Burnt Orange Report

Now I'm Excited

By Vince Leibowitz

I must admit, I was among the skeptics who didn't really think it would make a difference who ended up as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

And, though Howard Dean still has a lot to prove, as a county chairman, I was very excited to read about Howard Dean's Plan for the DNC.

If you are a Democrat and don't get at least a little excited reading this, you may need to check your pulse:

1. Show up! Democrats should never concede a single state, a single district, or a single voter to the Republicans. We must be active and compete in all 50 states and work with the state parties to build a true national party.

2. The success of the national party depends directly on the success of the state parties — we must better integrate our operations by:

* Having the DNC pay the salary of each state party executive director to help ensure that the state parties have adequate funds.
* Collectively building and sharing supporter lists between the national and state parties.
* Recruiting, training, and encouraging candidates to run for office at every level — building tomorrow's farm team from the ground up.
* Actively grow local Democratic committees and communities by working with neighborhood activists who can reach out in their communities and enable the grassroots to support state and local candidates.
* Maintaining a permanent campaign in every state. We need to establish an ongoing, active presence, which does not have to be recreated every four years for four months.

3. Set core principles that define the Democratic Party and what we stand for and take a bottom-up approach to the development of the Party's message;

4. Use cutting-edge Internet and other technologies to fundraise, organize, and communicate with our supporters;

5. Strengthen our political institutions and leadership institutes to promote our leaders and our ideas — these organizations must work together in a coordinated and integrated fashion to elect Democrats at every level, so that we can take this country back.

I am particularly interested in this one:

Collectively building and sharing supporter lists between the national and state parties.

Does this mean that the Texas Democratic Party can now get the fund-raising list from the DNC they used to raise something like $19 million dollars (may be wrong about that figure) from Texas?

If so, this would represent a major shift in DNC policy going back at least two decades. If I were Charles Soechting, I'd call the DNC Monday morning and ask for a copy of that list.

Also, I wonder if this means that county parties can get the list of DNC contributors in their counties? Just for the fun of it, I think I'll call the DNC Monday morning and ask for this list.

I am slightly confused as to why Dean didn't specifically include any language mentioning county parties, the true backbone of the Party. He mentioned "community activists," and maybe it all means the same thing.

Also, just thinking out loud here, since Dean is now the DNC Chairman, does this mean he would headline a major fund-raiser like, for free? I'll ask when I call Monday. It'd be great if East Texas Democrats could have a huge multi-county fund-raiser in a place like Tyler and split the proceeds.

I may have to whip out the old Rolodex and get with some of my East Texas contacts to see if they'd like to do something like that--Dean or no Dean. In fact, the more I think about it, the cooler the idea sounds.

I'd better stop this post because I'm already thinking about locations and designing logos in my head. Damn you, Howard Dean for getting me even more excited about being a Democrat!

Dean New Chairman, DNC Wants Blogger Support

By Vince Leibowitz

I guess all the regular contributors are taking a much-needed rest, digging through capitol waste baskets for their next scoops, or just otherwise occupied. (Perhaps they are at the DNC meeting?)

So, since it's Saturday and I obviously don't have anything else to do until later, I'll pick up a little slack by announcing:

Howard Dean is the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I'll comment no more on this except to say I eagerly await the fulfilment of his campaign promises.

But, I do think it is cool that the DNC is now actively soliciting support from Bloggers, via this link. I guess if every blogger who supported Dean's presidential run were to contribute, the DNC would make a pretty penny today.

While you can give to the DNC if you want, I'll instead encourage everyone to help out here in the home state first, by giving to Take Back Texas or the Texas Democratic Party.

Or, visit your local party's website. Most county parties in Texas now have a links where they can accept contributions on line, too.

Why not celebrate a day on which grassroots activism has taken the center stage by giving at the local level?

I'm quite confident that Byron, Andrew, Karl-T or Jim will post a far suprior post to one I could write on Dean and his new position, so I'll be eagerly awaiting that.

I would, however, like to know the vote breakdown. Perhaps one of those guys will have that information.

A Tale of Two Connecticut Yankees

By Jim Dallas

The Senior Senator.

The Junior Senator.

Liberty for Some

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's one of the most concise posts I've seen over at dKos and it sets up a really good contrast when talking about "Liberty".

How does Bush square this:

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our Nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world.

To this?

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

"Liberty for all". Unless you're gay.

SOTU Liveblogging

By Byron LaMasters

Nate liveblogged it over at his blog, Common Sense. Liveblogging.org has a full list of other bloggers that liveblogged the speech. I frankly didn't give a shit about what Bush had to say, so I found other ways to entertain myself tonight. I'll catch the details on the Daily Show.

Update: The Red State also Liveblogged the speech.

Ideology, Schmideology

By Andrew Dobbs

Today Howard Dean sewed up his election for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and frankly I'm disappointed. Two years ago it would have been among the happiest days of my life, but now I can't say that. And I have a good idea why. My old arguments to my quite Left wing friends in support of the admittedly more-moderate-than-he-looks Dean was "it isn't the man- it's the message and the movement." In other words, it isn't important who the candidate is, it is important the message he is spreading (make the Democratic Party more Leftist) and the movement of people he has attracted.

Now that argument has turned on its head, or perhaps I have turned on mine. His message is mistaken and his movement is destructive, and I think that there is a good chance Democrats will suffer as a result. I am not giving up hope yet, but without some signs in the right direction soon, I'll have no other choice.

His message is my primary problem. It seems that Dean and his college of sycophants believe that the reason Republicans win is because they are wholly, universally and unwaveringly committed to a far-Right philosophy and Democrats aren't similarly committed to a Left wing alternative. This is the source of Deaniac bellyaching about Frost's Bush-friendly commercials, their constant mouthing of Paul Wellstone's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" quip, the origin of their hostility to "DINOs" of all varieties. His supporters wish to play amateur political consultants, and they are very bad at it.

They are bad at it because they are completely wrong. They are incredibly wrong about the GOP. The GOP is the master of adapting their message to the place where they are running with enough in common everywhere for national candidates to rally around. In the Mountain West they run Barry Goldwater libertarian-conservative types- not terribly interested in social issues, more interested in a hands-off approach. In the South they tend to run religious right types. in the Northeast they run moderate to liberal Republicans. They pick their battles and shift their message accordingly.

In places with strong Unions they run labor-friendly Republicans (Rudy Giuliani), and in places with weak unions they run labor-not-so-friendly Republicans (Dick Armey). In places with mostly pro-choice people, they run mostly pro-choice candidates (Mitt Romney), and in places with mostly anti-choice people they run mostly anti-choice candidates (Roy Moore). In places with a lot of environmentally friendly people, they run environment friendly candidates (Chris Shays, Christine Todd Whitman), and in places where people don't like hippie tree-huggers they run people who hate the Earth (Tom DeLay). In places where people are cool with gays, they run candidates cool with gays (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and in places with people who aren't into gays, they run gay bashing candidates (Bob Dornan, for example). In other words, they are flexible.

Furthermore, they have some serious ideological strain in their own party- much like ours. Business conservatives and social conservatives don't tend to get along. Business conservatives want cheap labor, so they like the status quo with immigration, social conservatives don't like immigrants so they don't like the status quo. It is a brewing battle that might just blow up in their face in the next 4 years. Social conservatives don't like vice, while virtually every big vice- booze, cigarrettes, gambling, corporate porn- has an even bigger lobby that gives lots of money to the GOP. That is a source of strain here in Texas. So the GOP is hardly the picture of ideological rigor that the Deaniacs fancy it as.

The issue isn't ideology- Democrats need not move to the Left (as the soon to be crowned King Howard III would say), nor to the Right (as the disgraced Duke Tim would argue). The issue is organization, structure and money- three things Dean has little to no valuable experience in and which my guy, Frost, had in spades. The GOP has a strong state organization in EVERY SINGLE STATE. Don't believe me? Name a state with a weak GOP. Illinois? Short term hiccups because of some personality problems. Massachusetts? They have a GOP governor. California? Ditto. In fact, there is only one state- New Jersey- without at least one Republican elected statewide. There are several, including Texas, that don't have any Democrats. The Republicans have a great national organization, Democrats don't and that is the problem, not that we are too liberal or too conservative.

If ideology were our problem, Dean would be perfect for the job. With a distressingly large army of nihlistic Bush-hating Leftists he could push our party to the Left better than almost anyone. But as it stands, his record is not good at handling our real problems- resources, organization and strategy.

In his presidential campaign Dean burned through $40 million bucks like Paris Hilton tears through overpriced god-awful skanky couture. In fact, we might want to see if that is where the cash went, because god knows it didn't go to winning votes- he could only eek out a win in a state he had been elected to statewide office in 7 times. $40 million bucks and nothing to show for it- even the Cowboys can do better than that (well, actually...).

In that same bid he managed to get more volunteers and more organization than any other campaign in Iowa by several orders of magnitude. Yet in the comparably simple task of winning Iowa (as opposed to the 49 other states and District of Columbia), he couldn't close the deal. He had more money, more people and better support from more important figures (Tom Harkin, Al Gore, AFSCME and SEIU etc.) than anyone else and he came in a rather distant 3rd. If he can't use an unprecedented and unparalleled organization to convince a plurality of 100,000 committed Democrats to rally around his cause, what makes us think he can get a majority of 100,000,000 mostly hostile people to do the same?

And in terms of strategy, his campaign was very good at this from time to time. Unfortunately it had nothing to do with Dean. Before Joe Trippi, Howard Dean was an anonymous candidate with no money, little organization and a Kucinich of a chance of winning. After Trippi came on, the emails started rolling in, the cash was flowing and his name was on everyone's lips. Save for peaking too soon things might have worked out differntly. But Dean is obviously not the genius, Joe Trippi is. And Trippi endorsed the now former-candidate Simon Rosenberg.

Furthermore, when Dean decided to keep his campaign list annoyed (or enraptured, as the true believer caucus seems to have done) and form Democracy for America, his candidate selection process was nothing if not senseless. David Van Os got his support- who had absolutely no chance of winning. But so did some candidates who had absolutely no chance of losing. In fact, the only real strategic consideration that seems to have been taken into consideration was paying back people who supported him in his race for the Presidency. As a result an insignificant minority won and almost all of them would have won anyways. The rest recieved little more than a mention on his website and few small donations from supporters who couldn't possibly contribute to all of the list of Dean's Dozen. Ask Katy Hubener how well his endorsement did- she lost and Dean's support made little to no difference. Strategy is clearly not Gov. Dean's strong suit.

In the end Dean is uninspiring, but not quite distressing. What he says to the people on the inside is different from what he says when the cameras are rolling. Not contradictory, nothing controversial, just his rhetoric is toned down and his proposals are a bit more specific. More money to state parties, funding much of their core staff, etc. Many of these ideas are worth listening to and I hope that they work out for the best. Indeed, it seems that his followers are a bit snowed over- Dean is hardly the Wellstone-esque crusader for ideological purity, the dot-com-age William Jennings Bryan that they envision him. Rather, he is a typical urban pol done good. He knows how to fire up a crowd in the front and cut a deal in the back. He knows just what words will rally the masses to his standard even as he rubs shoulders with the CEOs and millionaires in back. This isn't an indictment, quite the contrary, but it is a much-needed dose of reality for his starry-eyed cadre of communicants. Don't get your panties in a wad over the good governor.

In the end, our party does need to do what the GOP has done- learn how to create a viable national message that can be adapted to the ideological proclivities of particular constituencies and disseminate it with 50 states' worth of first class organization. Texas should have pro-life candidates, Minnesota probably shouldn't. Alabama should have candidates who are less than vocal for their support of gay marriage, California probably shouldn't. Candidates in Mississippi don't need to be 100% union all the time, candidates in Ohio a bit more so. You have to compromise because without 218 Congressmen you don't have shit, without 51 Senators you don't have shit and without 270 electoral votes you don't have shit. We have to build a national coalition and being extremist just won't do it. What will unite us is a message that we are the party of the American Dream- if you work hard, play by the rules and want a better life tomorrow than today and a better world for your kids than this one, you can have it, and we can help. It should be disseminated by neighbors, co-workers and members of your church. It should be on the radio and on the TV, in people's yards and on their cars' bumpers. It should be unavoidable and undeniable until everyone interested in the continued magnificence of this country stands up and asks to be counted with the Democratic Party.

If Howard Dean can manage to achieve that he will go down as the best DNC Chair in history. I'm willing to give him the chance, and I pray that he does.

Liveblogging the SOTU

By Nathan Nance

I'm planning on liveblogging the State of the Union Address tomorrow over at my blog, Common Sense. Come on over, it'll be fun. I'll pop some popcorn and bring some licorice. Really, it'll be great.

From what I understand, the speech will be divided evenly between foreign and domestic policy. That should make it interesting since I'm more of a domestic policy wonk, and not a foreign policy specialist.

For those of you who were thinking of skipping it, I have a way to make it fun: a drinking game! The rules are very simple.

If he says "freedom", take a shot of tequila

If he says "liberty", take a shot of vodka

If he actually uses the phrase "freedom is on the march" and then smirks and pauses for applause, eat the worm

If he says "ownership society", sip you beer

If he says "personalized accounts", hit the Jack Daniels

This way, everybody can enjoy the SOTU... and Jenna won't have to yawn during the speech. I should probably put in a disclaimer that this game should not be attempted by anyone, since it is almost sure that he will use each of these phrases several dozen times in the 40-minute speech. You'll get alcohol poisoning before he's done talking about his privatization scheme.

Well, good.

By Jim Dallas

Ward Churchill is taking a demotion (why not more?).

Granted, we're all here for academic freedom. But there's a fine line between controversy and idiocy. And if making it clear that we don't tolerate idiots involves partaking in the kabuki dance of disassociation, then, let's boogie down.

One of my favorite professors at UT is Bob Jensen. You may not like Bob, but he's a nice guy. He's controversial to a hilt, but he doesn't say things just to upset people.

(And Prof. Churchill makes Bob look like Captain America by comparison.)

Back to the Future

By Jim Dallas

The ACS blog has a thorough post on Dr. Thomas Woods' "politically incorrect" (which is to say revisionist, at best) history of America.

Some times I have to thank the blog gods for timely coincidences; in this case, I must be thankful for Amitai Etzioni's post this week on collective guilt:

Etzioni, the grand old man of communitarianism, writes:

Communal responsibility is based on the fact that we are born into a community and share its history, memories, identity, achievements, and failures. We are not simply individual human beings, who can retreat behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance," secure in our universal rights and historical innocence. We are also members of specific families and communities. We cannot help but share their burdens, just as we share in their treasures; their responsibilities as well as their privileges. Thus, an American inherits both the proud memory of the Boston Tea Party and the agony of slavery; both the marvelous work of the Framers of the Constitution and the slaughter of Native Americans; the vigilant protection of freedom--from Greece to Korea--and the killing of innocent children, women, and other civilians in My Lai. The memory of slavery is particularly telling. Abolished some 134 years ago, before the ancestors of most contemporary Americans had even immigrated, slavery is still part of the American past; we cannot erase or ignore it. Most important, our aggrieved past commands us all to act, not merely the sons and daughters of plantation owners. We are all co-responsible for that which our community has perpetrated and condoned, for both past sins of commission and omission.

It needs to be stressed that Etzioni (who is Jewish) explicitly notes that he is not arguing in favor of "blood guilt." What's he's arguing is that, just as our children (as well as new immigrants) inherit our national debt in perpetuity, or our environmental catastrophes, so to do they inherit moral obligations, by virtue of being members of a collectivity, regardless of their race or religion.

Dealing with these obligations requires some maturity; Etzioni has some suggestions about that:

● First, it cautions not to look for easy scapegoats. While not denying, or diminishing their importance, one can never blame select power elites ("the Nazis did it, not the Germans"), objective conditions ("it happened because of runaway inflation, massive unemployment"), or even third parties ("Hitler was caused by the humiliating armistice imposed on Germany at the end of World War I") for the dark moments in one's communal past. I am not suggesting that external forces and objective conditions do not play a role in a nation's history; but they do not exempt one from sharing the responsibility for one's community and its course of action.

● Second, remember the past. Each generation of parents is obligated to recount the formative events of the past to its children. In the United States, we still mourn the circumstances, savagery, and massive bloodshed of the Civil War. Without drawing any parallels, it is a credit to Germany that as a community–albeit not every single German–it has learned to do the same concerning the history of the Nazi era.

And yet neo-Confederates and their sympathizers are ignoring both of these points, seeking out scapegoats and obfuscating our rememberance of the past.

Were it true that slavery was (as Woods apparently claims) not a cruel institution; were it true that the legacy of racism was not a stain on our history; were it true that America didn't have a history that involved the killing of labor organizers, were it true that our nation hadn't a history of imperialist aggression - were all these things true, perhaps history wouldn't be such a painful thing to read. All glory, and no shame, the way it ought to be.

I would hope, though, that we'd be big enough such that we'd engage history head on, instead of tuning out what we don't want to hear.

Malfunction

By Jim Dallas

CNN on the string of costly government info-tech boondoggles.

I've been involved in a couple minor-league, private sector boondoggles. They're not fun, and usually attributable to poor planning.

Newtonians

By Jim Dallas

Newt Gingrich is blogging trying to get together Newt Meet-ups.

And darn it, I find this at once both fascinating and highly worrisome, speaking as a Democrat.

On the other hand, I'd really like to see the Republicans go back to the 1990s, when they were making sense. That would be good for America.

Rosenberg, Dean Pick up DNC Votes

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

While many more DNC votes will likely be made public after this weekend (and while Frost is busy makeing the Dean v. Frost race about ideology again instead of reform), Rosenberg and Dean make their final round of DNC endorsements.

First, Dean picks up the endorsement of former DNC Chair candidate Harold Ickes, the best indicator of what the Clintons may be thinking...

While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections. No one was immediately available in Sen. Clinton's office to comment.

Ickes said Dean "has a real ability to communicate with people in leadership, but also to grass-roots and average Americans. He understands the need for party building."

Ickes' endorsement comes at a critical time in the chairman's race and gives Dean almost 50 of the more than 215 votes he would need to win the post.

Also, Dean picked up just under 20 more DNC votes today, many from California, but a mix as before.

Steven K. Alari - California DNC Committeeman and DNC Executive Committee Member

Jeremy Bernard - DNC Member-at-Large

Rachel Binah - California DNC Committeewoman, Former Chair of the Environmental Caucus, California Democratic Party

Mary Ellen Early - California DNC Committeewoman

Ed Espinoza - California DNC Committeeman

Jimmie Farris - Tennessee DNC Committeewoman

Hon. Mike Fitzgerald - DNC Member, Chair of National Association of Democratic State Treasurers

Alice Huffman - California DNC Committeewoman and Chair of 2004 Democratic National Convention

Hon. Pete Jorgensen - Wyoming DNC Committeeman

Johnnie Patton - Mississippi DNC Committeewoman

Alexandra Gallardo Rooker - California DNC Committeewoman, Vice-Chair of the California State Democratic Party and Vice President CWA Local 9400

Aleita J. Huguenin - California DNC Committeewoman

John A. Perez - California DNC Committeeman and UFCW Local 324 Political Director

Garry S. Shay - California DNC Committeeman

Smith Bagley - Former DNC Finance Vice-Chair

Hon. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Hon. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)

Debra DeLee - Former Chair of the DNC and CEO of 1996 Democratic National Convention

Hon. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)

Notice the Labor tags on a couple of those endorsements. Could be indicative of where labor is going, or at least that Dean is making sure he isn't getting left out with that crowd.

Also, Rosenberg announces 4 DNC votes, bumping him up in the "DNC Votes Not From My Home State" category. DNC Members Mark Bryant (MO), Gloria Nieto (At-Large, NM), and Moretta Bosley and Jo Etta Wickliffe (KY) are behind him now. (The Simon for Chair website is down so I have no link.)

Jimbo's first official 2006 endorsement.

By Jim Dallas

It's January and I'm already getting letters from the very senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Rest assured, Senator Kennedy, I support your re-election! I just don't have any money right now.

A County Chair's Words

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The following comment was left by the County Chair of Taylor County (Abilene) on an older post of mine about how grassroots Democrats in SD 24, one of the more Republican districts, are organizing on their own to Change the Equation. They also happened to all endorse Howard Dean.

Karl's article says the vote for Dean for DNC at the SD24 county chairs' meeting earlier this month was "unofficial" and many of us weren't "rabid Deniacs" last summer.

I was there, and it was unanimous. I don't know what it takes for something to be "official."

And I don't know what our feelings last summer have to do with our choice for DNC chair now.

I think use of the term "rabid Deniacs" plays into the hands of the Republican opposition, which has said some very desperate things to discredit Gov. Dean. Like about the "scream" speech. Those who check into it can see he was trying to speak above the roar of his ecstatic volunteers, and the mike the networks used was unidirectional, capturing only his words and not the background noise.

That said, I wouldn't mind being called a "rabid Deniac" last summer or now, even though I was as loyal to Kerry after his nomination as anyone else.

-Dave Haigler
Taylor County Democratic Chair
Abilene, Texas

At the time I didn't have duplicate confirmation of the vote that was taken to endorse Dean being something that was public or not, so I went on the cautious side with my language. And my use of the "rabid Deaniac" statement was not to be degrading but to further highlight the point that since such an endorsement was coming from a region where many of the chairs were for other candidates and not "drinking the Dean kool-aid" like I was, their endorsement is all the more telling of the opinion of those on the ground in Texas.

Because it isn't news if a DFT poll says Dean supporters support Dean or if Texas DNC members support Frost... (I'm comprimising with you Byron) But I think it is news when there are multiple signs of the everyday Democrat and county level Party folk speaking up for Dean. If the MoveOn.org vote in the state shows the same thing, there is only so far you can run with the "well, that's not a surprise" meme until you have to deal with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the majority of the "Democratic National Committee of Millions of Democrats" are on the same page.

Young Democrats, You Control 3 DNC Votes

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

If you are a member of a Young Democrats chapter, you can vote for DNC chair in the Young Democrats of America online Poll, which will determine where the 3 votes we control go for DNC chair.

So all you University Democrats at UT-Austin and otherwise, head on over and make your voice heard. Unlike DNC members from Texas not paying attention to the wishes of the grassroots of the State Democratic Party, you can make a difference this time.

Vote in the Poll Here.

Byron, since it's a rigged poll, I wouldn't expect you to vote in it. :)

Also, if you are in Arizona, your State Chair actually wants your imput on how to vote. So you can go vote here as well!

More DNC votes for Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though I'm sure Byron will end up in Frost's camp at some point, giving him one of few precious blogger endorsements, Dean announces today at least 6 more actual voting members of the DNC. (Plus the endorsement of Mame Reiley, Chair of the DNC Women's Caucus and DNC member from Virginia yesterday.)

Passing over (former) fellow Congressman Frost would be Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, immediate past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who endorsed Dean (and is having a public breakfast with him on February 24, for those of you in Maryland).

Next would be Joel Ferguson — Vice Chair DNC Black Caucus, which I find interesting considering Yvonne Gates, chair of the DNC Black Caucus, endorsed Dean as well this past week. Makes you wonder if something is up in the Black Caucus...and also where some of Webb's votes will go after he's falls out of the voting, and if the one Texas DNC black caucus member who held off from endorsing Frost because of the Black Caucus doing it's own thing means anything...

Other voting members include...

Patricia Ford — DNC Member-At-Large, Former International Exec VP SEIU

Hon. Joe Moore — Chair of the National Democratic Municipal Officials Conference (DNC member)

Gus Bickford — Massachusetts DNC National Committeeman

Patsy Arceneaux — Louisiana DNC National Committeewoman

And in the world of non-voting but important people endorsements (you know, the kind that Rosenberg has a lot of) are...

Bill Lynch — Former DNC Vice-Chair and Deputy Campaign Manager for the Kerry-Edwards campaign

Michael A. Brown — DNC National Finance Vice-Chair

LaFrost?

By Byron LaMasters

Hotline provided the Cliff's Notes version of my interview with Martin Frost for those of you not interested in reading the entire thing:

LaMasters Questions LaFrost

Frost had a Q&A with Burnt Orange Report blogger Byron LaMasters. For more click here, but for now, here are excerpts:

• Frost: "Here's how I'm different: I am the only candidate for DNC chair who has actually accomplished these goals -- reforming, funding and successfully managing a national party committee, investing national resources in state and local party structures, organizing at every level of politics, and most importantly devising creative strategies to win for Democrats in the most difficult areas of the country."
• On whether the party needs "sweeping changes" or "just some tinkering around the edges": "The party needs major structural, strategic and communications reforms."
• On IA and NH retaining 1st-in-the-nation status: "This is a serious issue that requires fairness from the new Chair."
• On Washington Monthly's Sullivan's article "Fire the Consultants": "I can say that I agree with it's general point, and, as I will explain briefly, have been putting it into practice for my entire political career."
• Frost: "One final point: If agreeing with President Bush on some issues disqualifies you to be DNC chair, then Howard Dean and I are both wasting our time (as are the rest of the candidates in the field, I imagine)" (1/27).

Martin Frost Q&A

By Byron LaMasters

Here are the questions by Texas bloggers for Martin Frost in his campaign for DNC Chair. I must credit Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff for his help specifically with several questions, and all of the Texas Tuesdays patron blogs for their input. I'm personally impressed with the depth in which Martin Frost answered each of the questions. It's certainly worth a look, even if you support another candidate for DNC. I would like to personally thank Martin Frost, and his campaign staff for taking the time and effort to address many of the questions and concerns of bloggers.

[To prevent any confusion, I submitted these questions via email to the Frost campaign last Thursday to which I received a response today. There was also a seperate conference call with bloggers / BlogPAC and Martin Frost tonight where other questions were asked. This post does not include those questions, although there was some overlap.]

Feel free to repost any of this, just credit the Burnt Orange Report (BL = Byron LaMasters, MF = Martin Frost):

MF: Thank you for these questions. They are an important opportunity to communicate with Democrats and other progressives throughout the country.

The Q&A after the jump...

BL: Why are you running for DNC Chair? What distinguishes you from the other candidates in the field?

MF: All of the candidates agree that the Democratic Party needs to undergo fundamental reforms. I strongly believe that the next Chair must pursue a 50-state party-building and campaign strategy, focus the DNC around winning elections (instead of its own internal politics), make long-term political plans and invest in local and state races, and energize traditional Democratic constituencies while at the same time bringing in new voters. To accomplish these goals, from Day One the DNC must be professionally managed and accountable to the Chair personally. That is the only way to ensure it can afford to become the modern, integrated and nationwide party structure we need to defeat the GOP. The DNC must fund and build professional state parties in every state; empower local and state Democrats to carry forth our message and convince their neighbors to join us; and create a Strategic Communications and Research Center to provide Democrats with unbiased, scientific and long-range message guidance. Finally, the Democratic Party must challenge this dishonest, corrupt and elitist Republican Government at every opportunity, and we must organize, organize, organize.

Here's how I'm different: I am the only candidate for DNC Chair who has actually accomplished these goals – reforming, funding and successfully managing a national party committee, investing national resources in state and local party structures, organizing at every level of politics, and most importantly, devising creative strategies to win for Democrats in the most difficult areas of the country.

Taking over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after Newt Gingrich’s “revolutionaries” took the House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, I completely revamped the committee – shifting our focus to organizing, and pioneering new programs like the DCCC’s first investment in minority turnout; expanding the playing field by aggressively targeting Republicans in even the toughest territory; investing in state and local parties; running localized campaigns; and creating new fundraising methods that shattered all prior records. As a result, Democrats netted 14 Congressional seats in my two cycles as DCCC Chair – and drove Newt Gingrich out of Congress.

Additionally, my political experience is unmatched in this race. My personal experience in the nuts-and-bolts of campaigns and party politics dates back to the voter registration program I ran in 1972 for Democrats in North Texas – a program that registered 50,000 new voters by knocking on the door of every minority household in the county twice. Since then, I’ve been a successful candidate who has won in a Red State while defending core Democratic values like civil rights and a woman’s right to the privacy of her own health care decisions. I’ve had to be a disciplined national spokesperson, taking on Republicans on TV in Washington, and then campaigning for Democrats in tough races in their home districts in every region of the country. And I’ve had to be a political party leader at home – where I began a serious commitment to my state and county parties decades ago, long before it became a fashionable campaign promise.

BL: How does your experience as chair of the DCCC prepare you for the job of DNC Chair? What skill sets do you bring to the job that other candidates lack?

MF: In addition to what I've written above, I'd add a couple of other points.

First, at the DCCC I proved I know how to successfully reform and manage a major national political party organization, and that I know what it takes to succeed on the only scale that matters -- against the GOP. (That is experience that no one else in this campaign has.)

I learned how to make the hard decisions -- like firing consultants, distinguishing between promising new ideas that can help win elections and expensive gimmicks that simply make you feel good, stretching a budget to make long-term investments, saying "no" to a candidate you like so that you can say "yes" to someone the Party needs to win.

This is crucial because today's DNC is a huge political operation that can and should raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars during the next chair's term. Democrats deserve a DNC Chair who can hit the ground running and manage an operation of that size -- making the hard decisions to effectively and efficiently deploy resources to win now (in 2005 and 2006), and to invest for the long-term (by focusing, for instance, on the down-ballot races in 2006 that will determine which party has stronger gubernatorial candidates in 2010). Democrats who invest in our Party deserve to know that their money will not be wasted.

Second, I know the importance of challenging conventional wisdom, rethinking the "way it's always been done," and embracing new ideas and bringing in new talent. When I took over the DCCC, Democrats were out of power in Congress for the first time in 40 years. Almost every "smart" Democratic operative and political pundit -- including some of my predecessors -- advised me to hunker down and just try to survive. Newt Gingrich and his "revolution" were on the ascendancy, the old ways of operating were no longer available to us, and others didn't see that we had any other options.

Well, I did. So, I completely revamped the committee: changing our strategy to emphasize energizing base Democrats as well as reaching out to swing voters, adjusting our targeting to challenge Republicans in even the most GOP-trending states, investing in new fundraising methods, expanding the field staff, and creating new programs to directly spend national resources on grassroots efforts.

And because it paid off -- we netted 14 seats and drove Newt Gingrich from Congress -- ever since then, I've never had to heed the voices of conventional wisdom when they claim that Democrats can't win or that "we don't do things that way."

Third, I proved I can take on the nastiest Republicans in Washington on national TV -- and can also campaign for Democrats in tough races in their own homes districts in every part of the nation.

Fourth -- and this is related to the third point -- I learned that a Party Chair must never become the dominant story himself or herself. Your job is to help other Democrats win, and that means ensuring they get the spotlight when they need it. So you have to be willing (and able) to step aside and put other Democrats in the spotlight -- sometimes because they have special credibility, and sometimes because that's one of the ways you help them win.

BL: What did you learn from your race against Pete Sessions? How will that experience make you a better chair than any of the other candidates?

MF: It reinforced for me two principles that I have long held -- and that will guide me as DNC Chair.

First, no matter the odds, it is worth it to stand and fight. As many will recall, Tom Delay and Karl Rove had lost so many fights to us in Texas that when they finally won mid-decade redistricting in 2003, they didn't mess around, putting me in a 65% Republican district.

Instead of walking way after 26 good years in Congress fighting for Democratic values, I raised more than $4 million -- with significant help from the online community -- and built an unprecedented grassroots operation. We organized every precinct, contacted Democrats in some of the most GOP-dominated precincts in Texas -- many of whom hadn't heard from a Democrat in years -- and more than doubled Hispanic turnout. The result: We held my Republican opponent, Congressman Pete Sessions to only 54% (11 points below the district's GOP performance), and turned out enough Democrats to elect four Democratic officials in Dallas County. (News accounts focused on our history-making election of Lupe Valdez as Sheriff, but overlooked the fact that Democrats had not elected a county-wide official in the prior 20 years.)

The second principle is this: Democrats should never cede any issue to Republicans, and should never be afraid to challenge them on their so-called “home turf.” In my race, our research found a vulnerability -- Sessions was one of only a few Members to vote against airline security -- and we hit him hard, pointing out that he was so far out of the mainstream that he'd opposed even other Republicans (like Bush, McCain, etc.). Not only did it throw him on the defensive, it gave tremendous energy to our grassroots program when Democrats in North Texas saw that a Democrat was challenging a Republican on security.

BL Do you believe that the Democratic Party is in need of sweeping changes in terms of message and strategy, or just some tinkering around the edges? In either case, how do you plan to bring about the changes you envision?

MF: The party needs major structural, strategic and communications reforms. We need a National Political Audit of all electoral races in the country – so that we can take a rigorous and long-term look at all of the Democratic Party’s priorities and ensure we are letting no opportunity slip by. We need to build a modern, integrated and truly nationwide party structure, one that connects voters in every community to Democratic officials and candidates at all level – from county officials and state legislators, to Members of Congress and Senators, to Governors and Presidential candidates. We need to build a DNC Strategic Communications and Research Center, which can provide all Democrats with research-driven, scientifically tested guidance on message strategy, and which can devise strategies to effect fundamental changes in the rhetorical and issue frameworks of political discourse.

To accomplish all these goals, the DNC must empower, fund and professionalize state party operations. It must utilize all the tools of the new politics to empower, organize and communicate. It must invest in technology and testing. It must be willing to challenge conventional wisdom about Party operations. And it must submit every bit of its infrastructure and planning to a simple test: How does this help Democrats win elections – now and over the long-term?

BL: What role do you see the blogosphere and netroots as playing in the Democratic party. What would you do to utilize the netroots as chair of the DNC?

MF: I view it a core component of the progressive community and the Democratic Party – a critical communications vehicle for 21st century politics and a vital resource full of energy, ideas, volunteers, donors and voters.

I want to ensure that you can become more involved in the DNC – in organizing as well as in working with us on message development, message delivery and rapid response. We need a strategy and structure to fully incorporate into our communications strategies the power the blogosphere.

Also, we need the netroots to be seamlessly integrated in our grassroots organizing efforts. This is a network with enormous potential to impact the delivery of campaign messages and to build the type of “neighbor-to-neighbor” campaigns that Democrats historically excelled in – and that worked in some places this year (like in the Iowa Caucuses, and in the general election in Dallas County).

To do this, the DNC must engage in an ongoing, substantive and two-way conversation with you. That includes everything from regular conference calls to special online events. Structurally, we should regularly review and re-evaluate the performance of our technology systems and resources (just as we do other committee resources). At the staff level, Internet organizing and technology staff must participate in strategic political and communications decisions.

As we build and professionalize State Parties, we must make it as central to their operations as are traditional departments like Finance, Communication and Research. That requires that the DNC make it a priority, and provide resources, tools, staffing and training. The DNC may also need to release its hold on information and technology so that local and state Democrats can make use of them. I see this as an important way to reverse the long-term decline that has sapped many local and state party organizations of their organizational (and thus political) strength.

The Democratic Party has made great strides in the past year or so, but it’s clear that there is much more that we can do. As folks who have worked with me can tell you, I’ve never won any awards for hipness, but I’ve always looked for new and better ways of practicing politics – because my overriding goal is simply to win for Democrats. That is why I find the power of the new politics so exciting.

BL: What experience do you have with Internet organizing? Should Internet organizing be an integral strategy of the DNC? If so, how would you implement such a strategy?

MF: I believe I covered this question in Answer 6 (above), but let me add one point of emphasis:

For my entire career in politics, I have believed that organizing is crucial to winning elections for the Democratic Party. Today, it is clear that Internet organizing is vital to our future success. The days of turning over campaign strategy to media consultants have long passed. I’ve always run grassroots-heavy campaigns – as the thousands who have volunteered on my races can tell you – because I never bought into the myth that TV could replace the power of personal communication in politics. (That is why I reformed the post-1994 DCCC to focus on organizing; it’s also why my final campaign spent more of its $4 million budget on organizing and turnout than it did on TV advertising – despite the enormous per-point cost of the Dallas-Fort Worth TV market).

BL: What is your position on the order of the Democratic Presidential primary races? Should Iowa and New Hampshire retain their "first in the nation status", or should there be reform?

MF: This is a serious issue that requires fairness from the new Chair. There is a substantive and competent commission working on this issue, and because I do not want to unfairly affect their work, I will withhold judgment until hearing from them.

BL: Obviously, you're an expert on the redistricting issue. Do you support national redistricting reforms? What are your thoughts on the idea of a nonpartisan/bipartisan redistricting commissions being pushed by members of both parties (i.e. Democrats in Florida, Republicans in California)? Furthermore, as DNC Chair what strategy would you implement to tackle 2010 congressional redistricting now?

MF: Your first question is a crucial strategic one that I prefer not to discuss in public – i.e., with our Republican opponents – at this time. As to your second question: Throughout my career in politics, I’ve always devoted whatever resources and power I have to advancing Democrats through redistricting, and it will be a top priority at the DNC. I will ensure that we have a comprehensive long-term strategy for post-2010 redistricting -- a strategy that starts now by seriously targeting the key state races (legislative, gubernatorial and down-ballot) that will determine control of the process in each state in 2011 and 2012, and by beginning the legal preparation needed for an enterprise of this magnitude.

BL: You are now advocating a 50-state strategy, yet in previous blog Interviews you said:

"We cannot afford to swing wildly at every pitch hoping for a homerun. We need to pick our pitches carefully, hit singles and doubles and run bases aggressively."

Did you change your mind? What is your strategy for finding and funding viable candidates in unfriendly territory? Do you believe Texans in general and Texas Democrats in particular would have been better served by a "254-county strategy" in 2004? Why or why not?

MF: This question gets to the nub of the problem with the DNC over the past several years. State leaders like me have had to design strategies to fit their resources. Because the DNC did not make significant investments in non-presidential states, Democrats in places like Texas were forced to fend for themselves with the limited resources they were able to raise on their own, and as a result had to limit their investments.

So, yes, Texas Democrats and Texans in general would have absolutely been better served by a “254-county” strategy. And I don’t know of anyone in America who has spent more time, effort and personal political capital than I have on fights with the DNC for more resources for my state.

Of course, no matter how many times the DNC told us “no,” I never gave up on Texas Democrats. Instead, I worked extraordinarily hard to personally raise national money for campaigns and state and local parties in Texas. But as one Congressman – and even as the DCCC Chair -- I was never in position to fund an entire statewide operation in a place as large as Texas, where a statewide race costs tens and tens of millions of dollars.

Frankly, that is one of the reasons I want to be DNC Chair: So I can finally use the DNC to make the investments in state and local party-building for which I’ve been fighting. Again, my record at the DCCC is illustrative. While we never had the resources available to the DNC today, I adopted a strategy of expanding the playing field and challenging Republicans everywhere possible. We ran races in states that never came close to making the map used by the DNC and Presidential campaign (despite my best efforts to convince them to forgo their presidential-only targeting).

In closing on this point, I want to make sure I don’t mislead anyone. Even the DNC lacks infinite resources. And any honest strategist will tell you that the baseball analogy cited in your question – picking your pitches carefully – applies to every resource allocation decision you make. If you have fewer resources (as we did in Texas), then you can only afford to seriously invest in fewer races. If you have the DNC’s resources, then you can swing at more pitches – but if you flail about wildly, you’ll probably just end up wasting a lot of money as you strike out. (For more on this point, see Answer 11 (below)).

But unlike everyone else in this race, I’ve had years of experience in strategically managing the resources of a large political party committee. So when I’m Chair, the DNC will make smart and significant investments in building strong party structures and in supporting campaigns at all levels – especially with an eye toward down-ballot candidates whose short-term success determines the strength of our farm team and the long-term success of our Party. After years on the outside of the DNC looking in, I’m eager to get inside and start making these reforms.

BL: Have you read Amy Sullivan's article in the Washington Monthly entitled Fire the Consultants? What is your response to what she says?

MF: Not until you asked about it. But now that I have, I can say I agree with it’s general point, and, as I will explain briefly, have been putting it into practice for my entire political career.

My overriding political goal is simply winning – because that’s the only way you achieve the power you need to stand up for the people you represent. So I never have rewarded poor performance by consultants, and I never will. When I took over the DCCC, we cleaned house and opened up the consulting process to new blood (including at least one person named in the Sullivan piece as a potential next-generation strategic genius.) It was a difficult and contentious process, but when you personally understand the nuts-and-bolts of campaigns and party politics, you are not dependent on consultants to make the tough decisions.

While I was DCCC Chair, we maintained a very clear and very bright line between the committee staff whom we paid to service campaigns, and the outside consultants whom the campaigns paid. We had no situation like that described in the Sullivan piece. In short, I would not allow any consultants to rich skimming off the committee and its donors (or even simply by pocketing a percentage of the TV buy, which is an arrangement I did not allow at the DCCC).

Also, when you fund State Parties sufficiently (a key reform in my Plan to Win), then they can hire and keep experienced, talented staff – which makes the Party less dependent on consultants. And by establishing research-driven Strategic Communications and Research Center at the DNC (another key reform I’m proposing) we will ensure Democrats have unbiased, scientifically tested guidance for developing message strategy.

One final point – which relates to the discussion in Question 10: It is long past time that the Democratic Party make a concerted effort to bring the scientific method into electoral politics to help target limited resources toward the most effective means of delivering our message and votes. It happens in the marketplace everyday, and Republicans have been conducting well-thought-out experiments in areas like voter turnout to learn more about what works in each election. We should be doing the same – and applying it to all our practices, from traditional methods like door-to-door canvassing, to relatively new political tools like online organizing.

BL: Some Democrats have criticized you in recent days for running advertisements in your 2004 campaign featuring prominent Republicans, including President Bush (i.e. DailyKos.com, MyDD.com, annatopia.com/archives.html, etc.). Why did you run such ads, and what would you say to Democrats who feel that you did not emphasize the fact that you were a Democrat in your past campaign?

MF: First, I’d refer you to my answer to Question 3 (above), which also largely addresses this question.

And I’d add this: Instead of retiring last year after Tom DeLay had illegally redrawn my district to make it 65% Republican, I fought back (just as I’d fought him and the White House throughout 2003 as they tried to redo redistricting). The ads you referenced put my GOP opponent on the defensive on the key campaign issue of homeland security, and helped energize many of Democrats who turned out to vote – scoring historic victories for Dallas County Democratic candidates. I’ve always believed in challenging Republicans where they think they are strongest.

Now, this is a hotly contested campaign for DNC Chair, and I understand that my opponents and their supporters are trying to win. So I’d simply urge Democrats to look past the misleading attacks and to look up the facts of my commitment to Democratic Party principles and my record of winning for Democrats.

For instance, take a look at my most recent vote ratings from some groups with whom I’ve been extraordinarily proud to work -- while at the same time beating back repeated multi-million-dollar GOP challenges in Texas: AFL-CIO 93%, Hispanic Leadership Agenda 83%, Human Rights Campaign 88%, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 92%, League of Conservation Voters 85%, NAACP 95%, NARAL Pro Choice America 100%.

One final point: If agreeing with President Bush on some issues disqualifies you to be DNC Chair, then Howard Dean and I are both wasting our time (as are the rest of the candidates in the field, I imagine). As Gov. Dean said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week”: “…there's some agreement that I have with the President. I daresay other Democrats find some common ground with the President."

I’ve run and won as a Democrat for nearly 30 years; everyone in my area of North Texas knows that very well, and so do Republicans from Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, to the local precinct chairs in Dallas County. I spent 4 years traveling the country to rebuild the DCCC after the Gingrich revolution and in the run-up to impeachment – some of the most difficult times for Democrats in modern political history, And I invested my own time and effort to support my State Party for the past 30 years – especially when the DNC effectively pulled out of Texas.

Simply put, I’d put my credentials as effective partisan fighter for Democrats up against anyone’s. If that weren’t the case, I wouldn’t have spent the past 30 years working to successfully build Democratic Party structures and elect Democrats in some of the toughest territory – and I wouldn’t be campaigning to spend every day of the next four years reforming the DNC to win elections at all levels and in every state.

BL: To follow-up, as a DNC Chair, you will be the spokesman for the Democratic Party. Some critics believe that you would be an ineffective spokesman, because on television interviews clips could easily be run of your ads stating your support of President Bush on various issues. While they would certainly be taken out of context, some people feel that such clips could minimize your effectiveness in the typical role as the "attack-dog" party spokesman. What would you say to those critics?

MF: I’ve done national television interviews for more than a decade against some of the nastiest Republicans in Washington, so I’d welcome a softball question like you describe. Just as I’m sure Howard Dean would welcome any interviewer posing a similar softball question to him and running a clip of him talking about the “things we can support the President on.”

Nonetheless, here’s an example of the type of approach I’d likely take to an interviewer who posed these critics’ hypothetical question: “Time and again, the dishonest, corrupt and elitist Republican Government of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has made Americans less safe– on everything from sending our troops to war without the body armor they need, to opposing the Department of Homeland Security and the 911 Commission, to trying to steal every American’s Social Security. But believe it or not, there are Republicans in power in Washington who do even done more than George W. Bush to weaken America’s security. Pete Sessions is one of them. So is Senator Rick Santorum – who is trying to help Wall Street brokers by taking your Social Security.”

As I said before, I believe that the best way to beat Republicans is to challenge them aggressively and consistently – no matter what they or the media throw at you.

Strange turn of events

By Nathan Nance

It's actually kind of funny because Jim posted on Social Security today, and I'm writing about the DNC chair race.

Jerome has the latest round-up of the race and all accounts put Dean squarely in the front-runner seat. There seem to be three distinct groups, Dean supporters, Anybody But Dean supporters, and then everybody else. The largest group is the everybody elses, but I think they'll vote for one of the other two groups once it gets down to the wire.

I'm not totally discounting Fowler and Rosenberg, but the dynamic of the race seems to follow Dean and those inside the DNC who would rather have anybody but him. If you haven't read it already, this Newsweek piece basically describes how that group has been searching desperately for a candidate to run against Dean, even though that group's front-runner seems to be Martin Frost. I think the problem with Frost is that anyone inside the DNC who wants to see substantive reforms and a focus on netroots won't be attracted to him and he can't appeal to Dean/Fowler/Rosenberg voters to gain a majority.

I don't think it really means anything that Frost has the support of people in his home state. If he didn't, that would be an important marker that his candidacy was in vain. But I think that most Democrats, even those inside the DNC, want real, substantive changes. That leaves us with the Dean/Fowler/Rosenberg axis with Dean being the most popular.

A quick sidenote: If this race were soley between Fowler, Rosenberg and Frost, do you think Newsweek would be covering this race? I think several of us here at BOR have made the point that Dean brings lots of celebrity and media attention to this race and to the position that the others just can't match.

Nate is sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

DNC Chair: Does It Really Matter?

By Vince Leibowitz

I got a call this afternoon from one of the high-school aged Democrats in Van Zandt County asking me about, of all things, the race for Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. It seems this young man wanted to write on the subject for a current political events paper for high school government class.

This call got me to thinking very seriously about the DNC race when I was asked, "Does it really matter who wins the DNC race? Will it really change the way the party does business at all levels?"

I'm afraid the 18-year-old political novice who asked this question of me may have hit the nail right on the head: Does it really matter?

I know it sounds stupid that any Democratic activist and County Chairman such as myself would even spend time pondering this question. But, what's even more frightening to me is that the answer may be--at least in part--a resounding 'no.'

Yes, to a great extent, it matters whether or not Martin Frost or Howard Dean or whoever is named Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. After all, the DNC is the national party. It sets the policy and should drive the trend.

But, to your average party activist--and perhaps to some party leadership--it makes no difference who is at the top because I have yet to see any evidence that there will be true and substantive change within our party just because there is a different man (or woman) at the helm of the ship.

Mind you, this is in spite of the fact that, for the past few years, "grassroots activism" has become the buzzword of the Democratic Party. It's such a buzzword everyone wants to call their campaign a "grassroots" effort. And everyone is building their local party with "grassroots" support. And the "netroots" are all-important, too.

So, then, if growing the party from the grassroots is so vital, why are all of the announced candidates of the political establishment and not of the "grassroots" body politic?

A good question, no doubt. And, there are some obvious answers. First of all, you've got to be known, be a proven leader, be proven fund-raiser, and have existing relationships within the party to expect to get anything accomplished. That understandable and legitimate.

But does it have to be that way? Is there not a way for us to have our cake and eat it, too? Can we not have the marquee politician and the backroom political junkie working hand-in-hand at the DNC to help us rebuild?

To give you an example of what I mean, let me say this: Every time I think of the current DNC chairman, I think of seeing his name on a fund-raising letter. I think "that's someone Democrats know and will send money to." Think about it: An average Democrat gets a letter from Martin Frost or Howard Dean or any number of the candidates and it's going to have instant name recognition. Charities use the same principal. Remember the National World War II Memorial fund-drive? I must have recieved half a dozen letters from Academy Award-winning actor Tom Hanks asking me to send in $15. But was Tom Hanks the one running the day-to-day operations of the Memorial association? I think not. He's an actor.

Granted, it makes more sense to have a politician running a political party than an actor running a veterans' memorial, but does it--really? How many politicians--or even of the current candidates for DNC--really, truly know how to get in the trenches and run a campaign--not a race, mind you, but a campaign? Or a party?

How about Frost? How about Dean? Granted they've both run races, but who ran their campaigns? I dare say Martin Frost wasn't sitting in a back room somewhere with a database printout ID'ing potential donors. And I dare say Howard Dean wasn't sitting in a back room somewhere personally organizing and developing a strategy to attract Internet voters. Do these guys understand how to address the problems facing the Democratic Party in Lamar County, Texas or Dade County, Florida or Wayne County, Iowa?

And, why would they? As candidates and politicians, they've got better and more important things to do: They're the candidates, they drive the message and develop the policy, not organize the fund-raising, rallies and GOTV. That's what staff is for. The pols themselves may go out and glad-hand for the money, or make personal appearances for the money, but believe me, they aren't the ones running the data, sending out the mailers and wondering what in the heck a "carrier route saturation" is or how much radio advertising costs in Des Moines, Iowa.

I have no doubt that Martin Frost or Howard Dean could reform healthcare, fix Social Security, or combat terrorism. But I remain unconvinced that they are what the Democratic Party needs right now in the way of leadership. As DCCC Chair, Frost has proved he has what it takes to rake in the cash and win back House seats. As a candidate, Dean proved he had personality to unite the masses and the wisdom to try new and unconventional ideas. But being party chairman isn't just about raking in the cash, uniting the masses, and winning seats. It's about the Democratic Party fulfilling its promise and living up to its name. Winning seats isn't enough anymore. A unified party with a clear, concise message making a return to its roots among the rank-and-file citizenry is a must. We've got to rebuild our party in the people's image. And by that, I mean a return to our liberal, New Deal, Great Society roots, not a continuation of the stuck-on-high-center Republican-lite brand seemingly favored by many politicians.

So, does it matter who is at the head of the party, as long as it's a good and big name that will bring in the cash? No...and, yes.

No, because any marquee politician can perform that task adequately and perhaps very well. Yes, because it takes a special person--a special Chairman--to change the way the party does business.

So, as we bloggers tumble head-over-heels trying to predict the next Chairman of the DNC, let's consider the following:

If we're seeking change from the grassroots, don't we need more "grassroots" people on the DNC and in party leadership as opposed to ex-chairmen, ex-politicians, and current politicians?

If we're to truly change our party and rise out from the hole we're in, don't we need both a chairman who's a "marquee" fund-raiser and seasoned political junkie who knows how to oil and grease every nook and cranny of the political machine from behind the scenes?

If we're to truly change, should it not come from the bottom up and not the top down, anyway?

It we are to be successful at winning elections, don't we need a DNC--and a chairman--that looks outside the beltway and realizes the need for an operating strategy that involves everyone from the DNC down to the precinct chairs?

If we are to truly grow "from the roots," then do we not need a chairman who will pay as much attention and place as much importance on the Democratic Party in the most red county in the most red state as they do on the bluest counties in the bluest states? Don't we need a chairman to whom the voters and leaders of Van Zandt, or Travis, or Dallas or Smith County Texas mean as much as the voters and leaders of counties in blue states?

I haven't decided who to support for Party Chairman. I believe both Howard Dean and Martin Frost have some of the qualities I think a Chairman needs, but I'm not sure I'd be truly happy with either one.

But I do know this: whomever our party chairman is needs to realize that the red states and red counties need as much attention as the blue ones. After all, in the blue areas, they're growing their parties. In the red areas, we're building--or rebuilding--ours.

Whomever the new Chairman happens to be, they will have their work cut out for them. And, hopefully, after a couple of years on the job, we will be able to answer the question, "Does it really matter who is DNC Chairman?" And, hopefully, we'll be able to answer it by saying "Oh, yes. Yes, it does."

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.

To Infinity And Beyond

By Jim Dallas

Jesse tells us why Don Luskin is the "stupidest man alive" (according to Brad DeLong).

Actually, my qualm is this. If you assume this crazy infinite-horizon thing is the way to measure Social Security's financial situation, then is a $10.4 trillion deficit really that bad?

(Incidentally, what's the per annum cost: 10.4 trillion divided by infinity? That's, uhh, zero, isn't it?)

But for context, $10.4 trillion is the size of the U.S. gross domestic product. If we could commit five percent of GDP for twenty years to save Social Security FOREVER, would it be that bad?

And considering that our current budget deficit is nearly 5 percent of GDP already...and could easily be closed with a little common sprinkled into the pages of our tax code...

(Incidentally, that last off-the-cuff mathematical statement was economically wrong-headed; because GDP grows considerably faster than inflation - something like a percent or two annually - by the twentieth year $520 billion would be a lot less than 5 percent of GDP).

Needless to say, the point of this exercise is to point out that even a big scary like $10.4 trillion is neither big, nor scary, nor indicative of any rational reason to muck around with a Social Security system that is running a slight fever, but otherwise fit as a fiddle.

More Dean Endorsements

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Following in the tradition of endorsements that actually matter, Blog for America has the latest series of inside baseball endorsements. Worried about Dean becoming the frontrunner and crashing again? I wouldn't, because this time around, there isn't much the media can actually do and the spotlight is so far removed from the race in comparison to the primaries.

This group includes voting members of the DNC, former chairs of the DNC, congressional members and an array of prominent Democratic leaders.

Supporters include:

Reverend Willie Barrow, DNC Member-at-Large

Don Beyer, Former Lt. Gov. of Virginia and Chairman, Kerry-Edwards Virginia Victory '04

Alma Arrington Brown, philanthropist and wife of former DNC Chair Ron Brown

Joseph Cari, Jr., Former DNC National Finance Chair

Yolanda Caraway, DNC Member-at-Large

Martha Dixon, Arkansas DNC Committeewoman

Bob Farmer, Former DNC Treasurer and Finance Chair of the Kerry-Edwards campaign

Hon. Yvonne A. Gates, Chair of the DNC Black Caucus

Steve Grossman, Former DNC National Chair

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.)

Ben Johnson, DNC Deputy Chair

Wanda Lockridge, Chair of the District of Columbia State Committee

Hon. Gloria Molina, DNC Vice-Chair

Minyon Moore, DNC Member-at-Large

Mirian Saez, DNC Member-at-Large

Hon. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), DNC Member-at-Large

David Wilhelm, Former DNC National Chair

Looks like some new support from the "black and brown" category as well as past DNC chairs. In addition, that vote from California may be indicative of what supposedly is next week's endorsement of the California delegation of 'a particular candidate'.

Pop Quiz

By Jim Dallas

Do you support:

Our Troops?
Combatting Terrorism?
Our Veterans?
Higher Wages for American Workers?
Little Children?
Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs?
Election Reform?
Fiscal Responsibility?
Reducing the Number of Abortions?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then we have an agenda for you!

Update: [Byron] It's online at the Senate Democratic website here. You can become a "citizen cosponsor" here.

Dean Sweeps Texas Polls

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I told you something big was coming on Monday here at the Burnt Orange Report. The following was released from Democracy for Texas just now. Major points bolded. I have class so I will add my thoughts later.

I’m writing to you today to let you know about the results of two polls conducted by Democracy for Texas, the largest progressive grassroots organization in Texas, with over 40,000 members. These polls sought feedback from the grassroots on their preference for DNC chair.

We first polled DFT members. Not surprisingly, Governor Howard Dean won this vote in a landslide with 90% of the vote of those responding. I say “not surprisingly” because our organization is an outgrowth of the Dean campaign. In fact, the majority of our members are people who were never involved in politics before, but were so inspired by Governor Dean and his message that they became, and continue to be, active.

We decided that a more objective measure of grassroots support would be polling all people who were eligible to attend the State Democratic Convention in Houston last June, who would reflect a wider range of opinions. We sent emails to all of them who provided email addresses and we now have results from the respondents. They are compelling.

Howard Dean 69%
Martin Frost 25%
Others 6%

Many of those who provided comments mentioned Governor Dean’s commitment to a 50-state strategy (before it was fashionable), and his campaigning for Richard Morrison and David Van Os. Others talked about his amazing fund-raising ability. Some talked about the number of new voters, particularly young people, he brought into the Party. Still others said they were not Dean supporters during the primaries, but were impressed with the hard work he did on behalf of the national ticket and candidates across the country, including many “Dean Dozen” candidates who won in red states.

And there were many who talked about how the training in Austin last year subsidized by Dean’s PAC, Democracy for America, helped them organize, get out the vote, and win races in Texas.

The vote is yours, but we feel it’s important for you to know what your constituents are thinking.

Thank you for your service to the Democratic Party. Our steering committee looks forward to seeing you in D.C. in February.

Sincerely,
Fran Vincent
Executive Director

The answers you seek

By Nathan Nance

DFA was helpful enough to provide a transcript of Gov. Dean's interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on their blog.

I thought he did a good job presenting his ideas and showing where he wants to take the party. My favorite part of the interview is where he discusses what we could do to start winning:

Look, Newt Gingrich—who I'd agree agree with almost nothing about in terms of policy—but Newt Gingrich decided that he was going to try to take back the Congress by drawing a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans. And he succeeded. Before that, the minority in the House—Republicans—were really kind of around the edges of what the Democrats were doing and they weren't getting anywhere. I think we've got to draw a clear distinction.

We have different moral values than what the Republicans say they have. They say their moral values are about making sure gay people don't get ahead and making sure that women can't make up their mind about their own kind of health care. I say our moral values are feeding hungry children, having job opportunities and educational opportunities for every single American, and restoring a foreign policy which is not just based on a very strong military—which I'm very proud of—but also strong moral authority, which this president has abdicated in the world.

To me, that's the path to electoral victory. Drawing clear distinctions betwween where Republicans stand, and where we stand. Republicans stand for making rich people richer and for ruining the environment. They can come up with all the rhetoric in the world to say they're not but the policies they put forth show that is exactly where they stand. It should be our job as the opposition party to show that to the people and tell them how we're going to fix it.

I think Howard Dean is one of the few people running for chair who really understands this. Couple that with the other things we've discussed in the past (you're going to have to do your own searching) and I think Dean is just the best choice for DNC chair. Just one of the things to keep in mind as Feb. 12 approaches.

Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

DNC California Round-Up

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

There seems to have been a lot of on the ground reporting out of the California Western DNC Caucus this weekend so here are all the links we could find.

MyDD.com

Live from Sacramento
The Most Detailed Report
Add-on Observations

Adriel Hampton blog: writer for this SF Examiner DNC article

Bob Brigham, BlogPAC consultant, on the race for chairman of the Democratic National Committee: “With Howard Dean we will get a movement, with Simon Rosenberg we'll get an empire, with Martin Frost we'll get an exodus, with Donnie Fowler we'll get a monarchy and with Tim Roemer we'll get a Republican.”

Daily Kos

100% Dean Endorsements at DNC/CDC Meeting

"Some of you in the DNC may see us as barbarians at the gate. Some of us see ourselves as the cavalry. The truth is, we are fresh horses."

Swing State Project

Caucus Update 1
Caucus Update 2
Caucus Update 3
Caucus Update 4

If you find anything else out there, leave links in the comments. I encourage you to read through these, or at least glance over them and pick out the parts that are of interest to you.

Maybe we'll get some answers

By Nathan Nance

In answer to Byron's earlier post, I'll let the good doctor speak for himself. He's appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning. That's 9 a.m. on KVUE in Austin.

Bush, the Great Crusader

By Jim Dallas

As the old proverb goes, one is a fluke and two is a trend. Looks like we got a trend - even conservative pundits are expressing skepticism of Bush's new liberation theology (perhaps manifesting the traditional conservative's (i.e. Edmund Burke's) skepticism of anything bold or revolutionary-sounding).

Peggy Noonan (via Greg Wythe):

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.

A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.

No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy, which was the subject of the last third of the text. This may prove to have been a miscalculation.

It was a foreign-policy speech. To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists--the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power--President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.

The administration's approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the "reality-based community." A dumb phrase, but not a dumb thought: He meant that the administration sees history as dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. That is the Bush administration way, and it happens to be realistic: History is dynamic and changeable. On the other hand, some things are constant, such as human imperfection, injustice, misery and bad government.

This world is not heaven.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

Peter Robinson:

Aw, gee. He’s our guy, I like him, and his performance since 9/11 has proven brave, steadfast, and completely admirable. But this speech? It was well-written — in places actually beautiful — and well-delivered. (I dissent from Jonah Goldberg and others who fault Bush for his delivery on the ground that they’re forgetting to multiply his score by the degree of difficulty. Just try standing outdoors, in freezing weather, using a sound system that echoes, and then delivering a speech to an audience that consists of more or less the entire planet. Denny Hastert couldn’t even administer the oath of office to the vice president without misspeaking. Bush delivered his entire text without a flaw.) But the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.

Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation’s fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." The second President Adams asserted that "we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." During the Cold War, even Republican presidents made it clear that we played our large role upon the world stage only to defend ourselves and our allies, seeking to changed the world by our example rather than by force. Maybe I'm misreading Bush — I'm writing this based on my notes, and without having had time to study the text — but sheesh.

On domestic policy, a "broader definition of liberty?" Citing as useful precedents the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G. I. Bill? Compare what Bush said today with the inaugural address of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the first inaugural address of Ronald Reagan and you'll find that Bush sounds much, much more like LBJ. He as much as announced that from now on the GOP will be a party of big government. I can only hope that Chris Cox, Dana Rohrabacher, and other Republican members of Congress standing on the platform behind the president today were thinking to themselves, "Not so fast, buster." Bush may yet win critical conservative victories in this second term — notably by managing to enact private retirement accounts. But his "broader definition of liberty" makes me mighty nervous.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

Why I can't stand to Listen to President Bush

By Byron LaMasters

Aside from the content, the over-the-top religiosity, the dishonesty and hypocrisy on the liberty and freedom talking points and the whole lying in his oath to uphold the constitution, it's more basic than any of that. Mike points out what a professor of speech communications said about Bush's inaugural speech that makes a lot of sense:

There is something about Bush’s speeches that has always bothered me (aside from the content) and until the other day I couldn't quite say what it was. But yesterday NPR interviewed a professor of speech communications who analyzed Bush's inauguration speech and I think he nailed it. He replayed specific parts of Bush's speech and showed how Bush puts the emphasis on the wrong words. For example, when Bush says "At this second gathering..." he puts the emphasis on the word 'gathering' rather than on the word 'second.' He also pauses at awkward moments and doesn't have a natural rhythm in his cadence. What is sounds like is somebody struggling to read a difficult passage for the first time, with no idea how the sentence is going to end before they start reading it.

The professor noted that past presidents like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton could make a speech sound better than it read on paper. Bush, he said, is the opposite. His speeches are better when you read them and sound worse when you hear them.

The professor speculated that Bush just doesn't like public speaking and is perhaps daydreaming about being back on his Crawford ranch in the middle of his speeches. He certainly doesn't make me want to continue listening. I am usually upset by some of the things he is saying, but then hearing him struggle through the speech like a junior high school kid being forced to read aloud from his textbook in front of the whole class is just painful.

Well, I'm glad that I missed it. Jon Stewart informed me as to the highlights of the event - Freedom defeated Liberty 27-15, Dick Cheney still has a LESBIAN daughter, Bill Clinton still can't dance, and Joe Lieberman will stand up for Social Security. That pretty much covers it.

George W. Bush, the Constitutionalist

By Byron LaMasters

Yesterday, President Bush put his hand on the bible and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If his first term is any indication, he won't. Juan Cole gives us a pictoral overview of how Bush upheld the constitution in his first term.

Liveblogging of the Inauguration Protest

By Byron LaMasters

From an Austinite...

St. Edward's University senior Jake McCook is studying in D.C. this semester, so he liveblogged the Inauguration protest yesterday on his blog here. Check out the other posts as well for lots of pictures of the festivities.

Some Questions for Dean

By Byron LaMasters

I blogged last week on the reasons why Howard Dean is not my first choice for DNC Chair. A lot of folks have asked open questions to Martin Frost on this blog and also over at Kos, MyDD and Annatopia. A lot of the questions for Frost are quite legitimate. What type of reforms would Frost like to see at the DNC? How would Martin Frost engage and utilize the netroots? Why did Martin Frost run those ads featuring President Bush and other Republicans? Well, I've asked Martin Frost those very questions, and I should be getting responses sometime soon.

Now, I have questions that I would like to ask Howard Dean and his supporters for DNC Chair:

What did Howard Dean actually do for the candidates which Democracy for America endored - i.e. "Dean's Dozens"? I've not been involved with Democracy for America, and I'm very pleased that it has brought so many new people into the process. However, I think that we should judge an organization by their results. What did Democracy for America do for the candidates they endorsed? As I wrote earlier, with the exception of Richard Morrison, I believe that DFA was ineffective in the races it targeted in Texas. What would Howard Dean do differently as DNC Chair?

To follow up, what was the process of targeting for races for Democracy for America? One of the races targeted by DFA was that of David Van Os for State Supreme Court. Now, Van Os is a nice guy, and a damn good Democrat, but he really never had much of a chance. DFA's endorsement of Van Os seems to be more about payback for Van Os's endorsement of Dean's presidential bid than of well thought out targeting.

Another one of Dean's endorsements was of May Walker, a candidate for Constable in Houston. It was an overwhelmingly democratic district, and Walker won with over 80% of the vote. Was she worthy of support? Sure. But should it have been a race to which Democratic resources were poured into (that could have gone to a competitive race)? I would say no.

I'm all for a 50-state-strategy, and a 254-county-strategy for Texas. As Democrats we should never concede a state, or even a county for that matter. Having said that, we need to invest our resources where they can have the largest impact. I would argue that DFA's endorsements of Walker and Van Os were ineffective uses of resources. Imagine if someone like Kelly White (for state representative) were targeted. She lost by less than 200 votes, but a few thousand more dollars, and things might have turned out differently.

My question is quite simple. What was the targeting process of Democracy for America in 2004? Did Democracy for America consult with state and local parties as to how they could best make a difference? My guess is if the Texas Democratic Party had been consulted, the targeting choices might have been different. Dean advocates working with state and local parties now in his DNC Chair race, but is that a strategy that Dean practiced as the leader of an influential Democratic organization? I'd like to know.

Amy Sullivan's article on consultants in the Democratic Party made quite a splash this month. Howard Dean certainly wasn't immune to getting sucked into bad strategic decisions in his presidential campaign by various consultants. As Anna notes, lots of us remember some of Howard Dean's horrific television ads during the Democratic primary campaign. I'd be interested in learning what Dean learned from his primary loss. What mistakes did Howard Dean make, and how has he learned from them?

DNC Polls Released Monday / Dean +1

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I attending our Democracy for Texas / Democracy for America House Party tonight to help raise some money for Dean's DNC Chair race and meetup with our Dean leaders in the state.

Of interest are the results of two polls that have been run in Texas regarding the DNC race. These numbers, while announced on the conference call, are not yet public (though I know them) and will become available to DNC members and the press on Monday. I have gained permission from those who ran the poll to publish the results right here on Burnt Orange Report on Monday. One of the polls should turn some heads for sure. Until then, anything you hear are just rumors and should not be given credibilty or passed around as tends to happen on the Internets.

Also, it appears that Dean has picked up the endorsement of yet another actual voting DNC member, Robert Bell, from Democrats Abroad Canada.

I have endorsed and will vote for Howard Dean for Chair of the Democratic National Committee because I believe he has the proven experience to manage the organization, the vision to successfully direct and enlarge our party, and the presence and personality to be a respected voice rebutting the Bush Administration.

I founded Democrats Abroad Canada in the late 1970's. I have been Treasurer and then Chair of Democrats Abroad Canada, Vice Chair of the Americas Region, and DNC Member representing the DPCA. I am in my second term as DNC Committeeman.

Inauguration

By Byron LaMasters

Via Matt Stoller, Terry McAuliffe puts it best:

Departing national party chairman Terry McAuliffe: "If I truly wanted to match Bush's accomplishments, I would max out my credit card, take out a second mortgage and steal my mother's Social Security. Instead, I'll just spend it with my five kids and, in the spirit of the second Bush administration, we're going to rent 'Titanic.'"

It's hard to top that. The only inauguration coverage I plan to watch is whatever The Daily Show puts together tonight. My friend Chris is attending some of the Inauguration protest activities. It's not something that I'd spend 16+ hours in the car to do, but to each his own. I'm sure that he'll have an interesting report on the trip when he returns to Florida.

There's not too much news out of Texas this week, because our state legislature is adjourned until next Monday. They've simply abdicated their responsibility to the voters of Texas by going to this weeklong party in Washington D.C. when Texans have such important issues such as the budget and school finance (and of course, the critical need to re-defend marriage from the all those gays). Why are all the Republican state legislators going on the lam? I just don't understand it. At least the Democrats went somewhere boring like Ardmore. I don't remember any high-dollar parties or lavish balls in Oklahoma.

And an Update

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

To show my point from the previous entry, this post over at Blog for America came up while I was writing it. Stories from the Washington Post (front page of Section C), LA Weekly, and the Boston Globe.

I begin to wonder how long it will take for a repeat of Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean...

A New Perspective

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

If there is one thing that I have noticed about this DNC chair race (and isn't it a wonderful thing that for the first time in about 15 years, we are having a true public debate over the operation of our Party) it is that there is one person driving the media coverage (outside of the blogosphere). If you haven’t noticed, every time Dean makes a move, whether it is his formal announcement or endorsements he drives a media response from the press. It makes the front page of Yahoo and CNN, it gets discussed on cable news, and of course gets batted about on the Net. And in these stories, there is a choice quote or two from (usually) Frost (and earlier Roemer) and the obligatory listing of "also running are..."

My point in this is not to yammer on about Dean, it is to point out that aside from an occasional story on Frost now, and less so Rosenberg or Fowler, the media won't lead or write a story about the DNC race. And even if they do, what do you find? The second quote in the story is almost always from Dean.

The media knows what sells. The horserace sells, but even better, a horserace with a well known figure outside of the Democratic Party sells even better. Now, just for a minute, I would like to ask you to picture all of the DNC Chair Candidates as actual Chairs. In each case, they release a press statement or get scheduled for an interview or "crossfire" like event on cable. Of all the candidates, who do you think will get "message airtime"? Who will the media actually pay attention to? More importantly, who do you think average viewers are going to see and listen to, and then go "I remember that argument, because I know who is saying it and it sticks in my mind for longer than 3 minutes"?

You get my drift. Though it may not be a primary reason to support someone for DNC chair, there are other far more important issues, Dean does get attention because average people, even if they didn't agree with him in his Presidential bid, know who he is and will, if anything, give him credit for "changing the way politics is waged". Yes, there are some that think Dean and go "howling Vermont Liberal" but these are partisan Republicans who continue to push this line to discredit a threatening Democrat, Democrats supporting other candidates for Chairman, or people who have bought the story, don't believe it personally, but fear everyone else does. It reminds me of the "must vote for Kerry because he's supposed to be electable, even if I don't like him and don't know personally know swing voters that truly think he is more electable."

The DNC chair should be partisan, they should be bold, they should take the Party down the path of Reform, and they should make waves and get noticed. Having the right message does no good if you have no spokesperson to carry it that people will stop and listen to. We have these people in our Party. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton should continue to be loud in the Senate and carry the Democratic message there. Bill Richardson should keep speaking up as a Governor. Other leaders like Al Gore or most of the 2004 Democratic Primary field should speak up and not be afraid to offer their input. Having our Party's Operational Chief coordinate and also be a key speaker is an important factor, something that is not going to exist if someone like Leeland or Roemer or even Rosenberg or Fowler is the 'voice'.

I know it doesn't seem to be important, but step back from the echo chambers of the Internet for a minute, put yourself out in the fresh air where the TV is running all day while middle class families are putzing around the house doing chores, and tell me who they are going to stop and listen to. These are the busy citizens, casual voters, people that care about issues but are not set in partisan ways.

Reform will win the day, internal technical operations will be enacted, and our message will be reframed. But after all that, we still have to make sure that citizens notice us.

Context Context Context

By Andrew Dobbs

I just watched that Channel 11 (Dallas) story about how Frost wouldn't say that he was a Democrat and was sucking up to the GOP leadership. Looks pretty damning, particularly if you are willing to do anything to keep Martin Frost from winning.

But as Byron has noted, you have to keep it all in context- that portion of the ad shown was taken out of context. The ad wasn't there to show that Martin Frost loves the GOP, but rather that Pete Sessions is out of the mainstream of his own party.

What bill was Frost talking about? Was it some abortion ban bill? Was it some corporate giveaway? Was it gutting social security or some other respected and helpful program? No- it was a bill that made airline companies fortify the doors on airliner cockpits so that terrorists can't break in. Frost- along with virtually every Democrat and almost every Republican- voted for the bill while Pete Sessions joined only 8 other members of Congress in voting against the bill, which he feared was "too tight." That is what the ad shows before the part culled by Channel 11- Pete Sessions is an extremist out of touch with the mainstream, Martin Frost is willing to side even with political opponents when its for the good of the country. Sounds like a great ad and a great message.

DNC chair is a partisan position, and I am about as partisan as they come. But as the GOP moves further and further to the Right, we should be the party that envelopes the rest of the spectrum, until we have one mainstream party and one extremist party. We should make it clear that country comes before party, and that is what distinguishes us from Republicans. That Martin Frost joined every congressional Democrat and all but 9 Republicans in supporting a bill introduced by the President doesn't disqualify him, and that he pointed out his opponent's inability to lead doesn't disqualify him. Martin Frost will do what it takes to win, and he has proven himself many times over.

Slap! I'm Joe Biden beyotch!

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

I watched some of the confirmation hearing for Condi Rice today on C-SPAN. It was day 2 and it seemed to me that the questions were a little more pointed. It probably had something to do with the good press Sen. Boxer got for her words yesterday.

But, Sen. Joe Biden (who I'm totally convinced is running in 2008) got the most meorable line in today. He said (and this is from memory because it is damned near impossible to find a transcript on the Web) "and don't listen to Rumsfeld, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about." Or something to that effect.

Could it be that our elected Democrats are finally getting their backbones in the mail?

Of course, he followed that up by admitting that he was going to go vote yea for her confirmation in five minutes, so the answer is probably no. But it made me wonder if maybe senators should vote no for the confirmation of people they don't think would do a good job in the position they've been nominated for. I know there's "politics" involved, I'm not blind to the fact that voting nay could get them in trouble later on. But I would rally like to see some of the Democrats just be the opposition. Vote against the Republicans. Do something. Don't get get in lines like that and them capitulate because you think it is inevitable that she's going to be confirmed.

Biden's office, and indeed lot's of people, has serious concerns with her assertion that 120,000 Iraqis have been trained to fight the insurgency there. He's stated that the number is closer to just 4,000, which is a big difference. If she's going to be the Secretary of State, she's got to know this and be more forthcoming with the American people about our chief foreign entanglement.

But that didn't happen and Rice has been approved by the foreign relations committee.

This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

6 More Votes for Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Blog for America reports today (in addition to Florida) 6 state party leaders from 5 more states have announced their support for Dean for DNC.

Florida: Chairman Scott Maddox, Vice-Chairwoman Diane Glasser
Mississippi: Chairman Wayne Dowdy
Oklahoma: Chairman Jay Parmley, Vice-Chairwoman Debbe Leftwich
Utah: Vice-Chairwoman Nancy Woodside
Washington: Chairman Paul Berendt
Vermont: Chairman Peter Mallary

So much for the Chair's Association giving a united endorsement. I went over the full list of DNC members by state and have noted them below for these states. It's no sure bet that fellow DNC members will follow their state chair, but this is the world of Party Politics we are talking about and they do have influence. These numbers do not reflect Members at Large and other positions, just the average State by State elected DNC members.

Florida: 11
Mississippi: 4
Oklahoma: 4
Utah: 4
Washington: 6
Vermont: 4

That is 33 possible total votes of which we know 17 officially have endorsed Dean. And here is the thing, these endorsements matter because these people actually vote and are closest to the other voting members. You can have as many Congresspeople and Governors as you like (and it doesn't hurt) but as far as direct impact, well, you get my drift.

Oppose Frost for DNC?

By Byron LaMasters

Fine. Just do it for the right reasons.

Some examples of good reasons to oppose Frost?

Off The Kuff, Greg's Opinion, Southpaw, The Scarlet Left and TAPPED are a few examples. So are some of the thoughts posted by Karl-Thomas and Nate on this blog.

Martin Frost has some weaknesses that I'm uneasy about. As I've said before, Frost is not the most tech/net-savvy guy around. He's not the most reform-oriented candidate in the field, but overall on the balance, he's one of my top choices. I've said all this before.

I'm no Martin Frost hack, but I do think that the many of the blogosphere attacks against him have not been intellectually honest. Throwing up a picture of Frost and a Republican doesn't prove that Frost endorsed a Republican. It doesn't even prove that he's a conservative or a Blue Dog. It only proves that he was fighting like hell to win a seat where he should have gotten 35% of the vote.

It especially annoys me that the same people that attacked Tim Roemer for not standing up and fighting in 2002 when he would have had a tough reelection are attacking Martin Frost for doing exactly what Tim Roemer did not do - standing up and fighting the race of his life.

And there's more attacks on Frost...

By Byron LaMasters

Now it's these ads. Martin Frost ran ads at the time attacking Pete Sessions for being an extremist. Pete Sessions was one of nine congressmen who voted against supporting reinforced cockpit doors, putting air marshalls on our airplanes, toughening security in our airports and ensuring that our baggage screeners are well-qualified professionals.

Frost did join George W. Bush, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John McCain and Dennis Hastert in supporting this legislation, but he also joined just about every member of the Democratic caucus in supporting it as well. Just about everyone supported the legislation... except Pete Sessions.

I did a post on this in October. Here's part of the Frost press release on the ad:

"Too Tight"

Our second ad this week reinforces the advertisement we aired last week highlighting Sessions' vote against President Bush's major air safety plan to fight terrorism. 510 Members of Congress voted to support the anti-terrorism plan, while Sessions joined a band of only nine dangerously out of touch Members who voted "no". What's more, the ad shows Sessions himself explaining his vote by saying security at our airports is "too tight" because people like "even Senator Ted Kennedy" might be delayed.

"Stronger vs Weaker Homeland Security"

Virtually every American knows that everything changed on September 11, 2001.... but not Pete Sessions. While Republicans, Democrats and Independents came together to fight terrorism and protect America, Pete Sessions continued following an overtly partisan and dangerous ideology that puts raw politics ahead of American security. It's an attitude President Bush has described as a "September 10th mentality." Throughout his career, Congressman Frost has been willing to stand up to the leaders of either party in order to make sure that our Nation's defenses remain the strongest in the World and that the safety of those he represents comes before any partisan or ideological pursuits. Sessions' voting record and his own words demonstrate clearly that he can't be trusted to keep America safe.

Another Attack on Frost

By Byron LaMasters

Kos goes on the attack again. Kos attacks Frost for running a television ad where he mentioned that the Dallas Morning News endorsed both Frost and George W. Bush. I don't particularly see a problem with the ad. Frost did not endorse Bush. Frost did have to appeal to Independent and moderate Republican voters though. The rest is copy+pasted from comments on Kos:

The Dallas Morning News is one of the most conservative newspapers in the country. They endorsed Barry Goldwater in 1964. I'm sure that they've endorsed every Republican nominee since then. They rarely endorse Democrats, and when they do, those endorsements are almost always token endorsements in noncompetitive races. Everyone in Dallas knows that. The fact that Frost won the DMN endorsement in a highly comptetive race was quite significant. When the DMN endorses a Democrat in a competetive race, it gives that Democrat instant creditability among Independent / Moderate Republican voters, because such an endorsement is so rare. Frost was smart to emphasize that.

Frost was running in a 60-65% GOP district that was going to support Bush by a large margin. So what did he do? He ran a campaign that played up his moderate credentials while trying to paint his opponent as an extremist. It's not what a lot of us Democrats would like to see, but that's the race that Frost had to run in that district.

Finally, if you think that Frost's ads hurt Democrats in the Dallas area, just take a look at the results. Frost's media campaign spent $4 Million on putting up a Democratic message on the DFW airwaves. It didn't hurt Kerry. It didn't hurt local Democrats -- in fact, Frost's media campaign and GOTV opperation helped Dallas County Democrats to their most successful election in decades.

Dallas County Democrats elected a Hispanic, lesbian Sheriff, Lupe Valdez and three judges countywide (giving Democrats 4 judges countywide, Democrats won their first judical race in Dallas County in over a decade in 2002). Finally, John Kerry was not hurt by this ad. Even though Texas was not in play, Kerry lost Dallas County by only 10,000 votes, compared to Gore's loss of the county by 47,000 votes.

2000:
Bush/Cheney - GOP - 322,283 52.55%
Gore/Lieberman - Dem - 275,281 44.89%

2004:
Bush/Cheney - GOP - 346,246 50.32
Kerry/Edwards - DEM - 336,641 48.93

Anyway, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Martin Frost. He's not as reform oriented as someone like Dean or Rosenberg. He's not as tech/web savvy. Oppose Martin Frost for those reasons, but don't distort his record. He's a good Democrat.

Steny Hoyer Endorses Frost

By Byron LaMasters

Via Martin Frost Press Release:

WASHINGTON - House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) - the 2nd-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, chair of the DNC's Democratic Business Council, and a former Democratic leadership liaison to the Democratic National Committee - today endorsed former Congressman and former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost to be the next DNC Chair.

"Martin Frost is one of the most successful political strategists and organizers in either Party because he is as innovative as he is pragmatic," Hoyer said. "He focuses on the bottom line - beating Republicans - and he challenges conventional wisdom and embraces new strategies to get it done. That's how he reinvented the DCCC after the debacle of 1994, leading Democrats to the historic victories that drove Newt Gingrich out of Congress. No one in this race can match his track record of successfully building and managing Democratic Party operations at all levels."

Frost and Hoyer served together in the House Democratic leadership, and worked together in the House of Representatives for more than two decades.

Frost said, "Steny Hoyer's support is so significant because he personally has seen me deliver for Democrats, and because he knows how to win without sacrificing our Party's principles."

Again, Hoyer's not a DNC member, but he certainly has some sway among the House Democratic Caucus and the Maryland delegation. Josh Marshall has some interesting thoughts on the endorsement.

Rosenburg fighting for 3rd?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I like Simon Rosenburg. I met him in Atlanta and was impressed by his thoughts and ideas. If he wins the DNC race, I'll be happy. If he loses, I hope that he's brought on board anyways.

His latest e-mail sounds like something from someone still behind in the race. And while he is, I don't know if I'm supposed to get that impression...

Dear Karl-Thomas,

Our very strong week last week and good performances at the first two regional DNC meetings have put us in the upper tier of candidates to be the next DNC Chair.

"Dean, Frost and Rosenberg have been cited most often as front-runners among party leaders." ...

Last week our endorsements ran from Alaska to Alabama to New York to California, including leaders from all parts of the party and from across the country. Chris Heinz joined us from the Kerry world, former DNC Chair Joe Andrew from the Gore world, Mike McCurry and Christine Varney from the Clinton world and of course Joe Trippi joined us from the Dean campaign. Ron Brown's former Chief of Staff Rob Stein also came aboard. Ben Chandler, Artur Davis, Jonathan Miller and Michael Thurmond joined us from the South; Tony Knowles, Loretta Sanchez and Adam Smith from the West; Joe Andrew from the Midwest; and Adolpho Carrion and Jack Markell joined from the East. And this is only the beginning.

Endorsements do not elect a DNC chair, DNC votes do. Maybe in their respective states, it will make those DNC delegations look at Rosenberg. Unless they are calling members in support...

And as to the Hotline Poll, here is the campaign's Spin on it (even if they claim to No Spine Zone it)...

Finally, we learned a few things from a "poll" conducted by Hotline that ran last Friday. Stripping away the spin, the data shows that three-quarters of all DNC members are undecided; this race is wide open. Of the quarter that have a preference, those candidates with the best name ID -- unsurprisingly -- are doing the best during this early stage, yet they too have only a tiny fraction of the votes needed to win (as little as 15 percent). And despite my relative late entry into the race and the fact that the poll was conducted before all of last week's endorsements were unveiled, I am tied for third. The bottom line is: we are in a strong position to win this race.

It is true that the race may be open, but I don't know if anything is fundamentally changing as these DNC meeetings go on. People know Dean, old-partyline-steppers are slowly getting the drift that Frost is "the man" even if he doesn't excite, and the rest are left scrambling to put together a come from behind second/third choice strategy, because I'm sure they are seeing that they aren't going to come out ahead of Dean on the early ballot rounds.

Should be fun to watch as always, and maybe Hotline will throw us another poll conducted after the Regional Caucuses.

Looks like I'll have to start Defending Martin Frost....

By Byron LaMasters

I was going to do a post responding to Nate's post on Martin Frost, especially after anti-Frost posts have popped up on MyDD and Kos. I have to say that Kos is off the mark on this one. Frost is not a conservative Democrat, he's a moderate Democrat. Look at his lifetime voting record. I'll do some research, and hopefully I'll have time to respond to some of the charges against Frost in the next day or so.

Complete Summary: Donnie Fowler Conference Call

By Byron LaMasters

Donnie Fowler made a compelling case for DNC chair in the conference call today. Fowler’s strengths are clearly his understanding of grassroots organization and technology, and his commitment to reform. I’m still a little bit concerned how he would fare in the party spokesman role. Fowler clearly represents a new generation of leadership, and he definitely will have a seat at the table for years to come.

An interesting comparison came up in several of my conversations with friends today about Donnie Fowler. I don’t think that 37 is too young for a DNC Chair, but I just have a sense that Fowler is significantly less polished than someone like Simon Rosenberg – who is only about three years older than Fowler. It might just be my own biases, but I know I’m not the only one who’s thought this. Anyway, overall, Fowler’s an impressive guy. Take the jump for my full summary of the conference call.

Fowler first addressed the fact that we were celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and that King represented the values of the progressive movement in our country. Fowler noted that the liberal tradition in America has in many ways been one of radicals. Our founding fathers were radicals – suggesting that break allegiance to the British monarchy. The abolitionists, the Suffragettes, and the leaders of the Civil Rights movement were all radicals in their time, but today they are part of the liberal tradition that represents the best of America.

Fowler repeatedly touts his grassroots expertise. He likes to note that he was “grassroots before grassroots was cool”. He got his start in grassroots with Dick Gephardt, then Jesse Jackson in the 1988 presidential campaign. Fowler praises Terry McAuliffe as the right chair for a time when fundraising needed to be revamped. He credits McAuliffe and the netroots for the Democrats ability to nearly match Republicans in small donors this cycle. Now, Fowler says that his skill set matches the needs of the DNC. Those needs, Fowler notes, are rebuilding state parties and speaking to the grassroots.

First, Fowler thinks that we need to formulate a national message that speaks of our Democratic values – tearing down boundaries, opportunity, access, a fair shake, hard work, etc. Second, Fowler wants to ask strong state parties, and elected officials, especially those who have won in red states (i.e. Sen. Ken Salazar D-CO, Gov. Janet Napolitano D-AZ, Gov. Brian Schweitzer D-MT, etc) what works. Also, Fowler intends to bring the net/grassroots to the table, and ask how the DNC can embrace their issues. Finally, Fowler seeks to “build the pipeline” for communications with a two point approach. First, he wants to build a “message delivery system” to counter FOX News and right-wing talk radio. Second, Fowler thinks we should have training and resources for ground organizers, phone programs, mail, email, blogs, etc. Ultimately, the job of the DNC is to win elections, regain power and enact a progressive agenda.

Fowler took questions from everyone that wanted to ask one. He repeated the talking points that everyone is using on a “50 state strategy”. He expanded though to say that we should move organizing out of D.C., and that we should look to the successful organizers, consultants and state parties outside of D.C. to set benchmarks and find the best practices. Fowler also wants the DNC to show the netroots more respect, and bring the netroots into a decision-making role at the table, instead of just seeing the netroots as a source of money.

In another question, Fowler expanded upon why it was critical to moving organizing out of D.C. First, local organizers better understand local issues. Fowler noted that what the D.C. consultant / pundit class considered important – the Washington Post and Tim Russert, rarely reflected the concerns of those outside the beltway. When Fowler worked in Michigan this past cycle, he noted how Michigan had several unique issues such as Canadian garbage and a disproportionate number of Arab-American and Muslim voters that were best understood by local activists. Fowler used Spanish-language advertising to make another point. Simply hiring a translator and making an ad in Spanish isn’t enough. Before making a Spanish-language advertisement its critical to understand the composition of the local Hispanic population as Mexican-Americans, Puerto Rican-Americans and Cuban-Americans speak in somewhat different dialects.

When I had a chance to ask Fowler a question, I first thanked him for coming to the state democratic executive committee (SDEC) meeting in Austin last Monday. Most candidates probably skipped the event as Martin Frost will likely win most (if not all) of the Texas DNC delegate’s votes. However, Fowler spoke to the SDEC and asked to be considered as a second choice. It may not win him any votes on the first ballot, but if Frost falters early in the balloting for some reason, Donnie Fowler certainly won some brownie points with the Texas delegation, and would certainly receive strong consideration.

Before the conference call, I asked a few people what more they would like to know about Donnie Fowler. Since Donnie Fowler’s strength is his grassroots and work in the field, I decided that I’d ask him more about his communications skills. He admitted that he’s not as experienced as some others, and that his television appearances were more limited to state and local television, public radio, etc. However, Fowler pointed out that the next RNC Chair, Ken Mehlman is 38 – only a year older than him.

I also asked Fowler to elaborate on his proposal for a “message delivery system”. He repeated much of his previous points with more detail. His agenda focused on reaching out to local news as opposed to just the national news, regionalizing local and communication operations through forums and meetings and dramatically improving technology.

After some more questions, Fowler concluded that the DNC must change, and that he had the skill sets needed to implement the changes needed in 2005.

Florida DNC Delegation for Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

First a short note to point out a post by Scott Goldstein on Blog for America, whom I was traveling with on his book tour over the winter break. He goes into more detail about out meeting in Birmingham concerning a homeless man and Martin Luther King, Jr.

And now, word that that all 11 DNC members of the Florida delgation have come out and endoresed Dean for DNC Chair. Some of the best quotes in the piece...

The Florida delegation to the Democratic National Committee has voted unanimously to endorse Howard Dean to be the party's next chairman, bucking an effort to orchestrate an endorsement of one candidate by all 50 state party leaders at the same time later this month.

The decision, announced yesterday by Scott Maddox, the Florida Democratic chairman, is a major lift for Dr. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, and it is a shift in a contest where most Democrats have been holding back from endorsing any candidate in the crowded field.

...

"The only knock against Howard Dean is that he's seen as too liberal," Mr. Maddox said. "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw. I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as D.N.C. chair."

If you like, the entire list of the 440 DNC members is available here. Texas has 12 members if I remember correctly. (PDF)

Donnie Fowler Conference Call

By Byron LaMasters

I'm on it. Annatopia is liveblogging it. I'll have some thoughts when it's over.

Roemer and the Big Tent

By Jim Dallas

Tim Roemer's fussing about litmus tests. Personally, I wish the focus was on Tim Roemer's votes on Bush's tax cuts, his position with a right-wing libertarian think-tank, etc. were taking priority over his position on abortion.

Our senate minority leader and many members of Congress are opposed to abortion-on-demand, which I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact I thought we were going to get some peace from the old pro-life canard that Democrats are excluding anti-choice people from power. If we're going to have litmus tests, how 'bout one that makes some sense, e.g. sticking with the New Deal consensus?

Once bitten...

By Jim Dallas

Old Man Wythe says it's time to stop fighting. Agreed. Texas Democrats unite! The only thing you have to lose is... umm, well, what haven't we lost yet...

(OK, we can agree to lose the cabal of Beltway consultants -- but let's do it in a productive way. Jokes about incompetent Democratic party consultants are only surpassed in antiquity by the old "circular firing squad" joke. That probably tells you something about the way things go down in Dem circles, doesn't it?)

I still haven't met Greg; although I should have, had I gotten down to the HCDP's Sharpstown voter reg drive (with which Greg did a wonderful job) instead of doing the campus drive instead. I've always imagined though that he might wear a monocle and a top hat and enjoy shaking a walking stick at younger people, especially hippie-Deanies (but in a "it's for your own good" kind of way). Sort of like the Monopoly Guy or Scrooge McDuck. Not that there's anything wrong with that; after all, without Uncle Pennybags you can't pass go and collect $200.

DNC St. Louis

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Another on the ground report has popped up in this MyDD diary.

From the DNC in St. Louis...

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Some thoughts have been offered up in this Daily Kos diary.

Models for health care reform

By Jim Dallas

The Washington Monthly's cover story this month suggests the VHA as a model for health care reform.

I've got a better idea - the United Federation of Planets:

KIRK Doctors, doctors, this is highly unprofessional --

He gives the Doctor a swift, sure, Judo chop. Gillian and the nurses gasp...

Bones, muttering as he passes the device over Chekov.

BONES
Chemotherapy... fundoscopic examination... dealing with medievalism here!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Is Longman correct about the need for a technological revolution in medicine? Yes. Although sometimes he sounds like Dr. McCoy, ranting about the Dark Ages.

DNC Second Round

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

MyDD has some information on the second regional meeting for DNC members. I'm not sure how much new information policy wise will be coming out from candidates at this point, but I'd look to MyDD for horserace information.

Michelman Won't Seek DNC Post

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Buried in this otherwise interesting article discussing the 60.7% national turnout in the 2004 election which also tells us...

The organization also found that Kerry ran behind his party's statewide candidates -- governors and senators -- who were up for election in 30 of 37 states. Bush fared much better, winning fewer votes than Republican candidates in just 16 of 37 states.

The report noted that although turnout reached new heights, more than 78 million Americans who were eligible to vote stayed home on Election Day. The group estimated that Bush won just 30.8 percent of the total eligible voters.

At the end of this story was the unrelated nugget..

Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, has decided not to enter the race to lead the Democratic National Committee and instead will lead, as she put it, an "effort to reassert the party's leadership on women's fundamental rights."

Dean Leads, Frost Second in DNC Poll

By Byron LaMasters

The Hotline polled all of the DNC members, and 187 (42%) responded. Dean leads with 31% to 16% for Frost (everyone else in the low single digits with 40% undecided) for first choice. When first and second choices are combined, Dean goes up to 40% and Frost emerges with 27%. Fowler comes in at 11% with Webb and Rosenberg at 8% and Roemer at 6%.

What should we make of all this?

Roemer has no traction. Roemer polls behind most everyone. Duh... because Roemer is a DINO on key issues that define the Democratic Party. Everyone except the D.C. leadership gets that. Time for them to wake up...

I think that some people will be surprised with Frost's strong showing, but I'm not. Frost has near unanimous support of the Texas delegation, and has contacts in most every state from his days of running the DCCC. Right now, Frost appears best positioned to consolidate the vote of those looking for someone other than Howard Dean. The endorsement of former DNC Chair Bob Strauss certainly helps as well.

Howard Dean is in a strong position, but after Tim Roemer, Dean is the most polarizing candidate in the field (the poll for last choice for DNC had Roemer at 16% and Dean at 11%). Both Dean and Roemer have the largest percentage drop in support from first choice to second choice. I can easily imagine a scenario where Dean leads the first round or two of balloting, but ultimately loses as the field shrinks. Dean supporters are the loudest, but I think that many DNC members (40% of those polled, and probably an even higher percentage of those who did not respond to the Hotline survey) are holding their cards until someone else emerges.

As for the others - Fowler, Webb, Rosenberg, etc. One of them may emerge into the top tier. I think Rosenberg is best positioned to be a compromise candidate (for example, if Dean realizes that he can't win, Rosenberg could be a potential compromise candidate if Dean threw him his support). Everybody seems to like Donnie Fowler, but he's not many people's first choice. Wellington Webb may get African-American support early, but I doubt that his support will go much deeper than that. More importantly is where African-American support will go after Webb drops out. I could see it going to either Dean or Frost.

Make what you want of it all. More at MyDD.

Update: More details now at MyDD (again) and Political Wire.

DNC Pictures

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I can't believe that I have taken as long as I have to get all the pictures loaded from the DNC Atlanta meeting. If you want to page through four pages of pictures from the Sleepless Winter Book Tour, start here.

And here are some selected photos that I know you will love...

The Missing Fish

Florida Ballot Box (funny)

Dean and Georgia for Democracy

Karl-Thomas and Al Sharpton!

Karl-Thomas and Simon Rosenberg

Donnie Fowler and us bloggers

Speaking of the DNC Race...

By Byron LaMasters

Annatopia liveblogged the Blog PAC interview with Howard Dean.

Why I don't support Dean for DNC

By Byron LaMasters

I've meant to write this post for awhile now, but I wanted to wait until I could better express my thoughts. I proudly join Karl-Thomas, and probably every writer for this blog as a "Reform Democrat". I also think that I can speak with some creditability as a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party on most issues. Why have I not engaged in the general blogosphere euphoria over Howard Dean's campaign for DNC? It's really pretty simple. It's all about the record.

First, I should state my criteria for a DNC Chair. The chair must be a creditable spokesman for the Democratic Party on the core issues that define our party. That immediately eliminates Tim Roemer, who does not have creditability to be a spokesman for Democrats on the important issues of choice, a balanced budget and social security. Next, a Democratic chairman should be refom-minded. We cannot continue running elections as if it were still the twentieth century. We're in the twenty-first century. We need to throw out the consultants that suck and learn from the folks that actually win elections (and if you haven't read the Washington Monthly article yet, you should read it). A DNC Chair should understand how to use the Internet and know something about blogging. Finally, the DNC Chair should have a record of results. This final criterion is where I have a problem with Howard Dean.

It's not that I think that Howard Dean would be a bad DNC Chair. I think that he would do a good job as chair. He is clearly reform-oriented, and would probably steer the party in the right direction. Having said that, I think that we have better choices. Howard Dean brings some baggage. Ezra has more on the issue of Dean baggage that I tend to agree with. Dean has been unfairly pegged as a screaming liberal, but fair or not, that's the image that many Americans have of Howard Dean. That image is not one that I want for DNC Chair.

However, I have more substantial concerns about Howard Dean's candidacy as well. On the record of results, Howard Dean doesn't really have the profile I'm looking for. Yes, Howard Dean understands the Internet, knows how to raise money off the Internet, and has mobilized countless thousands of new people into politcs. That's great, and there are some good reasons for Dean to be DNC Chair. Kevin Drum's post outlines the best ones. But lets take a look at the results of Dean's fundraising and of the candidates which he endorsed in his "Dean's Dozens".

Dean raised tens of millions of dollars in his campaign for president, but he fell into the same consultant trap that has plauged many Democrats over the past few cycles. After New Hampshire, Dean had squandered all of his money, and had no backup plan in case he lost Iowa and New Hampshire. That's not a record of sucess.

Of the Dean's Dozen candidates, 33 won and 58 lost. Sure, that's a losing record, and I don't fault him for that. After all, whether you're a fan of Kos or not, Democrats ought to praise the Daily Kos for its work in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates for Congress, even if none of the Kos Dozen candidates won. As for Democracy for America, it's a great organization that has mobilized thousands of new people into politics and the Democratic Party, but what did Democracy for America actually do for the candidates that it endorsed? I can't speak for the entire organization, but looking at the Texas candidates endorsed by DFA - I don't really see what DFA did. DFA endorsed four Texas candidates: David Van Os for State Supreme Court, Katy Hubener for State Representative, Richard Morrison for Congress and May Walker for Harris County Constable. David Van Os never really had much of a chance, May Walker was going to win regardless, and Richard Morrison surely received a good deal of money from DFA, but he got money from many Internet sources, so big deal.

Where I really have some insight into the activities of DFA is with the Katy Hubener campaign. In a debriefing with some folks that worked for the campaign, they said that the DFA folks didn't really do too much for the campaign. DFA sent out an email endorsing Katy Hubener, but that was about it. A couple of hundred bucks came in, but that was all. That's no way to help candidates - send one email with a dozen candidates on it, asking for donations? The only way that the Katy Hubener campaign capitalized from the DFA endorsement was by looking up Texas donors to the Dean campaign and sending them a seperate fundraising letter. That raised several thousand dollars, but that was something that should have been done by DFA.

I tend to agree with Joe Trippi that there are others who better understand the climate of 21st century politics than Howard Dean. Trippi writes this in his endorsement of Simon Rosenberg:

If our party is to win in the 21st century, we have to have a strategist who knows how to practice 21st century politics. That means expanding participation, embracing technology, and building an apparatus that can counter the Republican machine. Simon Rosenberg was among the first in politics to acknowledge the power of the movement we built with Dean for America and he wasn’t afraid to speak up about how we were fundamentally changing politics. He knows that in the age of the Internet, our politics must be interactive and participatory to engage citizens. He knows the Internet is not just an ATM for candidates and parties, but a tool for bringing in millions of Americans who want to be a part of the political process. For Simon, building a new progressive politics for our time is not just lip service, it is a passion backed up by his record. I’m backing Simon for chair because I know I can work with him to help build a modern, winning Democratic party.

Simon Rosenberg and Martin Frost are my top two choices for DNC Chair. Why? Because they're the only two candidates in the race who actually have a record of success. Frost oversaw the DCCC efforts of unprecedented gains for the incumbent party in the sixth year of a presidential term. I'm a little bit biased to Frost as I'm a Democrat from Texas, and I know that Martin Frost understands first hand how important down ballot statewide and state representative races are in determining national politics. Had Democrats won the races for Comptroller and Lieutenant Governor in 1998, or had we won another state senate seat or two in 2002, re-redistring would never had happened. If the DNC had been there, things might have been different, but they weren't. Martin Frost wouldn't allow the DNC to make that mistake again. Like him or not, Martin Frost is a pit bull and a fighter. As for Simon Rosenberg - he has been an innovative leader for change in the party as Joe Trippi notes above. Read more about Simon Rosenberg - he's one of the folks that really gets it in terms of strategy and in understanding the net/grassroots.

I've been in touch with folks in both the Rosenberg and Frost campaigns, and I hope to have some more material from both campaigns in the near future. I won't be endorsing in this race, but Frost and Rosenberg are my top choices by far, because I believe that they are the candidates that have the best records of actually achieving results in the field.

Crap

By Jim Dallas

This makes me cry:

A number of other well-known and bright conservative judges, including Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit and Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, are unlikely appointees in light of their libertarian bent and occasional departures from social conservative doctrine. Indeed, it seems likely -- given the sharp and close divide in today’s political world, in which one or two votes on the Court could made a significant difference in constitutional interpretation for years to come -- that the heavily ideological Bush administration will do everything it can to ensure that its nominees are clearly and consistently conservative. At the very least, it will seek to avoid a repeat of what it views as the catastrophic Republican appointment of Souter, who lacked a conservative “paper trail” and, subsequently, addressed cases with an open mind once he got the Court.

My humble experience in reading Judge Posner's opinions is, that he has a tendency to make even natural dissenters agree with him by using sweet pragmatic reason (which is why about every other assigned reading has a footnote to the effect of, "and Judge Posner said this, and lots of people agree with him"). That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but sometimes it's the appearance that counts.

Judge Easterbrook (in Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., which I had to read for a class), at least, made me laugh.

I've heard good things about Kozinski.

Typical. We're gonna get stuck with a winger and the Supreme Court is going to drift on, bereft of any titanic legal minds, a mere pawn in the political chess between Washington extremists.

DNC Atlanta Report: Part 3 of 3

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Having finished up parts one and two from my time at the Atlanta DNC Southern Caucus meeting, now for the bit about Texas.

Of the dozen or so DNC members from Texas, it is likely that they will end up voting for Martin Frost in the early rounds, not because they may believe that he is the best candidate, but because he's a Texan, and it's just the proper thing to do. What was causing some consternation is that our State Chair, Mr. Charles Soechting, planned on introducing a resolution of support at today's State Democratic Executive Committee meeting to be voted on. The SDEC has 60 odd voting members, of which many are Dean folk that won elections for the seats at last year's State Convention.

No one likes to be railroaded into having to vote a particular way. In fact, my SDEC district representative met with 11 of the 21 county chairs in our region this weekend. I was proud enough that they had put forth a strategic planning statement and program to be submitted to the chair about how to work with counties for future success. Then I was told over the phone that the 11 County Chairs endorsed Howard Dean for National Chair and urged our SDEC rep to make that known.

This was shocking to me. Those County Chairs weren't Deaniacs or swept into office in local coups. They are hard working, older Party folk who want to win and restore the Party in the very rural areas which they represent. The fact that this crowd at the bottom of the ladder is in favor in Dean could be an indicator that there is more support out there for real reformers than we are seeing on the surface. It also jives well with ruminations that Dean is actually the fallback choice of much of the Texas delegation should Frost be knocked out.

Below are some thoughts from David H., one of Texas's DNC members whom had given me permission to share some of his relevant thoughts.

Make an effort to meet Simon Rosenberg. If there wasn't a Texan in the race, he would get my vote straight-away.

The Austin meetup went pretty well last night. Most of the people there were for Dean, of course, and I am not opposed to him, but there are and were elements who get pretty militant about Dean and his cause.

Like I say, I'm not against Dean in this. I have known Simon for ten years and after seeing his talents I think he'd make a great chair. He is part of a think-tank that is forefront on Progressive issues and his organization spent more on Hispanic targeted ads than either the Kerry campaign or the DNC, from what I understand. He gets the new activist dynamic.

And Frost, being a Texan, would mean great things for Texas and red states like it. He ran the DCCC like most people are saying they want to see the DNC run. He has a great record of working with candidates in every state - not just battleground - and candidates far down the ballot. He surrounds himself with great people.

So, Dean comes in somewhere after them for me, personally.

I think all Texans will vote for Frost as long as he is in it.

Frost as chair would probably mean more for Texas as far as money and support go (instead of it being sucked out of Texas to other states). But in this case I have to be a Democrat before a Texan, and to put 1 state ahead of the other 49 is shortsighted.

(Should there me more to report on after today's SDEC meeting, I'll be sure to file an additional Burnt Orange Report.)

DNC Atlanta Report 2 of 3

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This is the second of three posts on my experience at the DNC Southern Caucus meeting in Atlanta. The third post will be on events related specific to Texas and Texas candidates.

As far as message is concerned, it's starting to remind me of the Democratic Primary where Dean ended up defining the message and other candidates, seeing where the Party was, ended up with similar thoughts. For me, a Reform minded Deanocrat, this of course is encouraging and the question now becomes, of those pushing for reform, how much is politics and how much is sincere. For me at least, it seems if the battle is not Dean v. Anti-Dean, it's Dean v. Dean light...

That being said, I attending the Atlanta meeting with an open mind, and an intent to report on what I saw to better offer a view into a decision that isn't ours to make in this type of election.

In the order that the candidates spoke, below are my thoughts on style and my personal meetings at their separate events.

Simon Rosenberg

I attended Simon's Meet and Greet event earlier in the day, and was able to personal chat with him some about blogs, technology, and the interface of the DNC with the lower levels of the Party. The Tennessee crew came in as well and held a Q and A with him. His passion for the job was much more apparent in this meeting than in what was visible in the general meeting that C-SPAN captured. His answers were complete (if at times a bit too long) and he did focus on relating his job experience running the NDN to the DNC saying he was ready to step into the job without a learning curve.

Being one of the younger candidates, he comes off maturer than Fowler does, but this is likely due to his executive position and background. His Chair Campaign had raised about $150,000 and had recently been endorsed by CraigsList, with supposed other endorsements coming this week. He had little 'campaign material' though and mentioned at one point how he supported the invasion of Iraq. He "gets it" though on the question of reform and if were elected chair would have my support and confidence. I feel that his positive aspects were not as well conveyed to the DNC audience though in the panel Q&A, and they are the voters, not me.

Tim Roemer

Tim Roemer, as hard as he may try, sounds like the ex-Congresscritter that his is, and seems artificial. His "meet and greet" event was centered on food and Max Cleland's endorsement. He had zero campaign materials. He did the traditional "Thank you for that very good question, I appreciate your question, That is perhaps the most important question" shti