Iraq war vet launches Congressional bid

[Freddie Stubbs]

LOMBARD, Ill. (AP) — Iraq war veteran Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth formally announced her Democratic bid Sunday to fill the Congressional seat of outgoing U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde.

Duckworth, who lost her legs in Iraq last year after her Blackhawk helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, becomes the third Democratic challenger for Illinois’ 6th Congressional District. Also running in the March 21 primary campaign are Wheaton College professor Lindy Scott and businesswoman Christine Cegelis, who ran against Hyde in 2004.


Duckworth announced her candidacy in this western suburb of Chicago, highlighting health care, education and the economy as key campaign issues, spokesman Billy Weinberg said.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Duckworth said she disagreed with President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, even though she volunteered to serve in the war.

more: http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2005/12/19/news/state/doc43a6594b03340928961395.txt

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Excellent

[LSK]

19. not excellent

There is already a very Progessive Democrat candidate who has been campaigning in there all year. She gave Henry Hyde his closest race ever in 04.

[Jade Fox]

2. These Dem Vet candidates say it all about the war, don't they?

If the Iraq War was how Bushco says it is, these vets would all be running as Republicans. It's a simple as that.

[FrankLee]

3. This makes at least 10 Iraqi war vets running for Congress

and 9 of them are Dems.

I recently learned that John Murtha was the first Vietnam Vet to get a seat in Congress.

[Debi]

4. It's too bad that her candidacy comes by way of recruitment

by the DCCC because they were unhappy with Cegelis's fund raising.

The DCCC should stay out of local primaries and let the people of the District decide who should be their candidate.

That being said, Duckworth doesn't even live in the 6th District. She'll be a fine candidate, I'm sure, and the person who the citizens of the 6th District will choose who they feel will best represent them.

I just can't stand the DCCC's behind the scense manipulation of what should be a fair and straight forward process.

[DURHAM D]

5. Why does the DCCC think they can run her if she lives in

another district? What am I missing?

[MrBenchley]

6. You're missing what a four-star disaster Cegelis is

She's already blown more than $120,000 of the $150,000 she raised in 2005 (with no election or campaign of any sort to spend it on)....

http://www.archpundit.com/archives/013077.html

Worth noting that other non-incumbent House Democratic candidates typically spent between $3,000 and $7,000 in that period.

[Debi]

8. But Cegelis already had a primary opponent so the DCCC didn't need

to butt in.

Now I see why Duckworth won't run in the 8th

http://www.house.gov/bean/

It's a shame that our party is using our money in primaries that are better left up to the people of the District to decide these issues.

[MrBenchley]

12. Speak for yourself

Myself, I think the DCCC has a responsibility, when they see a disaster in the offing, to step in.

[Debi]

13. Okay, in 2002 the DCCC spent $500,000

backing a republican-turned-Democrat in a primary with a former member of Congress. The new person won the primary and lost the general by more than any other opponent had lost to the incumbent republican (interesting enough, ten days before the primary, polling showed the former member of Congress winning the primary by 10-15 points - that same time period financial disclosure forms showed the republican-turned-Democrat with more personal income than the former member of Congress - the ability to self-fund for the race). In ten days $500,000 was spent on supporting the new-comer by the DCCC (phone calls saying the Democratic party supported her in the primary - mailings saying she was the one to call to make the district a better place.)

It was a fiasco - after the primary, and her paid for by the DCCC win, new polling was done - she was in BIG trouble against the incumbent and the DCCC pulled out of the race. She couldn't get funding from individuals who felt that the DCCC had stuck it's nose where it didn't belong. She couldn't get funding from unions who had supported her opponent because they felt that, if the DCCC was going to spend all the money to sway a primary, they could pay for the general election as well. In fact, several unions refused to fund ANY race until the DCCC cleaned up it's mess. The DCCC had to give money to all of the Congressional candidates in the state to provide for the lack of union funding - they also gave money to the state legislative races and to the local party to try to make up for the chaos.

All for what? The DCCC feared that a person who had lost to the incumbent and didn't have much personal cash couldn't take another swing at it (btw redistricting had made the new district more Democratic - NEVER should a republican have won the seat) - they intervened in a local primary with money given to them to help get Democrats elected to Congress and instead wasted $1 million dollars and got a republican re-elected. (They can't spend that kind of money now - campaign finance laws have changed)

The sad part, the really, really sad part? That republican was Jim Nussle, maybe you've heard of him? He's the House Budget Chairman. Thanks DCCC!

Now, stay out of primaries!

[MrBenchley]

14. Ann Hutchinson....by golly...let's look at some facts...

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/hotraces.asp?cycle=2002

Lo and behold, turns out the DCCC gave Hutchinson just $5,000.....

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:Zw_-y-GSK1kJ:www.opensecrets.org/parties/recipients.asp%3FCmte%3DDCCC%26cycle%3D2002+Ann+Hutchinson+DCCC&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Turns out there was a THREE-way race for the Democratic nomination...and that Nagle had already lost to Nussle.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/18369741.html

And....

"  ANN HUTCHINSON, CURRENTLY THE MAYOR OF BETTENDORF, IS AGAINST INCUMBENT JIM NUSSLE IN THAT NEW REDISTRICTED AREA.  

Obradovich: RIGHT.  THAT IS ONE OF THE THREE RACES THAT I THINK NATIONALLY AROUND THE COUNTRY PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT AS BEING A REAL COMPETITIVE RACE.   JIM NUSSLE HAS REPRESENTED A LOT OF THAT DISTRICT BEFORE AS THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.   HE HAS NOT REPRESENTED THE QUAD CITIES, WHICH IS REALLY THE NEW BASE OF THE DISTRICT.   THAT'S WHERE ALL THE MONEY IS COMING FROM.   THAT IS WHERE, PRETTY MUCH, THE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN GOING ON.   IT USED TO BE MORE  WATERLOO/CEDAR FALLS-CENTERED, IN THAT AREA.   AND THAT IS ANN HUTCHINSON'S BASE AS WELL.   SHE WAS A REPUBLICAN WHO SWITCHED PARTIES.   WELL-KNOWN MAYOR OF BETTENDORF.   I THINK THAT AFTER A PRETTY TOUGH PRIMARY AGAINST DAVE NAGEL THAT SHE'S BEEN DOING A FAIRLY GOOD JOB OF TAKING THIS SORT OF MODERATE ROLE AND REALLY MAKING JIM NUSSLE HUSTLE.   HE HASN'T HAD TO HUSTLE THE LAST COUPLE OF CYCLES.   "

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:pfCRCKrxmK4J:www.iptv.org/iowapress/transcripts/3009.rtf+%22Ann+Hutchinson%22+Democrat+redistricted&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Debi]

17. The DCCC only gave her $5,000 in cash - that's all they could give her

by law - but how much money did they give Winning Strategies (the telephone bank) on behalf of Hutchinson? How much money did they spend in independent mailings that didn't mention the race as to get around campaign finance laws? Those #'s don't end up on Hutchinson's filings, but do end up on the DCCC's - you have to look at the manual scanned reports to find it. It's roughly $50,000 A DAY for ten days prior to the primary.

I already stated that Nagle had lost to Nussle in the OLD 2nd Congressional District (which had approx 20,000 more republicans than Democrats in the District - in fact Nagle lost in '92 by under 3,000 votes - was slaughtered in '94 along with most Democrats). The NEW First District had 6,000 more Democrats than republicans and should have elected a Democrat.

We all know in primaries that party activists are who vote, not the usual general election voters. Nagle had the support of the party activists and was on the way to winning the primary (Nussle's own poll numbers showed that Nagle would be his opponent). The DCCC made $500,000 in telephone calls and mailings over ten days - to general election voters - and the voter turnout jumped 7,000 votes from the last primary vote total in those counties (which, interesting enough, was about how many votes Hutchinson won by).

The third person in the race didn't mean anything - in fact he didn't file an FEC report because he hadn't even raised $5,000 - he's run in every race since and is a candidate in 2008 (he also ran as an Independent in 2004 after losing the primary). He also got 3% of the vote in 2002.

The race initially caught attention - but quickly died after the primary. Hutchinson's money ran dry and Nussle won and is still in office thanks to the DCCC' interference. Looking at the vote totals for Governor/Senator/Legislative races - people just didn't vote in the Congressional race leaving their preference blank, Hutchinson received over 20,000 votes LESS than Vilsack/Harkin/other state-wide candidates in the First District.

(Interesting enough, it was Dick Gephardt who talked Hutchinson into running. Gephardt was blamed for the DCCC interference and was paid back - at least in the First District - by getting virtually NO support in the Iowa Caucuses. I wonder how he would have ran in Iowa if Congressman Nagle supported him? Maybe we should look at the 1988 Caucuses for an idea?)

On Edit:

Duckworth may be a fine candidate, and may do a better job in the long run. I don't live in Illinois and don't know anything more about the race than the DCCC' interference. I don't agree with Party dollars being spent to settle what should be a local dispute - that's what a primary is. If (in the case above) the new-comer was so much better than the former member of Congress she would have won the race w/out the help of the DCCC -why wast $1 million? And in the Duckworth case, why not let the primary play itself out and heavily fund the winner? Why put more people (who don't even live in the District) in the primary? Why waste time and money that could better be spent in the general? I agree that the DCCC has a responsibility, but I believe the responsibility is to allow democracy to work and to keep integrity in the process.

[MrBenchley]

18. Feel free to trot out some facts, if you have any....

"The NEW First District had 6,000 more Democrats than republicans and should have elected a Democrat."
So what happened in 2004?

[Debi]

21. How many republican incumbants lost in 2004?

It's always easier to win an open seat than to beat an incumbant.

Which facts did you need?

Here's a link to the election results

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/results/index.html#7

[MrBenchley]

23. Nussle's been an incumbent since 1990

but I guess that's only an excuse when a candidate you don't hate is running....

[Debi]

25. What does that have to do with anything?

Nussle has never lost as an incumbent....why did he win in 2004? Because he was an incumbant in a year where very few incumbents lost. Why should he have lost in 2002? Because he was redistricted into a new district that didn't favor republicans. The DCCC soured the race that a Democrat should have won, but because of their behavior in the primary several Democrats didn't even vote in the general election handing the seat to Nussle by a wider margin than anyone had lost to him since his original victory against Eric Tabor in 1990.

Again, Duckworth may be a fine candidate, she may be the one to snatch the 6th District from republican rule, I don't know as I don't live in Illinois. What I do know is that the DCCC should not intervene in local primaries. Let the citizens of the District make the decision for the District. Then, in the general election, the DCCC can use Democrat contributed dollars to get Democrats elected. The DCCC should butt out.

[MrBenchley]

26. I see, it only makes a difference when YOU want it to....

[Debi]

27. You are arguing just to be arguing, that doesn't add to the debate at all

After reading your other posts on this subject I now realize that you don't actually care about the issue of the DCCC interference in local affairs, but just want to muddy the waters with bs and petulance.

Okay, if that's what you like.

I wouldn't recommend contributing to the DCCC until they start behaving like the party for Democrats in Congress rather than the party for Democrats against Democrats who want to serve in Congress.

[MrBenchley]

28. One of us had actual facts, and it wasn't you....

"I wouldn't recommend contributing to the DCCC until they start behaving like the party for Democrats in Congress"
Then keep your hands in your pockets and see if I care.

[Debi]

31. What facts did I not have?

That the DCCC invested in a primary? Even if you want to throw out all my comments about phone banks and mailings you cannot argue with the DCCC's $5,000 that you came up with. Want to know how that $5,000 contribution was received? The DCCC endorsed Hutchinson in the primary. Do you believe her local news paper?

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/05/24/afternoon_edition/export35396.txt

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/06/05/morning_edition/export36080.txt

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/11/06/state/export45342.txt


Other FEC information for the DCCC:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991024027+0 ($5000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991024053+0 ($5000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991026220+0 ($5000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991035817+0 ($5,000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991041100+0 ($45000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991046104+0 ($28000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991047717+0 ($8,000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991047731+0 ($10000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991049353+0 ($10000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

There were mailings of up to three a day to all general election Democratic voters in the First District paid for by the DCCC - I have them but don't know how to post them, so I guess that's not a fact, you'll just have to take my word.

All of this done w/in a ten day period after polling showed Nagle winning the primary.

The DCCC interfered in a local primary wasting Democratic contributions, the person they supported won the primary and then (because Democrats were so angry) lost the general....big!

I guess I don't know what I'm talking about.



A couple more QC Times articles:


http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/08/16/afternoon_edition/export40580.txt (On Gephardt's involvment)

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/06/06/opinion/export36231.txt (editorial on DCCC's destroying grass roots organizing)

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/05/14/letters/export34827.txt (LTTE on Hutchinson's republican leanings)

[Debi]

36. Crickets Chirping.....

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

37. It's a sign of the rotten underbrush that you've got infestation

[Debi]

38. And here I thought it was just the sour grapes n/t

[MrBenchley]

39. Nah...

[Debi]

40. So, you agree that the DCCC should keep it's nose (and checkbook)

out of local politics?

[MrBenchley]

41. No, I think they're doing the right thing...

And I had the facts to back that up.

Now you may return to your crickets.

[Debi]

42. I'm sorry, which facts were those?

The fact that they BLEW several hundreds of thousands of dollars from Democratic contirubtors on a local primary?

Or the fact that the 'winner' of the primary CRASHED in the general leaving us with Congressman Nussle - better known to America as Budget Committee Chairman Nussle?

Or the fact that several members of the Iowa Democratic Party denounced the behavior of the DCCC?

Or the fact that Dick Gephardt was 'rewarded' for the DCCC's interference in the 2002 by a sound ass-whooping in the 2004 Iowa Caucuses?

Were those the facts you meant?

[MrBenchley]

43. The ones you didn't have

"they BLEW several hundreds of thousands of dollars"
That turned out to be $5,000....

[Debi]

44. Did you not read my post? Here, I'll give you the links again

Other FEC information for the DCCC:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991024027+0 ($5000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991024053+0 ($5000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991026220+0 ($5000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991035817+0 ($5,000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991041100+0 ($45000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991046104+0 ($28000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991047717+0 ($8,000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991047731+0 ($10000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_22991049353+0 ($10000 in expenditures for Hutchinson)

All of this money was spent in the last ten days of May 2002, before the primary, on behalf of Ms. Hutchinson by the DCCC - it states that right on the expenditure form. If you mean that I cannot come up with the specific expenditures for the mailings the DCCC did for Ann Hutchinson, you are correct. I can only come up with the newspaper stories about the mailings, phone banks and staff hired for the her campaign by the DCCC. That information is acknowledged by the DCCC in the articles. Let me know if you want me to re-post those as well, otherwise just go upthread and read them there.

Are those facts enough?

To make it easier for you:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is making an unusual primary appearance in Iowa's 1st Congressional District, throwing support to Ann Hutchinson over two other Democrats.

The move comes with a mail advertising campaign and apparently will include television advertising less than two weeks before the June 4 primary. While the campaign is aimed at boosting the Bettendorf mayor's candidacy, it also is sure to anger supporters of former U.S. Rep. Dave Nagle, a Democrat from Cedar Falls, and possibly Democrats who believe such organizations should stay out of primaries.

<snip>

Nagle said he believes the DCCC campaign will hurt Democrats in the state and eventually will backfire. An Iowa Democratic Party spokesman, Mark Daley, said Friday that the party had, indeed, heard from Democrats about the DCCC advertising. He emphasized that the state party is not taking sides in the primary.

"We had absolutely nothing to do with these ads that are going on TV or the mail piece that has been sent out," he said. "We've never been involved before in Democratic primaries and we're not going to start now."

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2002/05/24/afternoon_edition/export35396.txt

[MrBenchley]

45. And I still think they did the right thing...

[Debi]

46. Yep, they used Democratic dollars to secure a seat for a right-wing

conservative.

Great job DCCC :eyes:

[LSK]

20. she has been campaigning all year

Tell us exactly what is waste:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/189462/sb/ALL

[MrBenchley]

24. IN a year when there's no election...and she was unopposed....

And all of it is waste...she's pissed all that money away on nothing at all.....

[Debi]

7. I don't know all the rules, but I don't think you have to 'live' in the

District to represent the district, just establish residency (Like using campaign HQ as your address, etc.)

On one of the Sunday talk show interviews she said that her husband worked in the 6th District and she had friends that lived in the 6th District so she wasn't a stranger to the District.

She also said she wouldn't move from her house because of all the work done by friends and neighbors to make her house accessible. Can't fault her there. She said she lived in the 8th District - I'm not from Illinois so I don't know who the Representative is from the 8th District and why she wouldn't run in the District she lives in. Anyone?

I don't know that she'd be a bad candidate or a bad member of Congress - just hate the way her candidacy came about. The DCCC should be working on supporting Democrats in the general election, not funding one Democrat against another in a primary - that's a waste of Democrat's money.

[DURHAM D]

9. I backed away from my computer for a few days - exactly how did

her candidacy come about?

[Debi]

11. Here's a couple of links

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet02.html

http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/11/duckworths-media-covergence.html

[DURHAM D]

10. I just called Rahm Emanuel's office to ask about living out of

the district - staffer didn't know and referred me to the DCCC office 202-863 1500. The person answering the phone did not know the answer so he asked others in the office - they did not know. Finally he transferred me to another number (conveniently a staffer that was not in) so I was required to leave a message. I didn't leave a message. Instead I hung up and called back but my call was not answered.

This is not going to get it done. After yesterday's broadcast they should have anticipated this question.

[minvis]

16. Actually, you just have to live in the state

Believe it or not, the Constitution only says that you have to be a state resident, not a resident of the district. Of course, living in the district would probably make the most sense, but it is not a requirement.

[DURHAM D]

22. Thanks - perhaps they should hire you at the DCCC. eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. There is no legal requirement to live in the district

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section2

Those are the only requirements listed in the Constitution.

[Adelante]

29. Interesting view here

The theory behind the Fighting Dems and the reason the DNC and DNCC are working so hard to find these people is obvious, but compelling: these candidates can take the Republicans on where they are now weakest, but without exposing traditional Democratic vulnerability on security. Moreover, they have interesting life stories, have endured hardship (Tammy Duckworth lost both legs when her helicopter was shot down), and generally exhibit qualities like patriotism and courage that we Americans admire.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but here are a couple of things I find interesting about this: One is that it may offer the beginnings of the overarching narrative progressives will need in 2006 in order to make major gains. To retake more than a handful of seats, progressives will have to do more than run a series of individual campaigns. To defeat incumbents, we will need to explain why people need to begin to turn out the current leadership nationally and what the alternative - writ large, not just in the form of one representative - will offer. Ideas like a National Security Contract with America can help do that. So will a group of young, gutsy veterans with a shared vision.

The Fighting Dems also have the potential to help us fill the genuineness gap: those creeping suspicions that John Kerry's every word - even about his own military service - was crafted by a political spin-meister. The spin machine hasn't (yet) taken over the Fighting Dems, and it shouldn't. They speak from the heart, and from the pain of real and recent experience on the battlefront. If they are indeed seen as the new voice of the party, this could begin to help counter the McCain factor, which is driven by his own direct, unscripted quality.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2005/12/fighting_dems_t.html

[MrBenchley]

30. Nice analysis--thanks for sharing

I also liked this comment: "Hackett and the other fighting Dems are able not just to whine about lethally ill-considered bellicosity on the Republican right, but they can do the most elemental thing in politics: show contrast. Bush failed to show up for a fight he vehemently supported in Vietnam. Hackett showed up for a fight he did not support politically in Iraq, but refused to sit safe in Cincinnati while fellow Marines did battle. The contrast could not be more stark or telling, and he used it to great effect. "

[Debi]

32. I hope that doesn't mean that anyone who wants to run for U S Congress

has to have military experience from here on out.

Just a thought.

[Adelante]

33. I wouldn't think so

It's partly like any other war in history when veterans run for office afterwards. It's only remarkable now because of the condition both parties are in and how it gives the Dems an advantage for 2006.

[Debi]

34. Okay

I just don't want to have a bunch of prerequisites put in front of people who want to serve in office (other than being from the right party that is....)

[Adelante]

35. We agree on that nt