supporters, this whole strategy is counterproductive. Florida has a very late primary, this election cycle on September 5, 2006. Typically, if there is a Republican primary and no Democratic counterpart to capture the attention of the media and the voters, there is simply not enough time to mount a viable campaign before early voting starts in mid-October.

Around the country, of course, there are quite a number of other cases where the DCCC seeks to preempt democratic processes. The most famous, at least on the blogs, is Emanuel recruiting a candidate to run against Christine Cegelis, who won 45% of the vote against Congressman Henry Hyde in 2004.

To learn more about Jan Schneider, visit www.VoteJan.com. More importantly, to help her fight the DCCC.

Contributions by March 31, 2006 will be especially meaningful!

http://www.Contribute.votejan.org

Wbsite: http://www.VoteJan.com  

by Bullwinkle 2006-03-30 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Jan Schnieder is a two term loser
She lost two elections to Katherine Harris. In 2006. Jan Schneider's Republican opponent will be a non controversial conservative Republican with a huge campaign finance account. Schnieder would have lost by a larger margin this cylce compared to the last cylce
Liberal Nutjobs like yourself pick candidates that either lost but made a strong showing ie Christine Cegelis,Jan Schnieder.
Cegelis and Schneider would not have breaked 45% in the November 2006 General Election.
by CMBurns 2006-03-30 11:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Can we do something around here please

I'm tired of reading comments that call people who run for office  "losers." Their campaign lost. Their campaign didn't win. Their opponent won.

Anyone who thinks a person who runs for office and doesn't succeed is a loser has probably never run for office. I'll never call a candidate a loser if they are willing to stand up and go through what it takes to run for office. And no one should. There's a 50% chance of failure when running for office. The better candidate doesn't always win. Making it personal is wrong and doesn't encourage others to take the risks it takes to run for office.

Separate the candidate from the campaign.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-30 12:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can we do something around here please

Jan Schnieder ran against Katherine Harris in 2002 She got 45.21 % losing by a 9.58% margin
114,739 votes to Katherine Harris 139,048
(24,309)difference
In 2004 rematch
Schneider got 44.70% losing by a 10.6% margin
153,961 votes to Katherince Harris 190,477
(36,516)difference

Harris's margin of victory against Schneider has increased.

by CMBurns 2006-03-30 02:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can we do something around here please

It will be smaller this year, thank goodness.

by dataguy 2006-03-30 03:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Well then

She must be a loser.

You ever back any losing candidates? Do you have a winning record?

If not, you are a loser too.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's all about the money

The Party's elite frat boys have no interest in the best person to represent a CD.  The only qualification they have is money.  The candidate has to be rich, come with a network of rich friends, or be a poster child for fundraising.  

It also doesn't matter how evil the incumbent Republican is.  The greater the evil, the more predictable.  Dem leaders want them right where they are.

The public trust pays the price by allowing it to happen when they vote -- or not.  They forfeit real democracy in the country.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-03-30 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Speaker Steny.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-30 10:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

That's right.

Because people load Steny's leadership PAC up with money that he can pass out in exchange for Caucus leadership votes. While progressives send nickels and dimes to long shot candidates and eschew funding incumbents. Even progressive champions.

So the only incumbents who end up with the spare cash to establish the leadership PACs they need to win big-time Caucus jobs are... people like Steny.

Then we tear our hair out and feign shock when the Caucus ends up following... people like Steny.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

And since Hoyer is bought, he acts like it. Instead of playing the money game on the MNBA's turf, the netroots have an opportunity to use the inherent communications advantage online to change the equation, which moves us away from a focus on the carrot.

I rented a movie last night and one of the previews was from a (weak looking) new horror movie. But I liked one of the scenes, involving a women getting ready to battle the scary guy. She didn't just have a stick, but she wrapped the end in barbed wire.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-30 11:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Sure. You can do that. And it gets you up to a certain point, just not beyond it.

Caucus Leadership elections are all carrot. There's no "inherent communications advantage" to be had there.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 03:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

If the stick is wrapped in barbed wire, even if you don't knock them out you will probably bloody them up...after a few years everyone is looking at a different equation.

I hope the next leadership election looks a lot like the last DNC Chair election.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-30 04:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Yeah, you can eventually bloody them up. All they have to agree to do is stand in place, and not have any turnover in Caucus leadership or membership until you draw enough blood.

Think you can get them to agree to freeze themselves in place while you work?

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 04:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Good point. Probably best to go after the DCCC and the DLC until right before the next leadership election and then swing for the fences.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-30 04:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

By all means, do what you will to the DLC. Here, take my rock!

Maybe there's something to the idea that the next leadership elections could be more like the DNC elections, though. I don't hold out much hope that the "electorate" will listen in the same way the DNC membership did, but I can't deny that the dynamics had some similarities, in that it was a closed vote but was influenced from the outside nonetheless.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 04:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

I don't particularly think you'll see this the next day.  But whatever.

Redstate at least pretended to intervene in the R leadership elections.  

How much impact might the Republican grassroots have had on the eventual choice of Boehner over Blunt?  That influence could have been direct, in the form of calls for reform or for Boehner specifically, or indirect, if congresscritters just had a general sense that their base wanted someone clean-looking.

However much impact their base had, I think ours could do better.  Our key source of information -- the internet -- is much for friendly to independent information-gathering and organizing than their main medium, the radio.  They are stuck depending on the judgment of Rush and Sean.  As foolish and ill-informed as we can often be, at least we're not trusting people like Carville to filter our information for us.  

(Didja hear Rush endorse Allen?  When Huckabee, Romney, and Brownback are all smarter, more experienced, and more capable?  His listeners will never know that.)

If the Nancy-Steny race was happening now, would we be in a position to do anything about it?  Assuming "our candidate" was in a reasonably good position to start with (more like Boehner than Shadegg), seems like we could.

by texas dem 2006-03-31 05:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
donate to candidates separately

It all goes to show that donating to ANY of the big national ornanizations: DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc, means that your dollars will go not only to waste, but likely against your own best interests.

donate to individuals, not to the party power structure - it's how to take the dem party back

by brooklyngreenie 2006-03-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
show me where the DNC is involved

in any of this. Howard Dean keeps his promises. One of them was to steer clear of primary battles. He has been building up the State Party organizations in preparation for actually winning races in November.

--Jim (proud Democracy Bond holder)

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 12:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ahhh.....

Look who's using the "show me" line, now, eh?

When I use it, I'm a naive fool. When you use it, you're a sophisticated political operative.

I see how it works now.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 03:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahhh.....

You are a naive fool, because you were never aware of the on the ground dynamics of the race in District 6.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 03:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahhh.....

And you're a naive fool, because you were never aware of the Caucus and DCCC dynamics.

The thing is, IL-06 is over, so my foolish days are done. The DCCC is still there, and you'll stay a fool.

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 04:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
As soon as Howard Dean ADMITS

to being involved in something the way the DCCC's people did in the online chat referenced up thread, I'll call him on it.

I'm glad you're not a judge or a prosecutor (you're not, right?): You would let a criminal walk despite a signed confession if you couldn't find the evidence independently from "approved" sources!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 07:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: As soon as Howard Dean ADMITS

Wait, don't tell me, you're a prosecutor, right?

And your offer of proof for your million dollar allegation is... an online chat about giving her a room for a fundraiser?

by Kagro X 2006-03-30 11:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

I just wish that you Cegelis people would realize that the primary was March 15 or so.  That is 2 WEEKS AGO.

Roskam's people are monitoring these boards, and writing down all kinds of stuff to get Duckworth with.

I was SIMPLY APPALLED THAT CEGELIS is SUCH A POOR SPORT that she didn't even say she supported Duckworth.  That is APPALLING.

by dataguy 2006-03-30 03:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

I am appalled that Duckworth is so weak she couldn't even get the support of her primary opponent.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-30 03:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Are we aiding and abetting the enemy?  Are we adopting Republican talking points so as to quell debate?  Are we also supporting the terrorists by criticizing Duckworth?  Aiding and abetting the enemy?  

WHAT A JOKE.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 03:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

I respect your desire not to hand Duckworth's opponent more ammunition.  But you can take it to the bank that the Roskam campaign has plenty to work with without relying on comments here generated by Cegelis v. Duckworth supporters.

Defending the basic facts are plenty to keep Duckworth busy...

  1. Doesn't live in the district and isn't from the area.
  2. Voting record goes back only 2 years.
  3. No experience in office.
  4. Vague and shifting positions on the issues.
  5. Pushed on the district by the Chicago Democratic machine, with them calling the shots.

All the points above were well known without Cegelis or her supporters saying a single word. Plus, if you live in the area, you'll know just how potent #5 will be to wavering Republicans.

Roskam is a Tom Delay associate. He knows how to fight Duckworth without help from blogs.

by irene adler 2006-03-30 03:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

It wouldn't matter if Cegelis endorsed the candidacy of primary winner Duckworth.  The locals were drawn to the Cegelis candicacy because of her ideas not because she was a Democrat.   Now that the primary is over, each individual Cegelis supporter will search his conscience and decide how or even whether to move forward.  The only thing certain is that there is no universal agreement among the Cegelis supporters and a simple endorsement would not be a sufficient inducement to unite them alll behind Duckworth.

by pascal1947 2006-03-30 04:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Many fail to acknowledge that the Cegelis campaign was not about Cegelis but about her supporters.  The distinction is important, as Cegelis will only do that which her supporters recommends.  I guess one can compare her campaign to a participatory democracy.

by illinois062006 2006-03-30 04:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Participatory Democracy?

Well we can't have that, now can we.

"Democracy is all well and good, but why give it to the people?"
--Audrey Forbes Hamilton

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 07:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Agree and would like to add that this was not a backroom deal, IT WAS A PRIMARY ELECTION.  

I have worked on enough campaigns to know it sucks when you lose but you have to respect the will of the voters.  Unless there was voter fraud, Duckworth got more votes than Cegelis.  The rest is really not worth arguing.  Duckworth is now the Dem nominee and people have to decide whether or not they are going to support her.

by John Mills 2006-03-30 06:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hold Your Fire!

"I was SIMPLY APPALLED THAT CEGELIS is SUCH A POOR SPORT that she didn't even say she supported Duckworth.  That is APPALLING."

The Other Shoe hasn't dropped yet. There is a lot of "back-channel diplomacy" going on right now. Just because Cegelis/Cegelis Supporters HAVEN'T given public support to Duckworth (yet), doesn't mean they WON'T in the future.

The ball is in Duckworth's Court.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
projection

In fact, it seems like Cegelis and her supporters are the ones "working to defeat a Democrat" by actively encouraging people not to help Duckworth.  However unsavory that is, I doubt it'll make a big difference either way.  

What fascinates me is how Cegelis is running through her political capital so quickly.  Last week, she was the idealistic upstart who came so close.  This week, the spoiler.  (No one ever forgets a spoiler.)  

I have seen Cegelis speak many times, and she seems like a sensible person.  I cannot believe she thinks not endorsing Duckworth and/or being cute about "voting for but not working for" is a good idea.  She is a leader.  She sets the tone.  She is causing a corrosive rift at a time when our country is in crisis.  

If this is the kind of leader she would have made, then maybe I'm glad she lost.  

Finally, for those of you trashing every Dem who ever supported Duckworth (including Durbin, Clinton, Obama), please stop invoking "the grassroots" to justify your insane attacks.  You do not speak for the entire grassroots.  Some of us want to win in the general election.    

by sylvia 2006-03-30 06:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

You learn a lot about people in the way they handle defeat.  

by John Mills 2006-03-30 06:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're SO superior!

I bow to you sir.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-30 07:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're SO superior!

It is not about superiority.  Life is about ups and downs and handling the downs is the toughest part.

I was not a Deaniac in 2004 but he handled his defeat in the 2004 primaries with dignity, grace and unity.  Less than a year later he became the DNC Chair.

Geraldine Ferraro handled her 1992 Sen primary loss by sulking and refusing to endorse the Dem nominee.  It helped Al D'Amato's re-election in 1992.  She did not get any plumb assignments in the Clinton Admin despite her prominence and lost her next Sen primary attempt in 1998.  Coincidence?

I have volunteered on a lot of campaigns over the years and have been on both sides.  It sucks to lose, regardless of the circumstances, but you have to live to fight another day.  Those who do are generally rewarded.

by John Mills 2006-03-30 07:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

CORRECT!

Some of them use it to the advantage of their supporters! (Hint, Hint!)

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

I absolutely agree with you.  

The refusal of Cegelis to endorse Duckworth, and the sour grapes that her supporters are peddling here and at dkos, say everything about their commitment to the Democratic party.

This is about overcoming Republican extremism, regardless of the personal merits of your candidate.  I am glad you guys believe in Cegelis, but your public airing of dirty laundry is getting tiring, and is now undercutting your  credibility.  In particular, Cegelis' little ego trip is making me increasingly glad that she DIDN'T win the primary.  

Duckworth may indeed be a product of the party apparatus, rather than than a proper (and admittedly preferable) grassroots candidate.  But at this point, I would expect Ms. Cegelis to be a good Party member, and demonstrate the political maturity to recognize that a sense personal justice is less important than one's dedication to the principles that drive one to be a Democrat in the first place--and to demonstrate that maturity not only in public, but with her followers.  As it is, it appears that Ms. Cegelis is more concerned with her personal issues than she is about the common cause.

Ms. Duckworth is pro-choice, opposed to the Iraq War, wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich, opposes federal support of oil corporations, supports an assault weapons ban, and is for stem-cell research.  This is not a Lieberman-type DINO, she is a mainstream progressive Democrat.  So I assume that Cegelis' failure to endorse Duckworth is NOT due to any core political principles, but rather some sort of ego thing.  

Look to Dean's graceful withdrawal in 2004 to see how it is supposed to be done.  If you ask me, Cegelis doesn't deserve your persistent loyalty, and has LOST my initial sympathy--because if this display is representativwe, she's not the sort of Democrat I want to support.

by paul minot 2006-03-31 05:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

This is also very shortsighted on Cegelis' part.  Life throws you a lot of curveballs and you never know the opportunity that may lie around the next bend.  By behaving in this manner, she may be shutting herself out of other chances to serve and make a difference.  They always tell you when you leave a job not to burn bridges.  Cegelis' behavior is the equivalent of burning bridges.

by John Mills 2006-03-31 06:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The general election is over 7 months away!

Why does Cegelis have to endorse Duckworth a week after the primary? If anything, that would look pro-forma (like all those organizations that endorsed Duckworth in the primary without having any way of getting to know her first).

It would be much more convincing if Christine has a very public meeting with Tammy and THEN emerges saying "This is a candidate I and my supporters can really get behind." Of course, that might require Duckworth and her campaign to actually do a little work to EARN Christine's blessing. I guess some here see that as the end of the world!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-31 11:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

PM & JM:

Please read my replies above ("Hold Your Fire!) before you continue to SMEAR Cegelis.

Thank You.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not accurate

Duckworth has come out pro-choice, but has been inconsistent or vague when pushed on issues like parental notification and what restrictions she would vote for. By stating that "Duckworth is pro-choice" you imply that she is wholeheartedly pro-choice. This is not accurate.

Duckworth's position on the war has been to say it was wrong, but that she volunteered anyway. An inconsistency that may make sense when looking at the back-story, but that Roskam will exploit.  Those backing her campaign also supported the war and have criticized people who have called for withdrawal like Rep. Murtha. Duckworth has also stated that we went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence, something that has been disproven many times over, and that she would take a stand up/stand down approach to withdrawal. This has been the path Bush has taken. She also has no problem with the use of depleted uranium since we are not firing it at our own troops.

Your statement that Duckworth wats to reverse the Bush tax cuts is completely incorrect, as she has been quoted in the media as saying that she would do nothing to reverse them:

She doesn't favor rolling back the income tax rate cuts -- even for the wealthy -- saying she'd "leave (them) where they are at present." Duckworth also favors rolling back only half of the Bush administration's proposed tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, even though she argues they disproportionately help those with the most money.

If we are going to support a candidate and assault another's character, we need to at least accurately know what that candidate has said in public, and where they actually stand on the issues presented to gain our support.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 07:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not accurate

I appreciate your clarification regarding Duckworth's positions, and may in fact have supported Cegelis myself if I lived in the district.  However, the main gripes expressed here have not been about Duckworth's positions, but rather the perceived injustice of her DCCC support.  

My point is that politics is like a war, and the foot soldiers have to keep fighting for the side to win, even if they don't like how things are handled.  My understanding is that this district is pretty darned red, and the effort to flip it is an uphill battle.  I'm from Texas myself, so I understand how things work.  The big boys you guys are pissed at figure that a moderate war veteran like Duckworth has a better shot at stealing this district than an earnest grassroots progressive like Cegelis.  Maybe they're right--it's not the stupidest idea I ever heard of.   Even if she loses, Duckworth is a poster child for the Fighting Dems, which is a national effort to rebrand the Democratic Party as being friendly to the military and motivated on security issues--an effort that in fact I think is worthwhile.  

That being said, I may be wrong as hell.  By the same token, it is VERY possible that Cegelis would have gone down in flames in the general election--an impression that is only confirmed by her failure to win this primary.  (Remember, the Repugs will have money for TV ads as well.)  Either way, Cegelis is being shitty for not wholeheartedly endorsing Duckworth--because barring EXTRAORDINARY considerations, that's what Democrats do--endorse other Dems over the Republican candidate.  (And the circumstances here are NOT extraordinary.)

The expiration date for your sour grapes is long past.  I appreciate your information regarding Duckworth, but it doesn't sway me a bit regarding the larger issue.  Are you a Democratic Party member, or not?                  

by paul minot 2006-03-31 08:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Couple points

First, it's barely been over a week, and the barrage of comments questioning Cegelis' personal character by people who don't know her, don't live in the disrict, haven't been involved in the campaign, and have been openly supportive of Duckworth, has been happening since the day after. What much of what you are seeing is not sour grapes, but a normal reaction to someone attacking a candidate they believe in.

I have seen very little in the way of appreciation or admiration for the race Cegelis ran, and this is driving some people to lash out as well.

Also, much of the vitriol directed toward Cegelis has been in response to one article writtine in the HIll that claimed Cegelis would not endorse Duckworth, based not on anything Cegelis said, but on the quotes of anonymous sources "close to the Cegelis campaign." It's only been ten days. If you are going to bash Cegelis, at least wait until she says something publicly. She's made no public statements regarding endorsing or not endorsing anyone as yet.

Regarding the district, it's not darned red, but leans Republican and is trending Democratic. It's still Republican held, but that hold isn't what it used to be, and it sure as hell aint like Nebraska.

As a local here we disagree about who would have done what in the general. There are some local attributes that Roskam has that give him a very large advantage over Duckworth that Cegelis would have negated. Either would have a difficult time in November, and this is no different for Duckworth.

The "injustice" of her support is something that fails me. The level of involvement by the national party in a Democratic primary was unprecidented, and we can argue all we want about how much money was eventually spent on behalf of Duckworth's campaign, but the cost to resources and the local party are real. Failure to acknowledge this, especially calling locals pissed off about this who have been working with no assistance to build up the local party only adds to the divide.

My information wasn't intended to sway anyone anywhere. Duckworth is the nominee. However, we have to understand where her positions actually lay, and prepare for the attacks that are going to come, as well as the lack of support due to these positons that are going to have to be overcome.

Stop the Cegelis character smears and this issue will go away. Give her and her supporters some props and it will go away very quickly. Wait until there is a public statement by Cegelis before we all go attributing anonymous sources to Christine herself.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 09:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
About Roskam

I think this point, from someone who lives in the district and has seen first hand, bears pointing out:

Duckworth's backers never took Cegelis seriously in public (spending offers a different view). Many on the blogs never took my accounts of Cegelis' support on the ground seriously. Yet even though Cegelis was poorly funded, her ground support that I said she had nearly handed Duckworth's campaign their lunch. Very nearly.

But Roskam isn't Cegelis. Roskam is not poorly funded and is sitting on a pile of cash. Roskam isn't fighting his party, and instead has the full weigth of their support, from the VP and RNC chair appearing in district for him. And Roskam has a ground game. A real large local ground game. He's a hometown boy and will use this to great advantage. Any attacks on his ties to DeLay (who most around here still don't know) will be met with charges of Duckworth's backing by Rahm Emanuel (who many around here do know and tie to Chicago politics or Clinton politics).

The backers of Duckworth's campaign saw Cegelis as someone to not take seriously, and many agreed based not on what those on the ground with local experience were saying, but instead on the almighty FEC numbers and conventional wisdom. If this pattern is repeated, we lose. We lose in IL-06, and we lose other places.

Roskam has not only money, but local support and a ground operation. In place. Now.

This is not sour grapes. I'm just relaying the feeling on the ground. There are some very discouraged and angry people here who are not going to reach out unless reached out to. Everyone is needed on deck to beat Roskam. Durbin and Emanuel's actions have hurt this effort, as does the continual browbeating of Cegelis supporters and Cegelis herself. Just drop it already and let this thing straighten itself out, if that is possible.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 09:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: About Roskam

Fair enough.  I appreciate your efforts to clarify the situation.  

It sounds to me like things do need to cool off, and the concerned parties need to sort this thing out.  In the meantime, however, I think posting on national websites may be ill advised.

As a Democrat outside the district, I do nonetheless hope the district flips.  It really does make a difference to all of us, because we can't afford to lose any potential Democratic gains due to infighting.

by paul minot 2006-03-31 10:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: About Roskam

As a Democrat from the district my whole life I hope the district flips too. It really does make a difference to the locals too, which is why there are so many deeply pissed off people here.  We saw what's coming and just how uphill a fight this is going to be for Duckworth.

The last thing we needed was the national party to steamroll the local party causing the divide they have.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-31 11:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not accurate

"She also has no problem with the use of depleted uranium since we are not firing it at our own troops."

BTW, Depleted Uranium is emerging as one of the prime suspects in Iraq War Syndrome...Agent Orange, anyone???

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

I absolutely agree with you.  

The refusal of Cegelis to endorse Duckworth, and the sour grapes that her supporters are peddling here and at dkos, say everything about their commitment to the Democratic party.

This is about overcoming Republican extremism, regardless of the personal merits of your candidate.  I am glad you guys believe in Cegelis, but your public airing of dirty laundry is getting tiring, and is now undercutting your  credibility.  In particular, Cegelis' little ego trip is making me increasingly glad that she DIDN'T win the primary.  

Duckworth may indeed be a product of the party apparatus, rather than than a proper (and admittedly preferable) grassroots candidate.  But at this point, I would expect Ms. Cegelis to be a good Party member, and demonstrate the political maturity to recognize that a sense personal justice is less important than one's dedication to the principles that drive one to be a Democrat in the first place--and to demonstrate that maturity not only in public, but with her followers.  As it is, it appears that Ms. Cegelis is more concerned with her personal issues than she is about the common cause.

Ms. Duckworth is pro-choice, opposed to the Iraq War, wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich, opposes federal support of oil corporations, supports an assault weapons ban, and is for stem-cell research.  This is not a Lieberman-type DINO, she is a mainstream progressive Democrat.  So I assume that Cegelis' failure to endorse Duckworth is NOT due to any core political principles, but rather some sort of ego thing.  

Look to Dean's graceful withdrawal in 2004 to see how it is supposed to be done.  If you ask me, Cegelis doesn't deserve your persistent loyalty, and has LOST my initial sympathy--because if this display is representative, she's not the sort of Democrat I want to support.

by paul minot 2006-03-31 05:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: projection

Sorry about the double post.

by paul minot 2006-03-31 05:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dem Party?

"The refusal of Cegelis to endorse Duckworth, and the sour grapes that her supporters are peddling here and at dkos, say everything about their commitment to the Democratic party."

Commitment to the Democratic Party? I don't give a SHIT about the Democratic Party anymore!

Why?

Because the Democratic Party...Especially the DLC Branch...Stopped giving a shit about ME over ten years ago. It's a two way street.

What I DO give a shit about is taking my country back...FAIR, HONEST Government...OF the People, FOR the People, BY the people. NEITHER Party cares about the PEOPLE anymore!

Cegelis does.

by dabuddy 2006-03-31 02:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
McNerney Got 39% in 2004

The reason that the DCCC is supporting Steve Filson, who is a progressive Democrat, over Jerry McNerney, is that McNerney is a proven loser. He only got 39% against Pombo in 2004, which was a percentage lower than in 2002 even if his "vote total" was higher because of increased turnout in a presidential election year. He ran twenty two points behind Pombo (who got 61%) and six points behind John Kerry. The fact is that McNerney is on the path to lose again and Steve Filson is a progressive, fighting Democrat who has a shot against the entrenched, corrupt Republican incumbent Pombo. When a candidate runs a race and loses, they have had their chance. The DCCC is right recruit new candidates if the old ones do not show any greater chance of winning in this election.  

The reason that the DCCC is supporting candidates like Steve Filson, Ron Klein, and others now is that Democratic challengers against entrenched incumbents need to define themselves now before the Republicans get a chance. The money from the DCCC allows them to do this. If the DCCC did not support candidates who had token or unelectable primary competition, the Republican incumbents would have an even greater headstart.

by SwarthmoreDem 2006-03-31 08:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: McNerney Got 39% in 2004

As far as I'm concerned, any Democrat who ran SIX POINTS (??!!!) behind Kerry in ANY district must have done something very wrong.  I don't need to know anything else about them.

by paul minot 2006-03-31 08:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: McNerney Got 39% in 2004

This is such BS.  At this point last cycle Jerry McNerney wasn't even running against Pombo...nobody was.  He was a guy with no political background and no name recognition who had to run as a write-in in the primary to get his name on the general election ballot.  And he had to wait for a recount of the primary vote before he even knew if he was going to be on the general election ballot.  So he essentially had from the end of April to November to run his campaign.  

Given all of that, and without any support from the party, he did about as well in percentage terms as the last establishment-backed candidate who a) was known in Contra Costa County, and b) who spent $600,000 running against Pombo (McNerney spent $160,000).    

In any event, if you think you know so much about how strong Steve Filson is, then why does Filson lack any support within the district?  The California Labor Federation (the California AFL-CIO umbrella group), SEIU, and the California Federation of Teachers all back Jerry McNerney.  So far Steve Filson hasn't won a single endorsement from a single Democratic club.            

by Matt Lockshin 2006-03-31 12:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: McNerney Got 39% in 2004

John Kerry did not campaign or spend money in California. He got 6% more than McNerney did during the same year. That means that McNerney ran behind the generic Democratic performance in that district even though he campaigned for seven months.In 2002, according to the Almanac of American Politics, Elaine Shaw received "received little assitstance from national Democrats" also.  In the district I live in, Democrat Paul Scoles was in the race for only about ninety days and got 40% against Curt Weldon, the highest percentage any challenger had ever gotten against him. On top of that, Scoles spent just %24,000. This showing was not that impressive. However, next to it, McNerney's performance looks pathetic.

Filson has been endorsed by several local members of Congress and local legislators, including State Senator Machado. Just because McNerney has support from local interest groups does not make him a better candidate to win, which is the most important thing.

McNerney might be getting support from

by SwarthmoreDem 2006-03-31 02:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is ridiculous

First of all, there is no way you can compare some district in PA with a district in CA.  The districts here are notoriously gerrymandered to protect incumbents.  CA-11 stretches into four different counties and includes population centers with very little shared identity.  People down in Morgan Hill (Santa Clara County) really aren't too connected to people in Brentwood (East Contra Costa County), who aren't too connected to either people in Danville (S. Contra Costa County) or Stockton (San Joaquin County).  You get the idea.   Moreover, the San Joaquin Democratic Party is very weak, the East Contra Costa areas are essentially exurban areas where there is no established political presence, and the the grassroots in neighboring areas were mostly focused  on travelling to swing states in 2004.  Plus the media markets (Sacramento and the Bay Area) are some of the most expensive in the state.    

Second, you have no idea what kind of support Elaine Shaw got compared to McNerney.  The amount of support Elaine Shaw got was huge compared to what McNerney got.  She also had a position on a Contra Costa County commission and ties to Ellen Tauscher (the Congresswoman from CA-10 and Steve Filson's political patron).      

Third, McNerney has received local endorsements too.   He's been endorsed by State Senator (and Lt. Gov. nominee) Liz Figueroa and it looks like he'll be endorsed by Assemblyman Johan Kleys.  

Also, we can see tomorrow what the vote will be for the CA Democratic Party pre-endorsement meeting.  I can tell you right now that Steve Filson is not getting that endorsement.

It's really weird how hoodwinked some people who don't know the district are by the DCCC's BS about this race.  At first they told us that Steve Filson would raise tons and tons more money than McNerney.  Now, not so much.  At first they told us that Filson would get the support of Labor.  Now, not so much.  They've been telling us how their campaign is growing day by day, and then they can't get enough people to join their "field raiser" even though Congressman George Miller was speaking at it.

I admit that Jerry McNerney is not the ideal candidate.  But Steve Filson isn't automatically better just because Rahm Emanuel says so.  And this is especially the case when virtually nobody in the district itself supports Filson.

You can bash McNerney all you want, but the bottom line is that the same people who are now backing Steve Filson were the ones backing Elaine Shaw in 2002.  And we saw how that went.    

by Matt Lockshin 2006-03-31 03:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Another Thing

I am really finding myself responding strongly to "proven loser."  Shit, Jerry McNerney took out a $10,000 second mortgage on his home to finance the recount so that he could get on the ballot to fight Pombo (it was refunded after the recount showed he deserved to be on the ballot).  But nobody questions his integrity and his sincerity that he ran against Pombo in 2004 out of a sense of duty and out of a belief that Richard Pombo should not get a by.

Now none of this makes him entitled to be the challenger this time.  But I think it does entitle him to a little goddamn respect for putting up and walking the damn walk.  

You think it's easy to run with no party support against an entrenched incumbent who you have no shot of beating?  Would you risk $10,000 of your own money just to get on the ballot to give the people in your district a choice?

If I ever detected one whiff of narcissism or egotism out of Jerry McNerney I wouldn't give him the props that I do.  But I don't.  But I believe him when he said that he ran because his son challenged him to stand up for what he believe in. And in 2004 he showed a type of courage that most people never will.  And you call him a "proven loser"?

This is part of what's wrong with politics in this country.  I understand that we cannot overly romanticize someone's effort.  We need to step back and do what it takes to win. And if I thought Steve Filson would win where Jerry McNerney couldn't, I have no problem backing him.  But Mike Machado spent 6 million dollars and eked out a win over Gary Podesto in 2004.  There is no way Mike Machado would have beaten Pombo in 2004.

And what makes Steve Filson a winner?  His coziness with powerful members of Congress?  Steve Filson hasn't proven in one damn way that he has what it takes to win this race.  And at this point I think it's very likely that he won't win the primary.  But he won't be a "proven loser" if he loses the primary either.

We need to respect the people who beat down the brush and take the thankless task of fighting deeply entrenched incumbents.  I know for a fact that Jerry McNerney has the respect and the deep loyalty of a tremendous number of people in his district because he stood up for them when nobody else would, and because he was willing to do it at great cost to himself.

Again, to be perfectly clear, I don't think that any of this means that McNerney ought to be seen as some sort of default candidate for 2006.  I support Steve Filson's right to run, I support the right of people to support Steve Filson.  But this idea that Jerry McNerney is a "proven loser" makes me heartsick for the party that I'm busting my butt for.  

by Matt Lockshin 2006-03-31 03:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Agree

The lack of respect directed towards candidate who run, and often do so with little support, or active opposition from the likes of Rahm, is really shortsighted.

As you point out regarding Filson, there seems to be the same idea that because Duckworth won that she's a winner - on a personal level - and Cegelis a loser as a person. If Duckworth didn't win, with the type of backing she had and the money that was raised for her by Rahm and the rest of her backers, then this outcome would have been more surprising.

Look, if the playground bully can beat up the second grader and take his lunch money, does that make him a winner? So does it make a candidate who has the total backing of the party, and a relatively small number of well connected and monied donors fund their campaign a "winner"? Does it make them the better candidate? Does it make their opponent a loser?

This idea of "the voters decided" is crap also. This is the same argument the GOP makes regarding Bush. The voters decided. Did they make the right choice or buy the PR campaign? The GOP in Congress use the same arguement with their "up or down" vote crap. They are in the majority so of course they want to rely on the vote. Does this make them right?

Duckworth should have won this easily. She didn't win easily. Cegelis walked the walk, stood up to try to change things for the better. She put $40K of her own money behind her beliefs, and she's just an ordinary working stiff like you and me. She gave up her family, social and personal life for years to run and run hard. In the end, she was defeated by overwhelming odds and unprecidented resources and backing thrown against her by her own party.

Does that make her a loser? If it does, then we are all in trouble, and all a bunch of losers.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 08:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The DCCC works to defeat a Democrat

Thank you Bullwinkle and Matt for getting the point of my post.

It was not about who spent how much money. Let's leave it that the amount was not insignificant. The amount to defeat Roskam will be a good deal higher.

I question whether it was well spent in backing a candidate with so little name recognition and local support. I question the DCCC recruiting standards, as Bullwinkle documented so well. And I personally know a lot of people in a lot of states who are fighting mad at having the Party elite "impose" candidates on them.

To those who have questioned the dedication to the Democratic Party of candidates and their supporters, I say it's blind Party voting that brought us Zell Miller and the like. I am a registered Democrat. I've voted for Democrats since George McGovern. I'm a delegate to the state Party Central and a member of my county Central Committee. Needless to say, I've cast my vote for a lot of losing candidates. I'm not bitter about it. I sort of expect it. After all, I went to Iowa for Howard Dean. And I don't regret that one bit, or my vote for McGovern, Gore, or many other good candidates who lost.

That does not mean I have lost my right to speak my mind when I think the DCCC or Rahm Emanuel are dead wrong. To me, that's like the Republicans saying I'm not patriotic because I think the Bush administration lied to take us to war and is destroying our country. The first amendment is alive and well at my house.

So, as Bullwinkle and I both recommended, I'm actively supporting candidates I think are better than the ones the DCCC is backing.

The point of my post was to encourage you all to do the same. Of course, if you like their candidates better, support them. It's a free country folks--at least for a while.

by cfinnie 2006-03-31 01:53PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------