Edwards is pimping the DCCC. WTF?

[Truth2Tell]

I just got an email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee containing an appeal for funds from none other than John Edwards. Nice pretty John Edwards digital letterhead and nice pretty edwards signature at the bottom. WTF?

Of all the ways Edwards could be leveraging his current power to affect the Party, choosing to enable Rahm Emmanuel and the DLC schmucks who currently control the DCCC is pretty lame. And pretty revealing, IMHO.

Edwards could be helping Howard Dean raise money of the DNC. He could be fund raising for individual progressive candidates who share his alleged anti-poverty, anti-corporate agenda. He could even be raising money for the Dem Senate Campaign Committee. He is a former senator, right?

There are very few Democratic Party institutions more in the thrawl of corporate interests these days than the DCCC. To say I'm disappointed in Edwards is an understatement.

[Justitia]

1. If so, I'm disappointed as well. -eom

[saracat]

7. About what? That he would want Dem's elected to the House? That is just weird.

[Justitia]

9. That he thinks the DCCC is the best repository of his fundraising efforts. -eom

[saracat]

12. So what? You want him to go third party to make you happy?

It actually is our most efficient fundraising arm.And as a congressional Campaign Manager, twice, not much happens without them.And John Edwards is a democrat. I respect that.I might not be much longer but he has intestinal fortitude. Perhaps he is doing this instead of endorsing? Who knows? This is a mountain out of a molehill.

[Justitia]

16. Bullshit. The DCCC's "win" record sucks ass. Or, have you forgotten the midterms?

Why doesn't he put his considerable heft behind those fundraising arms that have had substantive WINS, or even the national party?

I'm a sustaining mbr of the DNC and their record of cost / benefit analysis makes the DCCC look like a bunch of fucking morons.

[saracat]

21. Who said they "won' I said they raised money. They are the "official" arm.

[Justitia]

23. Well, IMO, they are as useless as tits on a boar. -eom

[PetraPooh]

60. Well a female boar with babies, tits are pretty useful. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

80. You made your point, I reckon.

I'll make mine:

When a clear and concise threat (the neoconcorporcats) is endangering every thread of this nation, there are two choices: utilizing any and every resource possible to PROTECT against further oppression or be distracted away from PROTECTING FROM FURTHER OPPRESSION.

There is a red-line,...even among "scattered cats". AT LEAST, the Democratic Party IS COMPOSED of the fabric THAT IS DEMOCRACY.

Presently, all we have to do is GATHER as a force against further oppression. Focusing on differences of opinion rather than focusing upon our common goal is destructive and serves only one very elite set of power-mongers.

Why would anyone want to do that,...IF they WANT democracy?

[Truth2Tell]

81. I agree.

And my point is that the DCCC has been a divisive force by virtue of taking sides in primary fights. I share your desire for unity of purpose. That's why I give to other - less divisive - Democratic organizations.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

89. You are not agreeing to uniting against a common enemy to our people.

Please,...do not play games with me.

I am a human being: NOT a member of this or that, political or race or gender. I AM A HUMAN BEING infected by an oppressive dictatorship destroying EVERYTHING I aspired to, as an AMERICAN. I HATE BEING AN AMERICAN!

John Edwards made me feel good about being an American.

The fact he is doing ANYTHING POSSIBLE within this fucked up system to advance causes that make BEING AMERICAN a "good thing",...IS NOT NOT NOT NOT BAD.

You take whatever power you have to make a difference, to HELP OTHERS, to EQUAL THE FIELD, TO DELIVER A DEMOCRATIC NATION.

What's wrong with that?

[Truth2Tell]

91. I haven't forsaken John Edwards!

I just disagree with this particular action. I still consider him one of the good guys, believe me. And believe me that I'll take any allies I can in the fight against the oppressive dictatorship that you quite rightfully describe. I just don't see the DCCC as an ally in that fight. I see them as part of the problem (at least for now). I'm sorry we disagree about that. I don't mean to play games.

peace

[bvar22]

83. The DCCC also spent money...

torpedoing the campaigns of REAL grassroots Progressives in Democratic Primaries and inserting their own beltway approved corporate friendly "Centrist" candidates.

I was there. I SAW the DCCC do this in a Minnesota Democratic Primary.
The DCCC is NOT working to elect more Democrats.
The DCCC is working to elect more Corporate Friendly "Centrists".

The DCCC has no fucking business interfering with local Democratic Primaries.

If you Work for a Living, do NOT donate to the DCCC/DSCC.
They WILL use your money against you!.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Truth2Tell]

10. For the record...

[LSK]

28. HOW DARE HE !!! WE MUST KEEP THOSE GOP SEATS IN THE GOP!!!

:sarcasm:

:wtf:

[LSK]

2. how dare he try to get Dems elected to the House

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2864799&mesg_id=2864799

:eyes:

[griffi94]

8. well they have to be the right

kind of democrats....did you see the thread raggin on blue dogs democrats

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2864792

see we only want ideologically pure democrats ..... :sarcasm: .....jeez....no wonder we blow elections

[Snotcicles]

15. A good move yesterday.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/134654/941

[griffi94]

19. well damn

they should bolt the party then huh.....southern democrats have to be mindful of the stands they take....the entire south was once democratic....not so now....so it's a balancing act...i don't think it's wise to let the southern democrats set the agenda....but if they're purged from the party...then expect the democratic majority to go up in smoke pretty soon....much the way the repubs lost when they purged chaffee....and alienated jeffords.....remember tom dashle ...right at the moment the democrats are making some gains in the south...mo...va...but webb is pretty conservative...should he be bounced....the south won't send liberals to washington.

[Snotcicles]

25. You just get real Democrats to beat them out of their seats. nt

[LSK]

so because we have some decades old bad Dems in the house

We shouldn't fundraise to elect Dems in other districts of the country??? What if there is another Henry Waxman or Maxine Waters out there? You want to hang them out to dry because they might be a bluedog type?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

77. I'm with you on this, LSK. Attacking John Edwards for battling the neocon power is ridiculous.

You take whatever power you have to battle against oppressors.

There is more sense/reason/wisdom behind the foregoing notion than moving willy-nilly on passion alone.

Damn straight the changes this country needs (NEEDS, with emphasis) is far more likely with more democrats than neoconcorporate butt-suckers around.

[Truth2Tell]

20. The DCCC doesn't just

"try to get Dems elected to the House." They try to get blue dog and corporate DLC sponsored Dems elected to the House. They work against progressive and anti-war Dems. They have, under Emmanuel, taken up the banner of inter-Party factional warfare on behalf of the right wing of the Part

Of course you know this already LSK. But the feigned sarcasm and rolling eyes are cute.

[LSK]

55. yes I know this

And Tammy Duckworth would have voted for Stem Cell research and Contempt of Congress and Iraq Withdraw bills and Peter Roskam did not.

You should know better.

[Truth2Tell]

62. I do know better.

Not only would Duckworth not have voted for immediate withdrawal, but Christine Cegelis would've beat Roskam like a drum. Instead the base stayed home and we lost. It's very odd that you would cite an example of a case where the DCCC supported a primary candidate against the grassroots anti-war alternative, and then the candidate went on to lose. You are proving my point.

Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report
...

According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq...

...According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries....

...an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

-snip

Duckworth was not a proponent of a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. The Los Angeles Times, quoting Duckworth, reported that she believed the military should not "'simply pull up stakes' in Iraq because it would 'create a security vacuum' and 'risk allowing ... to become a base for terrorists.'" According to the same article, Duckworth supported "a pullout of US forces on a schedule based on the training of Iraq's armed forces."

Expedited withdrawal from Iraq was a main plank of the Cegelis campaign platform.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml

[LSK]

63. you do know that I worked on the Duckworth campaign after donating to Christine

When the primaries are over you try to get the Dems to win.

And we dont know how Duckworth would have voted on those Iraq bills. We know 100% for sure how Roskam voted.

We are also pretty damn sure that Duckworth would have voted for Stem Cell research, SCHIP, minimum wage increases, etc etc etc.

You miss the point that even bad Dems are better than Republicans on some issues.

[Truth2Tell]

64. I think you are missing the point.

I supported Duckwoth AFTER the primary also. The problem was the DCCC supporting her during the primary.

And now you've gone from saying Duckworth would've supported withdrawal to saying you don't know how she would have voted. The point is that Christine was more ardently anti-war and more popular with the base - and the DCCC derailed her.

[DURHAM D]

3. In that case one can assume that Edwards is getting ready to endorse Obama.

Rahm Emanuel is David Axelrod's best friend. Rahm hired David to do media work for the DCCC in 2006 mid-terms. Rahm and Dean got into an open war over fund placement and candidate selection before the mid-terms.

Rahm will appoint the next head of the DNC if Obama is nominated. Wave goodbye to Dean.

Rahm wants Obama's senate seat.

[saracat]

6. Actually, it is the Clinton's who don't like Dean and Rahm is a Clintonista.

[DURHAM D]

11. Wrong.

Rahm worked in the Bill Clinton W.H. but Hillary and Rahm did not get along. She wanted him fired for being disloyal and being one of the biggest self-serving leakers.

He is secretly supporting Obama or as some writer described - "from underneath his desk". Think back to the media race baiting stories against Bill and the part Rahm played in that. You were supposed to keep believing that Rahm was a Clinton supporter - apparently it is still working.

[saracat]

13. I guess so. I never heard the other stuff.Interesting.

[DURHAM D]

18. Rahm thinks only of himself.

He wants more than anything to be a U.S. Senator.

[saracat]

22. I wouldn't doubt it.I have never liked him. Gives me a creepy feeling.

[Enrique]

4. Edwards is a mainstream democrat

if you see him as a maverick progressive, who would oppose party institutions like the DCCC, it's in your imagination.

[Canuckistanian]

68. Yeah, that's why he was eliminated from the primaries

And given NO COVERAGE BY THE MSM.

He was TOO RADICALLLY MAINSTREAM.

[Enrique]

90. not enough people voted for him

no media conspiracy

[saracat]

5. I got no such letter but even if he did, so what ? Do you hate Barbara Boxer and all the others who

sent such letters too? He is still a Democrat. Big deal. All that would be saying is he want his followers to take their support and direct it to CD races.And your problem with that is what? BTW, why not cut and paste this letter?

[Truth2Tell]

17. See my reply #10

There is the letter. And who says I hate anyone? I'm disappointed, that's all. I certainly don't "hate" Edwards.

The DCCC represents one faction of the Party right now. And in case you haven't noticed there are some divisions in the Party. The DCCC has taken to actively interfering in Democratic primary fights on behalf of the blue dogs and corporate stooges, and against anti-war and progressive candidates. It's plenty significant that Edwards would fund raise for them. If you think it's just about "raising money for Democrats" then you are being deliberately obtuse.

[monmouth]

14. Edwards is a smart dude, he'll do whatever serves him the best...n/t

[Pastiche423]

84. Perfectly stated

:applause:

[McCamy Taylor]

24. Can we stop the Democratic infighting and have ALL Democrats work together?

A Dem president and >60 Dems in the Senate and a Dem House means we can pass anything that we want, and all the GOP can do is take it to court and cross their fingers that it can get through the congested federal court system and the SCOTUS and strike it down.

[Truth2Tell]

26. >60 Dems can only pass progressive legislation,

like ending the war, universal heath care, etc... if the 60 Dems are all progressives. If 20 of them are blue dogs and oppose most of the Democratic agenda then having >60 is meaningless.

As for working together, the DCCC used to operate under guidelines that prohibited them from involvement in Democratic primaries. They remained neutral until after a Dem candidate was selected, then they supported that candidate. These days they interfere in primaries on behalf of the DLC choice. And they starve progressive and antiwar candidates of funds while lavishing assistance on corporate friendly nominees. I wouldn't call that "working together." So maybe you should ask Rham Emmanuel about unity and not his critics.

[MADem]

27. Yeah, FUCK those DCCC 'assholes.' They only gave us a goddamned MAJORITY.

I love all these ideological PURISTS who take issue with those who actually get off their asses, organize, work like hell, and DELIVER UNTO US a goddamned MAJORITY.

I got news for them--these DCCC "bums" are the people who are going to give us decent health care, preserve our social security, improve education for our children and grandchildren, and get us out of stupid fucking wars.

Those are real "grassroots" and "progressive" goals. Not all this Department of Peace/legalize pot horseshit.

The DCCC might not be "LEFTISH" enough to suit some here, but they are under the great big Democratic tent. And unlike these quixotic, halfassed, all-talk, no-walk candidates who are--to use that U word--UNELECTABLE--the candidates chosen by Rahm and Company actually made it to the Show....in massive numbers.

And they will again.

We have an opportunity to OWN the fucking Congress this time out. But the candidates we select can't simply represent the MINORITY--and yes, I mean it when I say MINORITY--on the FAR left. We have to accomodate that great big MUSHY middle so many of you rather intolerantly, and childishly, disdain.

My respect for Senator Edwards, which was already high, has gone up a notch. He, unlike some, understands that we really DO need a veto-proof majority, just in case President Popeye gets sworn in come January 09.

[Truth2Tell]

31. Nice try.

Try all you like to redefine "grassroots" and "progressive" goals into your DLC frame. It just doesn't sell.

The DLC majority brought to us by the DCCC hasn't ended any stupid fucking wars and they have no intention of doing so. Have you been paying attention?

The issue with the DCCC isn't just that they are not "LEFTISH" enough for most Democrats. The issue is that they are not a neutral fund raising arm for Democrats, but instead they are a factional infighting machine aligned with the corporate war wing of the Party.

In case you've been on Planet Republican Lite for the last seven years, let me remind you that a Majority of Americans, that's ALL Americans, support single-payer government sponsored Health Insurance. A Majority of Americans - not just Democrats - oppose the war in Iraq and want us to get out now. A vast majority oppose an attack on Iran. And on and on and on.

Feel free to try and paint the mainstream of America as the "FAR LEFT." Just using all caps won't make it true.

The DCCC didn't bring us our Congressional majorities. Progressive anti-war voters across the country brought us those. The DCCC just made sure that the majorities wouldn't mean shit. Nice work.

[MADem]

33. It wasn't a TRY. It is fact. The people who get things done are these centrists you disdain.

It's hard to get ANYTHING done with a GOP administration, GOP cabinet, and insufficient votes to override a veto.

See, these "awful" DCCC people "get" that. The far left "gets" whining and crying, wearing pink costumes, and making a scene.

I haven't been on "Planet Republican" (oooh, such snark!!) but you've been in outer space, apparently, since you don't "get" the fact that you cannot prevail unless you can override your opponent.

You keep whining about what America wants. What they also want, and FACTS, not pipe dreams, bear this out, is for THEIR Congresspersons to be returned to the Hill, in most cases. It isn't easy to unseat an incumbent. We have an opportunity this year because so many Republicans ARE crybabies, and do not want to continue to serve in the minority.

And you're wrong. It was the Rahm's, the Steny's, and the Chuckie Schumer's who did that hard work. Not you, sitting on your ass excoriating their work.

It was them. Get over yourself.

[Truth2Tell]

37. Did I say I did the hard work?

You have a very nasty and persistent straw man habit.

So I keep "whining and crying" and it's all about "pink costumes," and I need to "get over" myself, and the progressive agenda is about "pipe dreams." I see. All that vitriol and ALL CAPS YELLING from you simply because I have the audacity to criticize the folks in my own political Party who have been selling out the progressive agenda for money and power.

You really are incapable of civil discussion. Pathetic.

[brentspeak]

38. I believe it was you who started with the "pimping" terminology

So you're the last person to complain about there not being a "civil discussion".

[Truth2Tell]

39. Fair enough

Upon consideration, that was a poor choice of words on my part. Like I've said, I do have respect for Edwards. I'm just disappointed with this decision.

[brentspeak]

41. I think all Edwards is doing is advocating for the Democrats in general

[Truth2Tell]

43. If that were the case I would have no issue with this.

But the DCCC has been pursuing an agenda of actively opposing and marginalizing progressive Democrats they don't like. That is very different from "advocating for the Democrats in general." I'd be delighted if they actually did that.

[MADem]

46. Look who's talking!

You denigrate those who actually DO the work, and who got us a majority on the Hill...and you expect people to stop and actually listen to the gripes you spout?

If anyone's incapable of civil discussion, it's you, with your efforts to paint centrists as devils who are somehow insufficiently Democratic to suit you.

I favor the big tent, from far left to conservative Dems. They all offer something, a perspective, a view. And they represent all segments of our coalition which is both wide and deep.

You don't "criticize"--you excoriate. There's a difference. Who'd want to form any kind of coalition with a "My Way or The Highway" type such as yourself? You don't understand coalition and compromise. You just understand foot stomping and insistence.

Pssst---Yelling is when every word in an entire post is all caps. The occasional ALL CAP serves simply to emphasize. You oughta know that.

[Truth2Tell]

48. FYI - The DCCC doesn't support your "big tent."

They actively oppose progressives.

It's amazing the percentage of your posts you spend attacking me, or trying to define what I believe and what my "type" is.

[MADem]

51. They don't HAVE to, see? The tent has more than one POLE holding it up.

Why don't you rally round YOUR little pole, instead of trying to take your little axe to the ones that don't hold up your end? That might be a more constructive use of your time.

Just a thought.

Maybe if you didn't post such nonsense, you wouldn't get "attacked."

I guess to you, anyone who diagrees with YOUR view of the universe is "attacking," eh?

:rofl:

[KaptBunnyPants]

61. Why do you believe people should go to jail for smoking pot?

Do you have any reason for it besides your prejudice against people on the Left?

[MADem]

98. I didn't say that.

My point, that wooshed right over your apparently pointy and quite possibly high head, was that some issues have more IMMEDIATE import than others.

Of course, that didn't suit your desires to snark that I have "prejudice against people on the left." I could just as easily say you have prejudice against people with intellects, but I won't be mean.

Oh, and you might want to look up "decriminalize" -- which is a way of keeping people out of jail, and mollifying the pharmaceutical lobby, which will otherwise put up a huge (and successful, because they have the cash to fund it) fight to ensure that no progress is made on drug legislation at all.

[Old and In the Way]

29. "Pimpimg the DCCC"

What a nice smear of Edwards and Democrats. I could read that lede over at FR.

[yodermon]

30. I got a similar letter from Al Gore a few months ago.

:shrug:

[Truth2Tell]

32. Bullshit. Link please. nt

[Beaverhausen]

47. here

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Gore_makes_pitch_for_DCCC.html

[Truth2Tell]

50. I'll be damned.

Apologies to yoderman for doubting.

Also very disappointing.

[yodermon]

85. no worries

I didn't want to believe it either.

[Dorian Gray]

78. Oh No! The sky is falling!

Gore actually fund raised for the DCCCCCC? I never heard of such a thing! Democratic politicians sending out fund raising letters for an organization whose primary purpose is electing Democrats? Shocking!

(Sorry for the sarcasm. Seeing the info about the Gore letter on top of the Edwards letter and seeing the hyperventilating over-reactions to these letters is giving me a headache.)

[LiveLiberally]

34. I applaud Edwards' support for DCCC fundraising....

as an indication that Edwards realizes that the DCCC and DSCC are congressional fundraising committees of the Democratic Party, not the permanent puppets of a particular faction. The best way to promote progressive causes is to strengthen our majority in November. This is a unique opportunity. For the first time in decades, truly progressive causes are resonating with the Democratic and Independent rank-and-file. The DCCC is unlikely to cut off its nose to spite its face by opposing progressive candidates who embody the public's demand for change. If the DCCC has been hostage to conservative and corporate interests, now is the time to TAKE IT BACK.

[Truth2Tell]

35. I'm all for taking back the DCCC.

But how will simply giving them money or raising money for them accomplish that? :shrug:

[LiveLiberally]

40. In a normal electoral season giving money to the DCCC might not promote progressive causes but ...

this isn't a normal election. As I said, those in control of the DCCC might not share -- or wish to support -- progressive values, but in this election I doubt that in many districts they will have much of a choice. Irrespective of who wins the nomination, the democratic agenda at the top of the ticket (thanks in large part to Edwards) is more progressive than it has been in decades. This will create a coat-tails effect that will provide an unprecedented opportunity to elect enough representatives to change congressional politics as usual from the inside out.

Again, hats off to Edwards. At this point in the nominating process, where one of the remaining contenders is going to supernova and the fallout -- if DU is any indication -- is likely to be ugly and divisive, Edwards is taking positive steps to move the Party productively (and progressively) forward.

[Truth2Tell]

42. Just give to individual candidates

if you want to support progressives. Give to the DCCC if you want to support an inter-Party effort to derail progressive fellow Democrats.

[LiveLiberally]

44. Supporting individual progressive candidates doesn't co-opt the DCCC....

BUT, by giving them money in an election where they will be compelled by the electorate to support progressive candidates, it will be very difficult for them later to marginalize the new representatives THEY helped to elect. I reiterate: this is an unprecedented opportunity to work within the system to change it.

[Truth2Tell]

45. How will giving them money "compel" them

to support progressive candidates? They don't seem to be doing so now. They seem to be opposing them.

I don't get how donating can "co-opt" them.

:shrug:

[LiveLiberally]

56. In a nutshell, here's the reasoning for why it makes sense to support the DCCC now....

Very few states have held congressional primaries to date, and the presidential primaries are now creating a political tidal wave that ultimately the DCCC will have no choice but to fall in line with. In any election, the DCCC chooses to support particular congressional candidates. These candidates must be viable; in other words, they must appeal to the democratic (and often independent) electorate within the district. This year, the presidential primary electorate is aggressively supporting progressive change in unprecedented numbers. In response (and aided by Edwards' prodding), the two remaining presidential contenders are both pushing a progressive agenda. This will create coat-tails that progressive congressional candidates can take advantage of. In short, the most viable, electable candidate in many districts will be the most progressive candidate. The DCCC cannot fight this tide; they will be forced to put the money where it will most likely result in democratic victories. The end result will be a congressional majority that is much more progressive and empowered to influence the DCCC to support progressive candidates in the future.

[earth mom]

36. Not happy to see this. Edwards don't sell out! Please!

:argh:

[MasonJar]

49. I got a call an hour ago from a caller for a Dem Senate solicitation and I

told her that frankly I was disgusted with the Dem senators and that I was giving them no money until they did at least one thing that I like. I admonished her to pass the word along. I do NOT know if she will.

[flyarm]

52. heck i get all mail from the DCCC and i got no such letter..i wonder why?

i was a dem delegate and i get it all..and i get invited to luncheons etc in dc all the time from them..and i am also on Edwards mailing list..

i have gotten absolutely nothing from the DCCC about this..

hmmm.
maybe it didn't come yet..i will keep you posted...but i get stuff from them all the time..and ..nothing like this..yetttttttt....
fly

[Truth2Tell]

58. Strange.

:shrug:

Did you get this one yesterday?

[NNN0LHI]

53. No, if he was raising money for Repigs he would be pimping

Can't some people get anything right?


Don

[mzmolly]

54. Yea, who the heck needs a Democratic congress anyhow!

:sarcasm:

[MilesColtrane]

57. Sorry chief, Rahm Emmanuel doesn't chair the DCCC.

Maryland rep. Chris Van Hollen does, and he's not exactly a centrist.

ProgressivePunch.org rates him in the top 8% of progressive congressmen.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=MD8&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=46&y=9

Maybe you're not really a Democrat, but just don't know it yet?

[Truth2Tell]

59. I never suggested Emmanuel was still the Chair.

In fact I posted an email from Van Hollen upthread so obviously I'm aware of who the Chair is. Chief.

Emmanuel is the former Chair. And he is still a part of the Committee and wields considerable influence.

If the DCCC demonstrates that under new leadership it will begin to stay neutral in primary races again - then I would be happy to support them again. So far that hasn't happened.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. You may not be a Democrat, but Edwards is and has always been a Democrat....

.. I don't understand what your point is. Edwards is not a third-party candidate, didn't run for the Green Party, etc. Maybe you could explain further what you meant.

[Truth2Tell]

69. I have issues with the DCCC

precisely because they have undercut progressive Democrats.

Here, I'll post this again, from TruthOut:

Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report
...

According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq...

...According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries....

...an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

-snip

Duckworth was not a proponent of a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. The Los Angeles Times, quoting Duckworth, reported that she believed the military should not "'simply pull up stakes' in Iraq because it would 'create a security vacuum' and 'risk allowing ... to become a base for terrorists.'" According to the same article, Duckworth supported "a pullout of US forces on a schedule based on the training of Iraq's armed forces."

Expedited withdrawal from Iraq was a main plank of the Cegelis campaign platform.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. If you do, get active and work hard to make it lefty again....

Just as to divorce someone because you've had a bad period, or to throw away a car because it malfunctioned, is just not a brilliant idea. Same with the Democratic Party. You and a handful of others are often just itching to get rid of the whole Democratic Party instead of working with it to make it and the WHOLE U.S. (which went right wing too), right wing again.

:dem:

[Truth2Tell]

73. Who says I want to get rid of the whole Democratic Party?

No divorce here, I love the Party. I strongly suggest that people donate to the the DNC - the ACTUAL Party. I also suggest people donate to individual candidates and even to the Senate Campaign Committee. I work hard for the Party, which is why I hate to see elements of it co-opted by the corporate right wing.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

75. How about this, let's all work to make the entire country progressive again?

I myself lean more to the left than the Democratic Party ever did, so I'm ready to work on it. :toast:

[Truth2Tell]

76. Amen to that!

:toast:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Truth2Tell]

70. My my. Sticks and stones. nt

[golddigger]

67. Here's a link I found. Googles your friend.

www.superobama.com/obama-staff.php

[varelse]

72. what organization should Edwards be pimping?

did you have one in mind? If so could you please share that information also?

Thanks in advance :)

[Truth2Tell]

74. I'd be fine if he pimped the DNC.

Or even the DSCC, which would make more sense as an ex-Senator.

He could also pimp individual progressive candidates.

He could pimp DFA, MoveOn, Progressive Majority, True Majority or any number of independent groups. He could be a regular Pimp Daddy as far as I care.

The DCCC has simply proven itself to be an enemy of Democrats I care about - so it concerns me that Edwards chose to support them.

[varelse]

82. I'll have a look at all those organizations, then

My sister already supports MoveOn.org and is a member - I tend to lag behind other family members in political involvement and activism.

One group Edwards is 'pimping' that I fully approve, is Habitat for Humanity. So I'll not be too hard on him for "pimping out the DCCC" - nobody's perfect after all.

Anyway, you've answered my question and given me food for thought. Thank you :)

[paulk]

79. everytime I think I've seen the stupidest DU thread ever

another one comes along.

[Pastiche423]

86. Like your post?

[Eric J in MN]

87. Why do you consider the DCCC worse than the DSCC? NT

NT

[Truth2Tell]

92. Not that the DSCC is great

but at least they have stayed out of primary fights and waited to support candidates until after the local Democratic voters have had their say.

[Eric J in MN]

94. Charles Schumer supported Jim Webb over Harris Miller.

So did I.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=814353

[Truth2Tell]

96. And now Webb has supported illegal spying on Americans.

And the AG that Shumer gave us won't do a thing about it.

I guess if we just take Republicans and put Ds after their names we can have a Democratic majority.

Thanks for that.

[Eric J in MN]

97. Harris Miller would have voted for telecom immunity, too.

Miller is a lobbyist for the Information Technology industry.

[MADem]

99. He woulda been FIRST IN LINE!!! NT

[CoffeeCat]

88. Wow, that is very troubling--Rahm Emmanuel...

...is a total warmonger.

I'll never forget watching him on "Real Time with Bill Mahr". They were discussing
the Iraq war, and he sided with Bush and argued about why we needed to go into Iran
and be concerned about Iran. He was doing Bush's bidding and saber rattling for
the neocons.

I really think that it's high time we started realizing that our government has been
completely hijacked by the neocons. There are Republican neocons and Dem neocons.
They are a cancer, and it feels like this infestation just keeps growing and growing

I don't know what is going on with Edwards. Some say his populist message was a big
con job. It's hard to think that. However, no one can support neocon ideals or
the DCCC--which is directly connected to politicians who are saturated in corporate
corruption.

Maybe John Edwards isn't who we thought he was.

[Truth2Tell]

93. I'm not entirely ready to say Edwards

isn't who he said he was. I just think he may have acted a bit rashly on this one.

[JI7]

95. raising money for Democratic Congressional Campaigns

[kelligesq]

100. THAT WAS NOT SENT OUT TO EDWARDS' PERSONAL CAMPAIGN MAILING LIST

I and many others I know contributed to John's campaign.

Not one of us has received that letter from the DNCC so they do not have his
campaign mialing list.

Apparently it is going to people who have contributed to the DNCC before or perhaps it is Kerry's old mailing list.

But the 2008 contributors to JRE have not received any such letter.

Make of that what you will.

I assume the democratic committee arm twisted John to say yes you can use my name
After all, he is a democrat, what is he going to say , NO? and be thrown out of the party.

Actually we wish he would leave the party and go Independent.

Meanwhile anyone who would contribute to that letter is contributing to Rahm Emmanuel's centrist and right picks to bring the party further to the right like
the Blue Dogs who voted with the republicans to give immunity to the telcoms.

I personally would not give one cent to the DNCC to sponsor more righties. But then again, I'm an Edwards supporter