Cegelis Supporters Break Clean Campaign Plan
Just four days after Congressional candidate Christine Cegelis posted this blog:It is crucial that this race stay positive. This will be a tough battle, and though it can be difficult to stay on the high road, I think it’s important that we not get sidetracked. We will win this race on our own merits. Focus on the issues and the candidates and not the behind the scenes players.
Cegelis supporter Kenneth Brummel submitted this letter to the Chicago Sun-Times, titled "Say No to the Duckworth 'machine'":
Duckworth, in other words, is a cog in Emanuel's elaborate national machine to be installed in the 6th District....now that the land has been paved, Emanuel desires to steal it from the residents of the 6th District and replace it with a casino whose profits will go to his national organization....The 6th District is not a suburban outpost ready to be colonized by the sleazy political machines of Chicago and D.C.I don't want to get into a back-and-forth in the Sun-Times, but I thought it important to rebut some of the idiotic assertions and hypocrisies in Mr. Brummel's attacks.
1. Off the bat, it's ironic to note that this demand for autonomy for the 6th CD comes from a man who lives on Chicago's south side.
2. Attacks by Cegelis surrogates on Emanuel ring hollow. Cegelis herself actively sought Emanuel's support, and her campaign disclosures indicate she traveled to Washington, D.C. with her staff to rub shoulders with D.C.'s "sleazy political machines".
3. Mr. Brummel conveniently ignores that, while Cong. Emanuel is playing a key role in helping Maj. Tammy Duckworth get her campaign together, Duckworth also has the support of Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin, and Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. Why does Brummel ignore this fact -- because it clearly doesn't fit his framing of the facts.
4. Efforts by Cegelis surrogates to reframe this debate as an Insider v. Outsider debate also ring hollow. A review of Cegelis's campaign disclosures indicates that much of her financial support comes from outside of the 6th District, including "sleazy" Chicago and people across the country. Cegelis relied heavily on her ties to Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean in her 2004 race, and continues to refer to herself as a former member of the "Dean Dozen."
5. Brummel echoes the Cegelis party line by trying to give Cegelis single-handed credit for establishing a Democratic beachhead in DuPage County, an outright lie. First, Cegelis did worse than John Kerry in the 6th CD in 2004, and far, far worse that Barack Obama. If there are any Democratic candidates who deserve the title 'trailblazer" in DuPage, It's SOS Jesse White, who won the county in 2002, and folks like Dan Hynes and Lisa Madigan who continue to impress voters with their fiscal conservatism and highest ethics.
But the real fact is that demographic trends deserve more credit than any one candidate. And, following the Bean victory in the neighboring 8th CD, there's little doubt that Democrats would have taken a hard look at this seat anyway, absent Cegelis, and even if Hyde had stuck around.
So, why are so many Democratic leaders supporting Duckworth and not Cegelis? Much has been made of Cegelis' inability to raise money, so I won't go into it again. But despite her recent olive branch, Cegelis and her supporters have a long history of antagonistic behavior, ingoring the old adage that "Politics is a game of addition, not subtraction."
Exhibit A, this excerpt from an e-mail sent by Cegelis herself to her listserv on August 14, 2005:
Subj: Disturbing news for those going to DCNot very statesmanlike, is it? And another great reason to keep candidates away from the e-mail at 11 p.m. at night.
Date: 8/14/2005 11:22:08 PM Central Standard Time
From: _ccegelis@comcast.net_ (mailto:ccegelis@comcast.net)
Reply-to: _NovemberVictory@topica.com_ (mailto:NovemberVictory@topica.com)
To: _NovemberVictory@topica.com_ (mailto:NovemberVictory@topica.com)
There is a rumor and I will say is just a rumor at this point that the DCCC is polling my district to find if they can put in a self funder and defeat me in the primary. Again not sure if this is true.....Those of you speaking to [DCCC staffer's name redacted] should keep in mind that he would be behind such a scheme. We are putting out feelers to see if any one can verify this and we should know before your trip.
BTW the DCCC will tell you they don't get into primaries but they do and they will lie to about it. I have had several people that worked for them say as a staffer they do get into a primary and then lie about it right to anyone's face. This is after all politics. (emphasis added)
Oh have a nice day!
Christine Cegelis
20 comments:
YDD,
With out commenting on the substance of your assertions..
(since I have no way of arguing with your superior knowledge of inside facts)
...your post, in tone and tenor, reminds me of something...
it's coming to me...
wait...
THAT'S It!! Brummels letter and your post remind me of...
!!! Illinois Republicans !!!
Welcome to the circular firing squad! Come awwwn in! The ammunition is live!
Merry Christmas!
YDD, I agree with much of what you have said. Just a few quick things:
1) While it may seem ironic, but I will tell you that I too was born, raised and educated in Chicago….lived there my whole life until very recently and miss the it dearly….but I absolutely loath the Democratic politicians that run the city.
2) “Clean campaign” pledges (although in this case, it was not even really a pledge but a publicly stated strategy and goal) are tough, and I think candidates should avoid them – for exactly this reason. Cegelis, or any other candidate, cannot control every one of their supporters. Is it possible that she and her campaign staff knew about/encourage/maybe even assisted this guy with this letter? Of course, it’s entirely possible. But isn’t it equally possible that this guy (who, as you pointed out, lives on the south side) may have no connection to the Cegelis campaign and acted completely on his own accord as a citizen exercising his 1st amendment rights? Of course, it is entirely possible.
That being said, I think you rebuttal of the substance and somewhat hypocritical nature of his attacks is spot on.
Well,
Your clearly part of the MSM/DLC/Rahm/Anti-Blog/DINO conspiracy.
Christine4Life Bitches!
Nice try Yellow Dog
1. You or I don't live in the district either but....
2.Who did you expect Cegelis to seek support from? RCCC?
3. Because Emanuel is the Chair of DCCC Obama, Durbin< Quinn are working with the party to try to make this election a vote on the war (A BIG mistake)
4. Cegelis LIVES IN THE DISTRICT everyone else IS an outsider!
5. She came closer then anyone else in 20 years to Hyde. She put in the time and money when NOBODY else even wanted to try. Talk about spin "demographic trends deserve more credit than any one candidate." What the hell does that mean???
Without Cegelis Hyde would have run unopposed! So why would they look at the seat in GOP Dupage even if Hyde didn't retire.
The reason the rest of the Democrats are going with Duckworth is they want a national issue and they think the war will be it.
The problem that Congressman Emanuel seems oblivious to is that a lot of the Democratic voters in the 6th District don't care for old-style politics. They know the democgraphics of the district are moving a few percentage points more Democratic with each election.
I believe there are more than enough Cegelis supporters in the district who would take a pass on Duckworth in the General Election, just to send a message to Emanuel and the Democrats in Washington. They believe Roskam is so conservative (on a number of issues more conservative than Henry Hyde) that they could knock him off with the candidate of their choice in 2008, instead of Emanuel's choice in 2006.
It wouldn't take many of those voters to doom Duckworth's chances in November... perhaps just 15% of the Democratic voting base, perhaps even a bit less.
The voters may have moved out to the suburbs of the 6th District to get away from "politics as usual," but it appears that it has simply caught up with them. Cegelis has apparently learned enough lessions to know she can't be a goody two-shoes and hope to win the primary.
Randall, that line of yours:
===I believe there are more than enough Cegelis supporters in the district who would take a pass on Duckworth in the General Election, just to send a message to Emanuel and the Democrats in Washington. They believe Roskam is so conservative (on a number of issues more conservative than Henry Hyde) that they could knock him off with the candidate of their choice in 2008, instead of Emanuel's choice in 2006.===
Reminds me of when the right wing went with Paul Simon in 1984 over Chuck Percy, figuring Simon was so liberal that he'd be a one-termer. Not comparing Roskam to Simon, but the argument sounds strikingly familiar.
Well, I guess we\'ll see how the DCCC candidate\'s grass-roots supporters behave after they are bused in.
And I hope that you recognize the irony of demanding civility from Cegelis supporters while simultaneously portraying a Ceglis supporter, by name, as idiotic and hypocritical. Here is some free advice from another guy who uses an internet pseudonym: Lobbing insults, from behind a fake name, at a guy who identified himself in a letter-to-the-editor is rather -- how shall I put this? -- unseemly.
Yellow Dog is just bitter that his boyfriend Mike Quigley won't be running for County Board President.
poor yellow dog! having a bad holiday season? feeling extra cantankerous? need a little sour grapes to make you feel better?
i feel for ya, man. after all, the machine certainly knows how to control *their* supporters!
so it might not have occurred to you that reformers and political independents aren't likely to be tightly controlled (and probably don't respond well to the whip). they are a pretty independent bunch, those reformers! to blame christine cegelis for the misguided enthusiasm of her supporters is, well, just so typical of the machine!
a letter *published* four days after christine calls for a clean campaign breaks a pledge? oh, come on! you can't be serious! let's stipulate that brummel's letter was sent to the sun-times via email (not a bad assumption, given the technical prowess of cegelis supporters) -- it still would take at least a day for the newspaper to confirm the sender, and at least another day (probably more) before it was published. and that's under the best of circumstances!
more than likely, brummel's letter and christine's blog post were written around the same time. it's even possible that brummel sent his letter before christine's post, especially if he sent it by post. regardless, it's unreasonable to call brummel's letter a violation of christine's clean debate plan. it's unlikely he was even aware of it.
while i agree that it's unfortunate that brummel's letter was published -- especially when we have evidence of dissatisfaction *within* the district of duckworth being parachuted into the race by rahm and the boys ( cf http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram_2005/848/848_20051219b.ram) -- it seems equally ironic to me that duckworth's support comes mainly from outside the district! i don't know about you, but i think it's for the voters *inside* the district to decide who is the democratic nominee for the 6th congressional district. i'm not afraid of their decision, whatever it might be.
and i'm not so interested in whether attacks on rahm's interference in this (and many other congressional districts) ring hallow -- i tend to care more in whether they ring true. rahm was key to getting duckworth on the ballot, and i would argue that she couldn't have gotten on without his help. tammy duckworth, if she is elected to congress, will have to serve two masters (rahm and hopefully the people of the 6th); christine will only serve the people!
furthermore, i have to question your continued assertions that pat quinn and barak obama are supporting duckworth. i've posed this question to both quinn and obama people (some of whom support and are helping christine), and i can't get anyone to agree with you on this (although maybe i'm just not aware of the wink wink, nod nod that you insiders are!).
as for your continued comparison of cegelis' numbers to kerry's in the district, it's not amazing at all that kerry got more votes in the district than cegelis, for two basic reasons: first, there are single race voters who come out to vote in presidential years and secondly, name recognition is still a key factor in voting. you infer that christine didn't win all the democratic voters out there, but, quite frankly, that contention cannot be proven through solid statistical analysis. i don't think you've run the numbers, because if you had, you would have seen that other variables can significantly explain the difference between kerry and cegelis, not party loyalty. the largest statistically significant explanation for that difference is ballot fatigue.
in my own dealings with the cegelis campaign, they have emphasized the changing nature of the district, more so than their previous electoral percentage. while i don't mind cegelis taking credit for an effective challenge to henry hyde, one that apparently drove him from the race, this is a whole new ballgame. let's compare the number of contributors to the two/three candidates from within the district this time around! what about it?
but mostly, *i* would be ashamed if i were talking trash about a democratic candidate and her supporters. isn't that what you are accusing the cegelis people of? maybe that's just me. yes, i recognize that duckworth will spend a large percentage of her money attacking cegelis, so you won't be the only one. and it's always good to know that the machine is in lockstep because that should focus the minds of those who oppose the illinois political machine (regardless of its party label).
lighten up. you should give cegelis the opportunity to reign in her friends and supporters. you're just a little too impatient here.
but, mostly, mr. grinch, i just want to wish you a merry christmas (or happy hannakuh, whatever the case may be)!
The Cegelis shock troops have the smell of political death about them. Desperation is so unbecoming.
GOP - I've seen enough "grassroots" letters to the editor in my time to recognize this one for what it is, but if Cegelis wants to submit a letter to the editor of the Sun-Times disavowing everything Mr. Brummel said, I'll remove my post and replace it with a big apology -- and send Mr. Brummel a gift certificate for two to the restaurant of his choice in Chicago.
Anon 6:31 - I do expect Cegelis to seek the support of the DCCC, but when she doesn't get it, I don't expect her to bad-mouth their staff and portray the DCCC as The Empire and Rahm Emanuel as Darth Vader.
The fact that Duckworth lives two miles outside the Congressional district is a fair point. But Cegelis didn't think it was wrong of her idol Melissa Bean (a Rahm ally) to live outside the district. I wonder did she think it was wrong for Hillary to run for the Senate in NY? What about JFK? More hypocrisy.
And, since you're not familiar with the demographic trends, truckloads of city folks, young couples, latino families have been moving into the 6th CD over the last few years. That's why Democrats are doing so much better there.
Randall Sherman -- I'll agree with Miller on that one. If Democrats in the 6th CD want Peter Roskam as their Congressman -- they can stay home, that's their choice. Just keep in mind that that election is not and never will be decided by Democrats -- the vast majority of voters in the district are independents, and they will decide the outcome.
So-called Austin Mayor -- Can we drop the "bused in" stuff? How many folks circulating petitions for Cegelis lived out of the district? How many volunteers for Melissa Bean came from Chicago's Lakefront? We should be happy that Democrats across Northeastern Illinois and the country are excited about Duckworth's chances, not attacking her for it. Especially, especially when Cegelis relies on so much grassroots support from outside the district.
And, I didn't call Mr. Brummel an idiot or a hypocrite, I've never met the man. For all I know, he's a really smart guy. But if he wants to have his incendiary opinions published in the Sun-Times, he's got to expect those opinions will be criticized, and that's what I did.
Nor did I demand civility. I'd love a civilized discussion of the issues, but when a candidate's campaign decides to get down in the mud, I'm getting down there with them. I remember several months ago when one of Cegelis's campaign supporters accused Peter O'Malley of trying to make a campaign issue out of the fact that Cegelis is divorced, despite the fact that it was Cegelis's website, not O'Malley, that said she was divorced. All O'Malley said was that he was married with two young kids.
Anon 8:08 -- If I were a lesser person, I'd strike your homophobic comment. But let me say this about Mike Quigley. I'm proud of him for stepping out of the race and backing Claypool. I think he did the right thing. And I'm not alone. Here's what my arch-nemesis the Chicago Tribune had to say:
No public official has worked harder than Cook County Board member Michael Quigley to reform the wasteful disgrace that is county government. So maybe it's no surprise that Quigley withdrew Monday from the Democratic primary race for County Board president. Instead he'll manage the campaign of another reform candidate, Forrest Claypool.
Of course, to folks who don't know Quigley's passion for repairing Cook County, his unselfish act may come as a surprise. We have no shortage of politicians who say they want to accomplish something good. What's remarkable is the public official who decides that the best chance of actually making that happen is to ... step aside.
And here's what the Sun-Times' Mark Brown wrote:
In the final analysis, Quigley said his decision came down to: "Do I want to be seen in the end as a person who hindered all the things I talked about, preached about? ... If this campaign was more than just about one person, then I cannot let my own ego get in the way of what's best for the citizens of Cook County."
"Aside from greed and utter stupidity, ego is the thing that gets people in the most trouble in politics."
Too many candidates stubbornly wait for election night to come to that realization.
It's exactly that kind of class I was hoping Cegelis would exhibit, especially when her fundraising efforts came in so well below the mark. I'm still hopeful, but the only way it's going to happen now is if Cegelis's paid, professional consultants have the guts to look her in the eye and tell her that you don't win General Elections in GOP leaning districts being out fundraised and outspent 10-1, and with zero support from the national party.
Bored Now -- As I told GOP, when Cegelis submits a letter to the Sun-Times disavowing her supporters statements, I'll retract my remarks, but your "intelligent design" theory is a little hinky. Besides, the Cegelis campaign has known about Duckworth's candidacy for well over a month. She's had plenty of time to let her supporters know that these kinds of attacks are out-of-bounds.
But your comments ignore an even more significant point. As the e-mail I posted from Cegelis shows, her volunteers are merely modeling her own behavior. She is supposed to be leading the campaign, she is supposed to set the tone, and instead, she's sending out snipey e-mails. When you teach your volunteers its okay to behave like that, you can't disavow any responsibility for their actions. Cegelis needs to accept responsibility for Brummel's comments.
And I'll not only infer that Cegelis didn't get all of the Democratic votes, I'll state it outright. In fact, several Democratic Committeemen in the district refused to endorse her in the General Election. That's not a picture of a candidate with strong local support to me.
And has for Obama supporting Duckworth, here's what Lynn Sweet says:
The Duckworth campaign...will be boosted by Illinois Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama.
"I'm just solidly in Tammy Duckworth's corner," Durbin said Friday as Obama, standing at his side, nodded in agreement.
Emanuel, Durbin and Obama are national Democratic Party leaders who are expected to use their considerable fund-raising ability to assist Duckworth.
Quinn's support for Duckworth is widely known.
So apparently, you don't have to be an "insider" who's aware of the "wink wink, nod nod" to know that Obama and Quinn are supporting Duckworth. You just have to read the newspaper.
And bored now, I think you meant "ring hollow", which is the antonym of "ring true", so, you should care.
And I'll stop defending Duckworth when Cegelis's campaign stops attacking her.
Season's Greetings to All,
YDD
This whole conversation completely sucks. Everyone hides behind their computer and thinks they are the next James Carville or Carl Rove. I've got news for all of you, Christine Cegelis is an honorable and respectable candidate that is getting the short end of the stick by her own party. It bothers me as a Democrat that our own party is willing to spend millions of dollars to defeat another Democrat. No wonder we are in the minority and we will stay in the minority with leaders like Rahm Emanuel running this party into the ground. The people of the 6th district deserve better and so does Christine.
poor yellow dog! you just can't handle the politics of addition!
christine cegelis no more needs to disavow the actions of her supporters than any other politician out there! it's an absurd request, and -- quite frankly -- a little naive. if tammy duckworth is going to make it in politics, she's going to need a thick skin (wait until she sees what the republicans say). people say mean things in politics and about politicians. oh my!
again, i don't doubt for a minute that this campaign will get dirty (we all know what duckworth will spend her money on), and i would think you would commend christine's efforts to try to keep it clean. but noooooo! it's a race to the gutter, and yellow dog charts the way! (it's predictable that a campaign eager to go negative will look for *anything* to say the other side started it.)
personally, i'm not that concerned about christine's email to her supporters. i would be more concerned if she had *not* tried to circumvent rahm's parachuting in a new candidate. her email shows a political astuteness that we should admire, not condemn. and her grassroots supporters show a determination that should be applauded. but i suspect you've read too many conspiracy stories or something; it shows a great naivete on your part that you read so much into her email -- especially the ridiculous effort to connect the cegelis email with the brummel letter. that's real tin-foil hat material! (again, i understand the need for a campaign going negative to get some justification -- anything will do.)
i'm sorry that christine did not win all the party functionary's votes last time, but that's hardly surprising (to me). i doubt it was the first time that these officials didn't vote democratic, and it probably won't be the last. there are lots of democrats out there who go ballistic when the party nominates people they don't agree with -- party loyalty being such a subjective thing! but you're hanging off the ledge here -- and show a remarkable ignorance of electoral politics. i can safely guess that outside of a couple of very popular members of congress, probably every democratic candidate for congress (including incumbents) had a similar dropoff between the kerry vote and their vote. that's a longtime, nationwide trend, and christine was *well* within the norm. (you'd know this if you ran the numbers. you must be one of those policy drones.)
i obviously missed lynn sweet's column (if you hadn't guessed, illinois politics isn't that interesting to me; i don't tend to read the illinois papers -- except for the sports pages), but i wonder if you aren't reading more into it like you seem to with everything else. i just don't know; we'll see when obama hosts a fundraiser for her or calls his list before the primary. obviously, i like facts as evidence, not all this inferential stuff you use. but at least you have *something* there.
i still don't see it with quinn, though. nothing in your article says that quinn has endorsed duckworth, so i'll take his peep's word for it. we could just ask obama and quinn if they've endorsed duckworth in the primary, and stop all the hinting around. still, i understand why you need to create the appearance of party support for her, given how little support apparently exists for her AT THIS MOMENT inside the district. (the collection of personal endorsements and petition challenges are the key characteristics of machine politics in illinois.)
why else would the machine boys feel the need to trash the cegelis campaign on such spurious charges? i recognize the strategy -- as i've said, i expect this campaign to get real nasty, real quick. you're right on message!
Sorry bored now, bad link there. Here's the news on Quinn's support for Duckworth.
I can understand you don't read newspapers, although for someone who's not interested in Illinois politics, you sure spend alot of time posting about it. Sounds like you won't believe Obama and Quinn are supporting Duckworth until they drop by your house with some egg nog and tell you in person. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
But surely you read blogs? As Rich Miller reported earlier this week, Melissa Bean outperformed John Kerry by 8 points, and in 2002 she did better than Al Gore had posted in 2000. I assure you, there are many in Congress who consistently outperform their Presidential counterparts, in Illinois they include Mark Kirk, Lane Evans, Jerry Costello and Tim Johnson. Oh yeah, and just about every U.S. Senator. And even further down the ballot, there are many, many more. Too many to even start naming.
As for the numbers, there should be an equal drop-off between Democratic and GOP voters from President to Congress in a district as affluent as the 6th CD, so although Cegelis should have gotten fewer votes, she should have gotten as high or higher percent of the votes, as Bean did, if she really is a contender. And if she can't ever hope to outperform the Democratic index for the district, how can she ever win? That's right, she can't.
Apparently, you spend about as much time with the numbers as you do with the newspaper.
And if Cegelis wants to stand behind her campaign supporter's remarks, that's fine. I'll continue to stand by my inferences until Cegelis publicly disavows Brummel's remarks. But there is nothing commendable about Cegelis issuing empty statements about running a clean race based on the issues on one hand and encouraging her supporters to spew nasty attacks on the other. It's simply cowardly.
And I'm sure Duckworth can take it -- she's taken much more. But I didn't post the rebuttal for Duckworth -- I don't know Duckworth, don't work or volunteer for Duckworth's campaign or any of the people supporting her, nor am I on the payroll of "the machine." I posted it because I think political debate should be based on facts, and the Cegelis campaign's letter-to-the-editor was way over-the-top and left critical facts out.
At the end of the day, one fact remains: Cegelis cannot beat Peter Roskam. For that, she has no one to blame but herself and her campaign. I applauded both Quigley and Peter O'Malley for dropping out to give another candidate a clear shot, so I'm not being inconsistent when I say Cegelis should step aside -- perhaps run for the legislature and establish a future for herself. If Cegelis honestly believes that America and the people of the 6th CD would be better off with Roskam than Duckworth, than Cegelis should stay the course. But it seems to me she's guilty of the same selfish obsession in this race that she accuses the President of in Iraq.
We should withdraw from a war we can't win, right?
YDD
P.S. I'm sure the Democratic Committeemen, locally elected by Democratic primary voters, will be glad to hear the Cegelis campaign views them as "party functionaries". You forgot the word "vestigial".
the key quote from the quinn article (which i had previously seen) was: "Jasculca said her informal advisers also include Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and 'a few of [Sen. Barack Obama's] people.'" this was one of the reasons why i asked about quinn's support for her (and the reply i related above). but, again, i understand why duckworth's people need to imply that she has all these endorsements (whether or not they actually exist). it's the machine, stupid!
it is interesting, though, that this article casts serious doubt on your belief that obama has endorsed duckworth. win one, lose one, i guess.
and, yes, i think the media should ask quinn and obama whether they are endorsing duckworth in the primary. i'd be most interested in their replies.
as for your focus on mainly non-competitive races, i don't doubt that incumbents perform better than their presidential nominees. i don't look at non-competitive races, so i can't compare those numbers. otoh, in competitive congressional races, a three percentage point dropoff is well within the norm. it's funny to me that you would want to compare a competitive race to non-competitive races, but that just demonstrates a lack of seriousness on your part (a cute rhetorical trick, though).
"if she can't ever hope to outperform the Democratic index for the district, how can she ever win? That's right, she can't."
of course, this is speculation on your part -- and you've already demonstrated a lack of insight in this area. an honest person would admit that obama skewed the "democratic index" in illinois, and a serious person would throw out his numbers. without obama in the mix, cegelis is *again* well within the norm for the 6th. where she succeeded was by doing more with much less than conventional wisdom suggests she needs. she outperformed expectations in 2004, given the fact that she didn't run a competitive campaign by accepted standards (money, name-recognition, party loyalty). her showing was a surprise, and we don't know how well she will do in 2006. there aren't a lot of models out there for her, and conventional wisdom was that she should have failed miserably last time around. employing conventional wisdom *again* is very ironic.
your comment "As for the numbers, there should be an equal drop-off between Democratic and GOP voters from President to Congress in a district as affluent as the 6th CD, so although Cegelis should have gotten fewer votes, she should have gotten as high or higher percent of the votes, as Bean did, if she really is a contender. And if she can't ever hope to outperform the Democratic index for the district, how can she ever win? That's right, she can't." may seem intuitive, but i know of no statistical proof for it. i would be most pleased if you could *prove* this, not merely infer it!
finally, you are falsely stating that cegelis "stands behind" brummel's comments. a link to her stand would be appreciated. i suspect that you have irrationally inferred this, and constructed the flimsiest of strawman arguments by contending that unless cegelis publicly disavows a comment made by someone outside her district she must stand by it. *i* would be ashamed if i said that (but then, i try to act honorably)! christine has more important things to do; she shouldn't dignify either your demand or brummel's comments. she made her stand by calling for a clean debate. you desperately need to believe otherwise -- and so you will! how convenient.
your faulty reasoning reaches its zenith with your (deliberately false, i suspect) connection of the cegelis campaign to brummel's letter. you'll have to do much better than flimsy concoctions on that one. being a supporter of christine does not make one a spokesperson for her campaign -- whether it is brummel or myself! that you are so eager to paint the cegelis campaign with the irrational exhuberance of her supporters says a lot about your so-called belief that politics is about addition not subtraction! seems awfully hypocritical to me. it'd be interesting to know what you think about republicans painting virtually all democrats as moveon liberals, which is the same as what you are attempting to do.
as for whether cegelis can or cannot beat roskam, all we can do is speculate. roskam and cegelis are both unproven at this level (both failed in their initial bids) and both need to step up to win. i've argued that duckworth can't beat roskam, either, and given sound historical reasons for that thinking -- so by your reasoning, i suppose duckworth should step aside to give christine a clear shot! that's only logical, given your reasoning.
but, to me, it's irrational. both duckworth and cegelis need a hard-fought, tough primary -- cegelis because she can't prove that she can beat roskam otherwise, and duckworth to prepare for a vigorous fight in the general. i say, let the voters decide! i'm not as afraid of their judgment as you appear to be...
i stand corrected about obama; i've word of a duckworth mailing signed by obama.
bored now -
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. You probably think Ralph Nader did the right thing too. I think I'm just too pragmatic for you.
I just hope Christine's supporters will campaign hard for whomever the nominee is.
Happy Holidays,
YDD
One quick correction for Yellow Dog Dem.
The Cegelis email you quote from wasn't sent by her to her supporters - it was posted to a private listserv used by Dems running for office (not incumbents). It was an email to her peers. You'll find that the Cegelis campaign itself has not criticized Duckworth for entering the race and has only indirectly criticized Emanuel for recruiting her (like her "We don't want nobody nobody sent" blog ad).
Sure, she's shared with her volunteers the status on the DCCC support, their endless efforts to recruit someone to run against her, and the campaigns frustration that they couldn't get a clear answer from the DCCC - that doesn't mean the campaign is behind the independent communication of her supporters. And Cegelis doesn't need to denounce the letter to the editor - she's already made her position clear in the blog post you cite. That should be enough, especially when there's no basis for holding her accountable for everything her supporters say.
well, we definitely disagree! i think it's so darn cute that you try to paint me as an ideologue (by inference, of course!), and even more funny/ironic that i'm supposed to be part of the looney left! let's just say i don't subscribe to your brand of pragmatism, which i suppose amounts to maintaining the status quo.
as for ralph nader -- i don't have a position on his running. i think everyone should be allowed to run, although i do not object to reasonable tests for getting on the ballot (like a reasonable amount of signatures). in some places, those tests are unreasonable, but i don't think that's your point.
*i* blame al gore for george bush's election, not ralph nader. he took tennessee for granted and pulled out of the state while it was still in play. had gore won his home state, he would have been elected president. democrats have to understand that, to win the presidency, they have to thread the electoral college needle, and there's no room for error. this will continue to be the case until they have a trained activist base and a real organizational doctrine. you can't blame republicans for the democrats starting at square one every single presidential election cycle -- or for the fact the democrats basically have no institutional memory.
and i blame gore (or his campaign) for not challenging the butterfly ballot 30 days before the election in palm beach county. had he sent in a campaign professional (or lawyer) to approve that ballot instead of a party functionary (there's that word again!), he would be have been elected president.
i blame al gore for challenging only four county's results instead of the entire state's. sure, the law was that you could challenge four counties for free and he would have had to pay for a recount of the entire state, but what was he thinking? the gore people didn't think ahead, and they lost. man, i don't call that pragmatic!
i blame gore for not consulting people from the connie mack-buddy mckay recount. george bush's people talked to everyone associated with that recount (who was willing to talk to them -- at least one person had died), and thus was able to take advantage of not only local knowledge but a legal strategy that had been proven in the system. al gore chose to fly blind, and the results reflected that.
finally, i blame al gore and his campaign for being slow, erratic and indecisive during the recount period. it's almost like they had never run a campaign before! they didn't plan ahead for a close result, even though the polls showed all along that it would be a nail-biter.
so while i note your anti-democratic sentiments, and understand how nader informs them, i don't agree. one of the elements of chicago machine politics that i find most repulsive is its tactic of throwing people off the ballot. it's no wonder that politic tactics in this state tends to be behind the rest of the country.
finally, as for your hope that cegelis' supporters will "campaign hard" for duckworth should she win the primary, i'd imagine that they will do so to the same degree that those democratic functionary's supported christine in 2004. i was asked by a duckworth emissary whether duckworth could expect support from the grassroots in the 6th while she was still district-shopping (the tenth dems thought she was going to run up there!), and i replied that i thought not. but that really depends on duckworth, doesn't it? (the same is true for christine cegelis.)
YDD,
When I said, "We'll see how the DCCC candidate's grass-roots supporters behave after they are bused in" I did not mean to imply that the DCCC candidate's grass-roots supporters lived outside the district. I meant to imply that there were no actual grass-roots supporters.
Sorry about the confusion.
Post a Comment