Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This just in… Tristano pleads guilty
Next Post: Tristano plea agreement
Posted in:
Christine Cegelis is starting to look more and more like Jim Oberweis every day.
Christine Cegelis will not endorse Tammy Duckworth, the winner in Illinois’s 6th Congressional District Democratic primary, because she has reservations about Duckworth’s positions on universal healthcare and free trade, a source close to Cegelis’s campaign said.Duckworth, a wounded veteran of the Iraq war, defeated Cegelis by 3 percentage points in last week’s hotly contested primary. Cegelis, a liberal Democrat, won 44 percent of the vote against Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in 2004.
On Saturday, Illinois Democrats held a unity breakfast attended by Duckworth, party officials and Cegelis supporters who vowed to help Duckworth. Cegelis did not attend.
Duckworth had favored universal health insurance but changed her tune, advocating a more incremental approach, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The source asserted that Cegelis believes Duckworth has backed away from her opposition to the Central America Free Trade Agreement that the House and Senate passed last year. Despite that perception, Duckworth won the Illinois AFL-CIO endorsement.
It’s tough to lose. A real stone drag. But we can often tell more about how a person loses than how he or she won. Cegelis is showing us a lot here.
If you run as a Democrat or as a Republican, that means you are a Democrat or a Republican and you are obliged to accept the will of the voters and then do what’s right for your party. If you’re not a party member, run as an independent.
Cegelis thought she owned the right to Henry Hyde’s seat. She found out the hard way that nobody owns anything in politics. It has to be earned. And, so far, she has earned only scorn.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 11:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This just in… Tristano pleads guilty
Next Post: Tristano plea agreement
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Real mature and a great way to further your political future.
If she has reservations about duckworth’s positions on universal healthcare, how does she feel about Bush rubber stamp Roskam’s views?
If we send him to Congress it’s just another vote for incompetent government and more of the same. That means more bills like the medicare part D bill that are little more than thinly veiled giveaways to drug companies (by the way pete, lynn sweet wants to know how you would have voted on that bill, so do 6th district seniors).
Had enough? I sure have.
Comment by Cook Dem Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:07 pm
There’s nothing worse than a failed candidate who won’t get off the stage.
As to Cook Dem’s post..I’ll take Roskam over Rahm’s toadie any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Comment by Jake Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:11 pm
I think it is unfair to compare Cegelis to Oberweis. Unlike Oberweis, Cegelis actually had a chance to win in November. Furthermore, Cegelis got screwed by someone who isn’t even in the district. If I were Cegelis, I would be upset too. Now it looks like Roskam is gonna win….
Comment by Lovie's Leather Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:31 pm
TO be fair to her, she busted her butt to get to that position just to have Rahm and the inner circle dems swoop in at the last minute and push someone who
1. has no campaign experience
2. had no noted desire to run for office prior to being courted
3. is basically being spoon-fed speeches to make her look appealing
4. is only in this position because the dnc formula is to get veterans to run for office
5. doesn’t even live in the district.
The democratic voters have spoken and Cegelis lost. But she ran against Hyde and got 44% 2 years ago without any help. I’d be peeved too.
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:32 pm
The reason she won’t endorse is simple, and is what party activists have been saying since the beginning: she and her staff are amateurs.
Christine: how about Roskam’s views on health care? In sum, he thinks if you can’t afford it, well, that’s just too bad. Would you rather have that view on universal health care or Duckworth’s incremental approach?
Attitudes like Cegelis’ are why we have been in the minority in the U.S. House for the past 12 years. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Comment by Nobody Nobody Sent Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:34 pm
I am continually amazed by the ability of people (especially those involved in politics) to look bad. Really, really, bad. She gains nothing by doing this - she hurts her party, her cause and helps those she wanted to run against. It reminds me of Joe Birkett’s terrible concession speech at which he said something like, “Congratulations, Lisa, you’re a prosecutor now.” It is a good reminder to always maintain your dignity - and go out the way you came in - with class.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:47 pm
Yes, nothing is guaranteed in the political environment.
Speaking from experience, - you have to learn how to fall GRACEFULLY. At this point, Cegelis is just being petty.
Comment by Marta Elena Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 12:50 pm
Rich, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read into your comment that I had an absolute obligation to support Alan Keyes as the Republican Party candidate for U.S. Senate, or leave the Party. I don’t agree.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 1:01 pm
Different situation, Steve. Much different. There wasn’t an election but an appointment. And you weren’t a candidate.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 1:05 pm
Howard Dean gracefully excepted defeat after the primary, and worked hard to get John Kerry elected, why can’t Christine follow his lead and graciously support Duckworth?
Comment by Nobody Sent Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 1:25 pm
From what I can tell, Cegalis thought she was a Democrat but found out the hard way that the national party didn’t consider her one. I can’t imagine she has much incentive to ever run again as a Dem given how she was treated by the party. Why should she be loyal to a party that ran a campaign to make sure she didn’t win? Loyalty is earned.
Comment by Independent Outsider Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 1:34 pm
Wumpus - the last time I checked “44% 2 years ago” is worth zero today to any of us that want to see the Democrats take back the Congress. It’s about the wins, not about the near wins. She lost, she needs to get on board or go join the Green party and stop pretending to be a Democrat.
Comment by Mike's Used Sport's Section Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 1:39 pm
So, what if hypothetically speaking, Forrest Claypool were to endorse his County Board reform ally Tony Peraica against either Stroger or somebody the party bosses would pick to replace Claypool on the ballot….
Would that be an example of being a sore-loser and shameful behavior on behalf of a defeated Democrat or would the Alan Keyes rule apply?
Comment by Establishment Republican Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 2:07 pm
Typo…
I meant somebody the bosses would pick to replace Stroger.
Comment by Establishment Republican Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 2:08 pm
I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about this later over on Illinoize, but I think Rich’s comments pretty well summed it up. Cegelis has failed to accept any responsiblity for the fact that she failed to earn the support of the AFL-CIO, Emily’s List, Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Pat Quinn, Jan Schakowsky, Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC.
Fortunately, her endorsement is pretty worthless at this point. And, that’s two campaign checks I’ll never have to write.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 2:40 pm
I’m wondering whether she voted for Bill Clinton, who was a supporter of free trade and opposed to single-payer universal health care.
Comment by Northwest Side Dem Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 2:51 pm
Now let me start by saying that I didn’t like the way the DCCC handled finding somebody to run agaisnt cegalis. However, Cegalis had zero chance of beating Roskam in the fall, ZERO. The only reason she was able to put anything together was because people rallied around her after being “attacked” from the outside by the DCCC. Both her campaigns were amatuer at best, and the truth is any democrat could have gotten 44% agaisnt Hyde. She needs to grow up and support Duckworth.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 3:01 pm
Anon 3:01 - I thought the DCCC could have handled things better to, but Cegelis lacked the good sense to drop out of the race like Peter O’Malley did when it became evident he was not the candidate for this race this time.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 3:11 pm
Cegelis was screwed over by the national Dems. Everything Wumpus said above is true. Nobody in this district wanted Duckworth to run- only people from Chicago and Springfield. Give Cegelis time and I’m sure some sort of support will be there for Duckworth. This is the ultimate Goliath smashes David situation, and it really hurst to be beaten by Big Money. People dumping on Cegelis now should know that Duckworth has been a no-show at almost all community events in the 6th, preferring to campaign on television. Would any of you people bashing Cegelis choose to be represented by someone who does not live in your district?
Comment by Max Maxwell Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 3:28 pm
I live in the district and I have to agree with Cegelis in this matter. Duckworth does not live in the district, which is ludicrous. Christine felt that the Chicago machine disrespected her and showed no loyalty for her spending 4 years of her life campaigning trying to help her party.
Most of the Democrats I know in Dupage will not vote at all in November.
Comment by Middle Ground Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 3:44 pm
Jake wrote: “I’ll take Roskam over Rahm’s toadie any day of the week and twice on Sunday.”
Under Tom DeLay acolyte Peter Roskam’s version of reality, taking it twice on Sunday … well, that’d be banned (along with everything else the radical right hopes and wishes to ban and outlaw that most Americans take for granted).
Anon 3:01 — if any Democrat could’ve gotten 44% against Hyde then why is no other Dem had done just that?
Comment by NW burbs Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 3:59 pm
I’ll tell you all what…..you give up four years of your life toward one goal, then have it taken from you by some outside political power bosses, then let’s see your state of mind.
Comment by Tim Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 4:10 pm
YDD — looks like Cegelis is following Pat O’Malley’s lead after he lost and failed to support Jim Ryan…let’s compare apples to apples, shall we?
Comment by Tim Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 4:12 pm
“Duckworth does not live in the district, which is ludicrous.”
No, trying to make this the issue is ludicrous. Is Hoffman Estates so geographically diverse that a person living in one part of the village may as well be living on another planet?
It’s a village of 50,000; 75% white; 97% living above the poverty level. That it is split into more than one congressional district lines drawn to protect incumbents and preserve parties is happenstance.
Comment by SenorAnon. Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 4:12 pm
I don’t live in the 6th district, but me and my kids live under a GOP congress that most Republicans can’t even stomach anymore. This race matters to everyone, not just to Cegelis and her pals. I’d like Christine to tell my kids why she is selling out their future. While she’s at it, she can tell every senior who gets ripped off on their medicine, every student who gets their college loan cut and every person counting on stem cells to find a cure for a loved one why she is aiding and abetting Peter Roskam.
Look in the mirror, Christine, and think of why you gave up 3 years of your life. If it was to change America, get behind Tammy. If it was to elect YOU and only YOU, then you never got it, you never will, and you don’t matter anyway.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 4:21 pm
Obviously emotions continue to run high. The political irony is that the party faithful want to see unity after the DCCC started this fight. But politics is a rough profession, and sometimes principled people like Cegelis aren’t always treated very well by their own. When the national party tells you you’re to weak to support, what allegiance do you owe them in return? Especially when the Dem party has just orchastrated your political demise.
Comment by Budget Watcher Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 4:46 pm
…I wonder what Lindy Scott thinks…
Comment by Lovie's Leather Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 5:10 pm
Christine ! Come back Christine! Christine!
What a loser. It’s me or nobody else. Maybe if they promise to carry her in to the events and throw roses ?
Comment by Pete Granata Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 5:30 pm
Anon. At least Melissa Bean was redistricted out of her area. I think it is arrogant for a candidate to try to covince her constituents she is for their needs, but does not have the gumption to move into the district. I realize she is a handicapped war veteran, and I appreciate her service, but why did’nt she run in her own district? Because she is partisan, and Rahm Emanuel told her not to run in a primary against Bean.
Comment by Middle Ground Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 5:39 pm
I dont’ know why, but I have this vision of Cegalis sitting in her dark empty campaign office Shreiking
DAMN IT this was my seat to lose to Roskam,
MY SEAT
She has gone bitter, and unfortunately it is a true show of her character
She’s not a Democrat, A True Democrat concedes, endorses their opponent and moves on
There is nothing to be gained by allowing Roskam to win
The man is a troglodyte, pure and simple
On other campaigns I have worked on
One Campaign Manager’s Trademark Phrase sticks in my head
Are you with me
if not you are against me
Christine, You should learn from that lesson…
Comment by Shocked Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 5:57 pm
She should run on Meeks’s ticket.
Comment by West Side Rider Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 6:30 pm
OK. Say you spend a considerable amount of time and money in politics working toward a goal. Then some greezeball congressman brings in a ringer, a political neophyte who’s only credentials are she is a crippled war veteren. Then he provides her with every available resource to get elected. Wouldn’t you have a bit of a pucker from sour grapes? Of course you would. If you deny it, you are a liar.
YDD. Of course Cegelis didn’t get and “failed to earn the support of the AFL-CIO, Emily’s List, Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Pat Quinn, Jan Schakowsky, Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC.” Duckworth was the friggin’ puppet installed by the boy who spreads the big national money to candidates. Will the persons/groups you listed want to honk off the money man. OF COURSE NOT!
Comment by Papa Legba Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 8:00 pm
Christine Cegelis did earn the right to contest for that seat in Congres. After campaigning the entire year, she had no obligation to drop out of the race when Rahm dug up a spoiler candidate at the very last minute. She was shafted by the Democratic Party, and if she no longer wants to consider herself a member of that party, I completely understand.
I am glad, now, that I never considered myself a member of the Democratic Party. If they wanted my support, they failed to earn it.
Comment by curmudgeon Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 8:04 pm
wow, folks are cruel. check her website folks, where the day after the primary, she thanked her volunteers and wrote:
I spoke with Tammy this morning and wished her luck.
so some unnamed source says she doesnt endorse Tammy. the article goes on to explain the reasoning being that Tammy has stepped away from positions she said she supported during the campaign. positions that helped garner her union support. sorry, but that is exactly what we DFA folks are pissed at the party about.
internally, we dont agree on issue positions and simply want to drag the party leftward. most of us are just pissed about the buyout of our country and our party. we get this continual elitist pandering and a barrage of lies and justifications. Then there is the inability to stand up for what you believe in and unwillingness to call out the other side on their hypocrisy and meaningless slogans.
so maybe that helps to explain why weve gotten all jazzed up and work our asses off for folks who tell our story and refuse to play that game, like Dean and Cegelis. it isnt about them, its about that sense of hope you find in those fish-out-of-water political movies. when somebody hasnt been dulled by the system and thinks we might be able to find a better way. that inspires, and gets us off our asses.
Cegelis doesnt have an army of volunteers to control, where an endorsement carries weight. please try to think of her as just an everyday lady who says and does what she thinks is right, and has some hope that things can get better if enough of us do that together. the fact that someone said Cegelis wouldnt endorse Tammy, and the article had to explain why, mightve been the only way most folks would have ever found out that Tammy changed her position on those issues. thats the sad part, and I guess sad for Tammy too. now we know she doesnt have that authenticity we were hoping would show thru, and could have gotten a lot of us out there working for her. in your world, youre right, folks like Cegelis should just fade out and nevermind about such things.
and in ending, two things. I dont think changing ones position is wrong or should be held against somebody, except when it is done for simply political purposes and there is an obvious lack of integrity shown. Tammy didnt take a lot of stands on issues being somewhat new to it and all, but I thought she had studied international economics beyond undergrad. and lastly, Id bet you that most Cegelis voters will vote for Tammy, and many will be out there going door-to-door. but weve all got busy lives with people that we love, and its hard to convince us to spend our time otherwise, unless you can really make us believe that its all about something deeper this time…
Comment by wjmaggos Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 9:11 pm
Claypool’s not the right comparison, he lost in a primary against an incumbent. Cegelis lost to an incumbent by 7-8%, and then tried to succeed him when he retired. That’s about the margin that Bob Dole lost to Clinton in 1996. So those arguing for Cegelis to abandon the nominee (I haven’t seen her quoted as saying no endorsement) are saying that if Dole had run against George W. Bush in 2000, he would have a right to sit the general election against Gore out because of his long service to the party, and for coming so “close” in a hopeless race.
Comment by An historian Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 9:53 pm
Rich said, “If you run as a Democrat or as a Republican, that means you are a Democrat or a Republican and you are obliged to accept the will of the voters and then do what’s right for your party. If you’re not a party member, run as an independent.”
I don’t remember exactly how things went down, but was this the rule when the LaRouches won the Democratic nominations back in 1986? Were they obligated to line up behind the will of the voters and support candidates with whom they did not agree on significant issues? Or are there times when loyalty in the name of the party must take a back seat to legitimate political/policy differences? Or must principles always bow before party?
And — duh — I’m not saying that the Duckworth campaign is the equivalent of the LaRouchies, so please try to avoid that rhetorical retort. I am merely using that grotesque analogy to ask — if we all agree that the differences between candidates running under the same party banner can be such that it is legitimate for a losing candidate to fail to endorse the winning candidate — who gets to determine when the differences are significant enough or the issues are important enough to justify such a failure to endorse? The Party? The pundits and the bloggers?
Or the candidate?
And, as any number of persons better qualified than me have reported, the party system in Illinois makes it virtually impossible to run as an independent in this state. I suggest that “run as an independent” is a false option.
And, yes, I got to this party late and may just be trying to stir things up again.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 10:38 pm
S-CAM, that was unbelievably dilatory. LaRouchies? Come on.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 29, 06 @ 11:44 pm
What’s strange to me is when I interviewed Tammy about her health care stand on the first day, she was for universal care–not necessarily single payer and made a point that I didn’t post that a junior member of Congress is unlikely to be creating the actual bill, but she wanted to determine how to reach that goal the best way. As far as I can tell this is what she still says. Perhaps she misspoke, but I don’t see how her position has changed.
I don’t have my recording for what she said on trade, but it doesn’t seem different from what she told me–can someone fill me in on what exactly people think are these flip-flops?
But more to the point, usually when someone of the same party doesn’t endorse it’s about personal issues, not policy. We can find the exceptions that prove the rule such as LaRouche candidates and Oberweis does appear to be about ideology, but it’s hard to imagine that Duckworth is too conservative to endorse.
The problem for Cegelis supporters is that only bad things come of this. Any leverage that was obtained is written off within the party. Second, it only helps the Republicans.
It also reinforces the idea that Cegelis was unelectable. The median voter theorem is often ignored by activists, but the suggestion that running to the middle in the general election is a bad thing is primarily reserved to the Illinois Republican Party which is in the minority for a reason. Even when I endorse candidates more liberal than their district, I understand that they have to move to the center–whether in position or rhetoric for the general election. If Cegelis and her supporters disagree, especially in a District that leans Republican, it appears to me that they really weren’t prepared to put up a serious challenge. Getting 44% when the other guy ignores you isn’t that hard. When the other guy is going to pound you into the ground, it’s a different ballgame unless you have a game plan. This District isn’t IL-9, it’s IL-6.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 10:43 am
Cegelis is a selfish loser. She lost, get over it. If she really thinks her views are more inline with Roskam’s than Duckworth’s than what the hell was she doing running as a democrat in the first place. The fact is that Cegelis has very similar views to Duckworth and she is just being a selfish attention grabber. I voted for her but am now glad she lost.
Comment by Frank J. Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 1:27 pm
No one person earns a right to be the nominee. You win that by recieving the most votes. The argument that she had 44% last time is such an odd argument to make. This may be a shock to people but you need 50 plus 1 to win. 44% in a congressional race is not even considered close.
Comment by Tom Gordon Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 1:31 pm
sorry, rich, but i expect better of you. i’m rather disappointed.
christine said before the primary that she would support whoever won (i’d have assumed that 6th cd democrats would hold her to that pledge). and her own statement wishes duckworth luck. against her own words, you offer up an anonymous source saying that she won’t endorse duckworth as if it’s gospel!
did someone *ask* cegelis if this report is true? if not, why not? and, if not, why give it any credience?
we all know why. the old line democrats need to cast cegelis and her supporters as disloyal democrats in order to obfuscate duckworth’s pitiful showing on the 21st.
sounds to me like y’all are trying to set up blaming christine for duckworth’s inevitable loss against roskam…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 6:13 pm
Hey Bored Now–get Christine to clarify that she is endorsing Duckworth or be disappointed in yourself.
You know, there is a standard way of doing these things in most races. Unless the Cegelis campaign wants to demonstrate it doesn’t understand this, the silence is pretty telling.
That’s her choice, but attacking people who are reporting on a story done by a credible news organization just reinforces every negative stereotype of that campaign.
It would be a lot smarter to try and to use any capital to get some leverage on the party. Whining isn’t going to get any leverage. Insulting SEIU and AFSCME repeatedly isn’t going to do it (even if Cegelis people don’t get that’s what they are doing). Insulting other Democrats with holier than thou crap isn’t going to do it either.
Do you have any idea how many people on this site and mine have been walking precincts, organizing and working their butts off for candidates they believe in for years? And all of a sudden a group of people insist they are owed everything because they got about 13,000 votes? Everyone of them has lost an election as well and were just as committed as the Cegelis supporters in at least one of those elections.
You can be mad, you can complain, but this constant series of attacks on everyone who dares express something different only weakens your position.
Insulting the political press isn’t going to do you any good. Cegelis supporters are running a perfect campaign to discredit themselves with this constant harping on everyone else as ‘not getting it’. Losing an election you care deeply about isn’t new to anyone in politics. Instead of complaining build on what you feel you accomplished.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 6:42 pm
They really are whiny little amateurs, Larry. Crybabies who think they’re right on everything and owed everything. Very little use in trying to converse with them.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 6:47 pm
dil·a·to·ry: adj. 1. Intended to delay. 2. Tending to postpone or delay.
I thought I knew what that word meant, but I’m still not sure what it means in this context.
My questions remain:
1) If we can agree that the differences between candidates running under the same party banner can be such that it is legitimate for a losing candidate to fail to endorse the winning candidate — who gets to determine when the differences are significant enough or the issues are important enough to justify such a failure to endorse?
2) Is a ballot slot for a congressional candidate running as an independent a viable option in Illinois? My impression has always been that it is not.
p.s. I really wish I had been in the mix back in ‘86. Folks routinely accuse each other of bigotry, betraying America or endorsing baby killing in these comments and at Illinoize, but even mentioning the ‘86 LaRouchies is beyond the pale. Musta been a wild time.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 6:52 pm
Rich,
Sorry, I thought that an element of fun and irreverence was okay. I’ve spent the last three weeks months years working for the 6th District race and I guess I’m done taking it hyper-seriously for a while.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:00 pm
Dilatory in that context means there was nothing to your argument and it only delayed the conclusion. See here. It’s generally meant to include “absurd or frivolous” in debate as well.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:02 pm
It’s OK Austin, I’m just sick of people who can’t get over themselves.
Oberweis, Cegelis, Keyes all have one thing in common (as do many of their supporters). They fought the “good” fight, as they defined it, lost and went away whining that life wasn’t fair. Enough already.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:05 pm
i took her at her word that she would support the winner of the primary. is there any reason i need a clarification of that?
i agree with you that there is a standard way of doing these things, but *i* don’t know that christine is aware of that. do you? nor am i convinced that those around her are aware of the process of losing, either, or how to go about it if they do. i think it’s much more likely that she doesn’t know either what’s expected of her, or how to do it.
i’m sorry that you are offended by the influx of new activists, although not surprised. people new to the process often take time to adjust to the expectations of the existing system — especially when they want to reform it! so i’d cut them a break, if i were you (unless you are a staunch defender of the system). more than likely, these newbies will be walking those precincts for awhile — if you don’t alienate them. and they are walking precincts where no democratic organization existed before them.
i’m glad that you’ve experienced a “first” election, and can remember the excitement and disappointment from that. that ought to help you to cut these guys (and gals) a break.
personally, i don’t need christine to say anything else; i *will* be disappointed if she goes back on her word and states that she will not support duckworth as she promised to do.
as for rich: let it all out! i don’t think you’ll see the people who coalesced around christine going away, and it sounds like that will cause some discomfort for awhile…
(oh, and i’m not mad. not sure why you’d think that! i do *hate* losing, but i’m not mad. i did what i could and we lost.)
Comment by bored now Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:13 pm
nor am i convinced that those around her are aware of the process of losing, either, or how to go about it if they do.
Like I said, we get to know a lot about people when they lose.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:16 pm
well, this is illinois. people here do seem to have an affinity for “loveable losers.” personally, i’m much more fond of “win, or die trying.” that probably makes me a bad illinoisan…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:51 pm
If you died trying, shouldn’t you be dead now instead of posting here?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:53 pm
heh!
Comment by bored now Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 7:59 pm
Archpundit - at SEIU’s endorsement session, Duckworth stated that she was pro single-payer when asked by Quentin Young. would you consider changing her mind just after winning the primary to be insulting to SEIU and others in that room? Im guessing youd call that simply playing along. Gotta woo the base in the primary, then follow the median voter theorem in the general. my polisci professor taught us this one, using the bell curve of voters. but please just consider that this idea might be flawed in some respects, considering the media environment or aspects of psychology. or that the other side has come up with a better theory.
Mr Miller - I apologize for all of us whiny little amateurs, but we thought you forgot about us. we tend to think we did pretty good in the primary, even though we are also pissed off about losing. a bunch of whiny little amateurs helped a principled lady stand tough, against the winning candidate who everyone says has lots of potential, has a compelling and sympathetic story, more money, all the right endorsements, and party support. far as I can tell, you never even mentioned how close this race was. nowhere in these comments either. it was about 3% or 1000 votes.
and regarding all of this, the article was largely composed of anonymous sources. guess weve gotta accept it as true, and I have no reason not to. my earlier comment simply remarked that the day after the primary, Cegelis wished Duckworth good luck. what is an endorsement anyway? guessing she didnt do the same to Roskam. but based on the article, she may have changed her mind on that and Duckworth may have changed her positions on some issues. if neither woman makes it public that the article was incorrect, guess we assume that both are true. why assume one and not the other, unless youve got another source?
and I truly am sorry if I gave off the holier than thou vibe. I didnt mean to. I guess Im younger than some on here, and the folks I meet and talk to dont see a whole hell of a lot of difference in the parties or they claim that both parties have sold out. many dont vote, and unlike us political junkies on here, they are often just not that informed or simply misinformed. there is a difference, and I tell them that. even if the difference is something smaller like more money for Headstart, that means a lot to some folks. its important to do whatever you can, and at least vote for the Democrat. this is also why I try to dispell the Green or Independent idea, as it will generally just split the vote. but the strongest sentiment that I try to impart is to get involved in taking the Democratic party back. IMHO that means getting it back to forcefully advocating for positions based on certain values, as well as embodying those principles in its structure and decisionmaking. I read this as the biggest reason folks dont identify as Democrats anymore, dont get involved or even vote. and Id love to believe that if we just play nice, we will have a greater voice in the party. besides that being a sellout of one of our only strengths, some kind of integrity, it wont work. electoral strength is about all that is respected. weve gotta win primaries and then general elections with a different kind of candidate and campaign. until then, we wont get the respect, and basically dont deserve it anyway.
William Maggos
DFI coordinator
Comment by wjmaggos Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 10:36 pm
bored now — I think we can stop questioning whether or not The Hill’s story is credible. If they say they’ve got an inside source, I believe them. Cegelis sure as heck knows that the story is out there, and she could refute it if she wanted to. Personally, I hope she comes to Jesus, changes her mind, and endorses Duckworth, but if your infantile behavior is any example, I’m not holding my breath.
But as I said before, “good luck” is not an endorsement. It’s a polite way of saying “Go screw yourself, you’re on your own.”
As for the contention that Duckworth has somehow moved away from her support for universal health care, Duckworth’s statement from two days after the election:
“I’m running because I think Congress should put our interests – not the special interests – first. That begins, first and foremost, with the issue that has been the centerpiece of my campaign: bringing affordable, accessible healthcare to all Americans who need it.”
and bored now, I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish with your rhetoric, and comments like these:
“the old line democrats need to cast cegelis and her supporters as disloyal democrats in order to obfuscate duckworth’s pitiful showing on the 21st.
sounds to me like y’all are trying to set up blaming christine for duckworth’s inevitable loss against roskam… ”
So let’s get a couple of things straight. No one is casting Cegelis and her supporters as disloyal. You guys did that yourselves, by constantly attacking the Democratic Party and it’s leaders over the last six months. In fact, by Christine Cegelis’s own admission, it took an invasion of another country under false pretenses to get her involved in the Democratic Party. She was what — 50? I’ve been walking precincts since I was 12, and have paid my dues doing grassroots campaign work for candidates in all but a handful of Illinois counties across three decades. So forgive my umbrage when Cegelis appoints herself the keeper of Democratic ideals.
Now down get me wrong. I’m a die-hard progressive, and I believe as you do that the Democratic Party needs new blood. But you guys are acting like that annoying new guy in the office who thinks he knows better than everybody else how to do everything, even though he hasn’t found the light switch. You think the only enemy worse than the Republican Party is the Democratic Party, but your real worst enemy is you.
Secondly, you can try and spin Election Night any way you want, but Duckworth’s campaign was a solid victory, and positions her well for the General Election. Don’t get me wrong, you guys ran a great grassroots campaign, and I applaud you for your hard work, but despite your two year head start and the fact that Duckworth took the political high road by never criticizing Cegelis once, you still were trounced.
Sure, that doesn’t change the fact that if you work hard enough, you probably can undermine Duckworth’s candidacy just enough to help Roskam win. You think that makes you powerful, but as I’ve said before: anybody can destroy. It takes real power to build.
If Cegelis supporters really want to demonstrate that they are a force to be reckoned with, they should take responsibility for a few townships and deliver the votes on Election Day. Talk is cheap, but numbers don’t lie, and if you can actually back up all of that talk, you won’t have to kick the door down to the Democratic Party. They’ll come find you.
Thirdly, your talk of Duckworth getting trounced makes it clear that you don’t support her candidacy in the least, so stop pretending you’re with Duckworth and you hope Cegelis is too. Your not as smart as you think you are, and your charade is transparent.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 11:26 pm
===Archpundit - at SEIU’s endorsement session, Duckworth stated that she was pro single-payer when asked by Quentin Young. would you consider changing her mind just after winning the primary to be insulting to SEIU and others in that room?
Or you didn’t listen to her answer–she’d support it–and has said she expects it to come to pass, but would also be okay with moving towards it or another universal care proposal. IOW, if it’s a yes or no question–she expects it to occur, but doesn’t limit progress as only single payer.
===Gotta woo the base in the primary, then follow the median voter theorem in the general. my polisci professor taught us this one, using the bell curve of voters. but please just consider that this idea might be flawed in some respects, considering the media environment or aspects of psychology. or that the other side has come up with a better theory.
I’ll consider it. In fact, if you can come up with a better argument perhaps you’d like to discuss the multidimensional models put forward by Scofeld–however, the basic principle doesn’t change much–it’s best to run to the middle of the voting body and that ideal point changes depending upon what kind of voting body or district you are facing. This game of “it could be different” or “you might not have considered everything” is a child’s game when they don’t have an actual response.
What ‘other side’ are we talking about? Is there a new branch of political science I’m unaware of that is trying to disprove it?
—if neither woman makes it public that the article was incorrect, guess we assume that both are true. why assume one and not the other, unless youve got another source?
We’ll pretend this makes some sort of sense. Christine can say she endorses Tammy if she does. It’s not that hard. And an endorsement is when you say you think the candidate deserves your vote–not wishing them luck. In concession speeches you wish the winner luck whether you endorse them or not. It’s really not that hard, and as Rich and I both said above, it’s pretty well understood by those in the politics.
If anyone is suggesting Tammy Duckworth and Peter Roskam are similar, they might need to have their heads checked. A movement conservative who is allies with Grover Norquist compared to someone who is open to the form of universal health care she believes the federal government should enact.
What is strange about all of this is the amount of hubris that is being spread around without any plans to put the effort to use to mold the party. There’s also this sort of implied disdain at the efforts of AFSCME and SEIU because they weren’t part of the dramatic push for one candidate.
I get that many don’t want to go work for Tammy, and I don’t think people should if they don’t want to–but to what end is all of this anger producing something? Rahm isn’t going to lose much sleep over people venting on message boards, but a lot of potential allies certainly see it and aren’t being impressed with what they are seeing. SEIU went out of its way to back Obama in the 2004 primary which didn’t make a whole lot of establishment Democrats happy. They are willing to tweak the establishment in more ways than one, but why would they want to look at this group right now and think about the future with them if there isn’t anything productive coming out of the loss and there are a lot of continuing hard feelings that can’t be put aside.
I think everyone expects some complaining in a hard fought primary, but at some point, this kind of anger just alienates you.
If I need to say it even more clearly, my advice to Cegelis supporters would be to move towards something positive for the fall instead of making the environment toxic for the present. Tammy is being gracious. Others are trying to figure out how to be gracious, but many others not tied to the fight are most fed up because they think the self-indulgence misses the effort they have put into Democratic politics that led to this state becoming a reliably blue state that takes care of its workers. Acting like you are the only ones to ever work hard and get screwed in a campaign just highlights the naivety and arrogance that many have complained about coming from this effort. For some time I tried to defend against it saying that new activists are a good thing and they’ll learn how to cooperate and respect the work of others. I’m feeling a little foolish now.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 30, 06 @ 11:51 pm
===i’m sorry that you are offended by the influx of new activists, although not surprised. people new to the process often take time to adjust to the expectations of the existing system
I’m not offended by the newq activists at all. I think it’s great. I’d just like them to actually be active and productive.
More than that, I’d like them to not act like they are the first people to ever lose an election or face a tough establishment candidate. It is the number one way to turn people off from listening to you.
Trashing every major Democratic supporting organization in this state isn’t helping either. SEIUM and AFSCME in particular were on the other side than Cegelis in this one and they are tremendous organizations at getting mostly Democrats elected and pushing for progressive policies.
You don’t have to agree with them all of the time–I specifically think the Stroger endorsement by SEIU is largely counter to SEIU’s long term interests, but we disagree on that. It doesn’t turn them into some tool of the the great establishment that can’t be tolerated though. The constant inference that no one can be a good Democrat who was on the other side or relatively neutral even is nonsense. You don’t have to agree, hell, you don’t have to endorse, but continuing the attacks after the primary and keeping it in the news will lose you all potential allies in the future.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 12:05 am
William - I’m sorry you’re not feeling respected, I don’t know just how much you think people should kiss your rear end. Again, from Duckworth’s homepage:
As I said Tuesday evening, Christine Cegelis is a person dedicated to high ideals who ran a formidable campaign. Christine and I share a common set of beliefs on the issues that matter most to the people of this community. Above all, Christine believes deeply, as I do, that we need to change the direction of this country.
Christine showed, through her deeds, that it is not enough to simply say that the country needs to change—it’s up to all of us to do something about it.
By running for office, putting forth her ideas, and developing a core of active and energetic supporters who are equally dedicated to change, Christine Cegelis performed a great service to our community and our country.
Are you feeling the love yet?
As for your complaint that the people you know don’t see a big difference between the parties, I know that is what they are being led to believe. Guess who wants them to believe that? The Republicans.
But I’ll tell you one thing, the Republicans sure as hell see a difference.
But if you really think the only difference between the two parties is a little more money for Headstart, ask a Democrat and they’ll tell you what the differences are. And if you think that Headstart is the only difference between Pat Quinn and Joe Birkett, you need to quit your day job.
I can tell you what the difference has been in Springfield over the last three years. 450,000 minimum wage workers got a raise, and the earned income tax credit was expanded and made permanent. 90,000 kids and 300,000 working parents got health care. Roughly 10,000 kids gained access to pre-school. Illinois became only the seventh state to require homocide interrogations to be videotaped, we cracked down on racial profiling, and we put the brakes on a death penalty system that is deeply flawed. We banned discrimination against gays and lesbians, and we told insurance companies they couldn’t exclude birth control from their coverage.
And in case you’ve forgotten, when the Democrats were in the White House and in control of Congress, we didn’t invade other countries under false pretenses, advocate for torture, spy on Americans, or give tax cuts to the rich at the expense of education funding and health care for seniors.
Is the Democratic Party perfect? Far from it. Could the Democratic Party do better? Hell yes. But this whole notion that the Democratic Party needs to be “taken back” from those who advanced all the accomplishments I just listed seems a little frickin’ myopic, especially when the people you’ve labelled the enemy behind Tammy Duckworth are Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, Jan Schakowsky and Pat Quinn — for of the biggest progressives in Illinois. Not to mention Rahm Emanuel — who everybody seems to love to hate — one of the core radicals that gave birth to Citizen Action.
I’ve got alot more to add, but I think I know that’s alot to sink in, so I’ll give it some time.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 12:18 am
## In the midst of all this conflict, I’d just like to take a moment to say thank you to all of the Cegelis supporters who have pledged their support for Tammy Duckworth. Tammy’s remarks about your idealism and hard work are right on the mark, and the Democratic Party is lucky to have you in its ranks.
The Democratic Party is not a monolith, but a coalition, and every coalition movement is like head of an axe. There are groups that form the blade: small bands of radicals, uncompromising, full of energy, and often unnoticed. And there are groups that give that blade its heft: large institutions, realists, abundant in resources, and they get most of the credit. You should be proud to be on the cutting edge, but not too proud, because you can’t chop wood without us just as we can’t chop wood without you, and if you stay at it long enough, some Meathead will be calling you Archie Bunker some day.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 12:43 am
anybody else feel that sometimes this isnt the best format for a real discussion…
(seems to all come out more angry and confused than meeting face-to-face, but oh well)
wow, I didnt know that all Cegelis supporters were of the same hivemind. if you dont like what some of them say or do, better to just write off all of them. and I thought that some of the anger that Cegelis supporters conjured up was because they wouldnt all just fall in line. call me confused. i might be wrong, but havent we been trying this commandment to “fall in line” on the Democratic side for way too long. will Rogers anybody?
I dont think its gonna happen by just complaining or creating more animosity. Cegelis appealed to some folks who had checked out of politics, some who consider themselves too far left for the Democratic party, as well as others - like many of the commenters here - who have been the reliable workhorses for the party in the Red areas that many in the establishment have given up on. IMHO, she did this in a number of ways: running hard at Hyde when no one else would, speaking straight from her heart and head instead of talking points, spending money and time at endless events and otherwise to grow the base of the party in the district.
I dont want us to be praised, but I do think it was significant enough for a mention by Mr Miller. Could be wrong, Im a newbie. As I said before, I know that there is a difference in the parties and I try to convince others. And Im very thankful to work where I do, realizing that some politicians are better than others. Its what makes me realize that if we elected even better Democrats, we could do even more for the people of this state, our nation, and the world. Marty Cohen?
Since Im mostly talking to other Democrats in these comments now, arent we the party of dissent? We criticize our government and some of its actions in the past because we love this country and want it to live up to its noblest aims. We dont accept that “love it or leave it” mentality. So why do you folks freak out when I apply that same rule to the party that Ive been taught is the “People’s Party”?
but to get back to my larger point, my quest here is how to make this party win more at every level, be more inclusive as it inspires greater involvement in democracy, and simply do better by the people who live here. as an alternative to the median voter theorem, my idea is to more fully embrace Lakoff’s values theory. activate instead of pander, and lots of politicians already do that. too bad many of them are on that other side that I spoke of, by which I meant Republicans. from my experience, which I grant you isnt much in comparison, it just seems that the bell curve tactic is failing us short-term nationally, and at every level in the long-term.
and lastly, weve gotta mention dirty politics. it sure looks like reform is gonna have to come from outside. its a large issue for us newbies. in Illinois, Democrats are still winning, but I think the disarray of the Republican party here is largely to thank for that. the domination of our politics by big money and special interests is tied into everything weve talked about here. it discourages political involvement, leads to less efficient government, and is generally corrosive to democracy. for Democrats, its worse than for Republicans in the long term. the Republican message is that you cant trust govt to help you with your problems, cause your money just gets wasted. Democrats generally try to convince folks that we can all work together thru govt to solve the issues that we cannot solve alone or via the market. Democrats are right but govt waste, especially when its the result of campaign contributions, amplifies the Republican message while drowning out that of Democrats.
I dont see a better way to change this without being critical to expose what we dont like while taking action to try to force reform, whether from inside or, currently, from the outside. while some advocate helping to speed the downfall of the party in order to create a new party or to convince the insiders that drastic change is needed now, I argue the differences in the current parties and that too many good folks would get screwed in the meantime. but folks want some alternative, and I feel that campaigns like those of Cegelis are the best option. still, weve gotta win those primaries and generals and obviously arent there yet.
William Maggos
DFI coordinator
Comment by wjmaggos Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 2:29 am
===We dont accept that “love it or leave it†mentality. So why do you folks freak out when I apply that same rule to the party that Ive been taught is the “People’s Party�
This is where people are missing the point–it’s not that you have criticism, it’s that you discount everything people have done who weren’t involved in a very small group of elections primarily centering around Cegelis.
Comment by ArchPundti Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 2:52 am
Budget Watcher nailed it.
Comment by T.J. Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 2:55 am
And you was the wrong phrase–insert the Cegelis supporters who are specifically in this position.
The tone is becoming the problem–if everyone, but this group of supporters doesn’t get it, or is bad, then why should anyone want to work with the group?
YDD’s point is very valid about organizing and working for other candidates. This is how others who have lost did get respect. And maybe Christine will continue to work for other candidates in the area using her e-mail list and such. However, that’s not the tone others are understanding the supporters who are loudest to be taking.
You don’t get respect for losing an election, everyone can do that. You get respect for persevering and continuing to build something. Helping out other candidates, moving beyond this race.
And there is plenty of time to do that over the next several months. However, it’s not going to do much good if everyone outside of the Cegelis supporters is angry and annoyed. Right now, many think the showing wasn’t that impressive and that 2004 had to do with issues external to the CD–if you want to prove those people wrong, help out with other campaigns in the general and provide the manpower, support and energy to those candidates.
Arguing that people just don’t get it or everyone is against us is going to get those saying such things ignored. And regardless of whether that is a small or large number of actual supporters, the stereotype is getting set.
Comment by ArchPundti Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 3:01 am
===voter theorem, my idea is to more fully embrace Lakoff’s values theory. activate instead of pander, and lots of politicians already do that.
It’s also known as polling and effective talking points. Lakoff dresses up messaging in a lot of talk, but ultimately what you need to know is how people see an issue and explain how your policies fit those values. It’s not hard and it’s done all of the time, but it’s still about the median voter.
Carville has a great quote about campaigns that claim they are going to introduce new voters to win their election. I forget it off the top of my head, but essentially he has a name for such campaigns. Losers.
Lakoff glosses over the fact that people have been trying to activate voters for years and tried to get new voters out to vote, but within the bounds of a campaign, it happens, very, very rarely. Campaigns always say they do it, but they really don’t. Now, in primaries you should be able to reach new voters for a primary election in a changing demographic situation—because they are literally new voters moving there or changing their voting habits. But that’s far different than bringing in the great disenfranchised masses.
Comment by ArchPundti Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 3:10 am
Im sorry that you feel that I or other Cegelis supporters have done that. I have been focused on this race and probably overzealous. I do see it as the “reform the party” race, even more so than Stroger/Claypool. (now if it had been Quigley…)
but to preempt the electability meme on candidates like Cegelis, which us Dean folks are obviously sensitive to, in poll after poll the American people are with liberals on the issues. its just a growing distrust of government financial responsibility and allergic reaction to the word liberal that makes real change so difficult. like Clooney said on the Oscars, much of what liberals have stood for in the past is now heralded as great achievements. and weve gotta have reform that allows more folks to trust government to use their taxes most efficiently.
but all this still points to having to get around an important obstacle, a media that casts liberals as outside the mainstream and spendthrifts without any discussion of the issues. without the rare ultra-charismatic candidate who can beat the media at their own game, youve gotta have someone who is so obviously saying what they believe with a level of frankness that is disarming, while also not being influenced by big money and special interests. and of course, a groundgame that gets around the media by allowing average citizens to speak commonsense to their neighbors. enough ramblin for tonight.
Comment by wjmaggos Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 3:16 am
wjmaggos, you’re never going to get around the media. It exists and, outside of the presidential level and perhaps a few exceptions that prove the rule and at such a low level that the media doesn’t care, it can’t be overcome.
And, frankly, the attacks on the media by Cegelis supporters and the vicious attacks on Duckworth by Cegelis folks in blogs and a few columns and letters to the editor did you more harm than good and continue to do so right now. You’ve painted yourselves as angry fringe amateurs. Grow up, chill out and learn from this experience or nobody will want to go near you again.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 3:24 am
well, I cant control what others say or do, but I know that I and others I know will be advocating that folks get involved in other races. Tammy’s if they are up to it. and of course, we will be getting involved ourselves too. I hope we do move fast enough to stop the stereotype, but who knows. perhaps well just have to break that one down eventually as well.
and regarding getting out new voters, it seems to me that this influx of new activists is somewhat related to the Dean campaign. but Im biased, being one of them. and IMHO lots of folks seem to think Lakoff is simply telling us about new ways to speak, but it is also about why it is important to stand up for certain values.
but like I said, sometimes youve got the political charisma and thats all you need. Didnt work down ballot. If you dont have immense skills like Clinton did, voters can generally smell the insincerity coming thru their TV screens. and I think folks have generally been oversaturated with that now as well, understanding the medium better than the media and consultants think they do.
William Maggos
DFI coordinator
Comment by wjmaggos Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 3:40 am
Mr Miller - again, most of us are amateurs and I hope we all do learn from this experience. obviously some folks make unwarranted and disrespectful personal attacks, but its uncontrollable in this new environment. I understand that it is conterproductive, and fail to believe that most Cegelis supporters dont understand that as well. I speak out when it seems necessary.
perhaps my phrasing was poor, as I also understand that the media is a constant part of the political environment. I meant to say that it can have less of an effect with a larger groundgame, or other tactics. us outsiders, guessin like most Americans, resent the dominance of large or oligopoly media and big money. I dont know that well ever be comfortable with that, or should be. I hope things arent getting worse between activists and the media, cause just before the primary, the Cegelis coverage was improving!
Still cant decide between the value of anger vs chilling out, least till my health becomes a greater concern.
William Maggos
DFI coordinator
Comment by wjmaggos Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 4:03 am
ydd: make no mistake (you seem prone to these): i don’t support duckworth. i find her candidacy flawed. i didn’t realize i had been subtle about that. (ftr, i found christine’s candidacy flawed, as well, and offered reasons to support her — but they were generally ignored. i’m merely applying *your* standards [of perfect candidacy to the district] to duckworth when i conclude that i shouldn’t support her. i try to do things *your* way, and you’re still a critic!)
but christine promised she would support the winner of the primary, so i expect her to do that. i will be disappointed if she doesn’t. that’s not for duckworth’s benefit, that’s for her own.
if my charade were that transparent, you’d be more accurate with your assumptions. think harder!
as for archpundit’s comment:
it’s not that you have criticism, it’s that you discount everything people have done who weren’t involved in a very small group of elections primarily centering around Cegelis.
i find this an odd statement. while there is a core group of people who were activated by christine’s campaign, and may view everything through that lense (can you blame them? that’s their sole basis of experience), this is hardly true of william or myself. i understand perfectly the context of christine’s campaign — which is why i am not surprised by the difficulty with which some of her supporters are taking it. i question whether y’all actually want to keep these energized people in the democratic party. being berated seems to be the norm for everyone who doesn’t think like you!
Comment by bored now Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 8:22 am
Maybe the way to save the Democratic Party is to destroy it? Tammy Duckworth is nothing more than a pawn of corporate controlled interests. Yes, that includes Rahm and Barack. Melissa Bean is a Democrat in name only. If Reagan was president, she would have jumped over to the GOP by now. You have a Rahm recruited GE corporate executive running in the 10th. Gee, I wonder how he will vote on outsourcing of jobs issues?
It is ridiculous. The Democratic Party of today is not what it was even 10 years ago. Thanks to Christine Cegelis for trying to bring it back to where it belongs. I will leave the congress box blank in November. Duckworth or Roskam, it does not matter.
Comment by Robobug Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 10:18 am
===question whether y’all actually want to keep these energized people in the democratic party. being berated seems to be the norm for everyone who doesn’t think like you!
Yeah. The incessant whining that everyone is mean to Cegelis supporters is more than a little old after they carried out constant attacks on Duckworth. If you want to play hardball by making claiming a woman chopper pilot is just a tool of the horrible elite, why are you surprised that people got sick of hearing it? If anything the Cegelis campaign got off easy since the Duckworth campaign stayed positive.
The thing is the anger is a lot deeper than you all seem to think–and continuing the primary fight now, just gives incentives to everyone who is angry because not only was Duckworth attacked, but so were people who weren’t cheerleaders. The thing is those people are independent of this fight, but are getting tired of those attacks. They will start fighting back soon if it keeps up and they are a lot better at the game than Cegelis supporters.
Instead of trying to continue a fight that was already lost, move on to something you can positively affect.
Comment by ArchPundti Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 10:33 am
Maybe the way to save the Democratic Party is to destroy it?
i would have said to save it, you must reform it. one of the reforms that has to be made is to stop identifying the democratic party with the elites and start trying to connect it with the people.
but i can see how some people would equate the two!
Comment by bored now Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 10:46 am
i’m shocked that experienced, sophisticated pols are surprised at the elevated importance that some people placed on this race. surely you’ve had a candidate that you identified strongly with, and felt connected to even after they lost. did you simply “move on” to bigger and better things ten days after the election? why would you expect others, people new to the process, to do so? i think that’s unrealistic.
(yes, i know that it’s stepping on rahm’s message. he’s a big boy, and he always says he doesn’t care who he offends!)
but there’s more to it than that.
and, yes, i get that the “establishment democrats” (i’m kinda fishing around for terms that are both accurate and i’m comfortable using; not there yet) are tired of the mantra of reform. i’ve seen these fights before, and i understand that they work themselves out in cycles. if you’re tired of it, you might want to consider hanging up shop. i doubt it will get better!
i also think that the blogs allow us to work this stuff out in short order (although perhaps too emotionally), because we confront different ideas more often than just twice a year (which was the norm two decades or so ago). it accelerates the healing process.
personally, i wouldn’t despair. i think working through all the anger is a good thing. one thing that william and i agree on is that the end game is about working together — we’re just not there yet.
i do agree with you that the anger is deeper than one might expect, undoubtedly on both sides. i know people who are absolutely furious about what rahm did, and want to bolt to a third party. you probably know people who are eager to see us go!
i’m not sure what you mean by your comment about “people who weren’t cheerleaders” but i miss lots of stuff. let *me* apologize for any collateral damage *i* might have caused (if this was aimed at me). i call it like i see it, and often it seems to offend people on both sides (unintentionally, i might add). there have always been cegelis supporters who believed i was too blunt. i’m sure there are duckworth people who feel the same.
Instead of trying to continue a fight that was already lost, move on to something you can positively affect.
here’s the thing: this was bigger than cegelis. a lot bigger. this fight is not going away because cegelis lost. it wasn’t about her, it’s about “taking back our party, taking back our country.” cegelis was only one battle — which we lost; the fight continues, it is by no means over…
Comment by bored now Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 11:11 am
Cegelis says she wont support Duckworth because she has concerns over her view on healthcare. I guess she thinks her own views are more inline with Roskam’s than Duckworths. Its a stupid agrument she is making for being so selfish.
Comment by John H. Friday, Mar 31, 06 @ 2:27 pm
===i’m shocked that experienced, sophisticated pols are surprised at the elevated importance that some people placed on this race. surely you’ve had a candidate that you identified strongly with, and felt connected to even after they lost. did you simply “move on†to bigger and better things ten days after the election? why would you expect others, people new to the process, to do so? i think that’s unrealistic.
As I’ve recently stated, I don’t expect people to just move on, but continuing the arguments of a concluded primary isn’t building something.
And within 5 days of being part of a losing effort, I was moving on in 2004 with the fine experience of covering Keyes, but also working to keep together some of the organization created for a primary Congressional Campaign that lost by a smaller percentage against a stronger establishment candidate. And the candidate I backed is now the frontrunner in a 5 way race for a State Senate seat after coming out of nowhere in 2004. By building on what he accomplished and helping to support candidates up and down the ballot he built an enormous well of support with the establishment. He still doesn’t get along with Russ, but he didn’t keep attacking him either. While he also never officially endorsed Russ because Russ wouldn’t drop an FEC complaint, he did appear with Russ and encourage people to support the Democratic ticket up and down.
Comment by archpundit Saturday, Apr 1, 06 @ 3:00 pm
“I certainly endorse Tammy over Peter Roskam. I hope for a Democratic win in November, and I wish her all the luck in the world.” — Christine Cegelis
Comment by So-Called Monday, Apr 3, 06 @ 7:46 am
Archpundit - I worked on the Cegelis campaign… and I’m a newbie but I can understand that Democrats should now all band together.What I don’t understand is why, after Cegelis had made all those inroads into the area, the power brokers came in and undid her work by promoting Duckworth? Wouldn’t it have been better, and a more assured victory, for them to back Cegelis and keep all that money for the Nov. election? I would like to stay a Democrat, but I’m finding that the more I see of the inner workings, the less responsive the party is to the working class… so I’m not sure after this if I’ll still be a Democrat, even though I’ll remain a democrat. Personally, I really feel that the national party should stay out of primaries… and then put their bucks into supporting the local winner. To put it another way… let the people speak, not the power brokers as to who will run in their community. This wasn’t done when Duckworth was brought in. So my forecast is that she’ll lose in November because money bought her win, not on-the-ground support. That’s what happened with Kerry when the national party manipulated Dean out of the race. What got Bush elected? People thought he was real… they never felt that about Kerry. The national party does not have their finger on the pulse of the people, they have become power brokers. I still don’t understand why the Rahm Emmanuel group brought Duckworth in in the first place rather than fortifying ground already won… if in fact, the object was for Democrats to win, instead of their building personal power by supporting someone like Duckworth who will now be entirely beholding to him/them.
Comment by Middleclass mom Saturday, Apr 8, 06 @ 1:33 pm