The point is, this is the most successful GOP strategy around. The herd is stronger without the weak (the GOP stronger without the moderates) and the stronger message allows them to win more general elections, even with more right wing candidates. This is the Club for Growth plan. It has worked wonders.
If you want to strengthen the Democrats, start a Club for Progress and kill off our dead weight.
Because the right wants to do the exact same thing to keep their message consistent and continue the Rove plan of standing tall and far to the right. Your plan is to continue the best strategy the GOP has hatched?
Since they started knocking down moderate Republicans, the GOP has gained control of congress and the White House while dramatically moving the country to the right.
If you want to help our side, get rid of moderate Democrats.
While many individuals are not yet online, culture is. Look at the fraud story: newscasters reading press releases that are cut and paste jobs from an email about a blog post.
People driving in pick-ups down dusty roads listening to AM radio are hearing Rush talk about stuff that came from the talking points he was faxed from people who lurk on the Free Republic.
When families sit down for Thanksgiving dinner and talk about what is going on in the world, many of the commentary will be stuff that started out online.
This is happening right now. Already more people are directly getting their political news from the internet than from radio. More and more, newspaper and TV stories are re-writes of stuff that starts out online.
Look at the trend and think how things will be four years from now. What about ten years from now.
The Cluetrain writers are baby-boomers, so don't pull the ageism crap when I'm quoting your generation. All I said was that young people should have a seat at the table. This year, young people were given a role in leading independent organizations and because of that we had a youth surge in 2004 like the one that was promised in 1972. If the baby boomers had been given a role in helping to lead the party during the 70s and early 80s, maybe the third of your generation has switched to the GOP since McGovern would still be with us.
I'm not looking for the "most progressive ideas" when what we need are the most successful ideas. I'm as concerned about the 2012 election as the 2006 cycle.
However, the far larger issue is how we can use the tools of tomorrow to win future elections. We can't invest in the pony express when the railroad is coming to town. Information is being exchanged in entirely new ways and this affects all generations.
We need to reform our Party, I'm just trying to kickstart the conversation. I look forward to reading your critique.
Yesterday I posted my 20 areas of reform for the Democratic Party which listed the steps I would like to see taken to modernize the party. This was posted not as a guide, but to prompt a look a modern paradigms through which we could evaluate reform.
With the courts leading the issue, Democrats weren't in control and most were hiding. Newsom gave us offense, a strong offense. He forced the President's hand turning it into an issue of changing the Constitution -- ground we win on.
Gavin Newsom is the only Democrat in the country how has boldly shown spine in the last year.
He personalized the issue and gave Democrats a great opening when he refocused the debate on equality. Newsom shifted the landscape on gay marriage, but the GOP re-captured the ground when they kept fighting and Democrats hid.
It isn't about marriage, it is about equality. Which is how the courts will ultimately rule.
It doesn't matter if Newsom was within his bounds, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Just before the election, pollster David Binder did a sounding on voters and found San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom enjoying an 80 percent approval rating.
But then that was before folks started blaming him -- and gay marriage -- for the Democrats' big loss.
"Since then, I've been hearing two things," Binder said. "On one hand, you have the people who are angry at him -- but on the other hand, you have a lot of people who say he's being scapegoated. And you know that can actually prove to be a boost in this town."
Whatever the case, Newsom is showing no sign of backing down on same-sex marriage. In fact -- as shown by his comments on KRON the other day -- he's more combative than ever.
"Two-thirds of the Democrats are condemning me -- how dare they?" he said. "If this party is going to have a vibrancy it had before, you have to stand up on principles. Like us or don't like us."
"The reason George Bush is president is because he was strong. He may have been wrong, but he was strong -- as we were increasingly weak, even though we are right. And we have to find a balance between the two."
I don't think we should have a DNC Chair who is unable to format a hyperlink. As many people received their political news from the internet as from radio and the internet is the most cost-effective way to create news.
Check the three posts on the DNC Blog posted since the election and you'll see why I think the first qualification is somebody who can format a hyperlink.
Before we talk about what we want them to do, let's make sure they can communicate in a modern form.
With Dean and Rosenberg leading the results, it appears we want fundamental change at the Democratic Party.
If the Party won't lead with strong, new leadership, then just give money to NDN and DFA and let the Party focus on getting the balloons to fall at the convention.
Both DFA and NDN are nimble, modern organizations. That is why Dean and Roseberg are at the top of the grassroots' list. But then again, maybe it is best to keep them doing what they are doing. Dean and Rosenberg have drastically forced the Party to act smarter and to think bigger. I must admit, part of me loves the competition.
So maybe that is the measure by which we should judge the new Chair:
Can the new DNC Chair compete with Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean?
As far as my donations are concerned, that is the crux of the issue.