Skip to main content

David Sirota:

Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, made headlines in the campaign for taking a strong position against the original decision to go to war in Iraq, even calling the President of the United States an SOB.

And while it's true, Hackett didn't support full withdrawal from Iraq, few would deny that his position opposing the war was a key part of his campaign.

Ultimately, the anti-war position defined his candidacy, and was the clear reason he was able to do so well in such a Republican district. That should be no surprise: polls have been telling us for months that America agrees with Hackett in believing going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Meanwhile, Americans' view of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level ever.

Incredibly, however, in a memo sent to all Democratic House Members about what Democrats should learn from the Hackett race, the DCCC makes not one mention of the Iraq War and its effect on the election. Not one. It is as if the party is going out of its way to deny the importance of Democrats taking a strong position against the war, or making the war a serious issue in their campaigns. See page 1 of the memo here, and page 2 of the memo here [PDFs].

           

National Democrats have advised their candidates for two straight cycles to ignore the war and make the campaign about "health care and jobs". Yet the war issue didn't go away in 2002 or 2004, and it won't go away in 2006.

The fact that the DCCC ignores one of the most striking lessons of the Hackett race is mind-boggling. If there was such a thing as "political malpractice", they would be guilty of it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:08 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  political malpractice (none)
    It sounds like it is accountability time.
    •  Oh, Good, You're Back (2.50)

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:07:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I stand with Howard Dean (none)
        We need to fight everywhere.
        •  Do You Believe It's Equally Easy and... (4.00)
          ...equally difficult to win any district?  That Jim Matheson's and John Conyers' districts are equally competetive, so resources should be expended equally in every one of the 435 congressional districts?

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:12:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Local People (none)
            I think the Key to Dean is to localize and fight everywhere. Local people know best and know how competitive a district is and can be and what candidate would do best.

            I'd like to see the DCCC craft a decent message to nationalize campaigns - but judging by this diary from kos - aint gonna be a working one thats for sure.

            I think congressional dems need to start to understand being a congresscritter isnt a job. its public service and they shuldnt be afraid of losing. If the reason they dont fight is because they are afraid of losnig then they are the wrong people to be representing us in the first place.

            fight in every district. It doesnt all require money.

            •  This Post Misses the Point (4.00)
              As I point out here, Sirota (and by extension Markos) completely miss the point that that document isn't a strategy memo, it's a rah-rah faux insider document that members pass around to potential donors to convince them that investing in the Congressional Dems is a good investment.  The fact is, that document doesn't mention ANY issues.  Sirota could just as easily argue that the document ignores Hackett's embrace of a pro-NRA position on gun rights, because the docuement mentions nothing about guns either.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:21:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you (none)
                DH, I don't comment around here much anymore (man, that needs to change!), but I absolutely see your point.  This seems to be a case of manipulating this release by the D trip to adhere to the lingering, and real, antipathy towards our national party as a whole.

                "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

                by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:35:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, where's the outrage(TM)? (4.00)
                This post-mortem doesn't address CAFTA!

                This post-mortem doesn't address the bankruptcy bill!

                This post-mortem doesn't address the GOP Medicare bill!

                This post-mortem doesn't address verified voting!

                Any other week of the year, Sirota would have found this memo to be an outrage against whatever was on his mind at the time.

              •  you may be correct technically (4.00)
                that the lack of any mention of Hackett's war stance is not glaring b/c of the nature of the DCCC paper, but the SPIRIT of what kos is saying here (i.e. that the mainstream Dems need to pay more attention to the growing outrage against the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it) is what counts.

                Like the diary by Armando about why the Iraq war remains the critical issue, this diary is meant to shed light on something certain mainstream national Dem politicians seem to be missing: that more and more Americans want out of Iraq, that they think the war was a mistake, and that Bush is lying.

                •  Well, It's a Really Bad Example (none)
                  If the point is to argue that the House Dems aren't making a point of the Iraq war, citing this document as evidence, once it's understood what the document is, is silly.  As Kagro points out just above, you could make your argument apply to this document on just about any issue, not just the Iraq war.  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:49:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But please lets not lose the forest for the trees (none)

                    -- DH - you are correct about the bad example, but we donot have a strong position against the war.  Not only is the war wrong on its own merits - but its a huge distraction for this administration and should be addressed aggressively and directly.  Are the Dems doing that? (even Dean) - well - NO. Why is THAT?
                    I DON'T KNOW - DO YOU???

                    Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

                    by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:24:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Blaming That on the DCCC is Wrong (none)
                      Until there's agreement among the policy makers--in other words, the actual Democratic members of Congress elected by a plurality or majority of voters in 202 Congressional districts across America--the DCCC can't run around advocating a position that's highly contested within the caucus.  It's unrealistic to expect them to.  

                      The "blame" for the confusion and lack of coherent message on the war in Iraq doesn't lie with the DCCC or the DSCC, it lies with the Senators and the Members of Congress.

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:31:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not blaming the DCCC per se (none)

                        -- but what are the Democrats who support the war thinking about and why are they thinking that way given the evidence and resulting support for this administration? I don't expect you to have the answers - but I want to grab these Dems by the lapel and ask them why, why, why?  Its the most nonsensical and destructive stand that is impacting our party's ability to advocate for change.  Oh please, don't let it be some triangulation answer....

                        I want some answers from someone on the justification for this for a Democrat.....

                        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

                        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:54:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm With You on the War Issue (none)
                          I just wanted to make it clear that the DCCC isn't the place where one should pin any blame for those Dems who support the war.  They can't take sides on policy disputes, because their "bosses"--the 202 Democratic members of congress--are all over the map on these issues.  In order to elect Dems and be true to the beliefs and positions of the members and the challengers, next fall they're going to be helping candidates who say the war was a disaster from the start and that's why they've always opposed it, and probably a few here and there who say they've always supported it and always will support it.  

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:01:33 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  No issues? (4.00)
                I don't think I've ever called bullshit on DH ever before, but here it is:

                The very last paragraph:

                "Last night we saw independents and rock solid Republicans say that they have had enough of a Congress that is in the grips of the special interests, roiled by ethics investigations and doing nothing to help solve the pressing challenges of the middle class."

                Sorry, but there's no doubt that the war belongs in this paragraph. Economic issues were included. Corruption was included. The 'special interests' thing was included.

                But the biggest issue in the whole fucking world was ignored? Bullshit. It was a glaring omission.

                •  Look Below (none)
                       

                  Actually, It's a Dumb or Dishonest Argument (4.00 / 4)

                  That document doesn't mention ANY policies.  You could just as easily argue that it ignored Hackett's position as a strong supporter of gun rights as defined by the NRA.  The fact is, other than the sorta nebulous "ethics" issue, that supposed "strategy memo" doesn't mention a single issue.  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by DHinMI on Fri Aug 5th, 2005 at 17:11:30 EST

                  You could argue that it does refer to the war by mentioning the "pressing challenges of the middle class," which is the debt created by the war.  It would be just as precise as anything else you want to make of that comment.

                  This isn't a post-mortem, it's a hype piece to say the Dems are on the march, and give money to the DCCC.  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:53:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whoa there... (none)
                    I don't think any average voter would associate "pressing challenges of the middle class" with debt created by the Iraq War.  I'm just an average guy, but to me that sounds like "high gas prices, damn homes are expensive, how the hell will I get health insurance", etc.  As for kos' point, if the DCCC has the compelling national strategy that you want, the corruption and special interests aspects are a very good track.  So Iraq isn't included--until we see any exit polling from why Reps stayed away from the polls or crossed over, we DON'T KNOW why it happened...

                    I'd love to see the exits, btw

                    "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

                    by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:59:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Don't Get Me Wrong (none)
                      I'm not saying that the statement about the middle class does refer to the Iraq war.  I'm just saying it's so (intentionally) vague that it could be read by almost anyone to be about "their" personal issue.  You mentioned gas prices, home prices and health insurance.  A senior in an urban area who doesn't drive a car but has Medicare might think of drug prices, crime and the threat to social security.  And in Ohio, there are about 20 families of U.S. Marines who might be thinking about how their middle class family just lost a spouse/father/son etc in al Anbar province in Iraq.  

                      It's so vague as to mean almost anything, so it's just about as accurate to say that it excludes plenty of other things that were important to the Hackett campaign, like the fact that he didn't get lured in to gay bashing, that he wasn't afraid of criticizing Schmidt for taking orders from the fundies on moral issues, and that he championed personal liberties by riding his Harley without a helmet.

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:06:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I still think you're stretching, DH (none)
                        but we may just have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the DCCC's words.  But I think we can all agree that the DCCC's release kept in the spirit of the great litmus test Kos laid down a few day ago:
                        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/3/9331/81055

                        "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

                        by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:34:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This Press Release-- (none)
                          --and it's a press release, not some super secret internal strategy memo--was designed not to offend, because it's directed at hyping the Congressional Dems' chances in 2006.  It's a case of putting out vague words so people could interpret them how they want.  Some interpret them to mean that the glass is half or more full.  Others are screaming that it's somewhere less than half empty.  

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:39:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If it's a press release (none)
                            and the goal is not to risk "offending" doesn't that go to my point that I made to you yesterday, that this is precisely the problem with the party. It's fear of taking even caculated risks. We know from the polls that most Americans are not for the war. Yet, according to you they were writing PR that is designed not to offend. How can this help with trying to take a bold strategy against Republican dominance? You said in a post to me that this isn't about not taking risks, it's about assessing risk, and I inferred you meant taking caculated risks. So, given the environment we re in now, and the the fact that they are not willing to take even this small risk by saying that the Hackett race suggests a change of environmental circumstances in terms of the political will of the American people- then what makes you think the Democrats will even take a caculated risk?
                          •  Apples and Oranges (none)
                            This isn't directed at voters, it's something they give to members so they can give it to prospective donors to the DCCC.  It's not about policy, it's not about message to voters, it's about saying "Congressional Dems are great!  Give us some support."  Why clutter it up with something that may, for some people, unnecessarily and unproductively detract from the "Dems are great" message?

                            Really, David Sirota must be concerned about traffic to his blog, because he went looking for something to make into a scandal.  As Kagro X points out, this "argument" could have been made about ANY issue.

                            Why isn't Sirota arguing that it neglects Hackett's embrace of the NRA, and that Dems should therefore embrace the NRA?  

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:31:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It still seems odd (none)
                            The risk of "offending" approach. I will let you in on something. I receive correspondence from the Republicans. Both E-mails and literature. I like to know what they are saying to each other. They show no such restraints about offending their moderates. This is also odd because I am a moderate, and, if they wanted to make a non offensive statement, they could have said something like "Hackett was able to voice the Democrats concerns over the Republicans prosecution of the Iraqi War." or the "the Republicans mistakes in being boneheaded about the iraqi War." None of which calls into question anyones prior judgment except that of the Republicans. There are ways to do this without offending people. And, I can't imagine that any real Democrat would care if you offend the Republicans. At least that would fire up the bases. How does a neutral non descriptive PR do that? I also have friends who work in PR- so to me again your thesis is a bit odd because my friends who are in PR and marketing don't go for blandness as an approach to motivate or rouse the troops (customers). They use vivid descriptions designed to evoke strong emotional connection. I don't see how a non risk taking bland approach does that.

                            By the way, I understand your point- Sirota does seem to overstate the position- but he makes a valid larger claim even if it's unintended. namely that as far as messaging goes- the national dems are punting on the need to brand ourselves. I keep hearing Democrats say we are different fro the republicans. I heard From said that on Hardball last night. Yeah, okay- so what's the difference? You need to be able to explain that to people in passionate, simple and charismatic terms. We live in a pop culture society. We need to use that as the Republicans do with their myth machine.

                  •  parsing this particular (none)
                    this way document may be besides the point. I think kos is simply arguing that the Iraq war (as a disaster Bush created) should be mentioned in virtually EVERY memo the Dems send out.

                    Now you may think that's PR overkill, but it's true the Dems are not unified and vocal enough yet against the Iraq war. And some of the real heavy-hitters like Hillary seem to be avoiding tackling the war issue head on. The question is: why is the Dem party so afraid of openly challenging Bush on his f**ed up war?

                    •  Because Dems love to re-live the 60s (none)
                      Because so many Dems suffered so deeply at the defeat of the anti-war coalition after the war ended that they still can't get over the defeat we now see a party unwilling to oppose a war no matter how stupid because they think it opens us up to attack (guess what? we get attacked no matter what!). The post-Watergate era led to a slow erosion of LBJ's ruling majority. One of the major ways that the final nail was pounded into the coffin was Reagan and the right's accusation that Carter was too timid (and thus the whole party as the other leader of the party was Kennedy who was part of the still-intact left that descended from the anti-war movement. Since 1980 Americans have seen the Democratic Party as the "give sympathy to our enemies" party (actually it goes back farther to the Cold War 1950s but Kennedy was effective at seeming tough and determined- re: Bay of Pigs which was a fiasco but showed him willing to take on the Soviets which is sort of what Clinton sought to do with some of his efforts). So now we have some in the party who think the way out is to appear tough (they usually are the same people who think we need to get tough on gays and abortions and ditch whatever moral core we have in order to appear more "moderate." Hillary, Bayh, Lieberman and others have all taken these "lessons" to heart and accept them as gospel even though they are just the result of a concerted attack by the military industrial complex's payments to help fund the right wing noise machine. Anyway, that's my reading of it...
                      •  Then it's as I said today (none)
                        it's the DLC living in the past. they are battling a  war with the Republicans that occured in the 80s. Kerry didn't lose last year because he was "weak" on terror, he lose because he was perceived as a waffler. Meaning people didn't know what he stood for. Rather than arguing that we are exactly like the Republicans- wouldn't the better argument be when facing an enemy we are tough and smart.
                  •  When people resort (none)
                    to intellectual dishonesty you know they have lost the debate. Economic issues are not "pressing challenges of middle class" while a war being fought thousands of miles away IS? There is a reason DCCC gets its ass kicked. They can't even fucking argue.
                  •  Kos couldn't be wronger. . . (none)
                    The memo only took a glancing look at one issue--and that was the Iraq war, styling Hackett a "principled Iraqi war veteran" and his scabrous opponent an ethically challenged political hack (I exaggerate there).  The memo danced lightly over the whole race.  Lacking substance, it simply pointed out Hackett's measure of success in a very red district.  The analysis starts now  and in the weeks to come.

                    What Emmanuel was trying to get at--and what remains the problem here in Southwest Ohio--is how to get at the exurbs.  Hackett lost because he could not get close to Schmidt in Clermont County, one of the fastest growing exurban counties in the state.  He lost in Clermont by 4500 votes, and lost overall by 3500.

                    Until we learn what to say to the exurbanites, we will continue to lose.  The memo points out that Hackett did better than Kerry.  I submit that is because he was not perceived as a "flip flopper", and because he came across as a straight talker.  The remark about Bush as SOB did not help and Hackett knew that.  I saw Hackett Monday morning and the last thing he said to me was "I am going to watch what I say these last 24 hours."

                    Kos, Armando, et al. are correct about the need to be fighting Democrats.  But that does not mean picking fights where you are irritating the hell out of the poeple you are trying to convince.  Hackett came close because he was a straight shooter--not because he was burning his draft card.

                     When are we going to learn that it was the excesses of 1968 that were the death knell of the Democratic majority?  Undisciplined acting out instead of reasoned discourse and planned attack have killed us.  

                    We need to do more than say the Repugs are full of shit--we have to explain and explain again that Iraq is not only morally wrong, but is against our national interests in every way--not just morally, but socially, economically and geopolitically.  It is not just a moral issue, but a strategic issue--and if the independents and thinking Repubs won't buy one,  they darn well ought to buy the other.

                    We need to fight, but fighting takes strategy, just not flailing away at the opposition.  This fight is a 15 rounder, not a first round knock out.  

                    Hackett lost round one,  but the Repugs are bleeding from a couple of ugly cuts over the eyes. The key is to exploit the cuts without being penalized for low blows.

                    What rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born?

                    by cova1 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:52:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  of course Kos is right (none)
                  This sentence he quotes is of course a list of the reasons DCCC thinks independents and GOP voters, who went for Bush in November, went for Hackett this week.

                  This list does NOT include unhappiness about the Iraq war. Plus, the memo specifically says:

                  We knew if this race simply became weeks and weeks of NRCC vs. DCCC, it would become a Republican smear campaign of national liberal vs. Bush conservative, and we would lose that fight. This needed to be a local race about local issues -- pitting a principled Iraq War veteran against an ethically-challenged typical politician.

                  "This needed to be a local race about local issues" -- not a debate about the Iraq war, because criticising Bush's war would only hurt Hackett, not help him. that's pretty clearly the DCCC opinion, isn't it?

                  •  Um, Where Does It Say Anything... (none)
                    ...about how or even whether independents or Republicans voted for Hackett?

                    A post-mortem would discuss such things.  This document doesn't.  

                    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                    by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:09:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  look again at the quote from the memo (none)
                      that Kos uses in his comment to you, "No issues?," that my comment replies to.

                      Here's the quote again:

                      "Last night we saw independents and rock solid Republicans say that they have had enough of a Congress that is in the grips of the special interests, roiled by ethics investigations and doing nothing to help solve the pressing challenges of the middle class."

                      OK, it says "we saw independents and rock solid Republicans say" not "we saw independents and rock solid Republicans VOTE" but c'mon, DCCC is talking votes for Hackett here, not about some conversation they overheard among voters who have "had enough" etc. but nonetheless voted for Schmidt.

                      •  OK, You're Right About What It Says (none)
                        I was wrong about what it actually said.  But my point, which I muffed by being too precise, is that nothing is offered there in terms of analysis to actually demostrate or at least speculate in an informed manner as to how the vote broke down.

                        Here's my suspicion: it was a special election, which almost always means low turnout, mostly from the two parties' respective bases.  Talking out clearly and unambiguously against the war, especially since he served, intensely fired up our base.  Because support for the war is waning, and because Hackett is such a compelling messenger against the war (because of his bio and his style), his outspokeness didn't motivate the Republican base to "punish" him the way it might have in 2003 or even 2004.  

                        So I think the war issue was a factor.  But because of the special features here--special election, compelling candidate who himself served in Iraq, Coingate hovering overhead with everything about the Ohio GOP--I would want to be very careful about the conclusions we can or should draw about what this means nationally vis a vis the war.  I want to hope that this race provides clues as to how to use the war against the Republicans, and I think it may provide some clues.  But it very way may not, and that's not something we're likely to discover or discern in or disseminate via a 2 page rah-rah press release.  That's something that will be looked at in relation to polling data, whatever exit polling was done (if any), post election polling in the district (if any), and an analysis of the vote.

                        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                        by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:26:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  As was (none)
                    pointed out on Washington Week in Review tonight, Hackett ran two campaigns.  One for the blogosphere and media reaching the country and the local race.  In the local race, he ran an ad that showed Bush calling people to serve and talking about Paul's service.  In the local race he didn't trash talk Bush.  For the blogosphere and the national media, he talked more about his having been opposed to the war.  Hackett knew himself to downplay the anti-war and anti-Bush talk in his own district.  He talked about Schmidt being a rubber stamp to DeLay.  Blaming the DCCC for any of this is plain wrong.

                    Winning without Delay.

                    by ljm on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:38:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yeah, we heard about that ad here (none)
                      as I recall, some Hackett supporters didn't believe it at first. thought it was wing-nut propaganda.

                      Anyway, I'm certainly not "blaming the DCCC," or offering any analysis about Hackett's campaign. I don't have any expertise to do so.

                      All I was saying was that "Kos was right" when he called bullshit on DHinMI's comment, "The fact is, that document doesn't mention ANY issues."

                      Because I read the memo -- I opened both .pdf documents -- and I saw that, in fact, issues WERE mentioned but, as Kos said, not Hackett's criticism of the war.

                      that's all.

                      •  Where? (none)
                        OK, I asked before, and you gave me an example.  So I'll ask again: what issues are mentioned, other than a vague stab at "ethics?"  

                        Did they mention, for instance, Hackett's position on guns?

                        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                        by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:24:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  DHinMI, give it up (none)
                          Stick to arguing that Kos and Sirota and Joe Conason and others may be jumping to unwarranted conclusions in their analysis of why Hackett did so well, OK? (as you did in your previous comment to me re: how Democrats should "be very careful about the conclusions we can or should draw about what this means nationally vis a vis the war.")

                          that's a perfectly legitimate argument -- especially since, as you say, it's so soon after the election. I certainly remember all the absolute conclusions posted here in November about how this issue cost Democrats the election or these voters cost Democrats the election, and then later, as it turns out, those analyses were based on assumptions / early reports that turned out not to be true.

                          But your insistence that the memo doesn't say what it clearly says, even after your earlier admission that you were "wrong about what it actually said" -- isn't helping your argument.

                          •  Then Show Me! (none)
                            Where does it "clearly" say anything about any issue other than ethics?

                            It's only a two page memo.  It shouldn't be hard to find it and highlight it.

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:22:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it WAS highlighted -- by Kos in his quote (none)
                            from the memo, which I've repeated several times, and which you can find (if you need to read it yet again) in Kos' "No Issues?" comment above, directed to you.

                            you don't think that qualifies as "a mention" of issues -- because it's not specific enough, it's not done with bullet points, or whatever -- fine, you're welcome to that opinion.

                            but it's lame to continue to suggest -- "It shouldn't be that hard to find and highlight," indeed -- that we haven't shown you the quote -- over and over -- that WE think clearly constitutes "a mention" of issues, even if you disagree that it does.

                          •  No, It's Not Lame (none)
                            The middle class is not "an issue."  If you can't highlight where an "issue" other than ethics is mentioned in that two-page memo, I guess I'll conclude that you couldn't find it, but rather than admit error like I did above on a slightly different topic, you're just goind to play word games.

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 12:38:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Argument (none)
            DH, that sounds like a pretty weak straw-man to me. Has anyone seriously made that argument?
            •  Not a Strawman (none)
              I'm not attributing it to him.  But he's completely ignored any discussion about targeting, just saying banality like "we have to fight."  I'd really like to know what method he would use for prioritizing races, but since he's adamantly refused to even engage the position that prioritizing is necessary, I'm just seeking clarification, trying to find out if the reason he hasn't engaged the issue is because he rejects my fundamental premise, that prioritizing is necessary.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:27:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  350K (none)
                I think Chris Bowers took a look late last year or early this year at all the House races which went uncontested by Dems - I wanna say it was around 35 nationwide, mighta been more.

                Chris argued that $10K in seed money for each of these seats would have been money well spent, and I'm inclined to agree. For $350K, you woulda made at least a few otherwise-free-to-roam incumbents spend a few more weekends at home... and who knows who mighta caught fire, or which incumbent would have suddently decided to retire, etc.?

                Jerome also recently pointed to a report which showed how much the ability of Congressmen to raise money for their colleagues was hampered by the presence of an opponent. (Not so surprising.)

                So I think that's a starting point, in terms of deciding how you fight "everywhere" while still managing your priorities. I'll try to find that post of Chris's.

                •  I believe you refer to ... (none)
                  ... wl's Project 90.

                  Don't it just make ya wanna throe up?

                  by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:49:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's Fine, And The Other Day... (none)
                  ...somebody made a suggestion--was it Kagro X, or did he just praise the person for the suggestion?--that such a project would be a perfect fit for blogs.  I strongly agree that we'd benefit from a little seed money in each district, training for the candidate and their staff to know how to make good use of that seed money, and guidance to empower candidates and campaigns in lots of districts to become effective enough that they could possibly put themselves in contention for additional support from the national committees, national donors and the key allies like labor, the NEA, ATLA, etc.  

                  But you still need to target the resources.  If after you give the seed money and early guidance to every campaign, you could end up with two equally impressive campaigns running in open seat previously held by a Repub, with equally effective opponents.  But what if one district is a 67% Repub district, and the other one is a 56% Repub district?  It's almost impossible to steal the 67% Repub CD, but much less impossible to steal the 56% Repub CD.

                  And assessing how the DCCC has performed over the years requires, I think any fair-minded person would agree, some awareness of the numbers of seats that are from 50 to 55% Repub or Dem, 55 to 60% Repub or Dem, etc, as well as an understanding of how many of each type of seat is held by Dems and by Repubs.  Having that knowledge makes one aware that the map is heavly tilted against the Dems, and that despite that we've actually stolen far more Repub seats than the Repubs have stolen Dem seats.  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:02:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So let's think about where we agree. (none)
                  I can buy into the argument that having a race at home keeps you there, and keeps you from raising money for opponents. That seems intuitive.

                  On the other hand, I think that $10K won't do the trick. But that's nothing to get concerned about just yet.

                  I'm always up for trying to work something out that's concrete and doable, though. So why don't we see if there's something to be done?

                  Bob just helped drum up something like $350K, give or take a few grand, depending on how you define "netroots." So you may not even need the DCCC at all, if that's your goal. Which in my book means you can safely leave them out of any screeds which might become necessary, except to the extent, I suppose, that you find that you raise more when you bash them.

                  But what about a cooperative challenge, instead? What if Bob constructively engaged the DCCC, and tested their willingness to, say, match the "netroots" up to $350K, for a fund dedicated to seed money for such candidates? Would you be interested in working on something like that?

                  •  Sure (none)
                    I would be, sure. But giving $10K in seed money to 35 candidates in 35 previously uncontested districts requires a TON more effort than just raising the money. You'd need a whole apparatus dedicated to finding candidates, helping them get on the ballot, etc.
                    •  Of course. (none)
                      But the DCCC can't be involved in the primaries. So any candidate they matched donations to would already be on the ballot as the Democratic nominee.

                      That part, you'd have to take care of yourselves. Although there's nothing standing in the way of discussing a complementary and cooperative candidate recruiting program, when there are no other takers to be found.

                      So, you talk to your people, and I'll talk to my people, and we'll pretend we have pull for a while, and see if anyone bites.

                •  Eh. (none)
                  Ginny Schrader had raised $20K on her own before the blogosphere swooped in and doubled her totals.  Didn't make her a better candidate.

                  The thing is, we can't do candidate recruiting  unless we're actually in the districts and can gain personal knowledge of these folks. There's only so much a keyboard can do.

                  "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

                  by Adam B on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:02:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Slight disagreement with your logic (none)
            Your argument is either-or. Either we expend resources equally or we ignore "unwinable" districts.

            I don't think anyone would argue that some districts are more difficult or almost impossible to win. But this doesn't mean they should be ignored either. Strategic losses are important as well.

            The problem I have with the "lack of resources" argument in general is that it take a myopic view of each race. The battle for the houses of congress are divided up into their various district and state races. This ignores the sum of the parts.

            To use boxing as an example, a fighter does not come out in just rounds 1, 3 and 5 with round houses to the head hoping for a knockout. Body blows, although they will not bring down the opponent, add up and eventually can lead to the knock out punch.

            Fighting in every district, even if only in a limited fashion, is a form of body blow to the Republican party. It drains their resources. It makes them defend seats they thought safe. It rallies the base and forms Democratic organizations in places where none existed before. It lays the ground work for future victories should an exciting candidate of district demographics change. It highlights issues that otherwise would remain silent.

            Until we view races for congress as more than just district races we fight a limited fight. We play not to lose.

            I respect your views, but focusing on resources is not playing to win.

        •  If we spread resource equally across districts ... (4.00)
          ... wouldn't that make us 4-to-1 spending laggards in EVERY ONE of the top 50 competitive districts?

          And wouldn't that cede the GOP an advantage of 20 to 30 seats per cycle?

          Or is that too much math for ya?

          Don't it just make ya wanna throe up?

          by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:19:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not EQUAL Spending, but good candidates (none)
            in every district, and SOME energy and yes money in every district.  No definitely not equal.
          •  Incidentally, when the archives come back up (none)
            ... discussants might be encouraged to review my 2004-02-26 Always Contest the District -- quite possibly the most influentially misunderstood post in dailyKos history.

            Don't it just make ya wanna throe up?

            by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:58:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, RonK (2.50)
              what was the 0 for? Have you checked the ratings guidelines recently? From the FAQ:

              Many users believe that the rating system is intented to be an opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with a post, or with the poster themself. This is not accurate; ratings are intended to help elevate those posters that consistently make clear, good arguments and points, regardless of content, and to prevent trolls from invading the message board. Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.

              Follow the link to wiki, you bastard, and check my history here at dKos and show me how I'm a troll.

              Idiot.

              I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
              tears ran down my spine
              -- Phil Ochs

              by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:45:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. let's do the math! (none)
            The Democrats have many safe seats, 60 or more. The Conyers, Waxmans, Slaughters, Emanuels (yes I know -- he's my congress person even though I opposed him in his first primary, when Clinton came in for Rahm's fund raisers it was all over) et al. That frees up lots of money for both the DCCC and the blogosphere.

            Second, I seriously doubt 350 grand is ALL of the resources available for the blogosphere or the DCCC.

            Bonddad points out here and in Booman Tribune (sorry I don't know how to do links, but the posts are recent, after the Hackett election) that both as a mathematical and a marketing approach the 50 state 435 seat approach is the only way to go. Selective targeting shrinks both brand AND market.

            Third, Hackett ran in a district where the Republican gets 70% even in his First race. Paul shrank the margin to 3.2% Any Republican facing a serious challeger with less than 67% is in deep doodoo.

            Fourth, an across the board challenge fundamentally changes the character of the national perception of the races, restricts the mobility and fund raising of the Republicans and the inability to carpet bag with money, foot soldiers, expertise and slime.

            Fifth. across the board races fundamentally changes the base in the locale and provides more momentum for the future.

            In the Chicago, in Harold Washington's two races for mayor, a coalition fought a well disciplined
            and well oiled machine, armed not only with money, but illegal patronage jobs and contract favors. We ain't called clout city for nada.

            Aldermen, previously known for releasing their campaign funds and troops to machine troubled campaign in other areas were challenged in their home wards by opponents, sometimes real, sometimes guerilla foes. The aldermen fearing their own survivals scurried right home.

            Result, after a mean, hard fought, bigoted pair of campaigns, Washington won both races and wound up with a City Council backing him, and later some of those early successful aldermanic challengers went on to be some of Congress's most liberal.

            There are many attractive options. Selected attack, and giving up on some races is for the timid, shy loser.

            At the Battle of Moscow, the Soviets bet the farm and won.

            •  Very well, let's see the math (none)
              That's a fine inventory of hand-waving arguments ... where's the math?

              We're not talking about $350K. We're talking about the full out-of-pocket cost of running head-to-head competitive campaigns in all districts. In round numbers, $1M a seat. A $435M ante.

              How much can we raise nationwide exclusively for House races -- apart from concurrent fundraising for Senate, statewide, state legislative, local, initiative, partybuilding, netroots building, 527s, topical issue campaigns, pre-2008 Presidential warchests ... and apart from contested House Democratic primary contests.

              The "House" treasury includes DCCC money, netroots money, local/individual candidate dialing for dollars, and small infusions of party money and coordinated campaign synergy (a bigger factor in presidential years).

              We don't get to exempt our "safe" seats, either, any more than the GOP gets to exempt theirs. That's a mathematical cheat. Brigham insists analysis and targeting is boring and useless ... so, no assumptions. Just equal effort across the board.

              So, there will be 30-50 seats that a really in play. GOP will bring a million dollars or more to bear on each of them. If our House "kitty" amounts to $110M, we'll spend a quarter mil on each -- which is the rough equivalent of giving up.

              Half of these are their seats, half ours, so we lose about 25 seats. That's my math.

              BTW, I hope you realize I present this as the progenitor of the "contest every district" movement. (See note downthread.) If we're serious about this, we have to play smart. Brigham's battle cry is a call to deliberate stupidity.

              Don't it just make ya wanna throe up?

              by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:32:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Bob (none)
          the netroots did an amazing job raising money for Hackett. Something like 750k wasn't it?

          But he was the only game in town. How much could we raise for the midterms? Maybe 4 times that? 10 times? Let's be generous and say 10 times that. That's 7.5 million dollars.

          That sounds great, but divided among 435 congresspeople, that's a little over 16000 dollars a person.

          Now I'm no campaign expert, but I would venture that it takes more than 16000 to run a campaign, seeing as hackett needed 30000 just in the last day.

          So either we would need to spread the money out inequally, in which case DH's question seems legit, or you'd need the DCCC to assist some. Cause 16000 a candidate would get us slaughtered.

          You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

          by AnnArborBlue on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:44:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ann, (none)
            sometimes a good candidate can raise some money on his/her own.

            In any election the canidate can always vote for one' self. His success is based on his ability to draw resources beyond.

            Jean Schmidt put $250,000 big ones in from her own purse. RNCC ponied up another half mill.

            Face it, the Repugs can't always do that all the time. That is TEIR problem!

            And our opportunity.

        •  Appealing messege, but not totally realistic (none)
          Of course, we can put up candidates everywhere, but obviously there's some seats which are more important than other seats.

          Now, let's break it down.

          There are 232 Republicans in Congress right now.

          Say we target 75 of them.

          That's just fighting in 32% of their districts. And to win the House, we would need to win 1 in 5 of those races.

          But, I have confidence that we wouldn't "bat .200" in November 2006.

          The foundation for victory can be built upon in at least 218 districts by election day. But not 435, because you need a foundation before you can just win. We can win a majority of districts.

          "Fighting everywhere" and "Fighting where we have a good chance" are different.

          We have a good chance in a lot of districts.

          Don't get too mad if some people finally smell the coffee in 2006. There'll always be people who will go after the obvious when it is obvious. That's just how things are. Just make sure they don't take too much credit from you, or something similar.

          "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

          by RBH on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:32:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why I gave you a 1 (3.16)
        You're trolling, DH. You have a fight with Bob Brigham, ok, I don't care. Fight with him as hard as you want -- in the appropriate forum.

        Laying in wait on his every post just so you can ask a mean-spirited rhetorical question does nothing more than debase the discourse at dKos. It's inappropriate, and it should stop.

        This diary, DH, is not about targetting; it's about whether the DCCC is making a strategic error by avoiding a stand on the Iraq war.

        It makes me sick to my stomach to see it get sidetracked by your sandbagging.

        I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
        tears ran down my spine
        -- Phil Ochs

        by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:23:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When Someone Accusses Another Person... (none)
          ...or institution of malpractice, it's fair game to question their authority on passing such a judgment.  And if someone doesn't understand or make an effort to understand the rudiments of targeting, they're in no position to accuse a campaign committee and it's staffers of malpractice.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:26:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not the point (none)
            The point is you're sandbagging him, and you're changing the subject. You were clearly lying in wait for him, you linked back to your previous argument with him, and you're making it clear you will not let him rest -- or perhaps even appear in dKos -- until he answers your question.

            That's trollish behavior, DH. And it's only out of respect for your long participation on the site that I didn't give you a 0.

            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
            tears ran down my spine
            -- Phil Ochs

            by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:32:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, It's EXACTLY the Point (none)
              Haven't you looked at the comment to which I was replying?  What, you think it's OK to accuse people of political malpractice, not have to make an argument in support of your claim, malign the integrity and professionalism of other Democrats, and not have to establish that you know what the hell you're talking about?

              You seem to have a pretty fucked up view of the world, where attacking people is OK, but making people justify their attacks is "trollish."  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:34:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The political malpractice claim (none)
                is made in the diary itself, by none less than kos himself. Brigham simply supports the point already made.

                You, however, brought up an old beef you have with Brigham -- and, believe it or not, it's off-topic in this diary.

                Look, I've already gotten a zero for this, but I don't fucking care. You're out of line, and the way I read the ratings guidelines you deserve at least a 1, if not a 0, for the trollish way you attacked Brigham.

                Keep the discourse civil, dude. If you have a beef with kos calling out the DCCC for political malpractice, take it up with kos. Don't change the subject so you can continue an old fight with somebody else.

                The guy doesn't want to answer your stupid fucking question. And, you know what? He doesn't have to.

                I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                tears ran down my spine
                -- Phil Ochs

                by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:59:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK, Now Are You're Just Makin' Shit Up? (none)
                  Where was I not civil to Bob?  

                  And if you can't see how whether he's competent to judge incompetence is relevant, I suspect you're really missing out on a whole lot that happens around here.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:05:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Where? (none)
                    Here. And here.

                    Remember, dude, I gave you a 1? What the fuck do you think that was for? It looks like a couple of other people agree with me, too, because you've now got three 1's for the comment.

                    Where there's smoke, there's fire, DH. Several people think your comment was out of line, and you might consider listening to us.

                    I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                    tears ran down my spine
                    -- Phil Ochs

                    by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:41:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Who Are You, Mr. Rogers (none)
                      Give me a fucking break; you have no idea what uncivil is.

                      What's next, are you going to get mad because we're not having graham crackers and juice and laying on our rugs for our little nappy time?

                      And some ones are a mark of honor; certainly a 1 from pursewarden is a sign that I probably did something right.  If you're going to throw in with him, that says a lot about your judgment.

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:04:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Guilt by association (none)
                        is always a good tactic. Gives you a fig leaf, doesn't, that a loony like pursewarden also thinks you're out of line.

                        But that doesn't change the point. Your comment to Brigham counts as harassment, pure and simple. It's unacceptable behavior.

                        Now, maybe in the Michigan Democratic Party harassment is considered civil behavior. Elsewhere in the United States, however, it's considered a crime.

                        I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                        tears ran down my spine
                        -- Phil Ochs

                        by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:18:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Um (none)
                          Your comment:

                          Several people think your comment was out of line, and you might consider listening to us.

                          And you really have a laughably incompetent understanding of law.  

                          As for the rest of it, you're obviously a precious and tender flower, and maybe not resilient enough for this.  Maybe you should go fan yourself and sit under a parasol to make sure you don't get the vapors.

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:22:59 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're becoming incoherent, dude (none)
                            Are you sure you're ok?

                            Maybe it's time to get some sleep, man, because you're having real trouble stringing two sentences together.

                            You think harassment's not actionable? Try it at the office, man, try it at the office.

                            And don't come crying to me when you get an injunction slapped on your sorry ass.

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:35:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. (none)
                            I'm really pissed.  That comment claiming I could get sued, because Daily Kos is soooooooo much like a workplace, is so stupid that I now realize all my previous comments to you were a complete waste of time.

                            I allowed you to waste something like 15 minutes of my life, and I'll never get that time back.

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:44:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Boy, not only are your writing skills going (none)
                            but your reading ones are, too.

                            For the record, what I said was that if you tried to do in the workplace what you've done here to Bob Brigham, you could get sued for harassment. And you'd lose that suit.

                            Don't tell me you've never heard of anti-stalking ordinances?

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:50:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I've seen DH be uncivil (none)
                      and I don't think that qualifies.
                      •  Thank You (none)
                        I would like to think I can still take incivility up a few notches.  To think that this isn't civil would be very disappointing; it would be like not having any more arrows in my quiver.  

                        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                        by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:18:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, I've seen him worse, too (none)
                        But I remember when a blogger (can't recall his screenname) got banned here for doing the same thing to Melody Townsel (over that plagiarism flap) as DHinMI is doing to Bob Brigham.

                        If it was wrong then, it's wrong now. And if we're really interested in presenting a united front as Democrats against Republicans, then we really do need to treat each other with respect.

                        Shit, from the things you're saying downthread I'd figure you'd understand that better than anyone...

                        I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                        tears ran down my spine
                        -- Phil Ochs

                        by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:28:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????????? (none)
                          Show me where the fuck BOB BRIGHAM showed respect to Democrats?????

                          That's my fucking point!  Why don't you fucking get it?

                          Why is it OK in your mind for Bob to make unsubstantiated accusations of professional and political malpractice against DEMOCRATS and yet it's not OK to challenge him on his accusations?

                          Are you fucking kidding me?  What don't you understand?????

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:36:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're losing it, man (none)
                            Should we call you "DHNovakulainMI" from now on?

                            Cause that bastard looked sane yesterday compared to the way you're behaving now...

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:47:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Right now I am (none)
                          a little perturbed with Bob. It looks like things may have smoothed over a touch with him and the DCCC. In theory his 50 state  plan is nice but I think DH has some valid questions.

                          I squabble with people here frequently and have no major problems with others doing that. My main complaint with Bob is the extremely public nature of it including his CNN appearence. I'm also quite displeased with Markos' cheap shot on the front page.

                          •  I don't know Bob (none)
                            from a hole in the wall, but I respect that he went down to Ohio to work for, and blog on, the Hackett campaign. In theory, I really like the 50-state campaign, although I think DHinMI is actually raising some valid issues.

                            This fight with DHinMI isn't about that. It's about his obnoxious way of raising that fight with Bob in a completely different forum.

                            In fact, from what I can see, DHinMI has been totally rude about the whole thing from the beginning. I think his interest is in silencing Bob, not in debating the issues with him. If I were Bob, I wouldn't want to answer him, and that's the whole fucking problem.

                            Get the two of them talking to each civilly -- and for that to happen DHinMI has to stop acting like a troll -- and maybe they could reach an understanding that would actually make the Democratic Party stronger.

                            As long as DHinMI continues to act like an immature frat boy, though, this fight will just keep going on and we won't be able to take advantage of the Republicans' weakness.

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:45:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bob could always answer (none)
                            the question asked in order to put the whole thing to rest. Maybe you don't like the way he asked it but if Bob wants to go around trashing people and institutions he ought to have the facts to back it up.
                          •  The Obvious Answer (none)
                            Silencing Bob?  Hell no, and you're right: I'm trying to get an answer from Bob.  He's throwing around a lot of accusations, but when asked to support them, he meanders off and doesn't defend what he said.  

                            I'm hardly silencing him; I'm trying to get him to speak up.  You're right: Bob could just answer the damn question, and litho could go be Miss Manners defending someone else.

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:32:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Look, I would like to see Bob and DHinMI (none)
                            work this out between the two of them. Speaking as an outsider, however, DHinMI's "question" looks like a variation on "Are you still beating your wife?" He's not trying to start a dialogue, he's trying to embarass and silence a political opponent.

                            The "facts" that DHinMI is "requesting" look like technical information a political operative would need to design an effective targetting strategy. That is, they're only relevant if you think targetting works.

                            Bob clearly doesn't believe targetting works. He's suggesting a completely different approach to how we organize national congressional campaigns. He's looking at a different set of data than DHinMI, and he's coming up with different answers.

                            If DHinMI were interested in dialogue, he would be asking what dataset Bob is looking at, and why he finds that data more convincing than the traditional data used by political operatives.

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:41:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Look, I'll Be Blunt: You're Fucking Stupid... (none)
                            ...or dishonest.  You choose.

                            I've asked Bob for an explanation, and you've spun it 150 different fucking ways to make me into the one who's attacking Democrats.

                            Stupid or dishonest.  Whichever one is up to you.  

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:26:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Man, even after a good night's sleep (none)
                            your reading skills are STILL horrible! (I trust you had a good night's sleep, at least...)

                            Look, wanker, I never accused you of attacking "Democrats" -- in the abstract plural sense -- I've accused you of attacking, in a dishonest and unfair way, Bob Brigham.

                            Now, you can "spin" that however you want, but in my mind you're simply avoiding your own (ir)responsibility in this entire discussion.

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:38:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stupid or Dishonest? (none)
                            I've accused you of attacking, in a dishonest and unfair way, Bob Brigham

                            ...who was attacking democrats in a dishonest and unfair way!

                            OK for Bob to do it, but, according to you, not OK for me to call Bob on it?

                            That you appear to be incapable of understanding this distinction has me leaning to stupid...

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:42:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's HOW you did, DH (none)
                            and how you did it amounts to stalking and harassment, plain and simple.

                            You may not believe me, but I actually am interested in seeing an honest and forthright discussion between you and Bob on the issues.

                            Unfortunately, based on what I've seen here, I don't think you are capable of having such a discussion.

                            You know, pyrrho had a diary up this morning on dKos etiquette, and TarheelDem made the following statement in a comment:

                            Troll-rating should be for posts (not people, posts) that unnecessarily seek a fight just for the purpose of fighting--that are intended to initiate a flame war. Regardless of opinion or ideology.

                            If you don't see yourself in that quote, then you need a new mirror.

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:53:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yup, Stupid (none)

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yup, wanker (none)

                            I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
                            tears ran down my spine
                            -- Phil Ochs

                            by litho on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:22:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  very couragous of you (none)
                            to take on Bob like this, with nary a word for Markos.  

                            I do believe that it's Markos' diary you keep responding to, and that he was the one who tapped the words "political malpractice" into his keyboard.

                            You're very selective in your targets.  Much like the DCCC.

                            Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

                            by willowby on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:31:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, Grow the Fuck Up (none)
                            It was a comment in response to Bob's comment, not the entire diary.  If I don't have a right to respond to Bob's comment unless I'm responding to the entire fucking diary, tell me how the fuck your comment right here has anything to do with Sirota's post?

                            Bob can accuse people of malpractice, skate away rather than defend him accusation, and you guys make him into a martyr?

                            Give me a fucking break.

                            And look around; I directly addressed Markos in this thread.

                            Sit down and shut up until you have something worthwhile to say.

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 12:34:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  making Bob a martyr? (none)
                            You're kidding me with this, right?  It's clear to anyone who's not threatened by Bob's success that his earthly political life isn't expiring anytime soon.  There's little need for a crown of thorns just yet.  

                            Btw, who said you had to respond to the entire diary? I merely pointed out something you seem to have missed, or perhaps deliberately ignored, again and again.  

                            I refer to the final three lines in this diary; Markos' words, not Bob's:

                            The fact that the DCCC ignores one of the most striking lessons of the Hackett race is mind-boggling. If there was such a thing as "political malpractice", they would be guilty of it.

                            If it's the accusation of "political malpractice" that has your panties in such a twist, the attacking of other Dems, I don't see that reflected in your respectful reply to Markos here:

                            I Think Sirota Completely Misses the Point (4.00 / 4)

                            This document isn't really a strategy memo, it's a rah-rah thing that they pass around for fundraising purposes.  This isn't really to House Dems to talk with them about strategy, it's for potential donors to hear the "pitch" for why investing in the House Democrats is a good investment.

                            Come to think of it, nor do I recall you taking issue with Markos for making similar comments about the DLC here:

                            In reality, it's about who controls the money. And that's why the DLC is becoming irrelevant (hence the importance to them of the Hillary pact), and why it is doomed to irrelevance. There are plenty of "centrist" organizations within the Democratic Party that have not earned the ire of the rest of the party. The DLC stands alone.

                            So what's left? Let the DLC fizzle out on its own? We could do that. It has a limited shelf life.

                            Or we can help the process along, working collectively to hasten the process. And I've got a plan to do just that.

                            Consider this a teaser. ETA is four weeks.

                            If it's attacking other Dems that serves as the basis of your narrowly-aimed blustering bravado, then you're the biggest pussy here for not calling Markos out on it too.

                            Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

                            by willowby on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:48:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please everybody (none)
                            Repeat after me: It's not about me.
        •  A zero for litho who is making a point? SHAME! (none)
          Done with real courage?

          SHAME! SHAME SHAME!!!

    •  You have an agenda (none)
        You went on CNN with your agenda.  The DCCC didn't lose the race in Ohio for Hackett.  The blogs didn't make the race as good as it was all by themselves.  Credit where credit is due on all sides.  As for not mentioning the war in Iraq as an issue.  What, does everybody believe members of congress don't know Hackett made an issue of the war in Iraq?  Is that what helped him or was the fact that he was an Iraq war veteran the thing that helped him?  Hackett isn't being a sore loser.  He's a mensch.  Everyone needs to learn a lesson from him.  Trashing the DCCC doesn't help anyone win a race this year or next for any congressional seat.  Get over it!  The entire blogosphere is free to "1" me.

      Winning without Delay.

      by ljm on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:47:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What Hackett Is Saying is Key (none)
        Is Hackett running around saying screw the DCCC, long live the netroots?  No, from what I can see, you're right, he's been gracious in giving credit to lots of people.  

        Some folks would do well to learn from his example.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:12:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Late to the game (none)
      And they still don't get it
  •  A veteran can say things that others cannot (4.00)
    There is not going to be widespread love for
    "I-told-you-so" Democrats.
    •  So, find some more vets =nt= (none)

      Congress will NOT cancel NASA so I'm just saying I want more for my money.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:06:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It worked brilliantly for Kerry (none)
      Lets throw conventional wisdom out the window.  It isn't winning us any elections.
    •  There's no need to say "I told you so" (4.00)
      I agree that a veteran can say things that others cannot, but there are other ways of criticizing the president's policy than saying "I told you so."  Aren't we supposed to be the party that believes in reality-based thinking?  Can't we make a reality-based case against the war that grabs people and that can stand on its own without reference to the issue of how the war was sold to us?  The selling of the war is a separable matter, and can and ought to be used to attack to the veracity, motives and methods of the right, again, without the Na-na-Na-na-Naaa-Naaa tone or implication of a superior prior wisedom.

      W...orst ever

      •  Enthusiasm for the war is all but gone in America (none)
        But voters are capricious, and sometimes illogical creatures.  They will demand a plan from any Democrat who comes out forcefully against the war, and if he says "let's just get out" they might think he is irresponsible, or a liberal wimp.
        •  100% agreement (none)
          Critique is not enough.  My only point was to say that we need not come off as I-told-you-sos in order to make a case against the war.

          Clearly, a positive counterproposal is indispensible.  But a tangential thought on that:  I think that our (we humans') capacity for social engineering is much more limited than we like to admit, and that most of our projects end up being reduced to the management of unintended outcomes, a fact that is magnified when policies are pursued for ideological or personal reasons and without a reality-feedback loop built into the process.  Whatever ends up being the Dems' positive proposal on the war needs to incorporate a healthy respect for the real limits on our capacity to engineer somebody else's society.  Jesus!  Doesn't anybody have kids out there?  I don't know about anybody else, but I will confess that my ability to make my kids do what I think is perfectly obviously the right thing to do is, in fact, not perfect.  I don't think recognizing limits is a fault.  I think it's essential to coming up with a practicable policy.

          W...orst ever

      •  you don't need "I told you so". (none)
        I think "Stop the insanity" would be quite effective.  You certainly don't NEED a vet for that specificly.

        The GOP Love the soldiers like they love children: Seen but not heard.

        by DawnG on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:56:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps (none)
      But a solid candidate will attract supporters from the progressive veteran community who will be willing to wrap the candidate in the flag for protection.  I've seen it work before.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man ..Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:24:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We Can Say 'THEY Told You So' (none)
      There were plenty of experts in every relevant field who said the invasion would go sour.

      There should be a sound-byte-sized list circulating.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:29:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's a big difference (none)
      between an "I told you so" and holding people responsible for the decisions they made.  Easy as an "I told you so" would be in this case, you're right that elections won't be won with that, but poor judgement is fair game.
  •  And that's why I don'tr trust Rahm Emmanuel (none)
    He will ignore the policy points that don't aligtn with his DLC values.

    He may be a smart guy and tough bastard behind the scenes (a dirty fighter), but he's also a DLC clone.

    He was a bad choice for the job.  That said, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for `06.  But I ain't holdin' my breath.

    •  If they don't (none)
      get it NOW, I have no hope for the DCCC, but I have great hope for the Blogsphere.

      We can make the DCCC go "away" if we can band together and fund our own candidates (like Hackett) and win some seats.

      2006 can be won, but not by the idiots in charge at the DCCC.

      "September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country." Judge Gerald Tjoflat

      by SanJoseLady on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:07:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't be that quick to discount them (none)
        We may have an awful lot of factors working in our favor by this time next year.

        I'm not confident Emmanuel is the right guy (he's too much of a poll-sniffer for me), but there is no doubt that he is one, smart mofo.

      •  The DCCC (none)
        is run by the Democrats in Congress. It won't just "go away". The blogoshpere is wonderful in raising money and getting volunteers but it can't do everything and neither can the DCCC. The DCCC is flawed but any organization that helps Democrats is welcome by me. We need to work  together to win.And you know, we would have gained seats last cycle if it hadn't been for the Texas re-districting.
        •  While what you say (none)
          is true, why do we have to follow the DCCC off a cliff?  

          For instance, had we stood apart in 2002, demanded accountability for the war, made strong statements that it was wrong we, as a party, would be in a much better position.  How many of us begged the DCCC and DSC to do just that?  Did they listen? Do they ever listen?

          And what is with them having the absolute worst people they can find on tv?  Talking points? Message?

          I get requests from them constantly for money, yet they could care less what I think, or any of us "low dollar donors" offer in advice.  Do I know everything? No, but how in the hell could any of us do worse?  Hackett is a prime example, he was off the DCCC's radar, as was Loretta Sanchez when she first ran against Bob Dornan.  

          In some ways, in my opinion, at this point in time , the DCCC is an organization that is too top heavy, too concerned with DC and doesn't have enough grassroots folks blended in to give some broader viewpoints of how we could do better as a party.

          Yes, we do need to work together, and when the DCCC realizes that we aren't just dollar signs, maybe they might start to win a few elections.

          "September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country." Judge Gerald Tjoflat

          by SanJoseLady on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:31:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Can we get Emmanuel replaced? (none)
      Really how would we go about doing that?

      Replace Emmanuel with someone whe truely repreasents the party?

      "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs that is incapable of walking forward." - FDR

      by Houston on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:26:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Think Sirota Completely Misses the Point (4.00)
    This document isn't really a strategy memo, it's a rah-rah thing that they pass around for fundraising purposes.  This isn't really to House Dems to talk with them about strategy, it's for potential donors to hear the "pitch" for why investing in the House Democrats is a good investment.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:05:46 PM PDT

    •  Actually, It's a Dumb or Dishonest Argument (4.00)
      That document doesn't mention ANY policies.  You could just as easily argue that it ignored Hackett's position as a strong supporter of gun rights as defined by the NRA.  The fact is, other than the sorta nebulous "ethics" issue, that supposed "strategy memo" doesn't mention a single issue.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:11:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (none)
      The memos didn't say anything except people were sick of republicans and that there is hope for all democrats.
      •  It's a Press Release (none)
        It's a "we're better than the Republicans" press release, and nothing more.

        I'm kinda stunned at Sirota's characterization.  I mean, he's not a dumb guy, and presumably he's seen campaign post mortems before.  This isn't a post-mortem, and judging it as one is at best really silly.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:30:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When is a press release just a press release (none)
          I kinda agree with you on that.

          On a side note, I also think there's a way to grab the DCCC and the DLC by the collar and make them listen without insulting them, or adding to the rift.  Having said that of course, when someone in the DLC makes a statement about oh, say "fringe" parts of our side without knowing his shit, it's perfectly acceptable to smack him on the face once or twice.
          But Sam feels very strongly that we need to all work together.  We don't have to like each other, but we are all fighting the same enemy.

          --Liberate your radio--

          by Sam Loomis on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:38:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On the other hand, Sam.. (none)
            you don't know what the fuck you are talking about!

            When the DLC appologists like Bayh help promote untrue but potent Liberal stereotypes, then by all means, FUCK THEM.
            Yeah, Sam, we all work as a "team", but if you have guys on our side who are doing passive-aggressive fragging like this, then they need to be put in their fucking cage.
            Don't be a big puss, Sam.  I know you are tougher than that.

            --Liberate your radio--

            by Sam Loomis on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:41:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, Sam. I guess you are right. (none)
              Once again, I appreciate it, Sam, when you snap me back into reality.  Yeah, you always say that the GOP has us down on one knee and they aim to knock us on our backs and BURY US.  Now is not the time to seek platitudes with our own party.

              You are right Sam, we need everyone to put 100% passion and fight into this struggle.
              Like that dead Marine's father said last night on Hardball:  "Piss or get off the pot."
              I guess when the netroots are fighting with tanks and rocket launchers, and the DLC is fighting by trying to bribe the enemy and roll over for a courtesy fuck, then they need to be slapped in the face a little too.

              --Liberate your radio--

              by Sam Loomis on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:44:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I Separate Those Organizations (none)
            I have little use for the DLC (although I think there are plenty of people around here so obsessed with what they believe is the massive influence wielded by the DLC that they sound like 1970's conspiracy theorists ranting about the Trilateral Commission).  The DCCC is a "official" institution of the Democratic party, contituted to the goal of electing Democrats to Congress, regardless of their ideology.  They're devoted to inter-party competition.  The DLC is oriented toward intra party competition, and often inflict quite a bit of "friendly fire" on other Democrats.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:43:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sam was speaking broadly in terms of (none)
              being out of touch with the battle going on.

              Kinda like how the DLC would pander to the GOP and insult their party, and in the same spectrum, the DCCC would ignore "unwinnable" districts.
              It's all about lack of passion and balls to do what's neccessary according to Sam, in order to challenge the mighty GOP on their turf before they make us extinct.

              --Liberate your radio--

              by Sam Loomis on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:48:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And also (none)
                I think that's what's missing in the washington establishment:   the understanding that to us regular folks, we need to start winning cause we don't have lobbyists, campaign contributors, and DC perks to help us get by.  They fail to understand in a human way that these policies are killing us in the heartland AND in the cities.

                On a side note, Dave Grohl, from The Foo Fighters, get it.  He states in the most recent Rolling Stone that he named his lates CD "In Your Honour" after all the passionate Kerry supporters he met while touring with Sen. Kerry last year.  He stated how when they would stop at diff towns, all these "people would come up to his bus, just waiting to be rescued."

                --Liberate your radio--

                by Sam Loomis on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:54:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  well okay, but it's hardly any more effective (none)
      as a "rah-rah fundraising thing".  

      In fact, it absolutely reinforces my decision to click on unsubscribe after receiving the DCCC post-election email.

      The argument made by Lapp that to show up and fight hard would have meant a guaranteed loss shows an utter lack of conviction.  

      I won't support blushing Dems.  Zero political courage = not one red cent.

      Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

      by willowby on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:45:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a PRIME example (4.00)
    of why the DCCC is being outraised by the GOP.  I will NOT send ONE dime to the DCCC, as they continue to ignore reality, live in a world that doesn't exist and have no clue how to win elections.

    They should ALL be fired and the organization should be started from scratch, with people who have a clue about what is going on.

    It is no wonder that we continue to lose seats in Congress.

    "September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country." Judge Gerald Tjoflat

    by SanJoseLady on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:05:55 PM PDT

    •  My thoughts exactly (4.00)
      I received a "survey" from Friends of Hilary Clinton yesterday in the mail, in which the reader is asked to choose issues of importance from 1 to 8 or whatever . . . nowhere on the list was there any mention of the war, so I wrote it in and marked it 1. Likewise, the rest of the survey had absolutely zero reference to the Iraq occupation, zero reference to torture and loss of basic Constitutional rights . You could, however, check "Homeland Security" as an issue of crucial importance to you.

      In the area where one is supposed to choose between Democrats and Republicans, I wrote in Green beside each line and checked my little box next to it. There! That will show 'em!

      Truly, Friends of Hilary Clinton live in a remote cave, far, far removed from the currents of modern life.

      Jackals, weasels, polecats, and donkeys. Boobus Americanus.

      by Thaxter on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:35:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand .... (none)
        this discussion at all.  Iraq is the single biggest issue in this country at the moment. What on earth are these people thinking about?  But I imagine the reason that most Democratic members of Congress are rather silent about it is that most of them voted for it!  The only 2004 presidential candidates who could verifiably say they were against it from the beginning were Dean, Clark, and Kucinch (sp?).  (Why Clark got fouled up in his first press conference is beyond me, since he testified before Congress against involvement in Iraq the summer previous.)  

        Which is why we ought to think hard twice, and maybe thrice,  about nominating another senator for '08.  Can't we find a candidate who, like Hackett, isn't a compromised member of congress?

  •  Willed ignorance (4.00)
    Don't want to offend the 38% who still support the pres?  Are the Dems deliberately trying to avoid connecting with people's concerns?

    W...orst ever

    •  F@%k the D Trip (4.00)
      If there are any Democratic constituencies we should ever speak ill of it is that group.  I know many of the people who work or have worked there. Many go in with good intentions but come out homogenized, sanitized "group think" bureaucrats. The others are usually "wandering" kids of rich Democratic donors who don't give a shit about core Democratic values.  The critical mass there consists  of CYAers and "keep the money people happy" types. We need a departmental enema in that place otherwise the Shrum school will continue to control the agenda of our party.  Jettison the whole lot of em.
      •  Judo chop! (none)
        I wouldn't say jettison them because we want to expand, not shrink, our ranks.  But it would be sweet justice to put them in the position of having to vote for candidates of our choosing rather than of theirs, assuming that, like many of us, they will continue to vote Democratic regardless, since the alternative is so much worse and a third-party vote is a vote for the Rethugs.

        W...orst ever

      •  Career-track pols (none)
        Career-track 'journalists'...  There's a pattern there.

        Too many folks view a job at a state party headquarters, or the DCCC, or on a Congressional staff, as stepping stones in a 'career' (that also improves the employment prospects of spouses and kids).  Careerists play it safe.  This ain't what being a Democrat is about.

        www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

        by chuckvw on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:14:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Foolish to not discuss it... (none)
    ..and its role in the Hackett campaign.

    Maybe not foolish to think that, for other candidates who are not Iraq War veterans, this issue is much more difficult to tackle in the 2006 races.

    I've got blisters on my fingers!

    by Elwood Dowd on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:07:49 PM PDT

  •  stupid consultants (4.00)
    National Democrats have advised their candidates for two straight cycles to ignore the war and make the campaign about "health care and jobs".

    I'm so tired of the Democratic consultants taking these stupid polls and telling candidates to talk exclusively about health care and jobs.  These idiot consultants belive that the polling about issues accurately tells you how people are going to vote.  

    Polling people about what issues are important to them gets you the answer of how they want to think about themselves, not what they are actually going to do.  Modern market research accoutns for this difference but these consultants are living in the past and leading the party down the road to failure after failure.

    •  damned if they do damned if they don't (none)
      if the consultants said "only talk about the war" and then they don't talk about "health care and jobs" then the consultants would be admonished for abandonning core democratic party principles.

      i think they should attack both.

      (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

      by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:11:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Health care, jobs, Iraq (4.00)
      There are two separate factors in what makes an effective campaign issue:

      • Does it really matter to people?
      • Do people believe the candidate can really fix it?

      I believe that most people are very concerned about health care, jobs, and Iraq.

      I don't believe that most people think electing a different Congressman will fix health care, jobs, or Iraq.

      Corruption, Social Security -- voters will accept that a change in Congress will affect those.

      I've got blisters on my fingers!

      by Elwood Dowd on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:13:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Aha! (none)
        Somehow I had never thought of it in quite those terms (can s/he really fix it?).  Thanks for crystallizing it.

        One of the perversely smart moves the GOP has made over time is convincing the electorate not to expect anything helpful from its representatives.  And once politics is almost entirely symbolic (and confined to rah-rah feel-good-ism), about the only thing that's tangible is... tax cuts.

    •  Well said. (none)
      "Polling people about what issues are important to them gets you the answer of how they want to think about themselves, not what they are actually going to do."
      Excellent point.
    •  better late than never (none)
      I want to put my two cents worth in here although I might write it up in more formal terms later.

      I have read this thread, and I was in on part of the "Rahm Emmanuel is irrelevant" thread by Bob Brigham. This thread seems pretty directly related to that.

      In that thread, I was confronted pretty directly by Kagro X and DH in MI. I'm not up for flaming, and I managed to convince them (I think) that I wasn't just trying to diss the DCCC.

      But I see from this thread that the whole thing goes a lot deeper.

      So in the spirit of pye's comment about consultants, I want to import a few comments from that other thread.

      First off, Kagro X admitted that the structure of the DCCC itself can lead to some problems. After our discussion he was asking some people in another thread about DCCC membership dues - who pays, and how much.

      There's another problem: MLB has managed to get rich clubs to kick in for the survival of poor ones from smaller markets - but the Democratic Party has not managed to get congresspersons from safe districts to participate in a wealth-sharing program which channels UNNEEDED campaign funds to "targeted" possibilities (see, there, I used the word targeted).

      This is ridiculous. If they can see the logic in baseball, why not in government? Shit, you can argue that this is what Tom Delay does with ARMPAC (although one would hope we could do things legally).

      And while I'm on that subject, is there even one guy out there studying the possibilities for smashmouth redistricting in states with Dem legisatures?

      Furthermore, and in keeping with pyewacket's very justified bitching about consultants, there is the problem of osmosis.

      I mean, what happens when people in some government or party-related agency get too cozy with the MSM, or with media types.

      The classic example is the White House press corps, of course. But the foregoing lends some credence to the thought that the DCCC people, who like everybody else have a tendency to translate amounts of campaign money into media buys, get this tendency from the media guys who have a vested fucking interest in everybody continuing to believe that what wins races is TV, TV, and more TV. And negative TV on top of that, if the wimpy Dems can get their fingers out of their throats.

      This was all in the context of me believing that just as things once changed, making TV the most important thing, now things have changed again for those who can see and take advantage of it.

      There is more of a potential opening for GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM - personal campaigning, almost whatever goes AGAINST the media-dominated trend. A more professional set of marching orders for canvassing teams, implemented ahead of time (meaning ASAP) could do what TV commercials can't do -

      Because Attraction Is Better Than Promotion. People were DRAWN to Hackett. TV just pushes people in one direction or another AND THEY'RE TIRED OF IT. The Law of Diminshing Returns is starting to kick in big time in this respect.

      People really liked President Bush. They liked him because he was stupid - like them. Now they don't get to like him any more. TV makes your mind lazy. Bush TV made a lot of people cocoon with comforting lies - and now they've got to come out and confront reality...

      And the DCCC is basically saying, let's soft pedal everything. Let's split the point on social liberalism (see recent post by Armando). Let's not rub people's face in it.

      Let's be careful.

      But they mean careful ON TV.

      I realize that TV and radio will always be the bulk of a national campaign. I'm just saying that OH-2 showed me IMHO, my very HO, that we don't canvass properly, but if we did, we could create real buzz around candidates, the kind of buzz that press agentry and media buys can only simulate.

      That's what Attraction Is Better Than Promotion means. It is a law of marketing. Pull is better than push.

      A lot of people decided to vote for Hackett NOT because of some oh-so-smart manipulation of issues and TV footage and media spot placement.

      They decided to vote for him because a whole bunch of apparently fairly nice people were obviously excited about his candidacy.

      it wasn't THIS position by Hackett that pulled votes, or THAT position. IT WAS HACKETT. It was the attitude of the people around him.

      However! There aren't that many charismatic candidates - and while this may seem an abandonment of the idealism I seem to be brimming with, I still think that you could TRAIN canvassers to radiate that kind of commitment.

      And to top it all off I am still gonna whore my OH-2 diary about the formation and training of convassing teams at this point ("Taking Back The House: Lessons From OH-2")

      Now, one final point. In my discussion with DHinMI, he said something that I don't really believe, even though I think this has been the CW for a long time.

      He said that media campaigning is CHEAPER than canvassing.

      I just don't think so. TV commercials are expensive to make, expensive to air, and these days you have to put them on in too many markets.

      I'm saying the multiplication of media outlets and changes in TV watching behavior have made complete HASH out of the Nielsen ratings system, which is gonna have to be revamped pretty soon following demands from advertisers.

      Also, I think the discussions about which commercials had what effect are extremely speculative themselves, and self-serving on behalf of those same consultant types that sometimes work for media companies, and sometimes work for political parties.

      Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good." -- Simone Weil

      by suibne on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:48:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait, wait. (none)
        In that thread, I was confronted pretty directly by Kagro X and DH in MI. I'm not up for flaming, and I managed to convince them (I think) that I wasn't just trying to diss the DCCC.

        I never thought you were dissing the DCCC. I was yanking your chain, saying you ought to dis the DCCC, because that way you'd get more attention for your idea, which didn't appear to me to have much to do with the DCCC at all (but should, in that it's something they ought to look into).

        First off, Kagro X admitted that the structure of the DCCC itself can lead to some problems. After our discussion he was asking some people in another thread about DCCC membership dues - who pays, and how much.

        There's another problem: MLB has managed to get rich clubs to kick in for the survival of poor ones from smaller markets - but the Democratic Party has not managed to get congresspersons from safe districts to participate in a wealth-sharing program which channels UNNEEDED campaign funds to "targeted" possibilities (see, there, I used the word targeted).

        I actually know who pays DCCC membership dues and how much. I was wondering if anyone else did.

        And the answer goes to your next point. The DCCC absolutely DOES have such a program, but the twist is in the hints I gave you about the structure of the DCCC and who pays whom for what.

        First of all, House Democratic leaders are responsible for $600,000 (!) of DCCC dues. That means they have to come up with 600 grand to give to the DCCC over and above anything they keep for their own campaigns. Dues commitments diminish as you work your way down the ladder, but every Democratic House Member is on the hook for $100,000 minimum. So in a very real sense, the safest Members are in fact investing the most in the program.

        Secondly, the DCCC operates a "frontline" program, under which it identifies its most endangered incumbents, and directs Members in safer districts to divert excess campaign cash to those in the most danger. But notice what I've said here: the "frontline" Dems are incumbent Dems. Remember, the DCCC is a Member services organization. If you're not a Member, you're in quite a different position when it comes to getting money.

        But that's not to say that the DCCC doesn't involve itself in challenger races at all. But when it does, it does so to the extent that it benefits the Members it serves. Every Member wants more Democratic colleagues, of course, so the interests of Members and challengers tend to overlap. But when they don't -- as in when Members see too much of the cash they raised pumped into poor prospects, the money has a way of drying up.

        That's what I was talking about.

  •  in the blogosphere obviously (none)
    few would deny that his position opposing the war was a key part of his campaign.

    this is clearly why the netroots rushed to his side so quickly and so passionately.

    does anyone know how his position opposing the war impacted voters in a decidedly repug district in ohio?

    (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

    by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:09:08 PM PDT

    •  from 25% in '04 to 48% in '05 (none)
      it sure didn't hurt him any.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:11:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  those numbers could be (none)
        attributed to anything.

        assuming that 25% jumped to 48% because of an initially anti-iraq war stance ....

        well... i guess what i'm trying to get at is how many repugs in that district in ohio said to themselves, we were wrong to support an invasion of iraq in 2002 and 2003.

        or is the increase due to a huge increase in voter turnout overall, dems finally having a chance to vote for someone "with a spine" and thus turning out in droves to support that candidate...

        in which case there should be huge spike in voter turnout.

        i'm just looking for data to support the assumption.

        you're right.  it obviously didn't hurt him any.

        (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

        by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:16:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But here's the thing- the words didn't (none)
          hurt his chances either. There have been other veterans to run who were against the Iraqi war who lost to Republicans. But, not in a place where the numbers were so skewed to the Republicans. How could Hackett score so well with such an obviously anti-Bush message and anti-war message, if the environment were even the same as it were in Nov 2004? I find no one is answering this on the side arguing precaution. Precaution againstg what?
  •  it's remarkable (4.00)
    and tremendously disappointing that so many of the most visible, mainstream, national voices of the Democratic party remain so muted in their criticisms of this disasterous war.

    The Dems need to be much, much more clear, vocal, and unified about the fact that the Iraq war was and is: a disaster, a mistake, based on lies, counterproductive.  

    They need to capitalize on the growing anger towards Bush and his wrong-headed war. They need to articulate this more strongly and clearly, and demand for a quick withdrawl of the troops.  

  •  Targeted opposition to war only at this stage (none)
    We realy need to target our war opposition. It will now sell well in Blue states and purple states; but not yet in Red states. It always worked in NY, Cal (Blue) and is ready to be a good argument in Ohio, NH, etc. (purple states) but not YET (give it time)in South Carolina, Texas, etc (red states). Were not quite there in anti war being good as Dems national message yet (still looks weak if not done absolutely perfectly (see Kerrey)). Unless it is delivered by Wes Clark type. IMHO

     

  •  Was there a memo I missed (4.00)
    that said we should declare open season on the DCCC? Am I now supposed to attack them at every opportunity?

    God damnit people. Why don't we start trying to work with our allies instead of having a constant war against them and the Republican party.

    John Lapp posted a diary yesterday about working together. Instead of throwing shit at them at every possible opportunity, in public no less, let's find a way to work with them.

    •  What? (none)
      War? This ain't no war.

      We've seen Kos at war. It's not pretty.

      Markos has asked a blunt question. Blunt questions in our own fora are good things. They help create clear communication about differing opinions.

      I'm not attempting to speak for Markos. I wanna know, perhaps just like he and David Sirota both do, whether DTrip is prepared to accept that Hackett did not triangulate on the question of Iraq, and whether they're willing to admit that it resounds with voters who can be swung.

      •  So the fact that Bob (3.33)
        went on CNN today and trashed the DCCC is not an act of war?

        Engage the DCCC. Write them an E-mail. Call them. But don't go on the god damned TV and attack them for the entire country to witness. And don't have a front page post accusing them of "political malpractice" on the most popular blog on the net.

        Like I said. They wrote a diary yesterday that received 106 comments. $10 says that this post will double that and nothing substantial will be accomplished. Why the hell do we have to tear each other down instead of finding ways to build each other up and design a better party building and message opporation.

        •  My point is proven. (none)
          hey wrote a diary yesterday that received 106 comments. $10 says that this post will double that and nothing substantial will be accomplished.

          This post has been up for one hour and there are already as many posts in it as there were in the DCCC's diary yesterday that even went so far as to ask for comments and complaints.

          We are counting on you to help us. The DCCC is supported by the contributions of individuals and other groups from throughout the country who are committed to returning the People's House to the people of this country. I welcome your comments.  And hope we have the opportunity to meet in person and online often during this campaign cycle.  And most importantly - work together.

          Please be sure to visit us at dccc.org often.  Blog.  Criticize us when we're wrong.  Maybe throw us an occasional compliment if we're right. If you haven't been there yet, please visit dccc.org and our blog at blog.dccc.org.  And I will be sure to continue to visit MyDD.com, DailyKos.com, and other political blogs often as well.

          Thanks.

          People could barely be bothered to engage John Lapp head on. But now they are more than willing to attack the DCCC.

          This is just downright stupid.

        •  Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is. . . (none)
          an orphan.

          The Hackett campaign was anxious to get the help of the DCCC, and the DNC--which it did get, when it demonstrated it could stand on its own two feet.

          Speaking in only one tone of voice, giving only one message will not work in a country as vast as ours, with so many points of view.  You don't have to triangulate on Iraq, but you do have to oppose the war without offending the sensibilities of sincere people who haven't yet taken the time to learn just how bad it is.

          I didn't see Brigham on CNN today,  but I did try to speak to him at the Hackett victory rally and thank him for his efforts--wasn't able to get it out, because I got a self-important brush off.  Maybe he could reassess just how important he is/is not in the larger scheme of things.

          What rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born?

          by cova1 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:12:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  exactly Mike (none)
      We need to learn to compliment each other, every group there is. Just because someone is not doing things the way you want, doesnt mean they're not doing anything effective.  And what angles they might miss , its up for us, and others to take up the slack, and get the message out.
      You want the DCCC to do things your way, then go join up and stage a coup.
      •  Eleventh commandment (none)
        Reagan was right; why are Repubs still in power- their 11th Commandment- Thou shall not atack other republicans- we need to practice the same discipline  despite temptations to do otherwise- Lay off Biden, Emmanuel,  DLC, etc. (there still part of the team-not the enemy). I'll try to lay off Dean (he's getting better since being taken to the woodshead, though.)

        caveat- dontlay off Lieberman though- he is pratically repub, and we CAN do better in Connecticut

        •  Woodshed? (none)
          Oh yea, that is what getting along looks like.  Thanks.  I will remember that is what works to get people in line.  Dean people well remember how the dems are capable of treating people who decide they can be quiet no longer in view of the disaster that is our president.  
          •  Dean (none)
            Hasn't Harry Reid been just about as tough on Bush as Dean has, except that he has done it more deftly, getting in his shots without alienating large blocks of voters in the process.
            •  I am glad Reid is speaking up at times (none)
              but in the time machine, what was he saying in 2003 and 2004?  That was the time when, after 4 years of some of us shouting in oblivion that Bush is a disaster (remember all those anti-war marches that the dem leadership had no time for, with a few noteable exceptions), Dean stood up and said "What I want to know ..." and the dem leadership hate him for that one true statement.  Dean was speaking directly from me to the dem leadership.  And for that he has my undying gratitude.

              Reid is speaking up, because it is obvious to anyone who is not kool aid addicted, including Lieberman, that Iraq is a absolute tragedy, and everyone else along with it.

              Reid is probably smart and that if he goes all out too hard, he will only get slammed and will not gain anything long term.  But when a country is in as dire straights as we are, someone had better start shouting that there is "trouble in River City" before we drown.

      •  John Lapp wants us to "work together". (none)
        We pay,they pick. Yeah de ya da.

        Go team!

        Hackett went eary to the DCCC for support.n things like seed money, name recognition support, campaign staff expertise.

        DCCC to Hackett: Sorry Paul.

        After the blogospere raised a half mil, and Hackett had moved within 5% of his opponent according to a REPUBLICAN poll [sic], the DCCC and DMinMN announced
        they had a Secret Plan ( is that like the double double secret ... ?{and what's the secret hand shake?}] ).

        I complain the DCCC wants to stage a coup by claiming  they're responsible for Hackett's achievments.

        Who should have gotten a huge hand from the little ladies at the DCCC?

  •  Challenge (none)
    After posting a long piece yesterday (frontpaged), it'd seem proper that somebody from DTrip should come here and address this.

    Markos, were they just pullin' our legs? All of us at once?

  •  Not surprised (4.00)
    I recently recieved a survey/request for donations from both Hillary Clinton and the DCCC. The survey asked me to rank the top ten issues facing us in '06, out of a given list. The war in Iraq was not on that list.

    I sent the questionaire back with comments in big bold letters that the war in Iraq, the lies that got us into Iraq, our dead and injured soldiers and the thousands of dead and injured Iraqis is my #1 issue. And if they don't have the courage to bring it up they won't get a penny from me.

    I am sick of this garbage from the "experts" who run the Democratic party.

    •  Wow (none)
      If that's true they are really more hopeless than I've thought previously.

      KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid! :-D

      by Viktor on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:13:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes We Need to Use Our (none)
      Returned: STUPID
       stamp.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:31:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me too! (none)
      That's what I did, too, when I received that "survey" which strained credulity to the breaking point.

      Jackals, weasels, polecats, and donkeys. Boobus Americanus.

      by Thaxter on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:38:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We need to PDF that bad boy (4.00)
      and air it out.  2006 is unwinnable if Democrats can't improve on "I voted against it before I voted for it", either rhetorically or prescriptively.  We're going to have another 1000 dead at least before 11/06, so pretending it won't come up is recklessly stupid.

      Here's what -- we don't have enough troops in Iraq to quell the current insurgency, which means it will grow.  We don't have the recruits necessary to increase troop strength, which means we couldn't quell the insurgency if we wanted to short of turning Iraq into a crater and slaughtering its population, which we won't do in turn because we need both Iraqi oil and enough regional stability to keep neighboring oil flowing.

      The political logic for power-wielding Republicans can't be "more of the same" in '06, as the Hackett race elegantly showed (and OH-2 was all about things Iraq).  The logic has to be either to fold with honor in Iraq or double-down in Iran.

      If it's the former, the Democratic Party needs to lead NOW with the particulars.  We need to be plowing diplomatic soil and giving military brass a way to salvage their institution and fight for us all another day.

      If it's the latter, we need to hear from Democrats either why war with Iran serves or undermines our national security BEFORE BushCo starts blowing up reactors.

      In short, we need to seize the initiative going forward on a war that will not go away.  Elements of the Democratic Party who voted for war in Iraq and now ignore our predicament will cripple the Party and damage the country.

  •  Frankly (none)
    Not only did the memo not mention the war as an issue, it didn't mention ANYTHING as an issue.  Really, it was a 2-page say-nothing pep talk, that could have been replaced by "Democrats have a chance!" and it wouldn't have made any difference.
  •  Is this neoliberalism? (none)
    And if not what exactly is neoliberalism (got the term from Nation)?

    Entropy is the measure of disorder present in a system.

    by hfiend on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:12:27 PM PDT

  •  The number one issue of 2006 (4.00)
    Republicans are going to run on a, "We ARE winning this war" platform. "So, stay the course."

    It doesn't matter if it is true.

    If Democrats ignore the war--then it will be perceived to be true--which is the same thing when voting time comes.

    At the very least Democrats have to follow the Hackett theme, I didn't vote for the son of a bitch, but I did fight for him." And talk about how the war is being screwed up by political gamesmanship and war profiteering.

    If your in a Blue State, Bush lied and people died.

    If you are in a Red State, Donald Rumsfeld is lying and our troops are dying.

    Either way, getting rid of status-quo is the only way we can fix this mess.

    •  '06 (4.00)
      Republicans are going to run on a, "We ARE winning this war" platform. "So, stay the course."

      My hunch is that you're half right.  They're going to run on a platform that since we're winning the war, it's time to bring the troops home -- and that would be deadly politically for the Democrats.

  •  Come '06 (4.00)
    We are going to WANT to focus on the ongoing disaster in Iraq.  Iraq and the lies and treason (Plame) surrounding the war will be exhibits A through Z of why the modern GOP is unfit to govern.

    Hackett showed the way.  I hope that the DCCC gets the message in time.

    ownership society - you are on your own

    by Sam I Am on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:13:33 PM PDT

  •  The trick is to say this.... (none)
    Okay so what is your plan how is it diffrent from your Republican oppisition. and than answer it without evasion.
  •  2 Words (none)
    Rahm Emmanuel is DCCC Chairman

    He is also in the Clinton camp.

  •  What exactly IS the post-mortem? (4.00)
    With regard to Iraq? To oppose having gone in, but support "finishing the job?"

    That's a position I think you can safely assume most House Democrats don't need briefing on.

  •  The Message Is Bush (4.00)
    Bush has blown it big time - Iraq was a horrible error. Hackett exposed Bush's glaring weaknesses by calling him a chickenhawk, refusing to retract it and doing better than any Democratic candidate in years. I guess the DCCC doesn't want any of that.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:22:10 PM PDT

  •  Got a call from DCCC today.... (4.00)
    ...looking for contributions. Just yesterday my husband and I gave to DFA...and we've been giving, giving, giving as I know everyone here has been as well. We're way past $2,500 since just prior to the November election last year. And that doesn't include our environmental contributions.

    Anyway, I told the lady on the other end, "Just gave to another Democratic group yesterday; we've given quite a bit lately. We just can't help out today."

    All I got was a click, and dead air.

    Nice manners.

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Meade

    by ilona on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:25:48 PM PDT

    •  It's been the week for that (none)
      On Monday night, the evening BEFORE the election, I got a call asking for donations to the Ohio Democratic Party that used a complicated script that sounded a LOT like the kind of rah-rah language being seen in this memo. I told the guy-"Sorry, but I've maxed out my donations this month to the Hackett campaign. Why don't you call me back next---" CLICK.  <dial tone>

      WHY was ODP doing general fundraising with a brand new Party approved script the night before this damn election? WHY would they hang up on someone who was telling them about planning to contribute funds in the future?  It's got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen them do in a while- well, since last November, at least.

  •  Dems Ignoring the War? (none)
    Kos - That's fine that it wasn't included in this memo, but can you honestly contend that Dems have ignored the war?  Pelosi has called it a "grotesque mistake" repeatedly, and sends out a steady stream of press releases and speeches blasting it.

    She has also gone a long way to try to bring Dems together on an issue that obviously caused a sharp divide three years ago, culminating in an essentially unanimous Dem call for a plan to finish and get us out.  

    The fact that the DCCC does not focus on the war reflects the fact that there is not a unified caucus position.  To be honest, I have my own opinions on the war, but I am not one who feels it is an obvious weakness that Dems are split.  A party should have members that think for themselves.

    Online Editor for the DCCC.

    by jesselee on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:26:05 PM PDT

  •  Over criticism (none)
    Absolutely the blind spot n Iraq is everywhere in the Party. It is truly amazing.

    that said, I think you make too much of a quick little memo that really does not pretend to engage in serious analysis.

    Now, you probably know more than me about this memo, and that maybe the Iraq stuff was deliberately omitted, but, absent that, this seems like just a little lazy sloppy memo that tries to jump on the heels of Hackett's performance.

    A little spin, if you will for themselves.

    But the political issue of Iraq has been poorly handled by ALL Dems everywhere.

    And since 2002.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:28:24 PM PDT

  •  Democratic Primaries are the key (none)
    We can all support the more vocal candidate in the primaries. Last thing we want to do is send a wishy-washy candidate to the elections.
  •  A Suggestion (4.00)
    Maybe if the Democrats would stop worrying about how everything they do will play in Peoria, they can just put some actual passion behind issues.  If you are pissed off at Bush and think he's a liar, say so.  If you think the war is a disaster and the troops should be brought home, say so.  If you are angry that Bush lied about the war and think he should be impeached, say so.  
    If the Democrats can't do that much, then they don't have any real integrity (or worse yet, they actually agree with the Bush Administration), and they don't deserve to be elected.
  •  Insanity (4.00)
    Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.  That is the definition of insanity.  That is what the DCCC is doing.  Insanity is rampant in the Washington establishment.  These Washington DLC clones are as much a threat to a populist agenda and message as Republicans.  Ignore them.  Run your election locally.  All politics is local.  The war in Iraq affects people - real people with real lives and families - everywhere.  Own it.  Show you care.  Show that you want a foreign policy consistent with American values.
    •  Insanity is attacking (none)
      your friends in public for all to see. Insanity is watching your enemy in the midst of an implosion and turning the guns on yourself.

      Call your congress critters and demand that they get on roughly the same page so that there can be a coherant message. Then quietly work WITH, not against, them and the DCCC to get that message out.

      But most of all, don't go on the damned TV and make this part 121,284,510,655 of the endless pundit "democrats in disaray" series.

      •  I don't agree at all (none)
        with being "forced to appear to agree" with every idiotic point of view someone makes simply because that someone happened to indntify him or herself as a Democrat.  Wrong is as wrong does.
        •  Must be between the lines (none)
          because I can't find where the fuck you came up with that one.
          •  You said it's insanity (none)
            to speak your mind, essentially.  I like that Reagan 11th Commandment, in theory, but I'd rather agree to disagree than pretend to agree to appear "unified".  I admire people who strive to understand tricky things far more than people who just go with the program because that's what their supposed to do (in public anyway, I gather you're making a public/private distinction).  Cheer up, anyway, you seem a little agressive.
            •  Aggressive? No, I'm livid. (none)
              I'm not talking about disagreeing. I'm talking about attacking. I'm talking about attacking in public. I'm talking about attacking in public on CNN and the most popular blog on the net.

              Anybody who knows me knows I don't go with the flow. Hell, I've even been known to throw a few bombs in my time. But attacking an orginization that is dedicated to helping elect Democrats to Congress, and one I have never seen attack another dem, in such a public way is insane.

              •  Is it ok (none)
                if we agree to disagree, then, given the way my man Howard's been lambasted, yes, in public?  

                Or should give a unified appearance to the community, issue a communique like the G-8 or something, and try to work it out amongst ourselves behind the scenes or something?

                •  Oy. I have said the same thing about (none)
                  people attacking Dean, yes, in public. As a matter of fact I complained about Dean attacking dems as well. And before you start bitching about me re Dean, ask anyone who was here in the primaries who the top ten Dean supporters were on dKos.
            •  Reagan knew Ollie North andPointdexter are doing (none)
              God's and the Republican's work. Along with his Secretary of Defense Weinberger.

              Let us not speak ill of others in our party. Otherwise what are Presidential Pardons for?

              Jheeez!

              I don't think so!

              If we don't get out now and leave an astounding cashier's check behind for war reparations, can you say defeat with dishonor?

              Can you say Nuremburg II?

              And NO, we don't get to keep 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.

      •  You mean like Al From or Byah? (none)
        Bob did great work in energizing the Ohio campaign and deserves credit.  As people have been saying.  And the DCCC seemed to, at least to my mind, take much of the credit for planning and energizing this race.  It seems to me that Bob is angry both because of the defeat and because he feels the DCCC did not help enough.  At least in part.

        Obviously there are many here who support the DCCC, who opposed Dean and the 50 state strategy, and who have been less than energized about going after Bush about the war -- mostly because they so strongly supported the war.  

        The DCCC had hoped, it seems, to gain their national security credentials by being rah-rah about the Iraq war and it backfired.  So now what -- more of the same.  What seems so crazy to me is the Dean and the recent candidate are really moderate dems and would readily agree with the DCCC about almost everything -- except the Iraq war.  So where does that leave us --

        •  DCCC is not the DLC (none)
          and I can'r sy as I have ever seen them attack Dr. Dean. Hell, I attacked Dean more for attacking other dems than many and I was one of the biggest Dean supporters here.

          I think it is stupid to attack NARAL, Anti/Pro war dems, Michael Moore, the DLC (unless it's a counter attack) and just about every other group that is on our side. I think it is far smarter to attack the GOP.

      •  (D) doesn't cut it (none)
        It is ridiculous to say that we shouldn't publicly attack people just because they got a (D) after their name.  This is what drives well meaning liberals and progressives out of the party.  I did not become a Democrat so the Washington establishment can parade me around.  Here is my simple message: I WANT MY PARTY BACK.

        There is no point in giving off a false image of "unity" when we don't have a united message.  The Washington establishment has to be called out on their bullshit - IN PUBLIC.  That is why I liked Dean. He called the big name Dems on their crap in public.  The establishment insiders need to know that they can't take the grassroots for public, and that we won't back them up if they won't stand up for us.

        I am sorry you don't like intraparty public confrontation, but there is no other way to have my party back.  And we have to take the party back in order to take our country back.

  •  Wrong approach (none)
    A principled opposition to the Iraq war without resorting to name calling, or insulting the president and other elected officials would have been a better approach in this election I think.

    Hackett could have strongly objected to the Iraq war on factual matters but without calling the president "The biggest threat to peace" along with the Chicken Hawk comment. I believe there is a place for criticism on the war, but when you go down a path which turns loyal opposition into something that smells like personal attacks you loose the high ground and the support of centralist, the electorate is not in sync with this harsh a view right now.

    I don't believe you have heard Wes Clark, or even John Kerry using the same terms and personal attacks on Bush as Hackett went with. Hackett was running in a predominately Republican district where support for Bush is weak but they are not willing to support a politician who is openly disrespectful to the office of the president.

    How about "Arm Chair Generals" and stress the gap between what the Uniformed Service leaders wanted in terms of manpower and what Rumsfeld and Bush are willing to commit, Democrats hate wars, but if pressed to fight one, are willing to fight will overwhelming force to win.

    •  Umm... (4.00)
      Hackett was running in a predominately Republican district where support for Bush is weak but they are not willing to support a politician who is openly disrespectful to the office of the president.

      He wasn't.

      He said he thought the President was a Sonofabitch, but he'd gladly lay down his life for him.

      why?  Because he respects the office of the president, even if he does not respect the man currently holding it.

      What we need is less namby pamby political correctness and more Harry Truman.

  •  Worse Still... (none)
    ...They aren't just denying that Democrats deserve any representation or acknowledgement, even, of their anti-war stance. They are denying that REPUBLICANS, the only voters they seem to care about, also increasingly share this war opposition.

    But I also want to add, that "not a complete instantaneous withdrawal" is still war opposition, dtrong war opposition. But very distinct from so-called centrist cheerleading.

    This is proof positive that what is dubbed centrism is in fact far right wing.
    How can I say that?
    Because Hackett cut deep into the real center, as in the center where people will cross over to vote Dem.
    Where does that "centrists" who ignore that?
    In the far right wing with the rest of the persistent war cheerleaders.
    The real center is reached by going the other way, over to the so-called "far right" of Pat Buchanan-style war opposition, and also libertarianism. But that's actually the other side of the divide that we can reach.

  •  The DCCC Memo (4.00)
    If it's possible to say less of anything useful in a two page memo I haven't seen it...
  •  Paul Hackett would disagree with Kos. (4.00)
    Paul consistently said the number one issue in his race was the economy of his district.

    But the Iraq War was clearly a BIG factor in his candidacy.  Why?  Personally, I think Paul Hackett got Republican support not because he was anti-War, but because he had actually gone and fought.

    Paul also said that while he would not have voted to start the war, and thought the heated rhetoric coming from the White House was simply stupid, he did not think it is a wise policy to just cut and run.  Instead, he wants the troops to stay until the Iraqi military is properly trained, which he stated he doesn't believe will happen until there is a 1 to 1 ratio of U.S. soldiers to trainees. He stated this strategy would take several years to implement.  Unlike many, Paul Hackett actually discussed an exist strategy in a level of detail and common sense that resonated.  

    Paul's view on the exit strategy for this war is at odds with many on this site.  A lot of people here would not seem to be supportive of another three years in Iraq.  Consequently, I think it is disengenuous to argue that his position is "anti-War," in the same sense that many here view that term.  He clearly wasn't.  

    •  all good points (none)
      the real unspoken issue here is the timeline for withdrawl. And I agree w/you that most kossacks want a quicker withdrawl than Hackett (or most politicians, Dem or Repub) is currently advocating.

      The Dems need to force the issue though b/c Bush is clearly using the "no timeline" stance in a dishonest way. At a certain point the lack of a timeline for withdrawl becomes an excuse for an indefinite occupation.

      This kind of transcends politics. It's just basic planning. A timeline is necessary. The discussion about it has not even really begun yet.  

      •  I absolutely agree. (none)
        Kerry couldn't articulate any concrete proposals.  Hackett could.  Hence a big difference in their appeal.  

        I don't know if Hackett's approach is the right one.  It was tried in Viet Nam -- but Iraq is clearly no Viet Nam.  My guess is Hackett's approach will require MORE troops in Iraq and he said it will likely take two years to adequately train 125,000 Iraqis.  I have no reason to doubt his estimate.  

        So are the people on this site really willing to sign on to our candidates arguing for MORE troops and TWO MORE YEARS of involvement in Iraq?

        •  not me (none)
          that's for sure. I'm more of the cut and run school. I say we begin withdrawing large numbers of our troops asap (in the next few months), and move to have UN peacekeeping troops police certain areas (along with the Iraqis themselves). But adding more troops or staying another two years to me is not the answer. This debate needs to be brought into the open.  
    •  What? Paul said something? (none)
      I thought everything that was worth being said was being said by the netroots. All else is "irrelevant."
      •  I tend to share your sarcastic view. (none)
        Paul Hackett was a great candidate.  

        There aren't going to be any other Paul Hackett's.  John Kerry is John Kerry.  Wes Clark is Wes Clark.  And there just aren't a lot of mature charismatic liberal attorney volunteers in Iraq.

        The netroots did a great job in supporting Hackett.  But if I was a Republican, while I might be concerned that people voted for Hackett, I'd take solace in the fact that the Dems aren't going to be able to run many (or any) Iraq war vets in 2006.

        •  He was a great candidate. (none)
          And he ran a great race, and the netroots, however you define them, made a great contribution, although it's yet to be seen how the campaign managed to use such a flood of money coming in so late.

          Still, good things happened, all around. But what a short-lived victory party!

          If the differences between Bob Brigham (as distinct from the "netroots" themselves, let's be honest) cannot be reconciled, then I guess we'll find out next year whether his model is scalable.

        •  Actually, (none)
          jesselee posted on The Stakeholder that there are already 3 Iraq war vets who have thrown their hats into the ring to run for congress.  One is Murphy from PA-08.  Watch for info about them as the primaries heat up and give them your support. Eric Massa was in the first Gulf War and got lung cancer from exposure there, which thankfully he's recovered from after gnarly treatment like Lance Armstrong endured.  He's running in NY-29th.  You all may be surprised who turns out to run for congress this time.

          Winning without Delay.

          by ljm on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:20:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  if Hackett were an economist (none)
      If he just would have been an economist instead of a Marine Corps officer he would have won.

      Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

      by Carl Nyberg on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:22:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  seems to suggest (none)
        you agree. voters voted for him not cause he's anti-war but because he went and fought.

        (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

        by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:00:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Have to agree (none)
          with you. The Iraq invasion is really, really, really popular with the America people, and getting more so with each passing day.

          Ha, ha, ha, ha. You try so hard.

          •  ha ha ha ha ha (none)
            if i'd have said that, your comment would make some sense.

            (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

            by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:18:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  From below (none)
              the idea that hackett's candidacy is an indicator that the voters are crying out for anti-war candidates is not based on reality.  it is based on ideology.

              How do you know this?

              •  because (none)
                i know the ideology of the person making such a claim, and i sincerely doubt a significant number of repugs now think they were wrong to support the invasion of iraq.

                because i don't confuse anti-iraq war sentiment with anti-war sentiment.

                 

                (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

                by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:41:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you have no data (none)
                  except your sincere beliefs and your magical acquaintance of "ideology"...as if opposing the Iraq war was a mindless robot like exercise. The opposite, of course, is true.

                  The Iraq war is based on a mountain of lies and neocon trickery (as in Dougie Feith's OSP,  Judith Miller's reporting, and Democratic fear of AIPAC). These lies and this trickery is the factual basis of being against the Iraq war, not, as you so quaitly and self servingly believe, ideology.

                  This war is not going to be swept under the rug. And the people who pushed for this war, who lied and tricked for this blood stained misadventure, are not going to be forgotten.

                  •  no one has any data (none)
                    as far as i can tell pertaining to the district in ohio where hackett ran.

                    but i do know david sirota's ideology.

                    i do know sirota is not above taking a guy who has clearly said he was against the war, but thinks liberals want america to fail to gloss over the second statement and focus on the first.

                    cause that's what his ideology would dictate.

                    (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

                    by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:01:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK (none)
                      I don't really follow your syntax, but fine. Meanwhile, here's some data for you.

                      Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months.

                      Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

                      Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.
                      http://tinyurl.com/aczuc

                      •  like i said (none)
                        i don't confuse anti-iraq war sentiment with anti-war sentiment.

                        i know the tide has turned on this war.  i'm not disputing that.  that doesn't mean all the people who supported this war have decided they were or are wrong to support wars.  it just means they've gotten fed up with this war.

                        i don't think it means we can just start running anti-war candidates and all is good.  it means we can start polarizing the repug incumbent against the failed policies of this administration.  and for hackett it helped if you actually fought in the war when you make those criticisms.

                        you can criticize this war now, but i would still not have much hope for a dem candidate who maintained an anti-war stance in the general sense of that position.  most especially in a red district.

                        if you ask the question in a poll:  are you against the war in iraq, was it a mistake?  the tide has turned.  america now says yes.

                        but if you ask this question:  are you now against pre-emptive strikes as a way to prevent terrorism??  that's a different question.  and i'm sorry if i think america will still, even after iraq, have a different response to that kind of question.

                        (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

                        by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:26:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  and this (none)
                          are you now against pre-emptive strikes as a way to prevent terrorism??

                          has what to do with the Iraq war?

                          The situation is fluid. A majority of Americans now believe that Bush lied about Iraq. And I wouldn't presume to know what the position of the electorate will be on the Iraq war a year or three from now.

                          That you conflate terrorism with the Iraq war is telling, of course, and essentially an example of bad faith position on this issue. Typical

                          Who is against war, against defence, even against pre emptive strikes based on sound intelligence, not Judith Miller fantasies sold to the American people (and I'm being generous to her) or dougies little shop of lies. Straw man bs, eh?

                          See ya.

                          •  because the reason why people supported (none)
                            the iraq war is because they thought (erroneously) that it was a pre-emptive strike against terrorism.

                            people will say this war was a mistake cause they now see it wasn't a pre-emptive strike against terrorism.

                            it would be a mistake, i think, on the part of democrats if they concluded that meant america was suddenly against pre-emptive strikes against terrorism.

                            it would be a mistake to think cause america now sees the lies behind iraq that america is now predominantly anti-war.

                            i know you don't like this.  but calling it a strawman won't make it go away.

                            (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

                            by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:44:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  projecting ideology (none)
                  How do you know you're not projecting your ideology on the situation?

                  Did you support the invasion? Do you support continuing the occupation?

                  Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

                  by Carl Nyberg on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:08:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Number 1 Mistake (none)
            Americans are pro-troops overwhelmingly (as they should be, these men and women are putting themselves in harms way for us [even if it really isn't that clear]) and slightly anti-war.  Meaning, they think it sucks that we're not winning easily, hate to see Americans die, but still not sure what to do -- they really wouldn't want to "cut and run."

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:49:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  thanks (none)
      the greatest asset of the netroots is remaining reality based.

      the idea that hackett's candidacy is an indicator that the voters are crying out for anti-war candidates is not based on reality.  it is based on ideology.

      paul hackett would probably disagree with kos.

      he not only thinks we shouldn't cut and run, he thinks the iraqis are grateful we got rid of saddam and he thinks too many liberals want america to fail.  and we all know what would happen if hillary said shit like that.

      that said, take credit for any strategy, by all means.

      (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

      by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:59:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's all about fear (4.00)
    National Democrats have advised their candidates for two straight cycles to ignore the war and make the campaign about "health care and jobs". Yet the war issue didn't go away in 2002 or 2004, and it won't go away in 2006.

    There was a large vocal minority of us in 2003/2004 who were shouting "YOU CANNOT IGNORE NATIONAL SECURITY AS AN ISSUE!"  We weren't saying you had to support the war, we were simply saying you cannot ignore the anxiety that existed that caused people to support it.

    But the general consensus of not just the National Democrats, but also the vast majority of the Echo Chamber was simply... "We're strong on Education, Jobs and Healthcare.  We should ignore what we are weak on, and concentrate on our strengths.  Look, see I got polls to prove it."

    That was the prevailing attitude going into the 2004 election, even here in this community.

    So you're right Kos.  We cannot ignore that war.

    But it's not about the war.  It's about all things relating to Security.  The Iraq war is just a symptom of a disease.  The uneasiness of Americans faced with terrorism, and the leadership of a bunch of fucking cowards provoking that fear for Political gain.  We must address the fear.  The other issues that are ongoing relating to social issues like homosexuality, abortion and so forth.  These also have at the heart a subculture of Fear.  Fear of Change.

     

    It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable.
    - Eric Hoffer

    I state that it is this same Fear of Change that prevents Democrats from moving forward.  The world is changing, Democrats are not making the gains they once were.  So they shout down those who propose we try something different, and they argue we must go back to the old comfortable arguments.  This is what both the National Leaders, and a great deal of the Echo Chamber keep arguing for.

    Well my friends... The world stops for no man.

    Another Hoffer quote...

    You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.
    - Eric Hoffer

    There's gold to be mind in them thar hills.

  •  Triumvirate (none)
    It is about the war. But it is also about healthcare and jobs. All three. We can't talk about only two. We also can't continue to let them gloss over any of the  three, especially not with fluff about potty-mouths, what anyone does in their bedroom, or what anyone talks to their doctor about.

    It's about the war and how it's affecting healthcare (lack thereof) and jobs (lack thereof).

    It's also about healthcare and jobs and how those issues are being ignored and bankrupted in favor of war.

    2006 is about all three.

  •  I'm fed up with all the Pro-War Dems (4.00)
    who keep twisting themselves in knots over their pro-war votes.  

    They should just admit right now that they were either bought off or incompetent enough to ignore the pre-war cries of those opposed to the Iraq (not Afghani)invasion.  They should all just throw themselves on their freaking swords and beg for our forgiveness instead of being all mealy-mouthed about the "intelligence" they were supposedly "fed", as if they're just stupid cattle.  If we could figure it out, they certainly should have been able to.

    It was obvious to every thinking person alive that half that crap was made up.  The more thuggish of the Rethugs are perfectly prepared to admit that the "stated reasons" were trumped up, they just don't care because they like the idea of invading someone to steal their oil or convert their religion or whatever the hell lets them sleep at night.

    The Dem Senators who voted for the war in Iraq made a political calcuation that they were better off voting for it, and were just hoping for the best, most likely against their better judgement.  Now that the whole thing has turned to shit, they should fess up about their shortcomings and let us choose whether we want to ever send them back or not.  

    I really don't care who goes down over it, even longtime favorite Dems.  At the end of the day, they're just not trustworthy.  There are other Dems who can take their places.

  •  It's WHO WE ARE (none)
    That's why the war issue isn't ever going to go away. A whole lot of us seem to want to identify with the Limbaughs, Bushs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Cheneys, Roves and so on amongst us. Fierce, proud, arrogant, desperately assured that we're the best and caring not one whit for what anyone other than a "good American" (i.e. complicit winger with loads of money) thinks, nor even about stealing their resources, killing their kids and generally screwing up the whole world.

    The rest of us vary from distinct unease and uncertaint about these "values" to outright loathing, embarassment and outrage. The war is really just the most obvious reference point for this dichomotomy, and what it's really about is what kind of humanity we want to be a part of.

    "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:49:35 PM PDT

  •  Do they think the donkeys can chase off (none)
    the elephants with chili?

    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:52:40 PM PDT

  •  Good catch (none)
    You'd think they would take to heart one of the few valuable lessons learned from a Democratic campaign over the last four and a half years.

    JP
    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:05:39 PM PDT

  •  the decision to go to war is not the issue (4.00)
    many people who now oppose the war liked it at the time, and they no doubt have some sympathy for the president's decision to go to war.  What is killing Bush's Iraq numbers, and what the real issue Democrats should focus on, IS THE WAY TEAM BUSH HAS TOTALLY MISMANAGED THE WAR.  Saddam may or may not have been a threat (depending on your point of view), but there was no excuse for professors (Wolfowitz) telling generals (Shinseki) how to fight a war.  and American soldiers are paying the price for it, while Bush's arogance keeps him from making changes to a losing plan.  THAT is the place to hit the Republicans...

    the ball is round, the game last 90 minutes. Everything else is theory.

    by Dont Tread on Me on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:06:52 PM PDT

  •  If the DCCC doesn't get it - tell them to get out (none)
    I think the DCCC is out of touch a bit. I think they were afraid to support a candidate like Paul Hackett who spoke his mind - until after WE supported him and his chances were looking better.

    The Dems have plenty of ammo going into 2006:

    1. Repub LIES that got us into this war that IS a mistake.
    2. Delay corruption ties to other repub candidates
    3. Out of control deficits and PORK abuse to oil companies by repubs.
    4. Job losses overseas and CAFTA supported by repubs

    I'll support Dem candidates willing to speak up - otherwise get out of the way!
  •  uhh, I think it might be because so many (none)
    of the sheep blindly followed dubya in supporting the war and they haven't yet figured out a decent asscovering scenario for cutting and running (away) from the issue.
  •  anything to keep the focus off of economics! (none)
    don't talk about progressive ideology concerning taxation of the rich, or stopping the labor arbitrage practices of American elite (outsourcing, importation of goods from low wage countries, mass immigration from low countries, etc), or about universal healthcare paid for by taxation. Instead talk about political horserace trivia. Now THAT'S politics!
  •  wow, this is a surprise (4.00)
    I'm shocked the Beltways Dems are protecting the prerogative of the Israel lobby to set U.S. Middle East policy. Shocked!

    Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

    by Carl Nyberg on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:19:35 PM PDT

  •  BTW (none)
    While we're here attacking our allies, some of the right bloggers are starting to see the light on torture.

    It is one thing to support this war, something I still do- and something that right now we really don't have much choice, as we are there and not going anywhere. It is another thing to blindly support everything that is going on. Right now, there is too much of the latter happening.

    What has happened in these cases needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be done now. And it needs to be done without excuse-making (`this is war, these things happen'), it needs to be done without any preconceptions (`there is no policy, this is just a few bad apples'), it needs to be done without lame attempts to blame the victims (`you can't trust them- they are terrorists and trained to lie,' because as it turns out, in a number of cases they haven't been terrorists at all), it needs to be done without lame and exasperating equivalency arguments (`things are still better than when Saddam or the Taliban were in charge'), and it needs to be done without blaming the media for the unforgivable sin of reporting our failings.

    It may not be the case that this abuse is widespread and rampant. It may not be the result of actual policy or have occurred by design. That matters not- it happened, people are dead, people have been (if we are to believe the reports) raped and sodomized, people have been beaten, and if it happened these several times, I am willing to bet it happened much more frequently than has been reported.

    and from another

    What this article makes crystal clear is that these methods of interrogation are not the product of the sick imaginings of a few sadistic soldiers. They did not spring into being in a vacuum. What the reports make unambiguously clear is that the soldiers believed the interrogation techniques were approved - approved at the highest levels in their chain of command.

    The implications of this are too horrible to contemplate. It means that these are not the "isolated incidents" that I and most others who have been defending our detention policies over these many months have been excusing. It also means that there have been deliberate and systematic violations of both US law and the Geneva Conventions in the interrogations of prisoners.

    snip

    My own role as an enabler of this behavior has been unconscionable. By turning a blind eye to previous intimations of this organized and approved assault on simple human decency, I have, in a small but significant way, empowered those who have cynically used my support for the war and the President's policies to literally get away with murder.

    No longer. I am not going to give the benefit of doubt to an out of control interrogation process that treats human beings - even terrorists - as beasts to be beaten and murdered and pass it off as national policy. I didn't sign on for that. I'm sure you didn't either.

    It's one thing to be hard in war. It's one thing to be pitiless in the prosecution of it. But its quite another thing to violate all tenets of civilized behavior in acheiving your objectives. Even in war, the ends cannot justify the means. If you believe that it does, then ask yourself what kind of country you will have at the end of it? Will it be the kind of country you can live in with pride? Or will history itself remember us with scorn and derision for abandoning the very principals we were fighting to protect.

    Sure would be nice if we could get the media to look at that debate as opposed to another "dems in disaray" story.

    •  Thanks Mike S (none)
      Thank God for small favors.  AS a Chirstian, this torture stuff has been my hardest element to deal with in this war.  

      The U.S. is going to have to move forward combating terrorism.  But we need to do it in a way that respects our constitution and all people's human rights.

      •  Me to. (none)
        this torture stuff has been my hardest element to deal with in this war.

        It caused me to lose faith in my country for a while. Nothing depressed me more than the day a freedom rider from my own party defended it since  the day my father dies. I'm hoping more Republicans will see the light.

        •  Can you say Nuremberg II? (none)
          And NO, we don't get to put 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.

          NO! Not even ONE!

        •  I dunno. (none)
          I thought leaving the ammo dopes open and unguarded was kinda cool.

          I knew everything was gonna be all right when The Museum of Antiquities and the Librariys of the Ancients were burned to the ground.

           most of important we had lots of troops to topple the statue.

          What can I say?

          Mission Accomplished.

          And NO, you don't get to keep even one  of 14 permanent military bases. NOT ONE!

  •  I disagree, kos (none)
    first, I was opposed to invading Iraq since Bush mentioned it during the 2000 debates, and I didn't need DSM to know Bush lied to us about the reasons.  Everything that has happened in Iraq should have been obvious to anyone with the brains God gave a grasshopper (and I know it was obvious to most of y'all).

    Having said that, I'm not bothered by DCCC not mentioning Hackett's war stance -

    a)  the memo was sent to sitting members of Congress, most of whom were in office at the time and most of whom took public positions at the time.  And most of them were wrong, and didn't come out in opposition at the time, so it's a little too late to tell them they ought to take Hackett's line - they already screwed up.

    b)  y'all are probably tired of hearing me say this, but our troops will be coming home next summer, so the public's opposition to the war won't play into the 2006 election as much as we would like.  Mark my words, the b***ds will leave chaos and call it victory.

    with respect, that's the reality we'll have to deal with in the summer of 2006.  the thugs used 9/11 to stir patriotic fervor in 2002, and accused every who disagreed with the Texas macho routine toward Saddam as being unpatriotic.  In 2006 they will try to say "Look!  It's over!  We Won!  Anyone who disagrees with us hates the troops!  And since Iraq is now a democracy, they hate democracy, too!"

    If Karl Rove hasn't been shot for treason by then, can you doubt that's what he'll try to do?

    "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

    by mississippi scott on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:24:00 PM PDT

  •  Sung to "No business like show business" (none)
    There's no idiots like our idiots
    Like no idiots I know

    Everything about it is revealing
    Everything the DCCC will allow
    Nowhere could you get that losing feeling
    Especially when you know their stealing
    That extra dough

    There's no people like DCCC people
    They smile when you are low

    apologies to Irving Berlin

  •  Hackett wasn't Managed (4.00)
    Paul Hackett came off as unmanaged, speaking for himself, clearly concerned about the war, economy and his district. Howard Dean still comes off as unmanaged and unscripted. Both Hackett and Dean benefited greatly from netroots and blogswarms. Fighting over the DCCC part of Hackett's support system seems foolishly counterproductive. The lesson is to keep Bob, Jesselee, John and Kos, from blogging over "who is on first" with literally thousands of eyes reading the petty infighting....disappointing to say the least.

    If the young turk from Young Democrats speaking to Chris on Hardball can simply state.."young Democrats are against the war in Iraq," it seems the establishment Dems will soon follow. More and more MSM stories are featuring anti-war sentiments..it's just a matter of time.

    In the meantime, pull it together fellas..the goal is to take back our country. Knock the shit off.

    •  I concur (none)
      As we should have learned from Al Gore's campaign in 2000, people are reluctant to vote for Democrats who pretend something that they aren't. Netroots candidates like Hackett and Dean (and to a lesser extent, "homemade" candidates like Stephanie Herseth) generated so much enthusiasm because they spoke plainly and honestly.

      In 1988, the ill-fated Dukakis campaign used a slogan in a few of their commercials that I thought was particularly effective: "They'd like to sell you a package. Wouldn't you rather choose a president?"

      Voters don't necessarily want to hear about "Candidate Y's plan to do X." Rather, they want a candidate who speaks clearly and simply to their issues.

  •  Uh? (none)
    What does Sirota want? He wants the DCCC to tell its candidates to oppose the original decision to go to war even if they don't support withdrawal of the troops now? He is making less and less sense with his muddled, superficial attacks on the DCCC and the DLC day after day.

    Suppose all DCCC candidates bend every which way the public whimsy blows, as he seems to wish they would. What then? Democrats take back the house in 06 and cut off funds for the war, troops come home and Iraq goes to hell. That will hang around our neck for years to come.

    Take a look at  this. Already, regardless of their position on Iraq, dems have a chance of taking back the house in 06. Why should they jeopardize their chances for 08 by doing something way beyond what is required for them to do in 06?

  •  OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT (none)
    http://OperationYellowElephant.Blogspot.Com

    Here's a fun website called Operation Yellow Elephant.  The webmasters call on college Young Republicans to sign up for military service so they may contribute directly to the Iraq War they so fervently support.  The webmasters even visit Young Republican social functions to urge them to sign up.  Apparently few, if any, takers are found among these groups of "patriotic" Dittoheads.  

    One blogger offered this enlightening post...

    "I spent last weekend at a Silver Springs, Md., hotel near Walter Reed Army Medical Center. There, on Sunday morning, I helped a young wife wheel her legless husband into the elevator, then the dining room. He dandled a pretty 2-year-old on what remained of his lap. Another tiny beauty clutched the wheelchair, trying to help.

    As we entered the dining room, we saw 10 or 12 cheery young men and women about to be seated. When the amputee rolled into view, he waved to the group. Only one of the group waved back. Another gave the vet a thumbs-up gesture. Strangely, all the others looked away or fumbled with napkins, newspapers and chairs.

    Eavesdropping on them during the meal, I think that I discovered why so many of them seemed ill at ease. They were members of a conservative college student group, and the subject of their breakfast meeting was how to improve their campus (military) recruitment activities."

    Must be nice...

    ~Shout to all within earshot your steadfast support of Bush's quagmire.
    ~Attack those who differ as "unpatriotic."
    ~Grab a chilled beer from the fridge.
    ~Burrow into a comfy, overstuffed couch, and turn on Faux News to hear about another dozen soldiers blown up in some windswept, sunscorched patch of Iraqi desert.
    ~Fetch another icy cold brew and pop that baby open.
    ~Let the satisfaction of what a true patriot you are wash over you like a warm summer breeze.
    ~Repeat, repeat, repeat.

  •  Even here is Illinois... (none)
    I first heard Sen. Obama speak at an anti-war rally.  This was six months before the invasion and before he announced his candidacy for the Senate.

    He never backed away from that stance, ever.  But he never made it a centerpiece of his campaign either.

    It's a hot potato topic now still for some reason. My guess...alot; a whole lot of mucho mucho bucks is invested in "making it work" to get that oil out and to the world. And the Dems know the big energy types and the Swedish knomes wield massive power.

    Breaking through that powerful glass ceiling above Congressional heads is not only politically risky, but personally risky.

  •  Same with the DLC (none)
    I got a mailer from Hillary Clinton which asked to rate 10 items in order of importance.  

    Notably abscent - IRAQ war wasn't even on the list of the top 10 items to rank as current problems....so needless to say, I didn't send any money

  •  Strong on Defense? (none)
      The fear among many Congressional democrats is they simply don't want to be seen as weak on Defense issues and taking a strong stand against the War in Iraq in their minds puts them into that box. They're wrong and they're cowards. Many of us watched the same group of Demo cowards stand by as Johnson and Nixon waged another illegal war for 10 yrs. It's obvious that Mr. Bu$h's little war is going very badly and it's time for the democrats to say enough already Mr. Bu$h the country wants friggin out of the quamire you've mired us in. Even Rethugs are tired of having to hear about our kids being blown up by car bombs and suicide bombers day in and day out. The public sees that the simple truth is that the IRAQ's want us to leave. Let them settle this themselves.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

    by Blutodog on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:02:58 PM PDT

  •  Did We Read the Same Memo? (none)
    I'm sorry, but I didn't think the memo was all that bad.

    Make no mistake, I oppose the Iraq war and am furious at the Democrats for having failed to oppose it.  But this memo is innocuous.

    Yes, the memo would have been better had it hailed Hackett for his anti-war stance.  Yes, it does hail him as an Iraq War veteran.

    But the main message is not "Democrats need to bend over more and be SurrenderCrats;" it just says the Republicans are in trouble.

    So I'm not really bothered by this memo (which could have been better, granted) and am a bit puzzled as to what's the big deal.

  •  DCCC (none)
    That is because the democratic party is just like the Republican party - winning is all that it is about.  It is like two bullies arguing over who gets to beat up the new kid, and you and I are the new kid.  Time for a change in the Democratic Party.  I am so sick of hearing Whiney Joe Lieberman speak for the party.  

    Paul Hackett called Bush a SOB in a solid Republican District and got by with it a) because it is true, and b) a lot of Republican see Bush and his Dominionist Theocrats as ruining the Republican Party.  

    The Democrats need to be the party of plain speaking and plain action to back up that speaking.  

    The Blogs need to work together and build a consensus on what a candidate should be and then getting about supporting house candidates around the country that qualify for our support, like Hackett did.  This will not turn in one election cycle.  It took the Religious Right over 20 years to build the influence they have now.  Who is president is less important than who controls the House.  The House controls the money and you can't do squat with out money.  

    Someone very poignantly stated we need candidates with backbone that when elected can go to congress and stand up to the bought and paid for powers that are now there.  Powers that bury their head in the sand when it comes to the war.  We need Candidates that are not afraid to say that the emperor not only has no clothes but he is an SOB as well.

    Support our Troops, they might not agree with the SOB-in-Chief, but they are willing to die for him.  

    Either put the troops required on the ground or get the troops there now out!  And out NOW.  1,800+ is more than enough.
     

    •  Winning? As in winning elections? (none)
      I don't think it's even that.  I think it's about winning the approval of monied interests, keeping the comfortable comfy and assuring the CEOs that they'll get more of what they demand be coming to them.

      In my experience, all three Cs in DCCC stand for CORPORATE.  

      "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

      by KateCrashes on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:55:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Susan Collins vs Zeil Miller (none)
      What you had was a moderate,Susan Collins Republican in Jean Schmidt vs a Zeil Miller Democrat in Paul Hackett running in a conservative district. The reason is was as close as it was is that Schmidt turned off conservitive voters by voting for Gov. Taft's tax increases. Hackett ran an television ad that a Republican could have ran. Hackett didn't run on the Howard Dean message because he would have received %25 of the vote in that district.
  •  what reception he would have received in DC (none)
    had he won?

    It clearly wouldn't have been sunshine and lollipops...  

    Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

    by willowby on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:10:43 PM PDT

  •  As for the War (none)
    Can we get s show of hands of people who think the "Just War Theory" is a fundamentally good idea?

    Via Wikipedia

    When is a war just by the criteria of Just War Theory?

    In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force:

    Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;

    Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

    Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

    Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not.

    Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

    Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

    Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

    And if you look into "How to fight a just war", you'd find a lot of the "Let's kill them all" stuff is not justified under that.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:12:10 PM PDT

  •  The Great Cocktease, or (none)
    how kos and david made me think this memo would be an actual post-mortem analysis of the OH-2 election, complete with strategy conclusions.

    Not true.

    This is a fluff piece, a positive, pat everyone on the back, go get 'em tiger piece for circulation.  It does not reveal deep failings of the DCCC.

    While I don't deny that there are, arguably, philosophical differences within the party on how to address election strategy and overall party message (and whether to hold to liberal principles or move to the middle), this certainly was not a damning piece of evidence as to the DCCC's cluelessness.

    In the end, David and kos spin the two(!) page memo into something it is not, in order to make their point against the DCCC's vision.  Regardless of whether they are right about the flaws of that vision, this was a dishonest bit of puffery.

    "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

    by Slim Tyranny on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:22:13 PM PDT

    •  Addendum - the art of the fake quote (none)
      Also, nice to see the blockquote from David, which ends with the link to the itself, is followed by kos writing the following:

      National Democrats have advised their candidates for two straight cycles to ignore the war and make the campaign about "health care and jobs".

      Now, I read this and concluded (fairly, IMHO) that this strategy memo "advised" candidates to ignore the war and specifically focus on "health care and jobs."  I've read all two pages (about 80 words total) of this huge strategery memo, and I didn't find any such reference to "health care and jobs."

      Perhaps others read the entry and were not misled; but I fully expected to, you know, see those words, since they were being quoted.

      The entry should be updated and this paragraph reworked.  Let's meet our intra-party rivals on fair terms.

      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

      by Slim Tyranny on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:30:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually.... (none)
    If there was such a thing as "political malpractice", they would be guilty of it.

    Senator Bill "Cat Killer" Frist was guilty of political malpractice when he said that, just by looking at a video, he could see evidence of eye contact in a blind woman.

    Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well, come on, doesn't anybody know!?!?

    by Erik the Red on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:30:35 PM PDT

  •  DCCC (none)
    "How can we lose today"?
  •  everyone please read this (none)
    The Hackett Complex
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/4/02913/38491
  •  There is another piece of the puzzle (none)
    The anti-war stance is much more credible coming from someone who fought in it, even if he didn't agree with it. Why the public doesn't apply that standard to the chickenhawk republicans is a mystery, but I think that came into play with Hackett. Might not be operable across the board.

    And yes, that's not rocket science. Somone else may have already pointed that out, but I am too lazy to read through 250 comments to find out. :)

    •  Disagree (none)
      There have been other veterans who ran so what makes this one different? I think a lot of people are using that argument, but frankly, I find it a shallow analysis because it doesn't answer what would change the voting behavior of people in OH2. What does? That's what I want to know.
      •  What other vets of this war have run? (none)
        That's news to me. Can you provide some names?
        •  So you want to limit the discussions (none)
          to vets of this war? That seems like its going pretty far to justify your position. Afterall- who is the Republican voter? According to the nubmers they skew older, so why would they listen to vets of Iraq, but not of say the Vietnam War? Why would Cleland not count with your analysis? Is there some special reason for this- or is your claim the immediacy of Hackett's service, and thefore, others give him a special dispensation that they don't give up vets. Also, when other vets in other Republican territories have come out against the war such as in FL, they were roundly attacked by the Republican leadership and by de facto support, the Republican rank and file. What makes Hackett any different from these other soldiers? What about Op Truth- it certainly isn't treated with any great respect by the Republican base. Not so I've heard. Have you heard differently? Do you see my point. Explaining Hackett by saying it's because he was a vet doesn't really answer why the change of behavior by the Republican voters. They've had ample opportunities to react to other vets both in other wars and in this war. I must assume there is something about Hackett the candidate, and also the nature of the changed landscape. That there is something to context- that context being that polls consistently show Bush at a nadir rivaling his pre 09 11 numbers. What I am saying to you- is that if your argument is that "he's military" so that innoculates him, then I want you to cite if not hard polling numbers that agree with this position, then at least strong anecdotal support. The reason why this is required is that I see people treating the "he's military" as common wisdom and reacting to everything according to this commone wisdom. There is nothing dangerous for the Democrats than to do this. It leaves us reactive, overly risk adverse and unable to adapt to what may or may not be changed circumstances.
          •  Where did I say I wanted to ... (none)
            "limit discussion?"I didn't say anything about "discussions" at all. Nor did I say anything about veterans of other wars. All I am saying is that Hackett had more credibility to accuse Bush on the Iraq war since he had just returned from fighting it. You apprear to have read my comment carelessly.
            •  No, I didn't (none)
              I merely am reading it logically. If I make a broad statement that veterans of war on the Democratic side have lost in Republican districts before, and your response back that Hackett is different as a veteran running in a Republican district- then it must be something special about the type of veteran that Hackett represents because you have claimed his status as a veteran as the basis for your argument. What's special about him as a veteran that would make him more likely to win as a veteran? There is only one conclusion that would make sense- that is that you were arguing from the position that he's a veteran of the Iraqi war. That's really the only distinction you could make. Otherwise, your argument about veterans falls a part.  
              •  Dude, YOU responded to my post (none)
                .... not the other way around. All I can say is WTF -- can't you read? I don't HAVE an argument about veterans in general, so it can't "fall apart"

                Read slowly: I said he has more credibility regarding criticizing Bush about Iraq than the average dem candidate because he just got back from fighting in Iraq.

                This isn't rocket science, dude.

                •  whether i responded to your post or not (none)
                  is irrelevant to whether or not your argument is logical. You and several others have stated that it was Hacketts veteran status that changed voting patterns of the REpublicans. I am challenging your assumption by bringing up the electoral landscape of voters in the US, and specifcally Republicans for the last few decades, especially in places like OH2. Hence my challenge to the idea of Hacket's veteran status when we know from people who have served in other wars, that it has not mattered. Why here? Why now? Your question doesn't answer these questions. It just makes assumptions.

                  Rather than proving your assumptions, you want to restate the conclusion when challenged to offer up proof (where are your poll numbers?). Neither you nor anyone else offering up Iraqi veteran status has those numbers. As the last sentence of your own post states- you think its because he's a veteran of Iraq which is why I asked you whether you think there is something special about his Iraqi veteran status. Not a veteran in general. Because if it were being a veteran in general Kerry would be President now, not Bush.

                  Why would people changed their voting pattern over veteran status alone? You seem to be claiming that because they took specifically his Iraqi veteran status into consideration. My point to you was that generally veteran status has not mattered to Republicans in the past when choosing up someone unless they were already on the Republican team. They choose a draft dodging Bush over a veteran Kerry. They defeated a veteran in Cleland. They have put down, including the rank and file, veterans who have come back from the Iraqi war who attacked what the administration was doing, which is why I referenced Op Truth.  Again, you came back offering up his Iraqi veteran status as the reasoning for why Hackett was innoculated from the same criticism as any other Democrat. I believe you are wrong. I've logically followed whether your statements fits the voting patterns of Republicans in the past. They didn't care about veteran status in the past so why would they care now? I am repeating myself to emphasize this last question.

                  My point to you is that OH2 voting patterns changed for something more than Hackett's veteran status. That their psychology for looking at the situation must have become open to Hackett had to say. He was attacking the very person that they just go through electing 9 months ago. People, especially idealogues and strong partisans such as you might find in OH2, don't change life long voting habits based on one thing such as veteran status, even if it is the war in which are currently engaged. Especially, when those same people confirmed their voting patterns only 9 months ago.  

                  The veteran status made it easier, but it certainly doesn't explain why hardcore Republicans would change prior pattern and vote for a veteran who is Demcratic. They didn't do it inthe past. Which is why I wanted you to think through whether your point made logical sense in the full context. Again, just following the logic of your post. A lot of your response back, feels like I said a conventional wisdom type analysis. Not backed up with anything other than what people have been saying here and else where. What's the backup for the position other than you thought it up?

  •  if we get jobs numbers like we did today (none)
    that won't be an issue in 2006.  the american economy is so resilient, even bush can't screw it up forever.
    •  Dude - don't be too sure about that! (none)
      The stresses and strains that fucker has put on our whole society (including the economy) should never be underestimated!  We can't be sure America is particularly resilient - because we're a very young country.  If our empire came crumbling down tomorrow - I think that the history books would judge our society as "medium" resilient.
  •  Washington Week in Review on PBS (none)
    has as one of its major stories the OH-2 race. They say the reason for the attention was Paul Hackett. They showed a bit of Mean Jean win speech saying about bush's mandate. Looked pretty dumb.  Then they talked about Hackett's stand and his harsh language against Bush and lauded it. Then they showed some of what was called the happiest concession speech, with Paul saying when you lose you take a day off and the go over the game tapes to see what mistakes, and don't make them again.   or some such. . .

    Sorry I can't type or write fast enough to take down verbatim.  Some one who was there should say what he actually said.

    Then they speculated about him running for DeWine's seat or if that's spoken for, for maybe Sec'y of State.   (Personally, I'd push for A.G.)

    Washington Week is a great program of some of the better journalists taking about the week's biggest topics.  They don't go for pseudo-balance pitting conservative against whoever. It is extremely respected.

    _For the country's sake, do all you can for Paul Hackett in Ohio-2 Sam

    by samddobermann on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:58:07 PM PDT

  •  8 Iraqi War Vets are going to be (none)
    candidate in 06 and get this

    7 of them are DEMOCRATS

    Sorry I don't have any details this was a headline on news enquirer

    Sam

    _For the country's sake, do all you can for Paul Hackett in Ohio-2 Sam

    by samddobermann on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:08:01 PM PDT

  •  The dccc (none)
    may have a problem, because so many democrats supported the war, at least initially. It is true that they got caught up in the 9/11 hysteria, but it's difficult for them to take a different position now. What are they going to say, "I was deceived"? For this reason, I think that it would be a good idea to run fresh democrats against those that supported the war and continue to do so.
  •  Some in the DCCC believe in the war (none)
    They don't think it was good to lie to get into it, but they basically support the idea that the US has a mission to transform the Middle East in its interest.  This is the basic dividing line.  They have to be smoked out and forced to state their stand.  If they say what I think they believe, they are dust.
  •  The Democrats voted for the war (none)
    so they're on the hook for it. Their moral compromise in the beginning cripples them now. For them come out against the war now, they'll have to use the L word and I don't mean liberal. I mean as in Bush lied. And I don't think many of these guys want to do that.

    So you're right. One of the biggest lessons to be learned from Hackett's strong showing will neither be mentioned or used by this pack of losers.

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:34:00 PM PDT

  •  Why no comment on Iraq war? (none)
    Here is the reason.  For fear of being labled an anti semite, I beleive the reason the dccc is not mentioning it is because of the strong support for the war among the representatives most sensitive to the Isreali position.  

    My brother was Rahm Emmanuel's (head of the DCCC) brother's roommate for a year in college.  While i realize that doesn't exactly make us close friends, I do remember that I had a heated argument over the entire idea of basing any country's existence on a religious or racial identity.  And that was during the one weekend I met him over twenty years ago.

    As long as the large fundraisers for democratic congressmen are from the pro war jewish community, the democratic party will never openly support the idea the the war was a mistake.

    Even now that the entire country has determined we (they, not me) were misled into war, certain members of congress refuse to admit the war was a mistake.  Let me know when lieberman, schumer, emmanuel, or any of a number of our democratic house and senate members publicly state the war was a mistake.

  •  This is it! I've got it! (none)
    Hackett's anti-war success boils down to this:

    When you're anti-[Iraq lies and negligence] you get ALL of the Democrats, MOST of the Independents, and some of the Republicans.

    We win BIG in '06.
    Case Closed.
    Just keep diligent.

    "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Rep. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

    by bejammin075 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:34:55 PM PDT

  •  Thankyou Kos! (none)

    "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Rep. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

    by bejammin075 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:37:04 PM PDT

  •  Hackett's anti-war message? (none)
    Sirota is always so shrill.  In this example he exclaims, "Ultimately, the anti-war position defined [Hackett's] candidacy, and was the clear reason he was able to do so well in such a Republican district."  Really?

    Here is the transcript of Hackett's big TV ad that dominated his media exposure:

    PRESIDENT BUSH: There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces.

    HACKETT: I agreed with that and that's what led me to serve and fight with my Marines in Iraq. Those words are a part of me. These young men and women, they get it. We're going to help these people. We're all over there because we think America is worth fighting for, and take responsibility for your actions. I think Washington, DC, needs more of that type of leadership. I'm Paul Hackett. I approved this message, and I respectfully ask for your vote on August 2nd.

     Where in that ad is it "clear" that Hackett even has an anti-war position?  For that matter, where is it clear that he is not a republican?  Bush's words, after all, are "part of [him]."  

    Hackett's website is nearly as oblique on the topic.  Clicking on "War in Iraq" gets you this explanation:

    "[T]oo many conservatives just want to applaud whatever the administration does. And too many liberals who opposed the war want to see the president's Iraq policy fail."
    Hackett is careful to distinguish himself from the liberals who oppose the war.  In the next breath Hackett writes, "I was against the war," a mealy mouthed statement that begs the reader to understand that it is in the past tense...  He no longer is against the war.

    If this is Sirota's model for a candidacy defined by its anti-war position, he is either confused or disingenuous.  

  •  Done before (none)

    This has been done before.

    In 1860, there was a party the Consitutional Union party whose main plank was that they wouldn't mention the issue of slavery. The party immediately dissappeared.


    The war is the number one issue facing the country today. Democrats shouldn't ignore other issues, but they have to address that issue.


    Even local candidates have to say something about it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site