Why I Support the DNC and Not the DCCC

By THERSITES
Pow Wow, a commenter at firedoglake, made an important, succinct, and informative point in a discussion about Joe Lieberman and the places where, despite threatening to run as an independent, he's still drawing financial support. It addresses a larger issue that I keep raising: that the damned party committees should stop taking sides in Democratic primaries. Here's the relevant part of Pow Wow's comment:

The DCCC ... WAS supporting (financially, I’m almost certain) the incumbent Henry Cuellar in his Democratic primary against Ciro Rodriquez in Texas. Ciro got squat from the DCCC because the DCCC “policy” is to support ALL incumbents, no matter what. I’d love to know how much cash the DSCC has been, or will be, forking over to Lieberman before August, just before watching him head off into the wilderness on his own. [They did already decline Lieberman’s pleas once, about using their muscle to force Lamont out of the race, I recall reading somewhere. I’m sure Lamont, if not the DSCC, has “learned” from the Paul Hackett hatchet job, at least.]

And finally, after the Hackett affair, Howard Dean made a point of publicly stating that the DNC (which is under his control) does NOT participate in contested Democratic primaries. The two Congressional committees (DSCC and DCCC) are another matter altogether, and are both basically completely off the rails ethically, doing the unprinicipled bidding of Schumer and Emanuel, democracy be damned.

It's what I've been saying all along. Howard Dean and the DNC: good. Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC: bad. (And, while we're on the subject: Hillary Clinton and the DLC: misguided, self-serving and dangerous to the party.)
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME