The DCCC spent over 1.5 million dollars on 3 votes AGAINST equal pay for women

[FLAprogressive]

House "Dems" Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, and Parker Griffith got $1,782,443 from the DCCC to vote with the Republicans on crucial bills like the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

How much money did progressives like Annette Taddeo, Doug Tudor, Dennis Shulman, and Sam Bennett (who almost certainly would have voted for the bill) get?

ZERO.

Remember this when the DCCC comes calling.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Could you give some details on that?

Like, I don't really get what you're trying to say.

But maybe that's just me.

[FLAprogressive]

3. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed today....

.....3 of the 5 Dems that voted against it received over 1.5 million dollars from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, while progressives who would have supported the bill (and had a fighting chance to win) received nothing....

This is a warning for those who care about electing Democrats with Democratic principles, not just anyone with a "D" after their name.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Thank you.

I'm proud to say I ignored all those DCCC wheedlers during the campaign. Not because I knew this, but mostly just because I like to target my few shekels to specific candidates and causes.

[Renew Deal]

12. You don't know if they would have voted for it.

You also have a hard time saying they have a fighting chance to win with more money when they lost. And that's besides the fact that we don't know the details of each of those races. But 5 out of 256 is pretty good for our side.

[FLAprogressive]

15. they were all endorsed by the progressive netroots. These 5 are endorsed by party bigwigs.

All of the candidates I mentioned recieved at least 40% of the vote...with money from the DCCC they could have won.

I'm sick of the "More Democrats, not Better Democrats" brigade that's content with anyone as long as they have a "D" at the end of their name.

[Renew Deal]

19. I'm sick of the generalizations about the Democratic party.

98% of members voted for it. 2% voted against it. Those numbers indicated that the DCCC got it correct by your standards.

[FLAprogressive]

24. The DCCC does not give monetary support to all Democrats. The DCCC only gives to certain....

candidates. And quite a bit of those candidates are reactionaries. They give progressive Democrats only token support.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. The point is, during the primaries the DCCC targeted 'moderate'

dems to help, and ignored progressive dems. The result was that the 'moderate' dems won the elections.

That's why I've ignored the DCCC for years. I'm tired of more of the same - I want to see progressive dems who will look out for our interests getting seated.

[Renew Deal]

28. I don't care much for the DCCC or DSCC either.

I donate to candidates and the party because I feel my money is better spent. But the DCCC and DSCC have been incredibly successful over the last two cycles, so they deserve some credit. Dean deserves most of the credit and Bush deserves the rest.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Dean is DNC - which is a whole nother critter.

And HE has my utmost respect.

[Zodiak]

34. They have been doing this with the DSCC, too

Which is why we have such a courageous group of Democratic senators willing to go to bat for the American people at a moment's notice.

:sarcasm:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I'll be sure to remember

Of course, I also remembered it during the procedural vote that elected the Speaker of the House and set the rules for the 111th Congress, and I'll remember it during key votes on taxes, appropriations, education, infrastructure, and health care.

[Sultana]

4. Thank God I ignored their pleas for cash

:argh: SOB!

[Enrique]

5. woo hoo!

the legislation passed. A step forward for wage equality. Progress!

[madfloridian]

7. They also recruited 12 anti-choice Democrats to run this year...

And I wonder how much money that took?

Turning the Democrats into an anti-choice party

[Jackpine Radical]

8. There is something really fucked about this party--

something that can only come to light when we're in a nominal majority. It's then that you get to see all the Repiglican fellow-travellers who have crawled into our midst.

[FLAprogressive]

9. Yet they'll spend ZERO on winnable progressives. nt

[Renew Deal]

16. How much did they spend on winning progressives?

[FLAprogressive]

21. Not enough. My point is -- why spend ANY money on these assholes when there are better candidates...

...to spend money on. They shouldn't give a PENNY to these types of "Democrats".

The answer: they're corporate.

[Renew Deal]

23. Because there may not have been better candidates in those particular races.

It's a race by race calculation. A centrist winner is always better than a leftist loser (or rightist loser for the republicans).

[FLAprogressive]

27. So you would rather see the DCCC give money to a rightist (not a centrist) in a winnable race.....

....or a "leftist" in a winnable race?

There were progressive candidates who got ZERO from the DCCC who came close to beating their opponents who probably would have won with more money.

[Renew Deal]

29. I'd rather see them spend their money wisely.

That's all.

[FLAprogressive]

32. So you're saying that the races they did not give money to were completely unwinnable?

[Renew Deal]

35. I'm not saying anything about the individual races.

The DCCC spent money on losers too. I'm just saying that winnable is more important to the DCCC than ideology. That's their mission.

[Renew Deal]

10. 3 out of 435. Those are good numbers.

You don't know how the people you named would have voted. But the $1.7 million was obviously well spent considering they won.

[FLAprogressive]

11. quit making excuses for shitty "Dems". Those four would NOT have voted against it.

I hate it when people make excuses for the pro-corporate, homophobic, anti-choice, and/or racist swine that call themselves "Democrats".......especially the Canine variety....if you catch my drift

[Renew Deal]

13. You don't know how they would have voted.

So save your generalizations. 5 out of 256 Democrats voted for it. That's less than 2%. That means in this case that 98% of the Democrats the DCCC supported and won voted for it.

[FLAprogressive]

18. The DCCC did not give monetary support to 98% of Democrats in the house.

That's a lie and you know it.

[Renew Deal]

20. So is the notion that the DCCC didn't support "progressives."

[FLAprogressive]

22. Their record on supporting progressives is spotty at best. Why give corporate reactionaries ANY

money?

Can you give me a solid reason why the DCCC should give money to pro-corporate, anti-choice candidates over progressives?

[Renew Deal]

25. Yes, I can.

Because the DCCC's job is to expand their caucus.

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House. The DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way through this critical election year."

Their job is not to pick the most "progressive" candidates. It's to expand their side. Other groups like DFA, Wellstone Action, PDA, etc. are there to support ideologically favorable candidates.

[FLAprogressive]

30. They have been picking ideologically favorable candidates...."free traders" and the like

The DCCC is an arm of the corporate wing of the party.

Why give to candidates who will vote against the majority of Democrats??? Isn't that counterproductive?

The inconvenient truth is is that the only reason the only thing the corporate insider wing of the party cares about is just another vote for the leadership and another vote for pro-corporate policies.

[Renew Deal]

33. OK

That's your opinion. The DCCC represents the entire party. There isn't a political party on the planet that doesn't care about another vote for the leadership. That's the point of politics.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. And the point of democracy is voting the will of the PEOPLE, not

the will of the leadership.

It is the ignoring of the people that leads to revolutions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. And what good does it do to 'expand their caucus' if they are getting

turncoats elected who will vote with the OTHER side?

[Renew Deal]

36. Why do you think that every single person out of 256 is going to agree on anything?

It's still less than 2% in this case. Those are great numbers for our side. I bet the republicans were far more fragmented.

[FLAprogressive]

38. it's not about agreeing on EVERYTHING. It's agreeing on BASIC PRINCIPLE.

Shouldn't a Democrat vote for equality?

[Renew Deal]

41. Shouldn't they? Yes

But that's not how life works.

[FLAprogressive]

42. Well if they don't espouse Democratic principles then why do they deserve Democratic money?

[Renew Deal]

43. Because maybe they do espouse Democratic principles.

Maybe they got this one wrong for whatever reason. Maybe they espouse Democratic principles more often than the republican alternative.

[FLAprogressive]

44. so would the progressives...even more so.

[Renew Deal]

45. You can't espouse anything if you don't win.

:shrug:

[FLAprogressive]

37. "the big tent", "bipartisanship" or some other horseshit term to describe capitulation. nt

[mmonk]

14. Progressives need not apply.

Why do you think they were so much against Dean? Less control over candidacies (think DFA).

[defendandprotect]

17. Absolutely . . . I always give directly to a candidate . . .

[liskddksil]

40. New PAC forming to ensure progessives can compete in 2010.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is launching to ensure that progressive candidates are adequately funded and given the support to win upcoming congressinal races.

http://www.boldprogressives.org/.

[defendandprotect]

47. Got some e-mail on that ... sounds good ...

[LaPera]

48. I never donate to the DCCC - I give my donations through ACT BLUE.