First, Christine Cegelis and her campaign have handled the addition of another candidate with class. However, some of her supporters need a two-by-four across the head–no not all, not a majority, but some of the comments I’ve been seeing echo this claim by Dick Simpson:
“Emanuel just wants her to run because he can control her and use her in photo opportunities for the party.”
I would suggest that saying a woman helicopter pilot who has come back from amputations and is working on becoming flight certified again is entirely capable of making her own decisions about what she might do. Suggesting she is a tool of someone else is offensive.
There are plenty of legitimate issues such as policy positions or even residency that are reasonable critiques. Suggesting that Tammy Duckworth is a tool of Rahm Emanuel is just claptrap. If there is one thing she has earned is being taken seriously as Tammy Duckworth–just as Lindy Scott and Christine should be taken seriously as Lindy Scott and Christine Cegelis.
Thanks to Rich for pointing out the column again in comments.
I’ve been pretty critical of Duckworth, but I take offense at the 2×4 comment. Her method of entry has legitimately raised some concerns and a lot of passion from Cegelis supporters. And quotes like this don’t help to have people take Tammy Duckworth for Tammy Duckworth:
The idea that Emanuel has orchestrated Duckworth’s campaign is not just held by those in the Cegelis camp. Read any number of articles in the MDM like The Hill or Lynn Sweet’s column to see this very narrative used repeatedly.
I’ll give you that some supporters of Cegelis in the heat of battle have gone too far. But if you think their comments are out of bounds, what do you think Roskam and his backers will do? If you want Tammy Duckworth to be taken seriously for who she is, then her campaign should start leading on the issues rather than her bio, impressive as it is, and her supporters (like you and Rich) should show the same respect to Cegelis and stop denigrating Cegelis as “toast” and her supporters as losers.
Tammy Duckworth has shown courage and a dedication to serving this nation. That is beyond dispute. But it is only one definition of courage and service. Giving up your personal life, ignoring your family, quitting your job, spending your life savings, and running for office because you want to make a difference with absolutely no help from the Party shows an incredible level of commitment to service to one’s country and courage on Cegelis’ part.
You and Rich do her a disservice just as some Cegelis supporters do Duckworth a disservice by failing to acknowledge this.
Everyone keeps saying a divisive primary is bad. I agree. But division works both ways.
If the rumored amount of money being assigned to the Duckworth race by the DCCC is accurate I would have to ask what the DCCC and the corporate and K street types expect from Tammy.
People do not give that much money without strings.
I do not know if one can blame reporters from three different news organs for reporting what they hear from political commentators in DC or from Democrats in the sixth district. Instead of attributing reporters’ statements to the Cegelis campaign, perhaps one should consider the following: the fact that Rahm Emanuel procured the services of Axelrod and other top political advisors for a campaign of a candidate who did not announce her intentions to run until the deadline may underscore a certain amount of cynicism and bad faith on the part of the DCCC. And the DCCC, according to the quote the previous poster cited, is aware of this strategy of exploiting Duckworth’s wounds, which I believe performs a gross disservice to someone who has served and desires to run for office, for it implies that her worth is wholly determined by her injuries and military credentials. In my opinion, Cegelis supporters have welcomed Duckworth to the political theater of Illinois06, and they have in no way been as brutal as I anticipated.
But I am much more interested in the facts, and Peter Sodanovic, with whom I normally disagree, published an article in today’s edition of THE HILL that quotes many local Democrats in the sixth district taking issue with Duckworth’s entry. And some of the people quoted in that article are in no way tied to Cegelis or her online supporters.
But what disturbs me most is this conflation of the criticism some Cegelis supporters level on Duckworth with the criticism Illinois Republicans and the Roskam group have already directed toward the DCCC and Duckworth. There are two elections in Illinois 06: a primary and a general election. Roskam, because he does not have a primary opponent, will cast aspersions upon anyone who may face him in the general election. His political group is staffed by Republican insiders, and Roskam has plenty of campaign experience from his days serving with Hyde and DeLay during the 1980s. Cegelis supporters, on the other hand, are discussing a concern many of us online have about the DCCC, the DLC and the Democratic party in general, which is an issue of integrity and a dedication to the grassroots and the netroots. One form of criticism is the Rovian slime machine, and the other is a criticism that already existed in the Democratic party and that will continue to exist until many us feel the Party represents the interests of those of us who actually elect representatives to serve on our behalf. To conflate these very different forms of criticism is not only coercive, as it suggests that any form of criticism of the DCCC and Duckworth is both unamerican and a hindrance to the Democratic party in general, it is also insulting, as the DCCC has already criticized Cegelis by blaming her for her inability to raise funds from donaters who are connected to the very organization that has been attempting to undermine her. So for anyone to claim that Cegelis supporters have no right to criticize the DCCC or Duckworth on the grounds that Duckworth is a soilder with her own thoughts performs the very action of which they are accusing Cegelis supporters. They conflate the two, just as the Sun Times and the Hill has, which reveals to me that it is not the Cegelis supporters who have reduced Duckworth to Rahm Emanuel’s puppet but Rahm’s supporters and Duckworth herself. Why else would so many different people share the same opinion? This is the question I believe we should entertain.
I overall believe Cegelis supporters have handled Duckworth’s entry with civility. It is Axelrod and other fanatics such as those at MyDD and other webistes, who, I might add, do not even live in the district, who are characterizing Cegelis supporters as an uproarious crowd who are engaging in needless criticism of Duckworth. That, I believe, needs to end, for the Cegelis crowd is focusing on the issues that many in the sixth district share. And if we are going to tell those who are trying to elect a representative that they have no right to articulate their own concerns, then we have to ask ourselves what definition of democracy we uphold. Allow the people of the sixth district to determine what qualities they want in a leader. And perhaps the DCCC and Duckworth should listen, for many are not pleased with this imposition of a pre-packaged candidate from without.
Look, this thing stinks. Why would the DCCC blow a crapload of dough in the primary when they should absolutely be saving that money to aid whomever wins against Roskam?
This is supposed to be an effective use of scarce resources?
Really?
What the hell do I know, I’ve never run a political organization. It just seems to me that even if you didn’t like the two Democrats in the race, you could field your own without melting down the nascent grassroots organization in the field.
But again, I’m not as smart as the political class that keeps, um, winning, all these elections.
Hoo-boy that was a good one.
Hmmm, neither Dick Simpson nor anyone else I’ve seen has called Duckworth a “tool” of Emanuel. Simpson, in fact, is criticizing RAHM in that sentence.
Of course Duckworth can make decisions for herself. Hey, we all can! It doesn’t make Rahm Emanuel any less of a manipulator, nor does it make his machinations and highly unorthodox involvement in Duckworth’s campaign any less distressing.
Duckworth’s service, as impressive as it is, should not be used to shield Rahm Emanuel from fair criticism. He wanted to play a part in this race, and so he shall be a part of this race.
I’m actually really surprised you’re falling for this.
Regardless, I agree that Duckworth makes a fine addition to this race, and welcome the next three months of (hopefully) honest and (hopefully) vigorous debate and campaigning. And go Cegelis!!
How can one be the tool of a tool?
Everything that the Cegelis supporters have said — ditto! Some people just aren’t afraid to put the truth (no matter how far-fetched disbelievers might think it is) in writing.
As far as the questions about the amount of money the DCCC provided Duckworth, only the PR firms know for sure.
===The idea that Emanuel has orchestrated Duckworth’s campaign is not just held by those in the Cegelis camp. Read any number of articles in the MDM like The Hill or Lynn Sweet’s column to see this very narrative used repeatedly.
No one is denying that Emanuel is supporting her. He’s said so. The issue is saying she is being controlled by him.
The problem with the idea that Rahm is somehow pulling all the strings here is that he’s not the only supporter. Durbin appears to be the first contact with her. That Rahm feels like she is a good candidate doesn’t mean he’s created some plastic candidate. She has a strong background in policy and politics. The notion that she isn’t talented in her own right and that she can’t make her own decisions is condescending. Given Rich and I have both interviewed her and were impressed with her abilities means just that.
Rich has gone further than I have in his criticisms of Cegelis, but a campaign that has a 90% burn rate that far out from an election is in trouble. Worse, she hasn’t had much voter contact over that period and her name ID amongst Democratic primary voters is still low. Pointing out problems with a campaign isn’t some sort of bias against the person running, it’s pointing out problems with a campaign. Frankly, I’ve held back a lot because I do respect that she is trying to run a grassroots campaign, but nothing appears to be changing demonstrating improvement.
Question to all paying attention (I obviously don’t qualify).
I’m from the 5th district and for the life of me I can’t remember what my representative has done for our district since 1999… Can anyone help me with that? Is there anything in Emanuel’s resume that says he’s done enough here in the 5th district to be allowed put his nose into another district if he wants to?
I just don’t know if he’s qualified to say, “this is a good candidate, she’s going to do as good job as I’m doing”… I know he’s politically involved and he’s a famous for his partisanship but other than that, what is he doing exactly for our district? What does he feel strongly about? Environment (he promised some money for some Michigan Lake project – what was it and happened to it, btw?)? I know he sponsored some bills and I understand that he’s in the wrong party – but has ONE been enacted? He’s been my representative many years and I still don’t know what he stands for, what he feels strongly about and why is he MY representative… Hence, why is he meddling THERE instead doing something HERE?
These are my thoughts on the issue – straighten me out if I’m wrong, please…
===Hmmm, neither Dick Simpson nor anyone else I’ve seen has called Duckworth a “tool” of Emanuel. Simpson, in fact, is criticizing RAHM in that sentence.
Oh, come on. “Emanuel just wants her to run because he can control her and use her in photo opportunities for the party.” There is no way to read that other than a slam at Duckworth as being a tool of Rahm. If he can control her, she must be being controlled.
===I’m actually really surprised you’re falling for this.
What exactly am I falling for? That Tammy Duckworth is a credible candidate?
===Hmmm, neither Dick Simpson nor anyone else I’ve seen has called Duckworth a “tool” of Emanuel. Simpson, in fact, is criticizing RAHM in that sentence.
Oh, come on. “Emanuel just wants her to run because he can control her and use her in photo opportunities for the party.” There is no way to read that other than a slam at Duckworth as being a tool of Rahm. If he can control her, she must be being controlled.
===I’m actually really surprised you’re falling for this.
What exactly am I falling for? That Tammy Duckworth is a credible candidate?
Larry, she’s spending what she’s taking in. Not the conventional approach, but still keeping her campaign in motion. Without the big dollar supporters this will be the business model for a while. Spend what you earn to set up infrastruture and keep up until the primary.
But again, where is Duckworth’s campaign getting the money to pay a-list publicists, media and mail people? If her goal is 100K by the primary, those types of people don’t come that cheap.
But I’d like to hear from you what you are looking for from Cegelis as far as improvement. She has been undermined by Emanuel, so big donors are mostly out. Where do you want to see improvement?
I’ve seen how many posts in the last few days positive about Duckworth and her issues here, yet how many posts in the last six months positive about Cegelis or highlighting her issues?
===Larry, she’s spending what she’s taking in. Not the conventional approach, but still keeping her campaign in motion. Without the big dollar supporters this will be the business model for a while. Spend what you earn to set up infrastruture and keep up until the primary.
This is the last way you run a primary campaign. Infrastructure at this point should be an office, a manager, maybe a press person and some field people with the canvassing done by volunteers. You don’t need a huge infrastructure–you need to stockpile cash and use as much in kind and donated labor as you can.
It’s canvassing, coffee and free press at this point, not spending lots of money. You then build on that by having the money for near the election to do mail and radio and other expenses.
This is especially true if you are running a grassroots campaign. You make every dollar stretch and don’t spend it on consultants and others to just spend the money. You find ways to make do with less spending. That is how you overcome a financial advantage of someone else.
I’ve seen it done, and I’ve seen it done in a primary where everyone said the cash was cut off from a candidate because of institutional support. You have to cultivate new ways of raising money–and not just money from the net. You won’t match the other candidate, but with good money management you can stretch that money to go further for you.
I did ask for an interview some time ago and sent Patrick an e-mail interview. That might not have worked so well for them, but I recently made sure to contact him again. I did the same for O’Malley at the time and I’m still trying to get a hold of Scott who contacted me while I was swamped.
The larger point I would make though is that if Christine’s organization is as strong as you and others say, it should be able to win. If it isn’t as strong, as I fear, then having another strong candidate is good for the party.
I think it’s time to stop holding back.
If Duckworth came up with the idea of running for Congress on her own, I expect she’d have noticed that there was a Democrat in her district, and then maybe set her sights on something else.
I don’t dislike the woman, but young ambitious outsiders to the political world do not come up with ideas like running in a district they don’t live in, even if the new district happens to be nearby.
I think that sleight of hand, to use a neutral term, is one reason that people think she’s a creation of Rahm, and not just someone who started running for Congress, and then by gosh, Rahm thought she was a good candidate and rallied around her.
I think Duckworth’s comments like this from the Hearld,
I know that when I was lying in my hospital bed, just lying there not even able to roll over in bed and I saw the people actually voting, I thought, wow, my sacrifice was definitely for something.
cause a lot of grief for people who want to overlook the significance of Iraqi Democracy.
The Party is going to have to develope a coherent position on War on terror and Iraq for the future. Pelosi’s comments about it’s a mixed bag of positions on Iraq for Dems are lethal.
Murtha’s lets get out in six months position is just as lethal. I remember that from Vietnam days. If the War wrong, get out now. Otherwise “win it”.
You don’t to ask Americans to stick around for six months and be the last one out. (I worked with one of the last ones out of Vietname ).
Rahm’s recruited a Vet for a swing district. Just looking at her visible sacrifice makes the war the number one issue in the race.
The Democrats are going to need to develop a coherent stand on the war one way or the other and I’m pessimistic about their ability to do it without imploding. The “swift boating” of Duckworth to help Cegelis I’ve seen on some of the blogs does not bode wll for that.
Excuse me, but no one has answered my question about the wisdom of blowing untold wads of cash in a frickin’ primary. It’s a damn waste of resources.
And from my vantage in the Cegelis camp what you described as a successful organization–volunteers doing most of the leg work, et. al–is exactly what’s going on.
I’ll take up the question of “wasting” cash in a primary.
I think we Democrats are a little too afraid of primaries. Remember, Illinois has a very early primary — that means lots of time to kiss and make up before the real work begins in the fall.
On the other hand, a hotly contested primary brings name recognition. It also trains candidates for the general. The money spent is not wasted; there’s some residual value. And don’t forget that on March 22 the headline will be “X wins!” — and that’s the last thing voters will remember from the primary.
Vasyl,
What you say may be the truth in some cases, and I am certainly not afraid of a primary fight. I welcomed Peter O’Malley into the race (despite my many differences with his positions) and I welcomed Lindy Scott into the race. The way they were perceived is vastly different than the way Duckworth’s entrance is being perceived. And it’s no suprise why.
So all things being equal, if a lot of money is to be spent in a primary, I would rather it not be in a top-down push by Chicago political operatives to make sure the ‘right’ candidate wins. If Duckworth raised the mone herself that would be one thing.
To have the DCCC or whomever just pump vast amounts of money into the primary to acheive the ‘right’ outcome just seems incomprehensibly stupid, and a waste of resources.
But hey, what do I know, I don’t have the stellar track record of wins that our national Democratic party can boast of.
Look at the spending reports. I’ve gone through each one and the problem I have with them is that there is a lot of money being spent and very little voter contact. The spending pattern is more like an incumbent with moderate sized political operation.
Christine and Patrick are free to say they are doing things differently, but the lack of voter contact with the amount they’ve spent troubles me. I believe that the 28% name recognition amongst primary voters is directly tied to those choices.
I’m not one to think that a primary is a problem money wise–at least in Illinois. There is a fair amount of time from March to November so the recovery time is quick. In Missouri where there is a short turn around the impact can be quite great.
But ultimately, in an open seat, I don’t think there is a position to tell others not to run. In fact, I think it sharpens the eventual winner. Whomever it is will have to have developed a strong campaign organization to get through the primary itself as long as the debate doesn’t become so tainted in character or ideological attacks that it hurts the eventual nominee. Mostly, the criticisms I’ve seen so far don’t do that. There aren’t many mail pieces for Roskam coming out of the discussion–at least yet.
Let me clarify one thing I said–in NO way do I blame Patrick or the campaign for not getting back to me–the paper interview I sent was some time ago and it was unwieldy to say the least. Christine and Patrick are very open to bloggers and I’m sure I would have had quicker access if I’d asked–life intervened and I was slow to try again. The Duckworth interview fell in my lap.
I’m pretty sure I’ll have a similar interview with Christine relatively soon and it will get similar treatment.
From the information I?ve seen on Duckworth, she has no political background. Her responses regarding her decision-making prove that. Congress has almost nothing to do with decision-making. The interviews have been cotton balls made up to look like softballs. They?ve introduced her to IL-06. She?s a weekend warrior working on a doctorate & working for the Rotary. I still want to know what counties she?s registered as a voter, when she registered, & how many elections (especially Primaries) she?s voted in.
Congress isn’t exactly her idea. It’s Durbins’. He started talking with Duckworth about running ever since 02/2005. She wasn’t thinking of Congress at the 01/2005 State of the Union Address. The statement’s inconsistent with her previous statements:
12/18/2005: “Duckworth, who has degrees in political science and international affairs, says she decided to run after attending the State of the Union address as a guest of Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and testifying before veteran affairs committees on Capitol Hill.”
02/03/2005 (Chicago Daily Herald): “I’m anxious to get back on flight status,” she said. “If that means that I get sent back to Iraq, then I’m ready to do that. I’ll go wherever my superiors send me to.”
12/29/2004 (US Fed News): “Duckworth is determined to remain a Soldier, and hopes that after a long recovery process she will be able to fly again, or at least remain in the Army Guard.”
In campaigning, Cegelis has a lot more experience in politics. Durbin supported her last year, & she was part of the ?Dean Dozen?. It?s a pity that she’ll never see a dime from the DCCC until next Fall — maybe — & that’s just to save face before the Nov. election. The organization can?t provide $1K or $2K to every candidate yet it has enough to jump-start a PR-driven campaign. The DCCC argument for not supporting more than ?targeted? races is based on ?limited? financial resources. This is nothing new. The ?rule? is to walk thru the DCCC doors with $100K already for their support or they don?t acknowledge you ? unless you live in a CD that Coach Denny & Emanuel have agreed won?t be contested (e.g., IL-13 & IL-19). A candidate can have $1M in their war chest, & they still won?t get a 2nd glance. It happens every year to control who the Party incumbents want on the ballot ? who they can control. So far, Emanuel has provided Duckworth with a campaign in a can, free advertising, & a Chicago Hilton fundraiser.
Good thing Cegelis has a lot of support from the higher income levels. Unfortunately, they don’t want Emanuel to know about it. She hasn?t received contributions from them since any donation over $2K requires FEC paperwork. She also has a lot of donors throughout the country (the fundraising almost resembles a presidential campaign) providing small donation amounts because they can be anonymous or they’re all people can afford. Emanuel doesn?t host Chicago Hilton fundraisers for her the way he did for Duckworth. As for the low fundraising numbers for Cegelis, it’s all part of the plan, & a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps the GOP in the Majority
:
1. Emanuel doesn’t support a candidate because millionaire donors don’t contribute literally thousands.
2. Emanuel doesn’t sponsor DC fundraisers with PACs (like the RNCC) so candidate exposure is minimized.
3. Candidates are poor fundraisers as a result of #1 & #2.
4. Candidates don’t deserve the votes as a result of #1, #2, & #3.
This fixation on a money ?burn rate? is nothing more than stale conventional wisdom. Those of us in the IT industry see fiscal responsibility in the Cegelis campaign. It’s indicative of an IT project manager:
1. Time
2. Budget
3. People
4. Success
Plan the work. Work the plan. It allows people to pay their bills timely. Many conventional candidates have no desire to be timely. They do pay the vendors — eventually. Until then, the money is in the campaign treasury making them look good instead of being severely in debt, which is routinely their actual status — in the red. Good instincts would say to support Cegelis & visit her website often!
Cegelis is honorable, responsible. The country needs her in Congress.
Qhat the hell is the DCCC doing sticking their nose in a PRIMARY to begin with? My criticism isn’t of Duckworth for running, it’s Emanuel for taking sides in a primary, which I believe is against DNC rules.
What happens if Cegelis wins? Don’t you think Emanuel will turn his back on her because she doesn’t kiss the a$$ of the well-to-do?
I am TIRED of whore-politics as the DC wing of the Party wants to play it now; we CANNOT beat the GOP at that game no matter how hard we try.
If Emanuel had any decency, he’d resign as DCCC chair. That he doesn’t speaks more about him than about anyone else.
I can’t blame Duckworth; hell, if somebody came in and promised me that I’d have all the $$$ I need to run, I’d take it, too. The villain is Emanuel, and he needs to GO.
Bravo,
LEFT WING CRACKER! You’ve hit the nail on the head. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, it’s what is destroying politics in America.
Oh by the way, do you think that perhaps our host has been paid a bit by the DCCC because it seems to me they are really going all out 4 this newbee wannabee.
Like making statements that Cegelis has no name recognition when she got 44% of the vote in the last General election? Perhaps they meant National name recognition?
Oh and by the bye, does anyone think that Emanuel is working toward a Presidential or VP run anytime soon?
I believe the last poster is right. Here we have bloggers who for whatever reason desire to misconstrue the data and elide certain facts in order to create a narrative that lacks any basis in the empirical world. And someone even claimed that Cegelis supporters are engaging in swiftboating? Please. That is not the case. Cegelis is the one whose experience and credentials are being invalidated by those who perversely venerate someone only because she happens to have been a soilder. Perhaps these writers should meditate on the implications of the militarization of politics. And maybe they should meditate on the all too visible vector of power predicating the dynamics of the race recently created in the Illinois 06 primary. They can rationalize to themselves all they wish, but the facts will remain in their dense, material reality. Cegelis is a qualified candidate; Cegelis has created an elaborate network of volunteers and donors given the constraints in which she has been forced to operate; and Duckworth is a mediocre candidate who into the bargain happens to have millions of dollars funneled in her direction by the DCCC. This is obvious, and to deny it is to practice bad faith. That simple.
So we need to remain focused. We need to stay to the facts, discuss the real issues, remain committed to the district, listen to the constituents, bracket the talking points, and engage in intelligent discussion. By the way, another letter to the editor was published, and the writer is not very excited about Duckworth. Read it here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/letters/cst-edt-vox21a.html
I like how the writer refers to Duckworth as a machine and a casino, for that is exactly what she is.
Again, stick to the facts, listen to the constituents.
What if Cegelis beats Duckworth in the primary?
Will the DCCC be there for Cegelis? If not, why should Cegelis supporters consider themselves part of the Dem “team”?
The DCCC isn’t all there is. “There is another.”
The organization is ready for a major overhaul, & there are people ready for change.
It should be interesting to see just who Jan Schakowsky supports in this match – and how other Chicago House reps are lining up. It’s instructive to note that while sharing Christine’s support for Pelosi/ Murtha anti-war stance, Jan – whose volunteer base includes many active antiwar activists also supportive of Cegelis – just landed DCCC chair Emanuel’s endorsement on Dec. 14th in her run for Vice-chair of the Democratic caucus.
Will there be a quid pro quo?
Absolutely!! With financial support. The line of DCCC credit is only $1M. Those cream-of-the-crop Chicago PR firms running the Duckworth campaign-in-a-can don’t come cheap.
In addition — He & the 2 IL senators asking Cegelis to withdraw. Durbin provided one of his staff to manage the campaign. NO other vet is getting even consideration for anything.
For those just joining the hysteria –> Duckworth was the FIFTH vet Emanuel approached to run against Cegelis. With her on the ballot, Roskam will have a slam-dunk win in Nov. IL-06 will stay GOP. This has nothing to do with taking back Congress. This is all about keeping Cegelis out of Congress & keeping the gerrymandering alive.
Emanuel’s doing everything imaginable to get Cegelis to withdraw. If Cegelis remains on the ballot, she’ll receive no support from anyone supporting Duckworth now. She’ll definitely win in Nov., & Emanuel will make certain she barely lasts 1 term. He’ll also coordinate with the rest of the House Dems so that she’s not allowed to do anything except take up space in a walk-in closet in the basement.
I trust you are all supporting Kerry in 2008? After all – he ran last time and he got 47 percent against Bush (that’s even higher than 44).
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the DailyKos is on record* calling the Democrats in 1994 ?a totally corrupted party.? That is an outrageous and defamatory statement, and Moulitsas should issue a quick retraction and full apology.
A totally corrupted party? That would necessarily include Democrats in the U.S House of Representatives in 1994, such as Nancy Pelosi, Ronald Dellums, Henry Waxman, Jane Harman, Patricia Schroeder, John Lewis, Barney Frank, Joe Kennedy, Edward Markey, John Conyers, and John Murtha, among many others.
It would also include Democratic members of the U.S Senate in 1994, including Barbara Boxer, Bill Bradley, Robert Byrd, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone, among many other senators.
Also included in the Democratic Party in 1994 was a little-known governor in a small northeastern state, Howard Dean. Were they all ?totally corrupted??
Moulitsas inexplicably says they were. Whether it was simply a poor choice of words, a deeply held belief, or a cynical ploy to sell books, he owes all Democrats an explanation and a sincere apology.
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10629288/site/newsweek/
?That is what happened to the Democrats in 1994. We were the corrupt party then. It was not pretty being a Democrat. But it took Democrats 30 years to become a totally corrupted party and it took the GOP only 10 years.?
Cegelis will beat Tammy Duckworth in the primary.
Neal Boortz
2482 Jett Ferry rd
Atlanta,GA
Rush limbaugh
1495 Ocean Blvd
Palm beach,FL