I agree with Joe Sestak.....WH should not be shaping races.

[madfloridian]

Those are the Rahm tactics through the years. I thought we might be done with that stuff. But we are not.

White House shapes state races

The overt involvement of Obama's team in New York, where they have tried ease Gov. David Paterson out of the race, has made clear this is a White House willing to use its clout to help clear the field for favored Democratic candidates and to direct money and other resources in the way it thinks will benefit the administration and help preserve the Democrats' majority in Congress. The president's strategists have recruited candidates -- and nudged others to step aside -- in races in New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections. The involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who helped Democrats win the House three years ago as chairman of the party's congressional campaign committee.

While some party officials applaud the White House for its efforts, the actions are drawing alarm from some Democrats who believe they cross a line and run contrary to Obama's often-stated pledge to rise above partisan battles.

"The Democratic Party under Barack Obama did not come into office because of political calculation. It got there because of audacity," said Rep. Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat who ignored efforts by the White House to stay out of a primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter. "To be seen like you are selecting winners and losers in a party boss way will breed some resentment and in a longer term it won't bode well."

The White House on Monday played down any risks in becoming embroiled in state politics.

"The hazards of the job," said Robert Gibbs, press secretary.

It is how we got into Iraq, it is how we got the bankruptcy bill, it is how we got the FISA bill through, plus the $28 million dollar raise in abstinence only education with Democrats in power.

Handpicking candidates regardless of issues, but only to win.

David Lutrin, a school teacher, union activist and staunch supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, decided to run against Foley before Mahoney entered the race. After Mahoney declared his candidacy, Lutrin was contacted by field organizers for the DCCC who asked him to drop out and let Mahoney run unopposed.

Lutrin said that he also met personally with Mahoney. During a three- hour breakfast meeting, Mahoney offered Lutrin a higher-paying job if he agreed to drop out of the primary. "Mahoney tried to get me to run in a different district. He offered me a job at one of his non-profit organizations where he said that I would make more than I was making as a teacher. He said I could campaign full time while working at his non-profit as long as I agreed to drop out of the race," Lutrin said. Lutrin declined the job offer.

According to Lutrin, when he refused to step aside, the DCCC shored up local political support for Mahoney. The local AFL-CIO chapter, of which Lutrin was a member, came out with an early endorsement of Mahoney's campaign. According to Lutrin, the union told him that "they would like to back a fellow union brother, but Mahoney has more money and more political support from the party." Lutrin eventually dropped out of the race when the local teachers' union decided to support Mahoney.

A millionaire Republican businessman was handpicked by Rahm and the state party chair. He barely won, had two affairs, and the seat went Republican again.

Lutrin was forced out of the race. It's a familiar story told often, and it should not be going on.

[madfloridian]

1. Why not just do away with primaries altogether if this is going to happen?

That way the party leaders will be able to rest assured there will be no Howard Dean types slipping in to mess up the careful rhetoric.

:shrug:

[napi21]

2. I believe EVERY WH does the same thing...we just never hear

about it. I can see why they & every other Dem Party leader would ask Patterson. The people of NY don't like him, his poll #'s are awful, and as hard as it is for me to believe anyone would vote for Guilianni, I believe Rudy would beat David badly. I don't live in MY, but I'd love to see Quomo be the new Governor. David is a good guy, but he has the communications ability of my dog.

[madfloridian]

3. IMO I don't know about NY views on Patterson...

but I feel if one situation is okay, then others should be also....and it gets to the point that no primaries are needed.

It really is easier that way. The admin gets the ideological fit that they want...and it sure saves money.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. It leaves out the voters.

[napi21]

4. You can't really eliminate the promaries. What would you do

is 3, 4, or morer candidates run for the same seat? You'd end up having to have several or at least one additional final election to get a winner!

[vaberella]

6. I dislike Patterson.

He's not done much for New York overall and his leadership is lackluster. To be honest, I find that Mayor Bloomberg is more aligned to talking to New Yorkers and getting "good ideas" out there even if he doesn't have them come to fruition. I'm not into Bloomberg but he'd be a better Governor at this point. Patterson is really rather weak. Probably doesn't have the votes and ineffectual.

If you want to know more...there is a New York section on DU.

[Captain Hilts]

44. Bloomberg would be a vastly better choice. But let NYers decide. nt

[rmp yellow]

8. That Rudy would beat Patterson is irrelevant to me....because David would never beat Cuomo anyway

I think the concern about David losing to Rudy is irrelevant, since Patterson trails Cuomo by a gazillion points in polls. Cuomo would also beat Rudy comfortably.

[pinto]

5. Perhaps the bigger story here is not the WH involvement, but its publicity. Probably a common

occurrence for the titular leader of the party to weigh in on "local" races to some extent. I assume Dems, across the party spectrum, would like to see the Governor's office in NY remain Democratic. While it doesn't directly influence federal legislation in any way, the position is surely high profile in media terms.

[Undercurrent]

17. Obama is NOT the titular leader of our party.

He is the actual leader, and as such he has responsibilities. One of those is to look out for the best interests of our party. A party leader must occasionally get down in the weeds.

I'm glad he takes his job as our party leader seriously.

[MH1]

27. Squashing a good dem to support a republican is not good leadership

and is not looking out for the best interests of the party or the public.

(I'm talking the Sestak / Specter race here, of course. Paterson should have lost in a primary with a good dem challenger and the WH shouldn't have needed to get involved.)

Good leadership would have been finding a way to make the most of the Specter switch without interfering so overtly in the primary.

[Undercurrent]

33. You certainly have the right to

your opinion about the PA Senate race, or what constitutes good leadership. Personally, I'm of a different opinion.

[dionysus]

34. that's a question of tactics vs principle. i don't defend it but i understand it.

from what i have read, sestak stands a chance of beating specter in the primary but has a lesser chance of winning the general. so i can see the reasoning, but i will agree from a pure principle stance it is wrong.

that's why we have the blue dog conundrum. of course we would like these blue dogs replaced with true progressives, however the makeup of the states most of these blue dogs live in would ensure a general election defeat. it's a paradox. in this case, with the blue dogs we have control of the committees and things like that. the rub is they'll vote with us on almost everything but not on a few, but very key things. if those 6 dogs were replaced with repubs we'd have no majority.

staying 100% true to principle can leave you with no majority at all and worse off in the long run. i mean even olympia snowe wouldn't be conservative enough to run as a republican in blue dog land. that's the world we live in.

i beleive more in a realpolitik point of view.

[MH1]

38. Sestak will beat Toomey (the republican) in the general

He will have a harder time beating Specter in the primary, especially with the big guns of the Dem party backing Specter.

If Obama gave Sestak the support he's giving Specter, Sestak would clean Toomey's clock. Toomey is far too right-wing. But by Specter switching, Toomey has no serious primary competition, so he has all this time now to re-invent himself in the minds of the voters as a moderate. The more I think about it, the more I think we were better off if Specter didn't switch. Then it would have been Sestak v. Toomey in the general after the republicans beat each other up and Toomey has to appeal to the GOP base; and Sestak wins easily. (Really, is there anywhere important that Specter's one vote is going to matter?)

[Perky]

7. It's the price you pay to a party switcher.

In order to get Specter to lave the GOOP it was part of the enticement package. Clear the field and endorse him early. :shrug: His defection had short term and medium term bennies for the President and quite frankly from a purely political perspective, First Term presidents could care less about the long term.... It's the price you pay. :shrug:

[stray cat]

9. So the WH should not support or campaign for any candidate in the primaries?

[LiberalFighter]

10. This is exactly what is done on the local and state level.

In some instances they avoid primaries by holding conventions either on the local or state level. Usually, by convention time the party has negotiated so that only one person is on the ballot.

[AngryAmish]

11. Obama is the Boss

The Boss calls the shots. He won. He makes the call.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. I think it would be silly to assume

an office as prominent as the presidency would not have a vested interest in moulding political powerhouses such as NY, LA, etc.

Why shouldn't a president seek support for his agenda in such places?

Or suppose a politician was a detriment to his party? Should the remainder of the party have to cope (think of the GOP dumping Nixon--as if they actually cared vs. he was hurting them personally)?

[invictus]

13. K&R

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Yes and no

In general, I agree with you. I don't think the White House should get involved in NY, Colorado, or Pennsylvania Senate primaries.

That being said, Pennsylvania is a weird situation, as the quid pro quo for Specter switching was an Obama endorsement. And given that Specter has (after a couple rocky weeks) been voting like a solid Dem, form a purely realist point-of-view it makes sense. That being said, Specter has exposed himself as a shameless hack and Pennsylvania voters shouldn't be bound by whatever deal the White House made.

And I do think the White House is right to intervene in the NY governor's race.

I generally see this as a case-by-case basis. I don't think primaries should be discouraged as an incumbent-protection racket, but there are exceptions and I think Paterson's race is one of them.

[bvar22]

15. K&R ....back up to +4

THIS is how we get a Corporatized, Centrist Democratic Party that can't pass decent Health Care for The American People, but can "bail out" Wall Street Banks in less than a week.

If you Work for a Living, NEVER donate to the DCCC or The DSCC.
They will use your money against you.


"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."---Paul Wellstone

[madfloridian]

18. What Wellstone said....

I agree. If our Democratic leaders handpick our candidates, we the people of the party will not have a voice in it.

Your quote:

"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."---Paul Wellstone

[jgraz]

16. And Rahm's strategies have worked so well up to now

:eyes:

[dionysus]

19. it's bad when you force out a strong candidate, but patterson is a sure loser. record low approval.

[madfloridian]

20. My point being that the party leaders should not be deciding for us.

But evidently from the posts that arose after I posted this one....it is accepted now.

We used to speak out when people were forced out of primaries.

Now we accept it?

Why is that?

If it okay to force Patterson out, then they can force anyone out. That is my point.

[dionysus]

21. i think this kind of thing has always been done mad, what's new is that this got leaked.

i also understand see your point

[madfloridian]

22. At DU we often decried when Rahm pushed candidates out of the races...

It was a pretty general agreement. Now it is acceptable.

That bothers me.

So it's ok if it is done quietly?

It means that only people favored by the administration and its advisors will get to run as candidates.

[dionysus]

30. i think it was because he pushed out true progressives for blue doggish\repuke types.

in this case, i don't see anything special about patterson, decentguy but not really doing too great.

now i suppose if obama went around hand-pickignt he replacement, there would be a fishy odour about it.

i understand where you're coming from, but i also think patterson not running is a wise idea.

also, the WH can tell patterson not to run, but i doubt it's "an offer you can't refuse" type of deal.

for better or worse, there is nothing new about this type of thing in party politics.

at the end of the day, no one knows what was said. rahm could have called up threatening to cut his genitals off, obama could have said "you might want to think about sitting this one out", or anything in-between could have happened. or even nothing...

[madfloridian]

31. Did you read these sentences?

"The president's strategists have recruited candidates -- and nudged others to step aside -- in races in New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections."

[dionysus]

32. no, to be honest i missed that. i'm just saying i believe in realpolitik

[MH1]

26. then someone else should and would win the primary.

without "help" from the WH.

[madfloridian]

23. Up to 4 several times...down to 2 and will go lower.

And that is okay. I don't understand how something we activists worked so hard for previously....candidates we picked having the right to run is no longer important.

I know two cases in Florida already in which activists are discouraged from running in 2010. It's really really easy. The party and the media just pretend they are not running.

It's happening in FL 12 right now. I have no real gripe with the person who has been the chosen one, it is just that others have earned a right to be heard as well.

[MH1]

25. Thank you for posting this

I think this behavior by the WH really tarnishes Obama.

It is one thing that his policies don't always match my ideals - I can live with that. But the political gamesmanship is an ethical issue.

(That said, I still support Obama - we could do much worse. But I'll probably not work as hard next time. If Sestak loses the primary and the dems don't give him a position that makes use of his huge talents and work ethic, I'll turn in my committee badge. If I've managed not to turn it in before then.)

[madfloridian]

42. Good comments.

It does take away the incentive to work for and donate to candidates not endorsed by the DCCC and the DCCC.

[MH1]

24. This is the biggest problem I have with Obama

I feel a little betrayed with this situation with Specter. Sestak is a better Democrat than Specter will ever be, and there's a lot of bad history with Specter.

This situation just completely disgusts me.

[berni_mccoy]

28. Obama is the official head of the Democratic Party. He can do what he wants to ensure his agenda.

[madfloridian]

29. Yes, he can.

Just like Rahm did during his years as DCCC head.

They can do whatever they want, you are correct in that.

[Hawkeye-X]

35. I ESPECIALLY didn't appreciate Obama endorsing Bennet (DINO-CO)

who was just an appointed useless Senator that our useless DINO Governor Ritter decided instead of Andrew Romanoff (who the entire state Democratic Party wanted installed when Salazar left). So Andrew Romanoff decided to launch a campaign and I'm backing him 100% instead of Bennet.

Bennet is from the East - Romanoff is not - he's from right here in the great state of Colorado. He knows what we need, and we'll fight for him.

Andrew is/was my state representative and a former state Speaker of the House. He has the creds to prove that he can do the job, and I want him as our U.S. Senator, so he'll have my backing, my time, my money, and my feet/hands.

Bennet is dead to me, and I refuse to acknowledge that he is the duly appointed incumbent - he's not. He didn't earn it, and we'll prove it.

Hawkeye-X

[wisteria]

36. I agree, Obama should stay out of all primary races- including NY and Pa.

I understand the chips are high, but let them fall will they may. No one should be discouraged from running- even if it may weaken us as a party ultimately and perhaps force us into the minority again. Fair is fair. Maybe, we can still win on merit.

[BlooInBloo]

37. I like Patterson, but don't Presidents do this all the time? Why all the hubbub when Obama does it?

[Phx_Dem]

39. Of course they should. POTUS is the leader of the party, whichever party

he's from.

[madfloridian]

40. Then we don't need to bother to support candidates or vote for them....

if all the decisions are made from on high.

I guess Act Blue, DFA, Progressive Majority, the groups at FDL....should all just shut down and let the boss and his crew pick folks.

Sure will save some money for activist, won't it?

NO decisions, NO money, no policy issues. Just all the deciding done for us.

[madfloridian]

41. This is essentially telling activists to sit down and be quiet.

I am not sure that is a wise thing for our party.

DU seems to be in almost total agreement now that Obama gets to run everything just like Rahm did before.

We can kiss good by all the inspiration of people like Howard Dean who wanted our party to stand up and speak out. Forget the activists' groups which have sprung up to support candidates.

I can not believe how easily we accept their usurping our power as activists in the party.

[Captain Hilts]

43. I completely agree. They're doing this too often and it's bad for state-level participation. nt

[TheKentuckian]

45. I support Sestak but disagree with him on this.

I think emotion is ruling the day on this stuff. What do people think happens in politic? This I is old news as a process. Every White House has had someone wielding influence on who is favored by the party.

[IndianaGreen]

46. +1 rec

Surprising how many DUers are defending what is essentially Rahm Emanuel's power plays.

Don't complain later about the number of Blue Dogs and corporatist Democrats in Congress!