Skip to main content

View Diary: DCCC fails Schrader (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fundraising by dividing the party? (4.00)
    Uh, I don't think so.

    The first post about this- the notice that Greenwood was stepping aside- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/19/164328/089 was posted by Mr Liberal, and while it noted that she was broke, it said nothing about the DCCC, support, or lack of same.

    The next post, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/19/18209/4267 by Kos this time, again did not mention the DCCC, but it did mention that Gore and Rendell had carried the district, and that this was a terrific opportunity.

    In http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/19/21209/1884 Kos reports a conversation with Ginny Schrader, notes that no one has asked her to step aside, and that she is in it for the race.

    It is only in this post- the one I'm replying to- the one that has exploded in vitriol- that Kos has mentioned the DCCC and fundraising in the same post.

    Kos has not been dividing the party. He's merely outraged to find a divide where there should have been none.

    "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx

    by Lainie on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 02:55:05 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Exploded in vitriol? (none)
      As you say, Kos expressed outrage.  Most of the critical comments have suggested overreaction.

      But I do agree that the charge that Kos is "raising money by attacking Democrats" is out of line.

    •  Re: Fundraising by dividing the party? (1.71)
      "Fundraising by dividing the party?  Uh, I don't think so."

      I'm perfectly willing to consider other explanations.  I think this post (although it's wrong on the merits) also identifies some of what's going on here.

      "Kos has not been dividing the party. He's merely outraged to find a divide where there should have been none."

      But I think you're missing my point here.  What was the division before Markos stepped in?  

      Schrader had no following 24 hours ago.  And why is Markos now so definitely attached to her candidacy?  Precisely because the blogosphere was able to generate a small chunk of change for her today.

      What kind of rationale is that?  What kind of rallying cry is:

      We blindly support Ginny Schrader because we bundled some money for her!

      What if there is another candidate with a much better chance of winning?  Why shouldn't the DCCC spend 12 hours sifting through the situation?

      Markos is vilifying the DCCC and creating the division.  I have no way of pinning down his exact motivations for doing so.  But it seems to me to clearly be connected to either Monday's fundraising or to future fundraising.  Either way, he's dividing the Party to enhance his bundling prestige, and I think that's dirty pool.

      •  Ginny was elected (4.00)
        She won the primary, man. We blindly support Ginny because she's the duly elected Democratic Party candidate for a congressinal seat that is suddenly a great opportunity for us. We're not blindly supporting her because of the fundraising. While that was indeed a hard part, forking over $50.01, the fun part is snatching this seat from the Rs. How hard that will be remains to be seen, but...

        Again, she won the primary -- and I'm a blind yellow-dog that can smell a good fight.

        The best intentions in the world, placed on a shelf, are worthless.

        by chuco35 on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 03:33:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Torricelli won the Primary (none)
          Was the DSCC right to push him out of the race for Lautenberg?

          By your logic, since Torricelli was the rightful winner of the Democratic primary it should not have mattered that he had no chance to win the General Election in NJ Senate last cycle.  Personally, I'm glad the party stepped in and pushed him out -- otherwise we'd have one more Republican in the Senate right now.

      •  Know what I think? (3.71)
        I think you're full of it.

        Schrader had no following 24 hours ago? WHY THE HELL NOT? Why does the DCCC only care if they think it's in play? Markos thought she needed help. She wasn't getting any from the party she represents. The division was there already- and you want to shoot the messenger because he not only pointed it out, but he also wanted to step in to help. Like I pointed out- he'd stepped up to try to raise her some money before anything was said about DCCC

        I think that you are overly concerned with who is raising money, and I really wonder about your motives. You have a lot of negative things to say and not a hell of a lot of positives. Is pointing out what you see as flaws in others all you're here for?

        "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx

        by Lainie on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 03:42:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Know what I think? (2.00)
          "Markos thought she needed help. She wasn't getting any from the party she represents. The division was there already- and you want to shoot the messenger because he not only pointed it out, but he also wanted to step in to help. Like I pointed out- he'd stepped up to try to raise her some money before anything was said about DCCC"

          Good for Markos for stepping in.  It was the right thing to do.  

          But there are no divisions at this point.  Then the concept is floated, either in reality, or just in Markos' fevered imagination, that the DCCC might be considering a better candidate who'd be more likely to win.  So Markos decides the DCCC is going after the candidate he created Monday afternoon.  And then it's war.  Then Markos is willing to sow division to either intimidate the DCCC and/or whip up outrage that will result in bundled contributions to Schrader.

          "You have a lot of negative things to say and not a hell of a lot of positives. Is pointing out what you see as flaws in others all you're here for?"

          Go visit my diary page.  The focus is quite different there, and quite a bit more positive.  But I do tend to get riled up in the face of hypocrisy, real or imagined.  And seeing my beloved Party get divided for no good reason gets me more riled up than almost anything else.

          "I think that you are overly concerned with who is raising money, and I really wonder about your motives."

          On this thread, I think our proprietor is choosing to raise money to enhance his personal influence, and he seems to be making unnecssary internal attacks in the Party to aid in that fundraising.  My motivation is either to return our proprietor back to his senses, or failing that, to show some of his followers what game is being played.

          Of course, by making those types of accussations, I am most definitely leaving myself open to accussations of my own motives.  But I'm clean and transparent (or at least as transparant as my writing ability will permit).  So I'm not worried.

          •  Its all about the race, nodissent... (4.00)
            its not about markos, and its not about you. Its actually about the people in PA who have a candidate they've already backed.
            aimai
            •  How Do You Know... (4.00)
              ...there aren't people in PA, sensing a great opportunity that didn't exist until after the primary and until Greenwood stepped aside, aren't angling to replace Schrader?

              Nobody seems to be considering that rather than the DCCC trying to push her aside--a theory that hasn't come close to being proven, and is based in my opinion on a fevered reading of a comment by a press guy responding to a completely unexpected and potentially complicated turn of events--that it might be the folks in PA, such as Rendell, who are looking around and trying to find a candidate who they might believe would be a far more credible candidate and potentially member of Congress than Schrader?

              I have no idea of Schrader is great, a lunatic, or something between.  But based on what I've read here, nobody else knows either.  

              For all the people who talk about "The Democrats" being wimps and not tough enough and not professional, if the DCCC or the PA Dems are thinking of replacing somebody who may be a weak candidate with somebody who can win a Republican seat, I'm not sure you're being consistent.  

              It may be right that it would be undemocratic, and maybe bad for the party.  But it would be a tough and hard-nosed move to win a seat that we don't have but could seize.  So, while I don't know what the answer is, if somebody is seriously considering asking Schrader to step down for a stronger candidate, it would behove everyone to at least acknowledge that there is a question here about the tradeoffs between respecting the process and winning the seat.  And whatever you may think about the DCCC, the fact that they may be considering "trading up" for a better candidate is not on its face evidence that they aren't professionals, it's more likely that the problem would be that they are taking a professionally sound but ethically compromised approach to the problem.

              But again, unless some of our Philly folks with personal knowledge of the race and candidates step forward with good info, at the moment nobody on this thread, including me, knows a damn thing about what's going on with this race.

          •  Transparent, all right (none)
            On this thread, I think our proprietor is choosing to raise money to enhance his personal influence, and he seems to be making unnecssary internal attacks in the Party to aid in that fundraising.

            Raising money for self-aggrandizement. My. That is so ridiculous I really don't know what to say.

            A candidate he created? What happened to the primaries?

            And followers? Just what sort of game are you playing?

            "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx

            by Lainie on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 04:01:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site