Swing State Project

« MoveOn: Loose Lips, Pink Slips -- FIRE KARL ROVE | Main | Blogging in Pajamas! Hahahahaha! »

Monday, August 08, 2005

DCCC: How Slow Can You Go

Posted by Bob Brigham

One criticism of the DCCC is that they move waaaaaaaaaaay tooooooo sloooooow. We're seeing this play out in the current movement to turn the DCCC into a committee that can compete in a post-broadcast environment. When Jerome and Markos brought up a very good point about the DCCC website, the response was that the changes would be made by the end of the year (instead of the proper response that it would happen by the end of the week).

Saturday, I reminded DCCC Rahm Emanuel that he needs to quit the DLC. This is the perfect way for the DCCC to prove that they can move at a speed other than geological. Everyone who read Ron Brownstein's Hotline piece knows that the correct decision is for Emanuel to stop carrying Al From's baggage. At this point, the question is whether he gets with the program now, or waits. This is a perfect situation to see how the DCCC can react to changing circumstances.

Posted at 09:41 PM in Democrats | Technorati

Comments

You know what I just realized. No non-DLC Democrat has been elected presidene since 1976. That's over a quarter century. Ouch.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 8, 2005 10:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

jkfp2004 - That's not really saying much since the DLC didn't start till the mid-80s and we've only had one Democratic president since 1976. How many DLC candidates lost? I count 2 so far.

Bob you have a typo on the post. You wrote Rahm Emmanuel should QUITE the DLC instead of quit.

Posted by: nada at August 8, 2005 11:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't know how anyone can blame the DLC for the past two elections. The DLC is a not a campaign vehicle, its a policy organization. Now, you can disagree with those positions, and obviously many on this blog do. More power to you -- explain why your positions on health care, foreign policy, and economic policy are different and better for the country.

But don't blame the DLC for Gore or Kerry. Gore lost because he RAN AWAY from the Clinton and (yes, DLC) legacy and decied to embrace a shrill form of populism. It was his election to lose, and he lost it. Gore's loss put Bush at a huge advantage b/c in 2004 he ran as the incumbent. Kerry faced an uphill battle, and had a chance to win but he made two critical errors. First, he lost any fight and backbone he showed by coming back from single digits and winning the primary. Second, he embraced the same form of shrill populism that lost Gore the election in 2000. In fact, he hired the same message guy from the Gore campaign!

I don't think anyone should be running away from the DLC just because some in the party disagree with there policy positions. Let's have a battle of ideas in the party about how we should get the country back on track.

And let's stop creating some silly litmus test that asks members of Congress, such as Rahm Emmanuel, if he is -- or has ever been -- a card carrying member of the DLC.

Posted by: LVDem at August 9, 2005 12:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The reason to dump the DLC isn't policy related at all.

It's partisanship.

The DLC, and Al From and Bruce Reed specifically spend way too much time lobbing hand grenades at the base of the Democratic Party, instead of firing at the opposition. (Yep, that's the Republicans-not the labor, or women, or minorities that are soon to be majorities.)

When the DLC starts aiming at the Roves, Cheneys and Bushes of the political world, then and only then will they have any real relevance to the resurgence of the Democratic Party. Until them, they just cheapen the brand.

It's time they were made to stop, and if the pols don't have the guts to do it, rank and file Dems and the progressive blogosphere will have to.

I'd rather be aiming at the Repubs, too, but I'll be damned if I'll ignore the fragging from the Fromlings.

Posted by: boadicea at August 9, 2005 02:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

As they say, long time listener, first time caller.

I've been following this netroots v. DCCC pissing contest for a few days now, and even though I'm not a member of the insiderocracy, and I'm more of a blog follower than a leader, I want to talk about this stuff as someone who isn't a member of either camp.
Here you have John Lapp, who hasn't been in charge over at the DCCC for very long, if I'm not mistaken, reaching out to the netroots - a decision that someone over there should have made long ago - before the Herseth special election even. When Lapp finally makes the move and reaches out, he gets destroyed by the netroots community. What gives? I thought we were supposed to be a big tent. More importantly, I thought we were supposed to be trying to beat up on the GOP, not each other.
Now on the other side, I can see where the netroots community is coming from too. I've been involved in races, and have been royally shafted by the DCCC (before Lapp's tenure - so I'm still giving him the benefit of a doubt). I especially oppose the DCCC getting covertly involved in primaries in order to get a candidate they deem "electable" nominated. It's happened before, hopefully not again.
I'm not a DLC apologist either. But I wonder if between the more progressive faction of the party and the more centrist faction there is actually more agreement than we think. I hope and believe that we all agree on the core Democratic principles that should be uniting us right now. To be sure, there are all kinds of differences of opinion on how to achieve our goals. But perhaps the argument is more about message than it is about basic beliefs. If so, then maybe instead of trying to talk message first, we should take a close look at what we believe as a "big tent" party, then let that drive the message. Seems like we're doing it the other way around right now.
So, from a decidedly outside viewpoint, here's what this one person sees. The DCCC offers a lot to Democratic candidates, so do the netroots. The DCCC offers the ability to raise money in huge chunks, and credibility with big donors who could care less about this battle, and just want to see Democrats win (an opinion shared by most democrats out there). The DCCC has tremendous resources for research, polling, things like that as well. The netroots brings the buzz factor, additional fundraising, and most importantly, a community of hardcore activists who are ready to move at light speed and get Democrats elected. Both are incomplete lists of course, but also, both groups have diverse strengths and are equally important. We don't win without the resources, and we don't win without activism and passionate people. Most importantly, we don't win when we're at war with ourselves.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be talking about this. We should. It's a legitmate problem and it needs to be fixed. Now. Not after months more of sniping when the 06 elections are looming.
As a Democrat, I'm looking for leadership on both sides. John Lapp, you've reached out and gotten burned. What now? Are you going to dismiss the netroots, or will you continue to be open and amenable to working with netroots activists?
As for Bob Brigham, you've made yourself a leader and a spokesman for the netroots community. The question I have is whether you will continue to use your obvious skills to promote your faction of the Democratic party, or will you use your leadership and the respect you've earned in Ohio and other places to open up a real dialogue and work with DC to figure out how we all fit together to win in 06?
It's just one person's opinion, but honestly, I think that most of us just want to win, and could care less about the inside baseball.

Posted by: TallGlassofReality at August 9, 2005 03:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

But don't blame the DLC for Gore or Kerry. Gore lost because he RAN AWAY from the Clinton and (yes, DLC) legacy and decied to embrace a shrill form of populism. It was his election to lose, and he lost it. Gore's loss put Bush at a huge advantage b/c in 2004 he ran as the incumbent. Kerry faced an uphill battle, and had a chance to win but he made two critical errors. First, he lost any fight and backbone he showed by coming back from single digits and winning the primary. Second, he embraced the same form of shrill populism that lost Gore the election in 2000. In fact, he hired the same message guy from the Gore campaign!

Uh LVDem? Gore won the election remember? Gore won Florida if you discount the Buchanan votes.

Plus do you remember how Gore lied when he said he invented the internet? sarcasm

What do you people want? You always blame Democrats for having spine and going for the juggular of how our plutocracy is crushing the middle and lower class. Well I've got news for you, Clinton cannot run again. You can hope for as skilled a politician as he was about once in a generation at best. So triangulation is just not going to work. It comes off as milquetoast idea-less blathering from anyone else.

Kerry running a shrill populist campaign? Are you kidding me? You mean, "Pledging to forthrightly make these United States of America stronger at home and more respected abroad!"

That's shrill populism? Oh yeah that was a REAL barnburner of a campaign theme. Careful, that kind of rhetoric might incite the masses to violence!

Posted by: nada at August 9, 2005 01:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

TGR, you make some good points. I was surprised at the vehement reaction to John Lapp's post over on MyDD initially. And I'm certainly not an "insider" either.

However, the fact is the DCCC and the power structure of the Democratic Party has been pissing on the base and expecting to be thanked for it for over a decade. So, the reaction was bottled up for a really long time, and the 'tut, tutting' offered up by Mr. Lapp in response was really not conducive to dialog.

It was, in fact, patronizing in the extreme, and so, oil on the fire.

I made my point about the DLC above, so I won't belabor it.

But dialog requires something from both sides and right now, the Institutional Democrats are gonna have to show a little something something to the netroots more than a open hand, a patronizing pat on the head, and an admonition to be patient.

Posted by: boadicea at August 9, 2005 01:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment