« NM Recount Goes Back to Court | Main | NM Phantom Vote Problems Make Buzzflash »
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Two Opinions on Dean's Chances to Chair DNC
The recent push by Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid to insert ex-Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer into the race to chair the DNC has resulted in very negative responses in the blogosphere. Roemer is strongly anti-choice on women's reproductive rights and trends to the right on many issues. Just what we need: anti-choice Reid leading the Dems in the Senate and anti-choice Roemer leading the Party.
Steve Gilliard has a scathing post on his News Blog about all this. It's well worth a read, Here are a couple of excerpts:
What everyone in DC is fearing, but what is increasing clear, is that it's Howard Dean's job to lose. If there was a vote, he'd win in a landslide. DFA and other groups are already praising his name to the skies. Simon Rosenberg is probably the compromise candidate, but either way, Dean brings cards unheard of into the DNC chair debate, namely massive popular support. Now, the Dems can ignore him or shove him aside, but they risk triggering a real civil war. They still want to have business as usual when it is clear that will no longer suffice.
[. . .]
The threat I would take seriously is the threat to withhold funds. The DNC was able to raise money in the streets, unprecidented. If they push a loser like Roemer, someone who's also pro-gutting Social Security, as head of the party, then why would I or anyone else raise a dime for them? What would they stand for?
Jerome Armstrong of MyDD responds to Gilliard with this:
Everyone I talk to inside the DNC understands the value of Dean as DNC Chair. The DNC works, it works well, and it can work even better. If we took a vote of those working inside the DNC, Howard Dean would win the Chair hands down, on the first vote. So, this isn't a problem of the DNC as an organization not wanting Dean, it's the Democratic Party's current leadership that doesn't want change.
Regardless, I think this is Dean's to win if he is willing to force it to a vote, because enough DNC Members are not party to the disconnect happening with our leadership. Pelosi and Reid do not have a veto vote for the DNC Chair. If anything, for the DNC Members to vote in defiance of their wishes, would show a vote of "No Confidence" in the Democratic leadership in Congress.
I do believe that we the people bought this party, and that we own it; but that doesn't mean we get to run it. To do that, we've got to win it over. And I believe that will happen in February, but if it doesn't, it's a public vote, and accountability at the state level will begin. Regardless of what Pelosi or Reid or the ASDC or the DGA desire, the Democratic Party is going to be radically reformed to represent the people- from the bottom clear to the top.
What do you think?
December 29, 2004 at 10:51 AM in Democratic Party | Permalink
Comments
I think Jerome's right. The DNC is not a monolithic organization, and not as conservative--or even as moderate--as most of us on the outside/left believe. Most of the delegates to the convention, for example, were from the liberal wing of the party. Roemer is an outlier. He did a good job on the 9/11 Commission, and this is seen as some kind of reward for his increased profile. A better job would be Chief of Homeland Security. Wish Bush would look to Democrats that don't currently hold Senate seats.
That said, I'm not sure the job of DNC chair is the best choice for Gov. Dean. I'd hate to lose him as a candidate, plus he seems to have a polarizing effect on people (mostly due to media mischaracterization). Simon Rosenberg is an interesting possibility, though.
Posted by: Kathya | Dec 30, 2004 2:38:11 AM
The problem is that if the leadership of the DNC isn't changed, there is no way in hell that Dean will ever be its presidential candidate. And the only one who has the grassroots power to change the DNC is Dean in my opinion.
There IS a big difference between rank and file Dems and insider DC Dems, with the insiders seemingly having an endless wish for destruction of the Party by turning it into Republican-lite.
We should remember that Dean headed the Democratic Governor's Association and was quite successful in gaining consensus there. In no way was he a polarizing figure.
Posted by: Linda M. | Dec 30, 2004 11:10:56 AM
I personally don't know any insiders who want to destroy the party. If anyone does, they should out them right here and now.
I've actually been thinking Gov. Dean would make a good choice for DNC chair. Since he's the most willing to speak out against the administration, maybe a formal position for him would be the best avenue for dissent on the part of Democrats.
Regardless, the "us" vs. "them" attitude I've been hearing, pertaining to the perceived insider/outsider status, is detrimental. There are differences of opinion, and bad apples just as in any organization, but I don't see any fundamental difference between the two camps. We all want the Democratic party to win.
Posted by: Kathya | Dec 30, 2004 12:47:31 PM
Think back to the primaries. Who in the party was so anxious to get Dean out of the race? Who put up the money to destroy him in Iowa? Was it the DLC or Kerry or all the above? Kerry is also anti-Dean for DNC chair. Why are they all so afraid of the Gov? Does Washington make everyone so jaded that they lose their ability to be honest and open? It would be good to understand better what the inside politics are vis a vis this man. Jeanne
Posted by: jeanne carritt | Dec 30, 2004 10:33:46 PM
I can name at least two people who are detrimental to the Party: Al From and Bruce Reed of the DLC. The DLC bunch seems more interested in preserving their own perches of power than in serving the people. The DLC branch of the Party is even too set in their ways and Republican-lite for Simon Rosenberg, who left them in disgust to creat the New Democrat Network. From has had nothing but meanspirited, dismissive things to say about Dean and about progressives in general since the primary season. He's still at it now.
There is an entrenched bunch of "consultants" and insiders in DC that want to keep the Democratic Party at the national level just as it is, because they have power and make lots of money from it. If anything, they and their political candidates want to push the Party even farther to the right and into the hands of the corporations than it is today. Despite the fact that this bunch has been responsible for the loss of both houses of Congress and two presidential race losses, they insist their way is the only way.
We now have a faction emerging from the DLC called The Third Way, with members like Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh, who have said publicly that the Party shouldn't continue supporting the gains we made with Roosevelt's and Lyndon Johnson's. What should we support, according to them? The privatization of Social Security, greater restrictions on women's reproductive health and other Republican views.
It's nice to think that the members of the Dem Party are all on the same side, but as with any organization of long standing, there are various factions fighting for control. Unless we recognize that and push strongly for reform in the Party to oust the forces of Republican-lite, the Democratic Party isn't likely to survive. A Party cannot continue in strength if it allows forces who oppose almost every position of the base to continue to control it.
Posted by: barb | Dec 31, 2004 9:52:55 AM
The thing is, they're probably saying the same thing about us. That WE, on the left, are responsible for losing elections by dragging the party to the left. I think we have to get over the left/right way of looking at things, when there really is no such thing. And, remember, if a few thousand votes in Ohio had been different, we'd all be singing a different tune today. Getting ready for the inaugural balls, most likely.
And I'm not so sure ANYone controls the Democratic party. There's a saying about herding cats that seems applicable. (Nationally, I mean. Localities, in all 50 states, certainly have their own political bosses. Ahem. I think we all know a few of those!)
Posted by: Kathy | Dec 31, 2004 11:57:05 AM
