Former DNC Chairman Andrew endroses Simon Rosenberg

For Immediate Release:

Contact: Guillermo Meneses
January 13, 2005
202/842.7219



>>> Read Joe Andrew's Full Letter to DNC Members



JOE ANDREW ENDORSES SIMON ROSENBERG



SIMON ROSENBERG IS THE ONE PERSON KARL ROVE DOES NOT WANT AS CHAIRMAN OF OUR PARTY – SAYS ANDREW

LEADING INDIANA DEMOCRAT JOINS GROWING LIST OF PROMINENT SUPPORTERS IN SIMON’S BID TO LEAD DEMOCRATIC PARTY



Washington, D.C. – Former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Joe Andrew is the latest prominent Democrat to endorse Simon Rosenberg in his quest to become the next Chairman of the Democratic Party. (For more on Simon visit www.simonforchair.org). In a seven page letter to DNC members, Andrew outlines his criteria for selecting the best leader to lead the Democratic Party and his reasons for deciding to endorse Rosenberg to be the next DNC Chairman.

"Simon Rosenberg is the person Karl Rove does not want as Chairman of our Party,” said Andrew. “We cannot afford to play it safe now. In order to beat the Republicans, we must modernize and re-imagine our Party. That is why today I am endorsing Simon Rosenberg for National Chair of the Democratic National Committee. As the President and founder of the New Democrat Network, he runs an organization dedicated to modernizing the Party. He has successfully run an organization that is more like the DNC, and more like what the DNC ought to be, than any other candidate.”

“I am honored to receive the endorsement of a former DNC Chair who has served his Party and the great state of Indiana so well and with so much pride and dedication over the years,” said Rosenberg. “As a former Party leader, Joe understands better than most the challenges and opportunities that face our next DNC Chair. Joe knows what it takes to make a winning Party and that is why I am so proud to have his support.”

more: http://www.simonforchair.org/endorsements/press_releases/01-13-05_endorsements.html

on the site that you link to above.

Trippi said that it is nothing against Dean, he just thinks that Rosenberg is the best person for the job.

god , maybe he could be a little more obvious.

No , wait, he can't.

For heavens sake. When are people going to get over the 2004 primary?

Every time I saw Trippi on MSNBC, I was amazed how supportive he was of Dean, despite the fact he had been fired. He has a right to support anyone he wants for DNC chair.

The more posts I read this sort of bashing of Democrats on DU, the more pessimistic I am that we will ever win again. People can blame it on Karl Rove or election fraud, but the fact is we are our own worst enemy.

I guess when someone does what Trippi did, he's exempt from any criticism or speculation about his motive? His actions since his dismissal from the Dean campaign have been focused on getting back at Dean and getting the spotlight back on Joe "Messiah" Trippi. This is just another in a long litany. If we can't criticize people for bullshit moves, what is left? We aren't republicans, although some fondly seem to wish we were.

I'm just pointing out what everybody already knows about this deadbeat.

I've only observed the contrary.

Dean is out to destroy Kerry, Trippi is out to destroy Dean, on and on it goes. None of it is productive.

Sorry, but Kerry's doing a good enough job all by himself, in spite of the help Dean has given him.

I don't believe Dean is out to destroy Kerry. My comment was on the divisive comments that occupy so many on DU. I responded to the thread below immediately before reading the comments on Trippi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1493112

not a single oat to feed those racehorses he bought with all those $25 Dean for America donations.

I've heard others repeat charges that Trippi stole money. If that's true, he needs to be prosecuted. If there isn't evidence, it's not right to spread unfounded rumours of such a serious nature about someone.

:eyes:

Specifically, those two organizations. He represents DC insiders, IMO.

and I would really appreciate a thoughtful assessment of what you feel his weakness are.

#2 He's an insider for current entrenched failed leadership and will do their bidding.

#3 He's pro-Iraq War.

#4 He's being supported by all of the insiders, thus he will owe his position to them.

#5 He comes off as a wet noodle which will work to the detriment of the Democratic Party.

If Rosenberg becomes the chair, the next four years will work a lot like the last four years.

NDN receives important counsel from leading New Democrat thinkers and strategists who form NDNs Advisory Board. These Advisory Board members include former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty; former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry; former U.S. Representatives Vic Fazio, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Dave McCurdy, who was the Democratic Leadership Council chairman; former Dallas Mayor and 2002 Texas Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ron Kirk; former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew; former Federal Trade Commissioner Christine Varney; economist and former Under Secretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro; economic and family policy expert Karen Kornbluh, a former Treasury and Federal Communications Commission official; former Commerce Department Chief of Staff and private equity investor Rob Stein; pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen; Founding Partner and Managing Director of the Westin Rinehart Group Morris Reid and Internet pioneer and political strategist Jonah Seiger.


Sooooo, the insider who just gave his support to Simon Rosenberg (which is what this whole thread is about) is a member of Simon Rosenberg's NDN advisory board.

He's definitely an insider. Look at the list above! Corporatism abounds with this group!

does that automatically make you a poisoned insider?

from this "insiders" perspective, Simon's support is drawn largely from young democrats who have worked for candidates and understand very well the shortcomings of the national party. You can call it whatever you want, but if you think I am supporting Simon because he DOESNT represent change, you are wrong.

:shrug:

Unfortunately, my opinon doesn't mean doodly squat in this race as 447 people with the inside track get to make that decision.

Your mileage, however, will probably vary. I don't have any influence that could amount to any of those 447 taking notice of my opinion.

i aint got squat. i know 6 people on the DNC list. I already checked it.

LOL

We're in the same boat on this one.

being the stepson doesnt pay like it used too.

That's where my two degrees of seperation come in.

Her aunt (mother-in-law of the cousin) lives in the same Co-Op as Barack Obama, so there's another person I have two degrees of seperation from.

Much of the perceived problem for most of us on the "outside" is the fact that these so called insiders are so intertwined with the levers of power that it strains credibility about their true intentions. To answer your question, no it doesn't automatically make them poisoned insiders, but I'm suspicious of many of the associations that many insiders have.
Let's face it, many of us who struggle just to make ends meet don't easily trust those who have continued to remain in positions of power. What have they had to do to remain there? Who are they indebted to? How many are truly there by virtue of good works? The current climate of politics and what is needed to gain power is for many of us what is wrong. I'd like to see Democrats blaze a new political path. I'd like to feel I'm being represented again. But now, with the shenanigans of the last election, I feel further away than ever before, even to my own Party.

I am a big believer that the Party's incumbents and its grassroots need a fluid relationship. I also fully understand that Gov Dean, thru DFA and his campaign, embodies this sentiment, plus honest government, for many on the board. Again, no argument from me.

As to Simon, he is someone I have spent a fair amount of time with and have great respect for. In my opinion, he has understood these fundamental challenges since before the primary last year, as well as the threat of media control. And he has thought alot about implementation. I think his departure from the DLC is representative of this. IMO, he understood that the party's future was unsustainable during the Clinton years, too aligned with corporations. That the balance of power was off.

That's why I see him as someone who shares the same core philospophy that I and probably you and Governor Dean share. I would hope, and firmly believe based on their friendship, that if Gov Dean wins the chairmanship, he will see Simon as a resource, not a threat.

shake. I won't consider him a deal breaker, but he's still not my first choice.

from the DLC.

And as for how Dean would see him if he wins -- I'm sure he'd continue to see him as a "friend" or whatever. Howard is an enormously magnanimous and thoroughly political animal in his willingness and capacity to get along with everyone. After all, he campaigned -- and hard -- for your stepdad, didn't he? I wouldn't have.

he'd do himself and a lot of us a service if he spoke them now. If he has truly parted from the DLC that's a start. I'm still open and am not necessarily a Dean supporter(for sheer personality I like Jesse Jackson Jr.). You see, Chris. It's hard to know any of these guys. I'm just a working stiff out in NoLibs Utah. Even the Dems here are Repub-Lite. I can't even get my disabled wife on SSA(think they know we're Democrats).
I try to keep as informed as I can, so can you give me some links to what Rosenberg has been doing? I'll listen and weigh the info for myself. Good luck!

I probably wouldn't have a clue who Simon was if I hadn't joined NDN at the suggestion of a friend. And I would not necessarily trust his judgement if I didn't have my own opinions that he and I discussed during the election.

Because, at times during you step-father's campaign, I heard him make statements that seemed to be new positions or were added. Many I found myself wooping it up for, too. Like it was "about time someone said it."

I cant recall all our conversations. Some of it was advice on how I might better structure my time and organize my efforts for maximum effect. (apparently I didnt listen, though we did win PA and the Youth Vote, my areas of focus)

more generally

Focus on strengthening state parties, first and foremostModernize the back end (ie tech) of the party, particularly the databasing at and in between ALL 50 states and HQ.

Create our own echo chamber and larger democratic infrastructure that is relevant between election cycles, and is not candidate specific. Rob Stein's project was the real eye opener here.

Have a clear, simple articulated message that is concert with core values of the party, but that stands in contrast with the GOP media. I can tell you Simon, from my experience, is not interested in forming the message, just creating the best platform for disseminating it.

Develop advertising that is more localized, more demographically specific, and, frankly, more unique (like the NDN Hispanic Project).

the need to invest heavily in web infrastructure, with the understanding that it is both an organizing tool, and a counterweight to GOP Media outlets.

stuff like that. stuff we didn't do well enough at the campaign, or that we inherited and was insufficient

I'm available to assist in any way I can here in Utah. But I need to know from you what you feel and Simon feels are the core values of the party. Here in St. George, Utah we have just experienced what the cost of indiscriminate building is with the loss of almost 50 homes from the flooding of our two major rivers. Many of this is due to county/city planning that aides the local insiders here(business as usual). I would like help in finding a cohesively prudent message on environmental issues. We also have a large Hispanic community here that is untapped. Also, in regards to the media outlets here, we are constantly bombarded with the right-wing radio pundits. Is there any way to bring in more liberal broadcasts to counteract that? I work for the local college and have access to the youth here. Maybe you can send some info along these lines.

I want to do battle here in enemy territory. We have a progressively large influx of new people who move here for the natural beauty and, I feel, they are underrepresented. Thanks Chris for answering my questions.

He is not arrogant enough to assume that he will win, but when asked about Simon he was very clear about his admiration for the man.

It is a coincidence because he was asked this very question. ;-)

Nor does he share Dean's - not with his recent defense of the illegal and immoral war on Iraq.

That is a HUGE issue with many Dems, and though I'm no longer a Dem due largely to their increasing service to corporatism, the party is angry. They, by and large, don't support the war.

Rosenberg does.

That's a fundamental divide, my friend. One many Dems will bolt over, if handled badly.

(He isn't the Chris Heinz I'm thinking of, he is? If he were, we wouldn't use that as his screen name, would he? Just curious here.)

Did you see this article on Coke, India and water?
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2005/0002825353&EDATE=

Problems that we face, from health care to financial stability, are because we've put corporate well-being over human well-being. Education, media, health care, tort "reform", SS privatization, energy, everything is about a fight against corporate domination. This is the path for the Democratic Party. It isn't anti-business to demand ethical practices from corporations. It isn't anti-globalism to support the people and their businesses in third world countries and here at home. Self-preservation is a pretty big motivator and as this water problem in India shows, we will be there before we know it. And what about Simon's "beautiful environment" crapola? Pretty trees and rivers are wonderful, but you ought to know from Bobby that protecting our environment is about a whole lot more than pretty trees and rivers. We've got to take on the corporations and I don't see that anywhere in Simon's agenda.

These things aren't getting the attention they desperately need, and it's very frustrating.

CORPORATE LACKEY.

I'm tired of having corporate America play both parties against each other. They contribute to both parties in order to gain influence and access to whoever is in power. Let the Repugs have these parasites. It's time for the Party to return to it's true base, poor, working-class Americans who end up carrying out and shouldering the failed policies of both parties. As the economic divide continues to widen, there is a untapped and underrepresented force just waiting for a sincere and honest voice to stir us into action.

but also plays part of what was once the party of the people against the corporatists, thus resulting in an even more "Corprate Friendly" government.

Combined with his corporatism.

Old guard guys masquerading as something new. Their staus however is debatable.
But Siman has a lot of Quo to try this end run around a change from the inside the beltway establishment good old boy network that has given us six consecutive electoral losses.

Quo vadis, Simon?

meaning Repuglicans before they all went completely bonkers.

I think we can do better.

I think we must do better, if we want to win elections.

I also think they're desperately throwing out DLC names as fast as they can, because they know they can't win elections but they still want to cling to power with both hands.

I LOVE it: New Democrat = Old Repuglican

And given that, is there any reason to believe that the next DNC Chair won't be someone who will continue to do their bidding?

about a New direction, New focus, and a New agenda, doesn't say much.

All I really want in a DNC leader is a Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Doesn't sound like this guy can fill that bill.

sure sounds like the same old shit to me.

:shrug:

It's shocking to me to read some of their "stuff" and have people around here imagine (a) it's new and/or (b) it's a GOOD thing, to borrow a phrase from Martha.

Most of the candidates at the caucus have the personality of a doormat! Everything required of a Chair of the DNC requires a convincing personality. The chair must convince, or charm people into making donations, be able to amicably deal with all the pundits and reporters questions, and appear at least likeable to the voters...all the voters!

After listening to all of the candidates, I still think Dean would do the best job. Others that seemed acceptable were Martin Frost and Tim Romer. The rest of them sure turned me off, and I'm a loyal Dem!

who can shake people down for cash, that's McAuliffe. Cash, unfortunately, doesn't substitute for strategy and organization. The Democrats had a good deal of money is this last election cycle but were short on ideas, strategy, and organization. It seems to me those last three are what we need most.

strategy nor cash.

rosenberg might bring a bit of both, but not enough of either to get the job done, IMO. He'd play to not lose rather than play to WIN.

They sure turn me off, and the issue doesn't even pertain to me.

He seems to suffer from a complete deficit of ideas. On This Week with George Steph. he mouthed some empty statements about reclaiming religious values, but did it less well than your average TV pundit. I was decidedly unimpressed.

So if Rev. Randall Terry of Operation Rescue were to become DNC Chair in a surprise election, would you find fault with him as long as he had a "D" after his name?

But that in itself isn't my major concern. Again, I don't see the DNC chair as having any kind of major role in setting Democratic party policy positions.
I want someone with strong ideas on how to reinvigorate the party, better organize the grass roots, and who will make sure Democrats get elected. Dean may be a good choice. But should I reject him out of hand because he gets an A+ rating from the NRA and supports the death penalty?

What message will the party send if it selects:

1) an anti-choicer

2) a pro-war Dem

It'll make it look like the party agrees with the Republicans. Wow. Great idea.

The personal beliefs of a DNC chair doesn't matter to me at all. What kind of power do you think he would have? Certainly none that would affect Roe.

I don't believe in litmus tests on either side of the asile.

Apparently some people in the party hierarchy do not like Dean's views on the war (which was rather moderate), or on the I/P conflict (which was one of fair play), and that is why you them now pushing Anybody But Dean as party Chair. That's no way to treat the former ABB crowd!

Considering the professional hacks supporting Rosenberg, it alone should be a big red flag warning us about the sort of Chair Rosenberg would make.

:shrug:

The insiders want to keep the cash for themselves.

I'm trying to find a thoughtful assessment of some of the candidates here. Do you support the Rosenberg candidacy? If so, would you share your reasons?
Thanks very much.

1. Howard Dean has a strong base of donors which, if he brought to the party, would certainly be as asset. He also has the ability energize people and was successful in bringing a lot of people into the party. But I don't know if he has the experience in running a large campaign operation. His Dean's Dozens were an admirable attempt, but he targeted too many races where the Democrat had little chance of winning.

2. Rosenberg has the experience of running a large political operation. He has exactly the type of resume that you would want if you were hiring a chairman. But he doesn't have the star power that Dean has to attract press and perhaps raise money from non-traditional sources.

3. Although he has the support of Congressional leaders, I'm not sure that Tim Roemer is the best choice for Chairman. It is going to take some people in the party time to accept him as chairman because of some of his political views. I realize that the DNC Chair doesn't set policy, but there are many Democrats who don't. And his conservative stances on some of these issues may be a distraction to the press. I think it certainly may be a good idea to have someone with a history of success in a red state, but there are others who fit that bill.

4. Martin Frost may be our best bet. He is a former chairman of the DCCC, which is responsible for election Democrats to the House of Representatives. That position requires making tough decisions, determining which candidates have a chance and which don't, and then allocating resources accordingly. His DCCC experience also required him to raise a lot of money, so he likely has a fat Rolodex. He is also has red state experience, having served in Congress representing a district in Texas. His experience in Congress is also a plus.

5. Splitting the Chairmanship may also be a good idea. You could have one person, like Dean, as the National Chairman. He would be the one raising money and being the public face of the party. Another person, like Rosenberg, would serve as General Charmian. That individual would be in charge of the nuts and bolts of politics, like allocating resources to campaigns and formulating strategy.

That was the whole point Dean was trying to make. We cannot concede any race. There is no way that the Democrats will be able to regain the majority without convincing the people who are voting for Republicans to change and vote for Democrats. With only just above 50% vote turnout, there is a huge number of potential Democratic voters, even in the red states.

There is only so much money to go around. If we equally fund every race regardless of chance of winning, we will wind up underfunding the competative races. The GOP is smart enough not to spend money on a guy running in a heavily Democratic black-majority district.

Your comments about Frost are interesting. He impressed me when I saw him on the CSPAN broadcast of the Southern Democratic Caucus. He certainly is willing to fight and take on Delay in particular. His Southern roots and experience are also helpful. Does he have a real following among DNC voters? Do you think he has a shot?
I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments on the candidates. I am not a voting member, but I am interested in learning about the various candidates. I find the guilt by association method of evaluating candidates (like comments about Rosenberg on this thread) less than helpful.

Only time will tell if he has enought support to pull this off.

Go figure who wants to continue the killings in Iraq, and who thinks it is okay for the FBI to come into your home without a warrant, and you will find one that is unacceptable to progressives.

Your screen name suggests that you aren't a Democrat. Why does the head of the DNC matter to you? We aren't talking about the head of the Green party.
I think the idea of creating a list of positions the DNC chair should conform to is mistaken. First off, politicians set their issues. If anyone serves as a party leader in setting issue positions, it is the presidential candidate, not the DNC chair. I have been a very strong opponent and active protester to the war since it first emerged as a possibility. But to imagine the DNC chair should rise to a standard that the rest of the party does not strikes me as reasonable.
The DNC chair is a strategic and organizational position, not an ideological one. He or she is the chief administrator of the party.

The DNC Chair is the visible head of the Democratic Party. What sort of message are you sending if the Democratic Chair is a supporter of Bush on Iraq and PATRIOT? Bush-Lite and Me-Too!

Your screen name suggests that you aren't a Democrat.

Ignorant comment particularly when we live in a 2-party monopoly.

Clearly I was mistaken, but it was a logical conclusion to draw. I'm not trying to uphold any kind of two party monopoly, but we are talking about the internal workings of the Democratic party, not a representative elected by the people at large.
Do you want a DNC chair at war with the rest of the party? Is he supposed to be a mouthpiece or to see democrats get elected?
The points you raise are very important in determining an elected representative, but the DNC chair is not that. He or she is an administrator--chief accountant and organizer. Again, he or she does not set policy. No party chair has ever done so.
Who do you think sets the policy agenda for the Republicans? Ken Melman or George Bush and company? The answer is obvious.

He will be if you get Rosenberg, since the majority of the party is AGAINST the "war".

And why ISN'T the head of the DNC a person elected by all registered Dems? Seems mighty UNdemocratic to this independent.

no, he is not elected by all registered Dems. Nor is he, as someone on another board posted, elected by the House. The DNC is elected by delegates to the DNC. They are delegates elected at the state level, within the state party structures. The people who vote have been long time party activists. Those who have put their dues in working to get Democrats elected for many years. We many disagree with them on a number of issues, heaven knows I do.
But they at least do not threaten to work to bring down the party six times a days as many on this site seem to do.
To be a voting member you need to be active through your local precinct, county and state party.

Do you want a DNC chair at war with the rest of the party? Is he supposed to be a mouthpiece or to see democrats get elected?

A prowar DNC Chair will be at war with the rest of the party! What's the point of having Democratic activists work their butt off to fend off Bush's attacks on abortion rights, bargaining rights, Social Security, trade, civil liberties, and the war if the DNC Chair undermines those efforts by supporting Bush's positions. The DNC Chair is the face of the Democratic Party until the Presidential candidates begin to hit the chicken circuit in 2007.

The job of electing people to office falls on the local candidates, their organizations, the state and local Democratic organizations, and on the support of the House and Senate campaign committees.

Have you seen McAuliffe as the face of the party for these last several years? Do you see Melman as the face of the Republican party?
Again, from what I can tell, he is strategist, fundraiser, and organizer in chief.
Anyway, this entire discussion is moot. I'm not a voting member of the DNC. Are you? If you look to the end of this thread, those who have some knowledge of the DNC say that Dean is now the favored candidate. Does this mean we are now a pro-gun, pro-death penalty party?

The last time I checked, the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights and it had nothing to do with hunting.

The American people want the death penalty for heinous crimes, and have spoken strongly about that through their elected representatives. Democrats and Republicans have supported the death penalty. There is also an increasing number of people that recognize that life is unique and precious and must be protected, whether it is from the abortionist, the executioner, the oppressor, or the combatant.

I didn't mention hunting. I merely referred to Dean's approval rating from the NRA and his position on the death penalty, both issues that I, and I thought a majority of leftists, disagree on.
If a legislative vote is your criteria for judging a position the Democratic party should take, what is your opposition to the war? The elected representatives also approved the Iraq War resolution, including a majority of Democrats.
I believe murder in all of it's forms is wrong. I don't make an exception for the state: whether it is the Bush administration's use of the military in Iraq or it is the state of Texas or Florida using lethal injection. You evidently feel differently, which is your right, no matter how morally reprehensible I may find it.
You have to admit, however, there is a great inconsistency in your argument. The "people's word" on assault weapons and the death penalty is acceptable, but not the war in Iraq? At any rate, none of this has anything to do with the responsibilities of DNC chair. These are matter of great importance for us to discuss as Democrats and Americans. We can and must debate these issues at party conventions, on web blogs, and through our elected representatives. The DNC chair's job is to raise money and coordinate election activities. He doesn't have a vote in congress and doesn't dictate how House and Senate members vote.

simply because it is very complex when one considers its spilled over effect on other issues, such as the human right to life. Perhaps that is why I respect groups like Pax Christi that support a pro-life position: against the war, against abortion, against the death penalty. I cannot endorse such a noble position because it conflicts with my belief that the woman is the final arbiter of whether she wants to be a mother or not. I am also conflicted about the death penalty. While I don't think the State should have the power of life and death over its citizens, be it through the death penalty or military conscription, I find it difficult to oppose the death penalty when it is imposed in those rare cases in which the crime was committed against humanity as a whole, not just against particular individuals. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials come particularly to mind. At the same time, one has to recognize that all civilized nations, which America is not, have done away with the death penalty. Even the International Crimes Court cannot impose the death penalty.

Like I said, there is a Kerryesque quality to my position on the death penalty.

And agree they are complex matters. I still think, however, there are contradictions in your assessments of what criteria should be used to assess DNC chair. Ultimately we'll find out what the voting members think when they decide on the chair next month.

life.

23 years I've been a registered Democrat and the first election I was eligible to participate in was 1982.

If Dean is not chosen DNC chair, I'm declaring political Independence.

it's probably for the best. If you're not willing to work to change the party for the better, it's probably better that you join the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Republicans, or whoever it is you prefer to see elected.

and I've been trying to change the party from within, for 23 years. It hasn't helped a bit yet.

It is my considered opinion that if anybody other than Dean becomes the Party Chair, it will NEVER change.

of many things "Democrat" from what I've read of your posts here at DU. For me, I'm a Democrat... will stay that way!

Why Independent?? You sound like you lean more to the left than that. Perhaps it's Green you want. Greens are more liberal as I am, but I don't think they have enough support to ever make a difference. Oh well, I guess if you go "I" you can sit on the fence, then go either way.

I will declare political independence.

And let's just see how supportive of the Democrats I was this past election?

Donations of $50 and $100 to Kerry's campaign, before the convention.

Another 5 donations to the DNC for $50 each.

Three donations to Barack Obama's campaign.

And then some time to some more local candidates.

Yeah, I've never supported Democrats. /sarcasm

I've been here since the beginning. DUers who know me know I don;t pull my punches. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I was "musing" because I haven't been here since forever! But I've been a Dem since forever. Like since I was 11, at my Daddy's knee! He was military and a GREAT Democrat!

I'm very GLAD you gave money to support others, but YOU said YOU were leaving. I was just commenting on some of the posts you've written lately.

I call 'em as I sees them too! No prob, here... I'm staying!

Seems to me we need the most qualified person at the helm and Rosenberg sure has relevant experience and a deep commitment. I'm not sure this is the best spot for Dean, who I believe should run for office and speak and fight for the people.

This isn't the time to run out on the Party. This is the time to lend our support as never before in history. I can understand though the fear of corporate infiltration in the Party. We need to raise funds through the grassroots which is what I was reading that the NDN is doing.

Holding that "Washington insider" cry against anyone who's been there lacks credibility for the majority on this forum who, afterall, supported Kerry. Are we to say, "Oh nuts, you have experience in Washington so you're out?"

We need to pay attention to credibility and credentials. Party leaders need to recognize that if they don't stay true to Democratic principles they'll lose their base. Compromising our beliefs in order to move to some point right, based on false propaganda from the neocons and their spokesmen and supported by the drum beating MSM, is ludicrous and self-defeating.

Able to solicit funds from average democrats instead of corporations

Able to utilize populist themes

pro choice

never bent a knee to bush

against the Iraq war

the difference is that Dean has a national following. Whether you want that in your party chair is debatable. I also dont think the party Chair is responsible for "using themes". To me, the Chair is a steward of the party and serves all democrats, moderates and liberals alike

Remember, the DNC raised much more money from the net than Dean's Campaign. That being said, Dean's effort pioneered the use.

and

Rosenberg is pro-choice

I was counting 1 - 5 on the list in the main body. apologies.

90% of NDN's contribution came in increments of over $1000

Unlike Dean's contributions which came in increments of less than $100 for the most part.

does seem to have great experience.

As I said here yesterday, I think that people of support Dean (and others of greater national prominence) want to have a strong voice in the DNC Chair position. Others, like Rosenberg and Fowler supporters, seem to prefer more of a behind the scenes type.

It seems to me that the best arrangement, regardless of the who or why, is to have both a voice and a COO, because the public responsibilities -- the fundraising, the tv, the grassroots work -- are 24/7, as is the turnaround job we desparately need at the national party.

He formed the New Dems from the DLC. We hear he and From had a falling out...but we have to take their words.

No, this is no longer the time to support the party no matter what. It most certainly is not. We did that to help elect Kerry, and then one day he said he would vote all over again for the war knowing what he knew now.

I don't care if Dean is chair or not. I DO care that the party seems to just want a face and not real passion and guts.

No longer time for blind support.

NT!

Who or what is that?

NT!

??

IMO Joe did an excellent job as chair of both the Indiana State Democratic Party and the DNC

This is the type of person you want to rally the campaign troops.

think that this is a "decision" already made???

I personally think that ever since Chris Heinz posted his support that we had better just get used to it. There obviously has been a lot of talking going on "behind the scenes" that we don't know about.

Just going to go away from it.

:(

That's pretty well established.

They are saying Dean has a high floor and a low ceiling. I believe that he must have the votes to have announced his candidacy. However, I think that Rosenberg has a lot of the qualities we need in a future chairman.

Get Used To It... just that it seems like a probability!

I personally admire Dean!

It's the voting members, delegates to the DNC, who vote on the chair. Not random Democrats or web bloggers. My understanding is that Dean is an outside shot, but he must believe there is a real possibility or he wouldn't have publicly declared himself a candidate.

Word is that Dean has the most support among DNC members.

and I'm surprised but very glad to hear it.

Our DNC delegates went on a "listening tour" in December (see http://www.progressivecaucus.net/news.asp for details) and it seemed that at least three of the four were leaning towards Dean. Dean was the clear favorite among straw polls taken at the listening tour events, too.

Unlike most other states, our DNC members are elected DIRECTLY by party members, via our caucus/convention system. DNC delegates are chosen at the state convention, by a direct vote of state delegates. In many other states, DNC members are appointed by the party heirarchy, and are most often big-money donors or political influence-peddlers.

which hardly is surprising.
Minnesota is far more democratic. I grew up there and miss it, expect for the weather.

looks like you & I are on the same page tonight! Are you down here in Florida too???

Know what you mean about being "closed" because even the DFA I joined is sort of lame.

yourself?

Home of Cruella... Katherine Harris! You're in friendlier territory! But we had a GREAT registration campaign and were optimistic about getting rid of her!

And getting rid of The Idiot! Don't know about you, but the past election was a joke. I just wish we could bust this bubble wide open because I know how hard I worked and I saw the response we got here. I would have bet BIG money by the experience that we had done our job. A real coup in a strong REPUKE county!

In the end, on election night while watching county by county returns, I saw a dump of about 40,000 votes into her column around 11:00 PM and I'v been more than suspicious once again.

and i hate to say it, but i think an insider compromise was worked out ... the script: Dean for Chair; Rosenberg for Exec. Director ... i think it stinks ... the puppies of reform will be kept on the farm content with their perception of victory; but no reform that gives all Democrats a voice will be forthcoming ...

oh, and by the way, neither has called for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq ... and that, my fellow Democrats and ex-Democrats, is simply not OK ...

watch the next debate for signs of the "new" team ... i don't think it will be too hard to miss ...

And I, for one, am offended at his campaigning her for Rosenberg. It's not like he's (Chris Heinz) is just some average Joe, after all. Happily, DU isn't exactly the best place for that since I doubt there are more than about 5 eligible DNC voters here.

Joe Andrews serves on the advisory board of the New Democrat Network. The only way an endorsement from him would be any kind of a big deal would be if he endorsed anybody OTHER THAN Simon Rosenberg.

Like "new ideas", what does it mean?

"New" Democrats, seem to be precisely the problem, maybe they need to go back to the old ideas since their "new ideas" seem to be the Republican's "ideas" OR obviously modeling their new ideas after Dean's successes. In other words, they have no ideas, but that is the point.

Andrews is another pansy. Rosenberg is playing it safe. Like Walt said. More of the same.

Of all the candidates for DNC chair, Dean is my choice. I'll give Rosenberg a chance should he become DNC chair, but I need to see change quickly if I am to remain.

SIMON ROSENBERG IS THE ONE PERSON KARL ROVE DOES NOT WANT AS CHAIRMAN OF OUR PARTY

WTF does he know about what Rove wants? Did he get his inside scoop from Donna Brazille?

It gets old after a while, doesn't it?

:hi:

their endorsement for Simon Rosenberg on the day Dean enters the race
for DNC Chairman. I have never heard of Joe Andrews. Is that like having Terry McAuliffe endorse you?

not individuals.

also, Chris Heinz's endorsment came before Dean officially entered (dean entered yesterday, Chris' post here is Tuesday). Additionally, it appears Simon Rosenberg entered on thursday, so all these campaigns are rolling people out now.

Same day as Joe Trippi announced his endorsement and the "Message From Chris Heinz" appeared. Perhaps this is a coincidence?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Dean+enters+DNC+Chair+race

(or anything else, it appears), but I like the idea of anyone asking DU's support. For instance, I haven't seen any Roemer endorsements, did you?

...with Trippi piling on top. It's the timing that's interesting to me and no doubt to others.

Just politics, I suppose.

...that my thread claiming that the Chair has already been chosen and that Dean has been outcast was moved off to a forum in the hinterlands...and similar threads supporting the Chosen Ones remains in general politics.

But I digress. It's an exercise in futility to try to 'debate' who will get the chair. The Chair has already been chosen...it's just that YOU don't know about it yet.

and after Rosenberg's statement about Bush's "well-intentioned" illegal war against the Iraqi People for their resources, he's been given as much latitude as possible from me.

Rosenberg is now a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. No more Corporate War Whores!

Rosenburg would be easily manipulated by the Dem Establishment "Powers that be" like Fowler, etc. Only Dean is unbridled and only Dean can get the base excited about being Democrats.

If Dean doesn't get the DNC Chair, I know that I WILL NOT be donating to the DNC. I will continue to support DFA.

:shrug:

What did he do to help the Dem party?

This is the same crap that they pulled during the primaries to get people to vote for Kerry. But instead of Bush being the boogeyman, now it is Karl Rove. I just have two questions for Mr. Andrew:

1. How do you really know that Rosenberg is the person that Rove doesn't want?

2. Why would you believe anything that asshole has to say?