Fire Chris van Hollen from the DCCC

The Congress is a corporate entity. Corporations are organized (0.00 / 0)

for the purpose of spreading risk and evading personal fallibility and moral responsibility.  Corporations are potential monsters, unless their operations are strictly limited.  One of the limiting factors is the mechanism by which members of the corporation are selected -- from the outside.  When the members of the corporation participate in the selection of additional members or replacement, the selection process is corrupted.  You could say a firewall is breached.
The DCCC is exclusive, an insider operation.  If we want the Congressional corporations to operate as designed, then their opportunity to influence membership selection needs to be ruled out.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 05:24:33 AM CDT

The DCCC (0.00 / 0)

used to send me mailers asking for contributions.  I would send them back explaining what they needed to do in order for me to contribute.  I haven't seen one in at least a year.  The DCCC has the potential to be a valuable resource, but as it is it and its Republican counterpart represent the worst aspects of our politics.  Give directly to the candidate, not to this mismanaged sham.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 06:09:40 AM CDT

In Defense of Congressman Van Hollen (4.00 / 1)

As a constituent (and fan) of Chris Van Hollen, and as a true believer in the extraordinary leadership of Carol Shea-Porter, I feel that I need to make a few points in response:

1. To be clear, Chris Van Hollen is not a Blue Dog. He has a record as progressive as any in the House of Representatives.  

2. Van Hollen's job is to elect Democrats to get to 218.  This doesn't only include progressives, but also southern moderates under assault for voting for Speaker Pelosi and many of her key initiatives.  

3. In an uphill environment, and with a finite pool of resources, Van Hollen had no choice but to dedicate resources to those candidates who had the best chance of winning.  Those decisions are based on polling and intense debate and review.  Blue Dogs were "triaged" as well as progressives.  

4. Numerous progressive Democrats won by miniscule margins as a result of the DCCC investments -- Jim Himes, Raul Grijalva, Jerry McNerney, Joe Donnelly, Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack, Bill Keating, Ron Kind, Rick Larsen, Gary Peters, Martin Heinrich, Bill Owens, Maurice Hinchey, and many others.  If you are going to tar-and-feather Van Hollen for not investing in Carol's races, you must also recognize that we might not have won these races had it not been for his directed investments. (Ann Kuster was almost on this list.)

Listen, I took a week of vacation time to return to NH to knock on doors for Carol in Manchester. And I am SO proud of her.  Even knowing what I know now -- that even a massive investment would not have saved her -- I would do the same thing.

But Van Hollen didn't have the luxury of doling out money as a reward for services rendered.  He had to divert funds from those candidates losing by double-digit margins to help push the Kusters of the world past the finish line.  And, despite my sadness at Carol's loss, I'm glad he did.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:32:47 AM CDT

Also worth noting. . . . (4.00 / 1)

Van Hollen will probably resign from his DCCC post anyway. He's finishing up his second term, and no one has held that job for more than two cycles in more than 30 years.  Not a fun job -- lots of fundraising.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:38:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not anti-Van Hollen, but that number is shocking. (0.00 / 0)

I went to a breakfast with Van Hollen and CSP in Manchester in late September.  If I'd realized showing up personally was the extent of DCCC's commitment to the race, I would have thought that was the strangest political event I've ever attended.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:52:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow! (0.00 / 0)

Talk about being outgunned.

---

by: xrk9854 @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:58:39 AM CDT

hear, hear (0.00 / 0)

Dean. Tim Kaine should get the axe, too.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:09:32 AM CDT

DNC Chair serves 4 years. (4.00 / 1)

Still, I always thought it should have been David Plouffe.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:21:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He really is (4.00 / 3)

Party Chairs are essentially admin officers when their party controls the White House.  Believe me, triage decisions were, at the very least, coordinated with Plouffe and the WH Political Office.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:27:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kaine is Surrogate-In-Chief (0.00 / 0)

But I still think it couldn't hurt to have the guy who built OFA running it on a day-to-day basis.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:33:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There should be no OFA (4.00 / 4)

Waste of resources, it is duplicative to have both OFA and the DNC.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:12:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OFA is the DNC (0.00 / 0)

Besides, considering this country essentially hasn't had a non-election year since 2005, Organizing for America should turn back into Obama for America soon enough.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:19:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OFA is not the DNC (0.00 / 0)

OFA is not the DNC. I'm on the DNC. I know nothing about the activities of OFA, other than (a) it exists (b) I understand OFA had some role in GOTV.  It is all very mysterious to me, and therefore makes little sense. As for turning back into Obama for American, that is one of the purposes of the DNC, to elect the President.

 



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:33:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know you're on the DNC. I'm on the State Committee. (0.00 / 0)

I was referring to this:

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:41:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In reality (4.00 / 1)

It is not a "project", it is a separate organizaton.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 14:14:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

But it shares funding with the DNC, right?

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 14:17:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There was no OFA in NH this fall (0.00 / 1)

After early August, it was taken from largely grassroots control into the so-called co-ordinated campaign. Even the phone and walk scripts changed from volunteer for OFA to volunteer for NHDP and paid organizers moved in to suck up the lists of volunteers from the grassroots. In more than one place replacing people who knew their turf with people trained in some college program as organizers who did not even care whether they won the election, only that their numbers were up so they could get a job in the unions or something like that after the election.

If you want to look at a failed institution look at the NHDP, which is bloated and over staffed, and over housed. That money would have elected more Reps and Senators. This was the worst "co-ordinated" campaign I have ever seen, except for one thing they did well the single piece GOTV lit. They started this in 2008 and it got better this time.

In other places the OFA is in largely grassroots hands and they did extraordinary voter contact. This may be the reason that New Hampshire had the worst (for Democrats) turnover in the country.

---

by: robert @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 14:14:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Troll rated for attacking full-time campaign organizers. (0.00 / 0)

Like that's such a cushy job.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 14:19:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well deserved attack (0.00 / 0)

---

by: robert @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 14:21:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other places? (4.00 / 2)

Well, here in MA and up there in NH, I'd say...FAIL.

Where are these other places?

MA is a true blue state. I think we may share that distinction with VT. I don't think I'm stretching it to say OFA not only DIDN'T help in MA, they may have hurt.

I had to personally walk an activist back from the proverbial ledge after he got disgusted with the top down bullshit of OFAMA.

Screw keeping my mouth shut. OFA needs to be fixed or abolished. I prefer fixed, because in 2007, I saw what we could do. Now, what I saw, was an organization that couldn't rally it's own shadow.

I've got more stories.

Plouffer! Is this thing on?  

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 15:52:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would agree (0.00 / 0)

but in NH the level of trouble multiplied ten times when the co-ordinated campaign took over with the paid staff. To be fair I am comparing them to the Kuster staff (who worked like 2007) and there was at least one paid staffer, I dealt with, in another district who was up to the task, perhaps more.

Maybe it's simply that my opinion of advanced degrees in organizing is like the cars guys opinion of Art History majors, not much use in the real world.

---

by: robert @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 20:30:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait (4.00 / 2)

The coordinated campaign frustrated a volunteer?

Someone felt the approach was top-down? Too many cooks and not enough dishwashers?

IN OUR PARTY?

Get my inhaler, I'm going to pass out! I ------------------------

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 20:40:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hardee Har Har (4.00 / 1)

OFA was sold to us as a vehicle to project the energy of the grassroots. That turned out to be false.

It became a continous slog of small donor e-mail solicitations, mixed with some gimmicky house party to watch a speech and an urging to fluff a congress critter for doing the preordained.

Often, it seemed, that OFA was soliciting acitivity to create a more formidable paper tiger. I distinctly remember a stack of papers being carted into the White House for POTUS to swoon over.

Yet, when it came time to put boots on the ground, we were back to Day 1 shit.

OFA can work, but not with the approach they are using.

They suck!

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:10:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have no doubt of it (0.00 / 0)

But think what you would have it do.

And then think what I would have it do. You and I agree on most things, but we'd have little pieces of it moving in different directions.

The energy of the grass roots is diffuse.

But that said, I'd argue that OFA has a better rationale for existence than the DCCC or DSCC. Everybody knows what the O really stands for, and that's fine -- there is some value in the president having a constant organization. At a state level we'd call it the Obama Committee.

It's a committee to re-elect the president, so to speak. But having a Congress-level campaign committee makes far less sense. We have a small group of party officials doling out donations where they choose -- based no doubt on polling and a lot of other metrics, and our usual inability to agree when two Democrats are in a room (in other words, I am not alleging a conspiracy) -- but why would anyone who truly cares about, say, Al Franken's reelection give to the DSCC?

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:27:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BMG thread on OFA (0.00 / 0)

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/d...

Why am I still up? I'm an idiot ...

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 22:15:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"worst (for Democrats) turnover in the country" (0.00 / 0)

New Hampshire is a small state dominated by independents in which legislators are not professional politicians, almost no campaign infrastructure exists around state rep campaigns, and our districts are so numerous (and in case of the Executive Council, our institutions so arcane) that when absolutely every elective office in the state is on the ballot every two years, people look at two names they've never heard and pick a party.

It's a mood swing.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 17:05:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not in theory (4.00 / 2)

but in practice.

I've held my tongue, for the most part. Either hand OFA over to the grassroots or dismantle it.

I have no ill will towards any of the kids doing what they're told. The problem with OFA is at the top.

Anyone writing a book is free to contact me. I'm ready to talk.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:30:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're in luck; everyone in the White House Press Corps has a book deal. (0.00 / 0)

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:32:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kaine (4.00 / 1)

Simply put, we went from the party that could win any every state to the party that could lose in every state.

Doubt the blame falls on any one person, but I know where I'd start.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:32:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that doesn't mean (0.00 / 0)

he can't be asked to fall on his sword. He should.

I realize that's unlikely. A lot of people who should leave their positions won't be asked to, in the name of blind party loyalty.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:27:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Alternative proposal (4.00 / 2)

Eliminate the DCCC. And the DSCC.

We have candidates, and we have the party. Why do we need another entity?

Because Republicans have one! OK ... but my question stands.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:54:27 AM CDT

Another place to donate (4.00 / 1)

There are limits on what you can contribute to a candidate, so having another entity does provide a vehicle for additional contributions over and above the cap.  




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:17:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps you can anticipate my next point.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 13:25:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or perhaps not (0.00 / 0)

I had two implied points (and these are rhetorical, not directed at you per se just because you were good enough to reply).

1. If we have a cap, why do we need a vehicle to get donations over and above the cap? Doesn't that make the cap meaningless?

2. If there are people who wish to donate over the cap to one candidate, aren't we theoretically better off having their surplus cash directed to the party, and if they hit both caps, then at some other candidate? The risk is that the other candidate will be a Republican, I suppose, but that's a pretty low risk.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 20:35:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]