Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Cegelis Out, Duckworth In

Like other political junkies across the blogosphere I have been following the primary contest in Illinois’ 6th Congressional District. That seat is one which Democrats have a pretty fair shot at winning so it’s been the focus of a good deal of attention.

It’s an open seat and the primary contest has been the mirror of a contest that’s been boiling along inside the Democratic Party: Democrats who identify as progressive, ‘net-roots,’ activists versus Democrats who represent the established Democratic (read ‘inside the beltway’) Party.

In her last run for Congress Cegelis ran against the Republican incumbent, Henry Hyde, and although she lost (receiving 44 per cent of the vote) her performance in a traditionally Republican district turned winning the seat from a forlorn hope to a real possibility. Cegelis immediately started her 2006 campaign and w
on union support and an endorsement from the Democracy for America organization.

Cegelis’s performance coupled with the retirement, after 35 years, of Hyde attracted the attention of the DCCC’s Leader Emanuel Rahm, who came down on the contest like a duck on a June bug. Rahm introduced and supported Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee combat helicopter pilot, from Iraq. Duckworth is, by all accounts, a very imprssive campaigner and candidate.


Now how are we to read this primary? Is it a loss for the ‘net roots’ faction and the DFA and a win for the DCCC and the beltway? Are there national implications or is the contest simply indicative of the mood inside Illinois CD 6?

18 comments:

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure that she's "anti war" according to what I thought I heard from her earlier campaigning.

She takes the same approach as most the DCCC/DLC bunch. This is one major difference I see between Latas and Duckworth. Oh, one other major difference, Latas is a true progressive, like Cegelis, Duckworth is a recruited DLC/DCCC carpetbagger. She is most defiantly not a progressive. This is why the Deputy Director of Progressive Democrats of America, Keven Spidel, took a leave of absence to be Cegelis' manager and Jim Dean and DFA endorsed Cegelis. Duckworth is no progressive and I think it's time you do some research and learn the differences.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cc burro said...

Kralmajales--What some of us don't like is when the DCCC/DSCC plays hardball to get their chosen candidate to win in the Democratic primary. That's why I will not contribute to either.

Who said that you can't be anti-war unless you support the Murtha plan?

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Kral,

What is it with the "cut and run" repug vocabulary? You are a dem aren't you?

Is this the only argument you have in your game plan now that the "only experienced politician" thing just doesn't work anymore?

You perceive that the Giffords campaign has been attacked repeatedly, but in reality, it's just facts. For the last several months, you claimed to check Giffords record out, but you refuse to divulge it. Her voting record has disappeared from the electronic sites, why?

If you think this is attacking, you’re wrong. We want the truth and you aren't helping, why?

My observation, for what it's worth, worst case scenario would have Huffman win the Republican nomination. Giffords can not win this. Both are from the same cloth, both pro-bus. Repug vs Repug lite always goes Repug. Huffman is also military reserves. Weiss can't win this race either.

Latas is the most likely to win a Huffman/Latas race when it comes to the General. He will have no problems with anyone else. He will beat all the Repugs hands down. He will get DCCC and DLC and DNC and PDA and DFA and all other progressive and democrat support, where Giffords may not get the progressive organizations. Watch the Duckworth race now, see if DFA and PDA get behind her, they may not. Giffords will be badly attacked by the Rove machine and painted as either wishy washy or a cut and run dem and weak on national security. Patty will be called pretty non-effective by the machine and "cut and Run" candidate. Latas will be called an angery dem, but some like this (backbone).

I'm an observer, not a pundit. Latas is the strongest in this match to include repugs. The sooner you learn this, the better. I would suggest people start getting behind Latas if you want the CD-8 seat or you will loose your chance.

PS. Staying in Iraq argument is pro-war.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Kralmalajes wrote (in part):

"I admire his conviction, his forthcoming nature, and everything else about his story. So impressive...but I don't admire his supporters for attacking Giffords...and yes...you all have been attacking...for what reason...I do not understand."

Actually, the reason is very simple. Their candidates have no record to defend or attack. If the DCCC and Rahm suddenly decide that Latas is CD-8's Tammy, do you think he'll say 'no thanks?'

Is Weiss really interested in 'reforming the party?' and transforming campaign finance? Yeah, sure. Or is she just looking for another high profile job?

cc burro said...

I wonder if the CD8 Republicans are ripping their primary candidates apart on their blogs?
Who gains with this divisiveness?
The goal is for a Democratic win in CD 8. Why provide fodder for the Republicans?

KRALMAJALES--It is understandable that the DCCC/DSCC is going to want to back someone who they think would be most likely to win. I just wonder whether they even consult with the local party activists or do well-constructed polling of the district before throwing their $$$ weight around. I know nothing of their process.

I admire your good heart and patience in responding to some of these blogs which are unsubstantiated, heresay, illogical. Take care. :)

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Blue in AZ said...

Kralmajales said...
"Ever heard of a peace-keeping mission or a mission with a different focus than what the Repugs have been pushing, how, and why?"

There's no evidence that Gabby knows a peace-keeping mission is, nor would she have any idea how any mission could have a different focus than what the Repugs have been pushing. She simply lacks the experience to make those kinds of decisions.

"but I don't admire his supporters for attacking Giffords...and yes...you all have been attacking...for what reason...I do not understand."

In this discussion, you have been the one attacking Latas...for what reason...I do not understand.

Jeff Latas holds the moral high ground and the technical expertise in this area and many others.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Art Jacobson said...

There seems to be an underlying supposition, which we're asked to embrace, that Latas's military service
in Iraq gives him special insight into
what's going on.

But is it not correct that Latas did not fly in the present Iraq war? He served at a different time in a very different engagemnent (Desert Storm.)

Considering the bumbling of the war by the current military establishment, I don't think being part of that establishment is necessarily an argument in favor of geo-political wisdom on his part.

cojo said...

I disagree, Art.

Haven't you heard his story of his Pentagon tour working a WMD issue in the mid 90’s?

He had access to intel that differed from what we have been misled to believe. He has a very strong opinion on this and calls Bush a liar!

He knows the truth and isn't afraid to express it. He knew that Iraq had no weapons of Mass destruction. Just because he didn't fight in the latest military show doesn't mean he doesn't have insight.

This just goes to show your lack of military experience. No wonder you back Giffords.

Regardless of what you may wish to paint here, Art, he still has the high moral ground here. She doesn’t even have that impressive of a work record. How many weeks did she work at Price Water House? Single digits, right. That’s the only job she’s had except what Daddy gave her.

Blue in AZ said...

Nice try, Art.

Jeff Latas served in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Northern Watch, and Operation Southern Watch. His last tour in the Middle East was in 2000 or 2001. His son, who was only 4 or 5 when he left for Desert Sheild in 1990, served on the ground in Iraq in 2005. Are you implying that there is another candidate, or member of Congress for that matter, who has more experience in this matter?

Moreover, Jeff Latas served in the Pentagon from 1994-1998. One of the programs he was responsible for was designed to counter weapons of mass destruction, so he had to have access to high-level intelligence on the WMDs. In 1996, he served on the original Quadrennial Defense Review. Again, high levels of access to what was going on, and they were planning 20-25 years in the future.

Again, no other candidate, and not many members of Congress, have this type of expertise.

It could just as easily be said that a person's experience in a state legislature is a very different engagement than experience in Washington, and that "Considering the bumbling of immigration, education, healthcare, etc. by the current Arizona legislature, I don't think being part of that establishment is necessarily an argument in favor of political wisdom on her part."

In any case, for you to try to negate Jeff's experience sounds petty and desperate.

cc burro said...

ART--"Considering the bumbling of the war by the current military establishment, I don't think being part of that establishment is necessarily an argument in favor of geo-political wisdom on his part."

I think that you are over-simplifying. I put most of the blame with the Bush Administration/Rumsfeld/neocons and possibly Franks, who did not want to listen to dissent.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101804C.shtml

Planning for After the War in Iraq Non-Existent
By Warreb P. Strobel and John Walcott
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Saturday 16 October 2004

"A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions."

"'The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious,'" warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."

"Unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which Iraqi troops were trying to maintain their grip on Kuwait, 'they are now defending their country,' said a senior defense official, summarizing the Joint Staff's warnings. 'You are going to get serious resistance. This idea that everyone will join you is baloney. But it was dismissed.'"

"Rumsfeld and his aides made it clear what would happen to generals who bucked them. When, under persistent congressional questioning in February 2003, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said he thought several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed to secure Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz publicly called his estimate 'wildly off the mark.' Then Rumsfeld's office leaked word of Shinseki's replacement 15 months before Shinseki was due to retire, both embarrassing and neutralizing the Army's top officer. 'Rumsfeld just beat up on the military,' said the senior intelligence official. 'And so they just shut up and did what they were told.'"

"Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld's opening bid was about 40,000, 'a division-plus,' said three senior military officials who participated in the discussions. Bush and his top advisers finally approved the 250,000 troops the commanders requested to launch the invasion. But the additional troops that the military wanted to secure Iraq after Saddam's regime fell were either delayed or never sent."

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.