Fowler Surfaces (DNC Chair's Race)

by donnie, Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:28:42 PM EST

This is certainly a first. I wish everyone running for DNC chair would post a diary on MyDD so I could promote it to the front page--Chris

Happy New Year to everyone.  Most of you know that I am a candidate for DNC chair.  Let me tell you what I will do after the early February election by the DNC's 447 shareholder members.  I also would like your input. First, I am definitely a candidate.  It wasn't hard after going through another election to want to take my experience and ideas and make a change.  Unlike many others, I have not spent two months since the election publicly weighing the risks and thinking out loud about whether I should interrupt my life.  

For almost twenty years, on-the-ground in fourteen states, and across four presidential campaign cycles I have been in the field helping Democrats.  Now that grassroots is fashionable, it's easy to say it's the way to go -- everyone is.  But when I started as a young pup, folks told me that I should do media or policy or fundraising because there was not future in field.  Well, now we know it is the future of our Party.  You might even say that but I was grassroots before grassroots was cool.  So, here's what the DNC needs and why I am running.  I hope you will join me ...

Our national party needs to look away from DC and get itself out of its web of conventional wisdom.  The DNC needs to lead by turning to strong state parties and successful elected officials.  It must respect, recognize, and include those who have been most loyal to the Party and must embrace the new electorate that has arisen.  

A CHANGED PHILOSOPHY

  •  do not concede regions, issues, voters, or constituencies
  •  develop values agenda so that Democrats are more than a list of issues
  •  break the party free from an aristocracy of consultants
  •  use state, local, and netroots leaders to set national strategies
  •  don't just plan for the next election - look four, six, and ten years down the road
  •  avoid the false choice of moving the party left or right (we need every voter)
  •  local people know better - empower them, let them lead
  •  inclusion at every level in decisionmaking and resource allocation
  •  broaden DNC beyond battleground state presidential committee

INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS
  • appoint executive in Office of the Chair as direct liaison to state parties
  • move parts of communications and political ops to regional locations
  • increase resources on research and media tracking
  • run weekly national message coordinating meeting
  • develop national ballot initiative strategy
  • execute national redistricting strategy
  • run year-round voter registration and issue identification programs
  • raise money through traditional means and recognize value of new donors
  • increase DNC professionalism - measurable goals, accountability, and review

You can see much more on my website, www.ChangeTheParty.com, but please know that the DNC cannot continue down the path we walked in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  We have a real chance to build on the past, remember our souls, and move forward dramatically.

* * * * * * * * * *

RESURFACING ...

(Tuesday Afternoon, California)

Hi there. As my granmother used to say, "Bless your heart!" I had no idea that my MyDD posting on Sunday would get create such a ruckus. OK. I do apologize for not responding earlier. Sincerely. And (not so sincerely) I proudly wear the title "king of the burning dog poop" bestowed upon me. Plus, I now have my first scandal. Thank you all for this.

I have been traveling and in the last two days have only spent about an hour on a computer. Too bad that my blackberry does not handle the blogs well. So let me take up the challenge of all your great responses over the next few hours, so stay tuned ...




Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 83 Comments :: Post a Comment


question (none / 0)

Are you for or against keeping the current Democratic primary system that always leads with Iowa and New Hampshire? If you're against it, what do you propose as an alternive system?
by dwbh on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:53:53 PM EST

Re: question (none / 0)

The most important qualifications for determining when a state casts its presidential nominating votes should be ...

(a) Small to medium size states should go first so that our presidential candidates personally face the hundreds of conversations and questions from committed voters. We need to avoid the impersonal television and rally elections that inevitably occur in bigger states and those that vote later in the season. Our eventual nominee will be better because of these retail political exercises.

(b) When combined, the first half-dozen states should represent the diversity of our Party and our country (geographic and demographic). Iowa and New Hampshire (both of which have elected and re-elected Democratic governors in recent years) should be part of this process because they represent two different regions of our country and many parts of a winning coalition. The DNC needs to carefully manage other states that also go early -- including states like South Carolina and Arizona that have recently cast early ballots -- so that more geographic, ethnic, and racial diversity is assured.

Please check out my "Plan for the New DNC" on my website (www.ChangeTheParty.com) for more recommendations on moving the DNC forward.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

question (none / 0)

Would you encourage the involvement of 527 organizations in elections, specifically allowing them to spearhead turnout efforts?

Or would you adopt the top-down, business hierarchical approach that dominates RNC election strategy?

by kitsae on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:32:41 PM EST

Re: question (none / 0)

The national party must treat activists and allies as a river.  Rivers can rage and flood.  They can be channeled and serve everyone's purposes.  Or they can be dammed up, benefitting no one.  

All groups and activists should be given the leeway to travel as they wish.  It is up to the national party to offer a solid, clear, and succinct set of themes and messages to guide the direction or the progressive movement.  And, even better, the national party should do what it legally can to support progress through research, expertise, training, and money.  The party should not, however, tell well-meaning, creative, and smart allies to stop what they are doing.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good post (3.00 / 2)

Lots of great ideas. One thing missing, and Rosenberg is addressing this.

What about minority outreach?

We need blacks, hispanics and others to know they are not taken for granted, that we can't win without them.

by mysteve on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:35:12 PM EST

Re: Good post (none / 0)

Minority outreach is important. It's one of the reasons why Kerry won Michigan, which had the second highest increase in African-American voters in the country. Take a look at Donnie Fowler's Michigan Campaign Summary.
by hawker on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good post (3.00 / 1)

Rather than making promises, I will provide you with results from my past practices.  Let me give you just two examples from my national role in 2000 as Gore's Field Director (where, by the way, the Democrats got a record turnout and won the popular vote over Bush).  Four years ago, my team had two main functions -- (1) hire and direct all the in-state campaign teams and (2) slate the 3500 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.

On both counts, the Gore campaign produced the most diverse staff and delegation in party history.  

Addressed it and done it.

Thanks for your comment.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:54:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good post (none / 0)

On both counts, the Gore campaign produced the most diverse staff and delegation in party history.  

Addressed it and done it.

I don't think so.  Diversity in a staff is not the same as producing results.  Gore's field program was not the, um, most effective in that we didn't produce the votes where we needed to.  I wonder if you could describe where you felt you went wrong, and what you as National Field Director could have done differently to actually win the election.

Also, what was your role in the election fiasco?

by SocialNetworker on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

comments (none / 0)

Three things that you mentioned that I like:

  • break the party free from an aristocracy of consultants
  • avoid the false choice of moving the party left or right (we need every voter)
  • move parts of communications and political ops to regional locations

----

The point about toppling the aristocracy of consultants is dead-on, and I'm amazed that you're courageous enough to run for DNC chair with that as a major platform plank. That takes real balls. Blowing up the "right vs left" paradigm echoes something that Rep. Brad Carson has recently publically advocated, and which I think reflects a deeper generational divide within the party - I happen to think that it's essential for the longterm survival of the party. Lastly, the idea of making the regional comm and pol directors actually live and work in their regions is a small innovation, but outstanding and one that I think could contribute greatly for re-connecting grassroots activists with the Party's national nerve center.

You're doing a good job, Donnie! keep it up!

by bi66er on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:36:30 PM EST

Re: comments (none / 0)

Does breaking up the aristocracy of consultants include dumping Shrum and going to a flat fee for ad placement instead of the lucrative percentage deal that Shrum and Trippi got? Nobody is worth the kind of money that is being thrown at these guys to place ads.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: comments (3.00 / 1)

I have come to understand that the "aristocracy of consultants" is a defacto system of control which effectively dominates most of the Democratic Party's national operations - including everything from the broad messages of the major party committees to the line-item budgeting of small congressional campaigns. This system of control is created by the fact that a small, elite group of Democratic consultants virtually monopolizes all of the major contracts - the strategy/message contracts, the polling contracts, TV& radio media contracts, even the direct mail and paid phones contracts. This aristocracy, which gets its power and cachet from its close and personal relationships with senior Democratic electeds, has grown so influential that their services are often fought over, not necessarily because of the quality of those services, but for the credentialing it can provide to a campaign still in its early stages. One great for instance is the Shrum primary which lead up to the '03-'04 presidential primary season. The aristocracy monopolizes the flow of ideas within campaigns and quite often ends up stifling innovation.

I would point out that the GOP has its own aristocracy of consultants. The difference is that their aristocracy has been kicking our aristocracy's butts for going on 25 years now. Notable exception: the Carville/Begala/Greenberg team.

Anyway, "toppling the aristocracy of consultants," means, at least in my mind, first, breaking up the monopoly this small group of consultants has on the major campaign and party committee contracts, and to start making consultants who continually provide bad advice and who seem to perpetually lose pay a price for failure. It would also include leading the way in restructuring contracts so that "winning" is a greater incentive than "volume of work." And it would likely mean that Bob Shrum would never play the role of "chief strategist" for a major national party committee or candidate ever again.

by bi66er on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

State-level reform (none / 0)

First of all, thanks for posting this here, and thanks for being out-front about your candidacy.

And now, as queston:

The troubles of DC and the "Aristocracy of Consultants" is well understood by most, but as Jerome and others have pointed out, the same problems exist on the state level in many cases as well, only there's much less of a spotlight on them.

I'm curious how you'd see the National party working (if at all) to revitalize state-level organizations.

Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:38:58 PM EST

Re: State-level reform (none / 0)

State parties, elected officials, and local activists are the best key to winning.  The national party has an obligation to set benchmarks and share best practices with all state organizations.  It should help state parties with the expertise, training, research, technology, and money to achieve those standards on a set schedule and in ways that best benefit each state individually.  At the same time, the resources must come with a promise of accountability from the state leaders to ensure that the investments pay off in victories for Democrats.
Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

aristocracy of consultants (none / 0)

I'd like to know that this means. It certainly sounds like something we're all against, but what does it mean?

The Republicans had a consultant as Party chair last time and it worked great for them. They had a state party chair run the national party in 96 and floundered.

They had a prominent consultant run their Congressional Campaign committee in 94 when they swept into power.

I'm all for reforming the party nationally and at state level but I wonder what the new reformed party will look like that is different from how it functions today.

by desmoulins on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:59:15 PM EST

Re: aristocracy of consultants (none / 0)

Please see my reply above to BriVT.  Thanks for asking.
Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:27:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0)

Donnie, first thank you for being the first candidate for Chair.  You have clearly used that time to put together an impressive plan.

I don't know if you saw the big Washington Post write up about the election, but one point they made was the Republicans commitment to mining votes even in vast "Blue" regions.

Democrats, on the other hand, focus on driving up turn out in precincts that perform for Dems.

How would you address this and what would you do in 05, 06, and 07 to address this?

by fightforamerica on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:31 PM EST

Re: Question (none / 0)

The Democrats cannot afford to let one loyal voter go untouched and cannot afford to concede any voter that could be convinced to come on board (even if it's only for a few elections).  A Democratic voter in a 99% Republican precinct is worth just as much as a Democratic voter in a solidly Democratic area.  Thus, we must talk to 'base' voters and persuadable voters no matter where they live.  This is a practice that is not widespread in our party, but the new DNC must accept and adopt it.
Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Donnie... (none / 0)

... Thank you very much for the post. It is excellent of you to reach out and talk with us about your views. I appreciate it very much and am fairly certain I can say that we all do.

I liked what I just read. Good stuff. Forgive me if I pick on a couple things I didn't like as much and ask you to expand or explain a bit.

In your post the other day you wrote in answer to question #3:

" "someone who understands the importance of taking the massive amount of data that was collected about voters in this election" -- five years in telecom and tech have taught me that technology is not just about buying your canvassers a Palm Pilot and putting up a website.   Voters are the customers that need to be tracked, niche-marketed, and sold on our product."

And here you said...

"... the DNC's 447 shareholder members."

Marketing and business terminology. Big turn-off for me and many of us in the reform wing that consider the corporate influence on the Democratic Party to be a huge part of our problem.

I also wonder about your statement here...

"raise money through traditional means and recognize value of new donors"

What do you mean by that? "traditional means"? Is this a poorly worded statement or are you sending an anti-internet and small-donor message? That's the way it sounds but I doubt you really meant it that way. Care to take a moment to clarify?

I liked this part very much...

"The DNC needs to lead by turning to strong state parties and successful elected officials."

As others have asked here... tell me about strengthening state parties. How would you do that? How would you differentiate between state parties that the DNC would assist and work with and those that it would require to change before getting heavily involved with them?

And what do you mean by "turning to... successful elected officials?" How is that different than today?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Peace,

Andrew
Democracy for the Hudson-Mohawk Region

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:42 PM EST

Re: Donnie... (none / 0)

Lots of great questions and some smart comments.  Here's what I believe ...

  1. There are many leaders in the business world who support progressive causes -- biologists, Internet executives, stem cell researchers.  I do not subscribe to the notion that the Democrats must be anti-business to protect and advocate our key values.  I also believe that the national party has a great deal to learn from the professional practices of many businesses -- measurable goals, accountability for work, and regular review.  I do, though, agree with you that if the Democratic Party becomes too cozy with corporate bigwigs, it will begin to lose sight of the core values of fairness, opportunity, and workers' rights that undergird our Party.

  2.  When it comes to raising money, the DNC has finally gotten to a point this year where we competed almost equally with the Republicans financially.  This is because the Party and its allies continued to receive the support of those Democrats who can afford to give $2,000 or even $25,000 to support our candidates.  These are the 'traditional' donors whom I referenced.  But, most importantly this past year, the Democrats have finally learned how to communicate with and engage those activists who give smaller amounts of money -- $10, $50, $100.  These are largley Internet contributors and new to giving to the national party.  This is what I meant by raising "money through traditional means and recognize value of new donors."

  3.  On state parties, please see my website for lots of details, but also please see my answer above to a similar question.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie... (none / 0)

Thank you for your responses. Much appreciated.

One point of clarification... I did not mean to imply at all that we Democrats should be anti-business, that would be naive silliness, simply that I believe it is imperative that we claim the populist mantle as a strong counter position to the Republican (and in some corners Democratic) plutocracy.

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:55:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

comment and question (none / 0)

Thanks for taking the time to address us directly.  I am impressed with your philosophy.  What I especially liked:  "don't just plan for the next election - look four, six, and ten years down the road."

I have a question about one of your statements: "message coordinating meeting."  Does that mean developing a media strategy for the party as a whole (i.e. including the Democratic delegation in the house and Senate)?  I think many at the grassroots level  frustrated by the unwillingness of the party leadership to articulate a coherent, and at times partisan message FORCEFULLY.

by KDMfromPhila on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:11:25 PM EST

Re: comment and question (none / 0)

You are right and that is probably the most important goal of a new DNC.
Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

primaries (none / 0)

Would you support southern states having the early primaries?
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:19:39 PM EST

great idea (none / 0)


by Sam Loomis on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great idea (none / 0)

thanks.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great idea (none / 0)

I disagree. The South is the most reliably Republican part of the nation. Why on Earth should it get "the early primaries" and thereby disproportionate influence in picking Democratic Presidential nominees?

I'll favor the South getting the early primaries when the GOP agrees to hold their early primaries in Vermont and Massachusetts.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!
by Mathwiz on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: primaries (none / 0)

Well, thanks for chiming in here.  Here are my views on the nominating calendar which answer "yes" to your question about including more places early on, including my native South ...

The most important qualifications for determining when a state casts its presidential nominating votes should be ...

(a) Small to medium size states should go first so that our presidential candidates personally face the hundreds of conversations and questions from committed voters. We need to avoid the impersonal television and rally elections that inevitably occur in bigger states and those that vote later in the season. Our eventual nominee will be better because of these retail political exercises.

(b) When combined, the first half-dozen states should represent the diversity of our Party and our country (geographic and demographic). Iowa and New Hampshire (both of which have elected and re-elected Democratic governors in recent years) should be part of this process because they represent two different regions of our country and many parts of a winning coalition. The DNC needs to carefully manage other states that also go early -- including states like South Carolina and Arizona that have recently cast early ballots -- so that more geographic, ethnic, and racial diversity is assured.

Please check out my "Plan for the New DNC" on my wesbite (www.ChangeTheParty.com) for more recommendations on moving the DNC forward.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks, BUT.... (3.00 / 5)

... would it be too much to ask that you follow up on the questions posed on this thread?  i mean, it's great that you've actually gone to the 'roots and posted this entry on a blog.  however, it would be even better if you could take the time to either answer the questions or compose another diary which addresses them all.  

donnie, i am known for being pretty blunt, so let me just say it.  as it stands, all we've got from you is a sales pitch on the front page.  i want more than that from my party.  i want leadership who will not only get in touch with the grassroots, but hear their concerns and take them seriously.  i expect some follow up, not just proclamations from on high.  i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but only if you take us seriously and follow up with answers to these questions.

see, the blogosphere got screwed this year. as you know, we congealed around two candidates (dean & clark).  then when our guys didn't make it, the entrenched power structure of the party stroked everyone's egos (inviting bloggers to the convention, for example), made us feel important, then treated us like ATM machines.  it was a raw deal.  i hope you realise that there are real people behind all these nicknames, and we have real feelings and real concerns.  we are not the party's ATM machine, but we are willing to help the party as long as we are truly valued and respected.  is that too much to ask of the power structure in washington?

so donnie, take that for what it's worth, and let's get some answers to these questions please.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:25:13 PM EST

Word... (none / 0)

Just another reason why anna of annatopia is one my favorite blogs/bloggers.

You are spot on when it comes to the ATM machine malaise many have come to understand post election.  As I wrote in my ATM PIN Number piece, these politico types really need to recognize the value of TWO-WAY mass communication that the Netroots provide.  

In order to use it effectively, candidates of all shapes and sizes need to move past the traditional ONE-WAY mindset of television, radio, and print.

Just my two cents.  Thanks for the observation, anna.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you've ever attended a City Council meeting (none / 0)

then you know all about the 2 minute comment period that everybody is allowed so the City Council can ignore them for another month. That approach is not going to work. Without two way communication everybody is just wasting their breath, or key strokes as it were.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

exactly (none / 0)

that's what i was trying to hit on.  this is a two way street, isn't it?  and if not, it should be.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly (none / 0)

And that's fine.  For those that want to use the Net as a one-way method of communicating -- they can get left behind with the rest of the people who want to talk AT the net/grassroots instead of WITH them.

Tim

I was looking for a Tim LaHaye joke in there, but couldn't find one quick enough.

by Tim Tagaris on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes yes yes (none / 0)

i hate feeling like i'm talking to a refridgerator.  or a brick wall.

and i'm hoping that donnie is off writing some post in response to these great questions...  but that would probably be wishful thinking.  let's hope i'm proven wrong and he shows up later in the thread.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes yes yes (none / 0)

Do you think the popularity of Donnie's post caught him by surprise? I wonder if he's thinking about trying this over a dkos?
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

who knows? (none / 0)

last time he posted a comment he got a shitload of responses.  

i imagine he is a pretty busy guy nowadays, so i am giving him a bit of leeway. i don't imagine he'll get back to us right away; i just hope he gets back to us with some solid answers.  

like i said upthread, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  i just don't want to be talking to a wall and i don't want to be treated like an ATM machine.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes yes yes (none / 0)

Well, I hold out hope.  Not necessarily for this thread, but for the future.

I hold out hope for the day when a candidate has "netroots" time scheduled and treated as important as fundraising time and block-walking.  When he/she/it has, say, two consecutive hours a day set aside to reach out and respond on-line.

If you were a candidate, and went block-walking, would you ring a door bell, drop the lit piece, and sprint away?  

Or in the case of some candidates, it would be more like leaving a flaming bag of poop on the doorstep and bolting.  Good old ding-dong-ditch.  Those were the days weren't they?

Tim

P.S. I have food poisoning, feel bad for me.

by Tim Tagaris on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

QOTD (none / 0)

If you were a candidate, and went block-walking, would you ring a door bell, drop the lit piece, and sprint away?  

Or in the case of some candidates, it would be more like leaving a flaming bag of poop on the doorstep and bolting.  Good old ding-dong-ditch.

ROTLMAO

by Bob Brigham on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

some sympathy (none / 0)

i sincerely hope you feel better, tim.  just don't eat at taco bell next time, ok?

/off-topic

back on topic, i love this part of your comment:

"I hold out hope for the day when a candidate has "netroots" time scheduled and treated as important as fundraising time and block-walking.  When he/she/it has, say, two consecutive hours a day set aside to reach out and respond on-line."

but do we really think that any candidate will ever get two hours time online?  maybe at the local and state level, but i just can't see a national politico investing that kind of time personally.  but you know, i would "settle" for a netroots coordinator who was actually hands-on.  that's much better than what we've got now and maybe that's where it'll start...

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: some sympathy (none / 0)

Holy moly (molie, molee?)!

How in the world did you know that I got it from eating Taco Bell?

</on topic>

I think we will see candidates who devote time on-line.  Call me an optimist (which I am not -- I'm a Cubs fan), but the time will come.

Even if it's not the candidate's choice, at the very least there will be some staffer who effectively makes the case for it and it shall be done.  

By the end of 2006 campaigns will see what direct interaction yields.  Then in 2008 I think we can expect opinion leaders like Kos, Jerome, Matt, etc... to be flooded with candidate requests for some face time.  I am sure it already happens for Congressional races, but I am talking national level.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Word... (none / 0)

good link, tim; i'd missed your entry the first time around.  glad i'm not the only one feeling used and abused right about now...
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks, BUT.... (none / 0)

Exactly, like this:

Break the party free from an aristocracy of consultants

Then we get nothing in the bullet points of "proposals" that does anything about this (except maybe the "regionalisation" vagueness).

So, Mr. Fowler (and, btw, thanks for coming on here), how exactly will you do this? Will the DNC insist on paying media consultants a flat fee and end the asinine commission-based system? That's like paying Theo Epstein based on the amount of payroll he spends on players for the Red Sox ...

by BriVT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks, BUT.... (none / 0)

I think some of the ideas contained in Donnie Fowler's Plan for the New DNC will produce this result in a less harsh fashion. For example, the redirection of resources to regional operations should weaken the grasp of the inside-the-beltway crowd.

What do you think?

by hawker on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:35:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks, BUT.... (none / 0)

Ending the aristocracy of consultants ...

The bottom line on this is that many consultants and others who have made a career in DC develop a perspective about our nation that goes something like this: "It's a one-size-fits-all nation.  The most important things are what is in the Washington Post or on Meet the Press, so that is who we must make happy and how we get validated."  The problem with this perspective is that most Americans never think about the Washington Post (though it is a quality paper) and few people wake up Sunday morning dying to see what Tim Russert has to say on NBC.  It's not that this perspecitve means there are nefarious people who hold such a view, but that they have lost touch with how most Americans view the country and with how they get their political information.

Sometimes it gets even worse with the aristocracy: "We know how to run campaigns because we're the professionals.  Because we're professionals, we need to make money.  To make money, we need to control budgets and we need to get in the national political articles."  This equals conflict of interest.

So, you asked, what are some specifics.  Here are some ...

   * require competitive bidding on contracts, not sweetheart deals among friends

   * do not give consultants the reigns of the budget or any significant influence over it

   * require measurable goals and timetables

   * hold consultants accountable for meeting these goals or they WILL NOT GET PAID

   * enforce the latter

   * ensure that folks from every corner of the party (race, ethnicity, region, netroots, grassroots) have a decisionmaking seat at the table and the ability to get some of the resources and contracts from the national party; key is inclusion

   * and, do not let candidates and party officers believe that they work for the consultants; the consultants work for them, though you may often be unable to tell that

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks, BUT.... (none / 0)

I just caught up to this, but THANKS!
by BriVT on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok... here is where... (none / 0)

I agree completely with your use of business terminology and results oriented measurables.
The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks, BUT.... (none / 0)

As a Clark volunteer myself, I think it's important to keep in my mind that Donnie Fowler's dispute with the Washington insiders on that campaign was that they weren't taking the Draft Clark people, including the blogosphere, seriously enough.

And it seems to me that we should be praising Donnie Fowler for having the courage and the savvy to post on this blog, not condemning him taking 48 hours instead of 24 to answer our questions. This is a blog, not a chatroom, after all.

by hawker on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

courage to respond (none / 0)

Yeah, and we shouldn't criticize Kerry for waiting WAY  TOO  LONG to reply to the swift boat attacks.
by Bob Brigham on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and let me add... (none / 0)

"i hope you realise that there are real people behind all these nicknames, and we have real feelings and real concerns."

And real voices that have learned how to be heard above the din.

And in many cases the one name here represents and organizes many other real names, real voices, real feet on the ground that are not logging in but are every bit as real.

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris and Jerome... (3.00 / 1)

"This is certainly a first. I wish everyone running for DNC chair would post a diary on MyDD so I could promote it to the front page--Chris"

Stop wishing... and invite them!

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:28:37 PM EST

What about Michael Moore? (3.00 / 1)

Al From was all bent out of shape about Michael Moore getting crowned by the MSM and Faux News as the spokesperson for the Democratic party. I would have been more impressed if Al From had every publicly criticized Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. The reason it was so easy for Moore to get the media's attention was that he was filling a vacuum left by the DNC leadership.

If the DNC or anybody in the Democratic party had been taking a stand on any issue, Moore would not have gotten so much attention. It was the absence of a message by the party, not any novel or profound message by Michael Moore that grabbed the MSM's attention. I'd rather have Michael Moore speaking for the party than Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Perhaps you've noticed the success that Faux News has had defining what the Democratic party stands for. Are you going to continue to let Faux News present the positions of the Democratic party to the American people?

Bill O'Reilly seems to be pretty happy with Al From and the DLC "centrists". What are you going to do as DNC chair to (1) have a position and get the message out on issues and (2) transform the invertebrate "centrist" positions of the DLC to a message that appeals not only to the grass roots, but to all working Americans.

I'm somewhat concerned about your position that we shouldn't move left or right. What does that mean on vital economic issues? Does that mean you will continue to solicit fat cat contributions from the pharmaceutical industry in exchange for laying back on Health Care for All? Are you going to focus on fat cat corporate contributions or are you going to focus on a nationwide minimum wage? I don't think the party can continue to sit on the fence on kitchen table economic issues.

The party is going to have to take a stand for working Americans, or you will see a flood of Democratic foot soldiers moving to the Greens and the Labor party. Instead of being so concerned about conservative red state voters, you better start worrying about the 10-20% of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party that are ready to "move on".

I hope the Democratic party isn't going to try to compete with Republicans on corporate welfare. There are issues like the minimum wage and Health Care for All that will require the party to take a stand on one side of the fence of the other. In a nutshell, do you think the Democratic party should continue to be the cheapest political whore in D.C., or are you willing to push the party to take stands on issues that benefit working people at the expense of big corporations?

On which of the following issues do you think the party should take the gamble of shutting down Congress to define what Democrats stand for:

(1) Social Security
(2) H.R. 2239, the Verified Paper Trail Ballot bill
(3) Health Care for All
(4) the minimum wage
(5) insisting on at least three days to read the final bill before it comes up for a vote.

At some point Democrats have to stand for something that they are willing to take a political risk on as a party. In response to Sen. Frist's threat of the nuclear fillibuster option, are you going to recommend bi-partisanship? What in the hell are the core beliefs of the party? Kerry certainly didn't have any that he articulated. What core beliefs are you willing to articulate clearly and loudly for the party?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:35:55 PM EST

Let me clarify my point (none / 0)

If the DNC or the DLC doesn't want Michael Moore speaking for the Democratic party maybe they need to speak out on the issues a little clearer and a little louder. It seems like Bush and Faux News did a better job of explaining what the Democratic party stood for than the Democratic party did.

Ideally you would want somebody from the Democratic party would represent the views of the Democratic party. Who's fault was it they weren't able to get their message out? This article in Tapped, The Sound of Silence, pretty much sums up why the Democrats can't get their message out. They don't seem to be making much of an effort. Maybe Shrum had them spending too much money on the commercials, that he got paid a commission on, to spend any money on opposition research during the Republican convention. Remember the awesome "Truth Squad" Hillary promised they would have?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:23:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Michael Moore? (none / 0)

If the DNC or anybody in the Democratic party had been taking a stand on any issue, Moore would not have gotten so much attention. It was the absence of a message by the party, not any novel or profound message by Michael Moore that grabbed the MSM's attention.

Beautifully put, and exactly right.  It's not that Moore was at the wheel of the party, it's that nobody was, and Moore was just the loudest guy in the back seat.

by jalefkowit on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Michael Moore? (none / 0)

I think Donnie Fowler is the only DNC candidate who understands what you're talking about. I was impressed by the job that Donnie Fowler did in Michigan, but truth be told what convinced me that the DNC could be a positive force for change was his press release announcing his candidacy for DNC chair.

So far Donnie Fowler is only the DNC candidate who understands that Democrats must function as an opposition party, form a shadow government, and actively oppose the GOP rather than try to soften their blows.

by hawker on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Michael Moore? (none / 0)

I could not have said this better myself: "At some point the Democrats have to stand for something."  Check out my website and see what I have said in the media.  A large part of the national party's problem is that we too often whine and say "it's not fair" rather than standing up for what progressives stand for.  Moreover, we must fight the political battles on our field, not on the ones that the Republicans choose.  

You also wrote, "I'm somewhat concerned about your position that we shouldn't move left or right."  Let me answer your concern serially... First, the Democratic Party right now does not have enough votes to get a majority in many places.  Second, that means we need new votes and absolutely can not afford to give up any we already have.  Third, if the Party says "let's pay attention only to increasing the base vote" or "let's only talk to moderate voters" then aren't we giving away voters by making such a choice?  Fourth, Democrats generally agree on 80% of our core principles and 80% of the issues.  THUS, why must the Democrats make the FALSE CHOICE of moving left or right when we do not have enough voters and we agree on the vast majority of values and issues?  We can't afford to have these kind of fights where we face each other and yell "Fire!".  It only helps the Republicans and keeps Rove laughing.

You also talk a lot about issues by addressing corporate welfare and asking what issues the Democrats in Congress should fight by halting the House's and Senate's business.  Let me finish here as I started ...  the Democrats must stand up and fight back on broad prinicples and values.  Though it is not the DNC's job to determine congressional policy or legislation, the national party can provide the kind of research, grassroots, and communications infrastructure to amplify the policy choices that our Party's elected officials choose to pursue.  And it can also help them understand that the Party must talk to voters in language that voters understand and talk to them in places where voters live.  That's the job of a national party.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:57:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (3.00 / 1)

Mr. Fowler,

You were the National Field Director for Gore 2000.  You state you worked in both Iowa and New Hampshire that year.  In Donna Brazile's recent book she has a story about election day for the New Hampshire primary.  Basically, she writes that after the Gore campaign discovered that Senator Bill Bradley was leading in the exit polls, the Gore campaign helped cause a traffic jam during rush hour in areas of New Hampshire that were trending heavily for Bradley.  Essentially, she wrote this off as something like "alls fair in love and war."  Michael Whouley I think has also told similar stories.  Vice President Gore ended up barely defeating Senator Bradlay in NH.  My question to you, Mr. Fowler, is this: what role did you play in any discussions about causing a traffic jam to block Bardley voters from getting to the polls?  Were you involved in any such discussions, and if so, how do you explain this attempt to block voters getting to the polls with all of the Democratic rhetoric is 2000 about voting in Florida and 2004 in Ohio?

by Norm on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:52:33 PM EST

Re: Question (none / 0)

Let me be succinct and clear ... I played no role in planning any supposed traffic jam.
Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:02:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fundamental Principles (3.00 / 1)

Donnie, I believe GOP politicians like Bush attract middle-of-the-roaders because they give the appearance of having and sticking to a set of fundamental principles, goals, values, whereas  Democratic politicians prefer to talk about policy details - we don't make OUR fundamental principles clear and thus appear not to have any.

Here is my list of fundamental principles/goals for the Democratic Party:

Short List

By turning away from our roots - the party of compassion and fairness - what John Edwards touched on with the Two Americas - by not talking anymore about the biggest moral issue of all - Poverty - the Democrats really have lost their strongest claim to having deep moral and religious values (serving the poor is a fundamental tenet of all religions). If Dems once again focus on Poverty, make that OUR big moral issue, this will begin to shift attention from the divisive issues the right would prefer to focus on (gay marriage licenses, prayer in school, creationism, etc.)  

Our stand on ALL issues should stem from our fundamental principles.  We are supposed to be the party of fairness and compassion. For example, we should say we are pro-Roe because we believe a poor woman should not face being butchered by a back alley abortion while a woman of means can simply go to another state or another country to have access to a safe procedure; that while many Americans do not believe an embryo or young fetus is the same thing  as a person, we all believe poor women are people; we should demand the GOP defend their position on coat hangers. This will not convince a traditional Catholic voter to suddenly become pro-Roe, but it will at least show that we are speaking to the issue on a moral plane.  (Contrast that with what someone like Kerry would say: "I am personally against abortion, but I strongly support a woman's Constitutional right" - as if morality and laws are neatly separated in our Democratic brains.)

We have to start talking passionately from a moral perspective, just as the GOP does.

We should never abandon our principles; but we should prioritize. That's what my Short List is about.

Thanks for listening.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:05:19 PM EST

Re: Fundamental Principles (none / 0)

You make very strong points about being a party of more than a list of issues.  Here is some of what I have written on my website (www.ChangeTheParty.com) ...

Democrats love issues. In 1996 we said the election was about Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. In 2000 Gore guaranteed a Medicare lockbox. In 2004 Kerry argued he was more competent to win the war on terror, would better build alliances, and would give our troops the equipment they need. We Democrats love issues so much that we forget to put them in a context that voters understand and, more significantly, that they feel. We don't tell voters what all those issues mean to us or to them.

Before a voter asks what issues a candidate supports, they ask themselves whether they can relate to that person, whether they trust her, and whether they are comfortable with her philosophy. One might say that they require a candidate to pass the Budweiser test - would you want to have a beer with her? Put differently, voters want to feel they would invite the candidate to come to dinner with their families. Only after a candidate (or a party) passes a credibility threshold will a voter listen to the views on abortion, the war in Iraq, tax cuts, or health care. This values threshold is much, much larger than the looks of a candidate, the color of tie he wears, or the state where he was raised. It is about an instinctive impression that a voter gets, just as one might get when first meeting someone on the street. Is this person credible? Can I believe what he or she says? Only the oddest of us wonder where a new acquaintance stands on abortion or the war in Iraq when first meeting someone.

Democrats love to comfort each other by saying, "We lost the election, but look at the polls. The American people agree with us on almost all the issues!" Who cares? Why does that matter if we have no power to enact our agenda?

Democrats must remember our soul. Find it, bring it out again, show it off. We must restate our core principles - our most sacred values - before we jump into the issues debate. If we do, we win.

Opportunity is a value. Access is a value. Getting a fair shake is a value. Security is a value. Adequate health care is a value. Tolerance is a value. And, yes, religion means values.

Until the American people see the Democratic soul again and understand the values of our candidates, they will not vote for us. Until they want to bring us home to dinner with their family, they do not care how smart or logical our policies are. Nor will they care that our policies are "in their best interests."

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundamental Principles (3.00 / 1)

I appreciate your reply.

I read the full text of your article, which mentions our Democratic "soul" three times: "Democrats must reaffirm our soul"; "Democrats must remember our soul. Find it, bring it out, show it off"; "Until the American people see the Democratic soul again and understand the values of our candidates, they will not vote for us."

The words "poor" or "poverty" don't appear even once in your article.  

A party which truly makes poverty a top priority,  which believes the War on Poverty was not a mistake, which makes a full-throated defense of successful anti-poverty programs (Social Security, Medicare, WIC, Head Start, etc.) is a party that has found it's soul.

Yes, I'm being a scold, I'm being self-righteous.  

We criticize the religious right for being self-righteous, but a little self-righteousness isn't such a bad thing when you have the right values. Our party needs to show more confidence in the righteousness of our principles.  John Edwards was on exactly the right track when he spoke of children who were going to bed hungry and cold.  Giving voice to your moral values may NOT always translate to votes.  Some people will ridicule you.  The GOP Right understands this. It's not always about getting votes; it's about being unafraid to state your beliefs. We cannot rely on 1990's-style triangulation; we are not always going to have the fortune of a booming economy or political leaders as charming as Bill Clinton.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do Not Crown (3.00 / 2)


by Bob Brigham on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:45:14 PM EST

Re: Do Not Crown (3.00 / 2)

Blogswarm -

I get the feeling that you don't care for me.  I am sorry that is the case, but I certainly do not intend to repudiate my father or his long, long history of opening doors and, yes, giving others a seat at the table.  What I have learned about the core values of the Democratic Party -- fairness, opportunity, providing for the least among us, inclusion -- I learned from him and from my mother.  And I have only had it reinforced over the years through my work in every corner of this country and through the many, many people who I had the great fortune to serve and from whom I have learned.

There are many choices we all make in life.  I have chosen to spend at least part of it fighting to push a progressive agenda.  I could have taken my seat at a big, corporate law firm or just disappeared into the business world many times.  I have not.  Instead, I have spent years in the field toiling for candidates and for the party.  I don't deserve a reward for that because I love doing it, but I also don't deserve the superficial judgments that you make about me or my family.  Let's stick to taking down the Republicans, not each other.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Not Crown (none / 0)

Then why haven't you mentioned the importance of electoral reform? You completely ignore it. The corporatization of our Democracy is a very big issue right now, and I don't care who runs on a Democratic ticket, it won't matter if you continue to allow Republican supporting touchscreen voting machine companies like Diebold, ES&S, and others to count our votes! Do you intend to stand up against these companies and call for legislation for federal oversight of federal elections?

Also, standing up for something means standing up publicly and vocally against the Bush cabal. Are you prepared to do that? Also, were you for or against the Iraq war? I ask because if you worked for Clark, he praised Bush regarding the Iraq war in an article in the London Times in April of 2003, right before he all of a sudden became a Democrat to run for President. How can you then claim you stand for Progressive values when you then supported Clark? I hardly call him a Progressive in the true sense of the word. Are you then really Progressive, or just playing this schtick because you know there are many disillusioned with the Party because of Kerry's loss, and you want to take advantage of it and cut Dean's support down?

by thinkforyourself on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:33:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fowler Surfaces (none / 0)

Good Luck!  I'm glad you sought out our support.  That means a lot!
by mishiem on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:38:55 PM EST

The curse? (none / 0)

"Let me tell you what I will do after the early February election by the DNC's 447 shareholder members."
by baba durag on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:40:00 PM EST

Questions from MI (3.00 / 3)

Donnie:

Your work in MI this past election has been an important part of your claim to be qualified to be DNC chair. And while I love what you say in your platform, I have to say that it doesn't resemble what I saw in MI this past election. In short, if the MI campaign is an example of what Donnie Fowler's DNC would be like, I want out. Here are some gripes:

I was the precinct/ward organizer for one of the medium-large counties in MI. You'd think, as a grassroots organizer for one of the must-win areas in MI, I'd have heard from you, or at least known that you valued my work and that you were listening to my good ideas.

But you see, the volunteers who ran our grassroots never attended one of the state meetings. Nor did we see you locally (suffice it to say we're accessible to both Lansing and Detroit). The people who attended meetings were the paid people--some might call them consultants, part of that aristocracy you claim to want to get rid of.

I don't really care that I wasn't invited to meetings--I was spending 10-60 hours a week volunteering, I didn't need more meetings (although I think it belies your claim for inclusion at every level).

But I do care that every time we tried to do something at a local level because IT MADE SENSE, we either had to lie, subject our paid staffers to berating in those weekly meetings, or just try to fudge the numbers. That is, not only did the MI coordinated campaign NOT listen to local leaders, it forced local leaders to manipulate the system in order to do what we knew to be right.

Now I'm willing to see you provide proof that you can change--that your leadership of the DNC would be different from what I saw in MI. But barring that I really can't see throwing you a lot of support. You talk a good talk. But your proven record doesn't match that talk, at least not from the perspective of this local grassroots leader.

by emptywheel on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:33:52 PM EST

More from MI (none / 0)

I'll be real blunt here: I saw more organization in my county here in Michigan from MoveOn and from the Sierra Club than I did the Democratic Party.

Frankly, I can't see what the impediments were towards making any of the so-called "innovative programs" work in Michigan during this last campaign.  If MoveOn could do them, why weren't they already implemented?

If this didn't get done at state level, what's to say they'll get done at national?

In the mean time, I'm not waiting for the DNC to get its act together or the DLC to catch a clue.  I and many other grassroots folks are going to do our damndest to stop this hemorrhaging, one Meetup at a time, one county at a time, one voter at a time.

by RayneToday on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Questions from MI (3.00 / 1)

I too worked in Michigan. In fact, I've been active in Michigan Democratic Politics for over 20 years.  I understand emptywheels concerns about the grassroots not being heard in a coordintaed campaign...However, as a grassroots organizer I can tell you that Donnie Fowler did the best job of listening to and talking with us locals that I have ever seen.

The point to remember is that in our county alone we had over 1000 active volunteers...that means statewide we had over 100,000.  Of course Donnie couldn't 'touch' each of us. He did travel the state. I know he visited many local counties and met with local volunteers.  He not only talked but most importantly he listened.

In every campaign there are some people who work really hard (like emptywheel) and who feel that they were not heard adequately.  I can tell you that Donnie was accessible and available to 'regular folks'. His cell phone was listed at the coordinated campaign web site...he would have taken your call.  He took mine and he took many many other calls and listened to our concerns.

Was the Michigan campaign perfect? Of course not...but as a veteran of the the last 4 presidential campaigns in Michigan I can tell you that what I saw were definate moves in the right direction.  If you're looking for perfection, Donnie's not your man but if you're looking for someone who understands where the party needs to go and wants our help to get it there...I suggest you let go of your personal experience and contact Donnie directly to get involved in changing the DNC.

by cheflin on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Questions from MI (none / 0)

Hey,

Thanks for your input. I'm actually really open to being proven wrong on Fowler. I just haven't heard anyone from MI saying the things you're saying, including the people who have been involved in MI politics for generations, not decades.

Also, to clarify, it's not so much that I wanted to be heard. It's that to do what made the most sense for our county, we had to work around the coordinated campaign. The specific things Donnie lists in his platform are specific things I had issues with one the coordinated campaign. So it's not that I'm saying he was incompetent. I'm saying that, given the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to accomplish the things in his platform, it's not clear he did.

I have heard from the paid staffers that Donnie was the best cheerleader around. But I'm hoping to see evidence that Donnie can do the other things--the grassroots, revitalizing local parties--that he aspires to in his platform.

by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Donnie (3.00 / 2)

Perhaps you are busy....

But just this piece of advice. I would do more than just post a diary at this site. You have received several questions from the good folks here at MyDD and it would not be a very good strategy to just post the diary and than not stick arounb to answer.

I expect you will, but be warned ahead of time that if the above is all you expect to do, you will not like the response that will generate as a result.

I look forward to your answers to these wonderful questions and I hope that other candidates will also be inclined to drop by and answer questions from our community.

by Nazgul35 on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:38:02 PM EST

RMD: Hmmm, Sounds like more borrowed Dean material (none / 0)

Can't these Washington DC insiders get it that we want them to actually stand for and do something, not just borrow the material of the people who would actually do something if they would get the fsck out of the way!?!

Get rid of the aristocracy of consultants?  What does that mean?  Nothing.  Sounds GOOD though, doesn't it?  More Washington snake oil, kids.  Bad for you.  They want to steal Social Security now.    

The only time Kerry sounded half-way good was when his handlers had him adopting some of the material that Dean originated.  As soon as Clark and Dean were 'defeated', it was business as usual.  Calcium-deficiency Central.  Let the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth rip you a new 'donkey exhaust'.    
Only it was fueled by wasting our money this time.    

Just how close was Dean to the Netroots?  Ask about the 'Red Bat' story.  Why Dean had people asking his campaign to put up bats after that. Interactive politics was born that night.  

Now Kerry is supposed to be 'fascinated' with revitalizing the Dem Party and the relationship with the netroots.  Yeah, sure!  Everybody on the net knows we carried the 'losership' on our backs because the Dem 'losership' killed off Clark and Dean.  And the losers might have won it if they had just LISTENED and ACTED on what they should have LEARNED from us.  

Well, I am going to tell it how it is.  If the Dem 'losership' doesn't junk the losing ways of the past, a huge number of activists are going to just wander away.  And in 2006 and 2008 the Dem 'losership' going to remember there are some 'elections' going on and they are going to look around and ... only the 'lifers' will be there.

The Thugs think that as soon as they train the Washington Dems into their status as geldings, their problems are over.  Well, we the people will have news for both the geldings and the Thugs.

At the pace of change in the internet, we will have built several 'DNCs' of our own, dissected them, and built better ones still.  And we will be waiting for them to come to us.  Better that they do it now.  

Sure, we might lose, but at least we will have stood for something, and the brain-dead zombies in Washington certainly are not doing one bit better than we could ourselves.  

I donated directly to the campaigns of congress critters I liked and I intend to keep on doing it.  The DSCC, DCCC, DNC and DLC had better plan on becoming our consultants while we are still willing to listen to their pitch.    

RMD

The W.astrel's War. Fought with our blood and his 'guts'.
by RedMeatDem on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:59:12 PM EST

Time for a third party?! (none / 0)

Honestly, I hear a lot of complaints.

The GOP didn't get its shit together until the Reform Party came along and MADE them do it.

Maybe it's time for Dems to do the same.  It would just be interesting to see if aybe we center Dems could actually find enough common ground to do it (doubtful, since we're pretty split between pro-corporate centrists and pro-reform centrists).

Maybe the far left could file a small apology and start something.

I dunno.  Listening to everything everyone has said here, it's pretty clear that most Dems think the LEADERSHIP is the the PROBLEM!

So . . . since the leadership never goes away, and would likely pollute any success achieved anyhow (look at Tom Delay's heaping crap on the Contract with America), maybe it's time to abandon the party and not look back.

BTW -- how sexy is it when this dude Fowler posts, and then makes no effort to reply?!

by jcjcjc on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:27:05 PM EST

Re: Time for a third party?! (none / 0)

Thanks for calling me sexy.

See some of my answers above regarding your concerns above, but you can read a long piece I wrote that sits on the home page of my website.  It really gets into the meat of your comments.

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time for a third party?! (none / 0)

To paraphrase Jules Winfield: personality goes a long way!
by bi66er on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time for a third party?! (none / 0)

Where's my PERSONAL attention?!

Ah . . . no DNC chair for you if I don't see a latte, pronto!!!!

Thanks for replying.  It took a while, but that's reasonable, I suppose, under the circumstances.  Just, for a little while, there were no replies at all.

At least he isn't viciously spamming everyone!!!

Just wanted to see a little, little bit of life.

You're winning points.  Keep it comin'.  Maybe you can sneak in as the ABD candidate. Oh, wait . . . don't try that; they're going down faster than rabbits in an overgrown field on mowing day.

BTW -- "sexy" in politics is much more relative than most cases.  Hell, JFK was "sexy".

by jcjcjc on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 01:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but Donnie doesn't sound like any Carl Rove (none / 0)

and we're hopeless without someone who can take a laser-beam like focus to shaping the party's positive and negative messages.  The idea of weekly meetings seems way too sluggish and ineffectual, especially in an age of permanent campaigns fueled by daily and even hourly news cycles on cable TV and the net.  I'm certain that Rove and his boys understand this and they deliver their messages like precision bombs through their many surrogates every single day.  Messaging should be a cabinet-level concern, so to speak, and not an afterthought.  

Communication is leadership.  It is what wins the middle and motivates the base, and I'm disappointed that Donnie's post is so thin on this function.  Perhaps he could elaborate, with a bit more structure and vision on this most important matter.

by jmckay on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:29:33 PM EST

The DNC Chair can only do so much (none / 0)

Donnie and the others,

The DNC Chair can only do so much. I think everyone has a valid point, and no matter who is Chair the Democratic Party there are some problems that have to be addressed.

  1. Coordinate the primary season. The media wants a coronation and the point is, the longer the season went, the more money and time guys like Rove and Steve Moore had to spend attacking everyone and no one. The Party has to stop blowing its wad in January and instead make sure that the candidates make their way to more than just battleground states. Also, the reason this is preferable is that in smaller venues and fora, people get to know what these guys and gals stand for. It also means it's that much longer before the other side start using the impersonal medium of TV to attack you. This compressed primary season is the reason we got Kerry as a candidate and it's the reason we lost the election. With the  exception of Kucinich or Sharpton any Dem candidate would have met or exceeded Kerry's final tally.

  2. Recongize the medium you are using limits how the message is made. Kerry was lampooned for being unable to give a short answer to anything. Obviously, Bush looked terrible speaking "naturally" and only looked good when he was scripted. The difference? Bush used lots of media where this inarticularity didn't matter...whereas Kerry was much more tepid. He should have been much more proactive dealing with the print press and other media that are limited to soundbites and 30 seconds. But when you only have 30 seconds...make it count. Duh.

  3. Stop the absurd gamesmanship. I don't know who is behind this...be it a deep pocket or a really deep pocket...but Dems look bad when we write things off. Not in the form of a particular region of the country or an issue. We look bad when we have a weapon in the arsenal and we don't use it. We don't avoid talking about an issue because it isn't a big deal. And we don't avoid states because they aren't in the battleground. That is why Republican airbags were so apoplectic about Michael Moore. His movies aren't about letting up after he's already made a convincing argument. If he has more ammo in the clip, he doesn't let off the trigger. It's not that the Party Chair needs to be the Ripper-in-Chief however. Instead, he or she merely need to remind people what issues have been brushed aside. Just imagine how different the election would have been if the defeat Democratic Senate candidates had made sure to point out that Bush's biggest donors were in favor of Social Security privatization. Can you imagine the impact of Terry McAuliffe reminding people on TV throughout September and October that Bush's biggest donors favored privatization?

There is no reason to fight the last war in '06 and '08 however. Bush won largely because the Beslan tragedy occured during the RNC...and that cost him dearly with non-college educated women. Lightning could strike again, but I would argue from this point on the elections are the Democrats' to lose. Bush has used up his war bounce, the GOP has run wild redistricting, and there are few if any old school Souther Dems to purge left. Now is the time to plan for the future.
by risenmessiah on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:26:19 AM EST

Re: The DNC Chair can only do so much (none / 0)

Correction: The Beslan tragedy cost KERRY dearly. Typo error.
by risenmessiah on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"weekly national message coordinating" (3.00 / 1)

Weekly?  How about daily?  Hourly?

The Dems are getting killed because the GOP has a coordinated message machine that arranges TV/radio media placement for their party leaders, who deliver straight disciplined, "on message" talking points.

We simply must be more competitive in this regard.

by Steve in Sacto on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 03:54:54 AM EST

I'm back ... (3.00 / 1)

Hi there.  As my S.Carolina grandmother used to say, "Bless your heart!"  I had no idea that my MyDD posting on Sunday would get create such a ruckus.  OK.  I do apologize for not responding earlier.  Sincerely.  And (not so sincerely) I proudly wear the title "king of the burning dog poop" bestowed upon me.  Plus, I now have my first scandal.  Thank you all for this.  

I have been traveling and in the last two days have only spent about an hour on a computer.  Too bad that my blackberry does not handle the blogs well.  So let me take up the challenge of all your great responses over the next few hours, so stay tuned ...

Donnie Fowler San Francisco / Silicon Valley
by donnie on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:53:42 PM EST

Re: I'm back ... (none / 0)

Thanks for coming back.

Be assured that despite the fact this post has fallen, people are still checking in.

I might recommend creating a diary and posting questions in the individual comments portion then responding to them one by one (even the hard ones?).  Increase the visibility for your responses.

Maybe you can blockquote the questions to make them easier to distinguish?

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm back ... (none / 0)

Curious that you passed over the MI question. To put it more succinctly--do you think your leadership of the MI campaign this year is indicative of what you'd like to accomplish as DNC chair? If not, why not? If not, why will you be able to accomplish these goals nationally when you weren't locally?

Or if you think it WAS a fair representation of your abilities, can you tell us how you worked to include local decision-makers into your execution in MI (I didn't see it, but perhaps you were trying, and if so, I'd love to know how)? Can you explain how you see the balance between paid staffers and volunteers--do you always need a paid staffer for accountability reasons, or can you actually fully integrate the volunteers into a campaign plan? Can you explain why the GOTV plan came together so pathetically late (only 3 weeks before the election at the county-level)? Can you assess how your management of the paid staffers at the highest level worked--do you think you could have improved the way they interacted with the localities?

by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 Election Question (3.00 / 1)

Could you sum up for us specifically why you think Kerry lost?  Also, do you think he could have won?  If you had been head of DNC starting in Jan 2003 let's say, and assuming Kerry had been the nominee in any case, what specifically would you have done different to produce a win?
by jimpol on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:24:48 AM EST

impressive (none / 0)

This is really impressive; nobody on this list has a vote but Fowler is discussing issues here in a substnative way -- even though some on this list seem to think the best way to save the Democratic Party is to destroy it.
by desmoulins on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:33:01 PM EST


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.

Login
Username:

Password: