E&P: Coming in Sunday 'NYT': Will Dean Destroy the Democratic Party?

Editor&Publisher: Coming in Sunday 'NYT': Will Dean Destroy the Democratic Party?
By E&P Staff
Published: September 29, 2006

NEW YORK -- An article in this coming Sunday’s edition of The New York Times Magazine profiles Howard Dean’s efforts to establish the new “50 state strategy” for the Democratic National Committee, which he now heads – a move which has brought him into fierce combat with some leaders in his own party.

The often critical cover story by Matt Bai is titled: “Is Howard Dean willing to destroy the Democratic Party in order to save it?”...

***

Repeatedly the story returns to Dean’s battle with Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The latter favors the usual practice of funneling more national money to battleground states, while Dean wants to spread it around – with key elections coming in November....If the Democrats narrowly miss taking over Congress, Bai writes, party leaders will blame Dean and “say that he squandered their best chance” for a comeback in years.

Bai also relates: “Now, at power lunches and private meetings, perplexed Washington Democrats, the kind of people who have lorded over the party apparatus for decades, find themselves pondering the same bewildering questions. What on earth can Howard Dean be thinking? Does he really care about winning in November, or is he after something else?” Bai is skeptical, however, of one theory that has Dean presiding over another failed Democratic run for the White House in 2008, setting him up for his own “grassroots” run in 2012.

The article does give the former Vermont governor his say, and suggests the party, indeed, needs a new outlook, even if Dean is not “the best messenger” to deliver it. Dean declares, “The risk of doing nothing, the same old thing is enormous.”...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003188751

the Democratic Party is in turmoil. Another example of balanced media. The GOP has hidden for one year that one of their members was sending inappropriate messages to pages and the Grey Lady writes about internal squabbles within the Democrats?

:shrug:

is one of the memes they have to push.

The 50 State Strategy is the only way for the Democrats to go forward. I had this explained to me last March at a Democratic Campaign Institute event by former Dean and Kerry staffers. We cannot continue to bypass voters in America because paid consultants say they don't matter. We have to bring the fight to the voters, everywhere in America. It is the only way to grow the base of the Democratic Party and challenge the Republicans across the board.

This is an idiotic fight. But then again, what else do you suspect from the NYTimes.

And it is a legitmate look at the status quo v the innovative approach....

Dean is building a party...

The DCCC is trying to win a majority position in Congress...

Two seperate goals...

And it is not like Dean is hiding this from anyone...

The people who are donating to the DNC are fully aware that their money is going, in large part to party building in 50 states...

Dean is the only one who is respected and trusted by most real Democrats.

The DC Establishment is trying to get him out.

If by that Matt Bai means "will Dean destroy the corporatist wing of the democratic party that supports illegal wars, generation wars against a tactic, scam wars in which Americans are sent to die for slogans, keeping its powder dry while everything America stands for is trampled, and so on" then I certainly HOPE Dr. Dean is successful in destroying it!

This is simply a question of strategy for allocating resources, dressed up by a journalist's hyperbole employed in hope of catching eyes to a fairly straightforward and dull subject.

Viewed with an eye towards the long term, Gov. Dean's approach is the correct one. The Party needs to establish some real presence in all states, and contest where the enemy has grown lax and over-confident through lack of challenge. This is the surest way to weaken the enemy's strength in the routinely contested areas.

What is questionable about this course, at the present moment, is whether the Party has sufficient resources of money to both execute this long term strategy, and meet the tactical needs of the current campaign, which is indeed a "make or break" one. The conventional view is that the Party does not have sufficient resources to do both these things at once, and if it does not, then a judgement must be made about which is of the most pressing and immediate importance. The benefits of gaining a majority for the Party in one or both bodies of the Legislature are immense; the harm that would be suffered from failing to achieve this would be colossal, not only to the Party but the country.

The dispute has nothing whatever to do with the hobby horses of "corporatist wing" and "illegal wars" and the like that you have trotted out. The establishment of healthy Party organizations in all fifty states would not work particularly against or for these things, nor would an inability to do this at present work particularly for or against them.

"A large sum of money is a leading character in this tale of human beings, just as a large sum of honey might be in a tale of bees."

and a few others are the only actual Democrats left in power.

The rest are triangulatin' Republicans in Democrat clothing, that are far to the RIGHT of Eisenhower. Not only is triangulation inherently heinous - it doesn't work for anyone not named Clinton - the Dems have been getting their clocks cleaned since 1994. We'll pick up some seats this election, but it took a ruinous war and staggering corruption by the other party in order to do so.

Good luck to Dr. Dean!!! May the Democratic party rise from the ashes!!!

The media is ever too willing to jump on the "bash Dean" bandwaggon. He is a favored punching bag for republicans after the media did such a nice job of framing him as an unhindged looney. They seem to ignore the 4 months they spent before praising him for his massive amount of funds raised from such a previously unknown position to the national stage.

Republicans were scared as hell over Dean, because he would have awakened more then just the democrats to what the Bushies were doing, he had much more a spine then Kerry and would have been blunt. Of course the media hates that and thinks anything truthful is "extream or far-left."

If for no other reason, I hope the dems capture both houses so Dean can say "under who did you regain control?"

such great success in winning elections lately. Who are they to question Dean's commitment to winning elections?

against Democrats.

Consider that the same articles were in the Times in 2000 and 2004. This has little to do with Dean and a lot to do with the media wanting to cut the Democrats's momentum by casting doubts and a few strategists talking to liberally to the media about how they were not listened to.

. . .how the money was spread around.

It will have everything to do with their refusal to challenge THE BIGGEST problem that members of the Democratic Party face: the perception that they are weak.

The perception of weakness has nothing to do with perceptions related to national security. It has EVERYTHING to do with repeatedly choosing appeasement over principle. It has everything to do with their empty condemnations of Bush et. al, and their refusals to take the actions demanded by the truth ("Bush is nullifying the Constitution, but don't worry; we have no intention of impeaching anyone.").

As long as their refusal to act leaves them sputtering like morally-confused, mealy-mouthed, morons, their "message" won't energize (or in pundit-speak "resonate with") anybody. (Everything we've heard out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth lately might as well be the "waanh waa waaah" of Charlie Brown's teacher in Peanuts.)

Impeachment is not just demanded by their Congressional oath; Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda. It is the WINNING thing to do.

What do they think they are winning if they go on, "politics as usual" and thus allow rule by signing statement to go unchallenged?

How can they expect Americans to trust them to stand up to terrorists, if they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney? (The men who terrorized us into war with threats of Mushroom Clouds in 45 minutes.)

Unfortunately, the trend has been growing steadily for republicans in recent weeks, since the "detainee and terrorism" assult. As my political science proffesser has told me, if the repubs continue on this track, it will favor them as the media supports thier view that any non-bush stance is weak on terror and will result in atomic devistation of the US. Iraq has conveintly been pushed out of the headlines just as the holy month starts, when its most likely attacks will spawn a full on civil war.. but that isn't as important as Anna Nicole getting married or Britney's latest baby. I wouldn't be surprised if a coup takes down the iraqi government, and we don't hear about until page 2.

The problem is the massive disconnect between insiders vs. outsiders.

The labels -- liberal, conservative, progressive, right, left -- have become so loaded they have lost all objective meaning.

We are not even dealing with a divide between left v. right positions on "issues."

We are dealing with fascists v. anti-fascists; insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength.

Insiders v. Outsiders

You may be too young to remember, but not very long ago, politics wasn't viewed as the exclusive purview of the "professionals." Countless communities had vital Democratic Clubs and other associations where Americans experienced "politics" first hand. It wasn't always pretty, but people socialized, chose leaders, made decisions, and took civic action.

Over the years, people have been pushed out of their own game. These days, the "professionals" run the show and they are VERY protective of their turf.

For the so-called "Democratic strategists" of the world, we are game pieces that they -- the "professionals" -- manipulate. Heaven forbid any of us actually get involved! They may not even know WHY they feel so threatened when folks like Dean or Hackett inspire citizens to act, but their fear has absolutely nothing to do with positions on issues or particular actions.

Weakness v. Strength

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. We are as pissed off as we are because, instead of fulfilling their Congressional oath and challenging their wimpy image by standing up and demanding Impeachment, they are adding salt to the wound by "laying low" or appeasing the fascists by assuring them they have no intention of Impeaching Bush and Cheney.

But the beliefs that underlie their rationalizations have been hammered into them by those around them. Countless actions are unthinkable in their world, for reasons they don't even understand.

It's About Us -- Not the Party. Not our Leaders.

The bottom line is that the insiders are protecting their turf from us. They live in a world of Republican propaganda. Their fear of "backlash" has little to do with public reaction -- what they really fear is being ostracized from the DC social scene.

WE are the REAL danger to their insular world. We are everywhere. We can insert some reality and prompt them to take action that will get them frowned on at Sally Quinn's next event.

But, we can also reward them -- like we rewarded Barbara Boxer for standing up on January 6th with a surge of support, dollars, and respect.

Our immediate goals are clear: Impeach Bush and Cheney and reject the results of suspect elections. Actions large and small will make these goals a reality. As we move forward, we need to remember that, however they fail or anger us, we can't let it just be about them. Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done.

That his father said words to the effect that:

Dean didn't make the movement- the movement made Dean.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Guys like Shumer and Emmanuel- those guys could NEVER in a million years inspire a movement.

Leading a movement and being a scapegoat if they lose, and not getting credit for any wins.

. . and don't don't even think Trippi understood what was driving it.

From something I posted early this year. . .



The above is from the end of this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2464945

I don't think the article was really that bad. Kind of snide in a few parts, but we expect that. I wrote about it and quoted some parts from the New York Times Select article.

The Inside Agitator

"The mere fact that Democrats would consider a “50-state strategy” to be novel — as if a national party might reasonably aspire to something less — says volumes about the rapid deterioration of the party that was, for most of the last century, America’s dominant political force. Back when Democrats were the established majority, the state parties were run by bosses who doled out jobs and delivered votes, while the national party, functioning as a subsidiary of whoever happened to occupy the Oval Office, worried about electing presidents. For decades, the party claimed a sizable majority of the nation’s governors, senators and congressmen, and in every one of the states where it controlled those seats, there was a centralized organization — a party “infrastructure,” in the parlance of today’s activists — whose job it was to recruit candidates and make sure voters got to the polls."

"When Dean took over the D.N.C. last year, he sent assessment teams, made up of veteran field organizers and former state party officials, to every state. A typical assessment report on one rural state — I was allowed to see the report only on the condition that I not name the state involved — bluntly stated that its local activists were “aging” and that its central committee was “dysfunctional.” In most states, there were hardly any county or precinct organizations to speak of. More than half the states lacked any communications staff, meaning that no one was there to counter the Republican talking points that passed from Washington to the state parties to the local media with a kind of automated precision."

"Most analysts in both parties now believe that Democrats have better-than-even odds of winning at least the House. But if they don’t, rather than dissect the mechanical failures that cost them a few thousand votes here or there, Democrats might be forced to admit, at long last, that there is a structural flaw in their theory of party-building. Even a near miss, at a time of such overwhelming opportunity, would suggest that a national party may not, in fact, be able to win over the long term by fixating on a select group of industrial states while condemning entire regions of the country to what amounts to one-party rule. Which would mean that Howard Dean is right to replant his party’s flag in the towns and counties along America’s less-traveled highways, even if his plan isn’t perfect, and even if he isn’t the best messenger to carry it out. As another flawed visionary, the filmmaker Woody Allen, once put it, 80 percent of success is just showing up."

I actually was surprised that so many took it as an insult. Matt Bai has been pretty fair to Dean overall...he gave him a voice at a Sunday with the Times forum, a very candid affair for both.

Of course it hits Dean some also, but that is to be expected.

The Democrats need to enlarge their base.

In the "good old days" depicted in the extract you have presented, the chiefs of the state organizations that functioned so well had real power. They selected the slates of candidates, they controlled the funding and personnel devoted to campaigns, they even determined what lines on what issues candidates pressed. It was a professional business in the hands of professionals, who had a good deal of experience, and practical skill, in the trade. Amatuer enthusiasts had no place in the operation, certainly not in its direction. The overthrow of this system owes mostly to two causes dear to amatuer enthusiasts, namely civil service practices, which by destroying the patronage prerogatives of party leaders removed their chief tools for maintaining loyal personnel and raising funds, and the rise of primary elections as the chief implement of slating candidates, which turned the slating process over largely to amatuer enthusiasts, and rendered the candidates that emerged independent of what party organization remained.

"We don't want nobody nobody sent."

Those professionals you speak of, I am sure they knew better how to do things than amateurs. But sometimes "amateur enthusiasts" often care more about right and wrong and people.

Think about the Democrats who enabled the Bush agenda.

The Iraq invasion, the bankruptcy bill, huge tax cuts that are now trickling down to those of us in the middle class in higher real estate taxes. The right wing judges okayed by our side, knowing who they were. Knowing they would affect our country for generations...voting anyway. The torture bill yesterday.

You think the smoke filled rooms way has been working. I don't think it has.

I honestly sincerely do not think wise decisions have been made in who to run in many campaigns. I don't think good decisions have been made about many things candidates campaign on.

I am not sure there is a perfect way, but the way of not letting the people of the party have a say in who is the candidate is not a good way.

Maybe it will take time to find a better one.

Look at Lieberman. The centrists in the party are bragging over him, yet he totally and completely went against the wishes of the CT Democrats. He is running to please the Republicans now.

The centrists are pointing to him as oh look what happens when the grassroots interfere.

Yes, look what happens...it is the I will fix you for doing that to me syndrome. There may be more of that in the future. There may not be. But that was a plus in the grassroots column, and the primary showed the wishes of the party in that state.

That is how it should work. Democrats should have to work to prove themselves, not lecture us on undermining the president at the nation's peril.

Without a primary the people lose their voice.

Is the result of the primary of the present day, rather than the smoke-filled room of yore: the persons you refer to were certainly slated and rose in the period of primaries as the chief device for selecting candidates.

My point is that people who want a strong party organization in various states, and hope for the benefits such bodies brought in the past, need to be clear about what a strong organization really entails. You cannot have a strong organization without that organization being endowed with real power and responsibility. If it cannot actually exert control over what is done in the Party's name within its jurisdiction, it will be a mere sham, and a waste of money. It will achieve nothing.

A further item for consideration is that members of the Party must show loyalty to the Party organization, and be willing to accept the decisions of its leadership, or again, there cannot be a strong organization, and none of the benefits such a thing can bring may be enjoyed. It is a myth that the old Party organizations ignored the wishes of the Party membership. They were generally in very close touch with the persons in the lower rungs of the organizations, and these were in turn in very close touch with their neighbors who were loyal to the Party. This knowledge was an essential part of the judgements concerning who was to be slated as a candidate and what lines and issues were to be pressed, for if these were not well recieved by the lower rungs of the organization and the people they influenced to vote, then success would be difficult to achieve, and persons rose in the organization by their success in winning elections for their candidates.

I have a feeling that TPTB who got us where we are now are still going to be in control of the party after November.

Then they can have their professionals spouting their professional rhetoric, only there won't be so many "amateur enthusiasts" around to listen to their crap.

state. Party structure in shambles. No computer lists of registered Dems and donors. A "top down" party structure that consisted of Good Ole Boys & Gals who knew the big funders to tap for money and the hell with reaching out to the rest of us small Dems with little money.

Dean/Kucinich and former Nader activists had to go in an personally take the volunteer time to catalog names of Dems (frequent voters, and those who has lapsed voting an those inbetween). Money our of activists pockets went to trying to organize precincts that had long been abandoned. It was a mess and shocking to see the disarray and the lack of money that had been spent even on buying an updated computer or two.

There's so much work to be done to rebuild a strong party from the bottom up it will take years.

How our Party was allowed to lapse like that for decades even while we were winning the Presidency (Carter/Clinton) is the question I've agonized over. It's been said the decision was for the party to be "Top Down" after McGovern and the Peace Activists lost. The formation of the DLC was considered a good thing by some of us at the time.
Yet we've been loosing the house and senate since 1994. Who was asleep at the switch? Or, was it just too easy to let the lobbyist business interest do all the work for us. Is this how we lost what we stood for?

It's not a given that we'll win either House, because the GOP still have more safe seats and races trending toward them than we do. (Most House districts have been gerrymandered so that the incumbent is virtually guaranteed a victory, which is another horrible reality we need to change.)

F.Y.I. here is the NY Times current breakdown of the 2006 races:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTIONGUIDE.html

Senate:

Safe Dem: 40
Leaning Dem: 6
Safe Rep: 47
Leaning Rep: 2
Toss Up: 5

House:
Safe Dem: 190
Leaning Dem: 17
Safe Rep: 189
Leaning Rep: 21
Toss Up: 18

Since there is a stronger likelihood that we will take the House, Rahm Emmanuel may be working the refs so that he doesn't take the heat if we don't take the House. But as chair of the DCCC, he should take the heat for it.

The same may be true of Hillary Clinton, who dissed Dean yesterday (? which day) for not focusing on fund raising so that House races could afford TV ads. She also might be working the refs to defect possible criticism that her aggressive fund raising for her totally non-competitive race has diverted funds (and attention) from close races which could have used both. And/or help to cover for Rahm Emmanuel.

Or they both might legitimately believe that the old school way of focusing only on swing states and swing districts is the only "winning" strategy.

Dems and Republicans with her stupid issues like flags and video games and her war mongering and then has the nerve to blame Dean for not raising enough money? He has to spend all his time and energy re-defining us after she and her DLC cronies spew their Republican talking points again and again.

that the old school way of focusing only on swing states and swing districts is the only "winning" strategy."

they could actually be right!

The refs in this game are the voters, and if Democrats fail to make the gains expected, there will be plenty of blame to go around, for both Dean and the DCCC.

Premptively assigning that blame does no one any good.

In certain "red" states where local Dems need money, Hillary (and perhaps others) have reaped the benefits of $1,000 a plate dinners, and after the plates were cleared, left town with money. Now you may argue that those rich donors would have not given to the locals, or you may argue that that the rich have given locally, but I still find it curious that someone without a viable opponent and between 20-40 million stashed away, is overly concerned with what Dean is doing with the money.

I support the 50 state strategy. I would also also like to point out that we would not have Tester or Webb running if it had not been for the grassroots. And the grassroots are part of any 50 state strategy. Oh, and btw, Florida's 16th district has a great Democratic candidate, Tim Mahoney, waiting to pick up Foley's district.

He's tough, but both are candid. At CUNY in June of this year.

Matt Bai interviews Howard Dean for the NYT ...audio. Very in-depth.

I support him 105%

:mad:

I can't help but wonder if the instigator is one of our own.

REFUSED to counter GOP tactics to suppress Dem votes, purge voter rolls, and rig machines.

WHY? After the election fraud hearings in 2001 HOW could any Dem party head IGNORE the heavyhanded tactics from the RNC and their operatives?

Did Terry McAuliffe LIHOP? Did he do it for a Clinton 2008 run? Is that why Bill never defended himself over 9-11 charges until AFTER 2002 and 2004 elections?

Are they planning now to push out Dean after November?

Then why is Bush in the White House again? Why is the GOP in control of the House and the Senate? Why did Bush get so many extreme appointees with the blessing of too many Democrats?

Why did the torture bill pass the House with the help of Democrats and pass the Senate as well?

Could it be the "amateurs" have the right idea and will learn...while the professionals have sold out our country?

Just a thought about smoke-filled rooms.

In both houses, the Republican vote alone was sufficient to secure a majority for the measure.

They certainly got enough calls begging them not to do so. One of Bill Nelson's aides was crying as we talked, she was overwhelmed and mostly in agreement with the calls.

We always go in circles, and we just don't agree. I know what it is like on the ground here. That is the reality I see. Things are being taken care of behind the scenes by unelected leaders, elected leaders of the party forced to resign or be attacked constantly...

I am almost ready to drop out, let them have it, and let them do their way.

Let it go back to being decided from the top down. Who the hell am I to say torture is wrong? I mean, really. How would I know that it is wrong for seniors to lose their homes over bankruptcy for medical bills.

We are OUT of power completely, and it was done with those professionals in charge.

Professionals were much more firmly in charge. The decline of the Party dates to the McGovern convention, and the assault by enthusiasts on the Party organizations embodied in it.

Those who voted for that bill did so from individual political calculation, and in the knowledge their vote would not affect the pasage of the bill. Whether that calculation was a wise one is certainly debateable.

I hoped you were not saying that.

So you really think that if all the enthusiastic people back off and let the top down control happen again, that all the politicians will vote for the people again?

I am getting so confused here.

I consider there is a concerted effort going on to discourage enthusiasm by blaming us for the woes of the party.

Think about it.

Maybe all the professionals can just take charge and win back all the things we have lost....oh wait, I forgot they advocated for all those things that are destroying our country.

The GOP blames Clinton, the centrists and professional Dems blame McGovern.

Needs tempering by wisdom, knowledge, and discipline, both inner and outer. It is simply a raw material, the emotional equivalent of metallic ores, which require smelting and smithing before thay are of any valuable use.

We must strip them of that emotional layer, make them wise, discipline must be instilled...and they may perhaps become worthy at a later date.

Ok.

Meanwhile, my senator has voted for torture, to invade another country illegally, for the bankruptcy bill (maybe just cloture there, not sure)...to stand with the parents of Terri Schiavo...I have a long list somewhere.

But he is the wise one, not me because I am considered an enthusiast.

A little exaggeration, perhaps. But basically that is what you are saying.

If the wisdom and knowledge and discipline of our party is what got us into Iraq, cut taxes on the wealthy during wartime, made it possible for seniors and disabled to lose their homes over medical bills, I could go on...if that is what you speak of then I go for heart and enthusiasm and caring right now.

The torture bill and those who voted for it have hit people very hard here, even people I did not think were paying attention at all.

I think assuming that people who are trying to change things are simply not capable is rather insulting.

...worked so well, that Republicans control everything.

...is wonderful.

If we don't, the spin will be that Howard Dean is terrible.

.

as party building and base growing! :sarcasm:

They really *must* be scared, they're dragging out the boogey-men. Any minute now a tape will "surface" of OBL praising Dean. Oy.

Julie