MyDD :: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party

Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party

by Matt Stoller, Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:18:44 PM EST

If Adam Nagourney's bad articles seem narrow and insular, it's because they are. It's fairly obvious that Nagourney doesn't take progressives seriously as representatives of the Democratic Party, and doesn't speak to anyone who hasn't been in politics for at least twenty years. There's also a lack of, um, diversity, in his sources. Look at who is quoted in his recent atrocity:

Tony Coelho: Corporate Democrat who created the Democratic K-Street project in the 1980s

Bill Clinton: Neoliberal Democrat who passed NAFTA and welfare reform

Martin Frost: Conservative Texas Democrat who lost in 2004 and ran on a pro-war platform

Joe Andrews: Prominent neoliberal and New Democrat

Bob Kerrey: Strongly pro-war former Democratic Senator

Philip A. Klinkner: Political science professor

Stephen Kaus: Attorney and brother of neo-liberal pundit Mickey Kaus

Notice anything? Well first of all, these are all MEN. Yup. Second of all, they are all WHITE. Third, with the possible exception of Kaus and Klinkner, who I don't know, they are all pro-war. Fourth, none of them represent labor. Fifth, all of them are OLD.

Welcome to Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party: rich, white, non-union, hawkish, professional, old, and male

New York Times: All the News That's Civil Enough to Print

Tags: Adam Nagourney (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Adam Nagourney's Republican Party (none / 0)

Coulda fooled me...I thought it was the Republican Party you were describing.

Oh...

by Pericles on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:23:27 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (3.00 / 1)

That about sums it up. I also note that not one of them is in office and none are one is in a leadership position in todays Democratic Party with the possible exception of Bill Clinton who has a seat at the leadership table as an ex-President.

Frost, it should be noted, lost twice. Once in a bid for House party leadership, which I think speaks volumes about whether he represents the views of House democrats, and then later his house seat in DeLay's illegal gerrymandering.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:26:50 PM EST

Frost also lost... (none / 0)

...the DNC chairmanship race.

Whatever the controversies that surround Howard Dean, if someone like Frost were in that position the Dems would be completely moribund. I can just hear him on a morning talk show, offering heaps of apologies for Republicans while subtly dissing any Democrat to the left of Lieberman...

by Master Jack on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:46:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With all respect... (none / 0)

I don't think you know half as much about Frost as you think you do. Completely moribund? When Frost headed the DCCC for the '98 cycle, the democrats gained 5 seats, the best showing since 1990, and it hasn't been equaled since. This was even more remarkable considering that it was a midterm election (sixth-year itch). The last time the opposition party failed to gain seats in a president's second term was in 1822. People have said that Frost did more with less than any DCCC chair in recent memory. You may not like Frost's politics, but he knew how to win elections, and he would have been a great success at the DNC.

by JRyan on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's fine... (none / 0)

...but it sure sounds as if Frost wants to LOSE this year.

Not what we need heading up the DNC.

by Master Jack on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's fine... (none / 0)

"But the worry among some Democrats is that a thin majority breeds not compromise but inaction, and that could turn off voters just as much as single-party rule has. Republicans, on the other hand, would get a welcome reprieve, said Martin Frost, a former House member from Texas who has led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"They don't have to worry about passing anything," Mr. Frost said, "and it gives them freedom to be critics. There's a certain liberating aspect of being in the minority in the short term, but I don't recommend it in the long term.""

I see the logic in what Frost is saying, but its clear that he's not advocating losing, just laying out the facts. Pay attention to the last sentence. I'm pretty sure Frost wants the House back just as much as us. The solution to all of this is for the democrats to get a big majority, not a thin one.

by JRyan on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

"Once in a bid for House party leadership, which I think speaks volumes about whether he represents the views of House democrats"

Just because he "lost" to Nancy Pelosi, who has a formidable political machine? Did you know that Frost was chairman of the House Democratic Caucus for three straight Congresses? How many volumes does that speak about whether he represents the views of House democrats? And by the way, following the midterm elections, Pelosi had totally locked up the support of the caucus. Frost announced his candidacy and then withdrew the next day. It's not fair to say that he "lost".

by JRyan on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

He lost.

And yes, I know that Frost headed up the DCCC and did well. I am not attacking Frost, simply stating the facts. He lost in a bid for the House leadership. He lost in a bid for the DNC Chair. While he also lost his House seat I don't think the blame goes to him on that one as it was a result of DeLay's illegal actions.

If you read my other comments on this thread you'll also see that my wrath is pointed at Nagourney not Frost. Further, that I pointed out that Nagourney's quoting techinque was exactly the sort where logical comments are taken out of context and made to make the commenter look bad. I have no expectation that any of these folks, Frost included, were actually saying that Democrats should lose the House. That sounds like Nagourney talking to me.

Peace,

Andrew

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

This is the usual pure wankery on the part of Nagourney, of course. But it would be relatively harmless if we had REAL Democratic voices representing us in the commercial media. Instead, Nagourney is perceived as the "Dem guy", and winds up inflicting more damage than he deserves to.

So I ask again, WHY isn't there a Chris Bowers, or a Matt Stoller, or a David Sirota, or a Glenn Greenwald, or a William Rivers Pitt regularly communicating the progressive Democratic perspective in the commerical media?

And there are STILL some idiots out there who think our media is "liberal"...

by Master Jack on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:44:25 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

that was a stupid, stupid article. Why would these Dems want to lose so that we could maybe make more gains in 2008? What state will the country be in at that point? They say "Don't investigate", while thats just what the American People want.

Max Friedman

by Max Friedman on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:54:39 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

Exactly!

This is the most ass backward argument I have read recently. How much damage can our country sustain? Are people like Nagourney happy with $3 billion/day spent on a quagmire in Iraq, an incompetent politically motivated government that cannot even respond to a natural Katrina disaster let alone a terrorist attack; corruption at the highest levels in the Republican congress; an administration that has contempt for the constitution and our laws.

The Dems need to run as aggressively as they can for this mid-term with the goal of winning a majority and then staunch the bleeding. We need to get to the bottom of how the government has been subverted for partisan political purposes. We need to investigate how the country was deceived into a debacle in Iraq when the CIA provided accurate information about the lack of WMD or AQ connection by Iraq. There has to be a check to this power crazy administration and it better happen soon.

by ab initio on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

The idea that we're better off coming close but still losing has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I've heard. Winning the House and/or Senate gives us the ability to start setting the agenda and put the Republicans on the defensive. We can, for instance, back Bush into a corner by passing a minimum wage bill and Medicare Part D reform. On social issues, we can move the debate off the divisive gay marriage issue and pass an employment discrimination bill that actually enjoys majority public support and watch Bush squirm over whether to sign it or not.

Even better, we can restore the oversight function of the Congress that the Republicans have abdicated and there are a lot of things about this administration that need investigation.

There is no substitute for doing a little governing to show the country that we are ready for the White House in 2008.

by mattinla on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (3.00 / 1)

I'd also add another point along to your series of similarities among that group--not only do none of them represent labor, I doubt that any of them has had any experience living in a working-class household in the last couple of decades, at least. This is probably related to the stupidity of his article. Clearly, there's a whole bunch of group-think going on and it's left Nagourney completely out of touch with reality, since presumably none of them can empathize with what $3/gallon gas means for working families..

John McCain

by DanM on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:56:25 PM EST

You know what THIS means... (3.00 / 1)

...all of these people should then be heartily on board with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. Did Adam ask them?

After all, if one believes the Dem establishment, pursuing the 50-state strategy will lead to crushing losses in the midterms this year. And that's exactly what they want, isn't it?

It gets more obvious every day why the Dem establishment loses all the time. There is NO coherence to their ideas.

At some point, you've got to wonder if it's intentional.

by Master Jack on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:07:44 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

This criticism seems wholly unfair.

While we all want to take back congress in November, the fact remains that from a purely academic/political strategy point of view, a NEAR win may be best for the long-term health of the Democratic party. Answer me this: Has the Bush presidency (Republican control of the executive), combined with Republican control of the Legislature, contributed positively or negatively to the health of the Republican party?

I should point out as well that a near miss for the Dems in November could be best from a Utilitarian perspective as well.
A) Dems controlling just the house (say) would be able to get nothing done until '08.
B) The Republicans (assuming a narrow victory for the GOP) will be able to get nothing done until '08. As they scramble to distance themselves from the President and continue to infight.
C) Two more years of incompetent GOP rule would ensure strong (relative) support for the Democratic party, and would offer excellent chances of retaking both the Executive and Legislature in '08.

Perhaps the article was too academic in nature, but overall it was certainly balanced and accurate (if somewhat feckless).

I should say also that Nagourney was a fellow at the Institute of Politics here at Harvard last year, and during that time he intensely devoured ALL perspectives, no matter from whom they originated. He showed a willingness to discuss any matter political with any student (many progressives included), and so I find the criticism that he "doesn't take progressives seriously" a bit hard to swallow.

Every sentence that I utter should be regarded by you not as an assertion, but as a question.

by TheOracle on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:33:12 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

If Republicans hold on to control of congress, the government is likely to, among other things:
-Invade Iran
-Spy on regular Americans even more
-Continue dismantling the 40 hour work week

At the very least, Democratic control of at least one house could stop much of this. As to Republicans not being able to accomplish things with narrow majorities, I would point you to the CAFTA vote, the bankruptcy bill vote, and the like. They've managed to do a lot of damage with slim majorities that they can cobble together with bribes.

As far as the fact that Republicans' political fortunes have gone downhill since they've taken power, it seems to me that the issues there are that:
1)They are bad at governing
2)They want to do unpopular things (dismantle social security, expand trade without labor protections, spy on people with no checks and balances)

If you look at Dean's plan, for example, it seems like Democrats are going to do the exact opposite. Moreover, decades of experience (with the notable exception of Carter) shows that Democrats are good at governing. So it's hard to see how Democrats' fortunes would get WORSE by holding more seats in Congress.

I also find it hard to believe that Republicans' political fortunes could be any worse in 2008 than they are now (given that Bush's approval rating is the worst in history). That suggests that the most likely situation in 2008 is that Democrats will lose some seats, at least in the House. So the idea that we're going to magically take over congress in 2008 if we can't do it now isn't, I don't think, a very sensible one.

John McCain

by DanM on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:18:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

"They've managed to do a lot of damage with slim majorities that they can cobble together with bribes.

They managed to do these things BEFORE their approval numbers hit the dirt, and BEFORE members of congress began scrambling away from their own President. The situation is different now, and the situation now is not one that will allow meaningful (read: damaging) GOP accomplishments.

As to your Iran comment, they do not have the votes now to invade, and they especially would not have the votes if the Dems gained 12/13 (but not 15) seats in the House and a couple in the Senate (Nagourney's scenario).

"decades of experience...shows that Democrats are good at governing"

Yes, the Democrats are good at governing, but it may be impossible for even the best to govern well with Bush controlling the veto-pen.

"So it's hard to see how Democrats' fortunes would get WORSE by holding more seats in Congress."

No one is making this argument. All Nagourney is suggesting is that the Dems may achieve the BEST of all good outcomes by narrowly losing in November. If they win in November, their fortunes would improve; if they lose narrowly in November, their fortunes might improve even more.

"So the idea that we're going to magically take over congress in 2008 if we can't do it now isn't, I don't think, a very sensible one."

The idea is that the Dems don't try so hard to win now, but try really hard in 2008. Democratic effort is a variable which would change between now and 2008, so no magic is needed.

Once again, I certainly want the Democrats to win come November (even if it's just the House), but I can also appreciate Nagourney's lackluster argument, which doesn't deserve the criticism it is receiving.

Every sentence that I utter should be regarded by you not as an assertion, but as a question.

by TheOracle on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

Yes, it does deserve the criticism. Here and at Dailykos a few months back it was reported that TWO-THIRDS of people think the Democrats STILL control Congress!!!

So people won't even know if we are or aren't in the majority. Too many people like Andrew Sullivan, et. al., think the voters are deep sophisticated thinkers and know more than they do.

Thus, all things being equal, I'd rather be in control. Perhaps some folks like him are envisioning a couple more years of corporate money making before they have to give the gavels to Rangel, Conyers, and Waxman, huh?

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

Sir,

Your complete lack of faith in the voting public is contemptible. It is simply not the case (nor has it ever been the case) that two-thirds of the American public think that what is actually the opposition party controls Congress. Any polls you believe you have seen that suggested otherwise were either factually incorrect or simply non-existent.

It is true that some academics such as Sullivan overestimate the sophistication level of voters, but your underestimation of them is beyond the pale.

Every sentence that I utter should be regarded by you not as an assertion, but as a question.

by TheOracle on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

I have to say, I was genuinely dismayed by your reference to "Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party". That's a TERRIBLE mis-spelling of "Republican".

Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.

by McSnatherson on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:35:19 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

Rich, white, non-union, hawkish, professional, old, and male.

You forgot one thing: none of these folks currently holds a position of any political power (or, I daresay, much consequence).

It's like asking Tim Kazurinsky what SNL needs to do to be funny again.

by eris on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:09:12 PM EST

First they came for McCurry... (3.00 / 1)

It's a harmless piece of Week in Review noodling. And Matt, I fear, needs a little lie-down.

He runs down AdNag's list of co-conspirators - make that sources - a hideous collection of terrorists, torturers and tyrants, until we get down to

Philip A. Klinkner: Political science professor

A la lanterne with him!

Polisci profs - well-known enemies of the people, the lot of them. (Though don't tell our Jonathan.)

And the blackest is saved for last:

Stephen Kaus: Attorney and brother of neo-liberal pundit Mickey Kaus

How dare Mickey Kaus have a brother!

And it was only five minutes ago that folks here were complaining about lefty bloggers being treated as teenagers.

Teenagers implies far too high a level of maturity, to judge by this latest outbreak.

I'd have rather more respect for a condemnation of the AdNag line if it was accompanied by a sober analysis of what the Dems can be expected to do with control of one or both houses in the 110th. To date, so far as I've noticed, there's been precious little in the lefty sphere beyond drutherfests.

It's going to be extremely tough for the Dem if they do win; and preparing now - adjusting expectations, for a start - is the only grown-up thing to do.

by skeptic06 on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:40:47 PM EST

Durable link for 'Times' story... (none / 0)

is here.

Just so we know what the fuss has been about in a week's time...

by skeptic06 on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (3.00 / 3)

You've completely mischaracterized Martin Frost, who was easily the most liberal of the Texas Democrats who got redistricted out last cycle (not counting Chris Bell or Ciro Rodriguez, who lost in primaries). As JRyan pointed out, the Democrats gained seats in Congress every cycle that Frost was in charge of the DCCC, including 1998, when the six-year itch should have killed them. Check his actual voting record before you mislabel him a "conservative".

Frost is also the architect behind the Lone Star Project, which has been very hard-hitting on Tom DeLay and state issues. You may not like him, but he's very much not a shrinking violet. He's a strong, partisan Democrat, which last I checked is what we're supposed to want around here.

by kuff on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:11:04 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (3.00 / 1)

Does is anyone else get the idea from reading Matt's brief bios of all these Dems that he just started following politics a year & a half ago? Martin Frost, conservative Democrat?

by Epitome22 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:57:16 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

Surprised that nobody picked up on one glaring mistake in the article. It is Joe Andrew who was a former DNC chair, not Andrews. Joe did one hell of a good job as chair in Indiana, rebuilding a moribund and archaic mess into one of the better state parties in the country. You can critique his politics, but he was a most effective party builder in Indiana, putting consecutive Democrats into the Governor's Mansion in one of the reddest states. This is the second Nagourney mistake this week; an earlier story he did on Ohio mistakenly stated that Ohio has no party registration.

by mattinla on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:04:05 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

by ninapam on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:24:51 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney's Democratic Party (none / 0)

How can I top a bunch of porn links? It's like coming on after Seinfeld...

anways, you act like being male, white, and professional is a bad thing. Sure, it doesn't mirror the party exactly, but it can do a fine job representing it.

by mnatr on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:27:07 AM 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.