Is the DCCC taking sides in Congressional primary races?

From today's "Whatever It Takes" e-mail from Rahm Emanuel:

As chairman of the DCCC, I am crisscrossing the country helping our hard-charging candidates take the fight to Republicans and hold Republicans accountable for their record of incompetence, corruption and failure.

Democratic candidates like Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth in Illinois-6 and attorney Lois Murphy in Pennsylvania-6 are running full tilt towards victory this November. They are among the over 40 outstanding top-tier candidates that are at the heart of our national strategy for turning America from red to blue.

Now they are looking to us -- you and me -- to stand with them and give them the critical financial support they will need to win in November.

Now, Tammy Duckworth just won her primary battle in IL-6, so that's all well and good, but Lois Murphy is running against fellow Democrat Mike Leibowitz in the PA-6 primary. But the DCCC doesn't seem to have any contact info for him - no address, no website. Just a brief mention that he's running for Congress.

So what's the deal? Is this an innocent oversight, or is Emanuel playing Democrats off of each other in the primaries?

His job is to secure the best chance possible for re=takingt he House this year, and that means seeing to the slating of the best possibel candidates for success in a general election. In short, he is doing his job. Why anyone would expect otherwise of him is beyond me.

Now, I don't know how much attention or money he's been able to generate, but if Emanuel had endorsed either Cegelis or Duckworth before the Illinois primaries even took place, I would consider that very fishy, indeed.

Why some here engage in hysterics when the man is simply doing his job in getting Dems elected is beyond me.

.... would trust his judgement over the local voters is beyond me.

He can't please all the people all the time.

He's not paying a bit of attention to what the voters, the grassroots, or the activists want.

It's called abusing your base.

But you also believe everybody hates HRC (and most do at DU, I'll give you that), yet polling says otherwise.

I think some consider the base actually their own opinion, but that's not democracy in which majority rules.

What he is doing, again, is his job and that is to get Democrats elected in the best way he knows how which, regardless of your objections, really is the most important thing. I'm sorry if you don't agree with his choices.

Perhaps you could apply for his job next election cycle and do things your way.

The base of a party consists in those elements that can be relied on without fail to support the party, that desire the success of the party unconditionally. In short, what cannot be relied on utterly cannot be considered the base.

.

I don't understand why your point is so hard for so many here to grasp.

The base, BY DEFINITION, is the segment of the population that can be RELIED UPON WITHOUT FAIL to vote for the Democratic nominee EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Why some people here are under the impression that the "base" consists of those who loudly scream their threats to desert the party if every single candidate does not line up exactly with every single one of their views is beyond me. Methinks the people who tend to do this are overly self-righteous and suffer from an overinflated sense of self-importance. Seriously, if you voted for Nader in 2000, or if you have ever, for any reason, threatened to a) leave the Democratic party, b) abstain from voting or c) vote for a third party candidate, you are by the VERY DEFINITION of the word NOT the base.

Your use of the words "overly self-righteous" "inflated sense of self importance" could apply to many here who are in fact not worthy to tie the shoelaces of some of the more activist members of the party.

People who care what the party stands for, people who work locally gathering petitions, registering voters, building databases...they are the base.

Not people who sit on forums making fun of them for caring about their party.

People who say they have to "hold their nose" to vote for any Democrat are not the base.

People who threaten to vote third party are not the base - much less the people who actually DO.

It's very typical of dishonest people to take a word and twist the definition so that it describes something more to their liking. "Base," for example, which has ALWAYS traditionally referred to that segment of the population which can be reliably counted on to vote for one of the two major parties, every election cycle, every candidate, without fail.

The people you describe are activists and ideologues. Some are undoubtedly part of the base. Some are decidedly not. But there is certainly no need to dishonestly twist the definition of a word to suit your purposes when there are other words which already exist to define what you seek to describe.

It's also a tactic of dishonest people to create a false comparison in an attempt to inject emotion into a debate as a red herring for discussing the actual facts.

I hate it when you say things like that to me all the time. I don't know why you do it, and I don't care.

Calling someone dishonest is the lowest of the low. It is a cheap shot.

I am not sure what I am supposed to call the act of deliberately distorting the definition of a word to suit a particular agenda, if not dishonest. Or perhaps you are suggesting that I should simply ignore the fallacies that permeate your original reply to me and pretend that it is NOT, in fact, deceptive, disingenuous, or dishonest to alter the definition of a word as you see fit so that it better aligns with what you wish it to mean, rather than what it actually does?

It is worth noting that my reply generated three heated outbursts from you - worth noting, but not altogether surprising. After all, angry, emotional outbursts devoid of any intellectual merit are yet another example of red herrings thrown out by those whose arguments have no logical basis upon which to stand.

You have no right to question my honesty, integrity, intelligence, or my status as a Democrat. And you do it all the time.

You are certainly no exception, nor are you the sole recipient of such treatment. Rest assured, I point out any falsehoods, deceptions, distortions, and lies which I am readily able to debunk, and you are not exempt.

You list them for me, I will debate you on it.

If you say one is dishonest then you mean they don't tell the truth. So please list.

What part of "it is dishonest to twist and distort the accepted definition of a word to force it into alignment with your agenda" didn't you understand? It is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, and if you do not think that I am going to call you on it, you are quite mistaken. If you are uncertain as to the definition of the word "base," it is nicely provided for you in The Magistrate's post.

I think that would be best for all of us. You say I am dishonest, tell me what I said that was not true, and I will see if I need to apologize.

No linking needed; scroll up and read it yourself. Further downthread, you also claim that you fit the exact definition of the base that both The Magistrate and I describe. I am puzzled, then, why you would attack me by calling me Al From and insist on distorting the definition of the word "base" into something which it does not mean, especially when, by your own testimony, the original definition described you just fine.

We must always question our leaders.

Good night, I hope you feel good inside. I don't. I feel sad.

If you vote for the Democrat in every election cycle, you are a part of the Democratic base. If you don't, for any reason, you are not. It's quite simple, and your attempt to inject an unrelated red herring into the discussion is clumsy at best.

It seems that you determined my post to mean what you wanted it to mean rather than what it actually meant and went off from there. Things would be so much simpler if you adhered to the rules of the English language that the rest of us do.

while some are working there. I hate it that you call me names. It absolutely blows my mind.

You do you think you are to judge my qualities as a Democrat?

I don't think I will forget being called dishonest.

Now I am waiting on the "paranoia"...I guess that comes next, it usually does.

... butt the fuck out until the primary is over, then back the chosen one.

I'm sorry, all of this bullshit about how we have to have party operatives picking winners and losers when their track record of picking their own nose isn't too good, won't wash with me.

Everybody can jump up and down and say "yeah this is good", but I couldn't disagree more. And those who try to sell it as "pragmatic" or insist that everyone sit down and shut up for the sake of "party unity" can pound sand.

You don't seem to grasp the basic facts of this issue.

It is his freakin' job to field candidates and support them into and through the primary process and on into the general election.

Why in god's name would you suggest he "butt out" of doing what is precisely his job?

Sorry you aren't happy. If you don't like his decisions, apply for his job.

Yikes.

... it is not his job to decide one candidate is "better" than another and then funnel resources to that candidate DURING THE PRIMARIES. That is picking the winner and it is bullshit, and if you can't see why too bad for you.

Since when would these idiots know a winner if they saw one? Tell me about their sterling track record of success.

and in his opinion, the job for which he was chosen, he is picking the best candidate to win.

Period.

You just don't agree. Fine, that's your prerogative.

.. with his picks, I don't agree with the strategy at all. Since when have Dem functionaries been able to pick winners. Never, that's when.

Have no particularly excellent record either. There are no guarantees of success, of course, but there is no reason, particularly in the sort of "purple" districts being contested here, that small claques of local activists have a better judgement of the lay of the land than do professionals who have gotten their living by it for years.

.. is that being successful at this candidate picking is obviously not a prerequisite for keeping your job, or nobody would have such a job very long.

I get the concept, I just don't buy that is works.

Lois Murphy ran last time and did very well. She is well known and was an early pick for Emily's List. I can't run down the list of her positions off the top of my head, but I checked out her website a while ago and I was satisfied.

Fwiw, I have heard some areas have a policy of trying to get a new candidate to commit to a second run if they don't win the first time. That way they build up name recognition the first time around, and stand a better chance on the second go.

It also means the party has to commit to support them on the second go. Which also means the party is in the unhappy position of having to pass up a great new challenger, or renege on a commitment.

BIG DISCLAIMER: I have no idea if that is the case here. I am merely suggesting that there may be this sort of long-term strategy involved in these things.

... for pointing that out.

I find you refreshingly blunt, and while I liked Duckworth, there was no need to put her up IMO; the candidate in that district (Cegelis) was polling fine. So put up an argument for this from the perspective of your post. I'd like to put this behind us and at times, sir, you provide the clarity I need.

She was behind a candidate who dropped out in August.

?

Since that was no different than when he entered, some felt his lack of fund raising was more likely. A large part of Cegelis funds had been spent by then yet she was not in the lead either. Then Senator Durbin asked Emanuel to work with Duckworth. That, along with her medical and military situation, led to her extremely late entry into the race.

Is traditionally awfully solid for the enemy. There is not much of a reliable Democratic bloc there, so that victory cannot be a question of mobilizing a dormant base, but must be achieved by holding moderates who have often voted Republican in the past, and appealing to newly disaffected Republicans. The fellow the enemy has brought in to succeed Hyde is well-known locally, and will be heavily supported by their national party apparatus. My guess is that Rep. Rahm has calculated that the sort of "remember your roots" appeal the enemy will make in the fall will be less effective against Maj. Duckworth than against Ms. Cegelis. A solid majority of the district has, after all, voted against Ms. Cegelis in the last national election, and there is some question over how much of her support was a sort of "throw-away" protest against the age of Hyde and some of his recent political foibles, that proved more widespread than most had thought possible. With a new Republican face, any such element can be expected to evaporate. Maj. Duckworth has, in the circumstance, a certain local celebrity: she is a story in herself, coverage of her is mostly good, and she ties directly in to a national issue that we all hope will effect the series of local election that constitute a Congresional race over-all. She is a fresh face, that no one can remember voting against, for some reason or other.

None of this, by the way, should be read as any disparragement of Ms. Cegelis. She made an excellent effort last time, and seems a very solid person. It would not have distressed me in the slightest had she prevailed in the primary. Nor does it seem to me the chance of a victory for us in that district is better than even odds in either case....

Have you met Jan Schneider? Do you blindly accept the word of Rahm that Christine is better? I don't.

I like to think of myself as intelligent enough to make a decision in a primary.

That is what primaries are for.

If they continue picking candidates, there is really no need to vote much anymore.

I wrote a Dear Rahm letter, but of course, it is automaticlly rejected.. they don't want to hear from the voters - they just want our money, they don't think they should earn it or hear what we have to say about a damn thing.

They're supporting ex Republican banker Christine Jennings over Jan Schneider in the race for Katherine Harris's seat. Jan made mincemeat out of Jennings in the 2004 primary, and almost beat Harris. Now Emmanuel and Stennie Hoyer have stabbed her in the back. They brought Barbara Boxer down for a fundraiser ($115,000) for Jennings. When Jan asked why, they said "We were told she was running unopposed". Like they can't even check their own damned website.

They're also lining up behind another DLCer,Rick Penberthy, in Florida's 5th district. In 2004 Penberthy spent $60k of his own money, to finish dead last in a 4-way primary. John Russell is the guy who has the grass roots behind him, but the DLC-DCCC would prefer a weak maleable candidate to a passionate progressive.

I'll post more on this later, but I'm seething.

Would you please PM me? Thanks.

Check out my journal and scroll. I have done a lot on this. Makes me furious.

Disappointed I understand. But your head will explode if you fume at ever decision made during this election cycle that you don't agree with. I don't understand this abject lack of confidence in people making these decisions, which leads me to believe there will either be a third party split or a whole bunch of really pissed off people, neither of which aids the Democrats in their quest to beat the Republicans in the fall which IMO is the most important thing.

It is clear to me some are some not cut out for the ebb and flow of party politics. With so much going on, sometimes you need to weigh the gravity of the big picture and cut loose smaller issues. I consider the outrage perpetrated on America on a daily basis by this administration and GOP infinitely more egregious and more important than whether or not the most progressive candidate wins.

And I guess that's where I part company with many of you.

And you are judging me. I resent it a lot. I will vote Democratic in the 06 election, for now. But I will fight to make my voice heard in primaries.

Don't judge me, please, on a level of political savvy. In fact I never claimed to be savvy, just honest and clear in what I believe.

I do not think the party needs to interfere in some races, and they are taking away the right to choose by doing it.

When Rahm comes down here, and in two races picks millionaires to self-finance...one a Republican when he recruited him...then I call him out on it. It is bad reason to choose people because they will vote for the needs of the wealthy.

When he does this, he ignores and does not even acknowledge others running, except to ask them to get out.

Hey, you know what? Tell me I am not a good Democrat. Go ahead. I am a far better one than the ones who voted to take us into this war, voted for the AFTAs that took the jobs overseas, voted for the bankruptcy bill, ignoring the elderly.

Judge not, especially not today.

And I'm sorry you resent that; I would think you would be flattered I'm curious enough to ask.

I have just so much outrage to manifest, so I try to channel it to the most deserving, and that almost always is this administration and/or the GOP, faux Christians, etc.

I think Rahm is just doing his job in choosing who he feels is the best, most viable candidate to channel money, resources and support. I don't think it is a nefarious plot; I think people just disagree. I believe he wants the Democrats to win and is doing his job to that end.

I really wanted to try to understand some of the differences here at DU. I am finding out many of us really are on the same page. But we come from different parts of the country, are different ages, have different life experiences and education, etc.

I am not judging you. I really wanted to understand why you are so po'd.

There are several quite accessible in My Journal....I think I have covered it fairly.

Most striking is the fact that Florida is your state and you have every right to be not happy. I defer to you in that regard. I sometimes forget this board brings people from all states and that you all are not all in my living room here in SF, although that might be interesting. Margaritas anyone?

Somebody reminded me today that I have been quoted saying Katrina should have washed away the dead wood in Congress. This is how that begins.

I get it now.

I only hope you process your anger/disappointment/bitterness, regroup, and don't carry that shit with you as you move forward. We need all hands on deck. :)

than did 2 years ago when Cegelis challenged Henry Hyde.

Discontent with Bush and the Republicans does not translate into an automatic support for Democrats.

As to your question about Emmanuel, which also applies to Scumer in the Senate, the answer is YES.

No Democrat will challenge Dick Lugar in Indiana. Why? Part of the reason is that DSCC told the Indiana Democrats that there would be no money for that race. The result: the GOP retains a Senate seat by default.

Participation in a primary election is generally much lower than in the actual election: this indicates great interest among Demcoratic voters in the district in the race, and bodes well for a victory here in the fall.

And don't ugly primary battles weaken our candidates? A local Repub just dropped out of the race for Governor because he didn't have enough money in his warchest, and he's have ended up spending it on trying to beat a fellow Repub, and he didn't want to do that. He figured if he had to campaign against his Repub opponent and he won, he wouldn't have the funds for the main event, and if he lost, he would have weakened his opponent for the fight against our Dem Gov. So he got out.

So I think that's what the DCCC is trying to avoid, ugly primary battles that leave our candidates all scarred up for the main campaign. It's not such a terrible strategy, is it? All the Repubs had to do in 2004 was pull out the Dem playbook against Kerry and repeat what his primary opponents had been saying about him.

That is exactly what is going on, and why people take it amiss escapes me....

At least that is what I am gathering. I gather you think the party leaders alone have the wisdom to decide what the people want of their party.

If you do think we need primaries sometimes, could you please differentiate as to when?

I know of 3 races in Florida alone that disturb me. I am not at all sure they are picking people who will stand up for people as much as for corporations.

Do not strike me as some high moral good in and of themselves: they are merely one of many means by which a slate of candidates may be selected for entry in a general election. Like any such, they have benefits and drawbacks.

Perhaps the leading benefir is that they give a candidate and his or her campaign staff some practice at the art, as sort of spring training, which seasoning can prove beneficial in the real election.

Certainly their leading drawback is that they consume funds and energy, and provide at times a bonanza of attack lines for the opposition in the real election.

We had here in Illinois and excellent example of the latter in the Republican gubernatorial primary. A moneyed reactionary named Oberweiss, who had no chance at all of prevailing in a general election, savaged the Republican victor, Topinka, with a variety of corruption charges, and roused a large portion of the far-right electorate to despise her on several grounds, to a point many are declaring they will not support the nominee in the fall. The ground has been well prepared for use of some of these charges against her by Demcoratic operatives, though the official campaign will probably leave some of them alone, as it is a thing best done by back-channel means.

Rep. Emmanuel is seeking to avoid this sort of difficulty for Denmocratic Congressional candidates, by making clear the Party has a favorite in most districts, so that the loyal Party voters, the real base of the Party, can readily act accordingly. It seems to me the proper course of action, and the one with the best chance of gaining us large enough gains in the Congressional elections this autumn.

I find this paragraph of yours to be puzzling, as to what is "real base", or what are "loyal party voters."

Quote: "Rep. Emmanuel is seeking to avoid this sort of difficulty for Denmocratic Congressional candidates, by making clear the Party has a favorite in most districts, so that the loyal Party voters, the real base of the Party, can readily act accordingly. It seems to me the proper course of action, and the one with the best chance of gaining us large enough gains in the Congressional elections this autumn."

So you assume that he decides for the supposedly loyal party voters, and he decides who is the "real base" of the party.

I gather you and several in this thread do not consider me to be politically savvy enough to choose the right candidate in the primary.

This kind of rhetoric, a sort of looking down thing that makes new activists feel unworthy, is truly not a wise thing. I consider that I am part of the real base of the party, and I disagree with 5 or 6 decisions they have made about primaries. Two I sort of agreed with, one I did not care enough about to be informed.

We either have them so new people can run for office, or we let Rahm and Chuck decide. That is how you get new blood in the party.

That primary elections are not among my favorite features of our current political routines. It seems to me they bring little reliable benefit, and can do a good deal of harm.

Concerning the question of "the base" and what constitutes it, my position remains that the base consists of those who are reliably loyal to the Party. Such persons select themselves, by concious choice to adhere to the Party. Persons who say, "If this or that does not suit me, I will cease to support he Partry," are not and cannot be regarded as part of its base, however much they may protest to the contrary that they are indeed the base, and that by displeasing them the Party is abandoning its base.

There is little to be gained by personalizing a discussion such as this, and my comments are all genberal only, directed towards the question of whether oir not they is anything to be gained, or something to be lost, by insistence on fierce local primary contests this year.It is an undeniabkle fact that primary elections frequently produce candidates slated for the general election that, however much they please the activists, do not appeal widely beyond them. Certainly, candidates selected by Party leaders sometimes fail to win. Obviously neither route will produce a gaurantee of success in the event. My inclination is to support the Party leadeship this year, because Rep. Rahm has long impressed me as a savvy and savage operator, but it is certainly possible the election may prove me wrong.

To me the base of the party are the people who do the hard work, the database work, the petitioning, the sitting in malls to get voters registered...which we will be doing this week.

I am seriously concerned about the way things are handled now, where before I was not especially worried.

The Iraq War changed it all. It was like being hit in the face with ice cold water. We called our congressmen and the candidates for president, and they said we had to go to war in Iraq. Yet all over the internet was evidence we did not have to go.

They did not listen, they are still not listening to the fact that the majority of the party want out of Iraq. Interesting post at MyDD today about the conference call held today with party congressional leaders.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/3/29/18218/4270

The thing that really stands out is that they are not so concerned about standing up for things as dividing the Republicans. That bothers me. They need to stand up for our seniors who are in such great pain right now, no one is doing it. They need to take a stand on the war, but they left it out on purpose.

No, I don't threaten to leave the party...not now. But I understand some of the anger. It is the anger that comes from being considered unimportant, and being ignored.

settled in backrooms out of sight.

I guess it was more comfortable for some that way.

cuz they won't spend any time or money in what they perceive as a red district. Emanuel is a dlc tool; if your candidate has been blesed by the dlc, s/he will get $$$ & support otherwise, you may as well be from Mars.

Does the DCCC pee in its own pool?

Hobson's choices.

Shut up and vote for who they tell you to.

I am a Democrat, a life long Democrat. I think it is my duty to question the party leaders when they are not paying attention to us.

I will vote my conscience in the primary, and I will vote for the Democrat in the election.

I am a Democrat, an honest one. I have never voted anything but Democrat. This year I will still vote Democrat, but I understand the frustration of those who say they are not going to. I think it will hurt us, but I understand.

I am not dishonest, I do not tell things that are not true. I was told to defend myself here, so I am.

If this is the case, then what possible motive could you have had for comparing me to Al From?

I stated that someone CANNOT be considered part of "the base" IF:

a) They voted for Nader in 2000;

b) They threaten to leave the Democratic party;

c) They abstain from voting for whatever reason, from apathy to disgust;

or

d) They actually vote for a third party candidate.

Now, according to the post I am replying to right now, none of the above holds true for you. You vote for the Democrat in elections, you don't threaten to leave, and - I presume - you voted for Gore in 2000. Accordingly, you would be considered a part of the Democratic base. Why, then, do you compare me to Al From - a comparison clearly made in an attempt to insult me? Why did you take issue with my post, if in fact you, by your own words, fit the model of someone who comprises the Democratic base?

You were talking down to those of us who question the party leaders. It sounded like Al From. You called me dishonest, and you have put down a lot of good people who are sincerely questioning the party's direction.

I am signing off. I am tired of the attacks. Do what you want.

It is quite tiring, I agree.

I am unclear as to how voting for Democrats every election cycle equates to not questioning party leaders, unless by "question party leaders" you mean "not vote for people in the party I don't like," in which case, no, that would not be someone who is part of the base.

Besides, I can think of one party leader of whom you tolerate NO questioning.