Skip to main content

View Diary: CT-Sen: Q-poll's eve (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's why I kept my comments generalized. I have no idea what is going on specifically with the Lamont campaign (or the Lieberman campaign for that matter). But, in general, the extremely unwillingness of campaigns to pay for shit is a serious problem.

    It sort of dovetails with what I might call the "Liberal Purity Fantasy" - ie, a real liberal works for free, 80 hours a week, because he believes in the cause. If he can't quit his paying job, or if he demands money, then he's a fraud and a failure.

    Now, I don't think the consultant class harbors these views - to the contrary, they have no problem with money. The liberal purity trolls, rather, seem to be a fringe group - but one with suprising currency. My point only is that you have dual dysfunctions in the liberal world (the paid media consultant class and the purity trolls), which make it even harder for the idea of "paying good people for good work" to catch on.

    •  The dovetail. (0+ / 0-)

      Is it sort of a divide of people within the campaign full-time are expected to do it for below minimum wage, while money goes to people brought in from outside?  So you have your cake and eat it too - the campaign is pure and only has to deal with people impure enough to earn good money on a consultancy basis.

      I guess in a weird way you end up replicating the US - some people making lots, some people making ridiculously little, very few people in the middle.  The question then is, is there a way to reorganize the structure so that more people make in the middle and fewer at the extremes?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site