Someone needs to explain this (DLC) book to me RIGHT NOW

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

What the hell is this crap? I mean.....What the...

http://www.amazon.com/Thumpin-Democrats-Ruthless-Republican-Revolution/dp/0385523289/ref=sr_1_1/102-5470406-6566532?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183091149&sr=1-1

[illinoisprogressive]

1. any reviews yet.

I think it's an ode to Rahm but, I've heard pro and con about the book.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

2. Four laudatory reviews on amazon

I was wondering what the fuck it was. I was at Border's today and saw it in the Politics section.

[SaveElmer]

3. Why don't you pick it up and look for yourself...nt

[Telly Savalas]

57. I enjoyed the sequel "Thumpin' 2: We Don't Have the Votes"

Maybe the first one would be a good read.

[PassingFair]

25. People who like this book also liked:

No Excuses: The Bob Schrum Story


:rofl:

If ANYONE ever NEEDED EXCUSES for TERRIBLE WORK, it's SCHRUM.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. DLC Revisionist History

My recollection is that the Democrats in total had a higher winning percentage than Mr. Emanuel's hand-picked wunderkind - perhaps someone can disabuse me of that idea.

(Of course, Mrs. Clinton's proxy Carville said that the Democrats had suffered a defeat of "Rumsfeldian" proportions in 2006...)

They just make crap up - like how 'free' trade with China will help the Middle Class, how we need to go to war in Iraq (perhaps soon Iran), and so forth.

[Totally Committed]

13. Exactly. DLC Revisionism, that's all.

And, as we all know "revisionism" = making sh*t up.

Carville, Emmanuel, and all the other DLC liars they employ to "reprogram" Democratic voters' brains need to be stopped and put out of their jobs post-haste.

Just my opinion.

TC

[wyldwolf]

24. What was "made up" in this book?

[ShortnFiery]

5. It's the DLC's pack of "attack toy poodles" prancing around as The Unitary Executive does this:

[madfloridian]

6. I wrote something about a part of the book.

This book was giving the credit for our win only to Rahm and his cohorts. That is not fair. Many others were involved in the win.

This part made me absolutely livid with anger.

This part of the new book about Rahm is not very pleasant.

It made people mad that I posted it, but gosh darn, it is in a book....so why can't it be posted here?????

Here's just a portion...

"Emanuel mocked the former Vermont governor (Dean) as a political lightweight from a tiny, rural, homogenous state. "No disrespect, but some of us are arrogant enough, we come from Chicago, we think we know what it means to knock on a door," Bendavid quotes Emanuel as telling Dean. Emanuel "slammed his hand on the table," then continued his tirade: "Look, Chuck comes from Brooklyn. I come from Chicago. It ain't Burlington, Vermont. Now, we understand that Burlington knows a lot about grassroots politics and we know nothing."

Now tell me that is ok. It is not ok to make fun or and mock people.

[WCGreen]

8. What do they know about grass roots....

They raise money and spend it on Radio and TV...

That's easy...

Walking a district, from someone who has done it three times for himself and countless times for others, is hard work...

[madfloridian]

9. It is very hard work.

We supported a candidate locally, and we worked our butts off getting petition cards signed so he did not have to pay the fees.

It was very hard work.

[wyldwolf]

20. much more than you do.

These people were knocking on doors long before Howard Dean was a national figure.

I canvassed and phone banked for the DCCC (through the PAC I'm vice chair of) in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

In 2004 I visited over 200 houses. In 2006, I doubled it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. Rahm Emanuel:

Major jerkoff. No, his handpicked candidates were not particularly successful in aggregate.

[wyldwolf]

21. His handpicked candidates were only a fraction of the story

the DCCC poured money and strategy into dozens of winning races. But if we want to compare apples to apples, the DCCC's top and mid tier targeted races had a higher win ratio than the top contributed to candidates from actblue.com.

[rucky]

7. File under Fiction. n/t

[wyldwolf]

11. I've read it. Excellent book

Nothing revisionist about it (as is being said here.)

Sorry. The only people who don't believe Emanuel's leading role in 2006 are the Dean worshipers in the netroots.

[Totally Committed]

14. Isn't that a bit like Freddie Kruger endorsing the latest "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequel?

I read the book too, and I have to tell you, I found the level of dishonesty, disinformation, and outright untruth to be disgusting. But, that's only my opinion.

I don't doubt you loved it at all.

TC

[wyldwolf]

16. "dishonesty, disinformation, and outright untruth" Examples?

[Totally Committed]

18. No, thanks...

join a book club. I'd rather go out and tend my garden while it's cool. I'm done fighting with you.

It's only my opinion, after all.

TC

[wyldwolf]

19. thought so.

"dishonest" and "untruths" are not matters of opinion.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

23. yes, and I know what the defintion of "dodge" is, too

[polichick]

15. Did R.E. have a 50-State Plan too...

Or what?

[wyldwolf]

17. no, but in actuality Dean didn't, either.

I have first hand knowledge of the lack of DNC involvement in GA, for example, including the Governor's and Lt. Governor's races, the Congressional 6th District race, and several state level races I was involved in. Further, the DNC was MIA in the two hardest fought congressional races in GA.

The only thing we saw were some nice DNC brochures and door hangers which weren't real effective because in Southern states, you do try to accent the individual candidate and not the national party.

In many states, the "50 state strategy" merely involved one or two canvassing training sessions for volunteers. Case in point. A friend of mine in MS who has been involved in grass roots politics for 20 years attended one such session. He came from it and said "we've been doing these things for years."

Which goes hand in hand with what Emanuel said to Dean in the book in question: "I've been to these states, Howard. Where's your plan? There's no one there." And "You think we don't know how to knock on doors?" (paraphrased.)

[madfloridian]

27. Well, no need to worry.....

Pretty soon Harold will be in charge...or Simon.

And you guys will have the party to yourselves. Which is what you wanted all the time.

[Telly Savalas]

12. Is it published by the folks who make "The Onion"?

[Radical Activist]

26. The voters have repudiated Rahm.

We all know the election was a referendum on the war. Donald Duck could have chaired the DCCC and won back Congress.

Rahm's main accomplishment was to alienate the people that put Democrats in power by playing to the right on the Iraq war issue. That's why Congressional approval ratings are even lower than they were under Republican control. Yeah, great job Rahm!

[wyldwolf]

28. nah.

We all know the election was a referendum on the war.

Actually, exit polling said ethics was the #1 voter issue.

Donald Duck could have chaired the DCCC and won back Congress.

So you're admitting the DCCC chair won back congress. Good.

Rahm's main accomplishment was to alienate the people that put Democrats in power by playing to the right on the Iraq war issue.

No, his main accomplishment was winning back the congress. The only people he "alienated" was the left netroots.

That's why Congressional approval ratings are even lower than they were under Republican control.

I'm not following you here. There has been a downward trend on congressional approval of congress since the 60s. It's actually the Republicans pulling those numbers down. New Poll: 49% say they "disapproved of what Democratic leaders in Congress have done since taking over in January," some 57% "said they believe Democratic control of Congress is good for the country."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/29/poll-support-for-dems-in-congress-wavering-gop-still-in-disfavor/

[Radical Activist]

29. Ok then

I'd love to see those exit poll. People were voting about the war. But hey, even if you're right, its not as though the Foley scandal resulted from Rahm Emanuel being some kind of brilliant organizer. It would have happened and effected the election with or without him.

"So you're admitting the DCCC chair won back congress. Good."

Umm...No the obvious point I made is that the DCCC chair was irrelevant to the results of this election. Are you being serious?

Thank you for posting a poll that shows more American disapprove of the job Democrats are doing than those who approve. 49% disapprove, 42% approve. You made my point for me.

To further settle the matter, check this out:

U.S. Congress' Approval Rating Hits All-time Low
http://english.cri.cn/2947/2007/06/22/[e-mail]

You can also check here to see the trend that Congressional approval ratings have fallen since Democrats took control.
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

[wyldwolf]

32. Certainly

I'd love to see those exit poll. People were voting about the war.

By a wide margin, Americans who voted Tuesday in the midterm election say they disapprove of the war in Iraq.

But when asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue, including the war, according to national exit polls.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/index.html

its not as though the Foley scandal resulted from Rahm Emanuel being some kind of brilliant organizer.

Well, I'd hoped this book would have covered that. It was whispered in many circles, including DU, than Emanuel set the Foley scandal in motion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/rahm_emanuels_unholy_foley_fol.html

Robert Novack all but accused Emanuel of it, saying Emanuel waited until the right political moment to make it public.

the obvious point I made is that the DCCC chair was irrelevant to the results of this election. Are you being serious?

I don't think YOU'RE being serious, or maybe you just don't know the role the DCCC chairman has typically taken - chief fundraiser. But Emanuel was a bit different.

he harangued possible candidates endlessly, arranging for them to be wooed by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and a multitude of others. At the same time, he tried to pressure aging Republicans into retiring by making clear what difficult races they would be facing. The Democrats as a party had to respond repeatedly to new Republican scandals - to Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley - deciding each time how much to risk injecting themselves into a story they wanted to see remain focused on Republican wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Emanuel criss-crossed the country raising money and doing publicity for candidates, losing fourteen pounds and gaining gray hair.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/13/24629/7115

Your statement is better applied to Howard Dean.

Thank you for posting a poll that shows more American disapprove of the job Democrats are doing than those who approve. 49% disapprove, 42% approve. You made my point for me.

Actually, I disproved your point. Your above conclusion has been true for decades. In 1964, Congress had a 70% approval rating. In 1994, it was down to 19%.

However, the poll I cited shows it is the GOP housemembers that have pulled the numbers down to historic lows.

[Radical Activist]

43. No good

That exit poll was of all voters and doesn't provide a link to more detail. What was the top issue of those who voted for Democrats? That's more relevant.

The full page on CNN for exit polls shows that of those who said Iraq was "very important" 60% voted Democratic.

Also, 82% of those who voted Democratic said we should remove ALL troops from Iraq. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people are angry because the Rahm Emanuel third way Democrats aren't giving people what they asked for.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

Yes, I remember that one of the conservative defenses of Republican Congressman John Shimkus (who did nothing when he found out about Foley) was that Emanuel also knew earlier and did nothing. I don't recall that helping our cause. In fact, it made Democrats look just as slimy as Shimkus and the Republicans. I also recall that the DCCC did nothing for Shimkus' opponent, even after the scandal broke.

And for all of Rahm's efforts we know that some candidates won without being recruited or getting any help from the DCCC, and that some of Rahm's candidates lost. Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Darcy Burner in WA, Patricia Madrid in New Mexico come to mind.
It was a national election that turned on current events. The only surprising thing is that Democrats didn't gain back the house by a larger margin.

"However, the poll I cited shows it is the GOP housemembers that have pulled the numbers down to historic lows."

How does it show that? The series of polls I posted show that Congress is consistently rated lower since Democrats took over. It happened because both Republicans and liberal Democrats are unhappy. By attempting to please everyone he pleased no one.

[wyldwolf]

50. very good

That exit poll was of all voters and doesn't provide a link to more detail.

You mean we don't want an exit poll of ALL VOTERS? :shrug: Your reply starts out lame from the get-go.

The full page on CNN for exit polls shows that of those who said Iraq was "very important" 60% voted Democratic.

So? It wasn't just Democrats who voted in 2006, now was it? You’re looking at party breakdown on the numbers. In regards to Iraq, 35% of ALL voters found Iraq to be Extremely important, and 32% found it to be very important. I’ll disregard the figures for “somewhat important” and “not at all important” because they hurt your case more. Averaging the “Extremely important” and “very important” states gives us a figure of 33.5% who found the Iraq war to be extremely or very important.

On ethics and corruption, 41% of ALL voters found the issue to be extremely important, while 33% found it to be very important, averaging to be 37% who found it to be most or very important.

Certainly the party breakdowns give the impression that Iraq was most important if you assume that the new congress and senate were elected to represent just Democrats. But these figures take into account all voters. The people who elected the new congress and senate chose corruption and ethics as the their #1 issue.

Here are the same results from Pew:



We see that of the 41% of those who found ethics to be the most important issue, 60% voted Democrat. Of the 36% who cited Iraq, again, 60% voted Dem.

And for all of Rahm's efforts we know that some candidates won without being recruited or getting any help from the DCCC, and that some of Rahm's candidates lost.

Rahm heavily targeted 50 house races and won more than half he targeted. We also know, statistically, that Rahm candidates faired better than the netroots-powered Actblue candidates, which is the only indicator I can think of to measure who were the "netroots" candidates.

How does it show that?

Because Republicans get a significantly lower approval rating the Democrats. :shrug:

The series of polls I posted show that Congress is consistently rated lower since Democrats took over.

No they don't. The first poll AFTER the Dems took over had congress at 32% approval. The LAST poll taken while the GOP controlled congress had them at 21% approval. No other poll in that series has Democrats below 21%. Averaging the 44 polls taken since the Dems took power gives them a 3% edge over the GOP in the last 44 polls taken before they lost.

[Radical Activist]

51. You're dodging my point.

No, not an exit poll of everyone who voted. You're looking at exit poll data for all voters when you should be looking at data for those who voted Democrat. The people who put the Democrats into power cared about the war in Iraq. What people who voted Republican cared about has nothing to do with it so why do you keep posting numbers about them?

But you can post all the numbers about ethics you want and its still a red herring. Rahm Emanuel is still not responsible for the Foley scandal or Tom DeLay's legal problems that helped get more Democrats elected. It doesn't prove he had anything to do with the election results except that he embarrassed the party by holding onto the information in what people saw as a calculated political move that endangered children. Rahm weakened the advantage we should have had on the issue.

Approval ratings for Congress did go up right after the election. You're correct that for a while people were temporarily happy with the Democrats but they are now as unpopular as the Republicans were. So why did the numbers start going down again once Democrats actually started doing something? Could it be that Democratic leaders did something people didn't like? Democrats not living up to expectations is the most logical answer. The numbers show that. Why else have Democratic numbers gone so low, much lower than whey they first took power? People are disappointed.

[wyldwolf]

52. you can't make a claim that something was voter's #1 issue by only using Dem voters.

You're looking at exit poll data for all voters when you should be looking at data for those who voted Democrat.

Nope. You started this by saying the election was a referendum on Iraq. I have shown, through a CNN poll, that exitpolling from ALL voters shows Iraq was NOT the #1 issue of the last election. Further, I showed a Pew poll that shows Iraq wasn't the #1 issue of Dem voters. It's pretty clear. But you're gung-ho to be right that you're actually suggesting that only Democratic voters should be considered in determining the #1 issue of the American people in last year's election. Silly.

Why else have Democratic numbers gone so low, much lower than whey they first took power? People are disappointed.

Which simply follows a decades old trend. :shrug:

As for Emanuel, it is really an absurd assumption that Democrats would have won anyway. Despite Foley, despite Delay, despite Iraq, Dennis Kucinich could not have won in Heath Shuler's district. And that is but one example.

[Radical Activist]

53. No, the argument is about Rahm Emanuel

and whether he had anything to do with the outcome of the election, which is a point you've given up arguing. Avoiding the issue with tortured interpretations of exit polling data is a nice distraction but it doesn't make your argument that Emanuel is any good.
I'm gung-ho on the fact that when you want to know why people voted for Democrats then you don't look at data for people who voted Republican. That's like asking a Catholic why he likes being protestant.

No the fact that approval numbers went up after November of '06 and went down significantly once Democrats caved on the Iraq war issue is not a decades long trend. Its a less than a year long trend. That is such a disingenuous argument for you to make.

[wyldwolf]

54. you keep changing the point of the conversation. Let's review...

You start post 26 off with "The voters have repudiated Rahm. We all know the election was a referendum on the war."

Post 28, I respond to each of your points.

Post 29, you again start off by referencing your original point: That the election was a referendum on the war by asking to see election polling numbers, which I prompty provide in post 32. Also in post 32, I AGAIN respond to each of your points - including Emanuel.

In post 43, right from the start, the exit polling is front and center for you.

In post 50, I AGAIN respond to your by now silly spinning of the polls AND your references to Emanuel.

Your post 51 was exclusively about polling and congressional approval numbers.

In my reply, I AGAIN respond to the exit polling theme AND to the Emanuel question.

So, now in post 53, you accuse me of dodging the Emanuel guestion, although I have repeatedly addressed it. :shrug:

No, the argument is about Rahm Emanuel and whether he had anything to do with the outcome of the election, which is a point you've given up arguing.

Post 28: his main accomplishment was winning back the congress. The only people he "alienated" was the left netroots.

Post 32: Well, I'd hoped this book would have covered that. It was whispered in many circles, including DU, than Emanuel set the Foley scandal in motion. Robert Novack all but accused Emanuel of it, saying Emanuel waited until the right political moment to make it public.... I don't think YOU'RE being serious, or maybe you just don't know the role the DCCC chairman has typically taken - chief fundraiser. But Emanuel was a bit different.

he harangued possible candidates endlessly, arranging for them to be wooed by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and a multitude of others. At the same time, he tried to pressure aging Republicans into retiring by making clear what difficult races they would be facing. The Democrats as a party had to respond repeatedly to new Republican scandals - to Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley - deciding each time how much to risk injecting themselves into a story they wanted to see remain focused on Republican wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Emanuel criss-crossed the country raising money and doing publicity for candidates, losing fourteen pounds and gaining gray hair.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/13/24629/7115

Post 50: Rahm heavily targeted 50 house races and won more than half he targeted. We also know, statistically, that Rahm candidates faired better than the netroots-powered Actblue candidates, which is the only indicator I can think of to measure who were the "netroots" candidates.

Post 52: As for Emanuel, it is really an absurd assumption that Democrats would have won anyway. Despite Foley, despite Delay, despite Iraq, Dennis Kucinich could not have won in Heath Shuler's district. And that is but one example.

In EVERY ONE of my replies, I've argued what you just told me I've given up arguing! :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

55. Totally Committed was right.

I'm looking back at my original post which was about Emanuel alienating the public. Despite your spin about "decades long trends" the polls show I'm right and you haven't come up with a single argument to contradict that. There's a reason public approval has significantly dropped in the last few months and you can't own up to that fact. You have no response to the fact that Congressional approval numbers have fallen from the 40's in November-January to the 20's today. Your spin and distortion about numbers is not a response.

The arguments about exit data were your distraction from the real issue from the moment you brought it up. That is so reminiscent of talk radio tactics to go off on a tangent. Even if you're right that the public cared more about reform, it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument about how effective Emanuel was as DCCC chairman. Its still a red herring, as I said before, but you just love to keep coming back to that instead of the real issue.

You wrote that Emanuel won races in "more than half he targeted." If all he can do is win more than half he targeted in a national landslide victory for Democrats (the rest coming from districts he didn't target) then that's pretty pathetic. That's nothing to brag about.

You've only come up with one good example of a difficult race he won. I've listed three he lost that should have been won. It doesn't look like you have a leg to stand on.

[wyldwolf]

56. no, he was wrong

I'm looking back at my original post which was about Emanuel alienating the public. Despite your spin about "decades long trends" the polls show I'm right and you haven't come up with a single argument to contradict that.

Then you're blind. Six month averages SINCE the Dems won control are higher than the six month average BEFORE the GOP lost control. Anyone with any elementary math skills can see this. Plus, the lowest point in the last year for the GOP is lower than the current position for the Dems. The Dems having a higher mark at one point is the aberration.

The arguments about exit data were your distraction from the real issue from the moment you brought it up.

:rofl: No, when you said Emanuel was repudiated at the polls, YOU brought the voting booth into the discussion.

it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument about how effective Emanuel was as DCCC chairman.

Which I continuously addressed...

Its still a red herring...

Which you introduced...

you just love to keep coming back to that instead of the real issue

Which I have continuously discussed.

You've only come up with one good example of a difficult race he won.

Then allow me...

- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
- Ron Klein (FL-22
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)

[Radical Activist]

58. I don't think you're arguing from an standpoint of honesty.

You don't like the drop in Congressional approval ratings that occurred after Congressional leadership adopted Rahm's "third way" approach to Iraq so your only response is to lump together the six month average. Give me a break!
Sure, the Dem leadership looks better when you average in their numbers for their first two or three months before they so sorely disappointed voters, but any fool can see there was a significant drop about the time they caved on Iraq. Ramh's third way proach is being rejected by the public, which is what my original post was about, and no amount of deceptive averaging of aggregate numbers changes the reality of the drop in approval ratings over the last few months.

Hey, what are the six year averages for Congress? That will be just as irrelevant and also obscure reality, as you have so deceptively attempted to do. You prove the old cliche that there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

[wyldwolf]

30. Several reviews here:

A few from "Progressive" blogs:

Firedoglake and DailyKOS:

Bendavid's book is a faithful if slightly cheerleading recounting of the 2006 cycle. You ride along with the Democrat despondency after 2004, the sloth of the Democratic insiders, the recruiting successes, the downturn for Bush after Katrina, the worsening situation in Iraq, the paranoia of the pollsters, the Carville's, and the staffers, the Foley scandal, and finally, victory night. If you were paying attention throughout 2006, nothing will surprise you, except maybe DCCC Spokesman Bill Burton's trash-talking of blogger Bob Brigham for being polite on a conference call with Rahm (Burton called Brigham a 'pussy'). While certainly cheerleading for Rahm, Bendavid is careful to note that the larger environment was the cause of the electoral wave, and gives bloggers and outside activists some credit.

The book starts with Rahm on a cell phone arguing with James Carville and Stan Greenberg, who are encouraging him to get candidates to run positive messages towards the end of the campaign. He pretty much says fuck off to the both of them... Bendavid then cycles back to 2005, with Karl Rove's prediction of a coming era of Republican dominance and a fawning description of Grover Norquist's Wednesday morning group at the apex of its power. Nancy Pelosi recruited Emanuel for the job of dethroning them, which he sets out to do immediately and aggressively by assembling a sold team (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Chris Van Hollen). He began recruiting candidates like Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Patricia Madrid of New Mexico, shooting to put 50 seats in play (which he did).

... And so, in a typical Rahm Emanuel sign-off to this post, I'll say, "Fuck you. You better win or I'll kill you. I love you."

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/13/fdl-book-salon-the-thumpin/

Rahm Emanuel often seems to serve as an all-purpose villain for many in the netroots. It is simultaneously understandable - he engaged in some high-profile sniping at netroots favorite Howard Dean during the 2006 elections - and puzzling - he was, after all, the chief strategist for Democratic efforts to regain the House of Representatives in the year those efforts succeeded spectacularly.

The book traces out the campaign from the very beginning, starting with candidate recruitment. Emanuel's goal was to recruit fifty strong challengers to Republican incumbents - far more challengers than he had any expectation of winning. To do this, he harangued possible candidates endlessly, arranging for them to be wooed by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and a multitude of others. At the same time, he tried to pressure aging Republicans into retiring by making clear what difficult races they would be facing. The Democrats as a party had to respond repeatedly to new Republican scandals - to Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley - deciding each time how much to risk injecting themselves into a story they wanted to see remain focused on Republican wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Emanuel criss-crossed the country raising money and doing publicity for candidates, losing fourteen pounds and gaining gray hair.

The Thumpin' spends relatively little time on the conflict between Emanuel and Howard Dean over whether to turn all available resources to targeted House races or to invest in the 50 state strategy. One succinct explanation offered is that...

"Part of the conflict was institutional - Emanuel was narrowly focused on House races, while Dean's job was to think about the whole party, senators to state legislators. It was hardly surprising that Emanuel wanted more than Dean was willing to give."

Ultimately, though, Bendavid does endorse Emanuel's tactics and execution over Dean's:

"Dean's focus on rebuilding the party was undoubtedly admirable, and few Democrats disagreed with the goal. And Dean's DNC had contributed to the victory. But at times during the campaign, Dean had seemed curiously indifferent to the opportunities before him, saying it would take years to see results of his fifty-state strategy. So his more zealous supporters' quick claim to credit after the election did not ring true."

Whatever your view of Emanuel or his strategies, the book is very much worth reading. However much credit you give him for the House majority Democrats gained in 2006, if you care about a House majority, it's worth knowing what Rahm Emanuel did to help achieve it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/13/24629/7115

[madfloridian]

31. Tricky plays in Florida Land.....kicking a Democrat out of the race...

and putting a Republican in.

I almost hate posting this link to a journal post. It makes me unhealthily angry. You must follow the additional link about how Rahm used the Foley issue...I won't post that part here.

Details from the Swamp that we call Florida Politics....FL 16...Lutrin speaks out.

I have posted here before about several campaigns here in Florida in which Democrats who were already running, were building great creds, just needed some party support and financing....but were either asked to drop out or in effect forced out by funds being dried up. David Lutrin is one of those I wrote about in Florida 16.

Lutrin is blogging at Firedoglake today with an introduction by Howie Klein of DownwithTyranny. It is apparently his first time blogging.

This verifies that one person chose the candidate here, and that he was a Republican. The DCCC handpicked a Republican millionaire in this district. The post so far (you have to keep refreshing comments) does not mention that our state chairwoman was with Rahm on this, but she was paying a visit/visits there to see Mahoney as well.

I am a Floridian, but I have a strong belief that our party's leaders should NOT be recruiting Republicans to run as Democrats and pushing those of our own party out of the race.

[wyldwolf]

33. shows what a good strategist he is.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

34. Then you did not read the link to Fire Dog Lake.

And that's a shame really. I think it would help you see what is going on with the congressional committees and is leaving the people out. Plus you missed something that was offered to Lutrin if he dropped out....talk about playing tough?

But then you know little old sensitive me....I care too much about things

I keep getting all these lectures about my wimpiness and sensitivity...yet no one in your part of the party ever wants to admit to what is getting so obvious.

Some day what is written there at FDL will become more common knowledge and won't have to snuck into conversation.

Oh, and one question. Why did Rahm wait so long to do or say anything about Foley?

[wyldwolf]

35. did you read MY link to firedoglake?

But, really, why should I care what "progressive" blogger has to say about Emanuel? It's pretty predictable.

Say? You know who played the most pivotal role in removing Cegelis from the House race for Duckworth? HINT: It wasn't Emanuel. But he's from the same state.

[madfloridian]

38. The person speaking out was the candidate who was forced out by Dems.

Yes, Durbin and the rest of the Chicago machine pushed Christine out of the race.

Power play.

Big money, big power.

Read the words of the candidate...not a blogger.

I know how much you hate progressive bloggers. You think of bloggers as the nutroots.

[wyldwolf]

40. As would be expected. But this is yet another example...

...of "progressives" being totally surprised at things the party has done for decades.

Funny you picked Durban. No, it was Obama.

[madfloridian]

42. Durbin had a hand in it bigtime...

Yes Obama did as well.

Not really surprised, just really now realizing the stakes. Now that we are stuck in Iraq, now that we have the bankruptcy bill to insure the corporations don't get screwed by all those bad medical bankruptcy folks.....you are still bragging about all you guys accomplished.

[wyldwolf]

45. you should always know the stakes before you play any game.

[madfloridian]

47. So America's future is just a "game" to you.

I thought so.

Just a political game to outdo those who really care about people and not just the corporate well-being.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

48. it must be for you. You first used "game" terminology. Just following your lead.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

37. LOL! You started the thread...why not debunk things in it?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

39. Because you admitted to being a VICE PRESIDENT of a PAC

You have your facts ready and apparently you sit here ALL DAY to shove some statistics in our face whenever someone criticizes the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

41. so because I have facts at my disposal and use them, I'm a troll? LOL!

I'm sorry you don't like your little "progressive" apple cart to be upset with inconvenient facts.

[rinsd]

44. I'm sorry did you just call someone else a troll??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

46. yeah he did. But did you read WHY?

Because I admitted to being the vice chair of a PAC and I have a lot of statistics.

[rinsd]

49. Must be some new definition of troll

TGIF

:toast: