Democratic Politburo Makes a Decree - No Primaries!

[Goose3five]

This is being crossposted from Comments From Left Field.

Many thanks to Mark Crispin Miller for posting the full audio of a speech given by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a private party in Georgia on August 2. I have clipped out the relevant two minutes of this speech and transcribed it for everyone to see. Bottom line, Schumer admits to, in effect, a new Democratic strategy whereby he and the DSCC leadership will choose who will run against vulnerable Republicans. The case he uses is our own fight for the seat held by Rick Santorum.

Here is the audio clip in mp3 format.

"Let me tell you one other thing we did. We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. I was just in Tennessee with Harry and with (...) and we have a primary and I stood up there Harold Ford is running and he can become the first African-American elected in the south to the Senate since reconstruction which would be a great thing for America. There is this young woman whose... not so young... but a nice woman running against him but everyone says she is going to attack him."

"...(unintelligible) we are going to intervene if anyone one democrat attacks another, we're doing that in states where there are primaries. We can't afford to do it anymore. This always happens in the primaries, we would throw up the cards and see where they landed. No more, we are finding the best candidate in every one of the seats where a Republican is vulnerable."

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but A he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

(unintelligible)

"And we're doing this in the other states."

A couple of things worth noting here. First, Governor Rendell gave two points according to Schumer "A - he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run." Let me repeat that, Governor Rendell said point blank to Chuck Schumer that Casey would not run and that we would not want him to run. In my opinion these two points deserve a further look.

Why would Rendell think Casey "would not run?" Well, the conventional wisdom is that Casey has never had aspirations to run for a national office. His only desire it would appear is to eventually make another run at Governor of Pennsylvania. This is all well and good but let me ask you, how good of a candidate do you think Casey will be against Rick Santorum if he had to be persuaded by Schumer and Reid to run?

Second point. Rendell recognized that Casey's pro-life stance is a problem, why do you think that is? I contend that the reason is the majority of the Democratic party is made up of women and by putting up a pro-life candidate and promising to take out any challengers the Democrats are writing off the majority of their voters.

Not only is this strategy stupid, it rings of Soviet Politburo tactics. The Democratic party leadership, or more accurately the DSCC, has decided that they know better than anyone how to win and they are going to shove their candidates down our throats like it or not.

(If you would like the entire 20 plus minute speech it can be found here courtesy of Mark Crispin Milller.)

Others talking about this story;
News Dissector
Liz at the Pennacchio campaign blog.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Problem is these people have danced with the devils so long

that they have become the devils themselves.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. And it's time for the exorcism

[MisterLiberal]

15. The thing is

the leadership forgets the principle fact:

1) The general election belongs to the party,

2) THE PRIMARY ELECTION BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE!

Now they want us to have LESS influence in the primaries?

I'm fuming over this!

[Fovea]

2. From big tent

to get your own damned umbrella party.

This is the worst idea that the party has had evar!

This would result in smoke filled backroom politics that would make the Pendergast machine seem transparent by comparison.

No.

[the other one]

3. Not likely - campaign contributions is BIG BIZNIS. nt

[spotbird]

4. Thank God,

the sooner we stop cannibalizing ourselves the sooner we can make some headway. Primary battles mean defeat in the general, we just don't have the luxury to loose more.

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. The irony here is....

...the mentality reflected in your post matches the mentality in your signature.

Nope. we don't want people to think. Or decide. Or debate. Or have a choice. Just tell them "Here's your corporatist warmonger candidate. Vote for him/her and like it. After all, he/she's not a Republican, right?"

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. I'm in favor of eliminating primaries

In every state, in every race.

Washington State used to have a "blanket primary" for 70 years, which was copied (except for voter registration requirements) in California about three years ago. The parties made like hens when the fox is aprowling, and the blanket primary was thrown out in both states.

Rut them. They have asserted before the United States Supreme Court that they are private associations with the right to select their own candidates. Fine. It is criminal that the parties expect the voters they threw away to pay for their primaries.

[WinkyDink]

8. Casey vs. Santorum

Casey---whom I don't personally want to vote for, but will---is THE only Dem in my state with the SAME NAME RECOGNITION as Santorum (excepting Rendell, obviously). And the Casey name is a much-LOVED name, BTW, the old man's-and-Carter's convention snafu notwithstanding.

Need I even say what is wrong with the name "Penacchio"? I don't care if the man has good qualities up the wazoo; he ain't flyin'.

[TheDonkey]

25. Dem's are being very smart in PA. Casey can and will win

We could try putter a Hafer or Hoeffel up there that is more liberal but Casey Jr a serious competitor to Santorum. We cannot afford to let Santorum slip by 51%-49% it's time to get rid of him.

Casey will be a HUGE improvement. He's also a good guy, I've meet him and there is a reason that he's one of the most popular politicians in PA. Dems are being smart and saving money because it is 99% guarunteed Casey would win the primary being backed by so many popular dems and having large sums of money.

[LynneSin]

27. In Casey's received more votes in PA in his 2004 State Treasurer election

than any other candidate EVER who has run for a statewide office in Pennsylvania including Presidental candidates.

MOST VOTES EVER

And yes, he had a candidate which you would assume that the diehard repukes would stick with and Casey still won that election powerfully overwhelming.

Casey is pro-life, but remember that Harry Reid is also pro-life and yet Harry has been one of the best leaders for the democrats that we have had in ages. More than likely Casey would not be put on the judiciary committee, which is the only thing that would scare me about having Casey as Senator.

Finally, if Casey doesn't run for senate in 2006 then he will be running and will probably win the Governor seat in 2008. A pro-life senator can be scary but even if the Senate & SCOTUS goes crazy with anti-abortion law, the ultimate decision would go back to the states where Casey could do severe damage against women in Pennsylvania.

I think Casey would make a great senator and reading his platform vs. Rick "I think women should stay at home and be barefoot & pregnant Santorum is a clear choice of two very different candidates with one coming out as a clear choice.

On the bright side - Casey won't probably stay a Senator for too many terms because eventually he wants the job that his daddy had (Governor). But hopefully by the time that Casey does run & win for governor we'll have countered the neo-conservative slant in Congress & SCOTUS!

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Casey could not run for Governor in 2008

That office is up in 2006 and 2008. Rendell is running for reelection, so the earliest Casey could run is 2010.

[madfloridian]

9. Glad to see it getting some wings. I posted it on Aug. 11.

I had already forgotten how many thought it was an ok idea to "anoint" the candidates. I think it is wrong myself. I highly disapprove of Schumer "picking" Casey, and not caring that he is anti-choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2001395

They simply don't care about issues like women's right. They are looking to win. The pressure is on the DNC now to change from pro-choice to total regulation of women's choice.

I was just getting some stuff together on this abortion issue, Oberstar, and Pelosi, Roemer, and Democrats for Life, and this fits right in.

If you keep running anti-choice candidates....very soon women will lose the right to choose.

[madfloridian]

11. AND someone posted it at Kos....and got attacked.

Unfortunately too many in our party are for the easy way out...let the party leaders pick.

[Mairead]

32. And I posted it here and got told I was misinterpreting what was said

[jpgray]

54. That's because you were

This is just like the people who said Gore was calling for canceling the primaries, or "coronating" Dean. Advocation of one candidate over others and a call for no nasty internecine warfare (which is what Gore did) is not a call to cancel the flippin' primaries. The only one I can ever recall who said anything of the sort was Ted Rall in 2003 or thereabouts.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Well, that's quite different

When it's your own candidate, it's okay.

:sarcasm:

[MisterLiberal]

16. that's horrible!

The bottom line is that they're saying in this one race that the Pro-Choice crowd just has to vote and like it???

NO WAY!!!

[LittleClarkie]

70. Or not vote

One-issue voters make my teeth itch, btw, no matter which side.

[jpgray]

53. For someone who got so upset when Dean was misinterpreted

You seem to be fine with unsubstantiated, liberal interpretations of other Dems' statements. Can you point out where Schumer or anyone else declares there won't be primaries? All I've seen is a declaration that they want to avoid infighting and that they will try to support who they feel is the best candidate. Both those things wer said and done by Al Gore when he endorsed Dean, by the way. He didn't want to cancel the primaries, but he wanted to endorse a candidate and limit the infighting. You defended Gore's actions then, but you attack Schumer for the same behavior?

:shrug:

[Goose3five]

59. Read on...

I posted my follow up to this orginal post earlier this morning. Had you taken the time to go through the thread you would have known that. Here is the link at my blog and here it is in this thread.

[jpgray]

61. I read that. Again, how is this unique or a call to end the primaries?

Gore was accused of the same crap when he endorsed Dean, and advised the other candidates to get behind him and end the nasty internecine primary warfare. Endorsing a candidate and trying to defang his/her competition is not the same as canceling the primaries.

[madfloridian]

64. Talk about going way back? I never did that. This is not about me.

I did not defend Gore for telling the others to back off. I really did not care for that part of it. I did like the endorsement though. I love the way people ignore the issue and make it all about me. It is not about me....it is about what Schumer said. Going after me on this is just not fair.

However, this statement by Schumer makes it clear that women's issues are secondary...

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but A he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

SCHUMER: "I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

In other words, Schumer decreed it would Casey, ignoring and not caring he is anti-choice and anti-birth control in many instances.

Do not put the onus on me. That is a poor argument.

[jpgray]

68. I'm still not seeing a call to cancel any primaries

I don't agree with Casey, but I also don't agree with claiming Schumer's endorsement is something it isn't.

[madfloridian]

69. You are parsing words. You are in denial.

I am being realist. The party is willing to give up women's rights. Do a search on my posts about The Third Way.

[jpgray]

71. I'm still just waiting for that call for primaries to be canceled

So far no one has come up with quotes that say anything of the sort.

[madfloridian]

73. Do you know what hyperbole is? Look it up.

You are the one in denial here.

[LittleClarkie]

77. Here ya go

hy·per·bo·le - Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)
n.

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.





also
n : extravagant exaggeration


One shouldn't have to resort to exaggeration to make one's point. Hysterical rhetoric only serves to discredit the person using it.

[madfloridian]

79. So I gather you don't believe in women's rights.

Bottom line. Twist turn, attack the OP. But it boils down to Schumer dismissed women's rights, and you are doing the same.

[LittleClarkie]

81. No, I'm dismissing hyperbole

Hysterical rhetoric, even when someone might have a point, helps nothing. It tends to make folks not want to listen to you if you're going to exaggerate your position, screaming that there won't be any more primaries.

Kind of like a mom who says if you don't behave, she's going to take all your toys and you'll never get another one ever again. Trying to get your child to behave = good. Saying something unrealistic to try and make your child behave = bad.

No, I'm not attacking the OP, just taking exception as to how he's expressing himself at the moment. If I was attacking him, I'd say he dresses funny or that his mom wore combat boots or something.

[trogdor]

10. Then find someone you like better to run against him.

Nobody said there would be no primaries. What I believe he aluded to was that there would be zero tolerance for Democrats running negative campaigns against other Democrats - that is the "circular firing squad" he was talking about. Schumer said the DSCC would seek out and recruit the best possible candidate for each race without subjecting that candidate to sort of a multiple-stage litmus test. Can you argue with that?

If you believe Bob Casey would behave the same way Rick Santorum does, first of all, you should have your head examined, and secondly, find someone better and give him or her your support.

What I'm trying to say is, Chuck Schumer knows what he's talking about. Let him do his job.

[madfloridian]

12. There is someone running against him.

However, he gets no media coverage, the party never mentions him, and the grassroots is having to fight the huge machinery of the DSCC which has the big money now.

Where do you think all those corporate donors are going? Schumer is raising huge huge amounts of money.

Of course the grassroots will try and run someone, but it does not make it ok for the party to clear the field.

[Goose3five]

13. and more importantly...

not only is there someone running against him, but he had declared his candidacy well before Schumer went on his hunt for someone to anoint.

[MisterLiberal]

17. Yes they DID say that

"This always happens in the primaries, we would throw up the cards and see where they landed. No more, we are finding the best candidate in every one of the seats where a Republican is vulnerable."

Let me dissect that:

"This always happens in the primaries, we would throw up the cards and see where they landed."

He's talking about the primaries where the people vote!

"No more"

That is VERY plain and quite scary!!!

"we are finding the best candidate in every one of the seats where a Republican is vulnerable."

Note he's not saying "We trust the people to vote for the best candidate", he said "WE ARE"

That's a betrayal of trust!!!

[LittleClarkie]

74. We want Democrats to act tough and win

But only if they do it on our terms. Bah. The Party can support whoever they wish. If the people want someone else, no amount of money is going to keep them from voting for that person.

[MisterLiberal]

14. Careful

This is a sensitive topic here.

Two threads already have been locked over it.

We're just supposed to shut up and vote.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Or at the least

not misrepresent the facts with hysterical headlines.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. At no time did he ever say that there would be no primaries

I suppose that it fits some people's agenda to put words in his mouth.

[madfloridian]

19. He said they would pick the candidates in certain races.

That amounts to the same thing. Why? Because they "encourage" others to get out of the race by various means. Even if the others were already running and did well in previous years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. The primary voters will still decide

They are simply recruiting whom they feel to be the best candidates. The Democratic primary voters are free to support that candidate or choose another one.

[Goose3five]

20. He didn't have to say it...

What he did was bypass an already declared candidate in order to choose his own. Then he proceeded to say that any infighting would be squashed. In my mind that equals no primaries. By the way, what is your agenda???

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. My agenda is to elect more Democrats to the Senate and

not to post lies about Democratic politicians.

[Goose3five]

31. What lies are you talking about?

I posted the audio and transcript of Mr. Schumer's speech and made some observations. Where are the lies? If you are so concerned about electing Democrats I suggest you take a closer look at this strategy because it is a loser. I care about this race because I am a Pennsylvanian.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. "Democratic Politburo Makes a Decree - No Primaries!"

Democratic voters will continue to go to the polls and choose their party's nominee.

[DancingBear]

21. Then could you please explain this

"we are going to intervene if anyone one Democrat attacks another, we're doing that in states where there are primaries".

I read this to mean that let's say, for example, that Lieberman gets challenged in the primaries by someone who "attacks" him on his support for Iraq, his kiss-fest with *, etc.

Per the article, if DSCC found Lieberman to be the "best" candidate in terms of winning, then they would intervene against his challenger, effectively stopping the primary.

Unless of course if you think that an unfair, stacked primary is really a primary, in which case there's a phone call from Diebold that you may want to take.

If it walks like a duck...

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. How does issuing statements and supplying support

stop the primary? The Democratic primary voters are still free to choose, unless you assume that they will always prefer a party-backed candidate over an 'insurgent.'

[Zhade]

22. If accurate, so much for democracy.

NT!

[H2O Man]

35. A few people

are twisting what was said, and putting a highly distorted version on DU. There is no movement to end primaries. None. The group in question, which is accused of aiming for this goal, has no ability to end primaries.

What is happening is that some people, who may be sincere, are spreading the misinformation of a small group who are not sincere.

Factions within the democratic party have always tried to promote their agenda as "in the best interests" of the party, or as "having the ability to heal the wounds" within the party. Most people could look ahead to 2006 and 2008 and recognize that there are going to be significant struggles within the party in regard to what type of candidates we put forward.

I think the democratic party should move to the left. We can best head in that direction by being honest and accurate.

[Zhade]

42. I greatly respect your opinion, so can you address this for me?

"...we are going to intervene if anyone one democrat attacks another, we're doing that in states where there are primaries. We can't afford to do it anymore. This always happens in the primaries, we would throw up the cards and see where they landed. No more, we are finding the best candidate in every one of the seats where a Republican is vulnerable."

What, precisely, does this mean? Who determines what an "attack" is? If a primary opponent running against, say, Clinton describes her as favoring corporations over people - which is pretty clearly accurate - and the party elite decides that's an attack, they'll intervene? How will they intervene? More importantly, what gives them the right to interfere in the democratic process?

And where were these guys when some Dems' campaigns ran ads comparing Dean to Osama bin Laden during the presidential primaries?

I eagerly await your answer, as it will no doubt be very informative. (Seriously.)

[Goose3five]

46. What is even more important

is the precedent Schumer sets in his statement. He says that "everyone says she is going to attack him." Not she IS attacking him everyone is saying she is GOING TO attack him.

Conversely, Chuck Pennacchio had already declared had candidacy but Schumer went out and hand picked another candidate to run. Why did they choose to effectively attack Pennacchio by throwing Casey into the mix instead of setting up camp and protecting him? Bottom line, this sounds good in a speech but in reality it is a bunch of bull.

[Goose3five]

23. kick...

[Zhade]

24. Kick

Kick

[Goose3five]

26. Thanks

Thanks for the kick Zhade. After putting this post together and linking it out on the many message boards I belong to I have seriously begun to wonder about the thought processes of our side. I have been attacked for being not Progressive enough, told I am reading this one incorrectly, and told in effect that the idea of a primary is only going to hurt the party. I for one only want to see my state, Pennsylvania, put up the best candidate to both defeat Santorum in the GE and represent the people of PA. The party-line on this one seems willing to sacrifice latter for what they hope will be the former. Unfortunately I don't think they made the right choice. But hey, who cares about democracy right? We are living in a world where the perception of a democratic process is more important than the process itself.

[Mairead]

33. I find it interesting that there are so many people who

apparently feel that one can be a Democrat without being a democrat.

[LittleClarkie]

62. We have no control over who puts a D in front of their name

And to dictate to others what they can and can't be based on whether or not we agree with them sounds alot like the kind of thing we're fighting against.

Consensus-building, not purging.

[Zhade]

63. So we consensus-build with people who perform their own purges?

After all, party leaders going after a primary opponent for "attacking" one of their own (corporatist, say, or anti-choice) candidates is a form of preemptive purging.

[enough already]

36. Great strategy, Chuck

This is how we get a hand-picked "Democratic" Senate candidate in Pa. who is who more anti-choice than Santorum.

[Adelante]

37. Job Descriptions from DNC site

Our Organization

The Democratic National Committee
The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promotes the election of Party candidates with both technical and financial support; and works with national, state, and local party organizations, elected officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and views of the Democratic electorate and the nation.

The Democratic Governors' Association
The Democratic Governors’ Association was founded in 1983 to support the candidacy of Democratic governors throughout the nation. The DGA provides political and strategic assistance to gubernatorial campaigns. In addition, the DGA plays an integral role in developing positions on key state and federal issues that affect the states through the governors’ policy forum series.
http://www.democraticgovernors.org/

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
The purpose of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate. From grass-roots organizing to candidate recruitment to providing campaign funds for tight races, the DSCC is working hard all year, every year to increase the number of Democratic Senators. http://www.dscc.org/

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee serves as the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives. We provide services ranging from designing and helping execute field operations, to polling, creating radio and television commercials, fundraising, communications, and management consulting.
http://www.dccc.org/

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee provides strategic services and financial assistance to Democratic leaders and candidates at the state legislative level. For nearly a decade, DLCC has been an integral part of the continued success Democrats have had winning at the state legislative level.
http://www.dlcc.org/

State Democratic Parties
The State Democratic Parties work to elect local, state, and federal candidates in their states, as well as supporting the state campaign for the Democratic presidential nominee.
Learn more about your state party

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/ourorganization.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Looks like candidate recruiment is part of the job description

[Adelante]

40. Imagine that, Freddie?

What will they think up next? ;)

[madfloridian]

44. Glad you and Freddie Stubbs are so happy with this.

I am used to statements like this directed toward me, I don't care anymore. However, this exchange between you tends to show a little lack of respect for the intelligence of others here.

I think this illustrates the problem with the party leaders lately....they also show no respect of other views.

If you did really not catch what Schumer was saying, you need to read it again. He said he did not care about women's issues, they did not matter. Instead of saying to Rendell, hey come up with a pro-choice candidate, or could you recommend someone else he said hey even though Casey is against abortion, against birth control, and doesn't want to run...hey recruit him anyway.

Yes, the others are still running, but they are quickly being marginalized in various ways. So is Cegelis in ILL, and so was Morrison in TX. It is being done.

I would say the arrogance of the party leaders who think they owe us nothing, the arrogance of those here who espouse those tactics...will hurt them more than anything.

Many in Florida have decided that Bill Nelson has all kinds of corporate money. He does not need us. We will vote for him, but we will not work for him, we will not donate. It is quiet way of speaking out.

Thanks for the exchange. This exchange with its dismissal of our intelligence has helped firm up my decisions in many areas. I have sat on info rather than be divisive...but I will rethink that now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Strong candidates are not easily marginalized

Funny how you bring up Bill Nelson. Who is running against him in the priamry? Of the over 4 million registered Democrats in the Florida not a single one has stepped forward to challenge in the primary.

[madfloridian]

51. Florida Democrats won't even let us criticize him.

Sorry, but that is just plain true. I said I would vote for Nelson, but that is all. Hubby spoke out a meeting about his recent votes, and he got hushed right away....shhhh we don't say bad things about Nelson...he's all we've got.

No donations, he won't need them. What good would it do to challenge? Look at what happened when a progressive tried to run for state chair? Nelson and company stepped in with both feet.

Don't worry, Nelson will get voted for, no one will run against him because it is just not done that way in Florida. No one will speak out against his votes for the bankruptcy bill, CAFTA, and his support of policing software on computers and home entertainment centers to protect copyrights. Sometimes to the extent that some of the CDs won't even play they are so protected from theft.

No one will run against Nelson, the DSCC is already on it.

[Adelante]

55. So what's DFA doing?

Is Casey going on the "A List" or will they wait and see who is the nominee? Or will DFA oppose Casey? MoveOn already endorsed Casey. Dean already praised him to the skies. The DSCC is backing him. I think people just want to beat Santorum and Casey looks like he can. Turning red seats blue, that's the Party's job, I thought.

[madfloridian]

57. Many DFAers like us are donating to Pennacchio.

We are not little robots, you know. We don't salute on demand I know many of the ones they will support in 06, but they are not announcing until 06 for 06 races. Many of us have requested they endorse Pennacchio.

I did not like it when Dean bragged about Casey, but then that is his job, you know. He has to work with the DLC, DSCC, DCCC, PPI, and Third Way....and most of them are forming their own groups anyway.

Nothing you said just now excuses making others feel inferior.

So, as you said Dean is doing his job. If he didn't there would be people jumping all over him, too.

I think both of you ignored the point I made about talking down to others.

[johnaries]

41. Rosalind Kurita will NOT "attack" him

And as nice as it would be to have the first African-American from the South, Rosalind is a better candidate. She is the State Rep for my district and has done a GREAT job!

[FreedomAngel82]

50. I think both Ford and Kurita are good canidates

Only thing with Kurita is she is not for investigating the DSM while Ford is and 2006 could be our last chance to get Bush for his lies.

[flaminbats]

43. Why should we vote in the primaries?

In 1986 Joe Frank Harris, once the head of the Georgia Democratic Party, and Newt Gingrich made political deal. Georgia Democrats would provide no support to Wyche Fowler's campaign against Mack Mattingly if Republicans gave no support to Joe Frank Harris's Republican opponent for Governor.

However..Wyche Fowler beat the odds and the Georgia Democratic Party only weakened itself with this type of amateurish, backroom politics. If my party starts helping candidates in the primary, then I begin voting in another primary.

[mtnester]

45. Already knew that in Ohio...

the Ohio Dems will make a decision on Coleman/Strickland for governor, and whomever does not run for Gov will run for senate I am sure. And the money machine will fund the crap out of the final candidates.

The bloody Repub primary coming up on an incredibly divided Repub base in Ohio, IMO, will be like nothing any of us have ever seen. I am privvy so some inside information, and a LONG time upper echelon Repub pol in Ohio has simply stated...the party is so divided between Blackwell and Petro for Governor it ends in fistfights sometimes at county and local party functions, it is that bad.

AND, this person has no confidence they will hold DeWine's seat and many house seats...in fact, this person believes that many decent Repubs will vote Dem, or just stay home with the "election flu" rather than vote for their own party, and this includes the 2008 elections. This person has said they have never seen anything like it in all their years as a pol. His party, the old time Repubs, hate Bush now, and think he is a disgrace the the country.

The old time Repubs here do not like the reputation of having ruined a state either. They are hurtin all THROUGH their party.

Coming directly from this sources mouth in front of me, in secret, makes me hopeful.

[Goose3five]

47. No Primaries? Follow-Up

After posting my original piece here I thought it would be worth dropping the follow-up in for discussion.

Monday I wrote a piece entitled "Democratic Politburo Makes a Decree - No Primaries!" which stirred a great deal of sentiment from throughout the lefty blogosphere. The biggest criticism I have received about this piece regards the last two words of the headline, "No Primaries!" From KOS, MyDD, the Democratic Underground and elsewhere people have come out of the woodwork to attack the idea that what Schumer, Rendell and the DSCC have done is declare that there will be no Democratic primaries. The argument seems to be that what Schumer SAID was "We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other" therefore what he meant was that he and DSCC would only step in IF and WHEN they see two Democrats attacking each other. I agree, that is what he said but I do not agree that that is what they are doing.

Let me just say briefly that I recognize this is a strategy the DSCC believes will help them win back the Senate in '06. They truly believe that if they find the right candidates and back them while avoiding heavily contended primary battles they will not only save money for the general election but they can avoid "soiling" their candidates and giving the Republicans ammunition to use against them. I respect the DSCC for at least having a plan I am just not convinced that the plan is a winner. There is no evidence that candidates who faced little to no primary fights have done better than those that fought hard for their nominations. It is my opinion that the primary process allows the candidates to prove to the electorate that they are indeed the most qualified to win the general election.

Back to Schumer's comments, right after saying "we are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other" Schumer brings up the Tennessee Senatorial race for Majority Leader Bill Frist's seat, where there are two Democrats vying for the nomination, Harold Ford and Rosalind Kurita. What Schumer says is the following, "(there is) a nice woman running against him but everyone says she is going to attack him." He did not say she is attacking him or that she has attacked him in the past, he says everyone says she is going to attack him. Fine, if this is the case then Schumer, Reid and the like should pack their bags and head down to Tennessee to do their best Mills Lane impression. "No rabbit punches, no hitting below the belt..." I agree with this way of officiating the race but I not sure that is what they have done. We will see.

In the race that is most important to me and they majority of my readers though things are a bit different. There is no doubt that the number one priority of every Democrat in state of Pennsylvania is to defeat Rick Santorum in '06. So it is understandable that the DSCC wants to ensure they have the best candidate to make this a reality. Unfortunately what they have done in my opinion does to guarantee anything. From my brief experience inside the Pennsylvania Democratic machine I have learned at least one thing, the person with the endorsement of the party leadership is most likely the going to win. This is not always the case but it certainly happens more often than not.

By stepping in a full year before the primary - and a month AFTER Chuck Pennacchio had declared his candidacy - and hand picking and then immediately endorsing Bob Casey Jr. what the Party leadership has done is ensure that all of the party insiders immediately got the message. Casey is the guy you will support. This means that a few thousand State Committee people got this message and therefore as a result so did any and all organizations they belong to, support, etc. Does this mean there will be no primary in the state of Pennsylvania? No, it means that there will be a primary but that the result is a foregone conclusion because any efforts made by any other candidate to gain support in the form of donations, volunteers, whatever immediately must discount those people who are either party insiders or are afraid of pissing off party insiders.

Top this off with the fact that the DSCC's own website makes absolutely no mention of any candidates other than Casey...

Race Profile

Republican Senator Rick Santorum is considered by many to be far outside the mainstream of Pennsylvania voters. Democratic strength in the Keystone State-which has voted blue in the last four presidential elections and has a Democratic governor-combined with Santorum's conservative record, make the two-term Republican a leading Democratic target in 2006.

Popular state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. is set to run for the seat, and a recent Quinnipiac poll shows him leading Santorum 50%-39%. In more bad news for Santorum, 27 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of him, while only nine percent of voters view Casey unfavorably.

Santorum's rigid and extreme views make him ripe for a challenge. Early polls suggest that Casey, who in 2004 was elected as treasurer with the most votes of any candidate in Pennsylvania history, could be the man to deliver him a defeat.

...And you can see what they are doing. Yes there will still be a primary but unless something drastic happens it will be nothing but a show.

[madfloridian]

52. Good points.

Good post. I have read it all ways at many forums. Many happen to agree with our take...that it means controlling the primaries.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. The people should pick the canidates

Whoever wins from the voting that is who gets there. That is how voting works not his way. I'm insulted by him with him saying I'm not fit to vote for my own Senator!

[jpgray]

56. Democratic leaders have always endorsed candidates

And people have always called for less infighting and nastiness during primary season. I'm not clear on how these statements are anything new, and I'm not certainly not seeing any call for canceled primaries.

[madfloridian]

58. Oh, these statements were quite clear.

We pick, we jump in if you attack our candidate. And they don't mention anyone but Casey at their site.

The arrogance of Schumer's dismissing women's importance really got to me.

[wpelb]

60. Primaries or caucuses (or something else)?

The Iowa caucus system helped Kerry leapfrog ahead of Dean literally overnight. Did the Democrats really want Kerry to be the standard-bearer? Who knows? Because of the surprise win, he was able to waltz to the nomination. (Dean's rally speech, which the Republicans were able to use to make fun of him, also helped Kerry.) Once the Republicans saw that Kerry's nomination was all but assured (long before the convention), they had plenty of time to prepare attack ads, which they used to re-elect you-know-who.

Had there been a long string of primaries, with no candidate getting too much momentum after just a victory or two, the primaries would have become an endurance race--a marathon rather than a sprint, if you will--and the race for the general election would have been contested with a stronger nominee. Any candidate who was vulnerable (as Kerry was, even if the Swift Boat ads were completely false) would have been weeded out in the primaries by other members of the party.

Caucuses and a short primary season allow a small number of people to choose who will be the party's nominee. That's not democracy.

[madfloridian]

65. Please note Schumer's comments. They are quite clear.

Women's issues are not issues anymore....he says we can't worry about that anymore. If you think this is ok, then it really scares me for our party.

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but A he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to run. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

SCHUMER: "I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

Well, Chuck, has it occurred to you that women are now nervous and walking the floor because of your attitude?

[LittleClarkie]

67. Dean is the head of the party

you don't think he has anything to do with this?

[madfloridian]

72. I think they are pressuring him. Democrats for Life. Roemer. others.

I hope he stands up for what he believes, which is that it is between a woman and her doctor.

The pressure is there, and he has to answer to all.

I think they are going to regulate abortion very strictly. They will present adoption as the viable alternative. I have no gripe with adoption...IF and only IF the woman wants to carry full term.

I remember the days before abortion was legal. I remember a 13 year old girl raped by a neighbor, forced to carry to term. That is not very safe for that age.

I remember a teacher who taught next to me during Vietnam...her fiancee was a POW, she found out she was pregnant. She had to leave her job and get out of town to avoid the stigma. She would have lost her job anyway.

Yes, they are putting on the screws. Democrats for Life, Third Way, Feminists for Life, all the religious sites....Pelosi, Roemer, Oberstar and so on.

[madfloridian]

76. And what's worse...we as Democrats are not standing up.

Most here at DU would let women be sacrificed.

[LittleClarkie]

78. Over at Kos, they had a hairy cat fit over the gay marriage issue

not being supported by Dem leadership, but were also willing to shunt women's issues to win Santorum's seat, berating women's groups for being selfish. I thought that was quite hypocritical.

[madfloridian]

80. Many gay advocates do not support women's rights.

Which is a shame...a two-faced deal.

I think some are changing a little at Kos, but far too many are male chauvinists tough guys.

[Moderator]

82. Locking

Misrepresentative and inflammatory subject line.