« 2006 Candidates Begin to Unfold | Main | Evolution of a Lie »
Thursday, December 09, 2004
DNC Chairman: Dean vs. Anybody But Dean
Posted by Tim TagarisIncoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has joined the Howard Dean pile-on. Democrats are practically encouraging everyone to run for DNC chair. From Roll Call
That's funny, "among others." Has everyone but me been asked to run for DNC Chairman by anti-Dean activists?
I feel like they are attacking me personally as they continually submarine Governor Dean's efforts to reform this ailing party. This man has the patience of a saint. Hopefully it won't be too late before the Washington elite realize they are really risking turning off hordes of Democrats inspired, or re-inspired, by Howard Dean's message. And it's not like there are just one or two of us.
The only thing that would make Republicans happier than us moving to the left, is moving to the right. As we move to the "abstract center", it becomes nothing more than a implicit admission that there is something flawed about Democratic principles -- and that simply isn't the case. I don't know about you, but I am staying put with what I believe.
Democratic resurgence isn't about moving to the right or left inside a fluid political spectrum; it's about message reform and, as Chris Bowers so eloquently explained, becoming the party of government reform.
Heartland values, Senator Reid? Take references about helping the poor out of the Bible, and it becomes the size of a pamphlet. Notice how "red state" values always seem to center around sex? Monica Lewinsky's dress, a woman's right to choose, and gay marriage have been constant refrains for the past 6 years. Ultimately, the winning ticket for Democrats is pushing, "red, white, and blue values."
Red, white and blue values would ensure every child has health care. Americans value economic fairness for those who play by the rules. And gosh-darn it, Americans value supporting the troops -- and that means keeping our promises to veterans by funding their health care, sending our troops into harms way only as a last resort, and providing them with all the equipment possible to keep them safe when they are called upon to keep us safe.
But this "Anybody But Dean" for DNC Chair movement is vintage Democratic Party. They play checkers, not chess. Never thinking more than one move ahead. In their mind, the only thing scarier than Dean for DNC Chair would be Dean for President. If Governor Dean gets sabotaged again, what do they expect him to do?
Wait, I got the answer! First we take back our party in the 2008 primaries, and then the country in the General Election. </end rant>
Posted at 06:41 AM in DNC Chair | Technorati
Comments
Howard Dean, more than any democrat, represents the main stream of the democratic
party. Please elect him to show America who you are.
Posted by: RA at December 9, 2004 08:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Gladly.
Posted by: Dale at December 9, 2004 09:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm torn here. While I think Howard Dean has quite a few good ideas about the Democratic Party's direction, he's been sufficiently branded as an unhinged radical. A poll here in Minnesota last January after the Iowa Caucus showed that Dean would have fared worse against Bush(a 14-point deficit) than of the other top-tier and second-tier candidates, ranking ahead of only Sharpton and Kucinich. I'm not sure that Dean's reputation has improved since the scream, and if mainstream Minnesotans find Dean that much less acceptable than Bush or any other Democrat, I can't imagine how he would play in Missouri, Arizona and North Carolina.
Dean at the head of the DNC table, while possibly good from an internal strategic viewpoint for the party, could be a PR battle that instantly pushes the Dems outside the starting gate in the minds of many voters, much as San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi has been in the House leadership. The Democrats have a nearly impossible tightrope to walk if they are to win national, or even state, elections in many parts of the country. We can't become Republican-lite or we'll lose the base and sell out or souls for a hollow victory, but if we can't leap the all-important cultural hurdle at the beginning of the race, we're never gonna cross the finish line.
With that in mind, Byron Dorgan seems like the kind of populist Middle American that could get cultural conservatives to at least listen to the Democratic Party message. My concern is thatthe mere presence of Dean in a high-profile position would keep narrow minds from broadening. He talks frequently about the need to embrace the red states, but his demeanor even outside of the "guys with Confederate flags on their trucks" line smacks of condescension.
I can tell you're a big Dean fan and hope I'm not opening a can of worms, but I get the feeling that the ascension of Dean to a party leadership role will give the Republicans just the ammunition they need to continue selling their opposition as effete New England liberals. I wouldn't outright dismiss the option if I were in a position to choose, but I would also want to look over the rest of the applicants pretty closely.
Posted by: Mark at December 9, 2004 10:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm torn here. While I think Howard Dean has quite a few good ideas about the Democratic Party's direction, he's been sufficiently branded as an unhinged radical. A poll here in Minnesota last January after the Iowa Caucus showed that Dean would have fared worse against Bush(a 14-point deficit) than of the other top-tier and second-tier candidates, ranking ahead of only Sharpton and Kucinich. I'm not sure that Dean's reputation has improved since the scream, and if mainstream Minnesotans find Dean that much less acceptable than Bush or any other Democrat, I can't imagine how he would play in Missouri, Arizona and North Carolina.
Dean at the head of the DNC table, while possibly good from an internal strategic viewpoint for the party, could be a PR battle that instantly pushes the Dems outside the starting gate in the minds of many voters, much as San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi has been in the House leadership. The Democrats have a nearly impossible tightrope to walk if they are to win national, or even state, elections in many parts of the country. We can't become Republican-lite or we'll lose the base and sell out or souls for a hollow victory, but if we can't leap the all-important cultural hurdle at the beginning of the race, we're never gonna cross the finish line.
With that in mind, Byron Dorgan seems like the kind of populist Middle American that could get cultural conservatives to at least listen to the Democratic Party message. My concern is thatthe mere presence of Dean in a high-profile position would keep narrow minds from broadening. He talks frequently about the need to embrace the red states, but his demeanor even outside of the "guys with Confederate flags on their trucks" line smacks of condescension.
I can tell you're a big Dean fan and hope I'm not opening a can of worms, but I get the feeling that the ascension of Dean to a party leadership role will give the Republicans just the ammunition they need to continue selling their opposition as effete New England liberals. I wouldn't outright dismiss the option if I were in a position to choose, but I would also want to look over the rest of the applicants pretty closely.
Posted by: Mark at December 9, 2004 10:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The mainstream of the Democratic Party is not mainstream of America.
Posted by: Manny at December 9, 2004 02:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Manny, if the mainstream of the Democratic Party attempts to mirror the self-destructive mainstream of America, any victory would be hollow. The challenge is to deliver the Democratic message in a way that current Bush voters will be receptive towards. If that goal is impossible, I would rather lose election after election than run national candidates who talk, think and legislate no differently than Republicans.
Posted by: Mark at December 9, 2004 02:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is encouraging Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), among others, to seek the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, in an attempt to help the party rebuild its image with heartland voters."
You know what the first thing I thought when I read this was? We have a Democratic Senator from North Dakota?" Unless he's up again in '06 and just can't run or something, why give up that seat? Is there another Dem who can win that seat?
The Dems might be best served by picking Dean and then having him embrace (figuratively, of course) all of the moderates in the party. Line up Reid, Dorgan, Biden, etc behind Dean and have him say that are welcome in this 'big tent' party and when people vote for moderate Dems, they will not be forced to the left by their party loyalties. Contrast that with specific instances where moderate Reps have been forced to the right by DeLay and Frist.
Just to make you feel better, I haven't been asked to run for DNC Chair. Unless I have a message waiting for me on the machine at home. I also have to say that I really enjoyed the "/end rant" at the end. Classic. Just classic.
Posted by: Dan Hogan at December 9, 2004 04:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dan,
I gotta say, I wondered the exact same thing. Why give up a Senate seat in North Dakota? I worry the same thing about Joe Lieberman taking the new Director of National Intelligence post. A Republican would be appointed to replace him.
Keep giving up a spot here and there, and there will be no need for the "nuclear option," as we will be near fillibuster proof.
Tim
Thanks for making me feel better about not being the only one left of the "short list."
Posted by: Tim T. at December 9, 2004 04:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't believe one has to give up their Senate seat to be the DNC chair. As I recall, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut was the DNC chair in the 1996 Presidential campaign. And wasn't Marc Racicot the RNC chair while he was the Governor of Montana?
I don't know whether Dorgan is the right man for the job or not, but assuming I'm correct that he could keep his Senate seat and still be DNC chair, he's worth looking at. Here's a guy who just got re-elected last month with 68% in a state that went 63% Bush. Dorgan won all 53 of North Dakota's counties compared to John Kerry's four county victories in the state. Clearly, he's doing something right in a state that epitomizes the cranberry-red American heartland.
Posted by: Mark at December 9, 2004 04:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Once again, I think Mark has made me think here -- I've been a supporter of Dean for DNC Chair (even though I supported Kerry in the primary) for his strategic ideas -- its not about moving left OR right, but standing for something of value to the people! How much of a PR aspect is there to the DNC chair? Or if Dean is chair, would it become a PR issue with Republicans seizing on it? But the Democratic DC cocktail-party insiders don't have the answer either. These are the guys who brought us Edwards as VP, lost the House in 1994, and had Kerry be an attack dog rather than a visionary.
Tim, you have some wonderful points about health care for all children, economic fariness, and not bumbling into war being "Red, white and blue" values. As if to underscore the idea of community that crosses party lines, an article today mentioned Utah's failure to reform welfare (one of only 8 states to be given a failing mark -- because they just didn't want to toss single, especially teen mothers, into the workforce for minimum wage, but wanted them to get an education). That's the old "Mormon welfare state" at work.
If Dorgan is truly a prairie populist with moderate (not conservative) social views, and not a Republican light, I'm willing to consider him. Just not a DC-insider please!
I've had the feeling ever since Clinton that the leadership doesn't know how to speak with the middle class. Why? They move to the right economically and talk as if they are pitching policies to the Chamber of Commerce. Clinton moved all the way right on the first Gulf War and NAFTA, for example. Then, thinking they've shown how moderate they are, they continue to present a very liberal face on social issues and miss the boat on quality of life issues.
What we need to do is stop pitching policies as if we're giving a speech to the Chamber of Commerce and talk instead to the middle class explaining why our policies and values are better for us than Republican policies. And by middle class, I mean everyone from working class to educated professionals.
Secondly, we need to make people see that on issues like abortion and gay marriage, there are not two camps but a spectrum of opinion -- we can stand for social progress without going all the way to the left. Policies to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare," for example, would give us an opening to introduce all sorts of good policies for families and children and to reduce our high teen pregnancy rate. That would take the ball out of the Republican court.
It confounds me that although most Americans seem to agree with Democrats, Republicans get elected ...
Posted by: Marc at December 9, 2004 07:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Now that you mention Leiberman, its a good time to mention a concern that I've had over the last few weeks. He's been really weird lately with the way that he talks about the administration. If he's positioning himself to be Director of Intelligence, that might explain some of that but I think there might be more to it. Remember when we had all of the talk about a Kerry/McCain ticket? There were so many Democratic Senators talking about it very, very publicly. Then, there was a press release from McCain that said exactly what he had said publicly for months and it all went away? I think there was something to those rumors. I'm not convinced that Lieberman isn't positioning himself to be McCain's choice for VP. McCain backing Bush and Lieberman taking a job in Bush's administration making way for another Republican Senator could smooth things over with Republican brass (at least the ones who weren't already pissed that McCain might be the nominee).
Can someone please tell me that I am way off on this one. With a moderate from both parties, a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be more invincible than a Kerry/McCain ticket would have ever been.
Marc-
You are right on the mark (sorry, I couldn't resist) when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, and you could even add stem cells. If we can begin to talk to those middle class to lower middle class voters who need to be reassured that they can vote for a Democrat on a Tuesday and still be allowed into church the next Sunday. I know very little about what the DNC Chair does other than put a public face to the interworkings of the party, so maybe I should yield to all of you who have followed this stuff much longer. My gut tells me the chair should be a guy who is in the middle of the pary, not on the moderate edge. If you want to highlight your moderate members you can put them in high level positions in the correct committes and convince the more liberal members to follow their lead on these "moral issues."
(I hope my spelling wasn't too bad. Its late for me and I need sleep.)
Posted by: Dan Hogan at December 9, 2004 10:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think that Howard Dean is - and can be - the best thing that's happened to the Democratic party in forty years...What a lot of Democrats don't get, is that the American people - for better - or in Bush's case - for worse, support a "leader"...Time after time, when questioned about why they supported Bush, the answers WEREN'T "the issues" it was that "he stands up for what he believes in"...The fact that "what he believed in" was WRONG - didn't seem to matter a bit - which of course is terrrible, BUT, the point is,they like a firm, tough, straight-talking style - and DEAN HAS THAT - As one columnist with whom I agree, observed: "of all the Democratice Candidates, Dean is, in terms of style, the MOST like Bush"..The fact that his ideas are far more people friendly, can, in my opinion, only help him. He's SHOWN leadership...40 million dollars raised independently on the internet!...DEAN is the man for the DNC Chairmanship.
Posted by: Arlene Kelly at December 10, 2004 07:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"It confounds me that most Americans seem to agree with Democrats, but they vote Republican".
There is a very good reason for this. The polls the left-wingers take are not to find out what the folks think but to garner evidence that the Dem position is acceptable. Then proclaim it on one of the Dems TV news stations, there by making people who disagree with them feel as if they are in the minority and helpless.
The polls are worded to produce a given result or make the person being interviewed seem stupid or mean. This tactic has worked well for the left until talk radio, FOX and the bloggers came along. Now the message gets out and is explained in a fair and balanced way.
The reason Dems are loosing elections is because they are believing their own fraudulent polls. The folks done agree with you liberals and you keep going out and trying to shove the same old humanism/ socialism down their throats. And then your astonished why you loose!!!
Bill Clinton got away with it because 1. he coopted much of the Republican agenda and 2. He was a superb liar. Too hard to do these days with Rush, FOX and Blog, sifting through threlies and half truths.
You can't win as liberals unless you bait and switch. But now the folks are on to you.
Ya'll have a Blessed Christmas.
Posted by: RA at December 10, 2004 02:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dan,
I think the more people active in our party who can move us in this direction, the better. Its ju8st a fact of politics that the more active people are also the more activist in opinion. It seems sometimes big business has one ear of the leadership and "liberal" interest groups the other. Most of the middle class are open to Democratic ideas and share basic values (see more below) -- indeed, our party is viewed more positively by the population than the Republicans are. That's excatly why Dean was off the mark with his "confederate flags on pickups" line -- its the middle-class moderates we need.
I think we lost political capital after 9/11. Why? Because in places like Boulder, CO (where I used to live) the "activists" seem more afraid that Ashcroft will look at thier library records, than they are about terror. Rather than "spending" political capital on the Partiot Act bruhaha we should've stood our ground on Iraq.
RA -- whose "liberal" polls? what "liberal" positions? Most people seem to prefer progress to regress.
oh wait I forgot all progress is equal to "liberal" or "socialist" ... lets get back to the dark ages then, repeal the child labor laws, elimate the minimu wage, clean air act, clean water act, eliminate medicare (hey -- it'd save money on social security!) Keep the "cop killer" bullet and "saturday night special" legal. More deficits! More trade deficits! Yep, that must be what the American people want -- Ken Lay meets Pat Robertson. But wait ...
A few recaps, may be off by a couple of pts as I'm not going to bother looking this up for your benefit:
support for taxing the rich at a higher rate than the middle class -- 65%
People with a positive view of Rush Limbaugh 30%
People with a negative view of Rush Limbaugh 50%
support for stem cell research -- 2 out of 3
support for legal abortion in the first trimester -- 2 out of 3
support for a minimum wage hike -- 2 out of 3
support for gay union -- about 60%
support for removing evolution from the curriculum -- less than 40%
Approval of Bush's handling fo Iraq -- low to mid 40's
This year, suburban Coloradoans (a "Red" state if you didn't notice) voted for a tax hike for rail transit, and for a mandate to produce renewable energy, and the state gave Democrats a solid lead in the state Assembly. We almost always support education, open lands protection, etc.
Oops, there we go again, us socialist Coloradoans.
Posted by: Marc at December 10, 2004 04:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment