William Pitt email about Illinois 6th - Duckworth v. Cegalis

Here's part of an email that Will Pitt sent out from PDA:

"Thomas Paine wrote about days that try our souls. He'd probably be repeating himself if he'd been in the Illinois 6th this week. Schakowsky, Durbin, Obama, Kerry, Pelosi and indeed the entire DCCC decided that this was the week to throw their weight behind party-anointed candidate Tammy Duckworth, this was the week to throw Christine Cegalis under the bus, this was the week to shut these pesky progressives up and elect a candidate whose sole qualification for office is her ability to follow orders.

Right about now, you all are probably thinking about hanging it up, about the futility of fighting the national party, about where and how you could better put in time and effort that didn't leave you feeling like you've been kicked in the head. Nobody can blame you; hell, it takes an extraordinarily devoted person to roll the rock up the hill full in the knowledge that it will probably roll back down over you.

Here's the thing, though: this is good news. If Christine Cegalis was no threat to the DCCC's desire to manage things from soup to nuts, they wouldn't bother lining up all these heavies against her. If Christine Cegalis didn't bring so much to the table - her talent, her experience, her desire to affect real change, her progressive values - the DCCC and all these heavies wouldn't be looking this way.

They are looking this way. You have all their attention. You are doing amazing work, historic work, and the fact that they have thrown all this mess against the wall (hoping it will stick) is proof positive that you are having an effect."

.....they're picking on poor misunderstood Christine, who has just $39,363 in her warchest (and debts amounting to $39,179) because she pissed away the other $200,000 she raised on nothing at all....

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/198383/

First time I ever heard that swindling campaign contributors was a "progressive value"....

Have you any idea how much it costs to run a campaign when the DCCC hires the Axelrod firm to pimp your opponent and you have to make rain all by yourself?

Explain your definition of "nothing," please.

and this exact issue.

It was very eye-opening.

The DSCC didn't even make noise about another candidate until the end of 2005, and didn't do a damn thing formally until this year.

"Explain your definition of "nothing," please."
No campaign commercials...no mailings....no primary election....no general election...no opponent...

There was nothing at all in 2005: THIS is the election year.

Back last year, when the first uproar of "The e-e-evil Democrats are picking on poor Christine" began from our "lefty left", I compared Cegelis to a few other non-incumbent Democrats running in big states. Their expenditures at about the three-quarter mark ranged from 3,000-$7,500; Cegelis had blown more than $165,000 in the same span with no results to show for it.

establishment even fronted a candidate or she even had an opponent?

And that none of that money was spent on advertisments & such?

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/198383

When did Duckworth declare? December 19th or thereabouts.

Here's her October quarterly....Duckworth wasn't a candidate then, and the "Democrats are stabbing her in the back" idiocy hadn't begun....She had collected $160,000 and spent $122,000....

http://disclosure.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/189462/

Here's the July quarterly....she'd collected $109,000 and blown through $80,000 with not a fucking thing to show for it.

I forgot to look for her Rolls Royce...

You never know where she hides all those rolex watches she must be buying with those campaign contributions. :sarcasm:

It must be great to be a Cegelis sucker, er, committed supporter.....

Take it with a grain of salt, Will. Mr. Benchley's comments often range from harsh criticism to partisan polemics with a few select Democrats.

Keep up the good work (and skip on down here to help clean up DuPage while you're in the area!). :hi:

they are backing some unknown against a guy who is actually walking house to house for votes...and gaining backing...

It was not about Hackett, it was about how and why.

Here it is happening again in Illinois.

If Lamont gets ANY traction in CT it will happen there as well.

The establishment component of the Democratic party does not want to change. Whether you agree with their ways of promoting candidates or not, the simple fact is they have one belief system in mind when it comes to backing a candidate, and that is they are looking for candidates who will fit entirely into the pretty little bow-tied boxes that say DCCC and DSCC on the front.

Hackett wouldn't, Cegalis won't, Lamont sure as hell won't.

Not only do they want control over soup to nuts, they want to own the kitchen, too.

of the vote the last time and now she`s a loser according to the national party. the same thing is going on in the illinois 14th....just how many states are they fucking with?

I am only contributing to individual campaigns this year, so I know my money is going to candidates who reflect my values.

So glad.

I'm agnostic. I'll be working in that race no matter who wins the primary, but I'm getting worn out by this poor little Christine crap. It's pretty evident that the above have decided that Duckworth is far more likely to win what is still a Republican district, and it's their right to endorse whomever they choose.

1) We like Candidate "x"

2) We'll put all our money, PR, etc. behind Candidate "x'

3) See! - Candidate "x" is now more electable

I must really wonder why the primary can't be played out openly, and THEN let the party come in and help.

By pouring (for lack of a better word) "conventional" DCCC funds into a primary race, it makes it clear that th DCCC finds one candidate more to it's taste, i.e. more willing to play by the DCCC playbook. If, as you say, it is their right to endorse (and it most assuredly is) must that endorsement carry with it such things as Hillary fundraisers? Must an "endorsement" be nothing more than a boatload of cash used to knock a primary opponent out?

I am reminded of the man who lies on the ground with a foot on his windpipe and comes in second in a breathing contest.

Did the "better man" honestly win????

I don't understand why our party can't wait to ruin a good thing. Sorry, but it seems that Will was all for the piling on the bandwagon for Sherrod Brown by "established dems" at Hackett's expense; but now is against it when they support the candidate HE doesn't want.

I know, I know, his candidates are more "progressive."
I'd take a win with Hackett and Duckworth over a couple of losses---we need them.

Duckworth on Iraq: "There is good and bad in every situation."

That's it.

We deserve better than that, veteran or otherwise.

as I believe the public would. Of course, Max Cleland was swiftboated, but
just maybe a gal with her legs blown off might not get the same treatment?


Also, I was pointing out that you were being inconsistent with respect to the fact that you were FOR the Democratic establishment support of Brown, but AGAINST the Democratic establishment support for Duckworth.

Brown and Cegelis fit that mold. Duckworth and Hackett, despite their honorable service, do not, at least not to the degree that Brown and Cegelis do. If that puts me at loggerheads with the DCCC in one race and with them in another, well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Single theme: progressive candidates. Period.

You cannot demand sweeping, liberal, progressive change on one hand, and then demand middle-of-the-road go-along same-as-always candidates because you think they can win on the other.

Pick a side and stick with it.

any good candidate. I have seen it on the local level where it happens a lot.

I stood out on the streets of Springfield, MO(home to the Blunts and Aschrofts), with my NO WAR ON IRAQ sign( well before the Iraq War as well as after) with a handful of protesters, only to find some of them were Nader people. I STILL assign partial blame to them, as Gore was not "progressive" enough for them. None of this nightmare would have happened if Gore had been allowed his rightful place in the WH.

That is why I am more than willing to "settle" for a Hackett(not progressive enough for you) who could win rather than Brown(however progressive) who will most likely NOT win---due, partially, to the way which it went down. The same thing could possibly happen in the IL race as well, only in reverse.
TOO BAD, we think more alike than not, but we seem to eat our own.

if all these doom-and-gloom predictions of Brown's chances actually come true.

They're just based on what some of know (or think we do) about Ohio.

If you either live in or have close contact with southern Ohio you know why there is so much trepidation on our part. At the risk of having someone say "oh, it's no different than <insert particular region of particular state here>" it truly is.

Brown can win if either a) he pulls a huge turnout in the northern part of the state, and the southern folks stay home or b) * totally implodes, and Dems make huge gains everywhere in the country, similar to '94 and the other side.

He just won't win if things stay somewhat status quo and it's a progressive (read: "liberal") vs. a conservative (read: "patriotic American").

I wish I could somehow transport folks down to southern Ohio to meet people like my in-laws and others. My in-laws are college graduates, very successful in the business world, somewhat politically savvy, and Republican. They know what is going wrong in Iraq, and they would have listened to Hackett. They will not, under any circumstance, listen to Brown. They, like tens of thousands of others, needed the "war credibility" that Hackett brought to the table.

I'm as progressive as they next guy, and I really like the positions that Brown stakes out, but the only hope of him unseating Mike Dewine rests on the pitiful shoulders of Bush, Cheney, and the rest.

P.S. I have an order of crow on hand, just in case. I'd be more than happy to eat it come November, but I'm a vegetarian so I'll fake it if need be. :)

So I have had a lifetime (60 years) to study those critters close up here in SWMO.
I agree with what you say, DancingBear. I guess the environment in which we have to live does indeed color our prospective.
I don't intend to speak for Ohio, but I know what wouldn't play here in SWMO, and I guess that is not too different from Southern Ohio. Progressives or Liberals need not apply, unfortunately. I managed to grow up here and defy all the "laws," but that doesn't mean there are enough of us to sway the vote. I have been a liberal all my life and don't intend to change now. I became an active Democrat at age 15, when I walked door to door for J F Kennedy. I have walked many a mile since in lost causes for the Dems here.

His district allows him the ability to bring a progressive viewpoint to the House. Same as Kucinich.

To waste that voice in a flawed Senate attempt by thinking that northern Ohio equals southern Ohio is foolish.

We lose his voice in Congress, and Mike Dewine gets 6 more years to screw Ohioans.

That's where the mother lode of Dem base energy (yes, money) is to be found.

It's not about issues and positions (sorry lefties/Will).

It's about principles and backbone.

She should start challenging Duckworth's new-found-friends (save Boxer) with their failure to stand up on January 6th(s).

She should hitch her wagon to the growing national impeachment movement.

Which reminds me -- gotta get going to the Harper's Magazine NYC event to stoke impeachment.

--
www.january6th.org