My impression is that all the beltway insiders are ABD for the DNC.

[RandomKoolzip]

Am I right about this? I hadn't heard of this Rosenberg guy until Chris Heinz's thread the other day. All of a sudden, he's got a small handful of endorsements.

I like Dean (not a worshipper, but a big fan), and I'd like to see him as DNC chair, but it seems like the base and the elected body are aat odds. What's the deal here?



PS, I'd like to be able to do more research about this myself, but I work a lot. If someone could boil this issue down for me, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

[roenyc]

1. Whats ABD nt

[mazzarro]

2. Anyone But Dean

eom

[roenyc]

3. thank you! nt

[sherilocks]

4. I don't know enough to boil it down for you

but you've hit the nail on the head. Many Democratic DC insiders, in their lack of infinite wisdom, have decided that Dean is not one of them. If the insiders won elections in swing states, I might defer to their wisdom. But, much to my regret, they don't.

[renaissanceguy]

9. It's the insiders that chose Kerry

and ruined Dean's candidacy. Now we're seeing that Dean was right all along, and would've defended himself a lot better.
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16472020

[rucky]

14. The insiders are mainly concerned with keeping their jobs

and what would threaten their cushy position more than a Populist challenger? As long as there are no other alternatives, they can count on their base to keep them in power.

So they are very wise: wise to the fact that a Populist in charge will hold them accountable.

[BornaDem]

23. The power brokers who have been in charge...

are used to doling out the jobs to their people and to manipulating the base to elect the people they want. Dean presents a challenge to them because they know he will sweep clean the apparatus the power brokers have had in place for years and the next candidate for president will be chosen by the base, not by them. If he wins, chances are they will have no place in the government unless there is some deal made with the people Dean puts in place.

In other words, the next candidate will not be somebody that we have to hold our noses to vote for.

[gottaB]

5. It seems like a lot of them are

But how many is that? The 50 at-large members, were they all appointed by McCauliffe? Are they all opposed to Dean? I would suspect some are not.

In fairness, I'm sure many in that crowd genuinely prefer other candidates, and Simon Rosenberg is a good candidate. You saw the link to the Kos threads in Chris Heinz's thread? The Kossacks scrutinized him pretty well. His strengths are real, and I don't think his flaws would disqualify him in many people's minds. Even though I disagree with him on a few key stances, he would be my second choice after Dean.

If I were to speculate wildly about what is happening, I'd say that many DLC types are realizing that the jig is up, and they're starting to line up behind Rosenberg, a move they would have taken months ago if they had an ounce of horse sense to spread between them. Handwringing, footstomping, frothing at the mouth and other histrionics are to be expected.

I think Dean will have an advantage among the state delegates, and that he can win despite opposition from a cadre of beltway insiders.

[divineorder]

6. That's why I think Dean would win.

The DLC has never shown much interest in state and local politics, at least not in any significant ways. Many local parties are underfunded and understaffed and have been since at least the 70's. I read somewhere during the primaries that Deaniacs in Texas found several precinct and delegate positions that were literally abandoned due to lack of officers to hold them. They took them over quickly and used them to get results in local elections.

Indeed, this was local parties complaint about McAuliffe-that the DNC was too Washington-centered to care about local issues. And despite this complaint, what do the Washington insiders do? Complain about the local parties complaining and insist that they do it all alone with no real financial or other help from D.C. And who are they wining and dining? Not the local and state party reps who are the majority, but corporate insiders. But corporate insiders don't vote, party reps do.


Dean people before and after the primary volunteered with or without DFA help with local parties. A lot of Dean people have run for local Party positions and now sit on local party positions. Dean helped a lot of locals get elected or at least competitive through funding or volunteers, and promises even more of the same.

And Dean's funding priorities will not only go to local places, but he promises a 50-state gathering of local leaders. Since when have local leaders ever have been asked to frame the party platform or values before? Never.....


Dean on the first ballot....

[gottaB]

7. and why he should n/t

[divineorder]

8. And why he will

Even in DLC desperation, they never seem to talk about rejuvenating the local parties at all to be competitive. They just don't want to have too many 'activists' in the party at all. But how will they get votes without die-hard Dems to do it doesn't ever seem to occur to them. Those beloved "swing voters" won't walk precincts or absorb themselves in the finer points of party organization, register voters, or cajole people into giving money for local races. And mid-term races more likely revolve around the votes of the party faithful rather than swing voters who don't usually pay attention until a Presidential election year.

They think that if they keep bitch-slapping left-leaning voters, then those voters will still vote Dem no matter what,but that somehow their beloved "centrist" voters will make of the difference. Bad even in chess theory. In chess and in the military, you start off with a base and then pick up those pieces that you can get from the other side, not start by letting the other side get your pieces.

Also, without a strong ground game, there is no way to deliver states according to the way the current Presidential game works. And without strong local parties and strong habits of voting. little chance of loyal and consistent support either.

[FightinNewDem]

10. DLC and Local Politics

"The DLC has never shown much interest in state and local politics, at least not in any significant ways"...

This is flat-out wrong. Over the last several years, the DLC has actually focused most of its work on the state and local level. It has compiled the "State and Local Playbook", a book of suggested legislation and policy initiatives; has conducted messaging workshops for state and local officials; has emphasized the role of New Dem governors such as Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano and Mark Warner; has run policy workshops on state and local issues at its annual conference; and has released a list of 100 state and local officials who have the potential to emerge as the governors and members of congress of the next decade.

[Ken Burch]

11. If that is wrong, it is partly due to the impression the DLC gives

that all they care about is electing a very conservative Democratic President(to the right of Clinton if that is actually possible without changing your voter registration)to genteely negotiate with (and usually surrender to the will of) a Republican Congress that the DLC has no interest in dislodging.

Can you show us that THAT impression is wrong, Fighting New Dem?

[paulk]

19. that's the impression you get if you only get your DLC info from DU

you might get another impression from their website.

I pay a lot of attention to local politics and the DLC had been very active in local politics where I am. They had a big hand in taking back the Statehouse here in Colorado...

[RandomKoolzip]

12. Yeah, but by and large, these "New Dems" resemble "Old Repubs."

Basically, what you're saying is that at the local level, the DLC has been just as destructive as they've been at the national level.

This is why a reformer like Dean is needed as the national head of this organization. Is this "newDem" strategy working? We don't need to run more workshops showing city councilmen and mayors to act more like republicans, we ned for them to show that there's a difference between the two parties. I've rarely heard a good word said about any of the three politicians you mentioned (except Warner, but even he seems too damn center-right to me)

[Eloriel]

16. I got a question for ya

How is it that you're so very well-informed about the DLC? Do you have an official position with them -- on staff or as a consultant? Unofficial (as in volunteer)?

C'mon, inquiring minds want to know. What's your linkage with them.

[dansolo]

20. More money for the states means less for them (n/t)

[Dr Fate]

13. So are the DEM "strategists" who lost the last 3 elction cycles.

And so are the Republicans/media.

Damn, he MUST be the right choice then.

[Eloriel]

15. Zoe Lofgren and John Conyers endorsed Dean for DNC chair

And maybe others I don't know about.

So it's not quite true that ALL of Washington is ABD. Howqever, a week ago Dean himself told a group of Atlantans that he was getting a "good reception" from people outside Washington, but that people inside Washington were resistant to change. They want to protect their place and knowing what their place is.

[RandomKoolzip]

17. That's proof, as if any were needed....

Of how much of a threat to the established order Dean represents (this is a good thing).

And I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but after Ohio, I'm afraid Conyers will get painted as a conspiracy theorist by the MSM....that is, if anyone pays any attention to him at all.

[H2O Man]

18. On "authority" within systems:

You raise an important point. I suggest that we step back, and remove the personalities for a moment, and simply look at systems. The question of DNC Chair is, of course, simply one of who will have the "authority" (which translates to "power") in the DNC System.

There are three types of authority in systems. The first is known as hereditary authority. It comes from families, extended families, clans, and tribal systems. "I do this, because my father did it." "This is the way of my ancestors." Hereditary authority is what we think of in rural America, on Indian territories, and in many Third World countries. It is also the authority of the Islamic world, with a few exceptions.

The second type is bureaucratic authority. A bureaucracy is simply a system set up to deal with the largest number of people in the simplest way. Think of a Department of Social Services, or the Department of Motor Vehicles. As long as you have the usual needs that can be handled by route (do A, then B, and you get C) everything is okay. Have a "special need," and bureaucracy will not give you a warm welcome.

Bureaucrats want to remain entrenched, with little or no change within the comfort of their system. The only change they generally want is increased pay for decreased production.

Bureaucracy does not respect hereditary authority. Its message is "if you do not do A, I can do B, and you will never get to C unless I okay it."

The third type of authority is charismatic. The word comes from a Greek root, used in the New Testament to indicate a person was moved by the "holy spirit." In our culture, we think of leaders with charismatic authority in a similar way. Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, to honor a charismatic leader.

Hereditary systems tend to react favorably to charismatic leaders. In a situation such as a Social Services agency, if they have to deal with a particularly "stubborn" family that has a traditional hereditary authority-based system, will send the most charismatic employee to deal with them.

Bureaucratic systems only put up with charismatic authority to the extent that they can absorb the individual, by compromising his/her principles. If JFK had been willing to invade Cuba and increase the troops in Vietnam in 1964, he would not have been killed. If King would have accepted a high salary and ignored the needs of the masses, he would have been put into an administration.

When a bureaucratic system is threatened by a charismatic authority, they kill it. In every case, as a rule, the charismatic leader is replaced by an aide who had bureaucratic skills.

Now, why would the DNC prefer Rosenburg to Dean?

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Great post!

And even if Dean doesn't get the post, at least he will have shaken things up, and god knows it's overdue.

[CWebster]

21. You said it:

"the base and the elected body are at odds"

As long as we are kept out of the debate, but left with the "lesser than" choice, there is no reason to include the base in the equation.

Under Dean, chances are greater the funds will flow upward, along with the message, rather than the base being dictated to along with the demand of allegiance - while still remaining unrepresented or represented with a losing and equivocating message - if any.


Dean is the best bet to force the hand of necessary change at least, to get the party back on message.