I have watched with increasing irritation as the blogosphere castigates John Kerry and Evan Bayh for not donating as much to the DSCC as a small, anonymous blog site would purportedly wish them to.
This diary is likely to incite flames, but you know, sometimes you have to call it what it is. It's a double standard. It is a group of people unfairly leaping on any accusation made against Kerry, who has been doing precisely what they themselves have advocated doing this year.
If we leave Kerry's name out of the equation, what sorts of things have been said about the DSCC here in the past?
Kos on the
DSCC's reaction to Webb's candidacy, Sep. 30:
The DSCC's biggest knock against Webb had been his tepid fundraising.
Kos pitting Dean against other Dems, Sep. 28:
This is an ongoing battle between a handful on insiders who think DC and NY knows best, and that the party should focus on a handful of "battleground" districts in a handful of "battleground" states, and pretty much everyone else in the party. This is not a battle Rahm and Schumer and Pelosi are going to win.
In 4-10 years, future chairs of the DSCC and DCCC are going to praise Dean for his efforts on behalf of a national party. We have great bench talent in places like Oklahoma, Mississippi, Nebraska and pretty much every state traditionally abandoned by the party. When those Senate and House seats open up, and our candidates have a leg up because of the DNC's tireless ground organizing, then Dean will be vindicated.
Until then, it's up to us to get Howard's back against those clubby, elitist DC and NY establishment Dems who think the world revolves around them, that they have all the answers, and that rank and file Dems all over the country should STFU.
Kos on the Lamont campaign, Aug. 4:
Having met and spent some time with Swan, I have to say that he's one of the most colorful people I have ever met in politics. Throw in Bill Hillsman (who the DSCC and DC Democrats hate beyond belief), and Lamont had himself one of the most eclectic and colorful, yet brutally effective campaign team for a Democratic candidate in recent memory.
Kos calls out a pundit who says that money spent on Lamont would have been better spent on Webb. He then asks on Sep. 6,
Or heck, what about the DSCC, which is sitting on $35 million?
Fact is, it was netroots activists who recruited and helped initially (and subsequently) fund Webb. It wasn't TAP or any other traditional media outlet, it wasn't Hillary's donors, it wasn't the DSCC, and it wasn't the establishment (which was seemingly content to give Allen a free reelection ride).
That's just the leading Democratic blogger. I can't even name all the users of dKos who have complained about Beltway Democrats, the DSCC and DCCC, etc., thwarting the people-powered movement by not believing in it. I can't even list all the comments and diaries that call on people to donate directly to the various campaigns rather than the organizations, because that way they'll know what races their money will be used on.
All of a sudden, because this story involves John Kerry (a man whom many here seem to love to hate), all of that is forgotten.
I agree with Jerome Armstrong of MyDD on this, who says that it is "hogwash" and makes the point that
If you still want to call out the '08 wannabees, make it for where the money is most needed-- at the numbered 25-100 House seats, not in the committees.
Amen.
If you donate directly to the campaign, you know where it will be used, unlike general donations to the party. This has been a complaint of the organization by the dKos community, that the DSCC and DCCC didn't allocate enough money to particular races. Kerry works directly with the individual candidates' campaigns, exactly as the dKos community would like. Why attack him for this?
Let's also not forget the fact that Kerry has raised over $11 million for Democratic candidates -- including many challengers for tight races. This is not an "incumbency protection racket" in which he only supports safe incumbents who have zero chance of losing their seats. He's supported the people-powered candidacies of Lamont, Webb, Tester, etc. He's spent campaign money on this advertising, and a lot of it. These fundraising appeals are not cheap.
The website that makes the accusation is completely anonymous. Whoever set it up made a special point of making their registration private, as can be shown by a WHOIS query of the two domains:
WHOIS for heyjohn.org (Emphasis mine):
Admin Name:Registration Private
Admin Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Admin Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
WHOIS for heyjohnkerry.com:
Registrant:
Hey John Kerry
The person or persons responsible for the site put forth their best efforts to hide their identity. Why? If what they say is fair, not swiftboating, and not just a slam on the single Democrat who has done the most to help win back seats this election, why are they hiding who they are?
Oh, maybe it IS swiftboating of a different stripe.
I know that the DailyKos community can examine the facts, consider the source, and arrive at the correct conclusion. I've seen it happen time and time again. That is why bloggers are feared by the Neocon wing of the Republican party, because we do our research, look at the facts, and call out crap when we see it. This is the reality-based community. We're better than that -- better than to gobble up the accusations of a determinedly anonymous attack site, when all the facts point to a different conclusion. All I ask is that you consider the source, consider the facts, and let go of whatever lingering resentment you have about 2004. 2004 is over, and Kerry is a leader in the fight to take back Congress this year. He is on your side. You can be fair about everything else; why not be fair to Kerry and Bayh as well?