66 Comments - Babe MacCavoy - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 8:41 am: Re Scott’s comments. This once great Party has really gone into the sewer if being a veteran of any conflict has become a liability. Time to reconsider my affiliation. (Forget becoming a Republican- absent Hagel its a Pary of pompous chicken hawks.) - So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:03 am: First of all, Mr. Scott’s speculation does not, in any way, represent even a substantial minority of Democrats, much less Democrats in the 6th District. I would suggest that he made his self-evidently foolish statement because he is a political novice who hasn’t yet learned that you don’t think out loud — which he was clearly doing — in front of the press. But it does strike me as funny how every time a Dem bungles in the press it is interpreted as a reflection on the Democratic party and all Democrats, e.g. “How can anyone be a Democrat when a Democrat said something stupid,” but the same standard of universality does not seem to be applied to the GOP. Or I might be wrong — but if I am, let’s not make the Democratic party or its membership accountable for my blunder. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:12 am: I think you may have misunderstood my point. Scott was commenting not on his own position, but on what he believed the Democratic primary voters’ position is. He was describing what he thought was the party’s beliefs and reinforced the notion that Democrats are weak on defense. - Randall Sherman - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:39 am: Perhaps Mr. Scott is the one who is out of touch with the facts. Duckworth’s liability is not her military service, but rather the fact that her candidacy is an artificial creation of Rahm Emanuel. - Simply at a loss for words - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:52 am: Well, now, that is unbelievable. Whatever Scott’s thought process was, this sort of comment does feed into the idea that Dems are not only soft on defense, but also that many Dems are anti-military. This is the same sort of charge that made so many in the military leery of CLinton. I haven’t been a Duckworth supporter ’till now, but after that comment, I’ll have to root for her if only to prove to those outside the party that Dems do not, in fact, hate the military. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:53 am: Rich is right. The very idea that this thought could even form within someone’s mind simply verifies voter’s concerns that the Democratic Party is anti-military under any circumstance. Did you ever notice how Democratic presidents get support from both parties during wars, but Republican presidents don’t? If Clinton was leading the War in Iraq, Dick Durbin wouldn’t be insulting US troops. John Kerry refered to Vietnam as “Nixon’s War”, which history clearly shows is incorrect. When Abraham Lincoln was president, Democrats did everything they could to see him lose the Civil War. When McKinley lead us in the Spanish American war, Democrats fought back claiming that McKinley was Imperialistic. 140 years of history clearly demonstrate the fact that the Democratic Party supports war only when a Democratic president leads us into it, but even then if the war becomes too challenging, they are the first to run away. We had great Democratic war presidents. FDR and Truman would be embarrassed by their party today. - Honest Abe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:16 am: Vanilla Man is right, when Cindy Sheehan was in town, she was talking about how we need to go back to the good old days of the Democratic Party when they opposed the Spanish American War. McKinley was impearlistic. I’d like to point your attention to a little archipelago called the Phillipines. And Lincoln woudn’t be embarassed by Bush? - SenorAnon. - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:23 am: Gee vanilla, never let lies get in the way of a good screed, eh? It wouldn’t take you but a second to find a choice cross section of Republicans making statements they would almost all later completely contradict when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo. Republicans were the isolationists who fought to keep us out of WWI and WWII. And suggesting that Cindy Sheehan -whose situation I have empathy for but whose actions I find WAY over the top- speaks for the Democratic Party is tantamount to suggesting Pat Robertson speaks for the GOP. Scott is simply wrong. Period. - paddyrollingstone - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:25 am: Rich - sorry for the length of this one, but Vanilla Man is out of his mind. I googled “Republican comments on Clinton and Kosovo,” and this is what I found: Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” -Governor George W. Bush in 1999 referring to President Clinton’s military action in Kosovo. President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.” -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99 If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.” -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) “You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.” -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99 “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years” -Joe Scarborough (R-FL) “I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost out of cruise missles.” -Senator Inhofe (R-OK) “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) “I don’t know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag” -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 Why didn’t they support our president in a time of war? “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) “The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We’re taking on not just Milosevic. We can’t just say, ‘that little guy, we can whip him.’ We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president.” -Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) “You can support the troops but not the president” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) “My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.” -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) Why did they blame America first? Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) “Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that’s when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started” -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) “Clinton’s bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:31 am: Sounds to me like Scott’s remarks were just taken out of context. While Duckworth has some serious liabilities, I can’t imagine why anyone would see her service in Iraq as one of them. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:39 am: They don’t make Paul Douglas Liberal Democrats anymore. Liberal Democrats trying to drive the ROTC off campus. They’re not telling kids its the partriotic thing to join up… they don’t believe that anymore. Gays like to compare themselves to African Americans and their fight for civil rights. African Americans pounded down the doors to join up in WWII…. Gays want to break “down don’t ask don’t tell” they’d be demanding recruiters on every campus. But there are no more Paul Douglas Liberals anymore. Scott knows his Party. - GB in the 6th - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:44 am: Lindy Scott does not represent the democratic party in DuPage. I don’t beleive he has been an active member like many of the bloggers on this list. In fact neither has Tammy Duckworth. - SenorAnon. - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:50 am: Well, BB, at least you aren’t taking things dramatically out of context. - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:56 am: Liberal Democrats trying to drive the ROTC off campus. They’re not telling kids its the partriotic thing to join up… they don’t believe that anymore. We’re not fighting the same sort of wars anymore. Defending one’s country is patriotic. Being used as cannon fodder in wars of aggression isn’t. - jakester - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:00 am: Bill, you might want to read up on your history. Blacks have never in American history had a problem getting into the military. Neither have gays. The problem then was getting equal treatment in an institution more than willing to use their bodies to win a war, when necessary. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a discriminatory policy that is about domestic political concerns, not about military readiness. It’s homophobic through & through. Otherwise, explain why discharges through DADT have DROPPED by 50% since 2001 - exactly the time when a military readiness argument would call for MORE discharges. The military needs gays & lesbians, they just want gays and lesbians to accept unequal treatment in peacetime. Much like, it seems, you do. As for Lindy: this article and fake issue are pure distractions. Again, an attempt by Duckworth supporters to take the focus away from issues. Yawn. - The PFC - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:11 am: Scott is definetely off his rocker with these comments. Since joining the military I’ve found nothing but support and respect from a great number of liberals. Comments like I disagree with this war, but have great amounts of respect for you to join during it are common. Hell I disagree with the war, and still joined during it. From my perspective I have to disagree with those who say the Democrat party doesn’t support our troops or a strong defense. I’d go on a rant, but instead I think I’ll just head over to Major Duckworth’s site and send her some of my E-3 pay. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:20 am: My Dad always told me the story of New York’s 369th who fought with the French Army in WW I because we had no place for colored troops, Because there was no official combat role at this time for America’s black soldiers, General John J. Pershing responded to France’s request for troops by assigning the 369th (and the 93rd Division’s other regiments) to the French army. The Germans dubbed the unit the “Hellfighters,” because in 191 days of duty at the front they never had any men captured nor ground taken. Almost one-third of the unit died in combat. The French government awarded the entire regiment the Croix de Guerre. Sergeant Henry Johnson was the first African American to win this prestigious award when he singlehandedly saved Private Needham Roberts and fought off a German raiding party. And show me a Gay Activist today talking like W E B DuBois suring World War One, We of the colored race have no ordinary interest in the outcome, that which the German power represents today shall spell death to the aspirations of Negroes and all darker races for equality, freedom, and democracy. Let us not hesitate. Let us, while this war lasts, forget our special grievances and close ranks shoulder to shoulder with our own white fellow citizens and the allied nations that are fighting for democracy (DuBois 1918a:111). - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:24 am: BB, show me some allied nations which are fighting for democracy, because the US under Bush sure doesn’t fit that description. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:25 am: And, the Democratic Voters will tell us how representative Scott is… not anyone here… I thought he was a fringe sort of guy (that’s my bias towards the religiousity on his blog) until I started seeing the signs and the funds he’s raised. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:28 am: Gary Kleppe: Arabs and Kurds die every day alongside our troops. They’re fighting for Democracy. And then look at the opposition in Iran and Syria. - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:40 am: A military occupation isn’t democracy. Democracy would mean Iraqis having the power to rule their own country, which will never happen as long as the occupation is in place. And last I checked, Iran and Syria hadn’t sent their militaries halfway around the world to invade and occupy a nation, so I don’t quite know why you think they’re relevant here. - Bill has something up his what? - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:43 am: Bill, you never fail to unnecessarily bash Democrats with hatchet men whenever you can. Did you get into an accident with Mayor Daley or something? Jeez. Bush is all talk. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:45 am: Iran’s Mullah’s have threatened nuke war and genocide –again– against Jews. Iraq’s elections look like an occupation if your a Baathist or a Baathist supporter, but look very different, very democratic, if your a shia Arab or sunni kurd, or an Iraqi Communist or trade unionist persecuted and slaughtered by the Baath. You can argue an isolationist case if you want… but I’ll stick with these good people. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:50 am: Scott neatly fits Orwell’s cruel pacifist of 1941, Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:54 am: …unnecessarily bash???? I’d vote for Duckworth if I lived in district…unless the Gov primary looks really close….. this comment just another indication of how the party and Lindy’s offensive comments have become so one. A Dem like Duckworth just plain ignored. - Anon - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 1:50 pm: A Dem like Duckworth just plain ignored — get the hint Bill. The fact that you as a Republican would cross over into a Democrat primary and vote for her it telling as to why she’s not been embraced by the local Democrats of the district. When a Dem like Duckworth shows up to Democratic Township meetings regularily, actually campaigns in the district, gets her funding from district residents, then stops trying to just buy votes by stuffing my mailbox, then maybe she won’t be ignored. - SenorAnon. - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 1:51 pm: “A Dem like Duckworth just plain ignored.” You are kidding, right. - SenorAnon. - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 1:57 pm: “trying to just buy votes by stuffing my mailbox” Political mail is used for currency now? Wah wah wah. Who is she? What does she stand for? What are her positions? And how dare she try and tell me who she is, what she stands for and what her positions are with this piece of political mail… - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 2:11 pm: We also call mail, reaching voters. In Congressional races, and especially primaries where TV is cost prohibitive, it’s one of the most cost effective means of reaching voters. You can microtarget it and it’s relatively inexpensive to other media. The simple fact is even in well organized areas, you can’t reach a lot of voters through canvassing or phone banking so you use mail to get to those voters. I have a name for candidates who eschew mail as buying votes. Toast. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 2:12 pm: anon 1:50 I voted a straght Dem Ticket from 1972 through 2000. Bush was the first Republican I’ve ever voted for. anon 1:51 Scott ignores Duckworth in the sense he’s oblivious to any Democrat who could consider military service in peace or war an honorable and proud thing to do. He’s in a fog on it… and my guess is in a sense he’s right… …the party will drive people like Duckworth out because of their sheer ignorance about service. It’s nok JFK’s ask not when your country dan do for you party; ask what you can do for your country kind of party anymore. Scott may be a blockhead but he’s a blockhead representative of much of the party and good reason why I stopped voting for it in 2004. This will be an interesting primary. - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 2:19 pm: BB, Democrats in the district aren’t rejecting Duckworth because of her service. We are rejecting her because she’s an outsider with no connection to the community; because she’s being pushed on us by big-money out-of-district interests; and because she’s been disingenuous about her connection to those interests. Hope this clears it up. - Anon - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 2:20 pm: Rich- Didn’t know if you caught it or not, but as long as you are posting about the 6th, do you intend to mention that Cegelis was endorsed by DFA today or IAM last week? - Anon - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 2:30 pm: ArchPundit- Targeted mail is one thing. 4 mailers in three weeks to what looks like all district Dems is hardly targeted. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 2:48 pm: The full time pros can correct me on the number, but in general you want about 8 contacts with a voter. She’s half way there with many voters. Look, mail is a good thing for grass roots candidates because it is relatively cheap. All three candidates should be doing mailings and fairly large ones if they are running a serious campaign. Depending on how Lindy is doing since the first of the year, all three raised enough for significant mail. If they choose not to use that money there, that’s a tactical choice they’ll have to live with. - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 3:00 pm: I’m no pro, but it would seem to me that when it comes to contacts, quality matters more than quantity. One face-to-face contact where you get to talk with the candidate, or with somebody who knows the candidate well, ought to beat a whole slew of robot-calls and slick mailers. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 3:02 pm: The primary will clear it up Gary. My point is Scott said something dumb but probably true. The activist base is moving way left and into a swamp… they’re leaving more and more traditional Democrats behind them. Hillary moved from Ark to Wash to NY… I didn’t call her a carpet bagger…. Duckworky is moving from one burb to another… c’mon…she’s a hero. Disagree with her politics or say she has no positions, but there is a bigger problem going on with the Dems if her service IS the problem for her among Dems in the primary. I think Scott hit a nail on the head there and it’s tragic for a once great party. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 3:15 pm: ===One face-to-face contact where you get to talk with the candidate, or with somebody who knows the candidate well, ought to beat a whole slew of robot-calls and slick mailers. Even in an incredibly well run Congressional Campaign field operation, there is a limited amount of in person contacts you can make and that’s even harder in areas that aren’t traditionally organized. Making it harder yet, the entire District is suburban so catching people is very difficult given commuting and transportation issues for people with kids. And don’t think quantity doesn’t matter. If you aren’t tuned into politics in an everyday way–as most voters aren’t–you forget who it was who came by or you get conflicting information that might negate such a visit. Multiple contacts with voters isn’t something people pull out of their butt, people have actually gone out and tested what is effective. In person contacts are very limited in how many people they can reach and how many times per voter you can do it. And part of the canvass isn’t to just promote your candidate, it’s to identify your voters for GOTV. That’s essential to make your GOTV effective. “slick mailers” are also known as communication with voters. I fail to understand how why it is being dismissed as a waste–good mail catches people’s attention and tells them about the candidate. Not everyone is that into politics believe it or not–even primary voters. Mail is a great way to reach such voters and it tells them about the candidate and allows the candidate to demonstrate how they share someone’s values. The above isn’t some strategy for only big money campaigns–it’s for a grass roots campaign that is trying to outwork it’s rivals. Mail is essential to such an effort because it’s the best dollar one can spend to reach voters and do it more than once. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 3:18 pm: As a disclaimer–the bit about mail changes in general elections often because the size of the electorate changes significantly. - Gary Kleppe - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 3:20 pm: No, Scott either got quoted out of context, or spoke without thinking about what he was saying. Nobody considers Duckworth’s service record a disadvantage. Many of us are concerned with her current attitude toward the war — she opposes setting a date to end the occupation, and she doesn’t have a problem with the use of depleted uranium which is known to cause birth defects — but that’s hardly the same thing. And personally, I don’t care about Duckworth’s residency. I do care that she’s an outsider in the more abstract sense, someone who has no connection to the community and who is being pushed by interests who lie entirely outside the district. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 3:51 pm: Gary, I do think Scott spoke from his heart. Watch the old film the The Best Years of Our lives where the Vet who lost both his arms (for real, Harold Russell: the actor, was amputee vet) is told he was a sucker by a customer in the drug store and Dana Andrews nearly decks the guy. There is a chunk of Dems out there who think this was a war for oil and a veteran of it either a victim, or a sucker, or an imperial storm trooper. There’s always been this kind of feeling out there. It comes and goes and right now I think it’s taken a firm grip on a big chunk of the party in a way I never saw during Vietnam. Rahm is a regular Dem and appreciates how regular Dems think. I don’t think you get that same appreciation out among Dems in the burbs that are more in the grips of Moveon.org… I think there is a real fight for the party coming on… I won’t wage it… in the long run I don’t see much hope from Rahm. He might pull it off in the 6th though, and he might even knock over Roskam if Duckworth gets it. - Bill is HOT - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 4:34 pm: Both parties have their wackos. The Dems have MoveOn and GOP has the followers of Pat Robertson and his ilk. It’s sad for the voters that both have seemed to seize control of their parties. - Bored in the 8th - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 4:36 pm: Rich: You should have separated these topics, the 6th and 8th. Obviously the 6th attracts more comments, but some of us do care about the 8th, even if it is full of boring millionaire candidates. McSweeney is eager to claim that the Salvi campaign will go negative in the last weeks, even though they’ve both been savaging each other behind the scenes for months. - Anon - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 6:11 pm: Isn’t Duckworth running for a seat from out of district? Even though she may live in a town that is served by 2 different districts, does she even live within the district she is running for? Also, isn’t she a put up candidate for Ruhm Emanual? - Anon II - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 8:24 pm: “We also call mail, reaching voters. In Congressional races, and especially primaries where TV is cost prohibitive… Larry, you miss the point being made upstream by a couple of people. First, you argue cost effectiveness when it is mentioned that Duckworth has sent out 4 mailers in 3 weeks. Sending out a targeted mailer is cost effective. Sending out 4 in three 3 to Dems in district is more telling than cost effective, and has started to annoy people. Sending a simple postcard to district Democrats will set most candidates back $22-23K a pop, not counting design and photography. Duckworth isn’t sending out simple postcards however. She’s sending out glossy 8-panel booklets and full sheet brochures that are full color full bleed and have been done by a high priced agency. That’s not cost effective as much as it’s a media blitz. I’d bet she’s got over $100K in mailing already (I doubt it will be on her next FEC report too). I get lots of mailers from Target, but that doesn’t mean their merchandise is the best quality. It’s a name exposure, not actual contact. Here’s what I don’t understand: This is ok with you? The candidate with the largest advertising budget should represent whoever they can pay to advertise to? Why not just sell the seat to the guy with the deepest pockets or with the most friends with deep pockets that can pay for their media blitz. Seriously? If what you are saying is correct, then the candidate who buys the most media wins according to you because they will have the most “contact” with voters. That’s buying a election in my book as anyone with ties to money can buy ad space. Also, if TV is cost prohibitive, then why Duckworth doing mailers AND a tv spot? Duckworth, according to Rich’s post, has a TV ad as well. This is not about cost effectiveness. Duckworth can have Emanuel call on his well connected donor base with deep pockets to throw $100K at Duckworth’s media campaign in 7 days. Don’t tell me you haven’t seen this letter?! That’s not buying an election? I’d bet her campaign is looking at probably spending $200K or more on a media blitz. How cost effective is it for the Party to spend this amount of resources to knock off another Democrat? If Cegelis is so weak a candidate, or toast as you and Rich prefer, why then is a costly media blitz needed to knock her off? - Anon II - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 8:53 pm: Update: I just checked the mail. Make it 5 mailers in just over 3 weeks for Duckworth. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:20 pm: Can someone scan these Duckworth mailers? Or Cegelis or Scott too for that matter. We miss this stuff out of district. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:31 pm: In fact, I can host if someone can scan all three candidates’ mailers. I’ve been trying to get them. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:02 pm: ===Larry, you miss the point being made upstream by a couple of people. First, you argue cost effectiveness when it is mentioned that Duckworth has sent out 4 mailers in 3 weeks. Sending out a targeted mailer is cost effective. Sending out 4 in three 3 to Dems in district is more telling than cost effective, and has started to annoy people. I’m not missing any point, I’m saying that compared to other media when you have a relatively small primary voter base to reach in a large metropolitan area, mail is the most effective means of getting your message out. No kidding, she’s using mail. What’s the surprise here? What’s offensive-using high quality printers and people? I know there is some religious zeal about this race, but what did you expect her to do? In terms of TV, she’s doing relatively small cable buys targetted on specific channels. That’s not that much. The design of the mailers is probably cheaper than you think–often the primary costs are lower since the agency knows they’ll make it back in the general. If you want to look at the primary race of another original Dean Dozen, look at Smith in MO-03 in 2004. He spent over $130,000 on mail and it fits the description of what you are saying about Tammy’s mail. He probably didn’t do as much simply because the TV and radio market (broadcast) was cheap enough to do some good for him. If you take his broadcast TV money, that would have been three more mailings. Some of them to all Democratic voters, some to smaller subsets of voters. ==and has started to annoy people. It annoys people who are already supporting other candidates, yes. A lot of people get their information from mailers. ==I’d bet she’s got over $100K in mailing already (I doubt it will be on her next FEC report too). I’m sure it will be. Why wouldn’t she put it in there? I’m lost as to why you think she wouldn’t. ==I’d bet her campaign is looking at probably spending $200K or more on a media blitz. How cost effective is it for the Party to spend this amount of resources to knock off another Democrat? Why are primaries bad? One of the good things about primaries is it sorts out good candidates from candidates. This is the same argument establishment types make when they try and clear primaries for their preferred candidate. Why is it okay for you to suggest it’s a bad idea, but horrible when they do? Here’s a news flash–elections cost money even for grassroots campaigns. In fact, all too often campaigns with no money call themselves grassroots to claim the moral high ground when in reality, they can’t or more likely, won’t raise the money. All of this that Duckworth is doing should have been expected. It’s not that over the top for other contested primaries and it’s standard practice. Cegelis had the money to contest with mail and other means–if her fundraising really did pick up maybe she’ll have enough to do some of that, but that was a strategic choice she has to live with. Insurgent candidates have to be more efficient with their money and they can be successful, but they have to know that they are going to generally be outspent and they have to be strategic about using their resources. I assumed Christine is doing significant mail. If she is not, then there is a real problem in the campaign, but my assumption is that she is going to try and use effective mail. Am I wrong? If so, I’ve been far too nice about it. Insurgent candidates never get what establishment candidates do–but many still win by being efficient. Christine raised a fair amount, she just spent a lot already. That’s not Duckworth’s fault. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:39 pm: Targeted state legislative contests spend at least $500K during fall campaigns. If you think a candidate who spends $100K or $200K on Congressional primary mailings is spending too much, you simply don’t know much about campaigns. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:25 pm: To extend Rich’s point–Jeff Smith–running against a Carnahan in Missouri spent over $450,000 as an insurgent candidate in a primary. Carnahan spent a little more, but the expectation was Carnahan would have nearly $1 million. He was simply too friggen lazy to raise it. Jeff lost by 1800 votes–largely from out state areas that Jeff didn’t organize, but the point being when Jeff ran in that race he fully well understood organizing wasn’t enough and raised as much as he could despite being cut off from typical sources of money and getting blocked in an SEIU endorsement despite the Membership’s wishes. Christine isn’t facing the best funded establishment candidate ever. In fact, so far it’s sort of modest. Anything below $500,000 I’d say is less than should be expected for Duckworth. - Oracle at Delphi - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 12:08 am: I just want to say I’m hoping the PFC above is making E-4 pay in short order. The rest of this debate is just knee-jerk partisan crap. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 6:19 am: I found it interesting Oracle… and hope the PFC gets promoted too… I’m just trying to sort out who’s the insurgent in the 6th… it’s that a poly sci term…? to describe the outsider in a campaign? - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 7:21 am: Here’s a news flash–elections cost money even for grassroots campaigns. In fact, all too often campaigns with no money call themselves grassroots to claim the moral high ground when in reality, they can’t or more likely, won’t raise the money. That is, unless you’re William Proxmire. - Gary Kleppe - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 8:22 am: There is a chunk of Dems out there who think this was a war for oil and a veteran of it either a victim, or a sucker, or an imperial storm trooper. Maybe so, but unlike the right wing, we don’t blame victims for being victims. Point me towards one person in the district who’s mentioned Duckworth’s veteran status as a reason why he or she isn’t voting for Duckworth. Any person will do. If you can’t find such a person, then please recognize that this is just prejudice on your part and you have no real idea how those of us on the left think. Rahm is a regular Dem and appreciates how regular Dems think. No, he’s a sell-out who is deeply out of touch with his own district, not to mention the Sixth. I don’t think you get that same appreciation out among Dems in the burbs that are more in the grips of Moveon.org… MoveOn hasn’t “gripped” anybody. They are a lobbying organization made up of people who already agree with the bulk of what they are working for. As far as I’m aware they haven’t even taken a position on the Cegelis/Scott/Duckworth race. (And to the other poster who equates MoveOn to Pat Robertson, please show me where MoveOn has advocated the murder of elected foreign leaders. I’ll wait.) - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 9:00 am: Larry, I think you’re wasting your time explaining this stuff. They don’t appear to be the listening type. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 9:50 am: Point me towards one person in the district who’s mentioned Duckworth’s veteran status as a reason why he or she isn’t voting for Duckworth. Lindy Scott… I think Duckworth’s service in an immoral war is a reason this moral fellow won’t vote for her. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 9:52 am: …and I use moral here sarcastically… I find Scott the immoral sort.. Orwell’s cruel pacifist. In case anyone had doubts from not wading through all of this preceding stuff. - Gary Kleppe - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 9:55 am: BB, are you seriously suggesting that Scott would vote for Duckworth if she weren’t a veteran? Rather than vote for, oh, say, himself? On what do you base this rather surprising assertion? - Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 11:14 am: Gary, Scott should consider it.. if he runs or not… if Duckworth a Veteran or not. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 11:29 am: Having just interviewed Scott for over an hour the other day and having a good conversation–he doesn’t look down on Tammy’s service. I’ll seek a clarification on what he meant and certainly it was a dumb way to say it, but Lindy isn’t a guy who thinks Tammy is a bad person for serving in the military. I think Rich’s point is good that regardless of what he meant, it plays into the stereotype of Democrats being weak on security. He answers questions differently than most political candidates adn I’m guessing this is one of those cases–bad politics, dumb answer, but not some deep radical agenda. - Gary Kleppe - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 12:23 pm: Nice dodge, Bill. Scott, like any candidate who is serious about running, is going to vote for himself because he wants to get elected. Duckworth’s status as a veteran has nothing to do with it. You can’t show any evidence that Duckworth’s being a veteran is the reason for anyone voting against her, but it seems you are going to cling to your prejudices nevertheless. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 2:23 pm: It’s a prejudice for sure and one based on personal experience from the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. A Military Officer who volunteered is not viewed in those circles very favorably: then or now. Just the opposite, we encouraged desertiion and set up counseling centers to help do just that. I take Scott at his word and agree with him. I think Military Service is not respected favorably by many who will vote for him based on his war stand. If Scott and his supporters at Wheaton started pushing the ROTC program there, maybe I would think differently. But if you think it’s an immoral war, then you must, at best, have very mixed feelings about people who volunteer for it. My wife’s friend’s son is in ROTC at Madison. He gets the outright hostility there. Maybe Wheaton College anti war movement more genteel, but inside I suspect the feeling is the same. - Gary Kleppe - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 2:42 pm: I think the people who’ve volunteered are being taken advantage of. Some have been conned and have no real idea what they’re getting into. Others do it because they need to make a living and there aren’t a lot of other options left. In neither case would I blame the person for it. If I knew someone who was thinking of enlisting for these or other reasons, I’d certainly try to talk him out of it, but I wouldn’t hold it against him if he didn’t listen. You evidently don’t understand the difference between wanting to keep someone from making a mistake, and between hating or disliking someone who does make a mistake. And FYI, the anti-Vietnam war movement was largely started by people who had served over there and had seen for themselves what it was really about. Groups like Veterans for Peace figure prominently in the modern anti-war movement, and nobody in the movement thinks badly of them for being veterans. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 2:54 pm: ==It’s a prejudice for sure and one based on personal experience from the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. A Military Officer who volunteered is not viewed in those circles very favorably: then or now. Just the opposite, we encouraged desertiion and set up counseling centers to help do just that. So because you were an idiot–the people opposing the Iraq war are too? My Dad is far more anti-Iraq than I’ve been and he used to beat up people like you in the 1960s after he got back from Korea. Projection isn’t a valid form of inference in such cases. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 23, 06 @ 5:28 pm: ok, let’s try this then and see what we flush out. - Phil - Saturday, Feb 25, 06 @ 7:44 pm: Salvi kicked McSweeney’s butt. McSweeney seems desperate, in trouble…. Attacking the spouse– sounds like Thacker. Kathy is what the IL GOP needs. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.