Those who support Duckworth are corrupt, Republican-lite, out of touch, arrogant, underinformed, uneducated and frankly dupes of insidious campaign strategies. The only authentic candidate in the sixth district race for the Democratic nomination is Christine Cegelis. Everyone must vote for Christine and reject the arrogance of Duckworth.
The statement above and the robocall I got tonight from a one Bridget Dooley, volunteer for the Cegelis campaign, “Tammy Duckworth raised 92% of her money from outside the district, she doesn’t live in the district, I don’t think she intends to live in the district, I don’t know what she stands for” pretty much sums up the Cegelis campaign. I was actualy embarrassed for the campaign. Ms Dooley’s tone came off like some gossiping 8th grader. The script of the call was pretty much Michael from Chicago’s rap for the last month.
And they wonder why Durbin, Obama, and Rahm all wanted to run somebody else. Cegelis’s campaign was taken over by an army of neophytes.
You must be lying, or you must be mischaracterizing the call. And besides, since when is the dissemination of facts tantamount to gossiping. For Duckworth does not reside in the district; she has no intention to move to the district; she never worked in the district; she has no children enrolled in school in the district; she has only been a resident of Illinois for ten years; most of those years were spent in Illinois 14; she worked for a short amount of time in Illinois 10; and she believes her tragic experiences entitles her to choose her voters. In other words, Duckworth is anti-democratic, anti-Illinois, anti-sixth district and anti-American. And one can only wonder why anyone would vote her. Mindless party-line voting, or a desire to be fascist? Probably both, RiverRed.
“the robocall I got tonight from a one Bridget Dooley”
Christine Cegelis has a robot in the 6th District named “Bridget Dooley” volunteering for her? This raises so many questions: Is “Bridget Dooley” a friendly robot like the ones in Star Wars or an unfriendly one like the ones in Attack of the Clones? How many robots are at Christine Cegelis’ command? Will Christine Cegelis unleash a robot army when the polls open tomorrow?
I don’t know if I can wait 6 1/2 hours to find out!
But setting aside R2-Bridget Dooley’s “tone”, what exactly is questionable about her call? The Duckworth Campaign did raise 92% of its cash from outside the 6th District. She does, and always has, lived outside the district. And her positions on the issues have been — how shall I put this — less-than-steadfast. If you want to vote for her anyway, that’s fine. But those are certainly legitimate concerns for the Democratic voters of the 6th District.
And FYI: Outside the pre-packaged campaign, what you’re call “neophytes” we call “the grassroots.” But you’re right about one thing: it is an army.
Now I wonder if that robot will be at the Cegelis victory party?
I applaud So-Called Austin Mayor for being one of the rare levelheaded commenters on this race. As a 6th CD voter who’s voting absentee and therefore is not privy to a lot of the ground and media efforts on the part of campaigns, I find it good to get a rational look at the Cegelis campaign and message.
I used “rational” in that last sentence for a reason though. What I don’t applaud are the comments like those above that call Duckworth supporters “corrupt, Republican-lite, out of touch, arrogant, underinformed, uneducated and frankly dupes of insidious campaign strategies.” This kind of nastiness toward Duckworth supporters (or, frankly, anyone who would consider anyone other than Cegelis) has been pervasive throughout the DailyKos diaries on this race as well, and I think it’s unwarranted and offensive. You can fault the Duckworth campaign for its fundraising techniques and for its at times artificial feel, but to insult voters you’re going to need to raise cash from and turn out come November if Cegelis wins doesn’t seem like a good strategy to me. I like Christine and I like what she stands for, but if some of her supporters are this undisciplined with their tactics in the primary, I fear for her in the general.
This attempt to censor a supporter by tying him to the Cegelis campaign is somewhat ridiculous. I just happen to be a supporter and a political observer; I am in no way tied to the Cegelis campaign. But thank you for telling me that as a citizen I have no right to submit my opinion. Again, anti-democratic. Again, out of touch with district six values.
I am sorry. The use of the word “army” was too polite. Cegelis’s campaign was taken over by a MOB of neophytes.
I am catching on to the logic pattern of Cegelis supporters. Duckworth and her supporters are “undemocratic” and “out of touch” with IL-06 values. We could only be supportive of undemocratic values if we decided to cancel the election today and just appoint Tammy Duckworth as the candidate. But Christene hasn’t won an election since the Democratic primary in 2004. But since Christene has only won the primary in 2004 (and nothing else), she should be entitled to run unoppposed in 2006 to only to have her hat handed to her in Nov 2006.
I am sorry. The use of the word “army” was too polite. Cegelis’s campaign was taken over by a MOB of neophytes.
I am catching on to the logic pattern of Cegelis supporters. Duckworth and her supporters are “undemocratic” and “out of touch” with IL-06 values. We could only be supportive of undemocratic values if we decided to cancel the election today and just appoint Tammy Duckworth as the candidate. But Christene hasn’t won an election since the Democratic primary in 2004. But since Christene has only won the primary in 2004 (and nothing else), she should be entitled to run unoppposed in 2006 to only to have her hat handed to her in Nov 2006.
No one is trying to censor you TrueDemocratRealAuthentic, but look at it this way.
If we think of the typical political science-ish public opinion continuum where 1 equals highly liberal and 7 equals highly conservative, I’m personally about a 2. In my mind, I place Cegelis at 1 and Duckworth at 3, so I’m essentially equidistant from them. Now let’s say that both campaigns are trying to persuade me to vote for them. Both the ones and the threes are giving me important policy positions to consider…the ones are making some great arguments as well about how their candidate is more in touch with the district…but in this case, the ones are also calling the threes (and, over at Kos, even the individuals considering voting with the threes) for example, “corrupt, Republican-lite, out of touch, arrogant, underinformed, uneducated and frankly dupes of insidious campaign strategies.”
How does that strategy motivate me to vote for Cegelis and not, say, for Duckworth out of spite or for Scott if I’m looking for a third option? How does that make me want to work for Cegelis in the future, donate to her campaign, or get excited about her in the fall?
Like I said above, I like Christine and was excited for her in 2004. 2006 has been a tougher sell thanks to the name-calling of some. I can get over the slings and arrows, but I think the Cegelisites would have been better served arguing more for their candidate and less against Duckworth. We’ll see today though.
Tyler-
Please do not assume the comments on a blog are representative of the Cegelis campaign. Please do not assume that all the comments on a blog from Cegelis supporters are actually from Cegelis supporters either. I am aware directly of at least two bloggers who were offered paid blogging positions for the other candidate. This type of disinformation is becoming common unfortunately.
Re: Cegelis, why you should vote for her is because she has deep ties to the district, is active in local politics, has been consistent on her positions and issues from the beginning, and has few ties to those in Washington who have gotten us into the mess we are in currently.
She will be beholden only to those in the district who she will represent. She also has the best chance against Roskam as she will require Roskam to attack her positions as “too liberal” which then makes the race about issues. Duckworth allows him to attack her lack of roots, voting history, or ties generally to the district and contras himself as the hometown local, making the race about outsider vs. insider. Plus Cegelis has the ground forces in place to match Roskam’s and won’t have to build her entire ground operation from scratch.
Those who support Duckworth are corrupt, Republican-lite, out of touch, arrogant, underinformed, uneducated and frankly dupes of insidious campaign strategies. The only authentic candidate in the sixth district race for the Democratic nomination is Christine Cegelis. Everyone must vote for Christine and reject the arrogance of Duckworth.
The statement above and the robocall I got tonight from a one Bridget Dooley, volunteer for the Cegelis campaign, “Tammy Duckworth raised 92% of her money from outside the district, she doesn’t live in the district, I don’t think she intends to live in the district, I don’t know what she stands for” pretty much sums up the Cegelis campaign. I was actualy embarrassed for the campaign. Ms Dooley’s tone came off like some gossiping 8th grader. The script of the call was pretty much Michael from Chicago’s rap for the last month.
And they wonder why Durbin, Obama, and Rahm all wanted to run somebody else. Cegelis’s campaign was taken over by an army of neophytes.
You must be lying, or you must be mischaracterizing the call. And besides, since when is the dissemination of facts tantamount to gossiping. For Duckworth does not reside in the district; she has no intention to move to the district; she never worked in the district; she has no children enrolled in school in the district; she has only been a resident of Illinois for ten years; most of those years were spent in Illinois 14; she worked for a short amount of time in Illinois 10; and she believes her tragic experiences entitles her to choose her voters. In other words, Duckworth is anti-democratic, anti-Illinois, anti-sixth district and anti-American. And one can only wonder why anyone would vote her. Mindless party-line voting, or a desire to be fascist? Probably both, RiverRed.
“the robocall I got tonight from a one Bridget Dooley”
Christine Cegelis has a robot in the 6th District named “Bridget Dooley” volunteering for her? This raises so many questions: Is “Bridget Dooley” a friendly robot like the ones in Star Wars or an unfriendly one like the ones in Attack of the Clones? How many robots are at Christine Cegelis’ command? Will Christine Cegelis unleash a robot army when the polls open tomorrow?
I don’t know if I can wait 6 1/2 hours to find out!
But setting aside R2-Bridget Dooley’s “tone”, what exactly is questionable about her call? The Duckworth Campaign did raise 92% of its cash from outside the 6th District. She does, and always has, lived outside the district. And her positions on the issues have been — how shall I put this — less-than-steadfast. If you want to vote for her anyway, that’s fine. But those are certainly legitimate concerns for the Democratic voters of the 6th District.
And FYI: Outside the pre-packaged campaign, what you’re call “neophytes” we call “the grassroots.” But you’re right about one thing: it is an army.
Now I wonder if that robot will be at the Cegelis victory party?
I applaud So-Called Austin Mayor for being one of the rare levelheaded commenters on this race. As a 6th CD voter who’s voting absentee and therefore is not privy to a lot of the ground and media efforts on the part of campaigns, I find it good to get a rational look at the Cegelis campaign and message.
I used “rational” in that last sentence for a reason though. What I don’t applaud are the comments like those above that call Duckworth supporters “corrupt, Republican-lite, out of touch, arrogant, underinformed, uneducated and frankly dupes of insidious campaign strategies.” This kind of nastiness toward Duckworth supporters (or, frankly, anyone who would consider anyone other than Cegelis) has been pervasive throughout the DailyKos diaries on this race as well, and I think it’s unwarranted and offensive. You can fault the Duckworth campaign for its fundraising techniques and for its at times artificial feel, but to insult voters you’re going to need to raise cash from and turn out come November if Cegelis wins doesn’t seem like a good strategy to me. I like Christine and I like what she stands for, but if some of her supporters are this undisciplined with their tactics in the primary, I fear for her in the general.
This attempt to censor a supporter by tying him to the Cegelis campaign is somewhat ridiculous. I just happen to be a supporter and a political observer; I am in no way tied to the Cegelis campaign. But thank you for telling me that as a citizen I have no right to submit my opinion. Again, anti-democratic. Again, out of touch with district six values.
I am sorry. The use of the word “army” was too polite. Cegelis’s campaign was taken over by a MOB of neophytes.
I am catching on to the logic pattern of Cegelis supporters. Duckworth and her supporters are “undemocratic” and “out of touch” with IL-06 values. We could only be supportive of undemocratic values if we decided to cancel the election today and just appoint Tammy Duckworth as the candidate. But Christene hasn’t won an election since the Democratic primary in 2004. But since Christene has only won the primary in 2004 (and nothing else), she should be entitled to run unoppposed in 2006 to only to have her hat handed to her in Nov 2006.
I am sorry. The use of the word “army” was too polite. Cegelis’s campaign was taken over by a MOB of neophytes.
I am catching on to the logic pattern of Cegelis supporters. Duckworth and her supporters are “undemocratic” and “out of touch” with IL-06 values. We could only be supportive of undemocratic values if we decided to cancel the election today and just appoint Tammy Duckworth as the candidate. But Christene hasn’t won an election since the Democratic primary in 2004. But since Christene has only won the primary in 2004 (and nothing else), she should be entitled to run unoppposed in 2006 to only to have her hat handed to her in Nov 2006.
Gee…why did I think this would turn into a flame war?
No one is trying to censor you TrueDemocratRealAuthentic, but look at it this way.
If we think of the typical political science-ish public opinion continuum where 1 equals highly liberal and 7 equals highly conservative, I’m personally about a 2. In my mind, I place Cegelis at 1 and Duckworth at 3, so I’m essentially equidistant from them. Now let’s say that both campaigns are trying to persuade me to vote for them. Both the ones and the threes are giving me important policy positions to consider…the ones are making some great arguments as well about how their candidate is more in touch with the district…but in this case, the ones are also calling the threes (and, over at Kos, even the individuals considering voting with the threes) for example, “corrupt, Republican-lite, out of touch, arrogant, underinformed, uneducated and frankly dupes of insidious campaign strategies.”
How does that strategy motivate me to vote for Cegelis and not, say, for Duckworth out of spite or for Scott if I’m looking for a third option? How does that make me want to work for Cegelis in the future, donate to her campaign, or get excited about her in the fall?
Like I said above, I like Christine and was excited for her in 2004. 2006 has been a tougher sell thanks to the name-calling of some. I can get over the slings and arrows, but I think the Cegelisites would have been better served arguing more for their candidate and less against Duckworth. We’ll see today though.
Tyler-
Please do not assume the comments on a blog are representative of the Cegelis campaign. Please do not assume that all the comments on a blog from Cegelis supporters are actually from Cegelis supporters either. I am aware directly of at least two bloggers who were offered paid blogging positions for the other candidate. This type of disinformation is becoming common unfortunately.
Re: Cegelis, why you should vote for her is because she has deep ties to the district, is active in local politics, has been consistent on her positions and issues from the beginning, and has few ties to those in Washington who have gotten us into the mess we are in currently.
She will be beholden only to those in the district who she will represent. She also has the best chance against Roskam as she will require Roskam to attack her positions as “too liberal” which then makes the race about issues. Duckworth allows him to attack her lack of roots, voting history, or ties generally to the district and contras himself as the hometown local, making the race about outsider vs. insider. Plus Cegelis has the ground forces in place to match Roskam’s and won’t have to build her entire ground operation from scratch.
Would it be censorship to point out that those who emphasize Tammy Duckworth’s real, funny foreign-sounding given name are being xenophobic?