Folks, the President is the leader of the Democratic Party therefor he will be involved

[WCGreen]

in political decisions across the country.

Why New York?

Well, for one, if Rudy runs and wins then he will have one of the best platforms to run against Candidate Obama. And it looks like early polls are showing Paterson losing to Rudy.

Also, after the 2010 elections, all the state governments, including, of course, New York, redraw congressional and state legislative districts. It is imperative for the Dems to keep control of that process in as many states as possible so that in 2012, Candidate Obama can better determine which party his administration is going to work with in his second term.

History shows that the republicans were able to take control of the House back in 1994 because of redistricting done after the 1990 off year elections.

You can call it interference all you want but the plain fact is that elected governments across the board are all interrelated especially in a redistricting year.

And if you don't think that a President should be political then you must be subscribing to the one term and out approach to presidential politics. President Carter was unable to build up substantial support in the state houses across the board because he was seen as above politics. We all know what happened after that. It's why Ted Kennedy was able to mount such a strong challenge to a sitting president and that contributed mightely to Reagan winning in 1980.

Governors get involved with state assembly races and mayors are surely involved with council races, why would you expect the president to be somehow above politics?

[dionysus]

1. i agree. sone are all intothe purity above all att he expense of winning i guess. and this isn't

even a dirty move, the frigging guy is destined to lose badly if/when he runs.

if he hadn't blundered his job and had strong approval, this would not happen.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. There is also the concern that having Paterson at the top of the ticket could cause

some Congressmen from NY to lose.

[WCGreen]

3. Big time....

And I can't stress enough how important the reapportionment process is to the future of the Country first and the Democratic Party second.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Absolutely! Here in NY we have...

the possiblity of losing several House seats, one Senate seat, the Governor's mansion, and at least one house of the state legislature. Mid-term elections are always dangerous, but with an appointed Senator (whom I happen to like, btw, and hope she keeps her seat) and a Governor on the skids, we are in a very fragile condition.

There are calls for primaries, but primaries leave everyone scarred, and if an incumbant is involved it just makes it all the more difficult to beat an opponent who didn't have to go through all that. The White House has already stopped primary challenges to Gillibrand, slowing the Republican rush to run against her. If there were to be a primary, they'd be running their A-list and we could lose the seat-- this way she'll probably be running against a nobody with the oppostion ceding the seat thinking it's too expensive to win.

Paterson refused to step down on his own, so the White House stepped in, but he still refuses to do the right thing. If he backed down and let Cuomo be the appointed candidate, we could sweep the election, but now we're in trouble.

Hasn't every President since Washington been involved in local politics when it suited them? This isn't a civics class or citizenship test we're dealing with-- it's politics in real time, which is never pretty.

[WCGreen]

5. It really is a full contact professionand those who can't deal with the

political end of the job are doomed to fail.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. And, as you mentioned, redistricting is coming up, but..

a huge problem here is that we might be losing a House seat-- our population has been declining, and next year's census won't be good news. Might even be more than one, but that's doubtful

Will the lost seat(s) be Democratic or Republican? Only the state legislature knows.

[WCGreen]

9. That's the key....

Here in Ohio, we will probably lose 2 seats. If they do it right, they could force Boner to defend a totally new district which would at least keep him busy and and at best force him to spend a ton of money that could have been going to challenge one of our newly won congressional seat.

[Cha]

15. Actually I just read that bush

made it a "cardinal rule" not to interfere in local politics but anything bush did is not the standard one would care to employ.

bush had the corporatemediawhores out workin' for them..so why should he worry?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. I agree...

If anyone should be political, it's the President.

How else did he become President?

K&R

[Hutzpa]

8. I don't know why

people don't understand this, sometimes folks here tends to act like third grade kids.

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to know this.

:grr: damn!

[madfloridian]

10. LOL

Message received.

[pinto]

11. Good points. I had overlooked redistricting after the '10 census.

For better or worse, it remains a political process. Effective Dem input is vital to a lot of House redistricting.

In an earlier thread I noted that the President is the leader of the party. And, as you say, he has a legitimate role in party affairs, down ticket.

It *is* politics. And, fwiw, I don't think support decisions are made in a political vacuum at any level, local, statewide or national.

[madfloridian]

12. Well, I guess everyone needs to stop donations now to groups like....

Act Blue, DFA, Progressive Majority....et al.

No need to waste our money as activists.

Just sit back and relax, and let the party make all the decisions.

How comfortable, and cheap for activists.

Since the preferred candidates don't need money since they are preferred...it's all good.

[SpartanDem]

14. OP's point is that isn't something unusual

for party leadership back one person over another. The candidate and their supporterss are free to do as they please, but don't act like this some major overreach.

[madfloridian]

16. Not true. It is happening in FL already.

Decisions are made at high levels, and it is useless to buck those people they choose.

[tnlefty]

21. And after so many decades of that, folks like me become

angry and resentful, especially when the interference is in potential primary races. :hi:

It feels like banging one's head against a concrete wall.

[WCGreen]

17. No reason to stop giving to advocacy groups just because politicians

act like politicians now is there.

Politics doesn't stop when the had comes down after the oath.

But the reality of the political world is that what is most important is to win elections.

[madfloridian]

19. It was easier to donate and work for progressive candidates...

when Dems were out of power in DC. We donated to the DNC then because Dean refused to involve them in any primaries. Now we don't give to any of the committees.

It is harder for activists to get a voice and progressive candidates when a party has the WH. Yes, it may have always been that way.

Which is why few voted to keep us out of the useless Iraq war. It is why people lose their homes more and more to medical bankruptcy, that was not protected when so many Dems supported that bill in 2005 to tighten bankruptcy laws.

Elections and primaries matter.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Quite the contrary. Decisions have always been made in...

"smoke filled rooms" but organizations like these allow more players into those rooms.

I suspect a pure, true, and open democracy would be far more of a cockup than we have now and nothing would ever get done. And it wouldn't be long until it evolved into backroom deals again.

So, if we're going to have these machinations and backroom deals, let a few more people in to keep them a little more honest.

[madfloridian]

27. "allow more players into the room"

Just not allow them any way to win, just not allow them any power.

[TheKentuckian]

32. You're mixing your apples with your oranges, imo.

While The President or party leader (if you're out of the White House) has the right and reason to influence races as they see fit BUT that doesn't mean that the power is supposed to be unchecked. If the constituents or candidates disagree then we are free to say "Thanks but no thanks" and override or at least contest the party wisdom.

[madfloridian]

13. And forget about the party standing for anything...

if we are comfortable with the party leaders picking the candidates.

Forget the public option, live with the mandate. Forget women's rights issues.

If they sense we are comfortable with their picking the candidates...they will scoff at us more than they do already.

[WCGreen]

18. Come on now, that's like saying people who work in the automobile

industry shouldn't drive cars.

If you don't like what the people you elected are doing then you have the power to change that.

[madfloridian]

20. Not if they are forced out of the race.

Reread what happened to Lutrin in the OP

He never knew what hit him. A Republican Millionaire hit him right between the eyes.

[WCGreen]

22. Back in 1992, I ran for Congress in a district that was just redrawn...

The sitting Congressperson was Mary Rose Oakar, a 5 term incumbent. She was embroiled in the so-called check kitting to do at the House Post Office. Another prominent political figure got in the race and the party did nothing to stop six people running against a sitting incumbent. For ten weeks, we all beat up on Mary Rose who was, in all other aspects of being a Congressperson, a highly, motivated and effective Member of the House.

She won the primary but was so beaten up by the time the General Election came around, the Republican won by a whisker in a democratically drawn district.

Looking back, if the party would have stepped in and tried to smooth things out, I think that Mary Rose would have been re-elected.

Me, I was endorsed in the primary by the only morning paper in Cleveland.

I don't know Mr. Lutrin but I do know it takes more than good intentions to win a Congressional Seat. And if he couldn't even get his own Union to Endorse his candidacy, that show that he probably didn't have a real chance to win.

Now I know you will probably just say his own Union was influenced by outside forces. And that may well be. But I have seen local and state Unions endorse one of their own in the primary out of loyalty and then support the winner of the primary in the general election.

Again, I make no claim to know what was going on in Florida but I do know that I know about politics as they play out behind the so-called back doors of the Democratic Party. I was an officer for eight years here in Ohio. They really just want to win. And they know the GOP has more money than God so they do more often than not and more often than I would like, put pragmatism over ideology.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. You speak from experience. If only more people around here would...

listen. I'm trying to remember an incumbant primary challenge that worked, but can't. I'm sure it's worked some where some time, but beats me when and where.

The calls now for a primary against Gillibrand are completely insane, and Spector only marginally less so.

The opposition is out to win. We have too many people happy to go out in a blaze of glory.

[madfloridian]

26. We will become just like the Republicans in a blaze of glory.

Feel free to discredit my lack of experience in politics. I only know what I think is right, and I think what is going on is wrong.

[TreasonousBastard]

28. The thing is that nobody's arguing right and wrong here...

and even the players in the game see many of the problems. But if you can't change the world as it exists, you have to deal with it.

You can be right, and be alone. Or, you can play the game and try to change the rules. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

[madfloridian]

29. Been there done that...

Played the game that is. I realize you are right, there are things we can't change. There are things we tried to change since we went into Iraq.... we were unable to make a difference then.

But we did keep trying.

Now that we have seen Rahm and his methods as the future of the party, hubby and I feel like our donations and activism are not needed any longer.

I don't mean that in any way except that we have accepted the realism of what is coming.

I still get excited about an issue now and then, like keep some vestiges of women's rights. But in my mind and heart I know those rights are expendable.

We put our hearts and souls and loads of money into the Dean campaign, the DNC donations while he was chair..only to see anything he accomplished nullified. He was shunned by the party, while Rahm was celebrated.

You are right. We know and understand. We either play the game by their rules or try to change it. We can't make a difference now at national level, and we sure as heck don't matter at local and state level.

I agree with what you said. I just am not sure the energy or enthusiasm is there anymore.

[madfloridian]

25. They handpicked a millionaire Republican to run against a Democrat.

If you are defending that, then I will argue no more.

Perhaps I see things too simply. I would not make a good politician.

Rahm spent close to half a million to get Cegelis out of the race so Duckworth could be the candidate. Cegelis had done well against Hyde the time before, she had built a grassroots group.

There was shame in what was done to her, and she had no chance. Read this article.

http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives

"While Cegelis maintained strong volunteer support, the DCCC-backed Duckworth campaign spent close to $1 million in the primary. The race was extremely close, with Duckworth receiving 44 percent to Cegelis's 40 percent."

"According to Spidel, the Cegelis campaign was prevented from accessing Democratic fund-raising and Political Action Committee lists held by the DCCC. Cegelis said that many of the potential donors she contacted had been instructed by the DCCC not to give her campaign money. She felt that she was locked out.

"To tell you I didn't take it personally is wrong," Cegelis said, adding, "this was the wrong way to choose a representative. It is wrong of parties to exclude people from the primary elections. The primary is the time for the people to choose who is on the ballot; those decisions should not be made in back rooms."

Bendavid goes on to quote Emanuel saying of Cegelis, "If she would only work as hard as she would goddamn whine.... She's the only one who says, 'What can you do for me?" adding, "Cegelis could absolutely win. She's just not doing it."

Emanuel's assertion about Cegelis's work ethic was hotly contested by members of her campaign."

Who knows? A million, half a million? Spending against a candidate who had run before with good record.

Read this about Lutrin.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1487

"Early on in the process– in mid-2005– Dave contacted Democratic Party organizations throughout the district, as well as the state party and the DCCC in Washington. Everyone was enthusiastic and encouraging. Glen Rushing, the DCCC point person for the region, told Dave he was "just the type of candidate we're looking for." He offered to introduce him to Alabama Congressman Artur Davis, the DCCC-appointed mentor for Democratic candidates in the region, who following their first phone conversation offered to help him with his race. Rushing then promised to get him in touch with Florida DCCC chief, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Emanuel's lieutenant for the Southeast.

..."Then something happened, something very dark and secretive, something people are just uncovering now. DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel found out something that could– and did– change the dynamics of the race in FL-16 dramatically. Emanuel became aware that Mark Foley– well-known for years Inside-The-Beltway, albeit not among his church-going constituents, as a very active (and very hypocritical) homosexual– was molesting the underage male congressional pages, and that he had been for many years. Did Emanuel call the police? Did he even call the staffers who are charged by Congress with looking out for the welfare of the pages? Doesn't look that way.

It appears he called on a Republican named Tim Mahoney."

If the party does not want someone to run that person will have to get out.

[WCGreen]

30. Sounds like they were behind your guy cause they didn't think he could win...

When it looked like the seat was in play, they went for a guy they thought could win.

Sometimes good intentions are not enough. If you can't prove you can raise money, attract significant support or bring a huge base with you, they are not going to get behind you no matter how well you stand on the issues.

I don't like it anymore than you do. I'm talking about reality here, not defending it.

[madfloridian]

31. Of course Lutrin couldn't win against Rahm. Lutrin has a conscience...

I hope he runs again. He has said he might.

I love the excuse given here that the person could not win anyway. It is very convenient.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1487

If it is going to be done Rahm's way from now on, and according to the article I posted, it is going to be.....then there will be no progressives running.

I am very discouraged that this will be the path.

I have seen the devastation in Florida as Rahm and Karen worked their magic around the state.

We no longer work locally or statewide with Democrats because it just does not matter at all.

Of course Dave would most likely have won if he were not up against the Republican Millionaire Machine.

And Rahm.

AND from the NYT article I quoted in my recent thread about Sestak.

"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."

Guess whose name is missing from helping us win.

Guess who is shoved aside....activists and grassroots.

[Orsino]

33. Yep. Otherwise, why have parties?

It's not just a bully pulpit. It's also a fulcrum.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Do you pay party dues? Do you hold a party card?

Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.

-- Will Rogers

[Orsino]

40. Sort of.

Once you donate, you don't need a card. They will find you.

[Hawkeye-X]

35. First of all, yes, I respect that Obama is my President, and second, of all, I disagree with this.

Why? We have primaries for that purpose. It's not right that all the incumbents are endorsed by Obama to preserve status quo.

Let me point at an example:

Michael Bennet

Many of us Colorado Democratic Party wanted Andrew Romanoff to be picked by Ritter to be the junior U.S. Senator. Instead, Bill Ritter chose poorly. He picked an unknown DPS superintendent with no political experience to be the junior U.S. Senator and what's more - he's not from around here - he's from the East - absolutely zero creds. Andrew Romanoff, on the other hand, has tons of creds, and has worked very well - he was the Speaker of the state House, my state representative, and has had a good local public life, and we wanted to show him to the country. He could have easily been the next Ted Kennedy (He's very passionate about health care).

Now, you're asking me to shut up, be a good foot-soldier to Obama and support Bennet.

Well how's this?

FUCK YOU.

I'm not a Republican. I have free will, and I support Andrew Romanoff as the next legitimate and elected junior U.S. Senator from Colorado.

:rant:

Hawkeye-X

[WCGreen]

36. Oh calm down Hawkeye, I never once said you shouldn't support the

candidate you want...

I just pointed out that the agenda of the leader of the party might have a different take on the election...

BTW, don't tell me to Fuck Off, it's so juvenile and just doesn't become serious discussions about politics.

[Hawkeye-X]

37. It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Rahm as usual.

I don't like Rahm and what he is doing. He should have his ass canned 5 months ago. And yet, he's still influencing Obama and making policy.

Hawkeye-X

[paulk]

41. but the question becomes - what is the agenda of the

"leader of the party"?

In the case of Bennet/Romanoff, that's a legitimate one to ask. Many pundits here think that Romanoff would have an easier time getting elected than Bennet would, for the reasons Hawkeye states.

It's not even like Romanoff and Bennet differ that much politically - Romanoff might be a little more toward the liberal side, but not that much. The main difference seems to be connections in the eastern political establishment (and the ability to raise money there) - which Bennet has and Romanoff doesn't. Which I think is a bullshit reason for endorsing him - and I'm hardly alone in feeling that way.

[PopSixSquish]

38. What Would be the Response if Obama and the WH Backed a Candidate Folks Liked?

Curious...

[TreasonousBastard]

39. In New York, they do. Governor Paterson's approvals...

are just a couple of points above syphillis. Andrew Cuomo's approvals are up there, usually over 60 depending on the phases of the moon and who you ask. Polls say Cuomo would beat Rudy, but Rudy would tear up Paterson.

Not many NY Democrats want Paterson to run-- the few who think he's doing an OK job are worried he'll lose and take everything down with him.

(The response here has run the gamut from shoot the dumb fuck who won't stand down to Obama should mind his own business-- the latter more often from people who live far from here.)

[madfloridian]

42. Trust me, keep an eye on Florida.

Our Democrats here are the result of years of hand-picking.

We are the poster child of what happens when people go along to get along.

If it is ok to humiliate Paterson publicly, and it was ok to humiliate Dean publicly...soon it will be ok to just hand pick candidates and committee chairman based strictly on the winning philosphy set forth by Rahm.

Remember the words of Rahm to an author in 2006.

Certainly Emanuel holds no such romantic notions that there even exists such a base of voters loyal to core Democratic values. He is adamant that "we have no base!," a view that clearly guided his strategy for selecting candidates. As Bendavid writes, "he would not support the most loyal Democrats, or those whose populism was purist. His only criterion, he said, was who could win."

[brooklynite]

43. Rudy's not the problem...

...because there's no way he could get the Republican Presidential nomination even if he could run a competent campaign.

The problem is that, with a week Governor candidate (against any Republican), we put at risk all the House seats we've picked up in NYS in the last two elections.