Burnt Orange Report

How did the winning team in Montana use reform? (or did they at all?)

Is anyone, consciously, an anti-reform Democrat?

Not that I disagree with you. I'm just asking.

Well, Karl, I find that my party of choice is a revivified & reconstituted "Anti-Fascist Democrats" that did such a fine job for us back in the '40s. Do you think it possible that their "time's come 'round at last"?

I've got to work fast, though, cause they'll clearly be outlawed in a year or two & I'd like to get a few licks in before they (you know..."they") pave over the Northpole and put in anti-missle silos.

I Like your blog and I liked Texas last time I was down there, but I think someone who thinks like me had better confine himself in the immediate future to the "blue states" or a permanent form of international tourism.

LOL...
(do people still type that?)
eric blackstead
eblack101@yahoo.com

So the GOopers want publicity? Their adoring fans were too glued to the Scott Peterson trial to pay attention to anything else?

Let's give'em 24-hours of nonstop Delay trial coverage!

I choose to be a Democrat ... period.

Of course, I've been all in favor of reform for a number of years. But it's nice to know that 14 years after I got into campaign finance reform as an issue and 12 years after I backed the candidate who reformed the party's image on a host of issues (most for the better) that Howard Dean "got us started on the path to thinking about it."

Karl, one bit of advice ... drop the cultish Dean worship and stick to the issues.

And for the record, it was Democrats like Lawton Chiles, Buddy Roemer, Mark Green, and William Proxmire who got me started on the path to thinking about reform. They pre-date Howard Dean by quite a few years.

It's kind of pointless to argue over who got us started thinking about reform (for the record, 14 years ago I was in the first grade singing the alphabet song, so I guess Greg has me beat there). The point is reform of some kind or another is needed for there to be any real and prosperous future for the Democratic party.

It's going to come at a price, though. It takes a while for reform to become the standard to which everyone else marches. And it will become expensive in terms of seats in legislatures. We can't be the party of reform if most of our congressmen are long-term incumbents who will vote with the Republicans more often than their own caususes. We'll have to have primary challengers for these kinds of congressmen. That means split Democratic votes in close districts. That means GOP victories.

But what emerges is a leaner, meaner party ready to vote and work together to change things for the better.

The first step is for us to get together and decide the three most important things that need changing. I know there is a lot more than three that need changing, but start small and work your way up. Then we have to find people who are passionate and committed to these issues, and get them to run in primaries. We can offer them netroot support and help them fundraise so they can be competitive and lose gracefully. And they will probably lose the firs few times. But if they keep running and we keep supporting them and with no old, establishment congressmen in their way we can start running against the GOP and we can win.

Like I said, it's costly, and it sure isn't pretty. But I think it's what has to happen.

Greg- one bit of advice, stop the cultish Lieberman worship and stick to the party. (Doesn't it feel nice to be childishly attacked?)

I don't know your era of reformers because I wasn't politically alive, hell, even aware of them. I'm not too worried about it because it wasn't the intent of the post, which was talking about the short term past (you know, the time when the Democratic Party in Texas and nationally went out of power and lost more?) Dean(like others before him) fundamentally changed a number of political equations and people's views on how politics ought to work. I'm one of them. I don't expect everyone to "get" it, but if they were smart they would try to understand it instead of fearing it as some sort of cultish revolution.

And as to choosing to just be a Democrat... that's worked real well in the last 5 years. Today's Republican party isn't where it is because people chose to be just a Republican, they chose to be a certain type of "the corperate agenda and god's agenda are my agenda" type of Republican.

Steve- about Montana, read the article I linked to a few days ago that discusses Montana. It should answer your question.

Jim- maybe not consciously, but I think some people become complacent or are so specialized at their jobs (fundraising, organizing, field, tv ads) that the larger picture gets ignored because it's not in their scope of responsibility. But someone needs to be responsible for it, and I see little harm in pressing the issue from my computer screen considering I'm just an idle college student on break with time to ponder such things.

Odd take there, Nate ... why do we presume the need to fight among fellow Dems first and foremost? I think the playbook for the type of insurgency we need to engage in has already been written. What will no doubt be unsettling for many Dems is that it was written by Newt Gingrich. Tackle the ethics, abuses of power, and hypocrisy first and you make inroads on more substantive policy afterwards.

The price doesn't come in the form of battling amongst ourselves, it comes from dealing with such abuses as when the GOP decided to not allow any Democratic riders on appropriations bills in years past, yet STILL managed to show a substantial increase in such pork. Define it as a battle of pork versus policy, and you've got the upper hand.

Another point raised more locally is the recent statement that the Texas GOP would lead the fight for allowing corporate donations so that the type of donations that TRMPAC is in trouble for wouldn't be illegal anymore. Chances are, that's a fight we'll not be able to win by numerical means in the legislature. But we can engage the debate there and get the f*ckers on record for stating the need to allow more corporate cash in the political process.

Bottom line ... let the other side make their own bed and run against that the next time around.

As another note, in many cases, advancing reform doesn't have to happen at the expense of everyone in congress. I think that Nancy Pelosi is an awesome gal, and can be just as good of a leader or advocate for pushing an agenda of reform or new original ideas to conter the Republicans. It's just that people in the online world not tied to the party apparatus per se, can see her actions of trying to choose someone for DNC chair that is more about power than vision, as being a bit less reform minded.

Karl,

The point of my initial take was that the sort of "Great Awakening" that seems to be taking place has been in place for far longer and there's surprisingly little need to reinvent the wheel. The names listed range from very liberal to very conservative (Roemer going so far as to switch parties). But the elements of their reform are all within the progressive realm and would be well worth reading up on. Sure, it might not be as fun as making out to a DFA Camping Festival, but it's far more productive ... that is, if you're more interested in actual reform, as opposed to propping up Dr. Dean's name repeatedly.

And Greg, your last comment right there is very much what I was trying to get at, maybe your years on me just get the point across better. Or maybe it's just that collaberative power of blogging which is refining an idea. I can only hope that this type of stuff one day becomes the standard in the "halls of power". (the concept anyways)

Well, that should read, second to last comment, as you got one in before me. :) As to your real last comment (I hope I get it right this time), I don't have much of a problem propping up anyone's name repeatedly if I see it as an avenue to getting something done in this Party that doesn't relay on deafeatism and the "well, if we wait long enough the trends show a Democratic majority". The problem with that is the Republican party is activly trying to change the equation and make their own trends. We should take advantage of the new people wanting to be part of the process than trying to push them aside because they get a bit rambunctios at times.