Daily Kos

View Story | 185 comments

  •  I did say those things ... (none / 1)

    ... by the very name I chose for participation here, Roosevelt Democrat (as opposed to Dean Democrat or Biden Democrat or Clinton Democrat or ...) but I don't see those things that were the bedrock of the New Deal and the Democratic Party for decades as being very important to today's Democratic Party. We have lost the connection with our roots, and we have lost the confidence of the American people along the way. Nothing would make me happier than to see us return to an updated New Deal/Arsenal of Democracy identity with the sense of justice and equality demanded by the New Frontier. I'll admit to living in our Democratic past, but it looks a lot better than what I have seen in the past 25 years masquerading as Democratic under the banner of the Democratic Party.

    by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:02:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Finally, you make your point well (none / 1)

      I agree with you that returning to the social safety net and promoting populist, FDR economic programs would serve the democratic party well.

      Individual candidates may be one way to carry these ideas forward, and we have many (at least some) candidates who are already doing this. But, a one-at-a-time, individual candidate strategy is a weakness. We need a national program, i.e. a party platform, agreements on goals and good marketing.

      I don't think Dean is your enemy.

      If he doesn't meet your ideals on one or another issue, then I support you in pushing on the donkey, so to speak. However, the Dean program, the reason he was selected for national party chair, was to revitalize the democratic party with new funding ideas, provide training the state & local party activists, new strategies  for the internet, new marketing mechanisms, new passion and enthusiasm.

      He was chosen because his campaign did a good job of implementing these structural ideas.

      For you to get what you want, let's say a stronger focus on traditional democratic issues, you should want Dean to succeed. If you don't want him to succeed, then I suggest you are proposing things that weaken the democratic party.

      by MetaData on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:38:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dean is doing a good job ... (none / 0)

        ... on structural matters, so everyone says, and I accept that analysis, at least until we see the results of the 2006 election. The problem is that he is also perceived as "head of the party" by much of the non-attuned public, and he often is the spokesperson for the party and therein lies the problem. Perhaps we need to have a new structure within DNC, a policy chair and committee. The DNC organizational chair (Dean) could continue to pursue structural matters and fundraising, but would have no policy responsibilities or authority whatsoever. The Democratic policy committee, and the policy chair (who could not be DNC organizational chair) and the policy subcommittees, would be responsible for putting forth the official Democratic Party policy positions. This would give us the unified voice we need, imo.

        by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:58:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Am I missing something? (none / 0)

          What, exactly, were Terry McAuliffe's stellar defense credentials that kept your cash rolling into DNC coffers?

          Upthread, you said you stopped giving to the DNC when Dean became the chairman because he had poor defense credentials (among other things). I'm just curious, what so impressed you about McAuliff's warrior cred.?

          While we're on that, what are Ken Mehlman's defense qualifications? Does the republican party suddenly look weak on defense to you because Mehlman speaks for his party? Do republicans look weak on defense to you at all? They should, of course, because they're wrong about all things defense related. Whereas the chair of your party got quite a few things right - Iraq War: an unnecessary mistake, has not made the US safer.

          Meanwhile keeps singing incoherent praises for the RNC about a completely failed and utterly wrongheaded policy of invading Iraq.  But you've got a problem with Dean...

          Sounding more and more like Bull-Moose to me.

          Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

          by Kimberley on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 03:53:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You mix a lot of things that ... (none / 0)

            ... really don't go together. What has Terry MacAuliffe got to do with anything? We are talking about the DNC with Dean as head, at least I am. The only way I could protest his selection was to stop giving my money, since the votes of the Democratic grassroots in the primaries overwhelmingly rejecting Dean had little effect on the party apparachiks who selected the DNC chair. I did not like Dean's style of campaigning and I didn't want him speaking for the party. As for Dean being "right on Iraq," so were millions of other people, including me. That, by itself, is not a qualification to be an expert spokesperson on national security and defense and military matters. Even Dean had the good sense to say that his lack of experience on those issues was a hole in his resume. As for Mehlman and the RNC, the Republicans already have the public's trust, whether or not they deserve it. We Democrats are the ones who have to work harder to get that trust, in case you haven't noticed, and I didn't think Dean's appointment as DNC chair helped in that regard. The reception that John Murtha got shows that I was right. If we had had a credible critic of Iraq as DNC chair early on, we could have been scoring points against the Bushcos and built on the momentum started by Wes Clark and continued by John Kerry in 2004 that began to turn the image of the Democratic Party from one of weakness to one of strength.

            by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 04:30:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm (none / 0)

              "What has Terry MacAuliffe got to do with anything?"

              I thought I made it abundantly clear:

              What, exactly, were Terry McAuliffe's stellar defense credentials that kept your cash rolling into DNC coffers?

              Upthread, you said you stopped giving to the DNC when Dean became the chairman because he had poor defense credentials (among other things). I'm just curious, what so impressed you about McAuliff's warrior cred.?

              You implied that the chair of the DNC had sufficient defense credentials until Dean was elected chairman:

              That's why I stopped giving to DNC, because he was chosen as Chair. I didn't like the fact that some party apparachiks chose someone who had no national security and defense credentials to be party spokesperson at a time when the number one issue and weakness of the Bush administration was and is Iraq.

              Now you say you've stopped donating to the DNC in part because of Dean's lack of defense and national security credentials (neither of which McAuliff had, that I'm aware of) thus my asking you if you knew something about McAuliff's warrior credentials that I don't know.

              Furthermore, you are effectively punishing the DNC for electing as chairman one of the few men with balls enough to call the invasion of Iraq an unnecessary war and a diversion from the real war on terrorism, that has not enhanced America's national security - all of which is manifestly true.

              And, last but not least, you admit that the voice of a party has no tangible impact on the public's perception of a party's ability to defend the country. (Neither, it seems, does one's voting record - but that's fodder for another discussion.)

              I was just trying to figure out how all of those notions lead you to the conclusion that Dean is an inappropriate choice for chairman, so bad, in fact, that it warrants a cessation of financial support to the DNC from you.

              I suspect you wanted a bellicose, jingo spewing chairman, because that's about the only way to swiftly trounce republicans at their own foul and disastrous game here. I'm damned glad that the DNC didn't oblige.

              Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

              by Kimberley on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:38:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Dean vs Reid et al (none / 0)

            I agree.  Dean is doing his job. Contributions are up, I understand.  And the money is building local infrastructure (I understand from what I read here).

            My question is, "Is Harry doing his?"  

            When the Democratic Senators voice 44 different opinions on every bill, is Harry doing his job?  When Feinstein has to be turned on the Alito filibuster, is Harry doing his job?  When Kerry has to lead the filibuster (from Europe) is Harry doing his job?

            The voters are angry. (Thank you Al Rogers)  If we want to have a voice in how this country is run in 07 and beyond, we need to shed ourselves of milk toast, middle of the road, bean counting, flip-floppers and offer real change.

            The trouble is, except for Dean, the milk toast, middle of the road, flip-floppers are in charge of the party.  Ridding ourselves of Leiberman and Cuellar is a start.  I'm afraid we have a lot more house cleaning to do.

            Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool all most of the people some of the time, and 30% 24% all the time...."

            by Helpless on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 11:31:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Cross Purposes? (none / 0)

        I think you and RD may be at cross purposes. He doesn't seem to be talking about social programs, but rather centering on "national security" and "defense"--perhaps meaning a focus on producing munitions and weapons, as the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson espoused.

        What you see is what you get, but what you don't see is what ends up getting you.

        by Existentialist on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 04:38:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 185 comments