- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
"The Dean’s November" and "The House of Murtha"
Every two year, I’ve looked forward to the time coming when a Democratic victory would put an end to the endless post-election game of finger-pointing and recriminations that came after our every defeat. So, I didn’t expect to be playng the same games after we'd won an unequivocal victory. My complaint here does not apply to local finger-pointing and recriminations about the senseless loss of the opportunity to take away Serph Maltese’s State Senate seat; let’s form a firing squad in a circle and mete out justice to everyone responsible; but, on a national level, it seems a strange way to celebrate. Gingrich had “The Contract on America” (Freudian Slip intentional); Democrats take contracts out on each other. And yet, here we are. First there is the Dean v. Ford race to head the Democratic National Committee. Many have whined that Dean’s “fifty-state strategy” choked off money which would otherwise have gone to Democrats in some close Congressional races, depriving them of the funds they needed for victory. Others say the strategy was responsible for some unexpected victories. My guess is that credit for the unexpected victories goes to W. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there is nothing necessarily “left-progressive” about a “fifty-state strategy”, or “establishment neo-lib” about targeting specific races and triaging the others. Strategy and tactics are means, not ends. There is nothing wrong with “party building” per se, although a recent article in the Sunday Times Magazine pointed out that when Republicans implemented similar strategies, their field people had goals, targets and supervision, while Dean seemed more intent on throwing money at State parties (the promise to do so is exactly how he got to be elected DNC Chair in the first place). Moreover, when one undertakes to finance a “fifty-state strategy”, funding such an endeavor is made far easier when one controls Congress; hence the need for targeting races to get the job done. As such, Campaign Committee Chairs Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel’s targeting strategy made far more sense in the short term. However, now that we’ve won Congress, it’s time to implement a real fifty-state strategy with guns a blazin’. The left blogosphere has used the anti-Dean maneuvering as an occasion to complain that “their” victory is being hijacked by centrists who want to move the party to the right. Some complain about Schumer and Emanuel’s heavy-handed efforts to maneuver party nominations to candidates they deemed electable, even though such efforts also were responsible for leveraging out loose cannon Ohio eccentric Paul Hackett in favor of super-liberal Sherrod Brown. But the proof of the pudding is that less than fully liberal John Tester (who was actually the more liberal candidate in his primary), Jim Webb, Bob Casey, and Heath Shuler got elected and handed George Bush a well deserved and humiliating defeat. Some on the left would prefer calling for "The Ninotchka Strategy", which is "fewer and better Democrats". But, going to the center meant we could win, and now we get to implement our policies; more importantly, we get to stop their's. Yes, it is undeniable that most of the new Democratic members of Congress seem more conservative than either Schumer or Emanuel, to name two examples not usually considered heroes of the left. But, what should be clear to everyone is the most important thing: that the new Democratic members of Congress are far more liberal than the Republicans they've replaced. What do you think the odds are we get another Alito now? Those who don't like candidates who take conservative positions to please their constituents should tell it to NRA favorite Bernie Sanders (or, for that matter, to Dr. Dean). Personally, I prefer the Lieberman position, which is that the right to keep and bear arms has some reasonable limits. Nonetheless, I'm open to the big tent strategy. And the best of of this may be that it isn't only Jim Carville who shares my position; it's Howard Dean. Despite my criticism of Dean, it seems a silly time to open up new wounds when a show of unity would appear to be the best course of action. It seems a far better course to enact Pelosi/Reid’s 100 day program and dare Bush to use his veto pen, saving our own internal fights for later on. I am especially emphatic about this because the effort to remove Dean seems borne not so much of Rahm and Chuck, as of Bill and Hillary, for the benefit of the latter’s presidential race. And, from my vantage point as a pragmatic Clintonite/DLC, neo-lib, New Democrat, Hillary (now that Feingold has departed and Kerry self destructed) stands as the least pragmatic choice available for 2008. If propping her up is the real reason behind efforts for Dean’s removal, I’ll yell out a hog-call for Howard and the level playing field he ensures, as I prepare to support Bayh, Biden, Richardson, Obama or Gore (the next presidential nominee will pick his own DNC Chair anyway, and it won’t be Howard). But it is not only the Clintonites who bear the blame for this self-destructive infighting. Our new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has thrown herself head-first into the race for House Majority Leader, supporting John Murtha, the born-again hero of the anti-war left against her current second in command, establishment favorite Steny Hoyer. Pelosi has thus put the party into an unnecessary and embarrassing position. If Murtha loses, the Speaker will be exposed as a weakened leader before she even starts work, two outs and two strikes before the ballgame starts. It reminds me of nothing so much as Cleavon Little in “Blazing Saddles” putting the gun to his head and threatening to shoot the new sheriff (you didn’t really think I’d actually quote that line, did you?). The most galling part is that some in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the left have bought the bill of goods that this is some sort of moral crusade; Lord knows that Hoyer bears many of the hallmarks of hackery, but on any measure of hackhood, Murtha is also quite competitive, and almost certainly beats Hoyer in the categories of being investigated and condemned by the House Ethics Committee, as well as for being unindicted but co-conspiring. Electing Murtha is a great way of saying you'll be smashing the Republican institutions of corruption like "The K Street Project", and restoring the old days of "The Bi-Partisan Boodle Wagon" (which may be true, but why telegraph that punch?). But it is on ideological grounds that this scam deserves the most scrutiny. There is little evidence that, on any foreign or defense policy question outside of Iraq, Murtha is any less hawkish than the admittedly centrist Hoyer. While now and then, Murtha might make a more pronounced gesture in favor of economic populism, each of them has had their heresies in that area, and Hoyer is probably more consistently liberal. And, on most social issues, including abortion and questions of interest to the LGBT community, Murtha is decidedly conservative, while Hoyer is moderately liberal. This is actually quantifiable. In the year 2000, The Americans for Democratic Action, generally acknowledged as the best judge of such things, gave Hoyer a lifetime liberal rating of 83% and Murtha 56%. Since then, in every year, Hoyer’s beat Murtha: in 2000, 80-55; 2001, 95-65; 2002, 95-55; 2003, 90-85; 2004, 100-50; and 2005, 95-75. If Pelosi were arguing that supporting Murtha is an gesture for showing the Democrats are indeed a big tent, I might buy it. However, it will be taken as exactly the opposite: the punishment for failures to walk in ideological lockstep, which is just the wrong message to be sending now. Luckily, members of Congress see this neither as an effort at outreach or an ideological crusade, but rather as a struggle over power divorced from actual issues. Of all the fights we don’t need, this is the kind of fight we don’t need the most. Re-elect Hoyer and Dean. Agreed..
There really is no organized effort to remove Dean; Carville's outburst should be seen as an attempt to clear the field in advance of a Hillary run. As to Murtha, three words: too much baggage. Not the best choice.
reply | email this comment
Media Matters has a comparison of the Time magazine cover that ran a week after the 1994 republican victory (GOP Stampede!) with this week's Time Cover ("Why the Center is the New Place to Be") The implication is clear. Because so many of the winning democratic candidates in the high profile candidates were centerists, the media take on it is that this was less a Democratic Party victory than a mandate for centerism, neither party getting too powerful. If you read some of the right wing columnists, like George Will, Robert Novak and William F. Buckley, they go as far as to say it was a "Conservative" victory, a victory of the true conservatives over the neo-Cons. What is abundantly clear is that, in spite of Gatemouth's claims to the contrary, most of the democrats that got elected are in fact not seen by the media as far more liberal than the representatives they replaced. In some cases the democrat is actually more conservative or as conservative as the republican. In 1994 the GOP provided a clear contrast to the Democrats and won, so the media respected that and portrayed it as the victory it was. This year the Democrats won, but not by providing a clear contrast, but rather by providing a clearer view of the center. So we as democrats don't get the mandate the republicans did in 1994. In my opinion, these new democrats are not going to fall in-step behind speaker Nancy Pelosi and rubber stamp her entire commendable agenda. That didn't happen in 1992 when the Democrats had the white house AND both houses of congress and it won't happen now either, and for the same reason-- which is that within the party we are again going to have politicians all over the political spectrum, whereas the other party is going to have people who are more than ever firmly on one side. On foreign policy matters, you'll see Joe Lieberman and one or two of the other more conservative democrats vote with the GOP and probably kill bills sent over from the house or force through republican compromises. There will probably be more than a few blue dog democrats in the house, conservatives like heath shuler, who would form coalitions on domestic issues with republicans. The only way the Democratic Party can ever have a real mandate for change is if the candidates it puts up and gets elected all stand for most of the same things. Then you might have a Time magazine cover that says "Democratic Stampede" instead of one that says, "Why the Center is the New Place to Be" When the mandate of an election is "the centerists won", that can be and is being coopted by both sides. Both sides seeing they can use the results for their own purposes. The impression it gives the media is of both parties being marginalized, of the public rejecting both sides and looking for the middle. Which I don't think this election was really about. This election WAS a progressive victory, caused by turnout of the progressive vote. It is just unfortunate that not all the candidates the democrats put up were progressive enough to validate a progressive mandate. Instead we got a centerist mandate. Which doesn't necessarily do much good in the long run, because it says that in spite of democratic victories, the perception is the public doesn't see one party is better than the other. Oh and I disagree strongly that Hillary is the least pragmatic choice. Only time will tell if she is the best choice to be the party's standard bearer but she's going to be a damn good candidate. My understanding is that the centerpiece of Hillary's presidential run is going to be health care reform. Bill Clinton ran on it on 1992, and Hillary spearheaded the attempt to get it done and the republicans killed it. What was necessary then is even more necessary now. We are on the verge of a health care crisis in this country, and noone would be more credible than Hillary if she wants to use the platform of her campaign to build a mandate to finally do what she was trying to do back in 1993-1994. You get a candidate who is one of the party's most gifted campaigners, and highest profile politicians, and you combine that with a campaign with a strong central theme, and it absolutely is pragmatic. I have no idea whether I will support her in the primaries or not. I want to see what issues the other candidates are running on. But Hillary's as credible and pragmatic a candidate as any of them. If, as rumored, Hillary hires Jimmy Siegel, the guy who did Spitzer's tv ads, to do her ads in the presidential campaign, here's an example of what we might see: You can see the copy for A Siegel ad for Hillary already: (Ad shows Scenes of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, fireworks on the fourth of july, happy people on the beach, bobby thompson hitting his homerun, "the giants win the pennant!", a whole montage of great scenes in american history...PAST american history...fading into Bill Clinton voiceover:) BILL CLINTON narrating in voice-over as the montage plays: "Remember when America was great? Remember when we cared about each other and there was kindness and compassion in the world? Remember when we worked together to acheive great things? George Bush has forgotten the glory of this country and the greatness of its people. Under his administration, America has started to lose its place in the world. (shot of Bill and Hillary Clinton looking defiant and determined, holding hands) BILL CLINTON: HILLARY CLINTON: "This is my promise to the American people, if you elect me and let Bill and I return to the White House-- on DAY ONE everything...EVERYTHING changes. I am Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message!" (fade out as the tune from Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" plays)
 I like Hillary, I just don't think she's a winner; here's some musings on that and related topics: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/a_problem_of_perception.html BTW, given where Hill really stands, how come you like her so much? Or do buy into the right wing propaganda concerning her liberalism? Actually Hillary's one of the more liberal members of the Senate. Over on dailykos somewhere is a list ranking the 100 senators from most liberal to most conservative, and she's up there relatively high, along with Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold and others. The Clinton Administration (of which she was a prominent part) did a lot of really good things. Hillary's also done an excellent job as a u.s. senator for new york, it is not every incumbent who gets re-elected in new york with 67% of the vote. I also like Hillary because I met her several times and she has always been very friendly and outgoing. The first time I met her was in January 1992 up in New Hampshire, it was the runup to the primary, and the Gennifer Flowers crap had just hit the fan. It was two a.m. and she came up to a hotel bar and ordered a beer and talked politics with a bunch of us. A japanese camera crew and two american camera crews came running onto the floor and started pestering her about gennifer flowers. Really tactlessly. Its two a.m. and she just wants to chill out, and they want to grill her about her husband's alleged . But she didn't lose her cool. She just had somebody get her another beer and proceeded to have an impromptu press conference right there in this bar at two a.m. She didn't lose her cool. She was a pro. There were not a few of us back in 1992 who thought Bill Clinton was too moderate, and who only backed his campaign because of Hillary, who was much more reliably liberal. She had been an attorney on the watergate investigation after all. The mantra in the primaries was, "if you vote for one of us, you get both of us" Bill couldn't have gotten elected, or even nominated, without her. Also I would very much like to see our next president be either a woman or a minority (Obama) Does every president have to be a white southern governor? If either of them win it would be historic. By the way, I saw the real Gatemouth Brown, who died not long ago, in concert once. He was a fan of the Clintons!
If you liked the real Gate, then check out the salute to him in the FAQ section of my homepage:http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/gatemouth_en_la_casa.html Moreover, when one undertakes to finance a “fifty-state strategy”, funding such an endeavor is made far easier when one controls Congress; hence the need for targeting races to get the job done. As such, Campaign Committee Chairs’ Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel’s targeting strategy made far more sense in the short term. The argument is that targeting only relatively likely pickups is not more likely to yield as many gains in the short term as contesting many apparent long-shots. The logic is explained by academics Jonathan Krasno and Donald Green, excerpted here:
One reason why this works became clear when Mark Foley dropped out and his Democratic challenger immediately became the favorite to win: if you contest everywhere, you put yourself in position to take advantage of late windfalls anywhere they happen. Yeah, and maybe having a child molester as the name on the ballot against you helps too. I'm not sure the 50 state strategy had anything to do with the Foley seat. But, you are right that having a real candidate in the race helps. I don't think Schumer and Emanuel would disagree. And, in fact, I've been making that argument concerning the NY State Senate since sometime around March; you gotta be in it to win it! That being said, triage may seem inperfect until you consider the alternatives.
The thought experiment with fake but plausible numbers suggests that although it's counterintuitive, spreading money more thinly across a large number of long-shot races should offer better returns than concentrating it in a small number of close ones.
The 50 state strategy is really about focusing on building up a farm team holding local offices. It involves diverting money from congressional races to state legislative races, which is why the DCCC wasn't too thrilled with it. Since the Democrats won a ton of state legislative races (outside New York), it starting to work.
At any rate, you don't replace the chairman of a party that just gained over 200 legislative seats, 6 governorships, 4 or 5 Senate seats depending on whether Lieberman switches, and 32 House seats with someone who just lost his race, so the whole issue is idiotic. The Murtha-Hoyer race is a federal version of Pataki removing Ralph Marino in 1995, so I'm surprised its being misinterpreted. Pelosi just wants a majority leader that she trusts. Ideology has nothing to do with this. She either has the votes or she doesn't; if Murtha wins the main significance is that the Democratic caucus will be more cohesive than expected in 1995. And if you look at the actual biographies of the new Democratic congressmen, you will see that the idea that these are somehow conservatives is completely wrong. Sometimes the media will get people to accept something that is demonstrably (in that you can look it up) untrue just by repeating it over and over. It also misses an interesting story, in that the frehmen Republican congressmen elected really are as a group much more right-wing than usual. Actually, both of your versions of a 50 state strategy make some arguable sense, but really don't describe what Dean did. According to the Times Magazine story, Dean's version (the only one which counts) was the equivalent of revenue sharing: eliminate specific earmarks, and finance operatives for state parties to be used basically for whatever purposes they chose. The successful (and I do think they were, despite this year's results) Republican efforts at base building were much more goal directed. Dean's vision of party building sort of resembles a Reaganite vision of government. I think we do need a 50 state strategy, somewhat along the lines outlined by 628, and that now is the time to implement it. Reaportionment awaits! But, if that is the goal, why are we spending money in a one seat state like Alaska? Expand it, but revamp it in a more accountable and sensible manner.
The 50 state strategy is important because democrats increasingly can't win national elections when their voter base is isolated in specific parts of the country. In 2000, the democrats won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote because their popular vote wasn't as spread out as the gop. You've got to build the party in all these red areas of the country and, once the party is built locally and regionally, some of those states will turn blue. Then you can win the electoral college with a mandate.
Will you look into this? There's a whole thread about it on Topix. You can google it,too.
neap4k Say, you got a nice article.Thanks Again. Really Great.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg