Defend Progressive Front-Runner Against Beltway Betrayal

[Kevin Spidel]

APPEAL TO PDA ACTIVISTS: DEFEND PROGRESSIVE FRONT-RUNNER AGAINST BELTWAY BETRAYAL
Henry Hyde, arch conservative congressman, was pushed into retirement by the 2004 grassroots campaign of Christine Cegelis. Cegelis came closer to defeating Hyde than anyone in his 32 years in Congress, earning 44.2% of the vote in this traditionally Republican district. She is now the front runner for his open seat, against a former staff aide to Tom Delay, Peter Roskam. Roskam's positions are farther to the right than Hyde's.

You might expect Beltway Democrats to be lining up enthusiastically behind Cegelis in this great opportunity to capture a Chicago suburban area Congressional seat. Instead, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has recruited a candidate to oppose Cegelis for the Democratic nomination.

The reason Party bosses are opposing Cegelis is they fear another independent progressive in Congress. Cegelis is a progressive Democrat: she’s anti-war, pro-choice, pro-renewable energy and opposes NAFTA-like trade deals. She supports a definite timetable for the quick and safe withdrawal of troops. The DCCC prefers candidates who are centrist and pro-business, and they want their recruits to be veterans who are moderate on the war.

PDA members should not tolerate this insulting and counterproductive attack on Cegelis. It is an attack on the progressive potential of the Democratic Party. Cegelis has a realistic chance to add another Democratic seat to our Congress. We urge you to go all out for Cegelis. Yesterday PDA officially endorsed Cegelis, and the most helpful thing we can do right now is give to Cegelis generously and immediately to propel her to victory in the March primary. Click here to donate.

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

MORE ON THIS BETRAYAL
To block Cegelis, the DCCC drafted an Iraq war veteran, Tammy Duckworth. Duckworth has never been involved in political activity, and has never lived in the district. The only basis for Duckworth's candidacy is that she is an Army Reserves member who lost both her legs in Iraq. Duckworth’s most notable comment on the war is that there is good and bad in everything. She echoes President Bush’s views on a timetable. She is running, not against the war, but as a symbol of patriotism.

Behind the scenes, the Beltway bosses have put every obstacle in front of Cegelis: they have pressured people listed as her contributors, they have called her volunteers to plant rumors about her candidacy, and they have turned the Party establishment, which had endorsed her in 2004, away from her.

Cegelis doesn’t deserve this scandalous treatment. She is an experienced, grassroots campaigner. She recruited an army of volunteers and she never stopped campaigning after her near upset victory in 2004. And she is the stronger candidate to win in November.

HELP CEGELIS
PDA supporters are urged to go all out to help Christine Cegelis, not only to elect an outstanding candidate, but also to show the Beltway Democrats that their effort to block progressives within the party won't be tolerated. We must help raise significant funds for her, to offset the heavy Democratic spending that's been promised against her. Please send whatever you can afford, whether it's $15, $50, $500, or the maximum $2100. Click here and give on-line.

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

This is probably the most important political contribution you can make in the current election cycle. With the help of PDA supporters, Cegelis will win the primary and go on to defeat Tom Delay's former staffer in November. The alternative -- letting an unqualified, inexperienced candidate become the Democratic nominee for this open seat -- would result in a Democratic defeat in November, with Tom Delay getting an additional seat in Congress, one that he will personally control.

[Kevin Spidel]

1. Our Endorsement - Article by William Rivers Pitt

PDA Endorses Third Candidate: Christine Cegelis from Illinois District 6
By William Rivers Pitt

January 12, 2006--District Six in Illinois, Rep. Henry Hyde's former seat, is up for grabs in 2006. Several candidates have thrown their hats into the ring, but one candidate stands out above all. Christine Cegelis, single mother of two, pushed Hyde into early retirement with her run in 2004 by gaining 44% of the vote in this district that is supposedly unwinnable for Democrats. In 2006, Cegelis is running again, and this time she fully intends to win.

Christine Cegelis is a progressive to be admired. She speaks eloquently of her opposition to the Iraq occupation, and of the need for the United States to join the global community by joining the community of nations in support of the Kyoto Protocol. The issues closest to her political heart, the issues that matter most to the sixth district, center on job creation and the establishment of a robust economy for her constituents.

"I listened to my sons and their friends when they came out of college," says Cegelis, "heard about all the debt they were carrying and how hard it was to find jobs. All the jobs that young people can take in areas like Information Technology are being outsourced. We are heading in the wrong direction economically."

"I have always believed," says Cegelis, "that you are supposed to hand over the country to your children in better shape than you received it. We are not doing that. I went to a state college and worked a minimum wage job for $2.50 an hour. Even with that small wage, I was able to afford an apartment, a car, tuition and books, and was able to graduate in four years with no debt. That is impossible now, and that has to change."

Cegelis has specific plans for the development of economic vitality in her district. "This district is losing jobs for the first time in 50 years," says Cegelis, "and a lot of that has to do with O'Hare Airport. O'Hare has been the economic anchor of this district for years, but thanks to Henry Hyde, the airport stopped expanding and those jobs disappeared. O'Hare used to be the transportation hub for the country, but we have fallen behind, and I intend to change that."

"I see the development of alternative sources of energy as another job creator for this district," says Cegelis. "We have one of the largest bases of light manufacturing in the country here in this district, and some of the best engineering schools to be found anywhere. Developing an alternative energy industry in the Sixth District will not only help the environment, but will create many jobs for the people here."

The political beliefs of Christine Cegelis combine broad, progressive ideals with the kind of pragmatic wisdom that the people of her district need. Her elevation to the House of Representatives would be a tremendous boon not only to the Sixth District of Illinois, but to the entire country. Progressive Democrats of America warmly and enthusiastically endorses Christine Cegelis in this race.

Note: To receive national PDA endorsement, a candidate must be endorsed by each PDA Chapter that has representation in the geographic area covered by the office the candidate seeks. For example, a candidate for House of Representatives would be officially endorsed by the Spokescouncil only if each Chapter with members in the Congressional District involved endorsed the candidate. Similarly, a candidate for statewide office would be officially endorsed if each Chapter within the state endorsed the candidate. The endorsement process begins with individual Chapters and is then ratified by the Spokescouncil.

[goodhue]

25. Thanks, Will Pitt!

Great explication of a worthy endorsement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

154. Celegis expenses well below average

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K

___________

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Who is Senator Durbin backing?

[madfloridian]

4. Durbin and all the DCCC Democrats are backing Duckworth.

Durbin backed Cegelis last year, but the nationalistic fervor was too much for him....flag waving and all that you know.

[Tom Joad]

5. With Duckworth, you are supporting the better managed imperialism

supported by the Party establishment.
That means that when poor kids are sent to invade some poor country, they will have the best body armor!
It means that all corporations can compete fairly for war profits!
There will be benchmarks for success!!

blood-sucking bastards!

[madfloridian]

8. We have as much jingoistic fervor as before the war.....

some of our Democrats do. They just keep that war mindset, and it is so very tiring.

[Radical Activist]

57. I've seen no evidence of that.

Duckworth has made good statements about the war and sounds like another progressive candidate.

[mopinko]

69. care to repeat those statements?

or tell us what profressive stand she has taken? i have not heard much about here.

[BigYawn]

122. Yes, Duckworth is a very good main stream democrat, with a much better

chance of winning the seat held by Hyde. She is progressive,
supports women's right to choose, yet her patriotism is
un-impeachable. She is the right choice, not the other candidate
who is at the extreme left wing. That candidate will lose 4 sure
against any repuglican.

[mopinko]

172. care to point us at those statements?

i have seen nothing of the sort attributed to her. especially on choice. she used to have a statement promising to represent the views of her district on this matter. i would find that a disturbing stand for any candidate. but considering that this is the district that was represented by one of the foremost opponents of choice on the planet for a couple of decades, it can hardly be seen as "support". but even that lame statement no longer appears on her very thin website.
i haven't seen any other evidence of progressive stands, either. or any stands at all, actually.

[Douglas Carpenter]

181. what positions does Cegelis that are exteme left wing??

links Cegelis on issues:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/issues

link Cegelis debate with Henry Hyde:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/debate

link to issues interview with Celelis:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/8/91552/00245

__________________________________________

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

______________

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html
__________________________

Cegelis' financial figures:

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[BigYawn]

194. Cegelis could win primary alright, but Duckworth should garner more

votes in the GE from the centrist voters.

[mopinko]

14. freddie knows full well. nt

[kwolf68]

3. Do Republicans Run the Democratic Party?

Shees....

[MrBenchley]

6. So much hooey in such a little space....

"Henry Hyde, arch conservative congressman, was pushed into retirement by the 2004 grassroots campaign of Christine Cegelis....The reason Party bosses are opposing Cegelis is they fear another independent progressive in Congress. "
The view is truly awe-inspring that far from reality....

The plain fact is that Cegelis is a four-star disaster in every way. So far she's raised $160,000 AND SPENT $122,000 of it without a fucking thing to show for the expenditure.

Let me repeat that...she's spent 75% of her war chest before she even HAD a primary opponent....in a period when there was no election.

Anybody who's sucker enough to send her a dime might as well flush their dough down the toilet.

[madfloridian]

7. You use the same faux talking points.

You have been doing that. You need to get some new ones, because those are not working at all.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

11. She had to quit her job to campaign.....

might be part of it. She has been campaigning all year, but then the party jumps in and throws support to someone outside the district.

It is a power play.

[MrBenchley]

32. In other words, Cegelis shot 3/4 of her wad prematurely

What that says about her is that she's got terrible judgement and no sense of responsibility.

[podnoi]

68. What is up "MrB"???

Obviously you feel passionate. But you just keep saying the same thing over and over trying to shout folks out. Notice I have not come out either way on this. But it is painful to read through your anger instead of discussion... What's up.

[MrBenchley]

82. How many times are some people going to post this same dishonest crap?

"you just keep saying the same thing over and over"
Hey, if some people want to ignore facts, there's nothing to do BUT repeat them.

[BlueIris]

12. Hey, Mr. B? Please don't get yourself banned.

You make valid points as always, but--I'm sure you know the games some people might be playing here. DU needs you. Don't take any bait.

[madfloridian]

13. Whoa there! No games being played here.

This is deadly serious. Let us not revisit. Let us not do that.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

16. Here we go again. I was warned this would happen.

I am backing off and I will handle it other ways. I have a right to post here, and I will not be run off.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

20. I have not done one thing here.

The word is to intimidate me. I don't run to mods. I handle it myself.

[MrBenchley]

34. There's nothing faux about Cegelis' reckless and irresponsible spending

Every dollar sent Cegelis so far is now reduced to just a quarter....with the remainder wasted on nothing at all.

Similar candidates in other races gearing up for 2006 earned amounts like Cegelis but spent just $5,000 or so....Cegelis blew through more than $120,000 in a period where she should have had next to no expenses. Does that sound like somebody YOU think ought to be given a shot at the public treasury?

[welshTerrier2]

38. "the public treasury"

that's a very important point you've raised ... voters should be very concerned about responsible spending ... we're already running outrageous budget deficits in this country and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight ...

some recent estimates suggest that we could end up spending close to 2 TRILLION dollars on Iraq alone ... 2 TRILLION dollars ... just look at all the zeros that requires: $2,000,000,000,000.00 ... that sure is a lot of zeros ...

i assume one wouldn't want to support any candidate who would support such a financially irresponsible program ... which of the two candidates is calling for the quicker end to this wasteful federal program?

[MrBenchley]

40. Jeeze, what a silly comment

Cegelis is a four star disaster who has shot her wad already.

[welshTerrier2]

42. yup, $2 Trillion wasted in Iraq must seem silly to you

btw, spending money, even most of one's budget, early in a campaign is not necessarily poor financial management ... i'm sure you know that ...

and why is this?

because, one, you have not indicated what the candidate's potential is to continue to raise additional funds ... and two, you've provided no indication of where the candidate currently stands compared to where the candidate would be standing had the funds not been spent ...

you argue "it's obviously bad" (your opinion) but you don't make your case ...

[MrBenchley]

43. The notion that an incompetent boob like Cegelis is any help

is the part that's silly....

"btw, spending money, even most of one's budget, early in a campaign is not necessarily poor financial management ..."
So by that "logic," the $2 trillion you're pissing and moaning about might be money well spent.....

"you have not indicated what the candidate's potential is to continue to raise additional funds ..."
You mean will she find additional suckers? Unlikely.

"you've provided no indication of where the candidate currently stands compared to where the candidate would be standing had the funds not been spent "
She stands precisely nowhere. There hasn't even been a fucking primary. All she is now is a whiny bag of wind who's demonstrated her incompetence publicly.

[bvar22]

52. Mr B

You just convinced me to send a campaign donation to Cegelis.
In fact, I'm going to send two, one in your screen name.

Bob
St Paul

[MrBenchley]

59. Yup, there's a sucker born every minute....

You might as well just send a quarter of what you were going to send in my name, since that's all that will be left a by the time the actual campaign starts.

And there's that relenltess honesty that distinguishes the progressive purist position (snicker)....

[bvar22]

62. Well,

Something is "PURE" here, and it ain't me.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. I was kinda setting on the fence until last night too

but he convinced me to make my donation immediately:


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[MrBenchley]

83. Hope you sent four times what you think she needs

Because she's going to piss away all but a quarter of it on nothing at all.....that's what she's done so far.

[Douglas Carpenter]

184. Cegelis' expenditures

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K

___________

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[MrBenchley]

189. Fantasy is such a wonderful thing...

Here's Emanuel's financial form....note that he's raised more than $1.2 million and still has nearly $1.1 million on hand for the actual election. He's spent less than 11% of the money he's raised so far.

http://disclosure.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00368829/189510/

Meanwhile Cegelis has pissed away three-quarters of her money ON NOTHING AT ALL.

[wiley]

123. He's convinced me to look into this further

Which is one of Mr. B's most useful effects on this board. He also seems to demand more than lame answers as position statements.

[MrBenchley]

129. When you do, look around the country

on a board such as "open secrets" for candidates in a similar position (non-incumbents running against a Republican in a big state like California, Michigan, New Jersey or its like). I did that in an earleir Cegelis thread, and found that many could match Cegelis in fund raising ($150,000-$200,000) but damn few spent even as much as $7,500 during a non-election year. Cegelis, as I said, has spent $121,000, three-quarters of what she raised total, before the election even began.

For that matter, look at her Republican opponent, who's raised about half a million and spent next to nothing...although he's an unknown in the district. He seems to be waiting until there's actually an election campaign to start spending money. Weird, huh?

[mopinko]

168. her republican opponent is known because he is

unopposed. maybe that's why he isn't spending any money.
as far as other dems, "in similar position (non-incumbents running against a Republican in a big state like California, Michigan, New Jersey or its like"
do you mean to say other dems running in blue states? unless they are running in a district that has been republican for a couple of generations, i don't think their positions are "similar". cegalis is following the strategy that got melissa bean elected from a similarly long time red district- she knew from the get go that she would have to run twice, and that she could not afford to take a year off. your "nothing at all" that you claim she is spending her money on is, in fact, a proven strategy that worked in the district right next to hers. do you really advocate growing the party by sitting around waiting until the last minute? or do you think that dems in republican districts should work harder?

he who pays the piper calls the tune. howard dean is dancing to the tune of the grassroots donors who are demanding a return to government of the people and by the people. christine cegalis is dancing to the same tune. we are sick of the siren song of money and corruption. this is our party. we are taking it back. and that means, above all, choosing the candidates in the first place.
i do not think that cegalis "earned" the right to a free pass. a clean above board primary race can only showcase the candidates and the party in an area where they need all the exposure they can get. but we will win no converts by allowing money, muscle and dirty tricks to choose for us. we must offer a voice for change. we must stick to the issues. just compare the two websites, and see who is articulating the values of the democratic party, and who offers pr and little more.

[MrBenchley]

193. Afraid to look?

http://disclosure.nictusa.com/dcdev/

"he who pays the piper calls the tune"
And there's a sucker born every minute.

[Douglas Carpenter]

175. Cegelis expenditures were well below the average

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K

___________

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. but you will support if she wins the primary, won't you Mr. B?

from the Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/13/192556/60


"Reclaiming the American Dream" and focus on what is important to district voters, Cegelis has spent her campaign funds on name recognition, grassroots support, and a strong volunteer network in IL-06. Rather than just fixating on her anti-war position, Cegelis' over-arching message has consistently promoted core Democratic values such as supporting Veterans who fought in Iraq. From the Cegelis blog:

"You want to know Cegelis' priorities, there they are right in her core message: work hard and play by the rules and the Federal government will keep its promises. That sounds like a good match up to a guy like Roskam who has ties to Tom DeLay and his corrupt ways, and is far to the Right of the district in general.

But this doesn't matter, since Cegelis is focusing on message and building a robust campaign infrastructure, much like the DNC, all that is noted about her campaign is her lack of cash on hand and burn rate - both of which seem similar the DNC's. Due to this, in the minds of those from the Beltway, it would be better to recruit a "war hero" candidate, who may not even live in the district, but could generate more fundraising dollars.

This thinking is Madison Ave. politics at it's worst. In the DCCC's mind, a disabled Iraq War veteran is a package they can sell to the public. The approach is all media driven and sales oriented. It's not about message. It's about sensationalism that will raise money to spend on media ads that, as Matt Stoller points out, are increasing irrelevant:"

read more - link:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/13/192556/60

[MrBenchley]

60. There's little fucking risk of that.....

"Cegelis has spent her campaign funds on name recognition, grassroots support, and a strong volunteer network in IL-06"
Geeze, weren't her supporters bragging she already had all that? If she has to HIRE grass roots supporters, she's already fucking useless.

"Cegelis' over-arching message has consistently promoted core Democratic values such as supporting Veterans who fought in Iraq"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really, how does somebody post a sentence like that without the irony whacking them?

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. but if Cegelis DOES win the primary, you will support her, right?

I'm quite certain that Christine Cegelis will support Tammy Duckworth if she wins.

You may think it's unlikely, but you have to admit that it is not impossible.

Can we count on you to support Christine Cegelis, IF she does win the primary, Mr. B. ?

[MrBenchley]

81. Again, since there's fucking little risk of that.....

"You may think it's unlikely, but you have to admit that it is not impossible"
Only in the sense that three card monte "might be" a legitimate game of chance....

[mopinko]

84. against the corporate wing of the

illinois democratic machine, i'm afraid you are applying the three card monte analogy to the wrong side of the race.

[MrBenchley]

86. What a silly post

Anytbody who spouts nonsense like "the corporate wing of the illinois democratic machine" deserves to have money swindled out of them....and Cegelis seems to be just the girl to soak you good and hard....

[mopinko]

91. and anyone who

doesn't know that money talks in chicago/illinois (and democratic) politics deserves to be ignored.

[MrBenchley]

93. Hey, money talks...

And what it says is that those sending dough to Cegelis are major league suckers....

[mopinko]

98. money talks in the other party, louder than principle or ideas

in this party, many of us hope for the opposite. i do not consider my donations to the cc campaign a waste, even if she loses. my money talks. it says, this is what i want my party to be. if duckworth wins the primary, i will donate my time and money to her. which is a lot more than i can say for most of the naysayers in this thread, i suspect.
but if this party stands only for what money will buy, then we well and truly live under fascism right now.

[MrBenchley]

125. That IS hilarious.....

"this is what i want my party to be"
Gullible suckers who fall for high-sounding blah pitched by losers?

"this party stands only for what money will buy"
Last year it bought $121,000 worth of crap for Cegelis WITHOUT A FUCKING THING TO SHOW FOR IT.

[KoKo]

158. Can we give you the "attention" you seek? Is there enough "attention"

that would satisfy you?

I might like you if I met you in an informal situation like my "local Mall" but on this board...some of this stuff you put out there...is kinda...well..."off putting" if you get my drift. :shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

85. your last two posts remind me of Sam Alito

trying to answer the question of whether someone wrongly convicted and sentenced to death has the right NOT to be executed. Should be a simple answer, but somehow is not.....

[MrBenchley]

94. Funny, the Cegelis campaign reminds me of Pat Buchanan

Who makes a very handsome living "campaigning" off the dough of mindless "believers".

[Douglas Carpenter]

116. okay, let me put it this way...do you pledge to support the nominee

(primary winner) of the Democrat Party in the general election for Illinois U.S. Congressional District 6--even if it is not the primary candidate you are now supporting, even if it is Christine Celegis?

I hope everyone here will support the nominee of the Democratic Party in the general election.

[MrBenchley]

127. I'm not making any pledge right now.....

I'll wait and see how the primary sorts out, since I'm not in that district.

I pl;an to work for all Democrats...even second-rate, incompetent or dishoenst ones, which is what Cegelis seems to be. But I fail to see how she's doing anything but fleecing suckers. And if she had a snowball's chance in hell, the far left wouldn't be pulling this dishonest crap.

[Douglas Carpenter]

131. you are good at what you do Mr. Benchley. I mean that really

you are good at what you do

[Moochy]

141. Divide Divide Divide !!

[mopinko]

173. yup, that's what he does

or tries to do. i think most of the people on this thread see through it, tho.

[dogman]

174. So does the OP.

It is obvious that a large number of Cegelis supporters fail to see that. I still have seen NO evidence of a betrayal.

[mopinko]

178. i happen to think that having the chairman of the party

dissing you in the papers is not exactly kosher. i also think that saying that you are a bad candidate because you are not raising enough money, then replacing you with someone who has none is not exactly honest. raising funds for one dem over another, as well as gathering petitions for one candidate, in the primary is hard to justify. i'm not saying cegalis is owed a clear path. but she is owed a level playing field. as is the democratic party of dupage county. and the rest of the 44% of district 6 that voted for christine last time.
and yes, she deserves respect. she did a lot for the party. play fair.

[mopinko]

186. rahm said things about her that were not true.

he had lynn sweet run columns that said that she was not raising enough money, and that he was seeking to replace her. if the money thing were true, that would be one thing. but she has already raised more money than in the whole last cycle, bringing in more and larger donations from the kind of grassroots supporters that dean wants the party to lean on. he can wish she raised more money, but it is certainly not so poor a showing as to warrant a public campaign for a replacement.
then he turns around and turns on the tap for another candidate. who got her signatures for her?
do you think these things are kosher? don't you think we should have a level playing field here? don't you think that this much tilting of the field is a betrayal? not just of cc herself, but the growing party in the 6th, and the grassroots that not only voted her last time, but donated early and often this time.
that is how we feel about it. enough of these shenanigans against our own. competition is fine. this crap is not.

[KoKo]

157. Woo Hoo, Mr. Benchley...I'm so glad to see your support for Dems

actually your declaration just sets "pants on fire!" Amazing and Kudo's to You! :toast:

[Douglas Carpenter]

176. In 2004 Cegelis beat the established candidate 2 to 1.

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K

___________



link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[mopinko]

70. "wasted on nothing at all. "

what has she spent her money on? do you know?

"period where she should have had next to no expenses."

she continued to have campaign expenses because she continued to campaign. and she continued to keep her campaign office open. the 6th district has a strong commercial sector, and the rental market is strong. i do not have inside info on what the office rent is, but having been there, and being from the area, i could spitball it at $5k/mo at least. i would hardly be shocked to find out it was twice that.

[MrBenchley]

79. Nothing at all.....

So she was running around pretending she was in office when she wasn't? That IS rich.

[mopinko]

100. your post makes no sense

no surprise, but....

[MrBenchley]

128. Only to those sucker enough to piss money away on Cegelis

[FightinNewDem]

149. A vested interest, Mr. Benchley?

Mr. Benchley, you seem to be taking this personally.

Could you please explain your ties to the DCCC, the Duckworth campaign, or the institutional party in general?

[KoKo]

159. well....we all need to "eat" to live these days....

maybe we need to be more compassionate to our fellow "travelers" who seem to fight for those who have SO MUCH they don't want it taken away from them...unlike the rest of us. :-(

[mopinko]

188. mr b is performing a valuable service, koko

look how many times he has kicked this thread, and look what a good job he has done showing us the face of the other side. he is the kind of devil's advocate that every angel wishes for.

[MrBenchley]

33. Exactly so.

[mopinko]

18. no, he is not making valid points

he is regurgitating rw talking points. the figures and conclusions that he is barfing up here come from a quote by a REPUBLICAN congressman, quoted in the hill.

[MrBenchley]

35. Not even close to true....

"the figures and conclusions that he is barfing up here come from a quote by a REPUBLICAN congressman"
The figures come from Cegelis' own campaign finance reporting....and the conclusion is fucking obvious, given those FACTS.

[MrBenchley]

31. Some people have nothing BUT games...

[KoKo]

161. "CODE WORD/CARLOS" for you....

Does it ring a bell? :-)'s and Peace!

[Moochy]

96. Now thats funny

"Mr. B? Please don't get yourself banned." :rofl: Talk about long odds.

[annabanana]

162. ("ignore" is your friend..)

He got on my last nerve a long time ago..

[LWolf]

132. Yes.

The view of multiple threads bombed by Mr. B, while certainly not awe-inspiring, is certainly instructive.

It seems that there are some who are always up for a nice, safe, cyber-lynching of progressives.

[Tom Joad]

10. The question is, who opposes the war, who demands an

uncondtional withdrawal.

[mopinko]

17. and who stands for choice?

and the rest of the progressive agenda.
she used to have a lukewarm statement about reflecting the views of the residents of the district on choice. which i take to mean that she supports henry hydes 20+ year crusade to end abortion. now, i don't even see that.
and if you look at the list of "happenings" on the site, there is her announcement. period. no other happenings.
enough said, if you ask me.

[MrBenchley]

39. No, the question is, why waste good money on an incompetent hack

....especially one with demonstrated bad judgement.....

[Aaaargh]

22. How interesting that you have these numbers at hand, Mr. B!

Please share your source for them with your fellow Democrats here on DU!

[MrBenchley]

37. Geeze, you'd almost think this gibberish hadn't been posted over and over

in the past few months by Cegelis apologists and other suckers.

AS for sources, here's the liberal blog archpundit....

http://www.archpundit.com/archives/cat_6th_congressional_district_race.html

And here's her actual financials...

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/179834/

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


"Giving money to Cegelis is like investing in arm floaties before a trip on the Titanic."

http://www.archpundit.com/archives/012698.html

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. Hi Mr. B --- good to see you are doing well

this in from the Daily Kos by michael in chicago

link:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/13/192556/60

"Cegelis has spent her campaign funds on name recognition, grassroots support, and a strong volunteer network in IL-06. Rather than just fixating on her anti-war position, Cegelis' over-arching message has consistently promoted core Democratic values such as supporting Veterans who fought in Iraq....

You want to know Cegelis' priorities, there they are right in her core message: work hard and play by the rules and the Federal government will keep its promises. That sounds like a good match up to a guy like Roskam who has ties to Tom DeLay and his corrupt ways, and is far to the Right of the district in general.

But this doesn't matter, since Cegelis is focusing on message and building a robust campaign infrastructure, much like the DNC, all that is noted about her campaign is her lack of cash on hand and burn rate - both of which seem similar the DNC's.

This thinking is Madison Ave. politics at it's worst. In the DCCC's mind is a package they can sell to the public. The approach is all media driven and sales oriented. It's not about message. It's about sensationalism that will raise money to spend on media ads that, as Matt Stoller points out, are increasing irrelevant:"

read more:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/13/192556/60

[MrBenchley]

58. It's hilarious to read somebody pretend that a campaign

that's pissed away three quarters of its money already without a fucking thing to show for it is "robust"....but then the Cegelis supporters seem to exist in some sort of fevered fantasy....where her mere presence has caused Henry Hyde and "party bosses" to quake in fear (snicker).....

[High Plains]

120. Thank you, Mr. Benchly. Another bravura performance.

There is no one better at making right-wing Democrats look like obnoxious assholes.

[PassingFair]

151. Ain't THAT the truth.

Although, he serves the wonderful purpose of ACTUALLY getting me to donate again.
Thanks for the reminder, Mr. B.!

:hi:

Oh, I quadrupled the amount, on your suggestion!

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

197. Excellent use of a sex metaphor!

par for the course "will give you what you deserve...good and hard." like the DLC

[MrBenchley]

199. Geeze, mooch....

It isn't the DLC that made Cegelis piss away three quarters of the dough she got out of gullible suckers. She did that all by herself.

[Douglas Carpenter]

183. some facts

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K

___________

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

21. from the Capitol Fax Blog

"Democrat Christine Cegelis lost to longtime Republican Congressman Henry Hyde last year 56-44. Since then, she has used her performance to argue that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ought to back her this time around in an open-seat contest against state Sen. Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton). <…>

George W. Bush defeated John Kerry 53-47 in the Hyde district last year. So Cegelis underperformed Kerry’s result by 3 percentage points. Over in the 8th Congressional District, Democrat Melissa Bean defeated incumbent Republican Phil Crane 52-48, beating Kerry’s totals by 8 percentage points (Kerry lost that district 56-44). Bean lost in ‘02, but she outperformed Al Gore’s ‘00 performance in the district by a point.

It’s difficult, to say the least, to buttress an argument that Cegelis is entitled to another shot when she underperformed the top of the ticket. "
---------------------
so...

explain why this is a "betrayal"

[paulk]

90. crickets...

but, not unusual, since you aren't much interested in a real discussion, are you?

Do you view DU as a fund raising arm of the PDA?

just curious....

[MrBenchley]

195. Interesting to see how facts get ignored, isn';t it?

Even more telling to see the blatant dishonesty by some of Cegelis' supporters.

[goodhue]

23. Go, Cegelis, Go!

The Beltway Dems are trying to do the same thing here in MN, against Coleen Rowley of all people. Don't let Washington DC pick our candidates!!!

[madfloridian]

24. I heard about Rowley...they don't want her speaking out as much.

I say go Cegelis, and go Colleen.

[radio4progressives]

56. Hear! Hear! (MF psst... good news to tell you)

local pda and dfa are putting on a forum together next month here in my community. we're working together on issues and candidates for state and congressional precinct districts - is pda and dfa working together in your community?

i think this is happening in many regions in country, at least in California. if this amount of organizing continues, we can look forward to a whole lot more progressives getting elected, save any tom foolery and other election shannigans that some seem to want to keep in tact, as evidenced in lack of actions on the 2004 election fraud matters.

[mopinko]

101. dfa is behind cegalis here. don't know what it up with pda

although i am going to send them a few $$ in a minute. tomfoolery? well. diebold is about to arrive in dupage county, so.....

[dogman]

26. Dick Durbin is from Illinois! N/T

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. I just donated NOW -- I hope everyone else does the same

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute



http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[dogman]

28. The people of the 6th District have a choice, that is not betrayal.

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/my_story.html
Rather than spreading BS about the opponent, why not let the people choose? You can promote your candidate with out impugning the integrity of a fine American. Tammy has been promoted by Senator Durbin of Illinois. She has been endorsed by the Illinois AFL-CIO who switched from Cegelis. She has the support of Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.

[madfloridian]

30. Yes, we know. The party machinery is choosing the candidates for us.

They are doing it throughout the country. In one Florida race where Kerry and Boxer sent money to the candidate who lost last time in the primary but is millionaire former Republican....come to find out Kerry was told there was not a primary opponent. But there was, a good one.

I just posted about that here.

They are all reacting to the nationalistic jingoistic fervor that they apparently think still exists in this country in a major way.

It does not. People are seeing through this. They saw Hackett's success and decided if it worked once it would work for 42 more. That is too much.

[dogman]

36. You're wrong.

The people choose the candidate by their vote in the Primary. Some believe in Cegelis, some do not. Have you heard Duckworth speak? Have you seen her positions on issues? Those are the important things. I have no problem with someone pushing their candidate. I think terms like "betrayal" are BS and have no place in this discussion however. That terminology is the only reason I posted on this thread. There is enough division in the Party with out that form of crap. Debate, discuss, fine, just knock off the BS.

[mopinko]

89. we know very little about duckworth

and i'm sure, if she is a decent candidate, people will support her. but she has a website that says nothing, and the only event on her calendar is her announcement. if you have links to more about her, we will all be glad to here it. what i have heard so far, i do not like. wishy washy on war, and promising to reflect the district view on choice, when the district has been represented by the number one enemy of choice for 20+ years?
the reason people feel betray is that the tactics has been so slimy. saying that cegalis can't raise money, then installing a candidate with none, and raising it for her. she didn't even collect her own signatures.
these complaints that benchley and others here are spouting come straight from the chairman's mouth. they are, in fact, insignificant complaints. her fundraising and spending are following the same curve as the dnc. of course we are outspent by the fascist party. what kind of thing is that to tar a democratic candidate with? when you only have a little money, you have to spend it. duh. poor people have less money in the bank than rich people. duh. see how money works? it is a fact that she is following the same fundraising pattern as dean- raising more money in smaller chunks. that is what our chairman told us to do. she has more and bigger donations already than in the last whole cycle combined. but she is not a good candidate because she has not outraised and outspent the candidate of the fascist party? come on. this is not an honest debate here. and you know it, dogman.
it is that side that is using slurs and slime. in almost every one of these threads, someone accuses the cc side of attacking duckworth. but, i have yet to see it. you show me one comment that compares to "incompetent boob" and the other things that cc has been called.
there are already push polls and other dirty tricks going on. if people thought is was going to be a fair fight, they would not be crying foul. but it won't be. it already isn't. this is not what the party we want to belong to is about.
and we are going to fight. although, with diebold coming to dupage county, you have to wonder if we even can win.

[welshTerrier2]

29. absolutely disgraceful

go back up-thread and take a look at the arguments made by the DLC apologists ...

not one word about ISSUES ... not a single word ... the whole point they made was about winning ... as long as we win, and those "facts" about whether either Democrat will win in November remain to be seen, nothing else matters ... the OP talked about Duckworth's position on Iraq as: "She echoes President Bush’s views on a timetable." Now anyone is certainly free to agree with bush on his opposition to a timetable ... and anyone is even free to dispute the accuracy of comments made about Duckworth's position on exit timetables ... but the DLC apologists didn't do either because they don't give a damn about anything that has to do with issues; to them it's all about horseracing ...

and they didn't comment on Cegelis's positions either: safety of the troops exit timetable, pro-choice, pro-renewable energy and opposes NAFTA-like trade deals ... they didn't say they disagreed; they didn't say they agreed ... it doesn't matter to them ... they aren't moderates; they really just don't give a damn about anything but horseracing ... doesn't matter what they win as long as they win ...

what the DLC apologists are really condoning is an infusion of money from the DCCC BEFORE A PRIMARY ... it's elitism plain and simple ... shouldn't the Party's rank and file get a chance to consider both candidates in a fair fight instead of having the insiders stack the deck for THEIR preference?

yeah, i know, we lefties are always whining about fundamental democracy ... i should have remembered that DLC apologists don't give a damn about that either ...

[dogman]

41. Is a term like betrayal an issue?

The OP is an attack piece to play on emotions. What do you know about the 6th District? Think about it, they've been electing Hyde. The demographics are changing and a win is possible. Lets let the Dems of the 6th District make their choice. If you want to contribute to a candidate or express support for their positions, fine. Just because the OP describes his view of Duckworth, it does not make it so. He is from AZ. Does he know the electorate better than IL Senator Durbin? Does he know more than the IL AFL-CIO? Illinois is a blue state, but not solidly blue. These Party leaders have won elections in this state and our representation by Dems isn't too shabby.

[welshTerrier2]

44. is this responsive to what i wrote?

i made no criticism of Duckworth ... i even allowed for the possibility that the positions ascribed to her in the OP MIGHT not be accurate ...

my post was about "all we care about is horseracing" Democrats ... and my post was about criticizing the Party elite when they pick sides by funding one Democrat against another BEFORE the primaries ... i have no problems with endorsements but i have a huge problem stacking the deck with lopsided funding BEFORE THE PRIMARIES ... let the voters decide after a FAIR CAMPAIGN ...

your post seems responsive to the OP; not to mine ...

[dogman]

46. Upon a more careful reading, I agree.

I have a problem with funding also. I believe we must limit campaign funding to public financing with caps. we must also limit advocacy groups to issues only and not allow campaigns for or against individuals. I have not seen funding reports on the Primary other than Cegelis which is mentioned above. I have seen a fundraiser for Cegelis by the principal owners of Air America Radio recently. Are they Party outsiders? What do you know about Duckworth's fund raising? I believe the "Party elite" do have a place in picking a person they feel will win. As you say winning isn't everything but watching the opposition steamroll us is worse IMO.

[welshTerrier2]

47. i appreciate your careful follow-up

i don't know much about either of these candidates although now that these issues have been raised i fully intend to take a detailed look at both of them and to evaluate exactly what role the DCCC intends to play in the campaign ...

my money this year will NOT be going to "the big funds" (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) ... instead, i intend to look for key races with progressive candidates ...

[Jai4WKC08]

95. That's precisely why I only give directly to candidates

I don't trust the DNC, DSCC or DCCC to use my money wisely. Maybe the candidates won't either, but at least I'll have made my own choices.

That said, I do listen to the DNC, DSCC and DCCC recommendations. These organizations are primarily interested in promoting the person they think has the best chance of winning. And if I'm giving to a candidate outside my own district, that's pretty much what I care most about as well.

Yeah, issues are important, of course. But if we can't win back the House and/or Senate, we can do NOTHING to reign in the administration we're likely to be stuck with for another two years after November.

I don't know whether the alegations of funds mismanagement up-thread are true. But I gotta think that guys like Durbin and Emanuel wouldn't have been shopping for another candidate to run if they thought Cegelis had the best shot at beating her Republican competition. They do know the individuals and the district better than I could.

I also have this gut feel that a lot of the resistance at DU to Duckworth, Hackett and the other Democrats being pushed by the DSCC and DCCC is pure prejudice against veterans, and that the idea that they just don't like the party elite picking our candidates is just an excuse. I've read far too many DU posts that slam those of us who believe our party must stand for a strong national defense (and no, we're not all pro-DLC or against progressive positions on domestic issues), or that say they'd never trust Wes Clark because he was a career military officer. It's an ugly fact that some people at both extremes of the political spectrum have just not gotten over Vietnam. On the right, they think Democrats hate the military. On the left, they actually do hate the military. Not all, of course. But enough that it's a serious problem for our party.

Lord knows the party insiders have ALWAYS had a big say in who got the kind of support needed to win primaries, but you never heard many complaints about it, not at the Congressional level, until the "Fighting Dems" started to get traction. That's not a coincidence imo.

[welshTerrier2]

105. ISSUES must come BEFORE POLITICS

let's start with your statement: "yeah, issues are important, of course" ... issues aren't just important, they are of primary importance ... it's always amazing to me that some people believe that it's acceptable to push bogus positions on issues as long as we win ... NO, it is NOT OK ... what our candidates are fighting for is MORE IMPORTANT than winning ... i realize this idea is hard for some to accept but that's what i believe ... we should start by making the right case to the American people ... period!! ... if we lose, we need to make our case more effectively ... when we focus of winning above all else, we fail to make the long-term case for what we believe in ... the republicans built their majority by advocating consistent themes over several decades ... Democrats still don't get this ... they think each and every campaign is independent of the central, underlying message ... they aren't ...

i was also confused by your "pure prejudice against veterans" statement ... i think there is huge support for veterans on DU and i see nothing to support your allegations ... i'm even more confused by your suggestion that DU'ers don't support Hackett ... from what i saw when he ran against Schmidt the Shit, Hackett was a local DU hero ...

furthermore, i DON'T LIKE party elites picking candidates ... who are you to speculate on my motives without actually knowing anything about me ... your point here is absurd ... i have no problem with party celebs issuing endorsements; i have a huge problem when elitist bullshit finances one primary candidate over another and strips registered Democrats of a fair fight in the primaries ... what the hell does that have to do with my views on veterans???

and what kind of crap are you peddling about "not getting over Vietnam" ?????
i have NOT gotten over Vietnam because Vietnam was a prime example of how the US uses its military for inappropriate objectives ... you've provided no evidence whatsoever, beyond the usual Will Marshall DLC bullshit that "the party's left has not gotten over Vietnam because they are nostalgic for the protests of their youth" ... btw, many lefty DU'ers are veterans ... let's hope they haven't "gotten over" Vietnam ... you know the old saying about "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" ... been there, done that ... don't intend to do it again ...

the Democratic Party is doing a great job alienating progressives ... there has been no process to improve communication ... i will not be voting for, working for or funding Democrats who have gone along with bush's war in Iraq ... i am disgusted with the Democratic Party for not speaking out against an attack on Iran ... too many in the Party's establishment think they can play their little electoral games ... they think they'll just knock on doors, do their little fundraising things and win, win, win ... good luck with that strategy ... what the Party and the country needs is real leadership ... the Party will not return to majority status, i.e. sustained majority status, until our vision restores America to what it should be ... those who put politics above vision are pursuing a fool's errand ...

[mopinko]

106. the veteran thing has NOTHING to do with this

this fight started a LONG time before duckworth's name was ever mentioned. rahm started off by telling the gossip columnists that he did not like cc, and was looking for someone with deep pockets of their own. these claims about her fundraising abilities are pure, unadulterated horseshit. she has raised more money already than in the last complete cycle, with more and larger grassroots donations. her income and outgo mirror those of the dnc, including the fact that dean has set records without tapping the fatcats. but rahm slammed cc about her fundraising, then went out and stuffed a candidate without dime one into the race. she didn't even circulate her own petitions.
duckworth has been the object of an amazing amount of pr work for quite a while. if you google her, you will get over 25,000 hits, going back over a year. they include appearances with the likes of laura ingram. she is hailed as some big hero, not for what she did on the battlefield, but for her attitude in rehab. that's all well and good, but to call her a hero, well.... party operatives have been quoted as saying that her "story" will make it easy to raise the funds she needs. sorry, that is fucked up, and not what i want in my party.
from what i know of duckworth's views, she will be another pink tutu. sorry, you can have it.
but the only thing about this that has anything to do with veterans is a reluctance to accept unknowns wrapped in flags as substitutes for the choice of local parties and people to represent themselves. this whole fighting dems thing is a cynical ploy on the part of the dccc.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. Here is Duckworth's issues statement//Here's Cegelis'

Tammy Duckworth on Issues:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/issues
____________________________

Christine Cegelis on Issues:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/issues

Here is the link to her interview on the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/8/91552/00245

Here is the link to the transcripe of her debate with Mr. Hyde:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/debate

[welshTerrier2]

71. bad link?

fyi: your link to "Tammy Duckworth on Issues:" points to the Cegelis website ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. sorry, my mistake

here is the correct link to Tammy Duckworth on the issues:

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html

[welshTerrier2]

73. no problem, DC ...

thanks for the info ...

[mopinko]

111. and what kind of platform is that?

she does not seem to have any ideas about education, except that it is bad that she has loans to pay. hello?
really, how you can compare the 2 candidates web sites and not see who is prepared to run and serve, i do not know.

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. my thinking too

Now frankly I understand the political advantage of running an Asian-American disabled Iraq War vet. It pulls at my heart. I admit it. I certainly have nothing against her personally. I agree she sounds like a good candidate, perhaps even a great candidate. But what does she intend to do if elected? Then again I guess I just have this crazy, screwy mixed-up idea that campaigns and elections should be about issues. When I read her positions and compare them Christine's positions, well what more can I say.


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[FightinNewDem]

150. This is about control, not ideology

This has nothing to do with the DLC and everything to do with a larger problem of institutional rot within the Democratic Party.

This isn't about ideology, it's about elitism and insiderism. It's about the desire of the party operatives to micromanage the affairs of grassroots Dems of all ideological stripes.

Trust me, there are plenty of DLC-style Dems who have been jobbed by the DCCC, DSCC and DNC over the years.

[incapsulated]

45. That bitch with her two lost legs and her bushy statements...

:eyes:

This is fucking rubbish. Attacking Duckworth like this doesn't do anything for Cegelis but make her and supporters look like assholes.

Do you realize that Dick Durbin is not only supporting her but was the one that encouraged her to run?

Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help I'm being repressed! :cry:

If Cegelis is all that, let her run and win, instead of having others attack her competition and play the victim. If there is real evidence of this scandalous campaign against her, prove it.

[mopinko]

133. this post is typical of the level of debate coming from

the other side. no one in any of these discussions, (and there have been many) has said anything that even remotely resembles your characterization of our side. (or at least, i assume that is what you are doing. your post is a little incoherent.)
there has been respectful criticism of what we know of duckworth's stand on issues, which is not much. other than that, there has been barely a mention of her personally. i dare you to find me a post of that sort.
the other side, well, i will just say that i do not have all day to harvest the ones that did not get deleted.
this kind of bile barfing will not win the day for you. you are in the wrong party if you think it will.

[incapsulated]

145. Projection. It's funny sometimes...

Like this post, for instance.

[mopinko]

155. well, then, why don't you clarify what you meant? ny

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. Interview with Cegelis and 2004 debate with Mr. Hyde

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

Here is the link to her interview on the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/8/91552/00245

Here is the link to the transcripe of her debate with Mr. Hyde:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/debate


to contribute today -- link:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[radio4progressives]

53. Thanks so much for posting this very critical issue..

:grr:

I've posted this to our local pda chapter..

:nuke:

[radio4progressives]

54. K&R

:kick:

[Radical Activist]

55. Duckworth is backed by the most reliable progressive in the Senate...

Dick Durbin. It sounds as though Duckworth is pretty progressive herself. The portrayal of Duckworth as a machine candidate with no qualifications in unfair. The mean-spirited attacks against her from Cegalis supporters is why I'm no longer supporting Cegalis. Duckworth doesn't deserve this scandalous treatment. And Duckworth has made more direct comments about the war in Iraq that what you selectively quote.

There are a lot of good things to say about Cegalis. You should be able to do that without the "insulting and counterproductive" attacks against Duckworth.

[MrBenchley]

61. Notice the peculiar assumption on the part of Cegelis supporters

that this loser should automatically anointed candidate.

[Joe Chi Minh]

63. What do you think of Noam Chomsky's assessment of

the Democratic party, i.e. its leadership, Mr Benchley? Would you agree that, as opponents of the Republicans, they are largely paralysed (my words), because their ethos has for so long been so close to the "Business first and last" ethos of the Republicans, instead of serving the general agenda of the mass of the American people?

[gulfcoastliberal]

64. Good question. I doubt you'll get an answer, though. nt

[MrBenchley]

80. So now that he got his answer......

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. We've agreed on the need to maintain some degree of political

realism in the past, but would you really call that glib response you gave an answer? It may surprise you and your confreres to learn that Pope John-Paul II was by no means dismissive of Karl Marx's economic analysis. He was as disgusted and appalled by American-style capitalism, as espoused historically by both Republicans and Democrats, as Solzhenitsyn is, and indeed as Christ would have been.

There is an article in the latest issue of the respected UK Jesuit journal, "The Tablet" stating that, indeed, while obviously repudiating the atheistic materialism it inspired in Marx, John-Paul II had in some respects empathized with it; this on the basis of certain treatises he wrote on the theme, while a bishop in Poland, the existence of which were at first denied, but which have now come to light. Of course, atheistic materialism is what preponderantly informs the ethos of both US political parties in different ways; Christianity both genuine and qua blasphemous parody, as touted by the "fundies", are for the people.

I've left the journal in my car a few blocks away, but I'll quote from the article, when I get it.

P.S. Here is the URL of the Tablet issue and article:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi

[MrBenchley]

78. I think Chomsky's a helluva linguistic philosopher

who's a crackpot when he starts babbling about politics.

And I wouldn't vote for Chomsky....

[mopinko]

99. a little over your head, is he?

i thought so. intellectuals are too scary for you, huh? poor baby.

[MrBenchley]

130. Chomsky's the left wing version of William Shockley

Attainment in one discipline doesn't equal expertise about any other fucking thing.

[Moochy]

102. Chomsky a crackpot?

You never cease to amaze me with the stuff you just pull directly out of your ass.

[MrBenchley]

126. Chomsky's a crackpot, mooch.....

But hey, you're welcome to the dreary old loon's company.

[Moochy]

138. I'd prefer his company to yours

You DLC fellator.

[MrBenchley]

140. You're welcome to it....

From his links to the French anti-Semite loon Faurisson to his claims that Khmer Rouge were innocent, he's been a fuckwit of the first water over the years.

[Douglas Carpenter]

180. Chomsky has no links to Faurisson. Chomsky holds the same position

that the ACLU would hold. He certainly never claimed the Khmer Rouge were innocent

link:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

but if you want to say Chomsky is "far left" that I think is a fair statement.

[MrBenchley]

187. Chomsky pimped for both Faurisson and the IHR

and provided an introduction to another holocaust denial book by a neoNazi named Thion.

And he hailed Pol Pot as a liberator, publicly compared the Khmer Rouge to the French Resistance during World War 2, and claimed for years that the atrocities committed threre were "Western propaganda"...

He's one tiny baby step away from Lyndon LaRouche and closing ground fast...

[Douglas Carpenter]

205. here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

if facts matter...

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."

[ragin_acadian]

179. hey Moochy,

I think i found the secret to getting rid of this perpetual font of ignorant negativity: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=141802&mesg_id=157577

apparently, this "undeclared gender" and his/her/it's semi-disabled profile, will just vacate the thread if you convince him/her/it that you are not worth talking to.

hell, it worked for me. let's tout the trick and see if we can get results!

[Moochy]

198. Kool-Aid, he's soaking in it

At night they have to soak him Kool-aid so he can wake up ready to spew RW talking points.

[mopinko]

134. yeah, language and politics

got NOTHING to do with each other. yeah, that's the ticket.

[MrBenchley]

142. Then go vote for Chomsky.....

[KoKo]

163. Have you read Comsky? Can you give a critique of his body of work?

It would be interesting to have a DU Discussion somewhere on the Forums of your thoughts...just so we could understand where you are coming from.

Looking forward to it. :-)'s and Peace to you!

[MrBenchley]

185. Ask me next if I care what you want.....

And yeah, I've read Chomsky since the early 1970s....he's a screwloose fuckwit who's one baby step above Lyndon Larouche.

[Moochy]

196. And there my Friends, is the essence of Mr Benchley

"Ask me next if I care what you want" Sounds alot like the DLC huh?

Pretty much sums up his Modus Operandi on this board. Piss in your face and call it debate.

[MrBenchley]

200. Yup, mooch.....

Now go cry about it to the rest of the Chomskyites.

[Moochy]

201. Well at least we've got you pegged.

As an abrasive, unpleasant and mean little man.

[ragin_acadian]

182. linguistic philosopher, no.

Professor of Linguistics, yes. That is what he does at MIT. He is an author of a school of Linguistics, therefore a scientist, not a philosopher; Dewey is a philosopher. Difference is: Chomsky has a PhD in the field (1955), Dewey does not.

as stated on previous threads: research, read. get educated. bring something positive to the table worth discussing, such as:

Linguistics is a science.
and
overwhelmingly uninformed and negative posts are exactly that: they detract and misinform.

take heed: Otherwise, you will lose any credibility your depressing regurgitations might inspire new DU'ers that accidentally step into one of your posts.


i will now bring a significant discussion to the table, for your benefit:

"who's a crackpot when he starts babbling about politics." is what you call ad hominem.

from Wikipedia: "An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself."

learn, enjoy.

don't worry, despite your repeated urgings, Professor Chomsky is not interested in running for something. If you had read: "Understanding Power: the Indispensible Chomsky" - you would know this.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. LTTE from Cegelis: I welcome Tammy Duckworth to the race

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

Welcoming a Newcomer to the Race

I welcome Tammy Duckworth to the race.

link:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/blog

What a week this has been! First of all, I need to welcome to the Democratic primary Major Ladda “Tammy” Duckworth, who is set to announce her candidacy for the 6th Congressional District of Illinois race this weekend. She joins Lindy Scott and me in the primary race for the open seat in IL-06.
Tammy Duckworth is an Iraq war veteran and my thanks and admiration go out to her for the great sacrifice she has made for our country. It is because of the service and sacrifice of the men and women serving in our armed forces that we all can live in a country with such a proud tradition of freedom and democracy.
My supporters have been very active online this week and I’m truly grateful for their expressions of support. It is heartening to see the passion and support of people who continue to work hard on my behalf. Thank you to everyone who has posted on the blogs and who has emailed the ‘powers that be’ on my behalf. I think I have the blogging community to thank for my scheduled comments this Sunday on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.
It is crucial that this race stay positive. This will be a tough battle, and though it can be difficult to stay on the high road, I think it’s important that we not get sidetracked. We will win this race on our own merits. Focus on the issues and the candidates and not the behind the scenes players.
This race and our party are only strengthened by the exchange of opinions that occurs in a competitive primary. Maj. Duckworth and I will have the opportunity at many area forums to talk about the important issues in my district. I’m looking forward to finding out her views on the critical issues.
The voters in IL-06 need to know Maj. Duckworth’s positions on job creation, education, and a woman’s right to choose. How would she vote on CAFTA and free trade? Where does she stand on the O’Hare expansion? Does she support the Patriot Act and its accompanying infringements on our civil liberties? I assume Maj. Duckworth and I agree that cutting veterans’ benefits is no way to reward the men and women who are sacrificing for our country, and I look forward to a public discussion on how to provide those benefits to veterans in District 6. My hope is that the public discussions we have on the issues will be healthy and constructive, giving the voters the information they need to choose the candidate that best represents their views.
I’m disappointed that the DCCC chose to get involved in a primary, to support a candidate to run against me. But here’s the positive outlook: the DCCC involvement demonstrates that this is a winnable and viable seat. They know that the 44% I earned in 2004 was an indicator of the change that has occurred in my district. Everyone understands that the Republican candidate is someone who would not be the agent of change that is sorely needed for this country. Most of the country now believes we are going in the wrong direction. It is going to take common sense leadership to start to move us on a different path.
I am thankful each day that I live in a country that gives us all the freedom of choice. I chose to enter this race to win the chance to serve my country in the U.S. Congress. I’m sure that Tammy Duckworth strives



http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[dogman]

74. No complaint of betrayal there.

At least Cegelis has better political acumen than the OP.

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. I don't think either the OP or Christine Cegelis are blaming Tammy

Duckworth, personally. I don't think campaigns that get personal whether coming from the left, the right, the center or even against Republicans are helpful. I have this crazy idea the campaigns should be issue oriented.

I think the objection by the OP and some Cegelis supporters is to the outside influence coming from the boys in Washington, D.C.

[dogman]

77. Keep in mind the "boys" are from Illinois, not outsiders.

The OP on the other hand is an outsider trying to push his own agenda. As my first post states, the reason I have posted here at all was because of his slur in his subject line. It is not a betrayal, they owe Christine nothing, they owe the people of Illinois and the 6th District the best chance of gaining that seat for the Democratic Party.

[mopinko]

87. the "boys" do indeed represent a portion of illinois

they represent the rich and powerful business interests of this state. you can check rahm's fec filing, and see them all there. i haven't looked at obama and durbin's but i have no doubt they are there as well. chicago is a major center for business. the financial industry, especially, but many more, including the war machine. you can look up bean's donor's, too. they are pretty much the same, now that she is on the inside.
and there is a lot of major media here, which, do not forget, is where all that campaign cash gets spent in the end. wonder why msm sucks? they are part of the cycle of dirty money, that's why. in fact, they are really the ones that get to keep it in the end.
the growing grassroots democratic parties out there do not want a bunch of rich guys from chicago/dc to pick their candidate.
it's not the opposition of another candidate that they object to, it's the injection of big bucks, and a candidate on a silver platter that is a betrayal of their efforts to represent themselves. she didn't even circulate her own petitions.

[dogman]

104. So let's get rid of Durbin, Emanuel, and Obama and install Cegelis?

Let's get rid of the Chicago machine and give Illinois back to the GOP? How inspirational that will be. The people will certainly benefit from that, won't they?

[mopinko]

108. come on dogman

let's keep this discussion it the real world, shall we? the boys are not the 6th district. the chicago machine is a canker on the democratic party. local politics-wise, you know that this is a bad thing for the dupage dems that have rallied around cc, and want her to represent them.
corruption is corruption. money politics is money politics. i want my government of the people, by the people and for the people.
and i do support daley. i think he has done a great job. but you know they do not want him and his pals picking their rep in dupage.

[dogman]

112. That's why there's an election.

If DuPage Dems want Cegelis they will vote for her. For outsiders to post and disparage Durbin is not letting DuPage Dems make a choice. This post is about promoting PDA. I don't even have a problem with that if it is done without attacking the Illinois Democratic Party. As a constituent you are certainly entitled to express your concerns and you have in previous posts. I think it's total BS to equate the selection of Duckworth with corruption.

[mopinko]

115. well, i am blue in the face, but i will say it one more time

a fair fight? bring it on. but already big money is rolling over grass roots. if that is not the crux of what faces this party, i am bush's uncle.

[wiley]

124. No

Let there be a primary already.

[FightinNewDem]

92. A Modest Suggestion

I have a modest suggestion for the DCCC:

Butt out.

This is getting tiresome. The DCCC has no business attempting to interfere with a decision that rightly belongs to the rank and file Democratic voters of 400+ congressional districtsd around the country. It's absolutely outrageous that a handful of Washington apparatchiks, with no roots in or real knowledge of the specific districts, think that it is their place to foist bland, safe mediocrities on the electorate.

Many of you know that I am running in NH-01. This is another district where the DCCC is trying to stack the deck. Despite the fact that there are four reasonably articulate, intelligent and dedicated candidates already in the race, the DCCC is trying to push House Minority Leader Jim Craig into the field. Now, Jim is a pleasant fellow, but he'd be a disaster as a candidate for Congress. In a year when the GOP is vulnerable on ethics issues, why would we nominate a guy who foolishly talked most of his caucus into voting against an ethics reform bill because of a relatively minor technical dispute, who is the Concord lobbyist's favorite Democrat, whose son-in-law is himself a lobbyist? This takes our most potent issue and flushes it down the drain.

But Jim is safe, doesn't ruffle feathers, and has the imprimateur of the good old boy network. To hell with ideas and dedication. It's connections that count, right?

[mopinko]

97. how ya gonna grow the party when

in a red district, someone comes along, makes a huge dent in the thug machine, does what the chairman says to do, and is slurred in the media, branded a loser, and shoved out of the way by her own party? to challenge a candidate is one thing. to try to muscle a candidate out is another. are these people in the wrong party, or are they just trying to take over ours, now that they own every square inch of the republican party?
treating us all like a bunch of idiots, expecting us to swallow their stupid talking points is just beyond the pale.

[Adelante]

109. This is how the Democratic Party is set up

The DCCC has a job to do and it's doing it. You may not like the setup, but it's the organization we have. If you want it changed, work toward reforming the party, or start a new party, but bashing the DCCC for fulfilling its responsibilities to the Democratic Party is ludicrous. It's their job to back candidates they think can win. Not everybody is ever going to agree with their choices, I don't, but I don't expect them to back a candidate just because I want them to. If they weren't searching out local candidates, they'd be battered for that and they've been in the past.

The Democratic National Committee
The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promotes the election of Party candidates with both technical and financial support; and works with national, state, and local party organizations, elected officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and views of the Democratic electorate and the nation.

The Democratic Governors' Association
The Democratic Governors’ Association was founded in 1983 to support the candidacy of Democratic governors throughout the nation. The DGA provides political and strategic assistance to gubernatorial campaigns. In addition, the DGA plays an integral role in developing positions on key state and federal issues that affect the states through the governors’ policy forum series.
http://www.democraticgovernors.org/

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
The purpose of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate. From grass-roots organizing to candidate recruitment to providing campaign funds for tight races, the DSCC is working hard all year, every year to increase the number of Democratic Senators. http://www.dscc.org/

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee serves as the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives. We provide services ranging from designing and helping execute field operations, to polling, creating radio and television commercials, fundraising, communications, and management consulting.
http://www.dccc.org/

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee provides strategic services and financial assistance to Democratic leaders and candidates at the state legislative level. For nearly a decade, DLCC has been an integral part of the continued success Democrats have had winning at the state legislative level.
http://www.dlcc.org/

State Democratic Parties
The State Democratic Parties work to elect local, state, and federal candidates in their states, as well as supporting the state campaign for the Democratic presidential nominee.

[mopinko]

118. if there weren't so many uncontested races in ill.

i would not be so pissed off. but there are many. including one right next door, in the 13th, against judy biggert. duckworth could have just as easily been inserted into that district. for that matter, cegalis could have won last time with a little support from the party.

[FightinNewDem]

135. The DCCC's Mission

The DCCC is not doing its job.

The DCCC's purpose is to help elect the nominees of the Democratic Party. The job of selecting these nominees belongs to the Democratic (and in some states, Independent) electorate. When the DCCC attempts to funnel money and media attention on specific candidates, then they are usurping the voter's role.

The Cegelis/Duckworth and Craig/Sullivan/Porter situations aren't instances where LaRouchies or fringe dwellers are in danger of stealing a nomination. Christine Cegelis is a credible Democratic candidate. Carol Shea Porter is the Democratic chair of the third largest city in NH-01 and a respected community activist, and I am a three-term Democratic state legislator and former staffer for folks like Paul Simon, Joe Biden and Paul Tsongas. If the DCCC sees recruitment as part of its charge, then it needs to refocus its efforts on places where there are no Democratic contenders.

At some point, you will support a candidate who is on the other side of this situation. When that happens, remember what you said today.

[Adelante]

139. I have been on the other side of the situation

I don't think it's up to the DCCC to support my candidates, although, sure, it's nice when they do. I wonder if they were supporting yours right now, to turn this around, would you be objecting?

[FightinNewDem]

147. Actually, I would

My state (NH) has a very clear provision in the state party constitution that states that the party will not meddle in contested primaries. Some folks think that the rules are an a la carte menu. I don't. Consistency and fair play matter to me.

[McCamy Taylor]

103. Looks like Big Business has passed the baton to the Democrats

[dogman]

107. Nonsense!

The OP is inaccurate. Duckworth was chosen by the Illinois Senator Durbin not the DCCC. It seems there is an attitude that some would rather see the PDA replace the Illinois Democratic Party. Just what this Country needs, another red state.

[mopinko]

110. now, that is just not true

rahm has waged a way too public campaign to replace cc. that durbin does not wish to buck him does not make it right. in fact, that duckworth may be a good candidate is not the point. it has not been a fair fight, i doubt it will be a fair fight. raising big bucks for one candidate in the primaries is just wrong.

[dogman]

113. That is what has been reported.

Show me a link that says otherwise.

[mopinko]

114. i'm not disputing durbin's endorsement

but rahm was looking a long time before that.

[dogman]

117. That's pretty much how it works.

When a race shows over 40% it's considered in play. You have to be in the upper 40% to get support. If Cegelis had spent her money on reliable polling that showed her in that range, she would have gotten backing.

[mopinko]

119. that seems like a cul-de-sac to me.

at any rate, if they will just run a clean race, i will not bitch. but it would be nice if they ran a real dem. from what little i know about duckworth, she seems pretty wishy washy. i've got little use for another bean. and before you start spouting about how conservative the district is, this is a flat out loosing strategy to give your enemy the flattery of imitation. give the dems there a dem to vote for. if they are republicans, let them have it.

[mopinko]

170. more like they have one side sewed up, time to

move on to fresh pigeons. really, tho, money is it's own party. it grabs from everywhere, and wears whichever coat will blend with the scenery.

[0rganism]

136. Reading Duckworth's webpage, I find this paragraph a bit disturbing

From http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html
---
Iraq
...
"The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists."
---

I'm seeing a lot of buzzwords and catchphrases that could just as easily pass through any politician's mouth -- okay, some of that's to be expected, I'll give her a pass for much of it, even the highly ironic "create a security vacuum" part. But the phrase about "unlimited oil wealth" seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the governing economic issues, and as for "to become a base for terrorists", well, she of all people should know by know that it IS ALREADY a base for terrorists, and has been since Americans occupied Baghdad in 2003.

Either she's unaware of this or is presenting a counterfactual view in the name of moderating her campaign position.

[wiley]

143. Let's not make this about that statement,

because she's not wrong. And she has been there and served. At present Iraq is a magnet and haven for terrorists. It could easily become the base, although it probably already has. The point is that we were deceived about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and went in anyway despite everything that Wes Clark said before it ever happened. Everything that Clark has said would happen, has. I am convinced it was nothing more than an oil grab at this point, with the lagniappe of throwing out an ahole named Saddam. Now, it is obvious at least to every other country in the region that the instability makes it a prime oil grab opportunity for whatever Islamic religious or secular faction can get it first. I even think they would be willing to share the spoils.

Remember that old saw about the Iraqis producing enough oil to sell and run their country and flourish in Democracy? * just sent in 2000 more soldiers to help POLICE Iraq. We broke Iraq, we need to fix it. We can't leave it in chaos, at least not a chaos that we created - if that is even possible at this point. But you don't inspire confidence and get votes by saying we just spent 2 trillion dollars on nothing, but we're sending more troops in. The only way we are EVER going to stop this is to get candidates elected who are willing to mine the love of American troops with a non-partisan condemnation of the policies that put us there. Let there be a a primary already, if Cegelis has any money to run in it, so people can discuss and debate what is actually happening in Iraq.

Our country has to believe it is time to leave. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us at that point. But if we keep discussing it as us, it will happen sooner.

Or, I'm just an optimistic moron.

[0rganism]

144. Why not? Duckworth's progressive credibility is certainly an issue here

> she's not wrong.

Excuse me? In what way is, "allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists" not grossly inaccurate assessment of consequences in light of the current situation?

> And she has been there and served.

Hence my comment about "she of all people should know", but apparently she doesn't.

> At present Iraq is a magnet and haven for terrorists. It could easily become the base, although it
> probably already has.

I would say you just agreed with me. The difference between "magnet and haven" and "base" is semantic at most. We can't allow it? Sorry, too late Tammy, we already did. Like it or not, Saddam was the one preventing that situation. Now, the presence of American forces is exacerbating it.

> The point is that we were deceived about the reasons for going to war in Iraq

That's A point, but in this context, it's non-sequiter.

> Everything that Clark has said would happen, has.

I have the utmost respect for Wes Clark, but his predictions are not relevant to Tammy's comments.

> I am convinced it was nothing more than an oil grab at this point,
> with the lagniappe of throwing out an ahole named Saddam

Much as I agree, I must point out to you that this too is irrelevant.

> Now, it is obvious at least to every other country in the region that the instability
> makes it a prime oil grab opportunity for whatever Islamic religious or secular faction
> can get it first. I even think they would be willing to share the spoils.

All of which begs the questions of whether our forces' presence in Iraq is a stablizing one, and whether the United States, let alone the United States military, should have any say in how any other nominally sovereign country conducts its internal affairs or allocates its oil resources.

> Remember that old saw about the Iraqis producing enough oil to sell and run their country
> and flourish in Democracy?

Right now, under American occupation, Iraq isn't even producing enough oil for Iraqis. The notion that they'll experience a favorable balance of trade under occupation is pure speculation.

> * just sent in 2000 more soldiers to help POLICE Iraq.

Soldiers doing the jobs of local police is half our problem. Please spare me any repetition of bush's half-assed rhetoric.

> We broke Iraq, we need to fix it.

Well, you're half right. There are two salient questions interventionist advocates consistently fail to address: whether Iraq can be "fixed" at all in a way we would recognize as such, and whether "we" are the people capable of doing the job.

> We can't leave it in chaos, at least not a chaos that we created - if that is even
> possible at this point.

Again, no one, not you, not Tammy, and definitely not the bush administration, has been able to show that an American presence enhances Iraq's progress to order more than it hinders said progress. At least you are willing to entertain the concept that it may not be possible -- a step further than our leaders are willing to go.

> But you don't inspire confidence and get votes by saying we just spent 2 trillion
> dollars on nothing, but we're sending more troops in.

Sorry, the time for such pretensions has passed long ago. As long as "inspiring confidence" requires lying about these things, the Republicans will beat us in general elections like proverbial redheaded stepchildren. We need to understand, as a nation, that we did spend 2 trillion dollars chasing shadows, and we're continuing to send our soldiers (not to mention the entire Iraqi population) into a meat grinder of our own creation. Until we level with ourselves about this much, there's no way we can hope to compete with the Republicans.

> The only way we are EVER going to stop this is to get candidates elected who are
> willing to mine the love of American troops with a non-partisan condemnation of
> the policies that put us there.

The only way we can stop this is to get the electorate to recognize the reality of our situation. As long as our candidates entertain vain imperialist fantasies and economic delusions like "unlimited oil wealth" we compound our problems by further entrenching misconceptions and lies in the American political discourse. Once the truth is spoken sincerely and understood, all the lies in the world will damn the liars with their own words.

> Let there be a a primary already, if Cegelis has any money to run in it, so people
> can discuss and debate what is actually happening in Iraq.

There will be a primary. Let us hope that the winner will not have to resort to pablum and platitudes that put her at a disadvantage in the general election, and policy statements about Iraq will reflect reality rather than reinforce illusions.

> Our country has to believe it is time to leave. Unfortunately, there are not enough
> of us at that point. But if we keep discussing it as us, it will happen sooner.

Then feel free to discuss it, but you won't change any minds with bushisms like "We can't leave it in chaos."

> Or, I'm just an optimistic moron.

I wouldn't call you a moron, but I do think your optimism about the results of American occupation is misguided. The Iraqis are ready for us to leave, as ready as they'll ever be. They have a constitution, whatever its flaws, they have an elected government, however legitimate it may be, and what they choose to do with their nation now is an internal affair, not one for our nation to dictate. May their democratic decisions bring them the peace and prosperity they have done without for so long.

For our troops, it's time for Mission Accomplished. Saddam is gone, no WMDs, no nuclear program, "democracy" established, looks like the beginnings of an exit strategy to me.

[warrens]

137. Duckworth is an excellent candidate

Whoever wins the primary will get my support. But to conclude that because Cegalis ran last time, she should have an open field is ridiculous. That is still a Republican district (although nowhere near what it was 10 years ago) and the strongest candidate is what is needed. We'll know who that is after the primary.

[Trish1168]

146. Reminds me of Hackett and Sherrod Brown

Schumer called up Hackett and discouraged him from running.

This is why I intend to donate to Paul Hackett ...besides that he's cute ;)
So, why would a beltway insider call up to discourage a grass roots candidate with a good chance of winning from running?

Why would the democratic party work hard to recruit Sherrod Brown (who initially said he wasn't running) to run against Paul Hackett.

I think the Dems also have a lot to hide. They're guilty of something, I feel it in my bones.

The culture of corruption isn't just one party.

[FightinNewDem]

148. Amen

"The culture of corruption isn't just one party."

Amen to that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

152. but Sherrod Brown is an experienced Congressman who lives

where he represents and is a member of the progressive caucus with a strong consistent progressive voting record in Congress. I have nothing bad to say about Mr. Hackett. I wish him well and am sure that he would make a good voice in Washington. For that matter I have nothing bad to say about Tammy Duckworth. I am sure she would be better than ANY Republican. I would only humbly suggest that people review the actual positions of all the candidates and then decide for themselves.

That's what I did.


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[dogman]

164. The point is that the people of the 6th District will decide.

The leaders of the Illinois Democratic Party have determined that Duckworth is best. That does not guarantee a win either. The local PDA supports her and that's fine also but the OP is making a false statement just to promote an agenda and that is not fine.

[mopinko]

165. please elaborate

what statements are false, and what agenda is not fine?

[dogman]

167. That Duckworth's candidacy is a betrayal.

Why is the PDA agenda superior to The Illinois Democratic Party agenda. I, personally, am more comfortable with Durbin, Obama, and Emanuel than an Arizona activist.

[mopinko]

169. what about pda's agenda is "not fine"??

i have a lot of respect for obama and durbin, but i also have a lot of respect for the people trying to build up the roots of this party.
i see no reason to trash the principal of a grassroots party, even if it is not your cup of tea.

[dogman]

171. I did not say their agenda is not fine.

My point is the attack on solid Illinois Democrats by a person from outside to promote his agenda through misleading statements is not fine. Support your candidate through activism and donations and promoting their stand on the issues without this BS "betrayal" meme. We need to let the people of the 6th District pick their candidate without further division of the Democratic Party. That is Swift Boating as practiced by the GOP. We must debate the issues with out the personal attacks on our leadership. This has been carried too far on both sides of this argument. Stick to facts and issues and we will be in a far better position to defeat Roskam. Why feed his campaign with material to discourage voters while his kind steal our Country?

[mopinko]

177. so, dissent is not allowed in our party?

loyalty and respect for accomplishments should not exist? those are some pretty harsh charges there, dogman. i think you have your swift boat on the wrong foot.
durbin and obama entered this fight long after it had descended into the mud. i don't think they have any business complaining about getting splattered. they have no more business undermining a good democrat than rahm. save the meet and greets at the hilton, and the high power law offices for after the primary. keep the playing field level and there won't be this squealing.

[MrBenchley]

191. Evidently not, from the howling of Cegelis supporters.....

"respect for accomplishments"
Apart from milking nickels out of suckers and losing an election, exactly what ARE Cegelis' accomplishments?

[mopinko]

166. we know that the diebold machines will choose

the highest bidder. we will be watching that here, for sure.

[Douglas Carpenter]

153. Celegis Expenses well below average -- read details -- see link

link:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html

Key points:
Cegelis expenditures were well below the average
4 in 12 candidates spent less than Cegelis
4 in 12 candidates spent twice than Cegelis
2 in 12 candidate spent three times Cegelis

Average of All Dem Expenditures = $69.03
Average w/o Guiterrez = $75.05
Cegelis = $46.4
Roskam = $105.9
The biggest spending Democrat was Rahm Emanuel: $146.5K

___________

In 2004 Cegelis earned nearly 21K votes, beating
the established candidate 2 to 1. In 2006 we'll be lucky to
get 30K total votes in the Democratic primary. Scott will probably take 6-7Kof those.

That means 12-13K wins the primary. Do the math. It's more
than realistic for Cegelis to win the primary.

link for article:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/cegelis-expenditures-well-below.html


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[MrBenchley]

190. Not even close to true....

Please show us ANY candidate anywhere who pissed away three quarters of his or her fundraising in a non-election year (not counting Gutierrez, who raissed just $3,000).

[annabanana]

160. It looks to me like she sure does deserve our support!

done

[Douglas Carpenter]

202. the Daily Kos: Both candidates are stellar. Both can win the seat.

I hope this article makes everyone happy

snip:
Daily Kos a neutral position by kos- link:

http://www.dailykos.com/


"By all accounts, she is a great person (Tammy Duckworth) and would make a great congresswoman to represent the district. But, to put it bluntly, the way Emmanuel got her into the race was simply bullshit. People from me to Howard Dean have preached the power of people taking charge of their political futures and organizing locally. Yet here in this district, Rahm decided what was best for the locals. And the ham-handed way he did this ensured a great deal of unecessary local bitterness toward both the Democratic Party and to Tammy Duckworth."

snip:

"In 2004, this district was a lost cause, a lean-Republican district with an incumbent, Henry Hyde, that had served for about 7,000 years. Christine Cegelis took up the hopeless cause with no party backing and no local party infrastructure of note. Yet with little money, Cegelis scored 44% percent of the vote and helped kickstart local progressive activism. "

snip:

"I am nuetral in this race, though I have a great interest in the outcome. This district is my old stomping grounds. At 17, I was a precinct captain for the local GOP and worked to get Henry Hyde reelected in 1988. I'm still atoning for that "youthful indiscretion", and so I'll be extra motivated to recapture this seat for the Dems. And that'll be on behalf of whoever the district's Democrats decide should represent them in November."



Tammy Duckworth's positions on issues:

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html

Christine Cegalis' positions on issues:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/issues

[Kevin Spidel]

203. Her campaign update:

A Momentous Weekend
We had a feeling this weekend was going to be special when we got word that the Progressive Democrats of America had endorsed me Friday and would be sending out a fundraising email on my behalf. I am honored to have received the endorsement from a grassroots-values group for whom I have a lot of respect. I’m happy to report that we have received a great outpouring of donations from progressives motivated by the story of my candidacy and this race.
Saturday brought Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) to District 6 for an eagerly anticipated luncheon and job creation town hall. The luncheon gave us all the opportunity for substantive talks on a variety of issues, and also a discussion of Rep. Kaptur’s book, Women in Congress. Marcy Kaptur is the longest-serving woman in Congress and has been a great source of advice and encouragement throughout this campaign.
But I have to say, nothing had prepared me for the excitement and energy the Congresswoman’s visit generated and which built to an unbelievable pitch at our Job Creation Town Hall. There were cheers and applause throughout, as the more than 120 people in attendance listened to the spirited discussion. This diary on Daily Kos by Michael in Chicago did a terrific job of quoting Rep. Kaptur and capturing the emotion of the afternoon. I can speak for myself, my staff and countless supporters -- we are all impressed with Marcy Kaptur and feel as if her visit was a great addition to the momentum that has been building for our campaign.
Sunday morning I had an early morning interview on Fox Chicago Perspective, a news and opinion show with Walter Jacobson and Jack Conaty. The show gave me an opportunity to talk about our campaign to all of Chicagoland. I told Jack of my view that this is a local race, based on local issues. All of the insider candidates Washington can bring my way won’t take away the value of the grassroots network we’ve built from scratch here in District 6. I enjoyed getting that message out on Fox.
Today is the holiday honoring the birth of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I attended a breakfast and will be going to a religious service in his honor later this evening and then attending a Candidate Forum held by the Democratic Party of Wayne Township. It will be a day for spiritual reflection on one of our country’s great heroes. The candidate forum will give all three of the candidates for the Democratic nomination a chance to explain why we are deserving of your votes. I am hopeful that reflecting on the great leadership of Dr. King will give me the strength to convey my convictions with some of his passion and inspiration.
Thank you to all of my supporters – this has been the best of long weekends.

[Douglas Carpenter]

204. for regular updates and more details about the Cegelis campaign

check this blog regularly - it will also answer many of the questions raised:

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/


http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute