Skip to main content

Within the last week, I have received calls from the DCCC and the DSCC asking for money for the 2010 campaign.  I told them both, very politely, "No."

Here's why.

We are fortunate in that we have not been directly impacted by the recession, other than the market price of our house falling back down to around what we paid for it in 2003.  We still have good jobs with one of the few companies that has continued to prosper during the downtown (it's an IT company, not one of the banksters).  So it is not for economic reasons.

The reason I told both the DCCC and DSCC "no" is that I don't want any of my money going to the likes of Ben Nelson or Bart Stupak.

I am fortunate to have Donna Edwards as my Rep.  Already there are signs that some ambitious PG County politician who has nothing to offer other than his own ego is going to primary her.  So first of all, any money I give will go to her.

Second, Sen. Mikulski is running for re-election.  MD is a quirky state but she still has solid approval ratings, no primary challenger, and no significant Republican opponent.  So I may donate to her if she sees any significant opposition emerge, but I'm not that concerned about her.  I'm more worried about Barbara Boxer than Barbara Mikulski.

There's lots of good Reps, such as David Price in NC and of course Alan Grayson.  If I can, I will send a bit their way, and then of course there's ActBlue with a host of worthy challengers.

I don't want more Democrats.  I want better Democrats.  Pure and simple.  

Originally posted to Wintermute on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:06 PM PST.

Poll

Do you want MORE democrats or BETTER democrats?

3%8 votes
40%88 votes
52%115 votes
3%7 votes

| 218 votes | Vote | Results

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

    •  My response last week... (11+ / 0-)

      In a polite but firm voice, I told the the caller I would not give any money for fear that it would be wasted on another huge media buy for Ben Nelson. If that was the quality of the decisions made for using my hard earned $$$, then  I would pass.  I always tell the callers I will always support good candidates but I would do so through ACT Blue. In addition I always ask that they relay my reasons (HRC, Nelson, Landreau, Lincoln etc.) to the guys "upstairs". Usually I'm told they hear this a lot. I always thank them for the work they are doing and wish them the best of luck.

      "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -Henry Kissinger

      by Ckntfld on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:50:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaleA, Ckntfld

        When I received the call for a donation i essentially gave the same response.  I should have added that if the Democrats aren't going to do what is good for the country that I as a person who "benefited" from Bush's tax cuts would prefer the Republicans as they will further bankrupt the country with more tax cuts for people like me.  If Ben Nelson et al are going to prevent improvement I might as well get a tax cut.  

    •  Vote Against Blue Dogs & Republicans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA

      Both groups deserve no progressive support.

  •  I Won't Give Until HCR Bill Is Passed (21+ / 0-)

    I always say call me back when HCR bill is signed by the President.  Until then I will not donate any money.  Simple, PASS THE DAMN BILL! The house should do the right thing and pass HCR.

  •  You need 'more', too. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emilysdad, wolfie1818

    I mean, I totally hear you that 'better' is important, but when you're talking about margins of victory, having more is a huge help.  Voters who lie along the margin of victory have the most power, so if you've got more Democrats, that pushes the margins more securely into Democratic territory and dilutes the power of right-leaning Democrats.  That's a good thing, even if you dislike individual Representatives/Senators involved.  

    I voted "more better", because that's what we need: more and better.  You don't get what you want by picking either/or.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:10:56 PM PST

    •  I think better should come first (7+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, lcrp, Heiuan, corvo, blueoasis, txcatlin, wolfie1818

      We had a supermajority, and they still failed to do much of consequence.  If we had better, inspiring people, we'd be able to get more votes, and thus more Democrats in office.

      •  It doesn't work that way. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sturunner, wolfie1818

        Look at what I wrote: the people with power are those who lie along the margin of victory.  Always.  So you have to elect both more and better in order to get the right people in that margin, and no, electing 'better' alone doesn't cut it.  So you replace a Nelson with someone more progressive, you still have conservative Democrats lying along that margin, and they still control what gets past (assuming Republicans align 100% against us, which is a pretty safe assumption).  If you elect a Democrat in the place of a currently-seated Republican, and you push that margin deeper into Democratic territory and dilute how much power each of the conservative Democrats have.

        I know it feels good for people to rant about supermajorities and inspiration and Democratic failures, but it doesn't change the situation.  If you're not paying attention to the 'more' part of the equation, you're only going to spin your wheels uselessly.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:45:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Or better yet, let's talk about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sturunner

        specifics instead of abstracts: which Democrats are you targeting?  Nelson?  Landrieu?  What do their constituents look like?  What are the odds of finding better Democrats who can win those seats?  Have you looked, or is this just an abstract "we want better"?

        Meanwhile, if you replace a Republican seat with a Democratic one, even if it's a relatively conservative Democrat, you've pushed the voting margin over and diluted the power of all three of these Democrats, which is a good thing for getting successful policies through.  That's the basis of the 'more' strategy (although to be honest, it's not going anywhere unless the jobs situation gets much, much better.)

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:54:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How can we keep the blue dogs (8+ / 0-)

    out of the cat bird seat?

    .....By not funding their re-election....

    I'd rather we had a lean and mean Democratic party that stands for something worthwhile and has the political discipline to play hardball with the Republicans..

    If cats could blog.... they wouldn't.

    by crystal eyes on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:14:34 PM PST

  •  People need to brush on their campaign finance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JCPOK

    laws, and the roles the DCCC and DSCC play in races before coming on here and writing about things they don't understand.

  •  Told them the same thing! (13+ / 0-)

    Until they support BETTER candidates I am sending my contributions to bold candidates with cajones--Alan Grayson et al.

    Perpetuating the status quo isn't getting us anywhere.

    I strongly encourage everyone to be more aggressive, more generous--and more selective.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:22:52 PM PST

    •  I gave then as much as I could (0+ / 0-)

      Also, my call for the DSCC came from a guy in Pittsburgh, PA and he was wonderful.

      I think of the most part that the DSCC and the DCCC do a great job.  You can't blame them for Nelson, Lieberman, Bayh and the few other assholes that have ruined things for Dems this session.  

      •  How many Democratic Senators... (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaleA, corvo, Tool, HoundDog, blueoasis, Kcox

        ...campaigned for Lieberman even though the Democratic candidate was someone else? I seem to recall one Mr. Obama doing a stump speech for him...Lieberman...a third party candidate against the properly elected Democratic candidate.

        "No PO, no bill, no money, no nothin' but hell on earth for these people." -SouthernDragon at FDL

        by nehark on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:52:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama campaigned for him WHEN (0+ / 0-)

          he was in a primary, not when he was in the general, as Obama believed he had the best chance to win.

          Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

          by MrMichaelMT on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 03:30:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are right. In my mind... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I guess the damage was done. I do believe that this "best chance to win" motivator is hurting us. The Lieberman primary might be a good case in point. I think we're going to reach a "break-even point" where corporate money no longer influences voters. At some point, I think it will behoove us to support the best candidate instead of the one with the most money...or the one with the "best chance to win."

            "No PO, no bill, no money, no nothin' but hell on earth for these people." -SouthernDragon at FDL

            by nehark on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 07:05:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, but DSCC is still going to . . . (7+ / 0-)

        . . . dispense money to Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln. The DCCC is still going to support Stupak. And, with Emanuel controlling the show, we'll probably also see both back away from 50 states. I agree with the 'support individual candidates' approach.

        I respect that you're putting up money. Good for you. I'll do the same, but just a little more cautiously.

      •  The hell I can't blame them... (0+ / 0-)

        ...they represent the national party's leadership that has failed us badly in past and is failing us now even as we discourse here, and not by accident by any stretch of the imagination.

        The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

        by Bobjack23 on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 02:53:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And I said.... (6+ / 0-)

      ...Howard Dean is the only Democrat getting donations from me.  The woman who called was aggressive; I hung up on her eventually, but now I'm feeling bad about it.  She had a script for every objection I voiced about the way HCR has been handled and I wasn't in any mood to listen to the bullshit.

  •  Great thoughts. $$ to the good. (7+ / 0-)

    I too am tired of the constant soliciation for candidates I am not supporting.  As a matter of fact I often am supporting the grassroots candidate such as Andrew Romanoff versus the annointed candidate Bennet for US Senate in Colorado. Act Blue is pretty good about cutting thru the garbage on the so called stars.Checkout Susan Beaven running against one of the Mica brothers in the US 7th Congressional District in Central Florida.

  •  Diarist Shows Why We Cannot Sustsain a Movement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fearwig

    Yes, in a perfect world, I would want all my elected Democrats to be perfectly progressive.  I would not have to sustain the hard work that will be required to build a Democratic majority that is led by progressives.  I wouldn't want to have to wait the 10 or 15 years that it would take for that to happen.  I would want everything to go my way and I would demand it now.

    Of course, politics is never prefect.   And of course, just like most anything in life, good things come to those who work hard and are strategic in their actions.  It will take us at least a decade to find our progressive majority.  First we will need more Democrats.  We must sustain a Democratic majority.  As part of that majority, we must work diplomatically and endlessly to get more truly progressive candidates elected at the local, state and national level.

    •  Sorry...I disagree. (12+ / 0-)

      I have also told the two congressional committees that I won't be supporting them for the time being.  Politics isn't perfect, I understand that.  However, if I wanted to help fund "conservative values" I'd donate to the Republicans.

      The suckage has been pretty high this past year with the Blue Dog caucus. I simply will not help to enable them to do any further damage to the stated Democratic platform.  I have very limited funds and ActBlue allows me to direct my funds to people who represent MY values.

      No PO, no $$$, no kidding. (kerplunk) No rights, no $$$. You want some fiscal lovin', then pony up some *&##ing equality!!! (earicicle)

      by Heiuan on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:47:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your argument just is not working. (10+ / 0-)

      I don't want to be told this anymore, I am sick of it. You have not convinced me. We had a supermajority, that spent more time talking to Republicans than progressives. Now 41 is all the Republicans need to stop the show.

      Sorry, that worked on me in 2006 and 2008, but not anymore.

      I am not giving money to the likes of people like Paul Begala and James Carville. They are only interested in winning and not accomplishing anything.

      Sorry, can't do it.

      My money goes to people I support and agree with. The DSCC and DCCC can get their money from you.

      You know, if they had at least fought for progressive stuff and lost, I could deal with that, but they blew us off from the first moment. NOPE no more money

      "Sir, you look like the piss boy."

      by ranger995 on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:56:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  His argument is pure BS, pie in the sky... (0+ / 0-)

        ...by and by that ignores the damage that has been done.

        We did not reduce this economy to a pile of stinking rubble, we did not send the plants and jobs abroad for thirty pieces of silver, we did fabricate phony intelligence so as to start several wars we had no buisness in and that reduced the federal treasury we have to replenish so a very few could benefit, we did not allow friends and neighbors savings and pensions to be looted by thieves in the night for a price and position...and so on ad infinitum like most of us know all too well.

        So then we should tolerate and donate to the very people who took part in destroying our country and economy and then perhaps in ten years or so they will realize the error of their ways and reform themselves and help fix the damage they helped cause?

        I THINK FUCKING NOT, THEY CAN GO PISS UP A ROPE UNTIL THEY PROVE THEY WANT TO HELP RECTIFY THE DAMAGE THEY AND THEIR HORRIBLE LOT HAVE DONE by immediate and positive action, not ten years in future...

        .... screw them if they can’t take a joke I've had it with these jokers and their even being in place as leaders of a party. If they can’t do something positive that has results starting tomorrow morning then they should go out and get a job in the real world and quit messing about with our party and the peoples government. Frankly I see them at this point as worse than useless bastards hardly worth using up oxygen...give them money? That is hardly the next noise anyone is going to hear out me. Piss down my back and tell me it’s raining and I’ll tell you piss off.

        The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

        by Bobjack23 on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 02:43:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i agree wintermute, my money will only (10+ / 0-)

    go to real dems, such as alan grayson.  there are some good ones out there who may be facing stiff challenges in their next elections, and now, with corporations being able to elect their own candidates, our progressive candidates will need even more of our money.

    too often the tolerant aren't very committed and the committed aren't very tolerant.....unknown rabbi.

    by racheltracks on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:28:10 PM PST

  •  They got nasty with me when I told them no, and (9+ / 0-)

    it pissed me off something fierce. At first, when I turned them down, the man began to lecture me, in a patronizing manner, about winning and such. I said "You will use my money to fund Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, so again no"
    Then, he started yelling at me, "Would you rather have Republicans!" That is when I said, "you want money from me, and this is how you are going to convince me?"

    They may never get a dime from me again.

    "Sir, you look like the piss boy."

    by ranger995 on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:41:11 PM PST

  •  I've been telling them no, too (12+ / 0-)

    I gave very generously to Democrats in the last cycle. I will give to Democrats in this cycle, too. But they will be the Democrats I choose.

    I'll make some mistakes. Some of the Democrats I contribute to will disappoint me. But I can accept that. At least the power will still be mine. When I give to the DCCC and DSCC, I hand my power to insiders who use it in their own interest, not mine, and forward my hard-earned money to politicians I detest.

    I used to do it. After the Democratic Congress's appalling performance this past 14 months, not anymore.

  •  Don't ask, don't give. (10+ / 0-)

    When I have my civil rights, the I'll give. Until then, just to individual candidadtes who I know won't screw me over.

    not another dime to the dnc, dscc, dccc until i have my civil rights.

    by scooter in brooklyn on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:48:40 PM PST

    •  same here. candidates who refuse to stand up (5+ / 0-)

      for the rights of LGBTs -- hell, how about women's rights for starters? -- don't get my support.  period.

      •  Most of our current Democratic leadership, (4+ / 0-)

        will not even support full and equal rights for all Americans, even in the abstract.  And most of them know our Constitution well enough to know the "seperate but equal" is neither equal or adequate, but that's as far as they will go.

        Yet, they expect and count own the support of the GBLT, Constitutionalists, and other progressives on the slogan that the GOP is worse.  

        We need to support the most progressive candidates directly.  It may take decades, but it seems like the only way we will get leaders who will really support us and our progressive agendas.

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 08:15:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's rather simple (10+ / 0-)

    Anyone with the skills to identify individual candidates worth supporting should support them directly rather than work through the DSCC/DCCC.

  •  Agreed (6+ / 0-)

    I've been doing that for a long time.  Each time they call, I seem to have a different reason for donating to progressives only.  Sadly, they always seem to give me reason to withhold money.  Right now, it's Lieberman/Nelson and of course Stupak.  But I'm sick to death of Corporate Democrats.   They disgust me, just like Repugs do  I'd like to spend money against the worst of the Republicans, but I'm sure I'll probably be forced to spend money against Harold Ford, as he takes his ego and challenges Kristin.  Too bad the DLC doesn't get that Progressives do not support their ilk. They could save a lot of resources by not calling those of us who only support Progressives.  

    But then again, if I have to--I'm actually thinking of putting money on ANY opponent of Bart Stupak.  I'll do likewise when Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberscum comes up in 2012.

    Sadly, this doesn't leave much for the Alan Grayson's of this world.

  •  DSCC and DCCC May raise $$ for Dems (9+ / 0-)

    but so does Act Blue; and it raises money for better Dems not DINO Dems.

    I want more Democrats not more DINOS like the Bayhgones, the Landrieus, the Ben Nelsons, the party switchers (LOSERS) and the Stupacks.

    Times are hard; I want my hard-earned money to work harder.  So, like many posters in this thread, I told the DSCC and DCCC when they called two months ago, that I'm an Act Blue donor because I'm a grassroots voter.

    These agents need to hear our message.  They call because they know we're the demographic that contributes to candidates.  If enough of us send them our message, it will get through, and the DSCC and DCCC will do a better job when it comes to allocating money for candidates campaigns and in the recruitment of candidates.

    If we keep forking over the cash uncomplainingly, we have no business expecting the quality of the Democratic product to improve.

    "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Kennedy (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

    by Limelite on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 07:03:42 PM PST

  •  I told the DNC.... (7+ / 0-)

    ...when they called that I won't be giving them any $$ until they get rid of Tim Kaine as DNC Chairman (has he been on ANY Sunday talking head shows or ANYWHERE on the TV Media since he took over as DNC head?) and bring back Howard Dean as DNC Chair.  And, also, I won't be chipping in until they GROW A PAIR and start hammering back at the damned media for being so cuddly with the Repukes.  I'm only donating directly to the Dem candidates whom I want to win and whom I perceive to really need the $$.

    Wilber

  •  Worst thing about this is that if and when (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, HoundDog, cazcee, FeDhu, wolfie1818

    candidates lose the next election, they are going to turn around and blame us and get mad at us. IT WILL BE OUT FAULT for not just shutting up and putting out our money. They will make no effort to change their ways, instead they will lecture us on how we need to change outs.

    This is such a damned shit sandwich. The left really does not have a voice in politics. It is muffled out by our own supposed party.

    "Sir, you look like the piss boy."

    by ranger995 on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 07:16:10 PM PST

  •  I said the same thing today (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ckntfld, corvo, majcmb1, HoundDog, wolfie1818

    when they called; I felt sort of bad for the worker, but indicated I would prefer to donate to individual candidates

  •  Yeah, it's pretty easy to *not* donate money to (0+ / 0-)

    prove a point. Now try to convince them that you were actually going to donate money in the first place (convince me first, in fact). Not that I don't agree with your complaint, but there's a reason the saying isn't "put your absence of money where your mouth is".

  •  I am tired of sending money (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, majcmb1, HoundDog, wolfie1818, pistolSO

    They should send money to me for the Martha Coakley campaign. I sent Martha Coakley $50. She ran the dumbest ad campaign I have ever seen.

  •  DCCC just backed a candidate (5+ / 0-)

    in the IL-18 primary who was a lobbyist over a progressive candidate with grassroots support.  The reason?  She claimed she could raise millions in donations.  It's all about money with those guys.

  •  Always donate to individuals not Parties (5+ / 0-)

    that way you know your dollar isn't going to keep people like Ben Nelson in office so he can keep screwing you over.

  •  I'm with you. I also told both groups no (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, HoundDog, blueoasis

    this week. My money will go to Sen. Mikulski, Rep. Ruppertsburger, Rep.Grayson & other progressive Dems. thru Act Blue. I don't want 1 cent of mine going to teh likes of Stupak,Lincoln,Conrad or any conservadem(read Rethug tool).

    My Momma raised crazy children not stupid ones.

    by wolfie1818 on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 08:07:38 PM PST

  •  I had the same situation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, HoundDog

    I know who it is when it rings because the caller ID shows Telefund, which is the main phone fundraiser they use.

    I make it very clear that I do not want them to ever call again and that I am directing all of my money to the candidates directly.  I live in Wisconsin so that means giving as much as I can to Russ.

    Wouldn't he make a good President.

  •  Guess I'm greedy. I want both. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    But, no, I don't think my contributing to the DSCC or the DCCC moves us closer to that goal.

  •  I donate to the party (0+ / 0-)

    because of the economies of scale. This is especially true for the DSCC because ot how critical the numbers are in the Senate.

    The way I see it, one of the good things about the Democratic Party is how we represent a diversity of opinions. For example, I'm glad and proud to be a member of a party that contains other members, including elected members of Congress, that I don't agree with on any number of things.

    However, that attribute of Democrats makes it very important to have a comfortable majority, well over 60 votes, in the Senate.

    If we were Republicans, who tend to be more monolithic (but notice certain recent votes), then perhaps it would matter less.

    Greg Shenaut

  •  I Told Them Basically the Same Thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    I'll donate to individual candidates but not the party as a whole.

  •  When I receive the letters requesting ......... (0+ / 0-)

    ...... contributions, I send back a little note:  Until you deliver what was promised, take me off your list and save the cost of a stamp.  That's my contribution.  Use it wisely.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site