DLC and DCCC, you're on notice

I have heard way too many reports from across America where members of the DLC and/or the DCCC are sabotaging races of progressive grassroots Democrats. Frankly, I've heard enough.

If their candidates can't get the job done, they need to get the hell out of the way and let the grassroots have their chance on Capitol Hill. It's just that simple.

Two primaries down, 48 to go. We need to stay vigilant before any more qualified grassroots candidates get squeezed out by "the machine."

Do you include what happened re: him and Hackett in your declaration?

I am convinced that there was political manuvering behind the scenes to force Paul Hackett out of the race, and I'm not too happy about that. Did the DLC play a role? Hard to tell. Reid and Schumer were the ones who convinced Hackett to quit, and Schumer does work closely with the DLC.

always has been. He not only had more money than Hackett, he was endorsed by nearly all the grassroots and local Dem organizations.

Enough already, with the urban myths about this campaign. I'm surprised Snopes hasn't started a page on it yet.

The business of politics is distinct from the tending of lawns, after all.

It is hard to identify any great popular clamor throughout Ohio for Mr. Hackett in the recent past. He made a good run for a House seat in a Republican district, and showed good cross-over appeal because of a fairly centerist persona and military experience. He made some emphatic statements that endeared him to some web cmmentators. His recent actions have shown hiom to be a politocal lightweight with no discipline and no loyalty, and it is of benefit to the Party he did not have the opportunity to self-destruct in a vital statewide race.

There is no doubt at all Mr. Brown is a more progressive figure, and a practiced politician with statewide name recognition.

For me, Hackett pretty much stopped being grassroots when he started attacking Brown from the right.
There was simply no reason for Hackett to do that.

Apparently, "grassroots" is commonly defined as "flavor of the week" on the liberal blogs. Unsurprisingly, this is a very poor definition of grassroots.

period.

If so-called grassroots candidates can't get the most votes then I must question their grassroots bona fides.

Which came first, the votes or the back-room deals to secure the votes?

I care who can beat a Republican in November. Moral victories won't win us control of Congress.

that they effectively prevent the passage of any progressive legislation, is Democratic control in name really worth anything?

I mean, we won't be able to turn public opinion just by holding hearings against the Administration if Speaker Pelosi has to pretty much settle for passing the same kind of budget that Speaker Hastert would want(which is what DLC Democrats would insist on making Speaker Pelosi settle for). That would guarantee us one term of control and then a GOP comeback in '08.

1994 shows what happens when a Democratic Congress can't pass Democratic legislation. And that's what would have to happen again.

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

Most people consider us moderates.

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

:shrug:

from being passed. But I suppose that if you like the status quo...

to murderers in Central America, or his sale of AWACS to the Saudis.
It may have stopped them on a few trivial side issues, but unfortunately, not on much that really mattered.

PROGRESSIVE Democratic control, on the other hand, would stop Republican legislation from passing.

Remember what Lombardi said about winning.

We can't keep making enemies. Lighten the fuck up people.

. . .and told me I'm not breeding unity, however threads like this get a pass. No there is no double standard :sarcasm:

See post #5 and the subthread that follows.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2540509

Again, I must ask why is this thread is OK and my thread is not.

I was unaware of any such controversy as described therein. But I merely asked a question about the DCCC based upon the evidence that I've come across in recent days. There is no harm in asking questions about the political process. Someone damn sure needs to - last time people stopped asking questions, Washington DC was on the receiving end of a coup d'etat courtesy of the SCOTUS, Karl Rove, and James Baker.

Yes, I want Democrats to defeat Republicans in November. Badly. But what sort of Democrats will our party put forth for the November elections? I seem to remember that we got our asses kicked nationwide in 2004. Were the losing candidates grassroots or "establishment" in nature? I think that is a valid discussion, especially with 48 out of 50 primaries still ahead of us in 2006.

. . .you are consistent. What I resent is the belief that its OK to criticize and scrutinize establishment groups, while its not ok to criticize and scrutinize grassroot groups. From an ideological perspective I'm more in line with the grassroots groups, from a strategy perspective I'm more in line with the establishment groups. Hopefully we can strike a healthy balance.

I'm a self-described "Howard Dean Democrat," but I agree with the need for consistency in this debate. And I got no problem with you, either - it's folks like you who keep folks like me honest.

:toast:

for instance. It's that now Rahm and the DCCC are spoken of with the same venom as the GOP and the DLC. It seems we're on a slippery slope to hating everyone.

. . .I'm all for the grassroots defending itself, I still consider myself to be a grassrooter, however I don't view Rahm or the DCCC as the enemy. Secondly, I don't think Democratic grassroots are monolithic and I believe there a more than a few grassrooters who support Rahm and the DCCC.

Help is help, and whether or not you agree with the tactics, the organization and money are dedicated to winning in November.

That seems like the idea, IIRC.

He had no reason to be that heavyhanded in the Cegelis/Duckworth race. He could have at least tried diplomacy and working privately. Instead, he encouraged the idea that Cegelis was unworthy of another nomination. Had Cegelis prevailed, Rahm's anti-Cegelis talking points would have been repeated over and over again in Roskam campaign ads. He acted like a Democrat for Nixon.

Looks like one of the strongest top to bottom lineups in years...compared to the bungling of their Republican counterparts....

So they are on notice from me....Keep up the Good Work!!!

2006 is a referendum on Bush.
If the party is united the Dems will
do well.
As long as Dems wake up and put up mainstream people.

"mainstream" usually means someone who never disagreed with Nixon or Reagan about anything.
That's not a word Democrats should ever use, since all it can be used for is to attack Democratic principles and drive the party further and further and further and further to the right.

Many house races will be based on the incumbent's record. That's why the results never conform to the generic D/R question. People may answer that they think Democratic control is important - but may vote for their "good" Republican.

Same deal. DCCC jamming her in favor of a former right-winger.Jan needs help from the grass roots - this may be the last chance to do something if you're tired of heavy handed top-down party party politics. If you want to let them do away with primaries, then so be it. But if you want to send a message go to

This is what it all comes down to. If you care about these things, please, do whatever you can - and soon.

Glad to meet ya!

:toast:

Took me a while - but I finally found the right place....

I can understand getting involved in local races and being upset with what is perceived to be the party getting involved and pushing candidates they think have the best shot of winning. Unfortunately many of these decisions are based on financing which is really a hard cold fact of elections and will remain so until money is taken out of the equation. The party simply doesn't have the resources to back multiple candidates in the numerous primary races, so decisions are made based not on DLC/DNC/DCCC butt-kissing as is alleged here, but on rolling the dice and assessing who can win.

The gross generalization and impugning of organizations, particularly with mischaracterizations and outright factual inaccuracies (purposeful or simply sloppy reporting here) is pervasive to the point of an unreasonable rejection of the purpose of party politics, to organize toward one end - winning.

Some here at DU always believe the worst in situations, often completely misunderstanding strategy, jumping to conclusions, always casting the party in a negative light. Sure, in some situations it is warranted, but to immediately assume the worst and lash out thread after thread, assuming nefarious intentions is indicative of an unhealthy political environment, one in which I am not thriving. It is often a truly negative environment, which is really sad considering the state of our country currently.

oh, and don't let em get you down.

what the far left was saying "the people" wanted.

While I did not write it, I embrace many of its arguments, I think it deserves its own thread, but I know everyone wants to move on:

Here are some facts the Cegelis camp needs to own up to:

-- Team Cegelis put together a great field operation, but they were still soundly beaten, despite having a two-year head start. The main reason they lost is that Christine Cegelis could not make a compelling case that she was the better candidate to face Roskam, either to core Democratic groups, prospective donors or a plurality of voters. And, as I've pointed out many times, you won't even find the names of any other Cegelis family members or many of her most ardent bloggers on Cegelis's campaign finance reports.

-- Cegelis's 44% showing against Henry Hyde was no predictor of her performance in 2006. Peter Roskam would have slashed and burned her for her extremely liberal views, including but not limited to: banning not just assault weapons but all handguns, decriminalizing possession of narcotics, increasing welfare spending, raising taxes, and "developing a universal single health care system for this country similar to our Canadian neighbors." Even though I personally agree with many of her views, no one in their right political mind can possibly believe she was electable in DuPage County with those extreme views on record.

-- Whatever you think of Rahm Emanuel, Tammy Duckworth ran an honorable and positive campaign, never criticizing Cegelis or Scott, but instead focusing all of her criticisms on the Bush administration and Roskam.

-- The "old line democrats" aren't casting Christine and her supporters as "disloyal Democrats," as bored now claims. Team Cegelis did that yourselves, by constantly attacking the Democratic Party and it’s leaders over the last six months and laying out your "us versus them" attacks. In fact, by Christine Cegelis’s own admission, it took an invasion of another country under false pretenses to get her activated in the Illinois Democratic Party. She was what — 50? I’ve been walking precincts since I was 12, and have paid my dues doing grassroots campaign work for candidates in all but a handful of Illinois counties across three decades. Many of the people I know supporting Duckworth have given up that and much more, so forgive my umbrage when Cegelis appoints herself the arbiter of Democratic ideals and whether or not Duckworth is living up to them.
-snip-

-- Cegelis's "Good luck" is not an endorsement. It is a polite way of saying "go screw yourself, you're on your own," while bored now is much less polite when he says "Sounds to me like y’all are trying to set up blaming christine for duckworth’s inevitable loss against roskam." If that's your idea of being a team player, you must play alot of Solitaire.
-snip-

http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2006/03/facing-facts-in-6th-congressional.html

and vicious ugliness ("legless pity puppet" was one of the choicer epithets) of some of Cegelis' supporters....Duckworth's actual viewpoints and positions on issues were deliberately misrepresented over and over.

...just because I posted the truth.

Anyone who considers it a "flame" deserves what they get.

LOL.

because they have been infiltrated by the neocon movement. Democracy can only make a comeback through the grassroots methodology.