Skip to main content

And it's a good one. I'm stealing the post wholesale from Jerome over at MyDD.
After talking with an inside source in the DCCC, here is what they are grappling with today. Remember, this is from their perspective, not the candidate.  Ginny Schrader is the candidate, and the DCCC isn't going to replace her. Early on, she was the candidate they wanted, and backed, but to date, she's had little fundraising success on her own, and has resisted help from the DCCC (not money-wise, but ground-wise & advice-wise). The DCCC is in the midst of acessing her candidacy, again, not in terms of whether she will be the candidate, but in terms of how deep they are going to invest. There are concerns as to whether she is willing to commit to a candidacy that's going to take a lot of money and aggresive campaigning. So, basically, the DCCC is doting their i's and crossing their t's.

What bothers me, and probably you, is that the complaints are all logistic stuff, which have nothing to do with the progressive stand that Ginny Schrader takes on the issues. It's terribly discouraging to find a candidate, in a winnable district no less, that is having a hard time being taken seriously, simply over the issue of money.

I'm sure if you ask the Schrader campaign, you'll hear a similar complaint that Matsunaka and other Dem House candidates have-- not being given any seed money. And as anyone that's every worked in a campaign knows, without that initial step forward, it's hard as hell to get started.

Well, the blogosphere has seeded the Schrader campaign with the clout needed to raise it to the next level. There's no way she can win the 8th without the help of the Party infrastructure. The DCCC might not be as responsive as we demand, but they do work, and as their recent fundraisng success shows, it's getting better.

If things between the DCCC and the Schrader campaign get quickly resolved, we'll see the DCCC get behind her with six-figure backing, feet on the ground, and national recognition.

In terms of seeing the blogosphere raise $20K for Ginny in a day, the DCCC is thrilled. Now they need to make the right move. A blog post by Ginny on the DCCC's Stakeholder would be a good start.

Regardless of whether they end up putting significant resources into the race or not, the least they can do is offer unqualified and enthusiastic support for her candidacy. It really isn't too much to ask.

And while I was over at MyDD, I saw this chilling post about voter purges in Ohio. Talk of Ohio being the "Florida of 2004" may prove prophetic in more ways than one.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:07 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

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


More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  quick (4.00)
    quick! someone call the doctor!

    we're rolling back the republican crime wave

    by zeke L on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:19:12 PM PDT

  •  Voter purges (none)
    I can agree to a certain extent that the voter purges are disturbing.  But to be perfectly honest, the general idea doesn't offend me.  Someone hasn't voted in four years.... Should they just hang on to the registrations forever?  Not altogether a bad idea, but it brings up some questions about accuracy and legitimacy in voting records if you never purged .

    The basics, I suppose, is that these purges are in the books.  There isn't anything inherintly wrong with a state doing the purge - they are following the law.  If these things are a serious problem, we need to appeal to the state legislators and Sec. of State to change the procedure.

    That having been said, there might be something suspicious about the timing.  Perhaps something along the lines of mandating that the purge be done a year before the election (so that at the very least you get people who have voted in the last pres.?), and are required to mail out a notification that 'you have been deleted from our files for failure to vote in the last 4 years.  To re-register...'

    Just my take on it.  I'm as concerned as the next guy about the number of possible Democratic voters being purged (due to correlations b/w vote turnout and income, etc).  I just think this might be one conspiracy theory that we can look at more rationally.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke

    by DreadPirateKing on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:23:29 PM PDT

    •  also (none)
      I might add that at the very least we should expect, and insist, that voter purges occur in ALL counties, so that you don't get at GOP election official targeting certain counties (a la FLA).

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke

      by DreadPirateKing on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:27:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I generally agree (none)
        nothing inherently wrong with a very public, regular, rigidly controlled and consistant "tidying up" of the voter rolls

        but selective counties?  on the whim of the partisan Election Commish.  In the midst of a highly contentious election?

        Oh and 4 years really isn't long enough - should be at least 6 - preferably 8 - and as you said - done a year out.

        But what they're doing now? - it doesn't pass the sniff test.

        Main thing is -
        EVERYONE in Ohio should update their registration and be sure...

        Conservatives think America is a Christian nation... Liberals think America ought to act like one.

        by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:31:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am thinking the same (4.00)
      Many of the purged people may wish to vote this year and they may not know that they have been purged.

      First and foremost, it is our job to be registering people.  When we set out to do so, we should know what the rules are in our given state, city, precinct.  This way, when encountering someone who says they're registered we can ask them when they last voted and re-register them if necessary.

      We want to win, it is our job to do this.

    •  I don't think they should be in the books... (none)
      Why make it harder for people to vote? Every 2 years the talking heads piss and moan about how Americans don't participate--laws like this are proven to contribute to that.

      That said, if they are going to do it, it should be done transparently--i.e. release a full list of names--and publicly--i.e. have a massive campaign to tell people about it, mailings to all those being purged, etc.

      [ Wikipedia: The World's largest free-content encyclopedia!]

      by meelar on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:30:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  effects of legal code on voting (none)
        Check out this  study (pdf), its has some good graphs on what certain registration laws do to voter turnout (specifically youth turnout, but I think it could be generally applicable).  Haven't read the whole report, but it is introduced thusly.

        Young people are more likely to vote if their state allows Election Day registration.

        Three of the top five states for youth voting in 2000 allowed Election Day registration (MN, WI, ME).

        Other state laws that seem to increase youth voting are: early voting at convenient locations and voter registration at state motor vehicle agencies.

        from the study's homepage

        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke

        by DreadPirateKing on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:43:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No surprise here (none)
          but MN Sec of State, Mary Kiffmeyer, has been trying to get rid of same-day registration.  

          I wish same-day reg had been available in New England in 2000.  I moved from MA to RI inside the thirty-day requirement, so wasn't able to vote at all that year.

          There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action. *J.W. von Goethe

          by MAJeff on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 01:05:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you ... (none)
        ...regarding making it harder to vote. It's BS.

        Sometimes, I think people ought to be required to vote. But the libertarian slice of me says, uh-uh.

        Still, it would be nice to have a simple system, such as a Social Security number plus birthdate buried in your fingernail or somewhere - the sort of thing the oligarchs are going to make us do sometime soon anyway - and use that as proof of registration for voting purposes.

        Hooray for girlie men.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:54:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why is purging beneficial at all? (none)
      Because the rolls are too large?  How can that be?  Seriously, I don't see the benefit to purging.  My local board of elections people sit at a table outside the voting booth with a couple of boxes of voter registration cards, and check off names when voters appear.  Am I missing something in thinking that there's very little inconvenience if these people have to look through a few more records to find mine?

      And four years seems like an awfully short time period.  Why force people to re-register if they haven't changed addresses?

    •  The problem is (none)
      that they aren't doing it for some benign purpose; they aren't doing it to make the system more efficient or something like that. They are doing it because they feel it's going to be close; they don't want to take any chances. It's perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it any less cheap.
    •  New York Is Similar (none)
      New York State seems to have a similar provision in its election law (Sections 5-213 and 5-400, et seq.).  From what I can tell, it's actually a fairly standard provision designed mostly to remove registered voters who have since moved and registered elsewhere (same state or different state) or who have died.  Not too many voters take the trouble of notifying their local board of elections that they are now registered in a different county or that dear old Uncle _ is now deceased.  Unless this is being done on a selective basis in such a way that Democrats are being targeted for removal, it's hard to see what all the fuss is about.  It also has the effect of boosting voter turnout percentages, since one of the figures reported (and the only one which is "official") is of registered voters who cast a ballot.
    •  Purging records is fair - IF (none)
      They send the person they wish to purge notice of the proposed action, unless the person reconfirms.

      Just deleting people, not notifying them, and refusing them access to ballot boxes on the day of voting is an act of disenfranchising voters.

      "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

      by SteinL on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 02:18:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gol.... (none)
    I really hope the DCCC gets their act together and help her....Until then... keep donating!

    and if you haven't seen media matters right wing media squares cartoon, it's just hilarious...

  •  what does this comment mean? (4.00)
    Do some deep structural analysis of this explanation.  

    After talking with an inside source in the DCCC, here is what they are grappling with today. Remember, this is from their perspective, not the candidate.  Ginny Schrader is the candidate, and the DCCC isn't going to replace her. Early on, she was the candidate they wanted, and backed, but to date, she's had little fundraising success on her own, and has resisted help from the DCCC (not money-wise, but ground-wise & advice-wise). The DCCC is in the midst of acessing her candidacy, again, not in terms of whether she will be the candidate, but in terms of how deep they are going to invest. There are concerns as to whether she is willing to commit to a candidacy that's going to take a lot of money and aggresive campaigning. So, basically, the DCCC is doting their i's and crossing their t's.

    I hope this does not mean they backed off because she wasn't willing to commit to raising money and devoting herself to doing nothing but getting elected.  I hope it means that before Greenwood left, she thought it was better to have a campaign of ideas than actually trying to win. I hope it means it all changed yesterday with his withdrawal.

    Because we all want her to put herself into overdrive and win.  This seat is no longer a demonstration project and I hope that the DCCC, the blogosphere and Ginny Schrader all come to together to send her to DC to vote for  Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

    •  What does it mean that she resisted (none)
      their help in setting up ground troops? If that's the case, then how do all the people on here who attacked the DCCC for not "supporting" people feel right now, if it turns out that she didn't want much of their help to begin with?

      Some of the other Dems who are rumored to be in contention for this seat are (at least on Politics1 they're rumored):

      County Commissioner Sandy Miller and also former ADA and candidate for Bucks DA who almost won, Terry Houck


      Would either of them be better (or worse, or the same) as Schrader?

      Most people at Politics1's comment area think that Fitzpatrick, Conti or Tomlinson would have a pretty easy win. Despite being a far-right bigot, Tomlinson apparently even got his picture taken with Rendell.

      •  poppycock (4.00)
        If these people wanted to have a shot at the seat, they should have run in the primary.  Thats freakin the way democracy works.  You don't get a do-over because you think you screwed up, or now you think you have a chance.  I am not supporting all the DCCC bashing, really, but I'd be really pissed if they did replace her.  

        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke

        by DreadPirateKing on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:47:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who else is 'in contention' for the seat... (4.00)
        Are you kidding?

        If those other folks wanted to be "in contention" for the seat, they should have gotten off of their asses and run in the primary... like Schrader did -- and won.

        So you're siding with those who believe that the powers-that-be (whether they are in Washington or PA) know better than the voters -- who chose Schrader to run in the general -- who should run for the seat?

        Everytime I read an anti-democratic (small "d") statement like that I wonder just what country I'm in...

        •  No, I'm not kidding. (none)
          When seats open up, things happen. Just look at CO, where Mike Miles ran for 2 years and got no attention. When Campbell decided to retire, Ken Salazar jumped into the race. So many people here said it was an outrage, and holy shit, the PEOPLE would make their voices heard. And now, the "people" show Salazar leading about 50+% in polls, while Miles is running bizarre ads about Son of a Seabiscuit.

          Do you have any comments on the statement that she didn't want DCCC to send her any ground troops (which is what Jerome's post seems to say)? If she was that resistent to their help, then would you object to their finding another candidate who has a better chance of winning and who doesn't resist their help?

          If she is the nominee and loses by like 30% in November, would you be happy that at least she passed the purity test (whatever that is), or would you wonder who else may have been able to do a better job?

          •  Colorado doesn't apply (none)
            The primaries haven't happened yet. The voters will make the ultimate decision.
          •  Are you that ignorant? (3.16)
            Miles was not chosen in a primary, right?

            And, before the primary, the situation changed and other candidates jumped in, right, Jim?

            You can't see the differences in these two situations?  Schrader won the primary.  She was chosen by the people of her district to be their representative in a general election contest.

            What the hell is wrong with you?  (I know I ask that of you frequently, but your continued inanity remains unexplained.)

            •  Could you PLEASE retract the claws? (none)
              First of all, you're the last human being on the planet to be able to call anyone "inane". You don't even seem to know what I've said or when I've said it, based on previous comments you made today, so your moral outrage here is a bit sad (even more than usual).

              Second, there is no primary, but my point in comparing the 2 races is that Miles was another race where people said that all that matters is grassroots, that the "establishment" is evil and despicable, and so forth. And in the end, that really isn't how it worked out. Sometimes there is a limit to grassroots, especially if that grassroots cares more about purity tests than about politics.

              For all your bitching at Petey, you seem to share many of his same reactions when you don't like what someone has to say. It's remarkable.

              •  Arguing with you is like arguing with a child... (3.40)
                You compared this race to Miles/Slazar in Colorado.

                Now you want to claim you meant something else.  That's typical of you.

                Read your original post.

                There was no primary in Colorado when Slazar jumped in.

                It's not analagous in any way, shape or form.

                Again, are you ignorant, or is this some sort of act?

              •  News to me (4.00)
                there is no primary

                What?  Be clear.  In Schrader's case, she won her primary already.  In the dissimilar Colorado Senate race, a primary is looming.

                Miles was another race where people said that all that matters is grassroots, that the "establishment" is evil and despicable, and so forth. And in the end, that really isn't how it worked out.

                How did it work out?  Shit, I missed the primary already?  I guess my work last night on primary voter registration for the Democratic Party was a total waste.  And here I thought we had three weeks left.  Please let me know how it worked out.

                Sometimes there is a limit to grassroots, especially if that grassroots cares more about purity tests than about politics.

                Your "purity tests" talking point is pretty tired.  Just like the Democratic insider institutions who would agree with you.

                •  Well, yes, there was a primary. (none)
                  In PA. Schrader won the primary. I never said otherwise.

                  It's funny that you think Dem institutions would agree with me. Believe me, "Dem institutions" are one of the reasons I stayed away from the party in the 90's. It's just that unlike you, and Bob, I don't think they are the source of all evil, and I would rather wait and see the facts of a candidacy before I blindly support anyone solely because they are not in a Dem institution.

                  And the fact that Miles is running ads about a Seabiscuit Senator should tell you how well your primary is working out.

                  •  waiting for an answer (4.00)
                    Second, there is no primary, but...

                    I couldn't parse your sentence above, is why I asked.

                    I don't think Dem institutions are the source of all evil.  Many of them--including the DCCC--seem to be reasonably clueful.  Others, including the DLC and sometimes the DSCC, really are part of the problem, not the solution.  That's why we're working on institutions to replace them.

                    But while you were voting for another Party in the 90s, I was holding my nose and voting for Bill Clinton, whom I considered the possible death of my Party.  I see now how that was an understatement.

                    I'm still waiting for your elucidation of how the 2004 Colorado primary worked out.  Howsabout I give you a month to prepare your comments?

          •  The only similarity (4.00)
            is that anyone seemingly liberal, who may have tapped into the raw, sometimes unfocused, enthusiasm of activists and grassroots supporters, immediately triggers a post from JamesB3, preaching doom and mentioning his beloved "purity tests."

            So James, clearly if you ran the DCCC, they would be introducing their replacement candidate right now.

            Am I wrong?  If not, how would the admittedly hypothetical scenario of replacing Schrader with a "winner" at this point be ok?  She won the primary, for Pete's sake!

            •  I don't love purity tests. (2.00)
              You're the one who backs Mike Miles, not me.

              I don't know what I'd do in this situation. I do know that I wouldn't viciously attack a situation before I had no idea of the dynamics or of the quality of the candidate. That leads to whiplash and backtracking beyond belief. You can see that now where you have people saying a few hours ago, "FUCK THE DCCC, THOSE FUCKERS WOULDN'T HELP HER, THEY IGNORED HER!!!" and are now saying, "FUCK THE DCCC, THOSE FUCKERS WANTED TO SEND AWFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS IN TO RUIN THINGS FOR HER!!!"

              The situations that you apparently have no problem with aren't as easy in reality. If there was a stronger candidate, someone who didn't put all kinds of conditions on the DCCC, who was available? Sure, I'd choose them. If there isn't, then choose her.

              I don't know very much about the race. Neither do you. The main difference between us seems to be that you see this situation as the Great Satan mauling the victim of the ages. I see a party trying to assess a situation in how to win back a Democratic seat, and being torn to shreds because of one statement they made to a newspaper, or because of some people here who would rather talk about old feuds over Gephardt and Howard Dean than bother to do any research on this race or this district.

              •  fdsa (none)
                I didn't mean you actually loved the "purity tests"--how could you since they don't exist?--rather that they are your favorite talking point.

                I do know that I wouldn't viciously attack a situation before I had no idea of the dynamics or of the quality of the candidate.

                Nor would I.  The DCCC goofed up, and it was minor in the end.  I'd already given Ginny Schrader $80.02 before I heard of this flap.  The research I did to determine if she was worth it was reading her website--where her position statements were refreshingly clear--doing some Googling, and of course some blog info.

                I didn't involve in my calculations a meticulous mathematical model of her chances versus mythical challengers, her "electability."  I usually don't.

                •  I'm happy for you. (none)
                  You make intelligent, informed decisions on your own.

                  If someone came up to you and said, "HEY, THIS GUY OVER ON THE CORNER IS RUNNIN FOR CONGRESS AND THE DCCC WON'T BACK HIM. I HATE THAT EVIL DCCC AND I WANNA MAKE THEM PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!", would you write a check for this man you don't know anything about?

                  Because that was the mob mentality reaction of some people in the threads late last night and this morning. All they knew was that the DCCC may or may not have said something that was or was not 100% supportive, and they went beserk. And now we find out that she may not have even wanted their help, aside from some money, and that she hasn't been able to raise any money on her own. This is not something we heard about people like Christine Cegelis, who have as long or longer odds than Schrader did but still made a name for themselves.

                  •  Hypotheticals (4.00)
                    There was some overreaction to the initial appearance that the DCCC was carving itself an "out" so they wouldn't have to support Schrader.  But I watched several threads here, and even factoring out your ALL CAPS, I didn't see the level of vitriol you describe.  Any shouting from one side was well countered by those preaching caution, is how I saw it.  But maybe I missed some of it.

                    What worries me the most is the consistent description this situation that indicates to my mind the fear many Democrats have of democracy, versus republic.

                    And now we find out that she may not have even wanted their help

                    I take this information with the same large grain of salt I took the initial story about the DCCC dumping her.  Don't believe just because you want to.

                    The berzerking you describe had an overall positive effect: Schrader now has a respectable start on fundraising, the DCCC will support her at least verbally, and the race has some attention.

              •  You talking to me, James? (4.00)
                Hope not, because I've been pretty quiet today, watching the parade of posters blow by (blow hard, something like that). Yeah, I just posted about the hypothetical college students- they're cheap and they work like dogs, but they don't necessarily have more training than the average cocker spaniel either. Don't know what else you're reading, James, but at no time did I say fuck the DCCC, or anybody else for that matter.

                Let me say it more clearly, so that you can understand my opinion. I think that it would have been stupid to offer too many resources to any candidate in what looked like an unwinnable race, interns or otherwise. DCCC could offer them technical assistance (advice is cheap), maybe a couple of kids to help out, maybe even a couple of bucks, but not much more than that without some positive local movement in the race. DCCC, or any other group, is not working with such unlimited resources that they can blow buckets of contributors' cash on unwinnable races. That would be irresponsible, and knowing virtually nothing about DCCC, I'm not about to make slanderous remarks about their current practices.

                If a candidate made political hay from the resources they were able to raise (and those that were offered from outside the area) and made the "unwinnable" race into something more competitive, I think that DCCC or anybody else would be foolish not to revisit that race and throw more assistance into the race. Looks like that's what's happening in this situation, whether it be from their own reasoned thought processes, or a good kick in the ass. Same result either way.

                However, being conservative about resources doesn't mean DCCC shouldn't offer public support to their candidate. I don't know what happened here, and frankly it doesn't really matter too much to me at this point of the blogday. What does matter is that what was firmly a repug district is now a remote pickup possibility, and that there's a candidate ready to go there who at least went through a local democratic primary with some success.  Ginny just got a huge windfall, and I just hope it's not just roadapples coming her way. Quit throwing roadapples, James.

          •  Ginny is the candidate (none)
            She's committed to running, and she has a great shot at winning. What I meant to imply, from the comments that I received, was that she resitsted the DCCC's managing of her campaign.  Maybe she thought she could get better people that were locally? It wouldn't be that difficult.
    •  It's not like she would have gotten first-string (4.00)
      If DCCC did offer local support, and it now appears that they might have, I find it hard to believe it would have been anyone with more experience than a couple of college interns at best. Why would they offer anything better for what looked like an unwinnable race? Frankly, I don't blame Ms. Ginny for turning down that kind of help, since she may well have believed that a principled race was the best she could hope for. Having folks there with no local knowledge would not have been a big help in that case.
  •  a local newspaper article (none)
    Check out the article today in the local "Morning Call" at:,0,7725380.story?coll=all-news-hed

    They speak of the Greenwood departure as a done deal, and their discussion of finances, political leanings in the district and the various political personalities is a useful one.   Schrader, whatever her level of experience is or isn't, comes across as having a realistic grasp of how the election may play itself out.   She clearly would be delighted if the GOP put up a pro-life candidate, exactly what a local GOP functionary insists is long overdue!   Let's just hope that cooler heads do not prevail.

    This could be an interesting race to watch.   The article says they have until Aug 9th to put in a replacement for Greenwood.   Probably why he is quitting now, leaving them 2 1/2 weeks to settle on a replacement.   Again, I do wonder what he is permitted to do with his campaign funds.  Can anyone tells us what the rules are, for someone who was first elected in 1993?

    •  I've got a short diary (none)
      Also, the great Satan suggested in a 1998 American Spectator article that any such contributions, if not made to the party, were limited to the individual cap on contributions.
    •  Ugh (none)
      Ya know, as a libertarian/rockefeller republican statements like this just piss me off...

      "Gail Pedrick, head of the Bucks County Christian Coalition, said the GOP would do well to select a candidate who opposes abortion rights. Pedrick said she would hope the GOP picks Fitzpatrick. DiGirolamo also is opposed to abortion rights. Conti favors abortion rights.

      Greenwood, Pedrick said, ''was a leader of the liberal Republicans. I'd like to see a Republican represent Republicans for the first time.''"

      DiGirolamo is a good moderate otherwise..but Godwilling, its Tomlinson or Conti...because if it is, the moderate wing of the GOP retains this seat easily.

      •  So you're saying you want them to (none)
        pick Tomlinson or Conti? You don't think they could win the seat?
        •  No No (none)
          I'm a fairly liberal/libertarian republican. Tomlinson or Conti would be my picks for the seat. For two reasons, both are fairly moderate (Tomlinson is one of the few senate republicans who supports rendell quite a bit, and was a key supporter of the slots initiative), both aren't big government guys, and neither are fundamentalist. Tomlinson has beaten big names before in his seat, including the very same Peter H. Kostmayer who Greenwood unseated in 1992.

          This area goes Democrat in presidential elections, usually goes republican in gubernatorial elections (eddie was an exception, he's relatively local). And most of the state house/senate seats are republican.

          This district is moderate republican friendly, a conservative or a center left (or even more liberal) democrat (the former especially) would be a great disadvantage.

          Besides, I'd hate to think a conservative Tweed wanna be in Fawkes would get to play kingmaker. Fitz isn't really that conservative, but the idea he'd be fawkes' man disturbs me.

          •  heh (none)
            more than two reasons obviously...

            but you get the idea.

            God help the County GOP if they pick the wrong guy. I'd rather see a democrat take this district than a christian coalition puppet.

          •  Schrader used to be a Republican (none)
            According to her website she switched parties because the GOP went too right-wing. I would think you may like her overall compared to the candidate that fears box turtles that the GOP will undoubedly pick.
          •  Schrader used to be a Republican (none)
            According to her website she switched parties because the GOP went too right-wing. I would think you may like her overall compared to the candidate that fears box turtles that the GOP will undoubtedly pick.
        •  Point of order (4.00)
          James, could you cut it out with the "So you're saying..." construction. Time and again, I've found that your rephrasings of what your interlocutors are saying (a) substantially mischaracterizes the thrust of their comments, (b) generally puts a negative spin on them and (c) causes more simple confusion than anything else.

          Why don't you start by assuming that "what [they]'re saying" is in fact what they said, and if they had some other position they would have made it explicit in the first place?

          "Nothing is built on stone; all is built on sand, but we must build as if the sand were stone." - Jorge Luis Borges

          by adamgreenfield on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 02:03:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm too young to remember, but (none)
        when the Democrats were firmly in control of the houses of Congress, did they act like this? They had a lot of conservative Democrats all over the country, so I wonder how people who were pro-life were treated within the party.
        •  It was much different (none)
          Boll weevils from Texas actually served as Speaker of the House.
        •  I remember it... (none)
          ...we put a lot of no-talents in charge of things and squandered every damn opportunity that came up.  We had both houses and the presidency for a little while and it boiled down to in-fighting and a bunch of Zellouts turncoating on the agenda.  In fact, I would argue that Clinton actually became more affective when the Rethugs took over - he had an enemy to fight instead of trying to manhandle the goofballs in his own party.

          We've been in the wilderness long enough to have learned a few things, purge a lot of the Gutless Wonders and Southern Dixiecrats, and come back with a more unified base.  It'll be different next time.

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

          by CrazyHorse on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 02:21:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Philadelphia Inquirer (none)
    Had the following to say about Schrader when they endorsed her during the primary:

    I like the part about her confounding others expectations of what was possible for her to accomplish.   Let's help her do it again!

    Here is a trivia quiz for the day:  

    Can anyone name the Congresswoman who used to be a single mom on welfare?  

    This is not a trick question at all, but a serious comment on how people can transcend periods of challenge and become eloquent and effective advocates for all Americans, of whatever creed, color, class or economic circumstance.   In my book, that's what we're fighting for.

  •  Sounds Right (none)
    The DCCC's point is actually well taken. It takes an awful lot of commitment to win a close congressional seat these days. NOT just money. It takes enormous energy, drive, ambition, ego, and yes, talent for this sort of thing. Ms. Schrader may be a superlative progressive -- sounds like she is, at any rate -- but if she can't raise money on her own and if the DCCC is so lukewarm about her candidacy, there's got to be a reason. Maybe she's just not willing to make the sacrifice or doesn't have the skill-set to pull it off. We often make the mistake of thinking that politics at this level is "easy." That anyone with something to say about public policy can do it, can become the next Paul Wellstone. Well, Paul Wellstone was completely unique. Unless you're a talent of his level, you just can't come from "nowhere" and win a seat in Congress.

    Now that the table is set for her, she needs to step up big-time. And $20k (or $40k or even 100k) from the blogosphere can't do it for her, no matter what her positions on issues.

    Let's watch. The pros apparently are not hopeful, but sometimes they're wrong.

    •  The pros don't think that Dems can (none)
      win this seat? I've heard that in a few other places as well.

      I think that Democrats should fight for the seat, but not if that is money which is needed in other areas, like Quinn's seat. I think that, as you mentioned, some people believe that if they wish really hard, then any candidate they support will win. And they become outraged when anyone says otherwise.

    •  Maybe the reason she can't raise money on her own (4.00)
      ... is that, until yesterday, she was running against a higly popular incumbent with a $700,000 war chest.

      And maybe, just maybe, people thought their money would be better spent elsewhere.

      Ya' think?

      What came first, the chicken or the egg?

    •  Agree, there's a difference between being a (none)
      person with great values/ideals/ideas and a successful politician.  We have a great pickup spot, and it looks to me like the DCCC was coming over to Ginny and basically saying

      "Hey, you ready to kiss a lot of ass, compromise some principals, talk to a lot of jerks, so that you can't get to the point where you can make a difference?"

      because there is a difference between running and winning.  

      That said, here's to her kicking ass, and me contributing to her campaign even though I made myself a proimise I wouldn't donate anymore until payday.  ah well......

  •  Is there any news of how (none)
    the voter registration efforts in states like Ohio and Minnesota are going? I know I could find them on my own, but people here seem to know more than I do, as they tend to be affiliated with these groups.
  •  ActBlue update: $3346.81, 112 donors! (none)

    We've been getting lots of great questions about how ActBlue works -- here are some links to see the Q&A:

    General info:

    How all this works legally:

    We don't take a cut, and the credit card costs to candidates are much lower when you give through ActBlue:

    Our books are open and audited:

    Thanks very, very much for your questions & suggestions!

  •  Speaking from the Christine Cegelis trenches ... (4.00)
    yes, it is very frustrating to be working for a candidate for whom, to quote above, "the complaints are all logistic stuff, which have nothing to do with the progressive stand that [Cegelis] takes on the issues. It's terribly discouraging to find a candidate, in a winnable district no less, that is having a hard time being taken seriously, simply over the issue of money."

    And I do mean winnable!  Read my post on the new Democracy for Illinois web site for why I think this is true ...

    On the same topic, I was at an IVI-IPO dinner last night, talking about Cegelis to two "been-there-done-that" types, and all they kept telling me is "don't get your hopes up, think of it as positioning for 2006."  Then they said that if we could show that a Democratic candidate could get over 40% of the vote, that would be different, then we would be in the ballgame.  I told them that the Democratic candidate DID get 41% of the vote in 2000, without HALF of the organization and funding and commitment that Christine has.  They looked dumbfounded for a moment, and then went back to telling me we had no chance.

    Sheesh!  Plus, whether you have a chance or not, you have to run to win!  Hope I get a chance to talk to those two guys again after November 2.

    •  Christine Cegelis will win in November. (none)
      It is frustrating when people think that only money matters.  A well run campaign can get a strong message out on a low budget.  Illinois is trendning more and more democratic.  Not only is IL-6 a race we can win if we think outside of the box, it is a race we have to win if we want to take back the house.

      Sorry I missed you at the IVI-IPO dinner, I got off work too late to go.  How was it other than the 2 pessimists?

  •  Grrrrrrrrr (4.00)
    How hard is it for the DCCC to say "We think candidate X is the best thing since sliced toast.  We support candidate X 100% and look forward to their victory in November."  

    WTF is their problem?  My flippin' cats could say that in a press release.

  •  I agree completely that the DCCC ... (4.00)
    ...shouldn't hem and haw on this. At the most cynical level possible, it's simple arithmetic: one more Democratic vote and voice in Congress. Unexpectedly. Possibility of Congress actually switching into Democratic control: increased. D'oh.

    For those of us who like our cynicism tempered, Schrader looks like a pretty all right candidate if the goal is moving ever so slightly to the left of what has morphed into "the center" of American politics during the past two decades.

    Moreover, it seems to me that somebody who has picked up the burden of humiliation usually associated with going head to head with a hefty-polling incumbent deserves not just the normally expected HQ support but EXTRA help when the possibility of her winning the previously unwinnable seat arrives gift-wrapped as it has in this case.

    Hooray for girlie men.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 12:44:31 PM PDT

    •  What hemming and hawing? (none)
      Some reporter asked Greg Speed about a specific rumor.  He didn't know anything about that rumor, so the reporter chose to print it as "no comment". I can't believe how up in arms people are over this.  

      Is there a Kossary term for when the blogsophere whips itself faster and faster into a frenzy over nothing?

  •  That's nice to know (none)
    > Ginny Schrader is the candidate, and the
    > DCCC isn't going to replace her.

    And the legal basis for their doing so would have been what exactly?


  •  Power tripping (none)
    Color my cynical or just ignorant, but when I read this:

    Early on, she was the candidate they wanted, and backed, but to date, she's had little fundraising success on her own, and has resisted help from the DCCC (not money-wise, but ground-wise & advice-wise).

    ...I start thinking "Schrader didn't want to play along with the DCCC game plan," whatever that plan might have been. There is also an implication that the DCCC believes that with funds come strings, namely, that the candidate will not only accept money but also accept direction on how to use it and how to run the campaign.

    I'm not someone with experience in DCCC/candidate relations, but that's just my initial reaction from parsing those words.

    "you may say I'm a dreamer - but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

    by eugene on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 01:00:12 PM PDT

    •  If she doesn't want the help of the DCCC, (none)
      and only wants their money, wouldn't it help if she had actually been able to raise some kind of money on her own? If you're going to say, "give me my money and leave me alone" (not that she said that, shouldn't you be able to prove that you can really win? She's lost 2 or 3 races, and that's about it.

      How is it that only a few hours ago, people were tearing the DCCC apart for not supporting her more fully. Now that they find out that she may not have wanted their help (aside from $$$$$), they're tearing the DCCC apart for wanting to support her more fully?

      They can't win for losing.

    •  One clue might be... (none)
      right here:

      Despite her limited resources, Ginny has already assembled a staff of two full-timers and a host of full-time volunteers, and has been receiving the enthusiastic help of local Dean groups (including one across state lines in New Jersey). I'm not sure if the Philly for Dean people are helping out, but that was one of the best Dean groups in the country. Hopefully they'll lend a hand. Especially since, given the ridiculously expensive Philly media market, her campaign plans on running a heavy ground operation.

      Ask yourself the question, "What would Howard do"?  Running a vanilla campaign according to the DCCC playbook probably wouldn't be it.

  •  435 (4.00)
    What bothers me, and probably you, is that the complaints are all logistic stuff, which have nothing to do with the progressive stand that Ginny Schrader takes on the issues.

    The thing is, is that it takes all the "logistics stuff" to win a goddamned race. You have to prove that you are serious enough about doing it that you will sit down at the damn phone and call the people you have to call to raise the damn money you have to raise. You can be the most ardently progressive, attractive, and worthy candidate there is on paper. That doesn't get you very far if you're not committed enough to take the "logistics" seriously. It's icky. It's uncomfortable and calls for a level of self-confidence and agression that I certainly don't have. But it's how it works.

    There are 435 House seats open every two years. 435. There just isn't any way the DCCC can contribute time, money, energy, ground troops or whatever to all of them. So they've got to find the most competitive races--with the hungriest candidates--they can. Until yesterday, this wasn't one of them.

    liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. (American Heritage Dict.)

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 01:05:39 PM PDT

  •  Terror threat levels - Dates (none)
    Can any here point me to a link showing the dates of the changes to the terror alert system? I want to compare the days the threat level was raised with the presidents approval ratings for my web page


    "The government has issued an orange alert, which once again, means nothing." - Kent Brockman (The Simpsons)

    by free speech zone on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 01:18:08 PM PDT

  •  I talked to someone this AM (4.00)
    who is up on the nuts and bolts of this stuff and is deeply sympathetic to running progressive candidates, here's what he said, in a nutshell:
    • Greenwood timed this deliberately to help the GOP.  
    • It's REALLY hard to get good candidates (those with a proven track record of winning votes and elections) to run against strong incumbants like Greenwood because they have alot to lose, usually their state level seat if running for US Congress.
    • So...Greenwood bailed knowing there are two proven GOP candidates who live in and represent the district in the PA statehouse and that the Dem primary winner is NOT, as tends to happen against strong incumbants, a proven vote winner or fundraiser.
    • Now, we in the blogosphere tend to be "hopeful and optimistic" and don't mind, hell even prefer, giving money to causes that long term political organizers, like my friend,  just don't see as "winners" or even "strongly possible"  hence:  Dean, Morrison, Matsunaka etc. etc.  We bloggers give $$ on principle and we like it that way.  The DCCC doesn't begin to think like that.
    • ALL THAT BEING SAID:  Shrader did not raise alot of money up to this point.  In fact, she raised almost nothing.   That is the single biggest strike against her. For an unknown, without a proven track record of winning votes or representing a district, raising money is the ONLY indicator that professionals have to get a shorthand sense of the strength of the challenger.
    Now, we all can do something about this, and many of us are giving $$.  I for one, think we should go for it, and am glad that this post seems to indicate a peaceful coming together of the DCCC and the blogs.  But that being said, to play devil's advocate: if it were you running for US Congress, and you hadn't represented anyone in the district would have to understand that $$ is the best and only way to make you campaign viable.  Schrader wasn't having much luck on that front at all, and some of the responsibility for that rests with her.

    Maybe now she will.

    2004's the election, 2005's the prize...let'sTCB!

    by kid oakland on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 01:20:48 PM PDT

  •  questionable candidates... (none)
    Without knowing the particulars of the Schrader case, I've managed campaigns, and I've had to deal with a reluctant campaigner who looked great on paper -- very progressive, very bright -- but no drive.  Didn't want to spend time away from the kids, went ahead with a planned vacation, etc.  I asked him why he was running, and he said if he was lucky enough to win, he'd go from there.

    I'm not saying Schrader is anything like that, but it takes an enormous commitment to do this, beyond what newbies think they're getting into when they start.  Let's hope she's willing to put it all out there for a few months.

  •  Why have registration anymore? (3.00)
    Why, in a supposedly technologically sophisticated country, is our voting system saddled with unbelievably archaic rules? The electoral college is the most obvious anachronism that springs readily to mind, but how about voter registration? Why not just have a couple of laptops with database programs at each polling place, and in order to vote you'd need to present picture ID with name, birthdate and address. The ID could be readily scanned, if you wanted to do that.

    All the data could be uploaded to a central database within minutes of the polls closing, and people who vote multiple times could easily be caught and prosecuted. Knowing this in advance would virtually eliminate that problem. As for felons not voting, that's a state by state issue, but wouldn't it make sense to make a federal law in that regard, for consistency's sake? There again, it should be quite easy to crosscheck the databases to see if any felons voted, and prosecute them accordingly if they vote when they shouldn't. Here again, knowing that in advance (you could have a notice up at each polling place where it's an issue) would pretty much eliminate the problem. The number of illegal votes cast under such a system would be miniscule and would assuredly not be decisive.

    So what's the problem? The computers today can easily handle this piddly task, and the whole idea of having to register well in advance (thus keeping probably millions of potential voters from the polls) would be eliminated. Don't we want universal suffrage? Isn't that the whole idea of democracy?

    I'm sure the Republicans would think this a bad idea, since everybody knows that criminals and lazy people vote Democratic. And gays and blacks and drug addicts and socialists and communists and atheists and secular humanists (gasp!) and agnostics and poor people and educated people and compassionate people (at least those savvy enough to know that "compassionate conservatism is BS) and peaceniks. So who votes Republican? Besides the plutocracy and those they've duped with their flag waving and Bible thumping and jingoism, I mean?

    The Prez To email me, remove "nospam" from my email address

    by Prez Lindsay on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 01:49:14 PM PDT

  •  FL in 2000 (none)
    was not the first such case, only the first to come to light.
    There will be many like FL 2000 during the 2004 cycle if the wingnuts have anything to say about it, winning is the goal, how they get their is of no moral or legal concern to them.
  •  Ah, good (none)
    Actual facts rather than pointless, nay, counterproductive outrage.

    See, the DCCC actually does know what it's doing.

  •  RE: Voter purges in OH (none)
    Purges? What stinking purges? It must be "big city" voter purges. My name is still on a list in a precinct I moved out of 12 years ago. This county is purging nothing.
  •  Nice (none)
    Good information for a recovering Nader supporter like myself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site