Piling on Frost

Holy shit. Look what Annatopia found: a news report from Dalla's Channel 11 (CBS affiliate), in Windows Media Player format.

You have to see it to believe it. The short version? Frost is trying to hide the fact he's a Democrat.

One Frost ad featured in the news piece:

Who backed President Bush?

Kay Hutchinson and Martin Frost.

Speaker Hastert and Martin Frost.

John McCain and Martin Frost.

And this guy wants to run the Democratic Party?

To be clear, I don't care what Democrats might have to say to get elected in deep red districts. But if you spend a year distancing yourself from the Democratic Party and sucking up to Bush, Hastert and Hutchinson, then you have no business trying to run the Democratic Party.

I don't care if someone is a moderate, liberal or conservative Democrat. You could be any of those things and still be a partisan Democrat.

The DNC chairmanship is a partisan position. As such, Martin Frost is grossly unqualified for the position.

•  Hostile takeover bid? n/t

  by Em on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:22:47 PM PDT

  •  yes - very good point.

    the first story board really bothered me.

    by Tom Kertes on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:24:05 PM PDT

    •  Dean should hire Frost

      to help his candidacy.  What a stroke of luck.

      From a biz book a few years ago ("co-opetition"), a buyer can be helped by the emergence of an additional seller who helps drive down the price at the buyer's ideal seller.

      In politics, a candidate can be helped by the emergence or promotion of a second candidate who reminds voters of everything the first candidate is not.

      Precedent? Kerry vs. Dean.

      Now we have: Dean vs. Frost.

      by dotpeople on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:54:57 PM PDT

      •  Democrats rejected Dean months ago

        We had caususes and primaries remember? Dean was beaten by more moderate candidates. Frost is a moderate. Just like Clinton. Don't tell me he's not partisan either.

        by mongoosejuice2004 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:24:53 PM PDT

        •  Not Really

          First, Dean was running for the Presidential nomination, not DNC Chair.

          Secondly, with the singular exception of the War (on which most Democrats agreed more with Dean than with Kerry), Kerry is actually a little to Dean's left on most issues.

          The Dean vs. Kerry matchup was not about liberal/progressive vs. moderate.  It was about a) candidates with two very different political styles, b) two very different campaigns, and c) political newcomers vs. the old guard.

          Oh yes...the race was also essentially decided by people in two states: IA and NH, so this hardly says much about what Democrats on the whole think now about the DNC Chair (which is also not selected by Democrats as a whole, but rather by the DNC, who I believe are all superdelegates, but who don't have much effect on the dynamic of the primary race).

          Full disclosure: I am not, nor was I ever, a Deaniac.  I do think he makes a lot of sense as chair of the Democratic Party (though you're welcome to take the opinion of a Green with a grain of salt).

          by GreenSooner on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:36:03 PM PDT

        •  Dean's fall

          was Kerry's rise.

          It would be helpful to Dean if someone (say Frost) were to enter loudly then fall loudly.

          by dotpeople on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:53:49 PM PDT

        •  Anyone

          who uses Bush in an ad is NO moderate

          by SanJoseLady on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:12:09 PM PDT

          •  Agreed

            and one might say, Jesus Fucking Christ.  I picked this decade to become politically active?

            by moltar on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:21:34 PM PDT

            •  I feel your

              pain....

              Jesus Fucking Christ...my boys had to turn 18 during this decade.

              by Momagainstthedraft on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:51:48 PM PDT

        •  All of us know Dean was

          done in by the media & "democratic" leadership.

          I have never understood this "Anti War"="Left Wing".

          For eg. take this NYT piece.

          To some extent, that accounts for the uneasiness among many Democrats about Dr. Dean, who is so closely identified with the party's antiwar left.

          For a long time 50% of the people have been anti-war. So do 50% of people make up "Left wing democratic party" ? What is the media "elite" smoking ?

          Ofcourse Dean saw the writing on the wall long before less informed people did ... so from when is that supposed to be a BAD thing ?

          Everytime Dean runs for anything, you can bet on the fact that media is going to drum up his supposed non-mainstream "left wing" ideology, endlessly.

          by nataraj on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:52:53 PM PDT

          •  Frost-BITES

            
            At least that's what I think about his support for Bush. Go DEAN!

            by ContrarianAlexis on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:04:04 AM PDT

  •  How Will Frost Respond?

    Even more critically, how can he respond to this?  I agree that there should be no restriction on candidates for the Chair based on where the individual falls on the political spectrum, provided that they are intensely partisan.  Frost cannot now claim to meet that criteria.  It will be interesting to see whether he's willing to address this head on.

    As partisans on this partisan site, we must do whatever we can to make sure that word of this gets around to every DNC member, along with the question, "If Martin Frost is so proud of his record of backing George W. Bush, why is he seeking to be the head of our party in opposition?"  If enough voting members start asking that of themselves, perhaps they'll decide on someone who'll help define the party by what we actually stand for, instead of whom we choose to stand with.

    by The Maven on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:39:35 PM PDT

    •  Anyone who runs from the party of Roosevelt

      ...does not deserve to be chair of the DNC. I don't care what district you come from, there is nothing shameful about being a Democrat. Invoke Kennedy, Roosevelt, Jefferson if you have to. You don't have to run ads with Hillary Clinton in them. But for goodness sakes, these ads are disgusting.

      Anyone who isn't proud to be a Democrat should not be running for chair of the DNC. Can you imagine a Republican who rans ads touting his loyalty to Clinton winning chairmanship of the RNC?

      by existenz on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:44:03 PM PDT

  •  Hostile takeover

    Yes, defintely, a Wolf  in Sheep's clothing.

    You Bushco. is co-opting us from the outside and now from the inside.

    If Dean is not Head of the DNC then defect and fast.

    by Braindead on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:40:15 PM PDT

•  Frist?

  No...don't troll-rate me...maybe this guy is really Martin Frist, some kind of separated-at-birth brother of the kitty-hating doc.  Just trying to figure some sort of explanation here.

  by Categorically Imperative on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:26:10 PM PDT

•  This gets back to the heart of

  the matter that I really pushed before.  Partisan means something.  I am progressive.  I was a partisan Green.  Now I am not.  There are Greens who said point blank: If you support Kerry you cannot be a Green.  I understood this position.  There is a place for party loyalty.  Yes, a range within the party - especially when there are only 2 main parties - will exist.

  I am not yet a Democratic partisan - and so I should not be made the DNC Chair (or precint captain).  I am on the fence, thinking it over.  Frost and I should both be excluded from partisan posts.

  by Tom Kertes on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:27:22 PM PDT

  •  that's a nice way

    to look at it.  something i can agree with without making someone pay a price for running the best campaign they could in re-districted texas.

    do we really need to "pile on" to prove dean is best for the job?

    i don't think so.

    by BiminiCat on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:31:45 PM PDT

    •  i agree with that

      Does Kos have a point, or is he just wanking because he can't come up with anything substantive to write?  Is Frost even in the top 3 candidates?  Is there any real chance that he'll win?  Roemer has a better chance than he does of winning, so there's no need to bring out the full-vitriol negative attacks to keep him out of a job he's not going to get anyway.

      I'd rather see some posts on why Dean would be a good chair, rather than constant redundant posts about why Frost wouldn't be, where the reasons for why he wouldn't be are the same each time (previous post: he'd be a bad choice because he ran campaign ads distancing himself from the Democrats and touting his support for Bush; this post: he'd be a bad choice because he ran campaign ads distancing himself from the Democrats and touting his support for Bush).

      by Delirium on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:56:53 PM PDT

      •  With the implosion of Tim Roemer

        Martin Frost has been mentioned more and more in connection with Dean and the DNC race.  People are starting to fall in behind Frost as the anti-Dean.  That is why he is being looked at and scrutinized at this moment.  This was inevitable.  It was Frost who decided to run for DNC chair after airing an ad like that.  The two are just mutually incompatible.

        by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:04:11 PM PDT

        •  but what's new here?

          How's this worse than the previously-cited Frost ad?  The only major difference I can see is the appearance of McCain, which isn't much of a sin, given how supportive people around here were of the idea of Kerry/McCain.

          by Delirium on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:05:36 PM PDT

          •  he also admitted to being

            a democrat in that interview.

            i didn't think he had the guts to do that.

            by BiminiCat on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:09:01 PM PDT

          •  Not just McCain

            He sided himself with President Bush, Hutchinson and freaking Dennie HASTERT!  Our Chair can not air an ad like that.  Period.  Russert and company would obliterate him.  Time and time again.

            by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:36:29 PM PDT

      •  maybe this is ABF

        Anyone But Frost.

        old habits die hard.

        by BiminiCat on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:06:40 PM PDT

      •  Huh?

        Roemer has a better chance than [Frost} does of winning.

        Pssst. Check this out. I don't want you to make a fool of yourself.

        by kos on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:08:02 PM PDT

  •  Hopefully We Can Get You Back Into the Green Fold

    The Dems don't deserve you ;-)

    by GreenSooner on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:04:53 PM PDT

    •  Rather have you in the Dem fold

      Moving the party forward on liberal progressive positions.

      Green = irrelevance.

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:10:15 PM PDT

      •  Holding On

        I'm not really sure that Green = Irrelevance all that much more than Democrat = Irrelevance at this point.

        I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I see a Democratic establishment that would rather lose and continue to lose than give up control of its precious party apparatus. Which wouldn't be quite so big a deal except that they have shown no ability to use that apparatus in a way that will win elections.

        I'm of the opinion that 2000, 2004, and especially 2002 are proof that strategic capitulation is a losing battle. I'm not sure it even worked all that well for Bill Clinton - who left office shamed, disgraced, and with enduring GOP majorities in both houses of Congress - let alone people of lesser political gifts.

        I'd like to try actually standing for something. Even if Dems get crushed in the short term, it'll be better for the party and the nation in the long run. It has to be better than a slow, long slide into irrelevance.

        If I'm going to support a party that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, it might as well be the Greens.  

        by Answer Guy on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:08:49 PM PDT

        •  Ok...

          I'm not really sure that Green = Irrelevance all that much more than Democrat = Irrelevance at this point.

          Now I know you are not serious. If you think the Greens or any third party is closer to relevance than the Dems, you are deluded. The whole notion that liberals should start over (i.e. from nothing) instead of working to change the party is simplistic BS to be frank. The Greens are the liberal mirror of the Constitution party IMNSHO.

          The Green supporter could easily start working to change the Dems at the local level to actually move thing to the left if they were serious about getting real. If the Greens had some large appeal with disaffected liberals, they would be a real factor already, but they don't and aren't.

          Everything the Greens want to accomplish would be better served by working to work within the party to move it to the left.

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:35:53 PM PDT

•  a coup d' tat

  It would be good news for a third party in 08.
  Kos, will you defect?  He he he...

  by intrados on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:27:57 PM PDT

•  my guess is

  those ads wouldn't play well in vermont.

  this'll now follow him everywhere.  he's doomed.

  god knows they probably didn't even play well in texas.

  by BiminiCat on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:28:10 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    god knows they probably didn't even play well in texas.

    He did lose...

    by Categorically Imperative on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:30:27 PM PDT

    •  i know

      poor guy.

      by BiminiCat on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:32:07 PM PDT

  •  jesus!

    he lost by about 10 points in a district that was designed for a republican to win by 30 points.  in other words, for every 1 democrat in that district, there are 2 republicans.  somehow i think stressing how great of a democrat you are and also how much you love john kerry (in texas, no less) is not the way to beat a delay backed thug, who had the district drawn especially for said thug.

    on the other hand, howard dean couldn't even win the iowa caucus, a democratic primary that allegedly is built for the man with the best organization -- which howard dean allegedly had.  a clear majority of democrats in iowa, new hampshire and wisconsin (the three states dean "competed in" full on) rejected dean in 2004.  however, it seems that every single democrat in frost's congressional district backed him as did a number of people who normally voted for republican congressional candidates.

    tell me again, is our problem as a party that we're not getting the votes of committed democrats (outside of activists dean does not have much rank and file support) or that we're not getting the votes of people voting for republicans instead of us.  frost presumably has some insight into this problem and may have a few ideas/designs on what it would take to rehabilitate the democratic party's image with the type of white southerners that dean condescends to when he says he wins their votes (not yet he hasn't) just by "showing up."

    by chrisishardcore on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:44:44 PM PDT

    •  At this point

      His best idea seems to be to move closer to President Bush and other prominent Republicans.

      DNC Chair needs to be demonstrably on the side of the Democratic Party and its candidates at all times without exception.

      I don't mean Frost should be drummed out of the party, or even be left outside of the party structure in some other capacity.

      I'd also happily vote for him in an elected office, given the chance.

      Just not Chairman of the DNC.
      

      by boadicea on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:51:57 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but look at how Frost lost.

      He ran the way he needed to run. I got that.

      My problem is that someone who has to run away from the party shouldn't be DNC Chair.

      If some Democrats absolutely have to run a little bit away from the national party, ok fine.  It's that bad in some places.  Just don't ask me to support said person for DNC Chair.

      And just because Dean didn't win in the primaries, doesn't mean he isn't the guy for DNC Chair. My support for Dean for DNC Chair (and likewise for Simon Rosenberg if Dean doesn't get it) is that both of them are interested in fixing the fundamental structural problems in the party and the lack of a strong narrative for the Dems. In a close election, stronger state parties/Democratic Party infrastructure and a better narrative for the Democratic Party (party ID is the #1 factor in vote choice) would have propelled Kerry over the top in 2004. Both are crucial regardless of who we nominate and who we run in national, state, and local races. Dean is committed to doing both for the party, and are quite frankly, probably the top two needs for the party (followed closely behind by new ways at targetting voters).  

      by Newsie8200 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:53:11 PM PDT

      •  YES

        you are so correct!

        by SanJoseLady on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:13:25 PM PDT

      •  I second that agreement

        you explain elegantly what is at stake.

        by bruh1 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:51:09 PM PDT

      •  Absolutely right.

        I don't really blame Frost for running the way he did; he was in a rigged district, and playing dirty is only reasonable in that situation.  But that history does debar him from being the party chair.

        by greenknight on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:31:39 PM PDT

    •  Swift Boat Vets

      The last election shoes that anything a person said in the past will be dredged up to humiliate them.  Frost will never get out from under this and it will distract from the DNC message.  He is fine to run in Texas but not to run the party.  Roemer is worse.  Moreover, there is no sign either really understands what needs to be done to rebuild a LOSING PARTY WITH NOT MUCH POWER EXCEPT THE POWER TO WITHHOLD THE LEGITIMACY THAT BIPARTISANSHIP CONVEYS.  That requires a fresh mindset.  Roemer and Frost don't have it.

      by Mimikatz on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:55:44 PM PDT

    •  We should not chase votes!

      IMHO the problem is we chase after peoples votes. Dems need to decide on their base convictions and tell people what they are and why. Leaders get people to follow them, not the other way around. Frost, who I honestly don't know that much about, seems to be hiding that he is a democrat and cozying up to people I feel are WRONG! Sorry, I can't see him leading the democrats.

      by DrSpike on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:07:41 PM PDT

•  The move the right is a serious

  matter.  If the Democratic party is coopted by the neoconservatives in the same way that the Republican Party was, there will no major institution to fight for traditional liberalism.

  A week ago I thought the DNC race was not interesting.  Now I am interested.  

  by Tom Kertes on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:29:19 PM PDT

•  Quoting a line from the movie "Alien"...

  Game over, man!

  by MJB on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:29:49 PM PDT

  •  Actually,

    I think that's Aliens.

    But yeah. In the immortal words of Bill Paxton, Game Over, Man.

    by Vestal Vespa on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:38:08 PM PDT

    •  You are correct, thanx (nm)

      by MJB on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:20:13 PM PDT

•  The more I think about it...

  The more I just have to wonder why it should possibly be anyone but Dean. The DLC types are really, really reaching on this one...There is no better candidate for chair than the guy who came out of nowhere, raised craploads of cash, and is so incredibly dedicated to the Democratic party...are you kidding me? We really have to make a choice between Dean and this tool Frost?

  Grr.

  by BLT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:30:07 PM PDT

  •  It's "Parade of Ugly Bridesmaids"

    Roemer, Leland, Frost . . .

    Kind of breathtaking when you think about it.

    But the third-way types can float everybody they want past the reviewing stand . . . and it looks like maybe they will.

    But the Bride is is just starting down the aisle. And he's wearing "something old, something new, a big ole' scream, 'Republicans fuck you.'"

    by chrississippi on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:47:21 PM PDT

    •  That's a great way to put it...

      "Ugly bridesmaids." I like it. Another way to look at it, from the DLC's point of view, is "Anybody but Dean."

      And, frankly, I didn't even vote for Dean nor did Igive him a dime. But I feel like if you looked up "Party Chair" in the dictionary, you'd see his picture, at least in terms of what he brings to the table.

      by BLT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:14:11 PM PDT

    •  Well, if Frost, Leland and Roemer go down

      .. along with Lieberman in the presidential race, what is ol' Al From to do?

      I will wager that we will get a fierce "far left liberal fringe"-type bashing from Al any day now.  I bet he's spitting blood.

      And what kind of a signal does this send to our good friend, Evan Bayh, who is planning an `08 run?  That the states are saying, "No thanks, DLC?"

      The Washington-centric DLC with its bevy of highly-compensated (some would argue, overly-compensated) acolyte-consultants has to be shitting the proverbial brick over the thought of all that party money actually being diverted to states.

      Poor Al From.  Let's have  a moment of silence in his honor...

      AH, FUCK IT!!!

      by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:16:07 PM PDT

  •  Oh thats simple. I'd reather ...

    that Dean runs for president, again.

    With the unfortunate possibility of Iraq being in real shambles, may be Dean can will this time.

    by nataraj on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:59:45 PM PDT

•  Ignoring all the news from today about Frost...

  ... there is one, primary reason why he shouldn't be chair:

  Frost is more of the same old/same old.  Texas and dozens of other states that got NO national support from the party or the Kerry camp in `04 need a DNC chair who believes that Washington D.C. isn't the center of the universe.

  The party needs a chair who truly believes and understands that the party needs to start fomr the bottom up.  And that funds continuously handed over to the same old hacks in Washington are just being flkushed down the toilet as political favors.

  That's what all this talk of "reform" is all about.

  The guy who will carry out such an agenda is not Martin Frost.  He is a creature of the Beltway.

  Yeah, Texas may get more money under his leadership, but what about the dozens of other states that were shut out in `04?

  If Frost is chair, he will be indebted to his old friends and the political hackery in D.C.

  Marty is a "don't-rock-the-boat" candidate.  Period.

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:30:55 PM PDT

  •  Good Points

    I've said before that there are quite decent reasons to oppose Frost to be DNC Chair.  He's not nearly as reform-oriented as some other candidates. He's not as tech or net savvy as some of the others.  Those are his weaknesses.  I have no problem if those who oppose Martin Frost want to elaborate on these.  I've spoken to the Frost folks, and I've requested to submit some questions to Frost to answer those very concerns. (No, I'm not working for any candidate, nor have I endorsed anyone).

    I've been defending Martin Frost in comments today because I think that attacking the man for clips of ads that he run in his past campaign without understanding the context is extremely unfair. I grew up in Dallas, and Martin Frost was someone that I came to respect and admire as a damn good Democrat and a top-notch fighter as I first became involved in politics in high school.  He might not be quite as ideological as some commenters here might like, but he's about as partisan as it gets, and it's saddened me to see many people here today distort his record.

    by ByronUT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:03:13 PM PDT

    •  Well

      I've been defending Martin Frost in comments today because I think that attacking the man for clips of ads that he run in his past campaign without understanding the context is extremely unfair.

      I am tired of compensating for politicians when they do what I think are unwise things. Kerry did this all the time. For example, "I would still vote for the war". All sorts of theories were passed around about how Kerry was setting a trap and being smart, blah blah blah. It was dumb.

      It was dumb on Frost's part to run these ads. Why vote for a democrat close to Bush, when you can vote for the real thing, a republican? How many dems stayed home after those ads were run? I would have. Would he have gotten as close as he did if he didn't act like a republican? Probably not. But at least he would have some principles

      by DrSpike on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:19:44 PM PDT

    •  Don't you get it?

      If Frost has all these positions which are opposed to the overall party position of the Democrats, he can be used as a stick to beat up the Democrats.  Every SUnday morning, every shouting head, for the next four years:  look, those left lib Dems aren't even in step with their own party chairman they're so left lib!  Martin Frost says more tax cuts!  Martin Frost says A-OK to the Clear Skies Initiative.  It's all those obstructionist Dems in Congress that should be more like their party chair that are the problem."

      by Dancing Larry on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:25 AM PDT

•  Makes me pine for Mcauliffe...

  Say it ain't so, captain!  Hopefully the DNC voting members know this and will reject him.

  by Viktor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:32:06 PM PDT

•  Totally agree on the partisan aspect.

  That's why I've got no problem supporting a Casey, a Warner, or any other Democrat who is a bit to my right on some issues.  

  Partisanship matters.

  I don't mind someone from a red state or a red district, as long as that person can be partisan while he's at it.  It's why I'd take a Mark Warner over an Easley or Bredesen.  

  It's why I'd take any of the other DNC candidates over a Roemer and a Frost.

  We need someone who will stand up for the party when it counts.

  by Newsie8200 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:32:12 PM PDT

  •  Partisanship matters.

    I sometimes lumped with Genf and others as among the far-left of Kossacks.  Yet I gladly gave the maximum money to Stephanie Herseth.  I walked neighborhoods for weekends upon end for (and with) Stan Matsunaka, a moderate with whom I didn't see completely eye to eye, although a nicer man you'll never meet.  I supported both Salazars and helped deliver one of them 89.9% of the votes in my precinct.

    These aren't my people, but they are Democrats.  Their cause is mine.  But if one of them were to stand up in apparent support of Alberto Gonzales...um...crap...wait, I've got it...if one of them were to stand up and openly support Bush, they would never get my vote.

    And that goes triple for the Chair of my Party.  Frost is done.

    by ubikkibu on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:43:29 PM PDT

  •  Appropriate qualifications for a job

    The chairman of the DNC must first and foremost be a partisan of that party. Moreso than anybody else, since he need not balance the interests of the nation, the world or a given piece of pet legislation, the party committe chair needs to be uberpartisan.

    The president must be the person who can best lead the nation and therefore may or may not be highly partisan. Wes Clark, for example, doesn't come off as highly partisan, but would have made a better Dem candidate in my opinion than the more solidly partisan John Kerry. I preferred the even more soldily partisan Howard Dean to either of them.

    To be the party chair, partisanship is the end all and be all other than communication and organizational skills.

    by pHunbalanced on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:46:19 PM PDT

•  Pragmatism

  For all of you who would defend Frost by saying he was just being pragmatic, well Kos and all of us opposed to Frost are just being pragmatic as well.

  Imagine the fun Tim Russert would have with Martin Frost whenever Frost criticizes Bush.

  "But Chairman Frost, when you were running for Congress, you tried to run with President Bush,"

  CUT TO VIDEO CLIP

  "Now, Mr. Chairman, what do you say to the American people who already believe Democrats are flip-flopping too much just to get elected."

  Pragmatism works both ways.

  by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:35:14 PM PDT

  •  Deja Vu

    MR. RUSSERT:  Mr. Daschle, critics will point out to the comment you made back in June about--in 2002 about President Bush.  He's "been a source of great disappointment. ... I think his record on the economy is a disaster." Then you told National Public Radio that "President Bush wanted to change the tone in Washington, and I think he has.  I think it's gotten worse."

    You've been extremely critical of the president, and then in your commercials, you're seen embracing him.

    MEET THE PRESS  Sunday, September 19, 2004

    It was painful to watch...

    by standingup on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:21:04 PM PDT

•  Neo-Cons took over the republicans first...

  Now they're taking over the Democrats.

  by dnamj on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:35:38 PM PDT

  •  Actually Most of Them BEGAN As Dems

    Paul Wolfowitz worked for Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA), the most important Democratic hawk in the early 1970s, and he's pretty typical.  Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a conservative Democrat, as were (at one time or another) Irving Kristol, Francis Fukuyama, and most of the Straussians (with the notable exception of Harry Jaffa and some of the other west coast crowd).  Most of them only became Republicans during the Reagan era.  

    Even those many of the Neo-Cons who started off on the left became conservative long before they became Republican.

    by GreenSooner on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:11:01 PM PDT

    •  Kiss the ass that sits

      on the throne.

      That's the basic stategy of these goons.  Someone like Horowitz is just totally transparent:  the only consistency to his politics is shrill attacks on those who stand in the way of whatever political wave he thinks he can ride to the halls of power.  Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick et al were Dems because Dems controlled the Congress.  They'd have joined the Silly Party if they thought it would get them access to a committee chair...

      by Pesto on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:30:59 PM PDT

•  Who backed President Bush?

  Why, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee! Can't you see the first appearance on MTP when Russert plays this commercial and goes for the gotcha moment? To me this is more damaging than Dean's scream.

  I'm mean really? Who backed President Bush? The fucking head of the DNC? You've got to be kidding me. The head of the opposition party backs the leader of the GOP. Seriously now. How do you say you want to lead the party with a straight face when you campaigned on backing President Bush, the guy I spent more money, more time and more of my fucking life trying not to back anywhere but out of office. How do you do that?

  This is completely and utterly beyond my comprehension.

  Thank you sir, may I have another!

  by michael in chicago on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:37:27 PM PDT

  •  To really drive the point home..

    Someone should write a hypothetical script of that imaginary Tim Russert interview with DNC Chairman Martin Frost.  Can you imagine all of the Right Wing dittoheads ENDLESSLY repeating, over and over, that even the DNC head backs President Bush.  It would be a rebuttal to every policy disagreement between the Democrats and Republicans.

    RNC House Democrats could use that ad repeatedly, bashing their opponents by saying their own party backs Bush, but they don't!

    IT WOULD NEVER END.

    If we elect Martin Frost as head of the DNC you can write off any chance of taking back the air waves or talking points from the RNC... MUCH LESS THE CONGRESS!

    by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:41:07 PM PDT

    •  Script...

      Russert: "Mr. Frost, didn't you in fact tout your support of President Bush's during your last campaign for Congress.  How can you be DNC chair and support that?"

      Frost: "I supported Bush's plan to tighten airport security.  All but 9 members of the 435 members of Congress supported the same measure.  It is important that American's feel safe to fly our airlines and go to our airports.  The bill passed and our airports and airlines are safer because of it.  My opponent at the time was so extreme as to not support these security measures that were clearly in the interest of all Americans.

      "But Mr. Bush has led this country down the wrong path.  He is jeopardizing future generations with his plan to gamble Social Security in the private sector. He is willing pollute our air and water in the interest of corporations.  And he has yet to show he has a plan to stabilize the situation in Iraq."

      ...I guess I miss your point.

      by Ryan33 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:50:26 PM PDT

      •  That is not how it will be framed

        You are deliberately picking the weakest frame that the Repubs could possibly use against Frost.

        They will not ask, "How can you be DNC Chair?"  They will relentlessly say, and have evidence of via endlessly looping video footage, that Frost ran with President Bush and is now flip-flopping against him to be DNC Chair.  The same charge they leveled, endlessly, against John Kerry.  And, you know, they'd be right.  Frost DID run with Bush.  He emphasized that again and again.  For him to turn around now and run away from him would not be credible.  It would be too easy to see through.

        by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:00:33 PM PDT

•  Kos

  You are being way to ambiguous on how you feel about Frost for DNC Chair.  Do all these posts mean you support him?

  by sgilman on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:39:20 PM PDT

•  I'll add my voice to the chorus of NOs

  NO to Frost for DNC chair.  Clearly he is not the highly partisan champion that we need in the position.

  by Feanor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:39:39 PM PDT

•  What I'm tired of is the Frosty excuses...

  -He was running in a Red State
  -He had to do what he could to win

  Those are such bullshit excuses and point to the very problem with politics in the U.S. today. I've said it before, I would rather fight for what I believe in and lose, then fight for a bunch of bullshit and win. There simply isn't any reason a Democrat should lose anywhere if they are honest.

  1. I believe in limiting abortions through good education and a strong job market. This method works. Abstinence doesn't. Pretending problems will go away if we ignore them is an attitude that weakens America. Anti-Abortion laws do not limit abortions, they mostly just kill under-privelaged women or bring children into a world that doesn't want, nor have the ability to support them.

  2. I believe that everyone should have a safety net if their health fails them, if they lose their job, etc. It is a simple matter of compassion. If you do not have compassion for your fellow man, then please, do not vote for me. I only want people who care, not people who just think of themselves, to vote for me.

  3. I believe every person in America should have access to health care. I think it's immoral that only the wealthy can truly afford health care. The simple fact that many Americans do not have access to the health system is an affront to America's humanity.

  4. I believe we should have a strong defense. That does not mean I think we should allow our defense industries to decide what we need or that weapons systems should have better care and shelter then the warfighters. Take care of the people who are serving in the armed forces first, then purchase the weapons systems. Unfortunately, we still have it backwards. This does not make America strong. It makes us powerful. Strength is in the people, the warfighters and the civilians. If the last two groups are unsatisfied, the rest doesn't really matter.

  I could go on with examples such as those above and I could definitely frame them better. But you get the point. Give me someone who is willing to fight for what we believe in versus someone who will say anything to win. I'm not afraid or ashamed of who I am. Apparently Frost is.

  by Alumbrados on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:44:54 PM PDT

  •  I rated this a 2...

    And before you go after me for doing it - I rated an earlier anti-Frost comment a 4.  I'm not a Frost supporter - I'm undecided, but I think that many of the attacks on Frost have been unfair.

    First, Frost's NARAL Pro-Choice America Rating is 100%.  Martin Frost probably agrees with you completely on point one.

    On the other points, I understand them, and I agree with them, but Martin Frost didn't run against them.  Martin Frost was honest on all four principles mentioned in this comment.

    Martin Frost did not run ashamed against any of the principles that you speak of.  The ad in the post above was of Martin Frost stating his support for reinforced cockpit doors, putting air marshalls on our airplanes, toughening security in our airports and ensuring that our baggage screeners are well-qualified professionals.  Almost every Republican AND every Democrat supported this.  Martin Frost highlighted that - because his opponent, Pete Sessions, was one of nine congressman to oppose it.

    by ByronUT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:05:31 PM PDT

    •  Newsflash: We're not stupid

      The ad in the post above was of Martin Frost stating his support for reinforced cockpit doors, putting air marshalls on our airplanes, toughening security in our airports and ensuring that our baggage screeners are well-qualified professionals.  Almost every Republican AND every Democrat supported this.

      So why didn't Mr. Frost run a campaign commercial that said, "Who stood with Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards on heightened airline security?  Dianne Feinstein & Martin Frost.  Hillary Clinton & Martin Frost.  Ted Kennedy & Martin Frost."

      We both know why Mr. Frost chose not to script his commercial that way.

      And we both know that the stills from that commercial would be played over and over by Little Russ, Tweety, or O'Lielly every time "DNC Chairman Martin Frost" appeared on their show to (hopefully) make the Democratic case against the policies of Bush.  And we both know that the inevitable, predictable use of that commercial (and probably others like it) would make Mr. Frost utterly unable to act as a strong advocate for the national Democratic Party.

      We're not stupid.  We know that Democratic candidates in Texas do iffy things in the name of self-preservation.  And many of us here are fine with a small measure of Machiavellian self-preservation if it means victories in hostile territory.  But the all-out "I stood with President Bush" tactics of Mr. Frost, used for crass expediency in an uphill campaign, make it absolutely impossible for him to be a credible chair of the DNC.

      by MJB on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:35:15 PM PDT

      •  Texas politics is

        truely strange.  In the last election, I saw more dems not put "Democrat" on their materials, and only one advertisement used the word.  Chet Edwards, and he won.

        Yet, the Republicans use the tag continuously.  Like thats the only reason they need to put forth to get elected.  I swear, if a repub went to the pharmacy he/she would say, "I'm John Doe-Republican.  I'm picking up my prescription."

        Truly strange people.  And, O/T, I heard a radio spot for a chick running for school board and her selling point was that she would oppose sex education.  Can you imagine running for school board and promising to keep kids stupid!

        Stranger than fiction.

        by Yankee in exile on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 04:50:29 AM PDT

        •  Wrong

          In the last election, I saw more dems not put "Democrat" on their materials, and only one advertisement used the word...
          Yet, the Republicans use the tag continuously.

          Not in blue states, they didn't.  

          Take the 21st Assembly District in Silicon Valley.  There, the Republican candidate, Steve Poizner, repeatedly downplayed his GOP affiliation and refused to say whether he would vote for Kerry or Bush.  Poizner lost, but he did well given the largely Democrat district.

          Or for that matter, look at Arnold's campaign, where he surrounded himself with Kennedys and repeatedly invited Democrats to "join Arnold."

          Martin Frost is doing nothing more than the Texas equivalent of this strategy.

          I think all this willingness to distort Frost's record reflects quite poorly on the Howard Dean camp.
          

          by He Who Must Not Be Named on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:45:09 AM PDT

          •  Ummm....

            Neither Steve Poizner, even if he had won, nor Lincoln Chafee would ever be on the short list for RNC Chair.

            by Answer Guy on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:16:40 AM PDT

            •  Church Lady

              Neither Steve Poizner, even if he had won, nor Lincoln Chafee would ever be on the short list for RNC Chair.

              So, essentially what you are saying is that no Democrat from a red state ought to be considered for DNC chair, because Democrats who win elections there must necessarily compromise themselves.

              That leaves room only for people from solid blue states, like Vermont.

              How very conveeeenient.

              by He Who Must Not Be Named on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:41:17 PM PDT

          •  You're missing the point completely.

            The arguments I'm seeing for the most part are not about downplaying Democratic affiliation. That's a distasteful fact of life in red dominated districts.

            It's running with the Republicans and against prominent Democrats.

            Using the very faces and names that he will either need to strongly, even rabidly, oppose as DNC chair or will need to wholeheartedly support when he's on record as not doing so.

            Part of the reform of the Democratic party, IMNSHIndependentVoterO is to reverse the trend to want to be seen as "just like the Repubs, only better" in some undefineable way.

            Frost's baggage will preclude him doing that effectively even if he agrees with the need, and I'm not sure that he does.

            by boadicea on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:43:41 AM PDT

•  Good to know this is back to

  Dean blog annex

  by Show Me Dem on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:45:52 PM PDT

  •  Can't

    Glad to know we can criticize people running against Howard Dean for DNC Chair without being accused of being Crushies 4 Dean.

    Oh wait, looks like we can't.

    by DavidNYC on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:51:21 PM PDT

•  Frost should not be DNC chair, but...

  ... I (and I suspect many others) would have cheered like hell had he beaten Pete Sessions.

  As such, there are plenty of resons to oppose him for DNC chair, of which the examples may or may not be a good reason.  

  But the main reason he shouldn't be chair is (as I posted, above) he is a creature of the Beltway, indebted to the Beltway hacks who have been draining the DNC treasury and lining their own pockets because of who they know rather than what they do well.  Cronyism at its worst.

  And Frost is not the guy who will ever understand that we need to start at the bottom up -- in the states -- not from Washington down.

  That's what "reform" is all about.  And that is what we need.

  So, no to Frost, but, hell, I sure would have sent him a congratulatory note had he beaten Pete Sessions and that asswipe Tom DeLay.

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:46:14 PM PDT

  •  Questions

    But the main reason he shouldn't be chair is (as I posted, above) he is a creature of the Beltway, indebted to the Beltway hacks who have been draining the DNC treasury and lining their own pockets because of who they know rather than what they do well.

    This is an ad-hominem attack worthy of Newt Gingrich.

    What, precisely, is a "creature of the beltway"?

    Who, exactly, are the "Beltway hacks"?

    How much, precisely, have they "lined their pockets" with, and from whom?

    by He Who Must Not Be Named on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:46:55 AM PDT

    •  The same hacks who have lost the House, the

      ... Senate and the presidency.

      Same old, same old.

      Ask the people who haven't seen hide nor hair of DNC presences (or of Kerry presence, for that matter) in the their states in the last election about where the money is going.

      by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:52:07 AM PDT

      •  You must be a Vulcan...

        ..'cuz your logic is impeccible.

        Someone accuses Frost of being another "hack."  I ask who precisely these "hacks" are.  On cue, you say, "they're the same hacks who..."

        Can we say circular reasoning, boys and girls?

        Once again: what is a Beltway hack?  Who are they?  What are their names?

        by He Who Must Not Be Named on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:46:56 PM PDT

•  You've got to be kidding

  by Descrates on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:48:24 PM PDT

•  When the shoe was on the other foot

  Lots of liberals supported Clinton in their districts, even though he was way to the right of them on lots of issues (like welfare "reform" and civil rights for gays) -- because although they were ideologically liberal, and Clinton was and is ideologically a centrist Southern Democrat, they were above all things loyal Democrats.  They supported --despite the doubts of many of their constituents -- Gore in 2000 and didn't run ads associating themselves with Nader -- because they were loyal Democrats.

  Why should it be different for conservative Democrats?  Why should they get a pass on party loyalty?  We're not talking about ancient history here; this is a couple of months ago.  I'll argue with conservative brothers about their ideology, but I won't disown them unless they disown the rest of the party.  Being a conservative doesn't get you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for running, essentially, as a Republican, with Republican images in your ads.  I don't care how Republican your district is; if you've got that (D) after your name, you better run as a Democrat.  

  I'm sick to death of all these Phil Gramms and Ralph Halls and Dick Shelbies and Ben Campbells and Billy Tauzins being moles in the party, getting into high office as "Democrats" and then showing their true colors as Republicans.  I'm told that Frost is a "good Democrat" and not like the aforementioned traitors.  Well, he sure ain't looking like one from where I'm sitting.  And I've got some doubts about some of the other guys we have got in the Congress.  You can't run a party to win when half your guys are really working for the other side.

  by WIds on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:49:12 PM PDT

  •  I don't think that's much of a comparison

    I don't really support Frost, but I think it's ludicrous to think that this is analogous.  Frost was in a district with 60%+ Republican voters for the Presidency.  There was no Democrat in 2000 running in a district where 60%+ of the voters were voting for Nader.  There were few where it was even 10%, and those districts were actually even easier to win, because the Green Party wasn't anywhere near winning, and they were so liberal that there was no chance of the Republicans winning.

    If there were a district where Nader was polling 60%, you can bet that the Democrats there would have tried to associate themselves with him.

    by Delirium on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:00:49 PM PDT

    •  Not quite 60%

      But Darelene Hooley was facing a 52%+ GOP registration advantage vs. 47% in her district here in Oregon, and was re-elected and didn't have to run "I support Bush" ads and run away form her party ID.

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:26:27 PM PDT

  •  It's the "I slept with Dubya Bush" thing

    
    I know plenty of conservtive Dems (and some Pubs) who can't stand Bush.

    They are welcome.

    Sloppy seconds aren't.

    by cskendrick on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:06:22 PM PDT

  •  Democrats Playing footsie with the Repubs

    don't forget Ben Nelson, Nebraska.

    by xerico on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:23:03 PM PDT

•  Democrats in Texas

  Had a rough go of it after redistricting, it was a bloodbath around many parts of the states for democrats this last election, not just on the national level but at the local level as well. Frost wouldn't have an easy time raising money in certian parts of Texas at least, which are redder than the devils breath.
  There must be a point where we stand up as democrats and be democrats, even in Texas. I saw a very good man lose an election this year because he refused to switch parties. He was a Democrat when he was elected, he was going to remain a Democrat come what may, because as he said "you leave with them that brung ya". Did he lose? Yes, he lost, but with dignity, honor, and his principles intact.
  You can't switch parties to get elected, even without switching parties and expect to become the chair of the DNC. We need someone with partisan principles.

  by Tjo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:52:00 PM PDT

•  Give the guy a break.

  McCain in his campaign ads?  What's wrong with that -- at dKos, he was a favorite VP pick for Kerry.  It was called brilliant, savvy and there was quite a lot of salivating at the prospect.

  Bush?  Didn't Daschle run ads highlighting how close he was to Bush?

  There's an idea; what about Daschle for DNC Chair?

  GWB promoted a man who lost to a dead man.  And he's resurrected more than a few dead men walking.  

  Come on Democrats --let's be creative, borrow more from the GOP (we've borrowed almost everything else except Rove anyway) and recycle our losers too.  

  by Marie on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:52:06 PM PDT

  •  New Democracy

    McCain in his campaign ads?  What's wrong with that -- at dKos, he was a favorite VP pick for Kerry.  It was called brilliant, savvy and there was quite a lot of salivating at the prospect.

    Yeah, but that was just incredibly dumb, and I suspect that of those few people who thought it was a cool idea not a few are really sorry about it now.

    As for Daschle, et al., those guys are gone.  Now it's time to re-invent the Democratic Party: not as the old, tired, fragmented, unsuccessful party of 1994-2004, but as a new, fresh, coherent fighting force that is going to defend American freedoms and the American way of life from the Republicans who are trying to destroy it.  The old style "give a little get a little" compromise politics has failed because we're dealing with an opponent who will take everything and give nothing.  That requires new tactics and a New Democracy.

    by WIds on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:01:30 PM PDT

    •  Neither few in number nor

      I suspect that of those few people who thought it was a cool idea not a few are really sorry about it now.

      many regrets -- at least not enough that they have written about it.

      (btw - I was vastly outnumbered her in arguing about how stupid it was to even consider McCain.  But for some reason I have yet to quite understand, a significant number here would take anybody that they think can help get a win even if it is with a newly minted DINO.)
      

      by Marie on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:14:19 PM PDT

      •  It's interesting

        Rejection of McCain is one of the few things that you and I share the same opinion on.

        But then...

        even if it is with a newly minted DINO

        I wonder what that's supposed to mean?  :-(
        

        by Steve4Clark on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:29:18 PM PDT

        •  Steve -- you're softening

          In this case I only meant that someone like McCain running on Kerry's ticket would have been a newly minted DINO.

          I'm personally sort of repulsed by all the chatter around here postulating how cool it would be if "moderate" GOPs switched sides.  Suggests to me that many don't really understand and appreciate the huge differences between a GOP and DEM formulation on governance.

          by Marie on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:12:33 PM PDT

          •  McCain

            I've long tried to explain to people that McCain is a Republican.  The only reason he sometimes speaks out about Bush is because it gives him a bargaining position and some attention.

            I don't trust the guy, and honestly can't understand either all the chatter here thinking it would help.

            That being said, I do think you're going to see moderate Republicans switching sides, and I do think that would be a good thing.  But it's not because the Democrats have to change, but rather the Republicans have shifted so far to the right now.

            And we should welcome them, not condemn them.

            by Steve4Clark on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

            •  We shouldn't delude

              ourselves -- the "moderate" GOPs are merely uncomfortable with the naked aggression of GWB, his huge deficit spending and disrespect for Civil Liberties, including Roe.  However, given a choice between selling out women and minorities or making taxes less progressive and more regressive they will choose the latter.  They dislike federal social spending only slightly less than GWB.  They are firmly in the very robust US FP camp and never met a defense contractor they didn't like.  This group isn't even as "liberal" as Rockefeller Republicans -- and are slightly to the right of how Nixon governed (as distinguished from who Nixon would have liked to have governed if he'd had a GOP Congress).  They believe in only a slightly less  They would hasten the revision of the Democratic to one far to the right of where it was only 25 years ago -- a place we are only about halfway to at this point.  

              If that's the Party you want, then it would make sense that you would want to welcome them.  That's not anything I and many others are interested.  For us the Party has already drifted far to far to the right.  Some of us have tolerated it up to now because of the effective sales job done on us that liberalism will not win elections.  Well, the DNC formulation isn't winning elections either -- and those DC DEMs all look like a bunch of flip-flopping wimps.  I for one have no more interest in voting for anybody that is not interested in or willing to stand up for those things that I value the most: equality under the law, progressive taxation, a society that cares for the disadvantaged, regulation of business to limit their ability to rip off people and destroy the environment, supports high quality education and does not squander our national wealth on military adventures that makes us hated and has little defensive purposes.  

              by Marie on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 09:40:06 AM PDT

    •  It might not have worked...

      ...but if it had, we'd have won.  So no, it wasn't a dumb idea; it was a good idea that didn't hit paydirt.

      by auron renouille on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:49:28 AM PDT

  •  Marie,

    It wasn't just McCain.  It was Bush, Hutchinson, and Dennie HASTERT too.  Questionable whether it should be acceptable for Congress critter, but that is clearly unacceptable for DNC Chair.

    by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:09:40 PM PDT

    •  Not sure I see a lot of

      difference between giving someone a pass who only uses Bush and McCain and someone who uses them as well as a couple of others.  Embrace one GOP and you might as well embrace them all.  I never gave any of those who embraced any GOP a pass, but I'm more of a quality and not quantity evaluator.

      Just pointing out the hypocrisy here -- McCain was cool for VP; so, can't see how Frost should now be dissed for embracing him and the others.

      by Marie on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:19:40 PM PDT

  •  McCain Was Left Out

    Please note that Kos didn't specifically take issue with Frost's association with McCain:
    

    But if you spend a year distancing yourself from the Democratic Party and sucking up to Bush, Hastert and Hutchinson, then you have no business trying to run the Democratic Party.

    
    But the point remains that while it may sometimes be necessary (albeit distasteful) for a Democrat to appear to be reaching across the aisle for purposes of winning votes in a general election, those kinds of party-blurring efforts are unacceptable in one who would seek to lead the party itself.

    by The Maven on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:22:14 PM PDT

    •  Sometimes?

      Sometimes is more correctly applied to when they don't reach across the aisle.  Watch them reach and confirm the Terror Twins.

      by Marie on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:21:54 PM PDT

•  sheesh!

  First the AARP.
  Now the Democratic Party.
  This is insane! A gooper leading the DNC.

  The goopers must be cackling with glee right now.

  cackling at how stoopid we really are.

  by krwada on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:55:41 PM PDT

  •  He's not elected yet. n/t

    by boadicea on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:59:20 PM PDT

•  The Ads in Context

  I did a post on this at the time.  These were not ads where Frost broke ranks with most Democrats to side with  President Bush and most Republicans.  These were issues where Martin Frost and the Majority of Democrats and Republicans supported common sense security measures, and Pete Sessions opposed.

  Here is the Frost press release explaining the ads:

  "Too Tight"

  Our second ad this week reinforces the advertisement we aired last week highlighting Sessions' vote against President Bush's major air safety plan to fight terrorism. 510 Members of Congress voted to support the anti-terrorism plan, while Sessions joined a band of only nine dangerously out of touch Members who voted "no". What's more, the ad shows Sessions himself explaining his vote by saying security at our airports is "too tight" because people like "even Senator Ted Kennedy" might be delayed.

  "Stronger vs Weaker Homeland Security"

  Virtually every American knows that everything changed on September 11, 2001.... but not Pete Sessions. While Republicans, Democrats and Independents came together to fight terrorism and protect America, Pete Sessions continued following an overtly partisan and dangerous ideology that puts raw politics ahead of American security. It's an attitude President Bush has described as a "September 10th mentality." Throughout his career, Congressman Frost has been willing to stand up to the leaders of either party in order to make sure that our Nation's defenses remain the strongest in the World and that the safety of those he represents comes before any partisan or ideological pursuits. Sessions' voting record and his own words demonstrate clearly that he can't be trusted to keep America safe.

  by ByronUT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

  •  How long do you think it would be

    before the RNC worked up talking points about "even the DNC Chair wants to be a Republican?" And trotting out those images as proof.

    I'm guessing about 60 seconds after he won the position.

    by boadicea on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:02:13 PM PDT

    •  and in 60 seconds you can explain it

      Martin Frost joined all but nine members of congress (including Kay Bailey Hutchison, John McCain, Dennis Hastert, and nearly all (if not every) Democrat) in supporting reinforced cockpit doors, putting air marshalls on our airplanes, toughening security in our airports and ensuring that our baggage screeners are top-notch professionals.

      Pete Sessions voted no.

      The ad was designed to show that Martin Frost was in the mainstream, and that Pete Sessions was an extremist.

      by ByronUT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:20:01 PM PDT

      •  It wouldn't matter

        What he said to explain it. I have such little faith in the honesty of the media, that it would continue to be Frost the chair of the DNC, who supported President Bush on this point and this point and this point...
        Just like when they talk about Social Security now it is all about "reform" and not privatization. It is all in what the media would say and matters not one lick how Frost would attempt to explain it away.

        by Tjo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:28:21 PM PDT

      •  All absolutely acceptable answers

        In some other race.

        Those images will speak louder than any words. That's what they were designed to do.

        This is a demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequence.

        Which is a bitch, but cannot be ignored.

        by boadicea on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:34:33 AM PDT

    •  I can accept Frost's explanation for these.

      That doesn't mean I want him as DNC Chair, but he does provide some important context.

      The question I have about "who made these ads" is the same as I had in the last thread -- that is, who really made these ads?

      I'm talking about the media consultants who've saddled their client with this unintended baggage. Because they're probably making ads for many more Democrats than just Martin Frost, and should Frost head up the DNC, they're probably going to take home a major chunk of DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and DGA money.

      To that end, I'll provide the information I provided last time: the answer, I would guess, is the Democratic media consulting firm of Strother-Duffy-Strother, who still list Frost among their clients, and who were paid $92,208 by Frost during his last race.

      Fire all the consultants?

      Already done, once. (Pardon the google cache -- the original's long gone.)

      The whole Democratic Caucus wanted those guys out on their asses for their very expensive, demonstrated inability to help Democrats win competitive races. Now they've helped Martin Frost lose an admittedly non-competitive race.

      Will Martin Frost bring them back to our doorstep?

      by Kagro X on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:27:42 PM PDT

      •  So, with such strong ties to Martin Frost

        These consultants would be in the thick of everything again?

        Here's the list of clients they're publicizing their work for:

        Senator Gary Hart for President
        Senator Al Gore for President
        '88 Super Tuesday Team
        Governor Bill Clinton, '84, '88 (AR)
        Governor Mike Lowry, (WA)
        Governor Mark White, (TX)
        Governor Martha Lane Collins, (KY)
        Governor Buddy Roemer, (LA)
        Governor Roy Barnes, (GA)
        Senator Mary Landrieu, (LA)
        Senator Blanche Lincoln, (AR)
        Senator Lloyd Bentson, (TX)
        Senator Zell Miller, (GA)
        Senator John Breaux, (LA)
        Senator Bennett Johnston (LA)
        Senator John Stennis, (MS)
        Senator Jim Exxon (NE)
        A. G. Bob Butterworth (FL)
        A.G. Jimmy Evans (AL)
        A.G. Rufus Edmisten (NC)
        A.G. Richard Ieyoub (LA)
        A.G. Lacy Thornburg (NC)
        U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, (TX)
        U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, (CA)
        U.S. Rep. John Lewis (GA)
        U.S. Rep. Lloyd Dogget (TX)
        U.S. Rep. Bud Crammer (AL)
        U.S. Rep. Ronnie Shows (MS)
        

        Prominently feature losing campaigns or ones from over 20 yrs ago is not my idea of trendsetting.

        I don't know parse anything else much (except that Rep Doggett did retain his seat this time, as did Senator Landrieu.

        What else does this tell us, if anything?

        Though, Martin Frost's race was extremely competitive. Choosing a DLC Centrist campaign was not a surprising strategy for it.

        But now, we have to deal with what's before us.

         

        by boadicea on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:01 AM PDT

  •  Can't say that relieves me

    I'm not any happier to see that Rep. Frost was parroting a Republican talking point like "everything changed on September 11" -- that has been used to justify illegal detentions at home, war and torture abroad.

    by WIds on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:04:20 PM PDT

  •  You say context, I say spin.

    That ad was clearly not about airplane safety. It was about who (Frost) voted with Bush and number of other Republicons and who (Sessions)didn't. It may have mentioned a safety bill at first, but the purpose was to show who Frost voted with.
    And isn't that a jab at Sessions for siding with Kennedy?
    The "Stronger vs Weaker"- takes Bush's view that some people (I wonder who) have a "Sept. 10th mentality", and implies in the next sentence that he's willing stand up to the party that doesn't agree with that view.
    He had to do what he could to get elected, agreed. But he clearly tried to "out-Republicon" a Republicon.
    Not fit for the DNC.

    by thoreau247365 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:22:27 PM PDT

•  Hoyer

  I just saw at TPM that Dem Whip Steny Hoyer endorsed Frost. Hoyer's constituents might want to call or e-mail his office and ask him how he feels about these ads.

  by DavidNYC on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:59:22 PM PDT

  •  Will do . . . . tomorrow

    I'm disappointed but I can't say that I'm all that surprised!!

    by ademption on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:20:49 PM PDT

•  Lest We Forget

  Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall being stunned that Kerry didn't mention being a Democrat or the Democratic Party in his acceptance speech.

  How in Hell can Democrats expect voters to approve of their Party when they seem ashamed of it themselves?

  by dazedagain on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:03:23 PM PDT

•  Burnt Orange Report

  http://www.burntorangereport.com

  Btw, to those that read this, they disclose the fact that Kos has been paid by Frost to advertise.

  by dsolzman on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:04:46 PM PDT

  •  Andrew said that... not me.

    I believe that Andrew's comment was inappropriate - he speaks for himself and not the blog.

    by ByronUT on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:09:01 PM PDT

    •  I know