DNC Chair Perez criticizes DCCC for negative messaging on LAura Moser in TX-7 Primary

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

[SFnomad]

1. it would help if we had some kind of link to the apparent "hit" n/t

[brooklynite]

11. "National Democrats come out against primary candidate Laura Moser in bid for Culberson's seat"

Texas Tribune

The campaign arm of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives set its sights on a surprising target Thursday: Democratic congressional hopeful Laura Moser.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted negative research on Moser, a Houston journalist vying against six other Democrats in the March 6 primary to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. John Culberson. Democrats locally and nationally have worried that Moser is too liberal to carry a race that has emerged in recent months as one of the most competitive in the country.

The DCCC posting, which features the kind of research that is often reserved for Republicans, notes that Moser only recently moved back to her hometown of Houston and that much of her campaign fundraising money has gone to her husband's political consulting firm. It also calls her a "Washington insider."

But DCCC spokeswoman Meredith Kelly went even further in a statement to The Texas Tribune.

"Voters in Houston have organized for over a year to hold Rep. Culberson accountable and win this Clinton district," Kelly said.

Then, referring to a 2014 Washingtonian magazine piece in which Moser wrote that she would rather have a tooth pulled without anesthesia than move to Paris, Texas, Kelly added: "Unfortunately, Laura Moser’s outright disgust for life in Texas disqualifies her as a general election candidate, and would rob voters of their opportunity to flip Texas’ 7th in November.”

Later Thursday evening, Moser obliquely responded to the allegations on Twitter, quoting former First Lady Michelle Obama: "When they go low, we go high."

Later in the evening, she expanded her comments in a statement.

"We're used to tough talk here in Texas, but it's disappointing to hear it from Washington operatives trying to tell Texans what to do. These kind of tactics are why people hate politics," she said. "The days where party bosses picked the candidates in their smoke filled rooms are over. DC needs to let Houston vote."

"This is a landmark year in Texas and in states all across the country," she added. "We have a real chance to not only flip District 7, but bring some sanity back to Congress and resist the erratic extremism holding our White House hostage."

"It's a lot to ask, and we can't do any of it by throwing mud and tearing each other down. This is not the time to be a house divided."

Until this point, the DCCC so far this cycle has gone to great lengths to avoid the impression it was taking sides in primaries across the country. A Democratic source did point out to the Tribune that the campaign committee made a similar effort in a 2014 California House race.

A former Democratic operative emailed the Tribune suggesting that the posting was intended to signal to allied groups where and how to make paid attacks.

Texas' 7th Congressional District is new offensive territory for Democrats and an ancestral GOP stronghold. But Hillary Clinton carried the district in 2016, and a flood of Democrats soon raced to run for the seat.

Moser's bid has been picking up momentum practically daily. Earlier on Thursday, her campaign announced it had raised nearly $150,000 in the first 45 days of the year. And in recent months she has amassed a massive online following for a first-time Congressional candidate. She is also a favorite interview subject of national publications and women's magazines and has a passionate following among many people who supported U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign in 2016.

This weekend, she is set to host actress and activist Alyssa Milano in the Houston-area district to help get out the vote during early voting.

For months, Democrats in Congress and those who work on campaigns were quietly worried about how Moser would play in a moderate district like the 7th, which encompasses wealthy enclaves of West Houston and stretches out into the suburb of Katy.

Other candidates in the high-profile Democratic primary include cancer researcher Jason Westin; lawyer Lizzie Pannill Fletcher; Alex Triantaphyllis, who runs a Houston nonprofit; senior assistant attorney for the city of Houston James Cargas; former Congressional staffer Ivan Sanchez; and University of Houston development official Joshua Butler.

[SFnomad]

12. Thanks n/t

[Demsrule86]

15. To be fair there is reason to believe she can't win...she has issues. This is a seat we could win.

I don't blame the DCCC...and Perez should not comment on this in my opinion. She is backed by Our Revolution and is considered too liberal to win the general as well...a more moderate candidate could win. That being said, if I lived in Texas I wouldn't vote for her in a primary because Our Revolution backs hers. I don't believe they want Democrats to win...and seem to pick candidates that will surely lose.

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted negative research on Moser, a Houston journalist vying against six other Democrats in the March 6 primary to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. John Culberson. Democrats locally and nationally have worried that Moser is too liberal to carry a race that has emerged in recent months as one of the most competitive in the country."

[NurseJackie]

17. I'd rather have the WIN and a big "D" in our column with a centrist/moderate candidate...

... instead of "bragging rights" for having run the most liberal Vermont-style candidate that can't win in Texas.

[Demsrule86]

19. Hi nurse! I agree. She is backed by Our Revolution too which makes me think she is not a good fit.

[yardwork]

33. Our Revolution amplifies Russian trolls. Same talking points.

[Demsrule86]

34. I have to wonder if some in that organization are Russian trolls.

[yardwork]

36. I'm certain that Putin's money launched and supported Our Revolution.

The purpose is clearly to divide and dishearten Democrats, depressing voter turnout so that Republicans can win.

I don't know whether the employees of Our Revolution are dupes or collaborators. A mix of both, I imagine.

I get their emails. (I never signed up.) Same talking points as the troll farms, week after week.

[Demsrule86]

40. I think so...they invariably support candidate who will lose. For example Moser in Texas will not

win a general.

[NurseJackie]

52. True. Thank you.

[Upthevibe]

22. I agree with you, NurseJackie...

We need to be smart regarding which candidate could best win which district. I would think that TX definitely needs a moderate....

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Common sense is what you like then, I see. Sad that we have to explain that to people.

[quartz007]

51. +1,000,000

[brooklynite]

20. Normally, in extraordinary circumstances, DCCC will endorse a candidate for the Primary

I don't recall them targeting someone to NOT be nominated.

Although Levi Sanders is looking like a possibility/

[Demsrule86]

25. I doubt New Hampshire Democrats will do that. I wouldn't vote for him...he sounds to libertarian and

I don't like the retweeting of the attack on Chelsea. I should say vote for him in a primary...would vote for a spotted owl in a general if there was a 'D' next to his name. I don't think leaking this stuff about her was a great move by the way. But I am sure with finally a chance to win in Texas, they are terrified that an unelectable candidate takes the primary.

[shanny]

2. This will be interesting.

Will there be an attack on Perez now?

[NCTraveler]

6. Will the DCCC return fire?

Will they say something like: "We understand where Perez is coming from but probably wouldn't have said that ourselves."

Where does this great offense go next?

[NCTraveler]

3. What biting criticism.

[still_one]

4. you noticed that also..... "I wouldn't have done it". Wow, what a biting hit

[NCTraveler]

5. There is only one question now.

Will the DCCC be able to recover?

[still_one]

7. .......................................................................

[NurseJackie]

18. Thoughs and prayers.

[NCTraveler]

21. OMG

Literally.

[Wwcd]

8. Oh No! Wtf was he thinking?! Have they called for his resignation yet?

"I wouldn't have done it"

What did he expect the blowback would be with words like that?

"I wouldn't have done it"
Who even says stuff like that..on no!

[GaryCnf]

9. It's easy to mock this

but the fact is that the prior iteration of the DNC would have probably actually lent its support to the DCCC (and many here did), so at least it's something.

[Wwcd]

10. No, it sounds desperate to even make it an issue.

C'mon. Its a stretch
Oye

[GaryCnf]

13. What sounds desperate

is the DCCC being so worried that the voters of TX-7 might not march in lockstep with the political strategy they've been pushing since 1992 -- that has cost us control of EVERYTHING from local dog catcher to the presidency -- that they jumped into the middle of a contested primary with no real frontrunner spouting OPPOSITION RESEARCH which will cripple one candidate in the general if they turn out to be the nominee.

THAT'S desperate.

What's more, it's ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[Wwcd]

14. Sure. Ok.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. I am confused, I thought we all agreed that we want ANY democrat in ANY

seat NO MATTER WHAT because we need to get the NAZIS out first.

Guess not all agree, eh. Too bad, and I know you and I and a few others understand this, but many still dont.

[melman]

60. You clearly are

Because otherwise you would realize that should include Laura Moser. Yet here you are defending the attacks on her.

[KPN]

76. +1! Thank you for saying

what seems obvious.

[melman]

79. It is obvious

As it the agenda at play. Namely to trash anyone deemed 'too left' under the guise of 'supporting any Democrat'.

[KPN]

80. Well, it certainly has the effect of impeding

any movement to the left, especially on economic and labor policy. No substantive gains will be made on income inequality and perhaps too little on global warming until this changes in my view.

Nor does browbeating or casting blame at millennials help. They are a disenchanted and consequently enlightened cohort -- and would rather take over the party than vote for a D just because of the D.

[Demsrule86]

16. What cost us control was Democrats not showing up in midterms which led to a gerrymander and let

me say this...and I hope I am wrong...if Moser wins, she loses the General. And the thing is a different candidate might win. I see little chance for an "our revolution" backed candidate in Texas. I want to take the House which will stop Shitler cold...not promote a certain ideology if it means losing. At this point I don't give a damn about purity...give me warm Democratic bodies who can win.

[GaryCnf]

23. Oh, but there is another "purity" at play here

It's the "purity" of the post-1992 dogma that say elections are won in the middle.

We didn't just start losing seats in 2010. We've been bleeding political power (absent the help of an extraordinary event . . . example >> the transformational candidacy of Barack Obama in 2008, exceptionally strong right-leaning third-party candidates in 1992 and 1996) ever since we 1992. The "it all started with 2010 redistricting" is just more of the "blame the left" movement.

[Demsrule86]

24. Barack Obama did not carry Texas or West Virginia.

The states where he lost have house seats and senate seats not to mention legislative seats and governorships...we should compete for all of them with a candidate tailored to the state or district in order to win...it is the only way we get back in power...being pure but in the minority is meaningless...we get nothing. We only have majority with a big tent that includes moderates. And the Texas seat is winnable...but Nina Turner of Our Revolution would never support a candidate capable of winning it as she is not focused on winning but only ideology.

[Demsrule86]

41. Evidence supports that in at best a center left country statewide elections are won in the middle.

in red or purple states...hell even in some 'liberal' states like Massachusetts. No liberal Democratic presidential candidate has ever been elected...in fact most who tried...like McGovern went down in flames.

[GaryCnf]

45. Dogma

Post-civil rights act tally: Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote, the succession of moderates who ran after him didn't either AND they lost. ONLY Obama, who ran a progressively themed campaign AND spoke directly to the specific needs of our people did both. Running that same theme lost us control of EVERYTHING and all you can come up with is McGovern? -- who, btw was intentionally destroyed by our own party elites.

[Demsrule86]

68. Obama did not run a progressive campaign. He ran from the middle.

And we are talking about states...red states not a national election.

[GaryCnf]

69. Sure he did

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/01/28/the-choice-6

[GaryCnf]

70. Hard to accept isn't it?

Looking back is tough.

[Demsrule86]

73. I worked for pres. Obama. He was not as liberal as I am.

You are kidding yourself if you think we will elect liberal candidates in places like Texas or West Virginia ...we can elect centrist and they are entirely better than Republicans...sorry the 16 meme that center right candidates are not needed for state wide or even national elections was ruined because we learned that the 16 election was hacked basically...which throws all the Sarandono and our revolution assumptions out the window. Consider the most liberal candidate running was not the nominee.

Pres. Obama was not particularly liberal, but I love the guy and worked hard to elect him. I don't have to agree on every issue with a candidate. I will work equally hard for whomever is the 20 presidential candidate. I am not willing to lose elections as we did when candidates like McGovern ran...it is a center left country...I am not thrilled about it either, but facts are stubborn things...so lets take our blinders off and field candidates who can win. Being 100% liberal in the minority means we get nothing.

[GaryCnf]

74. Blinders?

You mean the ones that block the view of 1100 lost Democratic seats? The ones that allow their wearer to call 1992 and 1996 "turning points" when all they prove is that we can field a candidate who CAMPAIGNED on putting black kids in federal prison with minimum mandatories and ending federal assistance for needy adults and STILL not win without a strong right wing third-party candidate in the race?

Do you mean, the ones people wear when they say the equivalent of "I knew Jack Kennedy and you sir are no Jack Kennedy" while acting like Obama's liberal social justice CAMPAIGN never happened as they talk instead about how he governed?

As for "memes" do you mean the charade where we act like the undeniable facts that; (1) Russia stole votes from our candidate; (2) GOPer voter suppression stole them too; and (3) Comey broke our momentum means we should not demand answers for a middle of the road campaign that left 60,000 people who look like me sitting home in Wayne County Michigan and act like all the GOP bullshit meant that campaign also never happened? I spent much of 2016 on the ground in urban communities trying to convince folks that our party cared enough about them that we should still come out to vote just like we did in 2008 and 2012 and, while it may not fit what some are trying to sell, it wasn't Russia, or Comey, or even voter suppression (because we had to fight through that to vote for Obama) that kept us home. It was the return to the same old pre-Obama message while we were literally staring right down the barrels of Trumpsters' guns.

Blinders indeed.

[KPN]

78. Say what?!

[KPN]

77. Exactly.

[lapucelle]

29. The DCCC is probably more concerned about the fact

that Moser's husband's political consulting firm (Revolution Messaging) has received over $50,000 in fees from her campaign. Her husband (who was Obama's videographer during his first term) was hired by Revolution Messaging in 2012. He was made a partner of the Washington-based firm in 2013

In November 2014, Moser wrote the following in Washingtonian:

Do you know what you get for the premium you pay for living here in our nation's capital? Access to an unparalleled array of (mostly free) cultural attractions, the company of interesting multilingual neighbors, walkable public transportation, the luxury of browsing the Bill of Rights during your lunch break, and excellent restaurants. That's not good enough for you? Then move.

On my pathetic writer's salary, I could live large in Paris, Texas, where my grandparents' plantation-style house recently sold for $129,000.

Oh, but wait-my income would be a fraction of what it is here and I'd have very few opportunities to increase it. (Plus I'd sooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia, but that's a story for another day.)

Living in a city, especially one with as many big-money job possibilities as this one, comes with a heavy surcharge-that's just the way it goes.

The article made Moser sound like a Washington elitist looking to advance her career and return/remain in DC at a higher salary. Voters might think that she recently moved back to Texas just to run for this congressional seat because she and her husband still benefit from the Homestead Tax Exemption, a condition of which is that the property is the principal residence (domicile) of the owner/applicant.

It's better that the DCCC put this information out before the primary. If thr voters still elect her to be the Democratic nominee at least they were fully informed voters, and the party got ahead of these potentially damaging circumstances. Those are probably good things.

[GaryCnf]

30. So Democrats releasing

opposition research on primary opponents is now a good thing?

[gabeana]

31. I know I was thinking the same thing

as I was reading all the threads justifying the action

[lapucelle]

48. The basic details of a candidate's biography are not oppo research. N/T

[lapucelle]

32. How is this "opposition research"?

The content of the articles the candidate wrote, her husband's job, and their place of residence isn't "opposition research". It's part of the first-time candidate's biography.

The DCCC's mandate is to put a Democrat in this congressional seat in November. It's up to the primary voters of this Texas district to decide whether or not the information should impact their decision.

Any first-time candidate (with no public record on which to run) who expects to be protected from the broad public details of his or her own life needs to be better prepared for the realities of a campaign for office.

[GaryCnf]

42. How is it not?

[lapucelle]

46. It's the candidate's actual publicly-known biography.

There's no research involved.

Even her well-edited Wiki page (no mention is made of her work for the Washingtonian or her husband's profession post 2011) acknowledges that she moved to Texas from Washington in 2017 in order to run for office.

[NCTraveler]

35. Vetting is a good idea.

Primaries aren’t a moment for a drum circle.

[Demsrule86]

39. Emily's list is backing another candidate. I trust them way more than Our Revolution. I think they

want Democrats to lose in many cases.

[GaryCnf]

43. Where do I remember hearing

about "vetting" and how did that vetting work out for us in the general election?

[lapucelle]

49. It's not our party's fault that the press and the Republicans

did such a poor job of vetting Trump and did not take our candidate's and our government's warnings about Russian interference seriously.

[GaryCnf]

50. That's not the vetting

I was talking about. It was the "vetting" that tore down OUR candidates.

[lapucelle]

54. Our candidate more than passed the vetting process.

Those who targeted her were not "vetting" her. They were serving their personal, professional, or political agendas. Paul Krugman even warned us about what was happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

[GaryCnf]

55. Your still not getting it

All the venom, all the so-called "vetting" which in reality was nothing more than appealing to emotion and instinct instead of reason was used by a carnival barker to divide us.

Unfortunately some of us can't stop.

[lapucelle]

57. I'm glad you agree that Trump was not vetted,

and that, despite having been vetted, our candidate was a victim of venom whose purpose was to divide us and insure a Trump victory.

I'm not sure what you're sorry you and others can't stop doing, but I am sure it is, as you say, unfortunate.

[GaryCnf]

58. Saying Trump and vetted

In the same sentence is practically sacrilege. Even the slightest innuendo that Trump can even spell vett, much less that he experienced it would bring down thunderbolts from Olympus.

I will not refight the primaries by engaging in a discussion of what passed for "vetting" back then or who engaged in it.

I will, however, totally agree that it would have hurt ANY nominee and that, as Secretary Clinton was our nominee, it hurt her both badly and unfairly.

As for the sad attempts by some to justify the plumber-worthy sliming of every left leaning candidate NOW, no one is buying them.

[lapucelle]

59. The media spent 24 years "vetting" HRC.

She was vetted as the First Lady of Arkansa. She was vetted by various Republican-led investigations when she was FLOTUS. She was vetted by the NY press before both of her Senate runs, vetted by the Congress before her confirmation as SOS, vetted in 7 Benghazi probes, vetted by the FBI concerning her email server, and vetted to the point of abject scrutiny of any and all of the details of her private and public lives by the national press in 2016.

A friend once said to me, "either HRC does actually rule the world, is the most brilliant and elusive criminally corrupt genius to have ever walked the earth, or is clean.

I opt for clean.

[GaryCnf]

62. You speak truth my friend

Saying our candidate was not vetted is as outrageous as saying Trump was. Furthermore to say those years of so-called "vetting" yielded a single reason for a thinking person to not support her borders on absurd.

However, to deny that those years of false, but even more importantly, irrelevant attacks hurt her, just as the irrelevant attacks on one candidate in TX-7 will hurt her if she gets the nomination, is whistling past our post-1992 political graveyard of lost power.

[Demsrule86]

37. No they want to win and this candidate has said bad things about Texas and paid consulting fees

to her husband's company which the GOP can hammer her with...and she is to liberal for the district in Texas. They have a chance to win and want to win.

Emily's list has supported Fletcher because they don't believe Moser can win...and Fletcher is a great candidate who has doesn't have issues the GOP can hammer her on.

“As a senior in high school, she linked arms with hundreds of other Houstonians to keep protesters out and a Planned Parenthood clinic open. Since then, she became a lawyer to help those in need and co-founded the Planned Parenthood Young Leaders program to get the next generation involved,” reads a statement from the group."

And she has local roots too...the question is why would Our Revolution back a candidate like Moser when a candidate like Fletcher is available...this is why I will never support Our Revolution...and Perez is just trying to make nice with them...which is not possible as our revolution hates Democrats and it just seems to me they are trying to lose the seat.


"

[GaryCnf]

44. While we should all stand behind PP

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't win us elections in red states.

[Demsrule86]

64. Neither will a person that has made disparging remarks about Texas and paid

$50,000 to her husband business. How is that any different than what Republicans do? And she won't win the district.

[Demsrule86]

71. Neither will this candidates views...she is an our revolution candidate.

[melman]

61. She has not said bad things about Texas

[Demsrule86]

63. Yes she did and she paid quite a bit of campaign money to her husbands consulting firm.

"Central to the DCCC's case against Moser is a 2014 Washingtonian article in which she wrote that she'd "sooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia" than live in Paris, Texas. The committee feared the article was ready-made for scathing attack ads casting Moser as a DC-loving, Texas-loathing carpetbagger --

In fact The DCCC reports the amount she paid her husband's business was $50,000 in 17. That would mean one in six campaign dollars go to her husbands firm. I think that is unacceptable and the GOP will win if she is the nominee.



https://www.texastribune.org/2018/03/02/analysis-texas-dan-patrick-kel-seliger-pols-behind-curtain/
https://dccc.org/races/laura-moser/

[melman]

65. Perhaps you haven't heard

but Texas is a very large state. Not wanting to live in Paris doesn't mean she hates Texas.

[Demsrule86]

66. It will be used against her. Also, now it is fine to give 50,000 to your husband...how is that

different than pocketing the money? I want someone who can win a general.

[loyalsister]

28. In my experience supporting a healthy primary

is a sign of strength and integrity. The DCCC is showing neither with this attack.

[Demsrule86]

38. Not if you pick the wrong candidate and you lose.

Moser is running against a great local candidate named Fletcher...who has a chance to win a general which Moser will not be able to do.

[loyalsister]

47. If that is true and there is a consensus

The candidate who can win the general will win the primary. More likely, it is simply an opinion and there are supporters of each candidate who will be heard in the primary. Trust voters!

[Demsrule86]

67. I don't trust our revolution who fields candidates that have no chance in many cases.

[grantcart]

53. Laura Moser, mother of 2 serial killers? (Dexter reference)

[Gothmog]

56. Moser was at Thursday meeting of the Harris County Lawyers Association

The DCCC screwed up

[NCTraveler]

72. I wouldn't have done this op. That's just me. nt.

[GaryCnf]

75. Lol