The DNC Odd Couple

I think I am one of the few people here that thinks the DNC Chair's political ideology matters far less than his organization savvy and tenacity.

Let's be honest, with the exception of Roemer these are ALL good Democrats.  

But they are not all good for the job.  I think the DNC has two options in the race: Howard Dean and Martin Frost.

Each of these men combine real political skill with a fighter's heart.  And though I am not convinced prowess on a Sunday morning talkshow should be a vital part of the DNC members' decision, not only CAN these take on Ken Mehlman but these two will--and with gusto.

But I think the truest mesure of these two men is each of their respective records:

Howard Dean ran one of the most significant campaigns of the last 50 years--only JFK's 1960 run measures up in terms of ingeniuty.  I have every belief if he is elected he will bring similar dynamism to the party.

Martin Frost ran one of the bravest campaigns of the last 50 years, staring down Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and the rest of their thugs.  He has a proven record of running smart campaigns, surrounding himself with superb staff, raising huge sums of money, and taking on the hardest of fights.

And unlike Fowler and Rosenberg these men understand how politics works outside of DC.

Tags: (all tags)



How many ads did Dean run...
...praising Bush?
by Jim in Chicago 2005-01-12 06:01PM | 0 recs
Okay, but...
How many primaries in which Dean ran had a DPI of 35%???

Exactly, but that's not the point.

First to address your underlying question, I think Frost's ads spoke to one issue: airline security.  Frost is no fan of George Bush's, but rather he was pointing out that Pete Sessions (his opponent) was too conservative even for most Republicans.

Frost's Democratic credentials are unimpeachable.  Plus, when did the Dems pick up seats in the House since 1994 (the only time, mind you)?  When Martin Frost was chairman of the DCCC.

Confusing political strategy with poltical beliefs may be one reason we're in the position we are today.

by DemDog 2005-01-12 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, but...
But the point is that the DNC chairman is in charge of designing the advertising strategies that the Democrats will use in 2006 and 2008. I want my party to be the opposition party, as in it openly opposes the party in power. Ergo, the way to go is probably not with a guy who tried (and, I might add, failed) to win reelection by running ads praising Shrub and treating Teddy Kennedy like the big, bad, liberal boogieman.

The way to win is to energize the base (meaning liberals like myself and Kennedy) and persuade the center that our way is better than the Republican way. It is NOT going to work if we go on and on about how great Bush is while selling-out one of the few liberals left in the Senate to score a few cheap (and fleeting) political points.

by craverguy 2005-01-12 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, but...

Speaking out of both sides of your mouth looks really stupid. It also tends to piss off both groups of people you are trying to talk to.

by dicta 2005-01-13 07:46AM | 0 recs
too much credit
you're giving martin way too much credit for those pickups, IMO.  one of the biggest reasons we picked up seats in 96 and 98 was due to the impeachment backlash.

while i do give martin credit for doing an excellent job raising funds during those cycles, in no way am i going to say he gets all thre credit for those pickups.

by annatopia 2005-01-13 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: too much credit

Check you dates.

And no, Martin doesn't get all the credit.  That's like saying Clinton gets all the credit for the 90s boom.  But I sure would like to see Clinton be able to take the reins again...

by DemDog 2005-01-13 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: too much credit
don't be sarcastic, dude.

if you remember, by 1996 ken starr was the democratic boogeyman, as he'd been hounding clinton for about two years at that point.  there was a backlash, and by 98 it was in full swing.

by annatopia 2005-01-13 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: too much credit
i wasn't being sarcastic, i was simply stating a mindset until 1998.

[well, maybe i was being sarcastic...i apologize.  that does not, however, negate the truth my statement.]

and in response to your rebuttal, there was very little "backlash" in 1996.  it would be interesting to see polling data, but my guess is no more than 5-10% of voters knew Ken Starr's name in 1996.  

compound this with the fact that a fundraising scandal immediatley before the election cost clinton and house dems votes (and therefore probably seats), and suddenly the achievements of the DCCC that year are even more impressive.

but none of this really matters because i don't think politics should be about "taking credit" for something.  the fact is--not to mention the whole point of my original post--that martin frost and howard dean are the only two candidates with a history of a) winning themselves and b) helping others win.  i am not saying they deserve sole credit for a) and b), but i'd certainly take them over rosenberg (who has never ponied up for a tough race) or fowler (when was the last time he won anything?).  

anyhow, given the nature of the DNC post--and the occupants prime objective: WINNIGN--ones record should be of paramount importance to members.

by DemDog 2005-01-13 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: too much credit
no problem.  you raise an interesting point as well.

and sorry if i was being a bit flippant.  sometimes i do that. =)

by annatopia 2005-01-13 06:03PM | 0 recs
Lewis Black's take
If you saw the Daily Show, Lewis Black advocates Alan Keyes.  ROTFL
by kydem 2005-01-12 07:27PM | 0 recs
Dean ran a virtual campaign into a real wall
Dean was a good centrist New Demgovernor. He was refreshing in his populist rhetoric as presidebtial candidate. He then took tens of millions in our geek cash (yes mine too) and proceeded to implode in his first actual test. He never recovered.


We need a proven strategist and fundraiser with an appropriately centrist positioning. Fowler or Rosenberg are the best choices here by far.

Stick with Howard and the DC-crats will shove Roemer down your throat because they apparently share my opinion of Dean in general. If, though, Rosenberg or even Fowler were strongly backed by the netroots, either could emerge as a comprimise candidate.


by ringmaster 2005-01-13 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean ran a virtual campaign into a real wall
And remember, the DNC Chair, along with most of our democratic institutions really need more fmily dynasties. So vote Fowler! After all, what's wrong with positions going by direct line of patrilineal decent?
by ElitistJohn 2005-01-13 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean ran a virtual campaign into a real wall
And go look at open and check out how Rosenberg's New Democrat(ic?) Network PAC actually gave money to some Republican!!! What the f@#$??? No way this guy is the compromise candidate--more like a compromised candidate.
by Robespierre 2005-01-13 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean ran a virtual campaign into a real wall
NDN PAC Contributions to GOP candidates were in the 1998 and 2000 election cycle. None since then, but it is a good point.

2000 Cycle
Connelly, Ross J (R-ME)  $1,500
Hill, Aaron J (R-OR)  $729
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK)  $2,194
Total House GOP $4,423
Total House Dem $207,363

1998 Cycle
Dunn, Jennifer (R-WA)  $81
Total House GOP $81
Total House Dem $226,438

by fng 2005-01-13 06:05AM | 0 recs
i'm not sure how working in 14 states over 4 cycles in all regions of the country as a field organizer is 'inside DC' and i'm sure not clear on what Donnie's father has to do with this. If you support someone else and what their vision of the party is, fine, but don't resort to hack arguments against a candidate who has a record as a Democrat and has been proactive and positive in his campaign for chair. Donnie was the first candidate to announce, the first to have a solid platform of his vision for the party, he's not afraid of his faith, he came to MyDD and talked with the netroots, he's podcasting...who gives a shit who his father is?
by fng 2005-01-13 05:56AM | 0 recs
i like donnie
he really has busted his ass for this party and feel the shit he's getting is undeserved.
by annatopia 2005-01-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Fowler
I do.

We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Monarchy with a hereditary Aristocracy. Fought a little revolution on that subject back in 1776.

by ElitistJohn 2005-01-13 08:22PM | 0 recs
small d democratic small r republic
so if your relatives have ever had success in anything you are, by birthright, precluded from succeeding in that field? bitch for Bobby and Barry Bonds (obvious steroid references aside); pretty big problem for two US presidents (Bush I'll give you on this point, but I'm keeping Adams for my side of the fight); bum deal for Jesse Jackson, Jr. just trying to keep a dream alive.  Not all perfect analogies, but I think that if you have any faith in a meritocracy at all, you must also have faith that personal connections like Donnie's do not disqualify.

Also, ever stop to think that Donnie would be good at this for all of his talent and experience AND because has been raised by a family that believes in big D Democratic values so much it spends most of its working career in and for the party?

I trust that because Donnie is his father's son that he was raised to believe in inclusive politics, in the value of hard work, in the promise of a democracy, and in the obligation to help your fellow Americans.

by fng 2005-01-14 05:34AM | 0 recs
Of all the disengenous...

I absolutely believe in meritocracy. So much so I find it astounding that you are using meritocracy as justification for oligarchy. Geez. Take a look at the Economist (not exactly a bastion of Marxism) for a recent study on the death of social mobility in the US. We rank behind most of Europe now by a huge margin.

I have no doubts that ol Donnie might be good at what he does. I also have no doubts that if his name was Donnie Dubowski, son of a postman, he would never have gotten the opportunity to demonstrate this. For every connected kid that gets through the door due to Mommy and Daddy, 10 others don't get the chance. Folks who might just be better...but we'll never know because phone calls were made.

As to the last two paragraphs of drivel, you could easily make a few word swaps and replicate 19th century writings defending the British nobility. I'm always astounded when supposed Democrats defend inherited privilege by pumping up the concept of noblesse oblige.

Also, yes I think the continuous elevation of people simply because the share blood is bad for our country. Bayh son of Bayh. Clinton wife of Clinton, mother of Clinton who gets the evr so common 6 figure income straight out of college. Jackson son of Jackson. Bush son of Bush. Kennedy nephew of Kennedy.

So much for social mobility.

by ElitistJohn 2005-01-14 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh...Dear...God
fair enough, we're just coming at the family connection from different places. i just feel more comfortable giving Donnie the benefit of the doubt on his father because of what he's done.

and i wouldn't call it disingenuous or drivel. it was an argument. you don't buy it and that's fine, but that disagreement doesn't ipso facto define the comments as drivel, just not yours.

one other bit that i've been pondering is the 1776 reference. i'd argue, fairly strongly, that while aristocracy and nobility were factors, the revolution was just as much about tax policy and representation in the House of Commons as it was about the monarchy. by that point in Britain's history, Commons was almost as powerful a political force as the king and nobility.

by fng 2005-01-15 05:54AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads