They win.
The latest Democratic junkyard dog was Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC or D-Triple-C if you live inside the Beltway) for the 2006 election and is a rising star behind the scenes in the DLC. His name is Rahm Emanuel, and he's been called the purest no-holds-barred political animal in America. In a Salon review of a book about him, Chicago reporter Ed McClelland says he "comes off as one of the most colorful, driven and profane Washington characters since Lyndon Johnson". That may not be hyperbole.
At a Clinton victory dinner in Little Rock in 1992, Emanuel celebrated by reciting a hoped-for necrology of Democrats who had "fucked" the president-elect. After every name, he stabbed a steak knife into a table and screamed, "Dead man!"McClelland appears to be an admirer of Emanuel's down-and-dirty style.
Election Night 2002 was a gloomy watch for Democrats. Their party, led by a pair of innocuous Midwestern Main Streeters, Richard Gephardt and Thomas Daschle, lost control of the Senate and lost seats in the House, sinking to its lowest ebb since the Roaring '20s. Smug right-wing pundits predicted the Democrats were on their way to joining the Whigs in the ashcan of American political parties.That's what junkyard dogs do. They win and they don't much care what they have to do to make it happen. That's their function and that's why we need them.
It was a different story in Illinois. The Democrats won everything. They took the governorship for the first time in 30 years. They captured the state Senate. This despite running a ticket made up of ward bosses' children and in-laws. I remember sitting on my couch in Chicago and thinking, "If the Democrats want to turn it around, they need to take some lessons from the machine around here. Chicago Democrats have no scruples. They treat political offices as feudal inheritances. They shake down contributors like a corrupt pope selling indulgences. They're sleazy, they're arrogant … and they WIN."
But you don't let them govern. You don't let them make policy. In fact, you keep them as far away from the levers of power as possible because they're as likely to embarrass you - or turn on you - as not. They're dangerous, and they have to be controlled or you'll lose three times as often as you win. They're two-edged swords, and for every friend of theirs who puts money in your coffers there will be two enemies waiting to slit your throat.
On the basis of his highly-touted wins, Emanuel gets to play power-broker, policy-maker and kingmaker. He meets regularly with Al Frum and calls Bill Clinton several times a week to "talk strategy". He has read the riot act to Howard Dean over Dean's 50-state strategy.
When Emanuel and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York met with Dean to ask him to shift money to congressional races, Emanuel mocked the former Vermont governor as a political lightweight from a tiny, rural, homogenous state. "No disrespect, but some of us are arrogant enough, we come from Chicago, we think we know what it means to knock on a door," Bendavid quotes Emanuel as telling Dean. Emanuel "slammed his hand on the table," then continued his tirade: "Look, Chuck comes from Brooklyn. I come from Chicago. It ain't Burlington, Vermont. Now, we understand that Burlington knows a lot about grassroots politics and we know nothing. I know your field plan -- it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There's no plan, Howard."Nobody told him to cool it, nobody told him to lay off, and nobody explained the genius of Dean's planning. Instead, they patted him on the back and repeated the story with admiration for how "tough" Emanuel is.
Well, after 30 years of Democratic wusses afraid to talk back to Republicans, it would make sense that Emanuel's take-no-prisoners approach felt like a breath of fresh air. The problem is that that freshness is all illusion. And his "victories" are mostly PR illusions as well.
A junkyard dog is supposed to win. That's what makes him valuable. But Emanuel made a lot of mistakes. In point of fact, he lost more elections than he won. Illinois campaign activist Ray Koltys writes:
Here in the Illinois 10th, we are a bit unhappy that Rahm saw fit to parachute in and finance Tammy Duckworth over in the 6th. He offended local dems, who had been supporting Christine Cegelis, who had been making headway in her several attempts at the seat, and pissed away a lot of money to prop up a candidate who didn't really have much presence in front of a microphone, and ended up losing big time.And Koltys isn't alone. Another Democratic activist summed it up this way:
Meanwhile, in the 10th, Rahm gave virtually NO money to Dan Seals, an energetic challenger to Rahm's schoolmate, Republican Mark Kirk. Despite limited resources, Seals built an organization (of which I was a small part), campaigned his butt off, and came incredibly close to beating a milquetoast incumbent in a historically Republican district with 47% to Kirk's 53%.
1. Overwhelmingly, the electorate listed Iraq as the most important issue in 2006. Up until September of 2006, Rahm was telling Democrats NOT TO TALK ABOUT IRAQ. Only when they noticed that opposition to Bush's Iraq policy made a candidates numbers go up, did Rahms Democrats start talking about it. So - not exactly a message genius there.Emanuel is now Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, a powerful leadership position and precisely NOT the place you want a junkyard dog. He's helping to fashion the DLC's next campaign platform and sitting in on strategy sessions.
2. If you look at the 25 candidates on Rahm's "Red to Blue" list - the races he thought the Dems could win, and where he wanted to pour ALL the money - only 13 Dems on that list won. The rest of the Dem pickups were grassroots, netroots populists and progressives who had been first opposed by Rahm, and were then ignored by the DCCC.
3. Rahm poured MILLIONS and MILLIONS into races on his list that were eventually lost: Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Darcy Burner in WA, Patricia Madrid in New Mexico.
If Rahm had gotten his own ego out of the way, looked at the polls, and put even a fraction of that money into netroots candidates that the DCCC ignored - like Larry Kissel in North Carolina, Victoria Wulsin in Ohio, Charles Brown in CA - The Democrats could have picked up another 5 or 6 seats in 2006.
And why not? If losing more elections than you won kept you off the DLC team, none of them would have the positions they hold. Losing a lot but focusing only on the few wins is the unacknowledged pattern they all share.
Next: Show Me the Money
12 comments:
I suggest you go look at Rahm's recent statements about corruption and Iraq to see if he's progressive enough for you. We need somebody to help Pelosi herd cats in the House. Emanuel is the consummate political infighter. Like him or not there's nobody better suited for scaring the bejesus out of Repubs and Blue Dogs to get Democratic legislation passed.
The man raised $120 million for Democratic candidates in 2006 compared to the netroots' $20 million. He expanded the list of DCCC supported candidates out to 4 tiers. He spent all he raised and borrowed more. Larry Kissell won Rahm's DCCC contest in September getting a phenomenal 1000 supporters out on one Saturday to doorknock. He got his own personal fundraising email to the whole DCCC list as the prize. Duckworth came in second with 700. No offense to Seals but how many did he get out that day?
The only criticism I have for Emanuel is the lousy commericals the DCCC ad shop made for Duckworth. They were off target and backfired. In fairness to him he said (as did the Repub RNCC leaders) that once they turn over the money to the ad shops neither they nor the candidates were allowed by law to direct the ad strategy. Whoever hired the clowns who thought banning Dr. Suess would play and guns in schools were what this election was all about ought to be fired.
As for the 6th I volunteered for Tammy Duckworth. Your criticisms of her are just plain wrong and unwarranted. Rahm didn't recruit her, Durbin did. She only agreed to run when he promised her he'd help get her the money and staff she'd need to win both the primary and general. He got Hillary and Kerry to pony up $250,000 each for the primary commercials with Obama. And then he brought Emanuel in.
She was a great candidate. She personally outraised Roskam by over a million dollars, $4.5 million to $3.4 million. She kicked his butt in the debates. In the end Repubs outspent her $10 million to $7 million and flew in hundreds of DC operatives they desperately needed elsewhere. Nat'l. Repubs spent more to defeat her than they spent against Jim Webb for the VA Senate seat. She lost by 1.9%.
In comparison Cegelis spent all of $186,938 in 2004 to Hyde's $804,000
and closed out her 2006 campaign in
June having spent $327,000. That was after running nonstop for a year and half after she lost in '04.
Even after running that long she drew two, not one opponents for the primary, both ostensibly to the right of her and lost to a candidate who'd only declared and started putting together an organization 4 months before.
Her vaunted groundgame apparently never showed up on primary day. I canvassed in 4 or 5 towns that day and only saw one Cegelis doorhanger. She never would have been competitive in the expensive Chicago media market for the general.
That last weekend in November Tammy had a very good Iraq ad that would have helped not only her but all candidates in the Chicago TV market. The only place I ever saw it was on YouTube because she didn't have any more money to run it.
Emanuel supposedly had a deal with Dean for the DNC to borrow $10 million and send it to candidates that last weekend. Dean ended election day with $6 million still in the bank. If that's what Carville was complaining about he has a point. Winning elections are the reason the DNC and DCCC exist. Building the party means getting precinct workers to knock on doors in November in tight races. Holding back to hire operatives in the spring in Paducah might pay off in elections to come but that wasn't going to help us take more seats in '06.
markg8:
I suggest you go look at Rahm's recent statements about corruption and Iraq to see if he's progressive enough for you.
I don't give a damn what he says, I care what he does. What good is a progressive rap he's going to sell down the river for the sake of corporate donations? Which is what he does. Why don't you go look up some of the promises he made to all those corporations in order to raise all that money you're so awed by?
Emanuel is the consummate political infighter. Like him or not there's nobody better suited for scaring the bejesus out of Repubs and Blue Dogs to get Democratic legislation passed.
Like I said, he's a junkyard dog. That's his value. But being an infighter and a fund-raiser doesn't mean he should be making policy. Actually, it probably means the opposite. If raising a lot of money means more to you than what you're raising the money for - what you want to win to do - I suggest you'd be happier as a Republican.
So would Rahm and so would most of the rest of the DLC, including Hillary.
As for the 6th I volunteered for Tammy Duckworth. Your criticisms of her are just plain wrong and unwarranted.
Those aren't my criticisms. They're someone else's. That was a quote. You don't agree, take it up with him.
But whatever the individual stories, the facts are:
1) More than half his candidates lost. That's not a great track record.
2) He misread what the election was about, and it wasn't exactly a secret. In fact, telling his candidates not to talk about Iraq, in effect to pretend that it wasn't an issue, was a mistake of monumental proportions. It's also a clue as to what Emanuel is really about. I think the speculation that it cost the Dems 5 or 6 seats is conservative.
3) He ignored grass-roots candidates who weren't DLC-approved - iow, they wouldn't shut up about Iraq. Many of them won anyway, of course, even without D3C $$$ BECAUSE THE ELECTION WAS ABOUT IRAQ.
4) In fairness to him he said (as did the Repub RNCC leaders) that once they turn over the money to the ad shops neither they nor the candidates were allowed by law to direct the ad strategy.
This is such bullshit. Show me the law that says that. The ad companies run the ad campaigns without input from the candidates? That's insane. And you believe it?
Doesn't it tell you something that Rahm is parroting the very same horseshit excuse the RNC used? Give moi une break.
Emanuel has his uses but they're undercut by his ego, his conservatism, his corporate stooginess, and his lousy judgment. He needs to be put on a leash.
A tight one.
All attack dogs need to be kept on a leash. As evidence of that show me one bill Pelosi is letting Emanuel write. What good progressive legislation has he sold down the river for the sake of corporate donations? Can you name any? Keep an eye on him, sure but
I'm not gonna damn him for something he's not doing just because a lot of netroots people or Cegelis supporters have it in for him.
I'm happy there are rich people in this country, even CEOs of some large corporations that believe in Democratic principles. I'm glad he got into their boardrooms and country clubs and tapped them. I've seen reports that say several Bush Rangers and Pioneers are contributing to Dem presdiential candidates now. I'm glad those guys are finally getting what modern Republican rule is doing to this country.
Those aren't my criticisms. They're someone else's. That was a quote. You don't agree, take it up with him.
You cite him positively to bolster your point you own him as far as I'm concerned.
The facts are the political landscape back when he was recruiting candidates in 2005 was much different than what it was on election day. His lone criteria was could the prospect raise his/her own money. When the DCCC was expected to raise about 2/3 of what
the NRCC was that's incredibly important. When he raised almost as much as they did he expanded DCCC supported candidates out to 4 tiers. Larry Kissell as I cited above did get money from the DCCC. His whole schtick was running his campaign on a shoestring ala Wellstone.
From the Trib article by Naftali Bendavid "The House that Rahm Built":
"In January 2005, when Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asked Emanuel to head the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, experts predicted that the party would take perhaps three seats."
...
"Democrats had a history of appeasing party constituencies. Emanuel tore up the old litmus tests on abortion and other issues. With techniques that would make a Big Ten football coach blush, he recruited candidates who could mount tough challenges in some of the reddest patches of America."
...
"Bill Paxon, a former New York congressman who held Emanuel's job for the Republicans when they seized the House in 1994, explained the unforgiving math.
"Unlike a lot of things in government where there is compromise, there is only one result--you either win or you lose--and you are judged on that," Paxon said. "You can look at fundraising, candidate recruitment and other things, but they are meaningless. The only thing that matters is if you win or lose.""
...
"For all his forcefulness, Emanuel was not responsible for the political climate, either the failing war or the sex and corruption scandals racking the Republican Party. But with creative recruiting, unremitting fundraising and a national message, he positioned the Democrats to exploit that collapse."
...
"Emanuel's demands were specific. Democratic challengers, for instance, had to raise $320,000 by March 31." (After a year and a half Cegelis had less than $200,000 in the bank on primary day 3/21)
...
"With astounding speed, Republicans found themselves out of sync with the voters, falling from grace in nearly unprecedented fashion. Emanuel did not know that would happen any more than anyone else did. His goal at the outset had been simply to win more seats than expected."
...
"Most stressful for Emanuel was his lack of control over certain decisions. Campaign finance laws required him to create an "independent expenditures" group to oversee the vast majority of Democratic TV ads. Its independence was limited because it was run by John Lapp, who had spent much of the campaign as Emanuel's top aide. But Emanuel had to dump half the $120 million he had raised into the group's coffers, with no say over how it was spent."
And as for talking about Iraq, how could you avoid it? Duckworth predicated every comment on Iraq by saying it was a mistake. We should have stayed after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
As for being conservative go check his votes, go check the speeches he's proud enough to post on his website. He may be a DLCer like both Clintons but he's one of the more liberal ones.
As evidence of that show me one bill Pelosi is letting Emanuel write.
That's not a leash. A leash is when you keep the dog away from policy-making, and they're not. The wins of a few of Rahm's DLC-approved candidates has given him access to DLC movers-and-shakers and a loud voice in the counsels. This is a BAD idea.
What good progressive legislation has he sold down the river for the sake of corporate donations? Can you name any?
That's what the next post is about. Answers will have to wait til then.
I'm happy there are rich people in this country, even CEOs of some large corporations that believe in Democratic principles.
There aren't that many. Please try not to be too naive. The majority being tapped are Republicans expecting a return on their investments, and Emanuel has promised they'll get it. Like this:
I've seen reports that say several Bush Rangers and Pioneers are contributing to Dem presdiential candidates now.
I mean, come on, Mark. Doesn't that tell you anything? Doesn't that suggest pretty clearly what's going on? They're hearing what they want to hear, and it ain't a liberal message.
(There's more coming - eventually - about the DLC's undermining of proposed worker health-and-safety legislation, the part they played in welform reform, their support for cutting funds for low-income housing, and on and on and on. This is NOT a union-friendly group, this is NOT a group that has any intention of fighting or even obstructing illegal, anti-employee actions by corporations, nor is it a group much focused on issues like habeus corpus or fair trade. It's a conservative group of Blue Dogs, and it's running the party. Emanuel fits right in.)
You cite him positively to bolster your point you own him as far as I'm concerned.
I didn't endorse them. Half of the reason I added them was to illustrate the attitudes of the activists who don't like him. But the other half was agreement, and re-reading the post I didn't make it clear where I drew the line, so I accept your characterization. I own him. But defending him would take too long, so that's going to have to wait, too.
The quotes:
Bendavid is a fan. His book (even McClelland, another fan, acknowledges it) accepts and defends Emanuel's version of events, top to bottom. You need to bring a little skepticism to anything he says.
"Democrats had a history of appeasing party constituencies. Emanuel tore up the old litmus tests on abortion and other issues. With techniques that would make a Big Ten football coach blush, he recruited candidates who could mount tough challenges in some of the reddest patches of America."
And who were they? Ex-Republicans, conservative Democrats, war-supporters, tax-cut supporters, and anti-unionists, like the Democratic party needs more of those.
As if to prove my point, you then quote Pub Bill Paxon on winning and fund-raising and still you don't get the connection. Why do you think Republican admiration for his tactics and motives is a Good Thing? Hasn't it occurred to you that they like him because he's one of them??
Its independence was limited because it was run by John Lapp, who had spent much of the campaign as Emanuel's top aide. But Emanuel had to dump half the $120 million he had raised into the group's coffers, with no say over how it was spent."
We have a HUGE problem here. A short campaign-law primer:
Unless there has been a recent change in the law of which I'm not aware, there is no - repeat NO - restriction on a candidate/party campaign committee producing campaign ads. There is a restriction such as you describe but it applies ONLY to 521-C's.
Those are independent groups that are supposed to be non-partisan (or at least technically untied to a particular party's machinery) and who produce campaign ads on issues (MoveOn.org, for example). They aren't allowed to support a specific candidate or have any input from candidates or party functionaries. The Republicans' legal challenges to MoveOn.org are based on their charges that there was collusion with Democrats.
If Emanuel's "top aide" was in charge of running a 521-C's ad campaign, that's already ethically questionable. If Rahm was funneling money from D3C coffers to a 521-C, that may very well have been illegal.
If, to give him the benefit of the doubt, the ads were for D3C and had the requisite "Paid for by" tag, then there was no reason he couldn't have his top aide doing them, and no reason he couldn't have a ton of input. In that case, the whole thing is a Pub-style red herring excuse for the failure of the ad campaign.
Either way, your boy doesn't come off looking very good.
As for being conservative go check his votes, go check the speeches he's proud enough to post on his website. He may be a DLCer like both Clintons but he's one of the more liberal ones.
*sigh*
I shouldn't have to explain this to a grown-up, but read the previous post on Harold Ford's recent attempt to "build bridges" between the DLC and its growing opposition within the Democratic party.
The party base has had it with the DLC's Republican-Lite agenda, and they're breaking away. The speeches, the letters, the public statements from DLC-ers that suddenly sound progressive after a decade-and-a-half when they were anything but, are window-dressing. They're desperately trying to maintain control of the party machinery and policies by preventing a break-away - or, just as bad, a refusal to involve itself - of the activist base.
You can only look at what a politician - any politician - says before you have to put it up against what they do. Apply that standard to Rahm and you get a faux-progressive talker up against a guy who recruits and backs exclusively conservative candidates and supports primarily corporate-freindly agendas.
If Emanuel ever takes, say, an anti-corporate stand on an issue of significance that might actually hurt his ability to raise money from the corporatocracy he's in bed with, I'll reconsider my assessment.
Frankly, I doubt that will be necessary.
Do you know the Atlantica online Gold, in the game you need the Atlantica Gold. it can help you increase your level. My friends always asked me how to buy Atlantica online Gold, i do not know he spend how much money to buy the Atlantica online money, when i see him in order to play the game and search which the place can buy the cheap Atlantica online Gold . i also happy with him.
I do not know why I was very like to play the EVE, so I need eve isk and the eve gold , do you know the eve online isk.
they are like me and tell me anything about them wakfu kamas, I know wakfu gold. one of my friend likes to go to play buy wakfu kamas, I can not stand praising the land and the nature wakfu money , It makes us to be wakfu kama.
I am so happy to get some aion kina from my friends. They know I need aion online kina, they give me. So I always can get some aion gold from my friends. I buy aion kina with my spare money. It makes me happy that I can still earn some cheap aion kina.
A thoughtful opinion and ideas I will use on my website. You’ve obviously spent a lot of time on this. Well done!Sony Ericsson Mobiles Phones
I truly comprehend that the tips presented is strongly related absolutely everyone . Best wishes .
plano locksmiths
Locksmith Nashville
Locksmith Union City CA
Locksmith Santa Clara
Locksmith Santa Clara
Locksmith Santa Clara
Santa Clara locksmith
Locksmith Santa Clara
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Locksmith Schaumburg
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Schaumburg Locksmith
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Locksmith Schaumburg
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
Locksmith Schaumburg
Locksmith Schaumburg
Schaumburg Locksmith
Locksmith Schaumburg IL
locksmith hialeah
fort worth locksmith
I truly acknowledge that the tips supplied is connected to just about every person . Regards .
locksmith Naperville IL
Plantation FL Locksmith
Locksmith Union City CA
Locksmith RedwoodCity
RedwoodCity locksmith
RedwoodCity locksmith
Locksmith RedwoodCity
RedwoodCity locksmith
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan IL
Waukegan Locksmith
Waukegan Locksmith
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan IL
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan
Locksmith Waukegan IL
locksmith miami fl
locksmith fort worth texas
fort worth locksmiths
fort worth locksmiths
locksmith fort worth texas
Aventura FL locksmith
fort worth locksmiths
locksmith fort worth texas
fort worth locksmiths
locksmith fort worth texas
<a href="http://jarvis1richards.insanejournal.com/4374
Sometimes, that's how politics is being played by officials (dirty). But not with Emergency Locksmiths in Bournemouth who are there 24 by 7 to cater your locksmith needs.
Sad but true, that politicians of today think of the power and money they will get once they are on a seat. It's been arrange that way for quite a while now to the succeeding official and I don't know when it will be change.
- Botox Michigan
Said was wonderful, really the best site! Liked by the way best described 2011 Nike soccer cleats . Prefer the Nike mercurial soccer cleats
Post a Comment