Oh yea, and we'd tar McAuliffe as the leader of the status quo movement to halt reform and stop Dean. Is that what Terry wants to make happen?
What Schumer wants, as the new Chair of the DSCC, is for the DNC to be more responsive to the Congressional candidates financial needs. But on the face of this, it looks like just another means for the Democratic Leaders in DC to offer anyone, even the status of the status quo, as an alternative to reforming the Party under Dean.
I don't think this is going anywhere, personally. One DNC member, upon my speaking about the possibility of another McAuliffe term, asked "who's saying that?" And further, that, "there's no support for that happening" among DNC members. As the article, Another Term for McAuliffe as DNC Chair? states, the netroots has not been enthralled by McAuliffe as DNC Chair, but neither has it been overly hostile, as he's pushed many of the technological advances that have been needed. But McAuliffe can stop "thinking about it". No way. Not even for a single-year term.
Those oppossed to Dean are heeding Murtha's support for Dean as a signal that they need to get their act in gear with an anti-Dean alternative. Seeing how little traction there's been for Roemer or Blanchard (they might continue on for a while but support seems timid at best), and with little support for another McAuliffe term, it's Frost (the Kirk endorsement helped) that's emerging with traction among the status quo forces in Congress. Look for that to grow over the next few days. Hotline asks, "are there now two co-frontrunners: Dean and Frost?" Further support for Rosenberg or Fowler hinges on what Dean does. As for Dean, the 'quiet revolution' continues, and he's said to have an announcement on his candidacy coming soon.
I've been reading Steve Neal's "Happy Days are Here Again", which details the emergence of Roosevelt in the 1932 convention. There were many forces aligned against Roosevelt being nominated for President, and if the Stop Roosevelt forces could have united behind a single candidate, it would become an epic battle. Roosevelt had the most delegates, but not enough to win the nomination outright:
"We were notably lacking in nationally known Democrats committed to our candidate," said Roosevelt strategist Edward J. Flynn, the Bronx Democratic leader. "Taking the Roosevelt organization from Jim Farley down, about 90 percent of them were newcomers and amateurs."
In the era of the press lords, the largest newspaper chains opposed Roosevelt's nomination. "The times call for courage and action", the Scripps-Howard newspapers said in a front-page editorial. "We have those qualities in [Alfred E.] Smith. There are other men in the Democratic party who possess them. Judged by his performance Roosevelt does not." ONly one of a half dozen New York daily newspapers supported Roosevelt. Of the five Chicago daily newspapers that would be read by delegates during convention week, none were friendly to FDR.
The popular and influential columnists Walter Lippmann, H. L. Mencken, Heywood Broun, and Will Rogers favored an alternative to Roosevelt in Chicago.
Organized labor was not aligned with Roosevelt or any of the Democratic contenders.... union leaders were neutral in the 1932 Democratic presidential contest. Big business openly worked against Roosevelt's nomination. The international bankers of Wall Street and the public-utility interests were determined to stop him
|
|
|
Permalink :: 78 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
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.
