« Caroling: Not Ready for Prime Time! | Main | DFA Donates 200,000 LD Phone Minutes to Vets »
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Richardson Wants "Moderate" to Chair DNC
According to a story in today's Albuquerque Journal, NM Governor Richardson wants a "moderate" to chair the Democratic National Committee. He said he will join with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in endorsing a candidate prior to the DNC meeting on February 10-12, when a new chair will be elected. Richardson was recently elected to head the Democratic Governor's Association, and is viewed by some as a top Party leader.
The article reports that Richardson believes the next DNC chairman shouldn't be a high-profile liberal or someone with strong ties to Washington, and that his preference is for "an outside-the-Beltway moderate."
My suggestion? Why not just elect a Republican and jettison all our Democratic values and positions in favor of cowardly conformity to Republican views? Why go with a Republican-lite DNC chair when you can have the real thing?
Richardson has already jeopardized support for the Democratic Party here in NM with his arrogant and self-serving handling of the Green and Libertarian push for a presidential vote recount. If his attempt to box out progressives from the DNC chairmanship succeeds, I predict it will hasten the flight of large numbers of liberals (dare I type the word) from the Democratic Party.
The selection of a "moderate" -- read timid and spineless -- DNC chair would underline the inability of insider Dems to understand and unite with the increasingly powerful progressive grassroots. Despite progressives' donations of millions of dollars and millions of hours of volunteer work, it's evident we're still viewed as an annoyance and embarrassment by the powers that be. Isn't it time for the Party to take a strong stand in favor of the rights of the people over the profits of corporate conglomerates? Not if Richardson has his way.
It never ceases to amaze me that the Party honchos, whose wishy-washy, weak-kneed approach to Democratic values has resulted only in losses in the presidential race and the loss of Congress to Republicans, have the nerve to claim we must continue hitting our heads against the wall their way in order to win. Talk about a thoroughly discredited strategy. Maybe it really is time for the Democratic Party to go the way of the Whigs. And I say that as a lifelong registered Democrat.
December 22, 2004 at 10:47 AM in Democratic Party | Permalink
Comments
If they go down this road, they make themselves irrelevant. The difficulty, in my own mind, is the distinction between local Dems and the national party. The party at the county level in Santa Fe, for all its organizational flaws, is fairly liberal, from what I can see from the outside. But a local or state party which gets no support from the national party is basically merely a local party.
MoveOn, PDA, DFA, and other organizations need to draw up a plumb line list of bedrock values which we ask the new DNC chair to support, with the understanding that, if s/he does not support, them, not just in word but in policy, we are leaving and will not support Democratic candidates who do not support those values.
Clearly the party simply doesn't understand that it is on life support. It's like Neo in The Matrix *before* he took the pill and woke up. I may be getting Green here, but I'm thinking that this was the last time I want to vote for someone who fails to return fire, stand up for what he believes, and marches forward to lead us out of the pit we're in. It could be that the only way to be rid of the Democratic Party as it is is to bury it ourselves so something new can arise. And there is the rub: we risk handing the country over to the party that is betraying its own history (they once challenged an election because too many African Americans were disenfranchised - the Rutherford B Hayes election) and our constitution and "our own better angels." But I think we have to take the long view, be locally active, stop depending on party wonks in national HQ to do our bidding, and lay the groundwork for a relevant, visionary, bold, and constitutional party.
Richardson and the DNC are making clear that the MoveOn consensus was right on: we need to articulate a clear, progressive message. And then we need to build a party around it.
Who wants to go first?
Posted by: John McAndrew | Dec 22, 2004 2:34:56 PM
I think Bill Richardson has his eye on the presidential ticket and means himself or one of his pals when he refers to an "out of the beltway moderate". Of course, we need liberals to lead the Democratic Party. Why is that considered a derogatory term? It's the liberals who truly stand up for the moral values of caring for the poor, the hard-working, the disadvantaged and /or the disenfranchised!! The Democratic Party does have to articulate that focus loud and clear...
Posted by: lorenna | Dec 23, 2004 12:44:43 AM
