To his claim that Dean lacks message discipline (to which there are numerous gaffes for verification), you say you think Dean will do well and that McAuliffe was bad. This isn't a rebuttal, it's spin.
Your rebuttal to his claim that the election for chair was a process of third rate intrique was another example of evasive spin disguised as a rigorous response to his points. You've obviously not read the article. Mark Bowers used his position of leverage not to promote the party but to advance his own provincial interests by making each candidate fulfill his demands. It was not simply minimum fincancing of state parties that he was demanding, but essentially a takeover of the national party by state parties. He demanded, for example, that the state parties be able to name 50 of the current 75 staff positions the DNC chairman gets to name.
My favorite part is how you blame Dean's inability to manage money on the DLC's attacks. If he couldn't spend wisely because of the DLC attacks, imagine how he would have spent money during a RNC onslaught.
This paragraph strikes me as incoherent or plainly wrong: "Several former Dean staffers are disgruntled with Dean's management style. The DNC chair should be a disciplinarian. That's what we need. A Ross Perot type who runs a button downed tight fisted operation. A top down micro-manager who runs a tight ship. Perhaps a Yale graduate with an MBA who brooks no dissent in the ranks?" The description of an ideal chair seems the opposite of Howard Dean. I think you were trying to say Dean was a disciplinarian who tolerated no dissent. This comes right after two quotes from former aides dissenting about his poor management. Another dissenter is his former Campaign manager, Joe Trippi, who endorsed Simon Rosenberg. You then mention an MBA, which was confusing since Dean doesn't have one.
Your response to Chait's claim that straight talk doesn't do a chair any good is to not actually address the claim but to attack the DLC.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of your response is when you address the fact that Dean's approval rating among Dems is 27%. You reject the poll by saying it's not 27% who solely approve of Dean but 27% who are wildly enthusiastic about Dean. So I guess it would be fair to assume then that the 73% who don't approve of him hate him. Then you again make a comparison that doesn't stand up under scrutiny. McAuliffe was a little known (outside of the beltway) financier for the party. Would his name recognition numbers be anywhere near high enough to acurately measure opinion toward him? You then seem to make the argument that it is better to be known and incredibly unpopular with your own party than relatively unknown. Anyone will tell you that it is easy to increase name recognition than to change public opinion after it has made up its mind.
First, one election does not a liberal democracy make. In fact, it is likely to ensure that such a system of government never comes to pass in Iraq. People are voting based for sectarian and religious reasons. A year ago, a majority of Iraqis wanted a secular government. Today, a majority favor religious rule. This election will not quell the violence, though I certainly hope it does. While this may be a "touchdown" (if you insist on this dumb analogy), consider it under review.
On the other issues you're simply wrong on the political calculations. You seem to think that opposition to making the tax code more regressive and prizatizing social security are examples of the democrats in cogress "selling out to the left." This is not the case. A majority of the country opposes prizatization of a popular system that will be fully financed until at the very least 2042. Your talk of conservation is as stupid. Bush's energy plan was written by Energy executives and has been called by Senator McCain the Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act.
I'll agree that Tort Reform is probably a politically beneficial issue for Bush, but it is also a side issue compared to Social Security, where Dems will dominate.
Bayh has a national constituency as chairman of the DLC. He's young, smart, and telegenic. He's respected on security issues. He was the keynoter at the convention in 1996. He won by a bigger margin than bush in Indiana. He's a former governor. His dad is Birch Bayh.
You can win if you're not in the Senate a long time. Kennedy was a senator for eight years. Kerry was a senator for 20, Dole was a Senator for 28, McGovern for ten but his record wasn't used against him as much as his very liberal views were in the campaign, Goldwater was a senator for 12, but he didn't loss because he was a senator, he lost because he was a right-wing nut job. If you're only in the senate for eight years, you can win.
Also, the reason being a senator is so deadly is that the other side uses the candidates senate record to introduce the candidate to the public in the worst way possible. Hillary is already well known by the public.
Likewise, the greatest damage from Kerry's record came from his votes in the 80's, which was a completley different era. Hillary's years in the senate have been almost all after 9-11.
I really don't think this Senate thing stands up under scrutiny. Harding, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all served as Senators.
No way they're tied to stuff that hasn't come out yet. The GOP spent millions of both private and tax-payer money investigating the Clintons up to Wazoo. She has been accused of murdering a man for christ's sake! Everything the GOP had on her, regardless of whether or not it was true, has come out. And she still has a 56% favorable rating! I didn't think she would win until she gave her abortion speech last week. Now, I know she will.
I too live in Wisconsin but I can't see Russ winning the nomination and don't thin he'd be good for Veep either. He's a maverick from a state that loves mavericks. But a president should be a leader, not a maverick. Also, he's always run really low budget ads that appeal to wisconsinites but I doubt they'd appeal to the nation as a whole. Finally, he's incredibly liberal and very easy to paint as such.
You prove nothing. Saying you were wrong isn't a rationalization. It's the opposite. Likewise, Saddam wasn't a threat, but of course we're better off that he's gone. He invaded two countries and killed his people.
Simon Rosenberg was like an officer of the DLC. The DLC is rather diverse. John Kerry is a member.
People have this misconception that Jack and Bobby were leftists because the early histories of that era were written by Schlesinger and Sorenson, who were liberals. Bobby Kennedy worked with Joe McCarthy. He was very anti-communist. He was tough on crime. He took Hoffa down. He enodrsed the Bay of Pigs and was involved in other plots to kill Castro.
Your arguing we should let Labor unions decide our economic policies. Bobby Kennedy took down a labor union boss whose son runs the teamsters today. He was against Vietnam, but so was Clinton.
Oh, and I think the trump card in the debate over whether Rendell is a DLC dem is his membership in the group.
What do you mean by economic populism?
If you mean protectionism, price controls, 90% tax rates, and employment prioritized above inflation, no thanks. If you mean abolishing the pay-roll tax and adding it to the income tax in a progressive manner, small class sizes with accountable teachers, health care for all americans, and countercyclical, keynesian economic policies, I'm with you. I think you're for a word, not an ideology.
"the only reason Kerry did so badly in it is because he thumbed his nose at the South through the entire campaign instead of fighting for every state as Howard Dean would have done." I agree with the sentiment that Dems can win in all fifty states, but Howard Dean!?!? Dean was a fiscal conservative, not a populist, and he offended the south. He said they were people with confederate flags in their pick-ups. Please, can we disband the cult of Howard Dean asap.