DNC Chair CattleCall from Orlando's ASDC Meeting

I should point out that the Orlando meeting was held by the ASDC, which is a group of state officers within the DNC member umbrella. It's a technicality, but a useful one to remember with the process. One other note, I hear that in the ASDC's Q & A, the candidates were all asked if they would turnover to the states, the ~4M list of emails and donors that the DNC had gathered, if they were DNC Chair. Ickes, Rosenberg, and Dean said no, the others basically said 'whatever it takes' to get your vote. Anyway, after three days in Orlando with the DNC members and the candidates, here's the roundup:

Leo Hindery, in the last CattleCall, was last, and now he's dropped out. After the blogosphere raked him over the coals for his past political actions, Hindery-surrogates spent a week trying to smooth it over with emails ('talk with him, he's a good guy'), before Leo arrived in Orlando in his private jet, only to leave 4 hours later, dropping out of the race.

Howard Dean has a great time, but he's still not declared himself a candidate, and he's still not the frontrunner. The state chairs and executive directors are not reflective of Howard Dean's base, and yet, he's formidable among even this group. Dean was accessible throughout the event, and he got a lucky break. When Leo Hindery dropped out, it opened the Saturday morning breakfast slot that Dean grabbed up. Dean had been slated for an event to be held at 4-7 PM Saturday, after when many would have already left Orlando. Dean's breakfast was by far the most attended, where he spent over an hour taking questions and answers. Also, I spoke with Jim Dean briefly after the event, Howard's Connecticut-based brother, and unsuccessfully prodded him about taking up an '06 primary challenge against a certain Senator.

Wellington Webb reflects the ASDC priority of gutting the centralized power of the DNC. Webb was far better in his 5-minute speech than the speech he delivered during his evening event on Thursday. Because the ASDC is Webb's base, it shouldn't be surprising that the well-known Vice Chair has a fair amount of support, but I was surprised, because his performance wasn't altogether impressive. Webb's got a base and is a serious candidate, but not likely to become a consensus alternative. If anything, he's more an outsider than is Dean.

Ron Kirk seemed to come out of nowhere to a landing near the top. He's not that well-known, but he knows how to work a crowd. Kirk's not even that certain that he's even a candidate, and said that he wouldn't know if he'd enter the race until next month. He went last in the speeches, but spoke to the lack of women candidates in a way that connected very well with at least half the audience. The exit poll we did reflected this, as it was basically a snapshot of how the DNC members reacted to the speeches (top three), not who they would vote for as DNC Chair. It will be interesting to see if he gains DC-based traction. If there's a DLC 'status quo' candidate, it's Kirk. He's got charm, and if the Party wants to move to "the middle", Kirk's there.

Simon Rosenberg could at least be glad that his message got out at this meeting. Rosenberg has spent the last year alerting the Democratic Party to the powerful machine that the Republicans have, and the other candidates listened. But the understanding here of what that means, in terms of building that opposition, was the larger argument that Rosenberg is just beginning to make. It's particularly relevant to the State Parties (& their lackluster websites). If they want money from the grassroots, they need to start giving the netroots the tools to get involved, rather than just giving lip service but only really wanting their money. Simon's support is going to come partly out of DC, and partly through the web-users that are connected to the blogosphere--and there were few of those DNC members in attendance at the ASDC meeting.

Donnie Fowler raised his stock quite a bit at this meeting by being well prepared. Like Webb, this was Fowler's base of support. He's able to look out across the sea of faces and make connections from previous efforts he'd made in campaigns across the nation. The drawback I heard at the meeting was that Fowler, like Rosenberg, was young, but as they pointed out, embracing young winners doesn't seem to be a difficulty the Republicans have. Fowler knew the campaign he needed to run at this meeting, and made the best of it. Of all the candidates, Fowler was the only one that actually was a candidate, complete with pins, stickers, and signs advertising his candidacy. Fowler most recently was the Field Director for Kerry in Michigan, hopefully, he kept his distance from the State Party's there handling of the money.

Martin Frost seems about one of the nicest guys you've ever met in a politician. I wasn't sure, but he seemed to recall the BlogPac video ad that we made for his uphill 32nd CD race against Sessions, and it was good to see that his wife was back from Iraq. Frost worked the crowd quite a bit, but it was an uphill event for the Rep., as the ASDC isn't a Hill crowd.

Jim Blanchard, in case you are wondering, is the new ABD candidate. We caught up with him as TIME was shooting his photo for the spread in the upcoming issue on the DNC Chair candidates. He told us that he'd supported Vilsack, but when Vilsack dropped out, he listened to the DGA, and to surrogates of Clinton and Kerry, and decided to take a look at getting into the race. He might have been expecting to cruise with a bit higher altitude in his candidacy, because when Matt showed him the exit poll numbers, Blanchard seemed to realize the uphill race he was facing. But are we really going to elect a Piper Rudnick DC-lobbyist as the next DNC Chair? Blanchard will need to commit to the race to be taken seriously.

Harold Ickes bombed, but he didn't back down. There's two things that the ASDC detests. 527's and the DNC's state-based canvassers. Same theme, the State Parties say they want the funds and names, but then, why don't they have canvassers out there? It's a legit complaint, there should be more partnership. For instance, Ickes said to focus on building up the state game by training from the DNC for State Parties. But when many in the ASDC heard "527" on his resume, he was toast in their minds.



Display:


Donnie Fowler (3.00 / 1)

I have become increasingly intrigued by Fowler.  The "he's too young" opposition drives me nuts.  Maybe someone who is "new" is needed.  After all, the older guys have experience; experience in losing.  
by SGlennW on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:10:32 PM EST

Re: Donnie Fowler (3.00 / 1)

To his credit, Fowler is the first candidate to create a campaign website in his quest for chair:
www.changetheparty.com

I hope other candidates will follow his lead in creating campaign sites. Of course, Dean is using DfA and is helped by www.drafthoward.com. Rosenberg has NDN's website and has used the NDN Blog to post his speech from Saturday.

by Bob Brigham on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie Fowler (3.00 / 1)

Donnie isn't especially "new".  His father was a DNC Chair.  Donnie has been kicking around politics for a long time.  During the presidential primaries, I heard a lot of ambvilance about him.  However, the reports out of Orlando seem a little more upbeat.  He's climbing in my view, but still not very high.
by aldon on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie Fowler (3.00 / 1)

I'll weigh in again and say, given what I saw in MI with the state organization, I'm less than impressed with Fowler.

Not only that, but I just learned this weekend that our county was being talked about in the state as the golden child of organization in our state this last election. But Fowler's organization did not help us at all--they were generally about 3 weeks behind our decision-making process, and as a result caused a lot of wheel-spinning. So if Fowler is getting credit for MI's grassroots activity, which is apparently now about our party, then I'm less than impressed.

by emptywheel on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie Fowler (3.00 / 1)

I checked out his website and what I assumed was his resume and I wasn't very impressed either.  Not enough quantifiable information about what successes he did have, despite working on 4 losing presidential campaigns.
by KimPossible on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie Fowler (3.00 / 1)

I'm in the 12th District, and we kicked butt here for the ticket. But the fact is, it was all organized through Sandy Levin's campaign, and the state party not only didn't do jack to help us, they fussed and whined about the very GOTV strategies that we used to win the district.
by Neal Harkness on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie Fowler (none / 0)

First, do NOT confuse the Michigan Democratic Party organization with Donnie Fowler.  Donnie Fowler worked for the Kerry Campaign and managed an incredibly successful grassroots operation despite some problems within the statewide MDP organization.  

Kerrys numbers in Michigan were incredible. Minority turnout was record breaking.  Compare Kerrys victory to Gore's 2000 - again Fowler was a tremendous success!

Those of us who worked in the field in Michigan know that any campaign of the magnitude of a Presidential race has its problems...but we also know (from experience) that Donnie was there with the grassroots organizers every step of the way.

Donnie will tell you that the areas where the Kerry numbers were the best were areas where local organizers ran the show and worked together in unity.  That's what he believes in. That's what he'll bring to the DNC...decentrilizing the power base and giving support to the local people is something we have all known we've needed for a long time.

Don't blame Donnie for local problems.  Look at the success and read his plan for a new direction.  He doesn't just talk the talk...he lives it.

by cheflin on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 12:53:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why does the ASDC hate 527's? (3.00 / 1)

This is the first time I've heard this. Why in the world would the ASDC hate 527's? It doesn't make any  sense to me.

There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men - true nobility is being superior to your former self. -- Hindu Proverb
by RedwoodGirl on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:17:56 PM EST

It isn't about winning or losing (3.00 / 1)

It is about the power. The 527s have money and thus the power. Also, one of the driving forces for their creation was the fact the DNC and State Parties have done a poor job organizing. Again, back to the money, which many state parties would rather give to their consultant friends (on percentage) then use for grassroots investment. And again, back to the money, many states would rather have a hand-out from the DNC to fund this than build a small-donor network locally.

Yes, the 527s have flourished because of campaign finance reform. Yet absent McCain/Feingold they would still have been created because of the organizing vacuum.

by Bob Brigham on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't about winning or losing (none / 0)

It sounds like we have a DLC type encrusted heirarchy problem at the State level as well as the federal level. Are they also concerned about message control or is this a side issue or something they have ceeded to the DNC?
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

interesting (3.00 / 1)

The worst part of Brewer kicking you out of the meeting is that Cattle Call has become the source for knowing what is really going on in the race for DNC Chair.

Compare this post to Liz Marlantes' butcher job for the Christian Science Monitor:

WASHINGTON - Wanted: a new face of the Democratic Party. This person should have excellent communications skills - the ability to conceive and deliver a message - and an appealing television presence. Fundraising proficiency a must. Preferably hails from a red state; should hold hawkish views on foreign policy, and be comfortable discussing NASCAR and God.

Only a "Washington" dateline could produce junk like this. But that is actually Marlantes' lead paragraph.

The first sentence isn't incorrect. But the fact that her second sentence contains 4 inaccuracies demonstates her complete lack of knowledge for the situation.

Her job discription is so misguided that it must have come from a Republican wanting to further the GOP domination of national politics.

Worse yet, neither 'reform' nor 'modernization' appear anywhere in the story even though they are the two concepts that have created the dynamics of the campaign.

Thanks Jerome for keeping everyone in the loop with accurate information on the race for DNC Chair.

P.S. Liz, 'grassroots' is one word.

by Bob Brigham on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:18:25 PM EST

Simon Rosenberg (none / 0)

I think Simon Rosenberg is the best bet.  He might very well be the only guy that can mend the drift between the Dean wing and the moderate DLC wing.

Additionally, I am curious in knowing which Senator you are referring to.  Jeffords or Lieberman?  I simply cannot understand why any Democrat wants their former Vice Presidential nominee defeated.  Every candidate seemed to go negative in the primary campaign this year.  Joe Lieberman is a man of integrity.  He stands up for what he believes in.  Remember, this is a man who worked for Sen. Ribicoff.  How about ousting Mitch McConnell in 2008?  Focus efforts on OUSTING REPUBLICANS, not Democrats.

Losing Joe Lieberman will give rise to the GOP in Connecticutt with regards to another US Senate seat.  It will give Chris Shays or Nancy Johnson a free seat in the senate.  Is that really worth it?  Absolutely not.

I've looked at their numbers.  They might be a "blue state."  But we are talking about a state with two Democrats in the Senate, and a Republican Governor of all things.  Additionally, they only have two Democrats in Congress in heavy Democratic Districts.  Does that make sense?  No way, Jose.  Moreover, Chris Shays is a very moderate Republican that spoke out against Delay.  A loss for Lieberman in the primaries would mean the seat goes Republican for the first time in years.

Here is what the Centrist Coalition says about Joe:

Strongly pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
Favors moderate economic policy of modest tax cuts and deficit reduction.
The leading Democrat in support of the Iraq war. Generally favors a "robust internationalist" foreign policy -- not the unilateralism of some Republicans, but with a willingness to use force.
Original sponsor of bill to create the Homeland Security department.
Proposed a "political truce" and the creation of a bipartisan war council on Iraq in April 2004.
Speaks out on values-related issues.
Strong pro-environment record.
Has favored school vouchers.
Interest group ratings:
  • Chamber of Commerce: 25 (2003), 60 (2002), 43 (2001), 33 (2000)
  • Christian Coalition: 0 (2003), 20 (2001), 15 (2000)
 Vouchers and some of the Iraq war thing aside, there is no need to let him go.

This is my $0.02 as I have one final left.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:21:48 PM EST

Re: Simon Rosenberg (none / 0)

I am from Connecticut and plugged into a few different groups.  Joe's mom shows up at a lot of the events I attend, and a lot of people like Joe.  However, a lot of people privately don't seem strongly committed to Joe.  

If he decides to run for re-election, he will most likely get re-elected, and probably wouldn't face a primary.  But there are a lot of people would like to see someone else.

Jim Dean isn't the person to run for Lieberman's seat.  Jim's a great guy, and a friend, but I don't think you can convince him to run for Senate or even Governor, despite some jokes by Howard Dean about this last year.

Susan Bysiewicz, who is Secretary of State is viewed as a strong possible Senate Candidate as is Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, although a lot of this depends on who ends up running for Governor.

Living in the 4th C.D., where Shays just barely got re-elected, I can't see Shays running for Senate against any of those, and he is probably the candidate with the best chance.  Nancy Johnson would probably more likely to try, she could raise the money, and didn't have a strong challenge this time around, but I don't think she could take on Bysiewicz or Blumenthal.

Based on this, it seems highly dubious that Republicans would take Lieberman's seat if he doesn't run.

by aldon on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simon Rosenberg (none / 0)

If Chris Dodd does run for Gov. Dick Blumenthal would most likely get the seat.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simon Rosenberg (3.00 / 1)

Well, Joementum may take himself out of the running anyway, by accepting Bush's offer of DHS. In which case, he should be distanced from the party as far as possible, so the Democrats share none of the blame when Joementum gets blamed for the next terror attack.
by emptywheel on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simon Rosenberg (none / 0)

That would bring the number to FOUR seats to break a filibuster.  I just don't see it happening.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Lieberman (none / 0)

Lieberman sees his primary role as advocating for Israel. And Israel's perspective is quite Likud at this point.

If it comes to a choice between doing right by the Dems or doing right by Likud Lieberman is gonna do right by Likud and tell everybody it's the same as doing right by the Dems.

Peace is in the US national interest in Israel-Palestine. Israel sees its interest as grabbing as much land as possible.

Lieberman gets in the way of the Dems doing the right thing on Israel and takes up a Dem slot on Sunday mornings.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Lieberman (none / 0)

Ya know, I am very pro-Israel.  Paraphrasing what Professor Dershowitz said once: Israel is seen as bad when the right wing is in power, and good when the left is in power.  This was in an email sent out a while back:
Young people will not support Israel if they believe that it is part of a package that they cannot buy into.  The election of a candidate who supports both Israel and domestic policies with which students agree, is the best thing that could happen on college campuses with regard to support for Israel.  Think back four years when President Clinton was in the White House.  Support for Israel was much higher on college campuses, because students saw a President deeply committed to domestic values with which they agreed, and also deeply committed to Israel.  Today, the enemies of Israel on campuses teach our students that only right wingers, like President Bush and religious conservatives support Israel--that all "progressives" favor the Palestinian cause.  It would be important for university students - - our future leaders - - to see a progressive leader like John Kerry, with whom they agree and identify on domestic issues, standing tall with Israel.  This will make it easier for them to support Israel without fear of being branded a reactionary.  Just as Israel should not be allowed to become an issue that divides Republicans and Democrats, so too it must not be allowed to become an issue that divides conservatives and liberals

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Israel is a problem (none / 0)

Israel's unwillingness to make a just peace is a big problem for the United States.

Israel will make peace when it sees it has lost the protection of the US veto in the UN Security Council.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

As long as AIPAC is in power in DC, American policy will always be pro-Israel.

Israel has a right to defend herself from the Palestinian terrorists that have bombed innocent civilians.  My cousin was almost killed TWICE but Palestinian terrorists.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

Does Israel's right to defend itself superceed Palestinians' rights to resist the occupation?

Do Palestinians qualify for full human rights under international law? Or just the rights Israel decides to grant?

Sorry about your cousin, but there's alot of Arabs who have had their cousins messed with by Israel too.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

There are many Palestinians that opt to live in the Israeli borders because the PA has crappy services.  It depends on what type of Palestinian.  A good one or a terrorist.  I consider those throwing rocks at soldiers to be terrorists.

Read Honest Reporting or JTA.  This is where both the conservative or liberal media.  Or read Ha'aretz.  

Is it a human right to smuggle weapons in to kill innocent Israelis?  Israel has alrights to demolish houses where there are tunnels.  They have all rights to demolish houses of terrorists.

You are reading too much into the ISM.  There are good Palestinians and bad Palestinians but the fact of the matter is, until the Moshiach comes, there will be a fight on the land.  It was given to the Jews by G-d.  I believe in Divine Mosaic Law and I am a very religious Jew.

What occupation?  The Palestinians have the West Bank as Arafat was EXILED from Jordan.  The Jordanians did not want him.

Human Rights in Yisrael
Myths and Facts online
The Peace Process

There is a rising Anti-Zionist faction in the party.  Democrats have historically been Pro-Israel.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

If you want modern disputes resolved based on your interpretation of ancient religious texts I consider you an irrational religious zealot.
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

I am not a irrational zealot and I find that comment very offensive and insensitive!
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ancient religious texts (none / 0)

But you do want the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians resolved according to your interpretation of ancient religious texts. Is this correct?
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ancient religious texts (none / 0)

Traditionally, that's how it works.  Under Clinton, Barak offered Arafat a plan that would work.  Arafat caved in to the other Arab leaders and turned the plan down.  He then said he would take it up but it was too late.

I can only hope moderate leadership arises out of his death that will shut down Hamas once and for all.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the official version (none / 0)

The true version is that the plan offered looked like a checkerboard-this square mile was under Palestinian control, this square mile was under joint control, this square mile under Israeli control.  It was a mess, and an intentional non-starter.  Arafat could be faulted by not offering a counter proposal, but apparently the proposal was offered in a take-it-or-leave-it manner, so he left it.

Here's what Israel needs to do:

  1. Make a line where on one side is Israel and the other side is Not-Israel.  Said line can not look like a Congressional District in Texas.
  2. Make everybody living on the side that is Israel a full Israeli citizen, with the right to vote in the Israeli Parliment, etc.
  3. Completely pull out of Not-Israel.  COMPLETELY!
  4. Build a big honking wall around the border seperating Israel and Not-Israel.

It's simple.  Israel doesn't even need the Palestinians to agree to anything-they could just do it themselves if they wanted to.  They don't want to-they want to have thier cake and eat it too-they want to control the West Bank and Gaza (and build settlements there), but they aren't willing to properly annex them (because then the majority of the population of Israel would be Muslim and Israel would cease to exist).  So they treat them as colonies, as slaves.  Needless to say, these colonies aren't happy about this.  The situation reminds me of the United States prior to the Revolutionary war, minus the ocean between it and Britain.
by Geotpf on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 07:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

BTW, on what issues do you align with the DLC besides Israel?
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Israel is a problem (none / 0)

If Rosenberg is chair, both the DNC and RNC chairmen will be Jewish and they are very pro-Israel as is any Jew.

That's a lengthy discussion.  I have a final to study for.

I am bolding what I agree with in the  New Democratic Credo as the agenda is far too long and would mess up the thread:

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.
We believe that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none. We believe that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy.
We believe that government programs should be grounded in the values most Americans share: work, family, personal responsibility, individual liberty, faith, tolerance, and inclusion.
We believe in community; that we can achieve our individual destinies only if we share a commitment to our national destiny. We believe in an ethic of mutual responsibility in which government has an obligation to create opportunity for citizens, but citizens have an obligation to give something back to the commonwealth.
We believe America has a responsibility to lead the world toward greater political and economic freedom.
We believe that as advocates of activist government, we need to reinvent government so that it is both more responsive and more accountable to those it serves and to the taxpayers who pay for it.

Also, in the New Democratic Agenda which can be found on the DLC site: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why DLC? (none / 0)

When you highlight everything you highlight nothing.

The appropriate response to the question would have been to put it in your own words.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why DLC? (none / 0)

give me some time.  their agenda is huge.  it would take time to read through and type in my own words.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why DLC? (none / 0)

I'd still like to hear it.

Convince me you're not a one-issue voter.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

kydem, Lieberman & Israel (none / 0)

Just to be clear you agree with Lieberman's politics on Israel because you believe God gave all the land to the Jews and since the Palestinians ain't chosen they need to just get over it and comply with God's will.
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kydem, Lieberman & Israel (none / 0)

Just about the entire Jewish population believes that.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kydem, Lieberman & Israel (none / 0)

Did someone elect you spokesman for Jews?

In my experience most American Jews want a just and lasting peace. It's the minority of nutcases that want to take all the land "promised" in the Bible.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:40:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kydem, Lieberman & Israel (none / 0)

No, but that's what many religious Jews believe.  I am no nutcase.  I don't call people of other religions nutcases.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

other followers of ancient religious texts (none / 0)

What do you call Palestinians that say God promised them the land?
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 07:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: other followers of ancient religious texts (none / 0)

the conflict comes from the fact that the Seed of Avraham will get the land.  Both Yitzchak and Yishmael descend from Avraham.  This is a conflict that has been going in longer than 1948
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 07:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: other followers of ancient religious texts (none / 0)

Are you admitting that the Palestinian claim to the land is as strong as the Israeli claim?
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: other followers of ancient religious texts (none / 0)

Not exactly as Hagar and Yishmael were kicked out if I recall.  There will be no easy solution.  I'm gonna be frank, I will support a Palestinian state if it means peace but that means Hamas and all those group have to stop first and I have not read anything about terrorism stopping anytime soon.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

precondition for peace (none / 0)

So you support peace after Israel gets everything it wants. How generous!
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Fowler... (3.00 / 1)

...if he was responsible for Kerry's field operation in Michigan, I'm not very impressed by him.

Kerry did worse this year than Gore did in 2000. And much worse than Jennifer Granholm did in 2002.

That's not counting the fact that Granholm is a popular governor, and should have helped Kerry more.

by Hesiod Theogeny on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:24:56 PM EST

Re: On Fowler... (none / 0)

The facts is that Kerry got 300,000 more votes in Michigan than Al Gore did in 2000 and 900,000 more votes than Jennifer Granholm did in 2002.

So the fact is that you should be impressed by Donnie Fowler. Only Pennsylvania did a better job at increasing the African American vote. Nearly 75% of "Reagan Democrat" union members voted for Kerry in Michigan.

by hawker on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 10:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rosenberg: down(?) but not out (message-wise) (3.00 / 2)

Hmm, if this is at all reflective of actual voting and not just PR on the part of political animals, then things don'tt look good for our hero indeed. Win lose or draw though, Simon's got it right. And whether or not he leads the party his.. OUR message should be embraced by it; and I predict it will. It will because in the end political parties want not just to embrace positions, they want to to win.

If in fact Dean's selected then, his fiery rhetoric aside, the NDN vision may well still carry the day. Howard was a centrist and self-described New Dem governor before wrapping himself in the mantle of anti-war candidate from the D wing of the party. As I contended then, I still hold that had he prevailed in the primaries Dean would have tacked hard center for the general election. No surprise there, but I took a lot of fire for that opinion on various pro-Dean lists at the time.

So, congrats Simon! Whatever the outcome of the battle of Orlando, you may have already won the war. Now for those hearts and minds in the red zone...

by ringmaster on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:55:06 PM EST

frost may be nice... (3.00 / 1)

...but he's still a schmuck.

and i'm suprised with ron kirk.  he's got skeletons, you know.  had anyone at the dnc bothered to scan the pages of the dallas observer, kirk wouldn't even be a candidate.  

i'm still rooting for dean, with fowler being my #2 pick at the moment.  don't know much about rosenberg, but anyone who ditches the dlc gets points in my book.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:03:38 PM EST

Re: frost may be nice... (none / 0)

had anyone at the dnc bothered to scan the pages of the dallas observer, kirk wouldn't even be a candidate.

Can you offer up a couple of examples since I don't have access to the Dallas Observer?  what little I know about Kirk leads me to believe he's not a reform candidate.

Frost, from what I know, is Bush-lite.  Wasn't that the jist of his campaign?

by KimPossible on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:20:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

gutting national org is bad idea (none / 0)

Gutting the national party is not a winning strategy at the national level.

Do the Republicans have a weak central organization with strong state parties?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:05:28 PM EST

Blanchard (none / 0)

Isn't it Jim Blanchard?
by desmoulins on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:16:44 PM EST

Re: Blanchard (none / 0)

I believe so.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sharing email lists (none / 0)

It's an interesting detail about the candidates' willingness to share the DNC mailing lists with the states.  

I'm all for states going out and canvassing for themselves, of course, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the DNC would not share their email lists, except to concentrate their own power themselves.

The fact is, the vast majority of ordinary people who join the DNC mailing list do so thinking that they are joining the "Democratic Party" mailing list.  The lack of cross-pollination and information sharing between local, state, and national parties is very detrimental and results in wasted resources and duplicated (or triplicated) efforts.

I can understand individual candidates not sharing their lists if they choose not to do so.  527's and PACs would also keep their own lists, of course.  But for different "factions" within the party heirarchy to keep their lists separate is absolutely counterproductive.

If we are going to rebuild local party organizations in areas where they have disappeared or have really stagnated, the products of the unprecedented growth of the DNC emailing list (fueled by anger against Bush) in the past year need to be shared with state and local parties.  

(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)
by Maura in CT on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:03:45 PM EST

Re: Sharing email lists (none / 0)

OK, here's a few reasons. Those who signed up with the DNC didn't opt into the state's list; what's to hold the states to maintaining some sort of professionalism and not buring the list, or even selling it, afterall thats their practice.
by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sharing email lists (none / 0)

Certainly the campaign or org that collected the email addresses could send an email asking people to join their state list or some other project.

But would the state parties put the lists to good use.

I get the impression these state party people think that the lists can simply be converted to big money. I'm skeptical.

If Dean, DfA, the Kerry campaign or anybody else gave my email to Blagojevich or Madigan I wouldn't send money. And I expect a large number of Illinois Dems feel the same way.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Confusion Regarding Emails and Donors (3.00 / 1)

I am a member of the DNC who sat through the Q and A and I think the report you got was inaccurate.

There was a little discussion about the sharing of large Donors, but there never was a question specifically about sharing lists.

At one point, Simon Rosenberg mentioned during discussion of how the National Party could do a better job working with the states, that the DNC should get its lists out to states - which was met with applause.

I took pretty extensive notes and since we were asked to turn off tape recorders (when the media and bloggers were sent packing) I have been, uhm, listening to my highly detailed memory of the event and I can't find anything indicating that specific discussion.

That does not really change the usefullness of your report - good assessment.  I wrote one that comes to a lot of the same conclusions as yours over on Kos...

by txdnc3 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:58:00 PM EST

"Team Dem" throwing out my people (none / 0)

Did the person (people) leading the meeting explain why bloggers were thrown out?

Are transparency and accountabilty important?

Why should I feel loyal to "Team Democrat" if my people are getting thrown out of meetings?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Team Dem" throwing out my people (none / 0)

The forum was being held by the Association of State Democratic Chairs and it's leader - Michigan Chair, Mark Brewer - announced that media and bloggers should leave and all tape recorders turned off after the initial 5 minute statements by each candidate.

The stated purpose was to "have an off the record, closed event; question/answer session with the candidates."

As an organization tied to the party, I think they should have left the meeting open.

But I also wouldn't harbor anger toward the party itself - and I do not know how well Mr. Brewer's pronouncement fits with the opinions other State Chairs might have had...

by txdnc3 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 07:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Team Dem" throwing out my people (none / 0)

Absent vociferous objection by the audience I'd assume they were OK with the call.

Were people invited back in after five minutes?

Are the Dems committed to open government? See this post.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Team Dem" throwing out my people (none / 0)

I wouldn't assume that lack of vociferous objection meant implicit support.

You got to understand - most of the folks in that room probably don't know what a blogger is.

Five minutes was the allowance for each candidate to give an opening statement - it was for the Q&A after that when everyone was asked to leave.

As for "the Dems" being committed to open government, I read the link you referrenced and I can't speak for your state party or legislators.  But otherwise i'd say "yes."

by txdnc3 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 10:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Show me the money (none / 0)

I assume you're in Texas.

What proposals to Texas Dems have for making Texas gov't more open and accountable? Which of these proposals has been introduced as a bill?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Show me the money (none / 0)

Well, Carl, I don't mind chatting with you about issues you care about and what Democrats might be doing regarding those issue, but why don't we take it off the list.  Email me if you'd like.
by txdnc3 on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.