No End To Our Party Civil Wars
Flush with victory, the Democratic Party is celebrating its return to power by loudly and publicly tearing itself to pieces. Anyone who wondered if House Democrats would be as reliable as the Republicans in supporting their leaders had only to watch the leadership fight between Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and John Murtha
Flush with victory, the Democratic Party is celebrating its return to power by loudly and publicly tearing itself to pieces. Anyone who wondered if House Democrats would be as reliable as the Republicans in supporting their leaders had only to watch the leadership fight between Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and John Murtha
(D-Pa.): Democrats still form their firing squads in a circle.
Back in 1994, the House Republicans advanced with the discipline of a well disciplined army. But we Democrats always live in a state of crisis and feuding. As Bill Clinton discovered when he reached D.C. in 1993, House Democrats are splintered into micro-caucuses, each of which must be courted separately for their votes. When their demands conflict, no one can rally anything close to a working majority on the House floor. Each caucus is a body unto itself: blue dogs (moderate and largely southern), Blacks, Hispanics, women, Democratic Leadership Council, environmentalists and gays.
Then there was James Carville's attack on Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. In a contract hit postmarked Chappaqua, Carville unloaded on Dean for spending money on all 50 states rather than concentrating on swing House races. Carville claimed that Dean's strategy had cost potential Democratic seats.
Dean had been savvy in solidifying his power. He knew that the Clinton people would come after him - and he was ready. Sending money to the state organizations that elected him chairman, he built a store of gratitude. Maybe he didn't get as much campaign advertising in key districts - but he also let the state parties spend the national-committee money on overhead and local jobs rather than on Washington consultants.
The larger Democratic war pits the New Left against the New Democrats. Brought to power in Clinton's administration, the centrist New Democrats are determined to keep the party in the middle on national issues. The New Left wants to drag it way over to the liberal side. The battle will not abate, much less end, until the party has a presidential candidate.
So the early primaries will be in the nature of a quarter-final for the Democrats to narrow the field down to one candidate for the New Left and another for the New Democrats. Then the two will face each other in the semi-final, which will be held in the second wave of primary states. The left will choose ex-Veep Al Gore or Sen. John Kerry or Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). The New Democrats will pick either Hillary, former veep candidate John Edwards or Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a wild card. Where will he position himself? His rhetoric is conciliatory but Hillary has the center covered . . .
Until the 2008 primaries settle things, this Democratic soap opera of left vs. center will dominate our political dialogue. But let look a little deeper!
I see a continuation of dismal days and a bleak future for the Democratic Party notwithstanding our victories on November 7th. Why? Our penchant for marginalizing our truth-tellers surely deserves an honorable mention. Winning "Miss Congeniality" in the contest for self-sabotage is our practice of castigating those among us who dare to set high expectations.
Exhibit One: On the heels of our successful Democratic incursion into Red-State America, fast-talking Democratic strategist and former Clinton spokesman James Carville is calling for heads to roll. And I‚m not talking Republican heads, as one might expect. Carville has clearly called for Howard Dean to be replaced with Harold Ford of Tennessee, Ford being one of the few unsuccessful Democratic challengers in the recent election, despite Ford‚s high name recognition, what appeared to be a personal, and, let‚s be honest, tiresome public relationship with God, and a bucketful of institutional Democratic money.
Howard Dean is the former presidential candidate, turned DNC Chair, who took on James Carville and other mainstream Democratic strategists two years ago by insisting on a 50-state Democratic get-out-the-vote strategy so Democrats could be competitive in red states that didn‚t yet know they were dying, literally and sadly˜in Iraq--- to turn blue. Howard Dean was so successful that even feisty Rahm Emanuel, the new chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who fought Dean continuously last year, admitted that he was wrong and Dean was right.
But wait! Our not-so-new Democratic strategy of crucifying our truth-tellers isn't ending with Democratic victor Howard Dean. A poll that looked suspiciously like a push poll on C-Span Friday, November 17th, asked whether Nancy Pelosi's backing of conservative John Murtha, the decorated Marine who is calling for redeployment of our troops, for majority leader, was "bad for the Democratic Party." By midnight, over 15,000 respondents voted 90% to 10% in support of Ms. Pelosi‚s support of John Murtha. This result is revealing, considering the onslaught of mainstream criticism of Ms. Pelosi for picking a fight she knew she couldn't win.
Consider Maureen Dowd, doyenne of the acerbic op-ed. On November 18, in the New York Times, Dowd attempts to prove she's not one of the guys when she castigates Republican pundits for speculating as to whether Speaker Pelosi uses Botox, but then she goes on to pillary Pelosi herself. Dowd‚s complaint? That Pelosi played like a "girl" by sticking by her friend John Murtha in the fight for Majority Leader because of their friendship, the implication being that Pelosi wasn't strategic by picking a fight she couldn‚t win. Would it be too sexist to suggest that Maureen was in a Bitchy PMS mode that day or just reflecting/suffering from our Democratic Party genetic flaw?
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi stuck by Murtha because she believed that Murtha was more willing to set politics, and his own political future aside, and work---as a matter of conscience˜to bring the troops home, a goal that she, and, by the way, millions of American voters, share and made clear on November 7th?
And since when is it considered "feminine" and therefore bad, to take on a fight that you're not likely to win? Wasn't the fight to turn Congress blue on November 7th supposed to be a long-shot? Wasn't it two years ago that the Republicans referred to Democrats as a "permanent minority party?"
I see the future and it frightens me. It says that we Democrats are afraid of falling short of high expectations and would therefore prefer to play the politics of safety. Pleasing no one all the time. That isn‚t how the Democratic Party enacted Social Security. That isn't how Medicare and Medicaid came to cut the number of Americans living in poverty in half. And that isn't how we're going to bring our young men and women home from Iraq or figure out a way to ensure that high quality and affordable health care is available to every American, putting the US in line with such mega-powers as Costa Rica and every other industrialized nation. That mess is shall we say a sin, a shame, an embarrassment , a disgrace, an affront to common sense and/or and injustice to the American people. You choose.
The voters voted overwhelmingly on November 7th to exceed the low expectations and even worse outcomes set and reached by the Republican Party over the last six years. They clearly, after years of suffering through hypocrisy and doublespeak from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Ted Haggard don‚t want the Democrats to be the party that punishes their truth-tellers, no matter how painful that truth might be.
It is time that Democratic consultants who've mostly made a living helping their safe candidates lose their elections, attempt to set aside their own considerable incomes and figure out how to work for American voters who want more for this country.
I am trashing the Democrats for trashing Democrats? Yep! Have I got that right? It comes with the territory. Carville was right when he was whining throughout the summer that we had to program and focus. We Democrats suffered a paralyzing depression after the 2004 campaign worthy of party-wide Prozac consumption.Yes, I think many here know that James Carville is a Clinton loving consultant, who would like nothing more then to see Hillary in power and would, in many eyes, be willing to crush the Democratic Party to do it. He hasn't been elected to anything and he failed to dethrone the Master Dean. Many are beginning to utter above the whispers that James Carville is irrelevant.I’ll admit it's difficult to express my severe disappointment with my former hero, James Carville. When Carville appeared on the national political scene, he was a breath of fresh air. The Cajun Democratic dynamo was a real man of the people speaking in the language of the average man on the street, talking about real world issues. Oh how the American people long for that!
But, the perception, fortified by his latest outburst, is that he appears to have slowly been captured by the system, and become enamored of his new Hollywood friends and his less than illustrious debut in film making and production. He is seen now talking like an inside-the-Beltway politician, infected with beltway blindness, an affliction that inevitably is politically fatal, spewing the normal venom of the Washington insiders against populist leaders of the Democratic Party, like Howard Dean.
Carville believes that Dean should be replaced because the Democratic gain in Congress was not even bigger than the landslide it was. (No seriously, I am not making this up.) Carville and other Washington insider critics think that the Democratic National Committee could have won around a dozen more seats in Congress by putting more money into those House races.
Dean has been focused on a real fifty-state strategy of Party building that has already helped Democrats gain control of Congress and the US Senate. Democrats made impressive gains in Governorships and state legislatures, and impressive gains in the West and Northeast. The decline of Democratic prospects in the South has been halted and significant future gains appear likely.
It is true that more money would have produced victories in certain campaigns had they received more national support. The campaign of Chris Bell in the Texas Governor race is a prime example. The Ford Senate campaign in Tennessee really needed more national financial support. The House seats not won are important but targeting the right ones would have been difficult if not impossible to determine. Money pulled from other DNC efforts might have resulted in losses elsewhere in this election cycle and future elections.
Carville seems to be excessively focused on short-term gains. This kind of thinking is largely responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party in the pre-Dean era. The Washington power elite had been playing insider politics as a zero sum game looking for immediate gains at the expense of the future before Dean became DNC Chairman.
Our entire nation has been suffering from this kind of short-term thinking from the elite in DC and Wall Street. Democrats need to relearn the concept of sacrificing now and investing to produce a more bountiful future. While Carville has lost touch with his populist roots, Dean has not -- he gets it. Dean would spend money building a grassroots Democratic structure in places like Mississippi, Iowa, Montana, Kansas, Colorado, Alabama, Georgia, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, making Republicans fight to hold their geographic base instead of always being on the defense trying to protect a shrinking Democratic turf.
The great Democratic tide is still rising. It is a populist tide. The Washington insiders and power elite can join the effort or be swept away. The 2006 Election was the beginning and not the crest, and this new populism is based on a struggling middle class given national power by the Internet and the rise of new organizations. This populism is closely tied by issues and background with the grassroots of the labor union movement and local civic reform movements. It has deep roots in the FDR New Deal traditions of the Democratic Party. Dean understands this.
Meanwhile, Carville needs to get out into the heartland and start talking to local Democratic leaders. Carville needs more Kansas and less D.C. Dean has not been captured by the system. While Carville appears to have been, I still have hope for the man, and I will be praying for him. I hope he can learn from Howard Dean and reconnect with his roots in the populist tradition of the Democratic Party.
==
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio. He can be reached at midsouthcm@aol.com.
Sweet blog extra: Carville wants Dean out as Democratic chairman
Howard Dean, watch your back. James Carville wants you out.
Democratic strategist James Carville, in his trademark scorching rhetoric, said Wednesday he wants to dump Dean as chief of the Democratic National Committee.
The reason: Carville said Dean left a $6 million credit line on the table and the that we could have used the money to pick up even more seats in the mid-term elections as more opportunities opened up late in the game. The House and Senate political operations spent their borrowings.Carville's candidate to replace Dean is Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) who lost a bid for a Senate seat in the Nov. 7 balloting--but Ford is not interested and street talk now has it that he has no interest in being anyone’s sock puppet.
“We did win the Battle of Gettysburg,” said Carville, but the Dems picking up some 30 House seats, 6 Senate seats, 6 governorships and 9 state legislative chambers is not enough. Carville said the favorable circumstances for Dems won’t come around again until 2038—though it’s not clear exactly how he came up with that exact year. But he made his point, his sound bite.
Karen Finney DNC spokesman said, "It's disappointing that in light of historic democratic victories all across the country, up and down the ballot James would praise the RNC, the outfit behind the racist ad that defeated Harold Ford on the one hand, and simply doesn't know the facts about what the DNC did in this election. The DNC happily did take out a loan because Governor Dean is committed to helping Democrats win. If James is truly interested in knowing more about the DNC's efforts all his has to do is call and ask." It is a fact that Carville’s activities in the November Election cycle were limited to New York and Hillary and his TV performances.
Dean was at odds with House and Senate party political bosses Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) over his long term strategy to use money to grow Democratic organizations in 50 states rather than to focus on the mid-terms. In the end of a nasty public disagreement, Dean did allot $2.4 million to help House contests.
“I have no problem with the fifty state strategy, that’s fine,” Carville said somewhat dismissively. “The play of a political party is not to hire people, it is to elect people.” If there was ever someone entitled to the “Monday Morning Quarterback label, James owns it lock_stock_and_–Barrel at the moment.
When Dean, asked about the disagreements with Emanuel and Schumer he said his job was to deal with long term growth and the lawmakers task was short term. That would seem to the proper job descriptions to this writer.
The Democrats mid-term win was decisive, but Carville takes Dean to task for missing opportunities that could have solidified Democratic control of Congress and pave the way for a Democrat in the White House in 2008. DNC money should have been sent to third tier races, Carville said.
"We should have chased their Army down," said Carville, still on the Gettysburg analogy.Carville is not a member of the DNC—but his is a very loud and influential voice.
“Democrats’ suffer from timidity, and that does not serve us well,” said Carville. We have been hearing that one for months, nothing new in that spin line.
Looking ahead, “why not go in with everything you got…that’s not the case right now…
.…What I am saying is you got to get money in these campaigns when you are coming down the stretch.”
Carville appeared with Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg at a briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. As they did so we racked up additional gaing that they choose not to speak of: Democrats won new majorities in nine chambers: Indiana House,New Hampshire House and Senate,Iowa House and Senate,Minnesota House,Michigan house,Wisconsin Senate, and the Oregon House.
Hey folks, lets be honest about this flap. Who is Carville best friends with? Who has he in the past worked for? Who has he done the leg-work, as they say, for? Who does he praise every chance he gets? The answer in each case is the CLINTON'S ! Think about it. Harold Ford tried to keep Pelosi from being the leader of the democrats in congress 2 years ago. She beat him for minority leader back then. Hillary wants a smooth road to the nomination. Howard Dean may be a bit of a speed bump. He may want open primaries with equal funds for all the democratic candidates, and no allegiance to any one person. Pelosi owes Dean because Dean's hardwork and dedication have won the democrats congress and Pelosi the Speaker' job.
The Clinton's are having Carville try to stir things up and embarrass and remove Dean....Some dirty politics ahead. Stay tuned.
But if you walk the streets of Alexandria Virginia and “Listen” to the chatter you are quickly impressed with how quickly the locals dismiss their neighbor when he is having a hissy fit, with: “Why would anyone take Carville seriously?” Those with beltway blinders on hang on every word around here, but…let's take a trip in the way back machine shall we?
First of all, let's remember how Carville undermined John Kerry's potential challenge to the result in Ohio in 2004:
Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.
So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.
So what happened?
James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.
"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'
"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."
Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
And then there's this Carville gem from 2000:
"By choosing former Georgia governor Zell Miller as his running mate, Al Gore could add intellectual brainpower, rhetorical firepower, and lots of plain old populist piss-and-vinegar to this staid election.
"Zell Miller is also a world-class campaigner and orator. His keynote address to the 1992 Democratic convention ranks with Barbara Jordan's and Mario Cuomo's as one of the finest examples of powerful rhetoric and partisan passion.
"At a time when politics seems moribund, Zell would bring energy. When people are looking for heroes, Zell's the real thing. And when Democrats need someone who's not afraid to open up a can of whupass on the radical right , they need look no further than Zell Miller."
So again, folks are asking why anyone would take Carville seriously and what has he done since 1992?
Our gains outside of Washington, D.C. were at least equal to, if not greater than, our gains within Washington, D.C. Using the information found on DLCC.org, here is what we accomplished....
The DNC Chairman is elected by delegates from the State parties, NOT James Carville, Dick Morris, or any other pundit consultant.
Also want to throw in this observation about Chuck Schumer vs. Rahm Emanuel?
"Chuck Schumer hasn't run around to every traditional media outlet to pat himself on the back and hog all the credit for this victory, when our victories in the Senate were incredible. We all knew we'd take the House, but how many really thought we could swing six Senate seats? Schumer's leadership in this achievement was critical, but he graciously acknowledges all contributions to the effort."
But let us digress for moment and consider the following The Daily Kos.
Quoted from: Is Carville Emanuel's Sockpuppet?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/15/145333/83
Is Carville Emanuel's Sockpuppet?
by mcjoan
Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:53:33 AM PST
So apparently the 50-state strategy was all James Carville's idea, and Howard Dean messed it up.
Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.
The reason they didn't, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called "third tier" House races against vulnerable Republicans.
And what 20 other House seats would those be, Carville? And what about that $6 million that Emanuel sunk into just two losing campaigns, Duckworth's and Farrell's? And how about those third-tier races that the DCCC never went into or went into so late that it couldn't make a difference? How about ID-01? How much money did the DCCC spend there? How about WY-AL? How much did the DCCC spend on that one, Carville? Or maybe CO-06? The DCCC really stepped up for Bill Winter, there, didn't they.
Obviously James Carville is not a stupid man. He knows he didn't invent the 50-state strategy and that this line that they didn't pick up an additional 20 seats because of Dean is ridiculous. So what's the explanation? Why is he spouting these absurdities? Covering for Emanuel because he either ignored or got into the third tier of races so late? Frankly, Emanuel never imagined that we could have had 50 seat pickup this year, and he wanted to focus on the 20 races he started with, on his grand plan.
Is Carville is carrying Emanuel's water on this one? I don't know for sure, but I do know that the rest of the Dem Party establishment has credited Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy for the great success of this cycle. Senator Schumer said so himself in a comment in his diary today:
Friday night I was on the Bill Maher show and talked about what a great job Dean has been doing at the DNC. The DNC helped out at a crucial time financially and organizationally that helped put us over the top.
Chuck Schumer hasn't run around to every traditional media outlet to pat himself on the back and hog all the credit for this victory, when our victories in the Senate were incredible. We all knew we'd take the House, but how many really thought we could swing six Senate seats? Schumer's leadership in this achievement was critical, but he graciously acknowledges all contributions to the effort.
This year we won because we are smart, committed to a common cause, determined, and indefatigable. The diversity of our new Democratic majority shows that we have a big tent. From Ben Cardin to Amy Klobuchar to Bob Casey to Bernie Sanders, to Jon Tester and James Webb, our candidates were energetic campaigners, and will now be exceptional members of the Senate.
Your efforts, combined with the DNC's 50-state strategy, is creating a political environment that is one of the best Democrats have seen in decades. Our bench of candidates is growing, our state parties are becoming stronger, and our prospects for growing our majority look brighter everyday.
Let's briefly look at some of what else the 50-state strategy achieved:
Fifteen state governments are now solidly blue politically, seven more than before the voting. Ten state capitals are fully in Republicans' hands, down from 12. The other 25 states have divided government.
The Democratic surge was not restricted by region, and puts the party in a strong position going into the 2008 presidential election because of the vast new extent of its grip on the levers of politics and policy.
In November'selection, the Democrats picked up four open governors' seats that had been in GOP hands. But I guess state legislatures and governors' seats don't matter in James Carville's or Rahm Emanuel's world.
If I'm wrong about Carville acting on Emanuel's behalf, then Rahm can set the record straight by disassociating himself from Carville's remarks and praising Dean. Unless he's too busy being interviewed for the next puff piece on how he made the world safe for Democrats again. I'm not holding my breath.
Tags: Democratic Party, James Carville, Rahm Emanuel, Howard Dean, 2006 elections, 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton, strategy (all tags)
And Resume…
Money wasn't the reason that Dems didn't win more races -- it was the anti-anti-war center right Democratic candidates that Rahm Emanuel recruited. Rahm's determination that the war not be an issue put his candidates on the wrong side of the Iraq issue. A strong majority of Americans are sick and tired of the bloodshed and dollars lost in the Iraq folly, but Emanuel's candidates dared not speak such things. Now let’s talk about just plain stupid!
And if you still think that more cash -- and not issues -- could have won more races, just look at all the money spent on the Dem loss in Rahm's back yard. Money was not the problem in the 6th District.
More evidence of Howard Dean's "failure" here?
The facts just rolling in…Dean was right!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/16/02642/792
Redstate: 50 state strategy "destroyed" Delaware GOP
by clyde
Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:26:41 PM PST
This is going to be some excerpts from one of the most satisfying diaries I've seen all season, titled "Is Howard Dean's strategy working?". And it's not even from DailyKos--it's from Redstate, our Republican counterpart. It was first linked by SouthSideDem in this comment attached to Delawareliberal's excellent diary about the 50-state strategy in Delaware. It describes (from the losing side's point of view) what the DNC did to win a specific downticket race in Delaware, but McJoan's front page post about Chris Bowers' article shows the same thing happened everywhere in the country.
Below the fold I'll paste a few excerpts. You should really read the whole thing on Redstate yourself. The discussion thread there is interesting too.
More...
From the Red State diary:
The Delaware Republicans were putting up the most experienced prosecutor, with a 6-1 favorability, as their candidate for attorney general. The Democrats ran Beau Biden, who's never prosecuted a single criminal case in Delaware. In the final weeks of the campaign, the Republican Ferris Wharton, and two Republican state senate (farm team) candidates held leads in the polls. That all changed however, in the final 72 hours of the campaign.
Turns out, the Democrats used the DNC's $100,000 to pay for 2 field representatives who engineered the largest GOTV effort the Democrats had ever put forth in Delaware's history. The state party used that money to rent 36 vans for union workers and paid college students to go door to door and drag Democrats to the polls and pull the blue lever. It provided the difference as Beau Biden won by a few percentage points. Both of the Republicans hoped-for farm team candidates lost badly as well.
While Dean's strategy may have seemed initially to be a poor use of limited resources, it effectively destroyed the Republican Party in Delaware. [emph added]
The conclusion is sweet:
Republicans have criticized him everywhere with "scream contests", and Democrats have disagreed with him internally. Yet the week after the polls closed it wasn't the DNC chair who had to resign and whose replacement was being debated.
And the aftermath, as described in Delaware liberal's great Delaware: a "50 state strategy" case study diary linked near the top] (read it!): the Delaware Dems are keeping all their staff members to get ready for the next cycle, and staying in contact with all their volunteers. The Delaware Republicans are laying off their entire staff.
From those are trying to down play any succsess you will hear: “Delaware is an east coast liberal state and has been, New Hampshire and Maine are the only moderate east coast states. Any state that re-elects an idiot like Joe Biden who brags that Delaware was a slave state(then again we have Dick Turbin and Baraky Obazko) is not a moderate state. And the Dems didn’t gerrymander in the 60 years they controlled the house before 94' If it wasnt for the conservative dems, and moderate republicans dems never would have won. Explain Liberman's win then knucklehead. But in your eyes Cuba is a Mecca. Frank "Abscam" Murtha proves that the Dems are no different than the GOP, After 2 years of Nutsy Pelosi you'll see a GOP president and congress.” A summary from nuts on both sides, red and blue!
I’m not going to worry about those trolls for the moment. They have no idea that their nasty personal attacks contributed to their trouncing, and that's probably a good thing.
It seems that we have fallen into the Beltway trap and believe that the only way that the Democratic Party can succeed is to demonize. Present a positive agenda and mainstream America will possibly take us seriously. I would be easier to field that agenda and so much more constructive fun destroying, discrediting the demonizers and negative attack campaigners…boy would it ever.
Let’s look at what some other folks are saying:
James Carville is a cancer; he has no credibility any longer; he is no friend to the Democratic party, not anymore.
Considering that the 50-state strategy is a long term project, it paid great dividends in the short term already, allowing Democrats on the local level to capitalize on the anti-republican state of the union. The total take on legislative chambers is now 10, putting us over the top.
According to the Tribune, Carville was trying to convince Rahm to play nice and strike a "conciliatory" tone in the final round of campaign ads. I mean, what the hell? Dems were on the attack, and Dems were winning.
Carville's brand of politics helped get Clinton elected, but led to 12 years of losses in the Congress. He has undermined the Democrats repeatedly, and he's trying to do so again. Its time for James Carville and his ilk to go AWAY.
Oh, and Dick Morris has ZERO credibility on anything Democratic. He jumped ship to the republicans years ago. He's nothing but a shill for the far right now. And its becoming clear that Carville is becoming the same.
The nation spoke, moderate and conservative Democrats were elected. Not liberals obviously or Frank Abscam, I mean Murtha would have won.
I can only hope that all Republicans are as deluded as Terry. Dick Morris as an authority on anything? Excuse me while I giggle uncontrollably for 10 minutes.
Dick Morris saved Clinton in 1994, and if it wasnt for him as unbelievable as it sounds there would have been a President Dole Who has more political credibility Chicago Jason or Dick Morris?
Carville and Immanual are hillary's handmaidens. If you want to have hillary win the nomination and run for pres., while losing the congress, again, just buy in to their tactical approach to politics. Its about them winning, they don't care about the party, or the people. Hillary is just another Evita wannabe anyway.
Let's be real here shall we? Hilary Clinton CANNOT win the Presidency. I'd rather Bill run. She will not win. Someone not Clinton is the only hope Dems have against McCain. I liked Mark Warner who is out. Bob Graham for VP. Dick Morris is all his first name implies. He is - no pun intended - a whore. Well all PUNS intended. And Carville? He sure is close to this white house isn't he?
Dick Morris is a w... which is why he was so good for Bill Clinton. They were perfect for each other. Fact he saved Bill Clinton from Hillary and himself.
I think Carville should go after the real failure here, Rham Emannuel, he blew it, they had a chance for a knockout and he dropped the ball. Only 28 seats is average in the 2nd term.
Stan Greenberg and James Carville
The founders of Democracy Corps, a Democratic strategy group, quesioned party leadership and gave their outlook for '08.
By David Cook
Sweet as it was to win control of the House and the Senate in the 2006 election, some Democratic operatives think their victory could have been bigger if national party chairman Howard Dean had been willing to spend more in districts where races were close.
According to Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, "there were two dozen seats in which Republicans got 51 percent or less....There is a very big difference between defending these seats as incumbents or still trying to pick these up while they are being protected by Republicans."
James Carville, who along with Greenberg co-founded Democracy Corps, a Democratic strategy group, told a Monitor breakfast on Wednesday, "We beat the hell out of them at the committees, at the congressional [campaign] committees. The DNC [Democratic National Committee] left the money on the table."
Carville said DNC Chairman Howard Dean should be dumped. Carville added that Dean "should be held accountable" and described his leadership as "Rumsfeldian in its competence."
Chairman Dean has been investing in a strategy of rebuilding the party in all 50 states and hiring local operatives to help with that task. DNC member Don Fowler sent fellow DNC members a message on Tuesday saying that talk of replacing Dean was "nonsense. The 50-state strategy is exactly what the Democratic Party needed and continues to need. Why do the Washington people think that they have a special prerogative to dictate what the Democratic Party needs?"
While saying he has no problem with the 50-state strategy, Carville quipped that, "the point of a political party is not to hire people, it is to elect people."
Beyond the question of party leadership, both Republicans and Democrats face dangers as they turn their attention to the 2008 presidential election. "The big Republican problem going into '08 is Bush. I mean, he is just unpopular," Carville said. "Unless he has a really good two years, which maybe he does, he is in danger of being a complete albatross on the Republican Party."
"The biggest danger for Democrats is that we do what we kind of do sometimes [and] fracture ...if it looks like we are kind of fighting and incapable and don't get anything done, that is our biggest danger," Carville said.
Settling Carville vs. Dean
Special to First Read from HotlineJames Carville has been generating a wave of publicity in criticizing DNC Chair Howard Dean for not sufficiently funding competitive House races. He’s claimed the Democrats could have won another dozen seats if the DNC allocated more money in the campaign’s final weeks. The DNC has pushed back on Carville’s charges. Who’s right?
Fourteen Democratic candidates lost by two points or less, but many of the campaigns were funded to the hilt by the Democratic House campaign committee (DCCC). Lois Murphy certainly can’t blame her loss in PA 06 on inadequate funding; the DCCC spent over $3 million on her behalf. Patricia Madrid (NM 01) also had plenty of money – her razor-thin loss came because of an embarrassing gaffe at a debate. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH 15), Darcy Burner (WA 08), Phil Kellam (VA 02), Christine Jennings, and Tammy Duckworth (IL 06) were all among the top-funded candidates by the DCCC. (In Jennings’ case, the money was funneled through the Florida Democratic party.)
And in some conservative districts, the DCCC strategically declined to spend money because they felt national advertising from Democrats would hurt their candidates. Gary Trauner, who narrowly lost to Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY AL), was the “victim” of such thinking.
That leaves six other races where more money could potentially have made a difference. Larry Kissell, who lost by less than 1 percent to GOP Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC 08), certainly would have benefited from some cash; the DCCC didn’t give his campaign a dime. But it wasn’t a lack of DCCC funds, it was a lack of strategic foresight in this case.
Linda Stender did better-than-expected against GOP Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ 07), but the DCCC would have had to enter the extremely-costly New York media market. Without the benefit of Monday morning quarterbacking, would that have been a worthwhile investment?
The losing Democratic candidates that legitimately could have a beef are: Tessa Hafen (NV 03), Dan Maffei (NY 25), Victoria Wulsin (OH 02) and Eric Massa (NY 29). These candidates ran in the type of third-tier races where the DCCC was only able to fund late. The New York environment was uniquely favorable this year, and another week of attack ads against Rep. Jim Walsh (R) perhaps could have brought him down.
Tessa Hafen was a late-emerging candidate who benefited from a mini-scandal surrounding Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV 03). An earlier investment here could have helped take Porter down. And, because of her historically Republican district, GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt managed to avoid the September attacks that her Republican counterparts received at the hands of the DCCC.
There’s realistically only four -- certainly no more than six seats -- that perhaps could have been won with extra cash. Extra money could have made a small difference, but certainly not to the degree that Carville has been suggesting. Dean may have made strategic blunders in the past, but his fiscal responsibility here seems like the wiser course.
I like James Carville. I have a lot of respect for his talent and his skill at running and managing a campaign. Having said that, he is wrong on this one. Howard Dean is right. He's right because the results speak for themselves. The objective for the Democratic party in the 2006 election was to take majority control of the House and the Senate. Mission Accomplished. Why diminish the success by whining and nit-picking over "wouldn't be great if we had an even bigger majority?" By-gones. Enjoy the success of the election; put it behind you; and get on with the business of governing. The voters are basically saying, "Republicans screwed it all up. Now it's your turn." Democrats would be wise to get busy; get down to work; and stop second guessing what dollars should have been spent where on inane TV commercials that we all find useless anyway.
I am a life long Democrat and have voted in every election since Kennedy. Every canidate that I voted for here in Colorado won. It was worth waiting in line for two hours. We nearly have a blue state now. I wish that James Carvel could be more consiliatory and helpful. Prehaps he is so cranky because he is sleeping with the enemy. That could be a very prickly situation. I am hoping that Dean stays on. He certainly did a better job on this election than anyone else before him. I would say to James Carvel, what have you done lately for the Democratic party? We Democrats have a big job ahead of us and we need to be united. In the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"
November Thursday 16th 2006 (05h36) : Howard Dean’s accomplishments versus James Carville’s failures 8 comment(s).
I am a life long Democrat and have voted in every election since Kennedy. Every canidate that I voted for here in Colorado won. It was worth waiting in line for two hours. We nearly have a blue state now. I wish that James Carvel could be more consiliatory and helpful. Prehaps he is so cranky because he is sleeping with the enemy. That could be a very prickly situation. I am hoping that Dean stays on. He certainly did a better job on this election than anyone else before him. I would say to James Carvel, what have you done lately for the Democratic party? We Democrats have a big job ahead of us and we need to be united. In the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"
November Thursday 16th 2006 (05h36) : Howard Dean’s accomplishments versus James Carville’s failures 8 comment(s).
Howard Dean’s accomplishments versus James Carville’s failures By Mary MacElveen November 15, 2006
Newsmax.com reports that James Carville the political has been stated that Democrats should fire Howard Dean as the chair of the Democratic National Committee. In the most laughable statement he likens Howard Dean to that of Donald Rumseld when he said, "I think he should be held accountable. I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”
Unlike Rumsfeld, Dean’s mission to retake the House was ‘Mission Accomplished’ in which Democrats took back more than the fifteen seats needed to become the majority in that house. In fact, they took back thirty and Carville now complains that fifty should have been won. If there were a message I could send to Carville, it would be, “We won the House, stupid!”
In Howard Dean’s short tenure as the chair of the DNC he has made more of an impact since Carville won the White House for Bill Clinton and the Democrats back in 1992. Then again, I would say that victory was won by both Clinton and Gore and had little to do with Carville.
It was then in 1994 that the House was lost to the Republicans with their ‘Contract with America’ campaign. It has been that long since Democrats controlled the House. James Carville had twelve years in order to lead this party from a minor party to a majority party and he failed at doing so.
When Carville complained that he tried to meet with Dean in the last days prior to this election in which Dean declined, I am most assured that Dean had more important priorities to attend to then listen to a man that had not delivered any significant victories for the party. He stated that he was upset that in the days leading up to the Democratic victory, he would have advised Dean to spend extra money. Dean is a fiscal conservative and his record as the governor of Vermont proves it. Would his advice if taken bankrupt the party?
On a North Dakota news site, they ran this story: Dean deserves much credit. I want to remind all that North Dakota is as red as they come when it comes to defining how a state votes.
This is what they reported, “Election successes across the country could not have happened without the help of the Democratic National Committee’s 50 State Strategy.” I wonder if Carville is listening to North Dakota as he shoots his mouth off.
This article even states that much of the credit should be given to Chairman Howard Dean and citing the many races won country-wide. They even had this to say of Chairman Dean, “The brainchild was his, and although he came under much fire for it, it paid off with a wave of Democratic success stories across the country.” Are you paying attention, Carville or do you just like to hear the sound of your own voice and see your name in print? Could it be part jealousy that Dean was able to accomplish this in such a short amount of time?
These are the races the news article gives credit to Dean in helping the Democrats win, “Democrats control the U.S. Senate. Democrats control the U.S. House. There are now 28 Democratic governors. Democrats control state legislative bodies 54 to 41. Democrats control state legislative seats 3,964 to 3,307. In North Dakota, we made significant legislative gains (more than we have since the 1980’s).” That is the Dean record accompanied by the thousands of volunteers across this country that helped us “Take back our country”
When Carville had this to say of Harold Ford Jr. who he thought should replace Dean, “Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."
According to the MemphisFlyer.com Harold Ford Jr. issued the following statement, "I have just finished a tough Senate election, and while I care about the future direction of my party, I am not interested in taking over the DNC," He then went onto say, "We are now the majority party in the House and Senate, and it is time to move beyond the politics of the campaign ..." So why is Carville continuing this campaign when clearly the man he wanted to replace Dean with says the opposite?
In speaking of moving on, the American people gave us their trust in leading this country and men like Carville just do not understand that. This is a time for party unity, not disunity in which we put the needs of the people first and leave the vitriolic statements behind. It is about delivering jobs, a real minimum wage, health care and so many other vital programs back to those that have been left behind with the GOP led congress. It is about trying to end the war in Iraq so that we can bring home the fathers and mothers of American children who go to bed each night wondering if they are safe and praying they are.
The only motive I see is that Carville wants the Democratic Party to return to a place in time in which the Democrats suffered defeat after defeat in congress. He has not given us one victory since 1992. That is his record.
http://www.marymacelveen.com/blog/_archives/2006/11/15/2503297.html
I couldn’t have said it better! Really I couldn’t have! Glad you said it! Also, my biggest complaint about Democrats is that they don’t support each other. If I could see one thing happen differently, (as someone who really doesn’t want to have to pay this much attention to politics but feels forced to with the horrible direction our country has headed into) I want to see the Dems rally around each other through thick or thin... Howard Dean was a worthy presidential candidate but he is proving to be an even more worthy chairperson! James’ is entertaining but really James go play for the other team if you are this dissatisfied with our progress. We want to take it from here and move forward not deal with infighting!
Carville: Dean's leadership 'Rumsfeldian'; calls for new DNC headNovember 16, 2006
By Scott Shepard Cox News
WASHINGTON — Democratic strategist James Carville started an intra-party scuffle Wednesday by blasting Howard Dean's leadership as "Rumsfeldian in its competence" and calling on Dean to be replaced as head of the Democratic National Committee.Carville's comparison of Dean to embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made during coffee and rolls with a small group of political reporters at a downtown hotel, got a swift response from the DNC and state party chairs, who have enthusiastically backed Dean's 50-state strategy calling for rebuilding the party in Republican states."James simply doesn't know the facts about what the DNC did in this election," DNC Communications Director Karen Finney said. "If James is truly interested in knowing more about the DNC's efforts all he has to do is call and ask."Carville, one of the best known strategists in the party, said the Democratic victory in last week's election could have been greater if Dean had been willing to spend more money in congressional districts where races were close. In addition to 30-odd House seats the Democrats have picked up so far, he said, the party could have won at least 14 more if Dean put more money into the races in the final days.According to Carville, with the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees having "borrowed to the hilt," the DNC spent $4 million of a $10 million line of credit in the final weeks of the campaign, but "left the ($6 million) on the table."Asked whether Dean should be dumped by the party, Carville replied, "In a word, do I think? Yes." He added, "I think he should be held accountable … I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence."He suggested Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee as a replacement. But Ford, who narrowly lost his U.S. Senate campaign last week, has said he is not interested in the DNC post.Carville likened the Democratic victory in last week's congressional election to the Civil War battle at Gettysburg, which Union forces won but did not pursue the retreating Confederate army. "We should have chased them down."Carville said he has no problem with Dean's 50-state strategy, which involves rebuilding the party with the paid assistance of local operatives in all states. But "the point of a political party is not to hire people, it is to elect people," he said.Carville's attack on Dean puzzled independent political analysts, but some suggested the one-time chief political adviser to the Clinton administration is trying to regain influence in the party as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is preparing for a campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination."Carville is grasping for relevancy," said Tom Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Maryland and author of "Whistling Past Dixie," a book about Democratic political gains in the Interior West. "Dean has not been a perfect chair, but none of his sins will be washed away by installing Ford."In addition to the DNC's reaction to Carville, liberal bloggers came to Dean's defense, many noting that Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the key architects of the Democratic congressional victories, had praised the party chairman for his assistance in the midterm election. Earlier in the campaign, however, Schumer and Emanuel both clashed with Dean over spending priorities.Dailykos, the popular blog of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who worked for Dean's presidential campaign in 2004, called Carville a "sockpuppet" for Emanuel. And the Northwest Progressive Institute blog called Carville "the king con man of the Democratic Party."DNC officials noted that the party committee spent more than $30 million on congressional elections this year, a record for mid-term elections. They disputed Carville's claim that he tried to meet with Dean at the end of the campaign in an effort to get more money for the so-called "third tier" of Democratic challengers who were even or narrowly trailing Republicans in GOP-leaning House districts.The DNC also distributed statements from state party chairs praising Dean's efforts and an e-mail from DNC member Don Fowler of South Carolina, a widely respected former national party chair, saying suggestions that Dean should be replaced as national chairman are "nonsense.""I hope that all DNC members will join me in rejecting this foolishness," Fowler's message said. "Democrats won a great victory on Nov. 7 … Why should anyone want to mess with the team that won these remarkable results?"
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
James Carville compares Dean to Rumsfeld
James Carville, continuing his attack on Howard Dean, has compared the DNC chairman to Donald Rumsfeld.
Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence.Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans.Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.”He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”
It would be best to simply ignore Carville, seeing as he has repeatedly acted as the worst sort of buffoon, but the cable TV executives need buffoons, clowns and assorted jerks to keep their ratings up...or so they think.If you want to know why Hillary Clinton can't be Democratic nominee in 2008, you need look no further than James Carville, a partner in the firm of Carville-Matalin.These people are self-aggrandizing snakes. I've never understood the rose-colored glasses with which people view the Clinton years anyhow. Hillary bears some of the blame for the healthcare plan that the Clinton administration couldn't get through, and Bill helped us lose the Congress, yet somehow these are the people who we need to turn to?People like Carville don't seem interested in Democratic unity. Nor do they seem interested in trusting anybody outside of the political establishment.Dean comes from the movement, and doesn't take orders from consultants or other big shots. That's apparently what's bothering Carville. He may as well shut up now before he causes us further embarrassment. Dean isn't going anywhere.We also need to steer clear of triangulation (or as I called it "tri-strangulation").We can have a big tent. What we can't have is people who will actively work to subvert the party. Howard Dean was elected chair of the DNC by its members. If Carville wishes to change that, he can stand for election or support a different candidate in 2008.And if he isn't interested in belonging to a party that is driven by a people powered movement, he can join the GOP. It's evident they're remaining an establishment party.
Carville says Dean fumbled chance for bigger Democratic win, should be replacedPublished: Friday, November 17, 2006By Sam HemingwayFree Press Staff WriterDemocratic leaders are feuding over whether party Chairman Howard Dean deserves credit for victories last week that gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress and a majority of the country's 50 governorships.
The dispute broke out this week after James Carville, a high-profile party strategist, was quoted Wednesday in The New York Times as saying Democrats could have done even better had the former Vermont governor put more party money into close congressional races around the country. Carville called for Dean's firing. State Democratic leaders around the country said Dean, by having professional field workers on the ground everywhere as part of his "50-state strategy," was responsible for some of the party's successes. "I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its incompetence," Carville said of Dean during a recent breakfast gathering of Washington, D.C., newsmakers and reporters, referring to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Carville said the Democratic National Committee, which Dean heads, took out a $10 million line of credit to assist in the effort to elect Democrats to Congress but spent only half of it. Dean has said he was unwilling to divert money away from the "50-state strategy," his long-range vision for rebuilding the party's infrastructure. "He should be held accountable," Carville said, according to The New York Times report, later adding, "Do we want to go into '08 with a C-minus general at the DNC?" Carville, regarded as the mastermind of President Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 presidential victories, was joined in his criticism of Dean by party pollster Stan Greenberg, who is also Carville's business partner.
Dean, through a spokesman, declined to comment on Carville's remarks."Chairman Dean is focused on continuing to rebuild the party, not on engaging James Carville," Damien LaVera said Thursday in a statement. At the same time, LaVera released e-mails that 15 state party officials around the country had sent to Carville this week, defending Dean's performance. "I hold the view that Governor Dean's approach to party building is essential to the long-term health of our party," Steve Achelpohl, chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party said in an e-mail. "He gives Democrats hope and opportunity in all parts of the country, many far too long ignored by the Democratic Party." Wrote Amy Burks, vice chairwoman of the Alabama Democratic Party: "Before you talk about replacing Chairman Dean, learn what really has been done with his vision. Just because you didn't head the program, don't assume it is no good."
Thursday, an online version of Hotline, a Washington, D.C., political insider newsletter, reported that Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "had called Dean to distance himself from the Carville remarks." Emanuel and Dean are considered rivals. Next month, Dean will travel to Canada and Great Britain to advise left-leaning political parties in those countries on how to revitalize their party operations. Dean, who ran for his party's presidential nomination in 2004, will be the keynote speaker for the Canadian Liberal Party at its Dec. 3 convention in Montreal and has been invited by Labor Party leaders in Britain to help them improve their voter outreach.
"Chairman Dean welcomes the opportunity to consult with the Labor Party officials and is looking forward to the trip," LaVera said.Contact Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or e-mail at
shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
Stephen Crockett
Carville Simply Wrong on Howard Dean and DNCBy Stephen CrockettNov 17, 2006, 08:40
I find it difficult to express my severe disappointment with my former hero, James Carville. When Carville appeared on the national political scene, he was a real breathe of fresh air. The Cajun Democratic dynamo was a real man of the people speaking in the language of the average man on the street and talking about real world issues.
Stephen Crockett
Carville Simply Wrong on Howard Dean and DNCBy Stephen CrockettNov 17, 2006, 08:40
I find it difficult to express my severe disappointment with my former hero, James Carville. When Carville appeared on the national political scene, he was a real breathe of fresh air. The Cajun Democratic dynamo was a real man of the people speaking in the language of the average man on the street and talking about real world issues.
Carville appears to have slowly been captured by the system. He is now talking like an inside the Beltway politician and spewing the normal venom of the Washington insiders against the populist leader of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean.
Carville seems to think that Dean should be replaced because the Democratic gain in Congress was not bigger than the landslide it was. (No seriously, he has been making statements to that effect. I am not making this up.) Carville and other Washington insider critics believe that the Democratic National Committee could have won around a dozen more seats in Congress by putting more money into those House races.
Dean has been focused on a real 50 state strategy of Party building that has already helped Democrats gain control of Congress and the US Senate. We made impressive gains in Governorships and state legislatures. We made impressive gains in the West and Northeast. The decline of Democratic prospects in the South has been halted and significant future gains appear likely.
It is true that more money would have produced victories in certain campaigns had they received more national support. The campaign of Chris Bell in the Texas Governor race is a prime example. The Ford Senate campaign in Tennessee really needed more national financial support. The House seats not won are important but targeting the right ones would have been difficult if not impossible to determine. Money pulled from other DNC efforts might have resulted in losses elsewhere in this election cycle and future elections.
Carville seems to be excessively focused on short-term gains. This kind of thinking is largely responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party in the pre-Dean era. The Washington power elite had been playing insider politics as a zero sum game looking for immediate gains at the expense of the future before Dean became DNC Chairman.
Our entire nation has been suffering from this kind of short-term thinking from the elite in DC and Wall Street. As a nation and a political party, we need to relearn the concept of sacrificing now and investing to produce a more bountiful future. Howard Dean gets it!
Carville has lost touch with his populist roots. Dean has not. Dean would spend money building a grassroots Democratic structure in places like Mississippi, Iowa, Montana, Kansas, Colorado, Alabama, Georgia, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. He would make the Republicans fight to hold their geographic base instead of always being on the defense trying to protect a shrinking Democratic geographic turf.
The Democratic Party needs to be a truly national Party with a truly national leadership. We have that kind of leadership at the Democratic National Committee. We have a national leader who wants to recruit and strengthen our Party at the county, town and city level everywhere. He will not write-off places like Licking County, Ohio or Lincoln County, Tennessee or Cecil County, Maryland. He will not surrender Valdez, Alaska or Lynchburg, Virginia or West Jefferson, North Carolina to uncontested Republican dominance.
Dean will fight for our great Democratic Party in all 50 states and not just a dozen or so competitive Congressional Districts. Democrats will fight in those Districts and another 400 more in 2008. We will fight again in 2010 and 2012. This fight is eternal. We need a Party organization that is permanently vigilant and not based just on individual candidate campaigns during election years. Dean gets it!
The great Democratic tide is still rising. It is a populist tide. The Washington insiders and power elite in the Democratic Party can join the effort or be swept away. The 2006 Election was the beginning and not the crest. This new populism is based on a struggling middle class given national power by the Internet and the rise of new organizations. This populism is closely tied by issues and background with the grassroots of the labor union movement and local civic reform movements. It has deep roots in the FDR New Deal traditions of the Democratic Party. Dean gets it!
In the heartland, the Democratic Party has shown surprising new life in recent years. The Red heartland has started to become Purple and looks headed Blue. This development can be seen in activities like My Rural America.org http://myruralamerica.org/.
Carville needs to get out into the heartland and start talking to local Democratic leaders. Carville needs more Kansas and less DC. Dean has not been captured by the system. I still have hope for Carville. I will be praying for him. I hope he can learn from Howard Dean and reconnect with his roots in the populist tradition of the Democratic Party.
Monday, November 20, 2006
"Carville coup" has been crushed
The Carville coup has been crushed. From MyDD:
The attempts to oust Dean have been crushed. The anti-Deaniacs in the party are fresh out of friends:"James Carville's attempt to topple Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee failed after state party officials and even a vocal critic of Dean crushed the coup, officials said.Insiders from the Clinton camp winced at Carville's untimely remarks last week calling for Dean's ouster in favor of unsuccessful Senate candidate Harold Ford of Tennessee."It was not coming from [Sen. Hillary Clinton] and they made a real effort to distance themselves from James' comments," said a source close to the Clintons.
The Clintonistas don't want an undeserved backlash from the activist wing of the party that overwhelmingly supports Dean, especially because some anti-Clinton Democrats have blamed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the attack by Carville, a longtime Clinton insider. Those forces claimed Carville's motive was to topple Dean in favor of a chairman more favorable to Sen. Clinton's bid for President."The remarks form Clinton's camp come after Charles Schumer and Donnie Fowler backed Howard Dean and the fifty-state strategy, the Association of State Democratic Chairs did the same, and after Dean scored a 96% approval rating on the latest Dailykos leadership poll. The latter two are particularly key, because over the past two years, Howard Dean's base of support in the party has come primarily from two sources: state parties and the progressive movement. Although lacking in nuance, it would not be inaccurate to characterize the current modus operandi of the DNC as follows: small donations from progressive movement activists flow to the DNC in record amounts, and most of those donations end up being spent on direct grants to state parties and in the form of state-level field organizers. This is a novel path for Democratic money to take, especially since it generally bypasses both Washington, D.C. based consultants and wealthy donors. It is also exactly why Carville's base of supporters hate Dean so much.
Naturally, those who have made tremendous amounts of money losing elections for us will never go away completely. But it's very clear that the progressive netroots will not allow scummy consultants like Carville to mess with our hopes for success. Smart consultants will embrace the new era. Dumb ones will continue to make lousy television ads. Carville should be finished as a Democratic Party force. But he'll be back in one form or another, I'm sure, probably on Faux Network. I hear they have a big programming hole to fill now.
Is James Carville Throwing Hillary Clinton Under the Bus? (39 comments )
READ MORE: New York Times, Hillary Clinton
The Rajun Cajun took to CNN this week and said that anyone who left any money on the table or in their coffers when there was a chance to take back elected seats is a bad leader. He said, "I think this party ought to be focused. It is the candidates whose hearts are broken out there.
It is the candidates and their families and their staffs who have been let down, because we left -- we left them hanging out there." If I didn't know any better, I would think that he was talking about the junior Senator from New York. Indeed, when looking at the bluest of blue states, New York, there was a chance to take back the State Senate, where there were a number of tight races that Democrats ultimately lost. Hillary Clinton, who had just a nominal race, ended her campaign with upwards of $10 million cash in hand. Could she have made a difference in a number of those races by giving more money to the state party and its committees, as well as candidates? Absolutely. According to Carville, people who do things like that are "C-minus generals" and "Rumsfeldian" in their incompetence, as he told The New York Times. I take a different view - Hillary did all she responsibly could. First of all, the Senator did a hell of a lot to help her state candidates, despite ending the campaign with a lot of money in her own bank account. Clinton either directly gave or helped raise $550,000 for the state party, while her Political Action Committee gave roughly $96,000 to state candidates. It's not necessarily a matter of money, then, but whether these candidates did the right thing with the money.
Apparently, they didn't in all cases. Second, why should Hillary Clinton bankrupt her own campaign treasury? There are limits to how generous one can be with their campaign warchest. Who knows if Clinton will face a strong challenge in six years which will necessitate a large sum of cash on hand? That, of course, is if the obvious doesn't happen in another two years. That brings me to my next point - Hillary obviously is thinking about making a jump to a higher office. She has longterm plans for that money. Keeping some cash in the reserves is essential, if she's not to mortgage her longterm plans. Back, then, to James Carville. Actually, his newly-espoused philosophy of life and politics wasn't meant to tar Hillary Clinton -- he was referring to Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean. Carville has his shorts in a knot because Howard Dean refused to bankrupt the party by sending more cash to Carville and his buddies for ineffective television ads at the end of the campaign. Dean was smart.
Though the party had a $10 million line of credit - the same amount Hillary had on hand - he refused to send the party into deep debt, just to make some consultants happy. Additionally, like Hillary, Dean has a longterm plan for the party. Specifically, Dean is committed to building up state parties, to make the Democrats competitive in every state in the union. Dean's strategy is smart politics, but nothing novel. Throughout the 80s, the Republican Party and its right wing focused on state and local elections, and building an infrastructure outside of Washington, DC. This allowed them to foster "conservative ideals" in communities that had been strongly Democratic, and groom candidates for eventual runs at higher office. This strategy paid huge dividends in 1994 when governorships, state houses, and both houses of Congress were eaten up by the GOP. Unfortunately, what it doesn't mean for James Carville and his buddies is more contracts.
State parties and local candidates tend to hire local consultants and focus not on television ads, but on field activities and voter-to-voter outreach. That's what all his consternation is about. For if it really was about principle, Carville would be going after Hillary just as hard as he's going after Dean. So, it's up to you, James. Are you ready to slam Hillary Clinton too, or will you back down? Your move.
Democrats Stand Behind Dean; Carville "Got The Facts Wrong"November 15, 2006 5:27 p.m. EST
Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer
Democrats Stand Behind Dean; Carville "Got The Facts Wrong"November 15, 2006 5:27 p.m. EST
Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Democratic National Committee (DNC) says it "gladly" spent millions to finance its victory over Republicans this November.
In an interview with All Headline News (AHN) DNC Communications director Karen Finney says strategist and pundit James Carville "got the facts wrong" when he said Democrats could have won more races if they had put more money into the fight.
Finney says the DNC knew 2006 would be "very important" and spent $30 million on campaigns, up from the $9.8 million they spent in 2002.
Carville, one of the leading Democratic strategists and a sharp voice within the party says Democrats could have won as many as 50 seats in the House, yet Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, never authorized the necessary campaign spending.
Yet, Finney contends Carville "simply doesn't know the facts about what the DNC did in this election. In addition to the $30 million we put into the '06 races, the DNC happily did take out a [$10 million] loan because Governor Dean is committed to helping Democrats win."
Finney adds that Democrats were fundraising "to the wire" and spent half of the $10 million loan on Congressional races.
Carville, on the other hand, tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, if he thinks Dean should resign; "In a word, do I think? Yes... I think he should be held accountable. I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence."
According to the paper, Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated. Carville believes, "We should have chased them down."
Yet, after a big win, Democrats see no reason to abandon Dean. Former DNC Chair Don Fowler says, "This is is nonsense... Democrats won a great victory on November 7; control of the United States House of Representatives, control of the United States Senate, majority of Governors, and majority of state legislative bodies. Governor Dean deserves to continue as DNC Chair."
Nebraska's Democratic Chair Steve Achelpohl, in an open letter to Carville, adds, "From my perspective, Governor Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in many years... Our Party is well-served by Howard Dean. He gives Democrats hope and opportunity in all parts of the country, many far too long ignored by the National Party... I strongly supported Governor Dean for DNC Chair."
November 16, 2006
Carville's Still On A Tear, But Rahm and Dean Will Bury The Hatchet
As James Carville continues his crusade to oust Howard Dean as DNC chair, DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel wants to concilliate.
According to sources in the DNC and DCCC, Emuanel called Dean this morning to distance himself from the tone and general tenor of Carville's remarks. In a short conversation, Emanuel acknowledged that he shared some of Carville's opinions about the DNC's priorities but said he did not share Carville's wish that Dean ought to be ousted as DNC chair.
Dean called Emanuel on election night, and the two had a friendly conversation, according to sources affiliated with both men.
When their schedules permit, Dean and Emanuel will meet privately to discuss their plans for the 2008 cycle. Both sides hope to reach, in advance, an understanding about how the Democratic party committees will fund state parties and candidate committees.
After the private meeting, the two will likely take their rapprochement public.
Meanwhile, current DNC member/ex-DNC chair Don Fowler e-mailed members of the DNC his response to Carville.
"Some ill-advised voices have suggested that, because of his 50-state strategy, Governor Dean should be replaced as Chair of the DNC," Fowler wrote in the e-mail."This is nonsense. The 50-state strategy is exactly what the Democratic Party needed and continues to need. Why do the Washington people think that they have a special prerogative to dictate what the Democratic Party needs? I hope that all DNC members will join me in rejecting this foolishness--from whatever source it came.""Democrats won a great victory on November 7--control of the United States House of Representatives, control of the United States Senate, majority of Governors, and majority of state legislative bodies. Why should anyone want to mess with the team that won these remarkable results? Governor Dean deserves to continue as DNC Chair." [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 10:44 AM
Comments
This is fabulous news. Rahm and Dean's feud prior to 11/7 was somewhat hurtful to the overall health of the Democratic party. Getting these two superstars on the same page working together will double our efforts in 2008 and greatly improve our chances to hold and build on our majority.
James Carville has basically proven himself to be out of step with the entire democratic party and should shut his pie hole, as he's only destroying any shred of credibility he had left. He's already sidelined as a TV pundit, and if he doesn't quit soon, we may have to start a write in campaign to have Carville taken off the air at CNN.
Steven R 11.16.06 11:40 AM
Carville is the one who needs to go! He's sounding shrill and cranky.
I'm glad to hear Emanuel recognize Dean's contributions - like Schumer did so eloquently on Bill Maher's show last week.
It's amazing isn't it? Huge wins across the country (ahem, except in my home state of Georgia) and some can't even go for a week without complaining about something. Carville should join in the celebration.
CatherineAtlanta 11.16.06 01:40 PM
I have long been a fan of Carville's, but I think he is being very short-sighted here. True, maybe the Democratic Party would have picked up a few more seats if the DNC had given money to Congressional races. It is also true, however, that those races may still have been lost due to other factors - especially Kerry's mistake. Dean's approach is to build the Party in locations where it has never existed or hasn't had a presence in a long, long time. Doesn't that serve the Party's interests better in the long run - especially for whoever the presidential candidate may be in 2008?
Jim T 11.16.06 02:25 PM
Carville should do the only honorable thing and commit suicide straight away so we can all be rid of his b.s.
tom hoser 11.16.06 07:43 PM
Wonderful! I believe Dean should be Man of The Year, and Carville needs desperately to STFU!
harriett 11.16.06 07:57 PM
The 50 state strategy was a brilliant (AND courageous) move by Dean that should certainly continue. The Democrats can't compete where they have no party presense. They have to be a national party active in all 50 states unless they want to remain a powerhouse on the coasts and concede the rest to the GOP.
Quackers 11.16.06 07:58 PM
Normally I enjoy Carville, but today I think he is working for his wife, not the Democratic Party which he allegedly favors. Dean's "Fight Everywhere"-50 State Strategy was a big part of the success of this election cycle, but more importantly it is simply a requirement of a two-party republic---democracy is best served by having at least one candidate opposing another.
cromulant 11.16.06 07:58 PM
Carville is off his rocker. I liked him, but he seems to be loosing it a little. Dean is looking like a class act these days, and believe me I was not always a fan...
Dave 11.16.06 08:12 PM
I saw the Carville video and all I can say is I didn't phone bank all those days for the Party to end up taking orders from Skeltor. That's ridiculous. This is serious business and no place for a cartoon character to start giving orders.
Lee Darnell 11.16.06 08:22 PM
Carville's been hanging around his wife too much---he is starting to sound more like her---
William Consolazio 11.16.06 08:31 PM
Carville should just STFU! He is giving Cajuns and Democrats a bad name.
Newspaperbrat 11.16.06 08:42 PM
Dean is just what this party needs. He is well spoken, intelligent and has a great sense of of humor. J Carville has truly made himself insignificant in the Democratic party. We won Jim.What the heck is your problem. HD brought more new voters, money and motivation, into this party than anything in a long time! And if that's not enough for you, the GOP hates Dean because they are afraid of his power. They've been bashing Dean since he became noticed, do you think the GOP would bother bashing someone of small value? I don't hear them bashing you though jim...jmmms.
Walt 11.16.06 09:02 PM
Please lets give Dr. Dean some credit for starting the 50 state strategy this year. This tool will be more powerful by 2008, and for future races. We only have to look at the Liberal Net root community to see what a powerful tool they were for us this year.
I am also very proud of Rahm. He did what is best for our party, and James needs to do the same. Airing our dirty laundry in public is not good at this time. We have not been in power for some time. The climate has changed since that time. Americans need a rest from bickering, back stabbing, and anger. Lets get the job done, and set our pride, aside. Anger brings mistakes. Setting ones Pride aside bring Victory.Norma W.
Norma W. 11.16.06 09:03 PM
So everyone is okay with Rahm's attempts at power-building in Chicago?? -- Haven't we all seen where that kinda of behavior leads? .. and maybe learned something from it?
As for Carville, he's literally sleeping with the Dem's enemy... but I suppose that could be dismissed as me being just being juvenile.
As for Dean, he's doing fine... and doing the party proud... the only reason he's been seen as a liability is because the Republican party know Dean is a fiesty threat... and have targetted him accordingly ... ("the scream").
It's nice to see the DCCC running forward to claim credit for what the grass-roots have more of a hand in achieving than anyone else!! But I guess that's politics!
ThinkAboutIt 11.16.06 09:08 PM
Dean needs to tell Rahm that we the people feel that the DLC lost us the 2000 - 2002 - 2004.
Republican light will not do it in 2008, we need real changes in this country from the direction we have been going for the last 6 years.
y 11.16.06 09:12 PM
One has to wonder if Carville's wife is putting bleach in his cereal.
Or perhaps an ego-virus has been planted in his skull and is eating his brain cells at a rapid rate.
On election night, Carville sat there like a bump on a log and let Paul Begalla carry the ball for the Democrats.
If Carville isn't careful, he will become as hated as Robert Novak, and I wouldn't want to wish that on anyone, no matter how deranged they might be.
Jim Toevs, Testerville, Montana
Jim Toevs 11.16.06 09:36 PM
Bro. Carville really needs to pipe down here. Gov. Dean led our party to an incredible victory! Everyone EXPECTS the Democrats to fight each other once they win. Wouldn't it be great to prove them wrong? The election was just last week! For goodness sake, let's all unite behind our leaders!
Betty Jack 11.16.06 09:54 PM
The chairman can't win for winningWill "anti-Deaniacs" greet victory by demanding a change at the DNC?Tim Grieve [2006-11-10]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page >>
Moles in our midst???
Let's examine for a moment the intense opposition of some DLC types to Chairman Howard Dean, and his already-successful 50 State Strategy: who are they and what are their motives REALLY?
Same damn DLCers who first dismissed Dean (back in 2003, remember?) as "out of the mainstream," even before the MSM started saying it. The "Triangulators," who want to keep the talking points only 2 degrees to the left of the Bushies! IMHO, hugging the farthest RIGHT rim of the parameters of the Democratic Party has always seemed a ridiculous, defeatist, and infuriating tactic (that only works when you have a Bill "Elvis" Clinton as the hugger).
And yet there they were, trying to destroy Dean's candidacy from the very outset, and advising Gore and then Kerry how to run the very worst campaigns I can remember. It has always made the DLC "consultants" or "pundits" or whatever you want to call them very SUSPECT in my mind. What the ****?
Take that guy Dick Morris for example, an in-with-the-in-crowd Clintonista back in that era, who now appears regularly on the Fox News Channel and has emerged as a harsh critic of the Clintons & Dems. Wasn't he always a mole? I don't want to sow paranoia, BUT, how do we know we aren't dealing with a whole stratum of damn moles, these self-appointed DLC/beltway "centrists" who want to tell us all what positions are safe for us to espouse, and what candidates are safe for us to nominate in our primaries? And who try to denigrate Dean's brilliant but obviously necessary return to the grassroots as the way of saving what they turned into a 16-state regional party? WE knew Dean was exactly right, and now we have to continue pointing out and supporting his work, so everybody can see how weakened the party infrastructure was before Dean came along. It's up to us to redirect our thanks from Rahm's side to Howard's side, and to make sure our party "leadership" "spokespersons" give the grassroots equal credit for the successes reaped already in this election. (And we need to shine a grateful spotlight on such as the MoveOn folks, DFAers, bloggers and others who will no longer submit to the DLCers' talking points, while we're at it).
And what we need to examine quietly and rationally for ourselves is the question: Why should we put past the Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeldians the very obvious espionage tactic of infiltration and subversion from within our own ranks???
-- left coast jane
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:16:36 -0800
Splitsky
I'm among a number of life-long Democrats who have left the party largely because of the tight grip of the DLC. We are not all on the left. Some are centrists who don't like the cynicism of Carville and gang. Not to mention their political failures (2000? 2004?) Some former Dems are progressives. Some are reformers. Unless there is a change in party leadership -- and certainly if Howard Dean isn't given the credit he's due -- our numbers will grow. For sure. The split in the Democratic Party is largely motivated by moderates who, like moderate Republicans, can't stand the Beltway leadership, aging and often failed consultants, and the lobbyists who are trying to dominate our political lives.
-- PW
Splitsky
I'm among a number of life-long Democrats who have left the party largely because of the tight grip of the DLC. We are not all on the left. Some are centrists who don't like the cynicism of Carville and gang. Not to mention their political failures (2000? 2004?) Some former Dems are progressives. Some are reformers. Unless there is a change in party leadership -- and certainly if Howard Dean isn't given the credit he's due -- our numbers will grow. For sure. The split in the Democratic Party is largely motivated by moderates who, like moderate Republicans, can't stand the Beltway leadership, aging and often failed consultants, and the lobbyists who are trying to dominate our political lives.
-- PW
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:07:26 -0800
DLC = Republican = Corruption
Dump Carville!
-- Anonymous
DLC = Republican = Corruption
Dump Carville!
-- Anonymous
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:51:18 -0800
James Carville is pursuing a flawed strategy
By pushing Howard Dean out of his leadership position, James Carville is antagonizing the new progressive base of the Democratic Party.
It goes without saying, but bears repeating, that Dean's 50 state strategy is the MAIN reason that Democrats took control of congress. Obstructionist democratic consultants, who have benefited for years as a result of their undeserved fees, and who are mismanaging crucial elections, should step aside and let the new leadership take over.
It is everyday Americans, outraged and disenfranchised, who are responsible for the changing political winds. When we, the people, are given some organization and tools with which to work, we can do great things. The "beltway insiders" obviously don't get it. But just maybe, every once in a while, they should shut up and listen.
-- abrau
[Read abrau's other letters]
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:27:42 -0800
Touche to TL!
The odd notion that the moderate wing of the Democratic party is vestigial and should be cast off at the first oppotunity is insanity. Pure and simply insanity.
And after all that Lamont thing turned out so well for them. But remember the nutroots best talent is for deluding themselves; they love to lose and revel in it.
Now they claim Dean and the lefties won this election with a get out the vote effort? What nonsense. This election was a direct result of independents swinging to Democrats - and they can recall that anytime.
The superlefties problem is they diss the power of the vital center instead of courting it - something the lefties insist makes them "just like Republicans" or whatever garbage they spew. The DLC, living on this planet, understands you can't ignore the vital center, and there in lie the lefties contempt.
-- Jon
Permalink
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:12:46 -0800
delusional
It's delusional., in my opinion, for the same tired old voice, in her usual DLC diatribes, to say the DLC abandoned 15 states years ago. (or something). In fact the DLC has promoted a big tent approach, to reach out to center, cross the cultural divide and do exactly that as witnessed by the persons in the DLC, particularly at the state and local level.
Of course the same windbag argues, when it is convenient, that the DLC is awful for reaching out to the center.
Regardless, the fact is that this slim Democratic victory was won by moderate and independent voters, the vital center that the DLC promotes. And not by people who ran to Iowa to work on Dean's campaign. The indepedents gave the Dems this victory and they can recall it any time.
Inconveniently true perhaps, but true nonetheless. And the Democrats in office know it. So Dean may well be out, Deaniac remorse not withstanding.
With that in mind, bring Ford on. The center has earned it's voice.
-- Let him go.
Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:35:35 -0800
The TX Lawyer Still Has A Point
Every elected President since Kennedy (Dem. or Rep.) has come from the South, or from Texas, or from California. (Jerry Ford was not elected, and does not count.)
And the candidates they beat have come from New England or from the Midwest. (Cowboy Reagan beat Bubba Carter, and Bubba Gore beat Cowboy W.Bush, but all of the other losers have been Midwesterners and Yankees.)
Do not count on the North to rise again in 2008. Find some Democrat from the South, or from Texas, or from California.
And try to find a genuine Southern Bubba or a Texas Cowboy or a California Cowboy. Not a guy from the South who talks like a guy from the North, and not a Texan who wears tassel loafers rather than boots.
Americans will vote for an American myth. They may not vote for just some guy.
-- timbuktom
[Read timbuktom's other letters]
November 10, 2006
Carville Hates Dean
Per the New Republic's Ryan Lizza?
Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.
The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.
Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."
Our take: whatever the merits of Dean's approach to the job, it's hard to imagine that the DNC membership likes him less after this election.
Kos threatens to have Carville cashiered
I guess if you can believe that Ned Lamont singlehandedly saved the Democratic Party, you can believe you’re in a position to intimidate James Carville. Saith the leader of The Movement With No Leader re: the Ragin’ Cajun’s objections to Howard Dean:
Dean was elected. If Carville has a master plan to stage a coup against Dean, I’d love to see it. But I doubt the state party chairs who provided Dean’s margin of victory are going to get too torn up about the fact that Dean is helping fund their resurgence.
Carville needs to shut the [fark] up. If he wants a war, we’ll give him one.
And it won’t be a war that DC can win.
There’s more of us than there are of them.
We just got done having to support Joe Lieberman. Now we’re going to have to support Carville. Then what? How far will it go? What happens if other Democrats get dragged in and we have to support—
No, let us speak of this no more.
Joementum has decided he’s officially a Democrat again. That’s the bad news. The good news, if you believe Larry Sabato, is that Jim Webb isn’t — and that the left is in for a rude awakening once he starts casting votes. Between the two of them, he and Liebs are going to have an awful lot to do with what with gets done between now and Election ‘08.
Hawkish lib Peter Beinart is starting to realign himself, too, and not in a good way. As is Rick Moran, who, like Beinart, sees before him an unbridgeable divide — but of a more intramural nature.
Exit question: headline of the year thus far?
Eric Schmeltzer
Bio
11.10.2006
Hey Carville, Pass Me Some Of That Sweet Crack! (44 comments )
READ MORE: George W. Bush
So, James Carville says there's a move afoot by party bigs to oust Howard Dean as Chair. I'm sure he's right. Since Tuesday, boy, it's got to be grating on the insiders that Howard Dean's term as chair has been a rip-roaring success. Suddenly, the old fraternity of DC elite is losing its grip.
That means a loss on their bottom line, as state parties get more money and hire more local consultants who understand the lay of the land in the real America , to run things in their parts.
But, either the Rajun one is smoking some of the finest crack DC has to offer, or he's trying to furiously stoke little metaphorical puffs of smoke to fool the chattering class in thinking there's a fire. Carville might be a little nutty, but I'm sure he's not suckin' on the glass pipe. So, I'll guess the latter is true. He's hoping if he keeps saying Dean is on his way out, maybe it will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
To quote Dana Carvey imitating George H.W. Bush, "Na Ga Happa!"
See, the party chair is voted on (or removed) by a vote of the 440 Members of the DNC. You can view a list of them here.
Who do you see very little of on this list? DC elites.
Most of the voting members are state officials. And guess what those state officials have seen a lot of since Howard Dean became chairman? That's right - bling bling and ching ching.
So, bet your gumbo that those officials aren't going to oust Howard Dean for the choice of the insiders, who would immediately cut the funding and staff that Dean's given them. Not in a million years. Howard Dean's strategy of funding state parties wasn't just smart politics, it created a firewall to protect him.
This is such a non-story, being fabricated by those who don't like an outsider getting credit. Shame on reputable outlets like the New Republic for even paying it a teenie bit of credence.
Opinion
My opinion Arianna Huffington : Dems' '08 presidential waltz sure to be crowded
My opinion Arianna Huffington
Tucson, Arizona Published: 11.24.2006
So another season of Dancing with the Stars has ended — but fret not, ballroom fans, the Democrats' '08 presidential waltz is already under way.
Performing a deft two-step, John Edwards and Barack Obama have adopted the running-for-president-under-the-guise-of-a-book-tour approach, with Edwards earning extra style points for saying of Obama: "I hope he runs. I think he should run." Classy. Is there an Edwards-Obama '08 tango in their future?
Performing a deft two-step, John Edwards and Barack Obama have adopted the running-for-president-under-the-guise-of-a-book-tour approach, with Edwards earning extra style points for saying of Obama: "I hope he runs. I think he should run." Classy. Is there an Edwards-Obama '08 tango in their future?
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has already laced up his Capezios — perhaps to take the heat off Hillary in the Hawkeye state while earning himself some possible VP bonus points for making sure no one comes out of the Iowa caucuses with the kind of momentum that propelled Kerry to the '04 nod.
The rest of the sure-to-be-crowded field is still practicing its steps, though it is all but certain that Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Wes Clark and John Kerry are all at least thinking about getting ready to rumba — with Al Gore rested and ready to do a late-entry quickstep.
But whoever ends up cha-cha-ing onto the 2008 primary dance floor needs to remember one thing above all else: Beware of the political consultants — they can only trip you up!
In fact, ridding the party of the consultants who have led them down the wrong path again and again should be the No. 2 item on the Democrats' '06-'08 to-do list — No. 1 being getting us out of Iraq.
And the Dems should start the purge by kicking James Carville to the curb, once and for all. His inane — insane? — remarks about Howard Dean are all the proof needed that the time has come to send the Agin' Cajun to the Political Consultants' Retirement Home. (Dream scenario: He gets a room with Bob "0-for-8" Shrum.)
Carville's attack on Dean was utter nonsense. The reason the Dems picked up "only" 29 House seats isn't that the Democratic National Committee didn't spend enough money; it's because too many Democratic candidates didn't spend enough time talking about Iraq.
While calling for Dean's ouster, Carville labeled the DNC chairman "a C-minus general." Grading on a curve, I guess that would make Carville an F-minus strategist (or, to look at the glass as half-full, an A-plus hack).
James Carville hasn't correctly read the pulse of the American public since 1992. Among his greatest nonhits since then were urging Al Gore to pick Zell Miller as his running mate in 2000 and advising John Kerry to push domestic issues in 2004.
Indeed, I'll always remember sitting in a living room in Los Angeles 12 days before the '04 election listening to Carville assure us that Kerry would win big, completely misreading the reality that '04 was all about national security.
And in the run-up to '06, Carville steadfastly refused to accept that Iraq needed to be front and center on the Democratic agenda. Perhaps this is because he is hopelessly compromised on the issue and has been since the beginning of the war, married as he is to Mary Matalin, who was a charter member of the White House Iraq Group created to help sell us the war. This alone should disqualify Carville from giving advice to any candidate with a (D) next his or her name until the last American soldier has been brought home from Iraq.
Howard Dean hasn't been perfect. In fact, I took him to task late in the campaign for making the Carvillian mistake of focusing too much on domestic issues and urging Democrats to talk not about the actual war in Iraq but the metaphorical war the GOP was waging on the American family.
But for Carville to equate Dean's handling of the '06 campaign with Donald Rumsfeld's tragic handling of Iraq is the worst kind of hyperbole — and lazy rhetoric to boot—when you consider that Rumsfeld's leadership led to the death and maiming of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
When Dean went the misguided-metaphor route, at least he was attempting to win an election. Can someone please tell me what James Carville was trying to accomplish?
Other than making an ass of himself.
My opinion
Arianna Huffington
Commentary
11/22/06 How The Democrats Secured A Sweeping Victory
By:, Tribune-Review
11/22/2006
Email to a friend Post a Comment Printer-friendly
Two years ago, after yet another bruising collective loss of the presidency, the House and the Senate, the Democratic Party seemed to be on the brink of implosion.Across the board, it had lost on message and cohesiveness, it had tepid candidates, and its get-out-the-vote infrastructure was a house of cards.Democrats knew they needed to get their ducks in a row and at least have a decent showing for the 2006 midterm election.
The entire House, one-third of the Senate and a score of governors' seats were up for grabs, and they were staring at a U.S. map that was a sea of red.First order of business was to place aggressive leaders at the top of their party infrastructure: Howard Dean at the Democratic National Committee, Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Emanuel and Schumer both had one job: to get people elected on Nov. 7.Dean's job had a different timeline and different intensity; it was and still is - unless James Carville gets his way - to build the party and to make it competitive again.
He has to do as many things as possible, as quickly as possible, yet do it over the long term. This means investing in infrastructure - investing in things that pay dividends for the party, not just in 2006, but beyond.Democrat strategist Steve McMahon, of McMahon Squire Associates, worked with both the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the midterm cycle. Among other things, McMahon was responsible for the national committee's "values messaging" in the reddest of red states.The strategy was to go after the hearts and minds of rural Christian voters through radio - and it worked. There was no screaming, no partisan attacks; the tone was neither shrill nor harsh. Rather than use traditional political advertising,
McMahon's operatives wrote short radio ads, read by a local voice that people hear every day, that were embedded into a radio station's weather, sports, news and farm reports.In nine red states, including Virginia, Ohio and Indiana, some 5,000 of those ads reached an audience of 9 million to 12 million people, all of whom were hit at least three times. That's a lot of voter contact. And Democrats bought out the entire advertisement inventory, so Republicans could not copy them if the GOP got a scent of what was happening."These were not overly partisan messages," McMahon says. "They were not shrieking negative ads. They were simple messages that began with 'Are you tired of ...' or 'Think about this ... .'"Now that the Democrats' infrastructure is building, you might think Howard Dean would at least get a nod for his part in the collective effort.Not so much.In a classic move, James Carville - the Clintons' top attack dog - called for Dean's ouster from the Democratic National Committee.
It is the Democrats' worst-kept secret that Team Clinton has no love for Dean. Having Dean as the head of the national committee going into Hillary's quest for the presidency is unacceptable to them, so they sent out Carville to do what he does best: being Carville.But remember: When Carville and the Clintons rolled into Washington in 1992, Democrats had the majority; two years later, under Clinton leadership, their majority was swept under the bus.By no means should Dean get sole credit for his party's rise to power.Yet only a fool would dismiss his hand in it. Tribune-Review
11/27/06, 10:35 pm EST
11/27/06, 10:35 pm EST
The Dean Puzzle: Did He Help or Hurt?
Howard Dean saved the Democrats. Howard Dean forced the party to fight with one hand behind its back.
Stop! You’re both right.
Some commenters were riding me for playing up the catfight between James Carville and Howard Dean, without digging deeper into who was right.
My basic take was that it was unknowable. Dean’s 50 state strategy probably helped the party pick up a couple of unexpected seats. And it probably doomed campaigns like that of Patricia Madrid in New Mexico, who lost by a razor thin margin and where a late influx of cash might have made all the difference.
John Dickerson, writing at Slate, does some digging and comes to the same frustrating, inconclusive conclusion.
-- Tim Dickinson
POLITICAL COMMENTARY:
Daggers Drawn - DLC versus DNC
by MICHAEL CARMICHAEL
The Democratic Party is fracturing on opposite sides of a fault-line pitting the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with its progressive leadership headed by Howard Dean on one side against the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its “centrist” or “New Democrat” and “Blue Dog” leadership on the other.
In American politics, there is an old adage: “The only thing worse than losing an election is winning one.” Having plenty of experience of both winning and losing elections, I can confirm its veracity.
On the losing side of the equation, it is apparent that after the historic midterm elections that are driving the neoconservative faction of the Republican Party into political obscurity there is now open and increasingly aggressive warfare raging amongst their ranks. In a very high profile struggle, the White House is now engaged in battle with the Iraq Study Group over control of US foreign policy and the presidential legacy of George W. Bush. Control of the Pentagon is also at stake with a rising tide of voices from the uniformed services now speaking out in opposition to the President’s Iraq policy, “Stay the course.”
At the same time, there is a subterranean level of internecine warfare breaking out across the entire spectrum of the US federal bureaucracy. For instance, the Pentagon and the US intelligence community are engaged in a struggle for supremacy that mirrors the political conflict surrounding and engulfing the Bush White House.
On the winning side of the equation and amidst these raging Republican political infernos, the Democrats are now fracturing into a factional conflict of their very own. The Democratic Party is fracturing on opposite sides of a fault-line pitting the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with its progressive leadership headed by Howard Dean on one side against the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its “centrist” or “New Democrat” and “Blue Dog” leadership on the other – a powerful faction that is now led by Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer.
The first phase of this conflict came this week in a dual engagement that swept through the Democratic ranks in Congress as well as spilling over into the DNC and the culture of political consultancy in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi set the cat amongst the pigeons with her endorsement of John Murtha for the post of Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. Considered a leading Democratic advocate of a strong military, Murtha emerged as the most effective voice in the protest against the failed policies of the Bush White House in waging the war in Iraq. Advocating a disengagement of US troops by year-end, Murtha had a devastating political impact on the presidency of Bush. In contrast to Murtha, Steny Hoyer has broken Party ranks to support Republican positions on Iraq against the increasingly stern warnings of Pelosi – the Minority Leader in the last congress when Hoyer served as her deputy, the Minority Whip.
This Wednesday, Hoyer won his race against Murtha, but both sides will come away from their friendly contest with a new respect for Pelosi’s aggression against those Democrats who collaborate with Republicans on the pivotal issue of the war in Iraq. Pelosi’s impact was swift and decisive. The following day, Pelosi’s colleague in the Senate, Harry Reid, dutifully announced his no compromise position on the question of disengagement from Iraq.
Now ascendant amongst the progressives, the DNC Chair, Governor Howard Dean, has become the target of sneak attacks launched by the leading operatives of the DLC, many of whom appear to be loyal to Hillary Clinton and their cluster of Blue Dog Democrats including: Rahm Emanuel, Charles Schumer, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden and, yes, even the disgraced but triumphalist, Joseph Lieberman.
The internal tension has been building for months. In early clashes with progressive Congressional candidates, Emanuel drew fire for demanding fealty to his support for the Iraq War and obeisance to his stultifying command, “Do not mention the war!” Critics of Emanuel lamented his “obnoxious” style of bullying in interviews with Time magazine.
For his part, Charles Schumer outraged progressives when he openly endorsed the candidacy of Joseph Lieberman, the top-ranking collaborator with Bush on the Iraq War. Although, Schumer swiftly backtracked when he was hit with a chorus of criticism, his pro-Lieberman ploy left a huge tide of distrust and animosity in his wake.
On election night, Emanuel and Schumer were triumphant on the victory podium along with Pelosi and Reid, while Dean was conspicuous by his absence. It is perfectly clear that Dean had been banished from the victory podium by the DLC and their minions. Things took a sharp turn for the worse this week, while Dean was out of the country searching for more votes amongst the vast and groaning diaspora of overseas Democrats, a trip he had postponed until after the crucial election. Americans living abroad are a distinct species of political fauna. No longer mesmerized by the American media, they are able to observe the impact of Washington’s foreign policy from a new and starkly refreshing perspective. Few if any Americans abroad support the outrageous neoconservative policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
In a surprise assault worthy of the Ides of March, James Carville leapt into the breach for the DLC. In a savage stabbing lunge worthy of Casca, Carville planted the first dagger into the back of Governor Dean while he was away from Washington attending the conference of the Americas Division of Democrats Abroad meeting in the Dominican Republic to organize voter registration among the millions of US citizens now living overseas.
Following Carville’s first blow and swiftly emerging from behind the arras, the Cassius of the DLC faction, Stanley Greenberg, planted his dagger deeply into Dean’s exposed back. Carville and Greenberg are long-term business partners, and they carefully selected the New York Times, the hometown newspaper of Schumer and Clinton as the scene of their syncopated sneak assault on Dean.
Jealous of Dean’s new exaltation, because he is now seen as the primary architect of the sweeping Democratic victory last week, Greenberg and Carville are doing what they see as the bare bones minimum to preserve their now historic credibility as the premiere Democratic consultants in Washington. This project may well prove difficult, since both men have checkered records that contain very little in the form of winning elections that might inspire confidence in their political sagacity while Dean’s achievement last week now stands as a shining example of the dawn of a new era in American politics.
When he was elected Chairman of the DNC last year, Dean took command of a party that was not functioning in all fifty states. The geographic dysfunction of the party was the product of a long-standing policy of deliberate neglect advocated by the centrist school of political consultants who focused resources exclusively on those races likely to produce winners. This process of focused resources eventually led to the withering of the body politic of the Democratic Party and permitted the electoral disasters from 1994 to 2004.
The political consultancies representing the so-called “New Democrats” movement that traces its origins back to the Reagan era and the emergence of what is now dubiously termed, “Reagan Democrats” had conciously and with premeditation aforethought truncated their Party’s operations across a broad band of red states where they simply surrendered to Reaganism, Republicanism and ultimately, the radical policies of reactionary neoconservativism.
Greenberg’s polling and Carville’s consultancy frequently argue for middle-of-the-road positions that defuse the message of political campaigns and focus on peripheral issues that they deem safe, ie. cheaper prescription drugs for senior citizens and opposition to gay marriage. At a talk in London early this year, Greenberg actually proposed opposition to gay marriage as a central theme in this year’s Democratic campaign. From another perspective, this type of centrist campaign would have played directly into the hands of the Republicans by appealing to and activating their base. In the closing days of the campaign, Republicans from Bush to the back of beyond attempted to activate their faltering base by raising the spectre of gay marriage as a probable by-product of a Democratic victory. While Greenberg was lobbying for a campaign predicated on opposition to gay marriage, progressive political consultants urged the Democratic Party to adopt the theme of: “Change the course in Iraq.”
As a former presidential candidate who ran a strong antiwar campaign, Dean saw through Greenberg’s formula – which echoed so many losing mantra from the past twelve years – as another golden opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In the closing weeks, Democrats ran a strongly focused campaign predicated on changing policy on Iraq. The results speak for themselves.
When Dean took over the helm of the DNC, he set about resuscitating the body politic of what might be seen as his patient – since he is a medical doctor. Realizing that the patient’s immune system was collapsing – especially in its geographic extremities, Dean diagnosed a partial paralysis. At that point, Dean developed a prognosis: the patient was ill but essentially healthy, needing stimulation, growth and a heavy concentration of political nutrients. The top priority became political revival in parts of America where the Republican paralysis had first numbed and then obliterated the last traces of Democratic viability and articulation. Like a surgeon, Dean realized that the patient needed immediate resuscitation in advance of longer-term recuperation, rehabilitation and restoration.
From his presidential campaign, Dean learned the impact of modern technology in political campaigning. The internet is the ideal mechanism for the stimulating organization and resuscitation programme the Party needed. Dr. Dean prescribed a mild form of shock therapy for his partially paralytic and semi-comatose patient. Led by a team of highly skilled and dedicated IT specialists who now work for the DNC and their counterparts in all fifty state party headquarters, Dean began the systematic reinvigoration of his patient who responded swiftly to the stimulating treatment.
With the improvement in the patient’s pulses and circulation now nurturing the grassroots of the Party, Dean’s first phase of operation was seen as a success. What could be described as Dean’s incisive procedures produced a torrent of local activists who were willing to make telephone calls, provide small financial contributions and canvas their neighbourhoods for political support as well as launch a recruitment drive for new candidates.
Inside the headquarters of the DNC, Dean’s campaign to stimulate and revivify the Party gained a huge burst of enthusiasm when many new and totally fresh candidates stepped forward to represent the Party in the midterms for previously non-contested offices. Following the emergence of impressive slates of Democratic candidates in all fifty states for the first time in years, the patient’s progress was both remarkable and apparent to everybody who was taking notice and reading the charts. Encouragingly, it has become apparent that factions inside the DNC who were at first deeply sceptical of Dean’s diagnosis have been transformed into some of his most ardent and forthright admirers today.
In 2003, Dean’s presidential campaign became a phenomenon through its amazing ability to raise more money than any of his traditionalist, pro-war and DLC-approved opponents including John Edwards and John Kerry. While Kerry’s campaign went into debt when he was forced to mortgage his home in Boston in December, 2003, Dean’s campaign set fundraising records that astonished party professionals. When Dean arrived at the DNC, so did his experience in internet fundraising. Today, small contributors are providing a huge proportion of the DNC budget, a situation that contrasts sharply with the politics of the 1990s and every previous decade – when wealthy donors, labor and corporate interests provided the funding. A strong and healthy flow of small financial contributions now sustains the Dean-Era DNC. There is good reason to predict that this flow will become a flood in 2007 as a direct result of the midterm elections.
It is clear that not only is the internet an organizational tool par excellence, but it is also a fundraising bonanza for modern political parties with a compelling message. This fact of 21st century culture is now creating a great deal of unrest amongst some of the largest corporations in the United States. Big Pharma is already shaking in its proverbial boots at the mere thought of the enactment of low cost prescription drug bills in the next congress. Other special interests will soon be trembling, too. According to his website, Stanley Greenberg has enjoyed a successful business relationship with many leading multi-national corporations. James Carville consults with commercial clients as well. Their corporate sensibilities may represent another point of reference in their animosity and distrust of the political phenomenon that is emerging around Dean.
During the campaign Dean’s volunteers went to over one million voters handing them information about the Party’s platform. All told, using canvassers, telephone banks and viral marketing, Dean’s forces contacted thirty-one million registered voters. On election day, Dean emailed two distinct door-hangers to his legions of Democratic Party canvassers. One door-hanger set out voting rights for those who might face Republican Party challenges to their registration, and the other set out a clear six-point platform to “Change the course” and raise the minimum wage that contrasted starkly with the Republicans’ “Stay the course” and reluctance to raise costs for employers. From the results, it is now perfectly clear that these tools crafted by Dean helped deliver the votes to the Democrats.
Political messaging sets Howard Dean apart from other leading Democrats. Regarded as a tremendously formidable candidate who can be devastating on the podium, Dean’s delivery of the Party platform on television drew a sharp contrast with the much less effective appearances of his predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, a favourite of the centrist DLC faction. When the Jack Abramoff scandal hit Congress, Dean was the first Democrat out of the blocks to face the flack of the television news shows when Republicans charged that Democrats were equally tainted by the sleaze of K Street. Putting forward a compelling case, Dean argued that no Democrats had received any tainted funds from Abramoff. None, nada, niente. The impact of Dean’s Abramoff interviews shattered the Republican attempt to confuse the public while propelling the issue of political corruption to torpedo velocity.
In their orchestrated attack on Dean, Carville and Greenberg argued against Dean essentially charging him with incompetence by presenting obscure strains of logic that defied the fact that his strategy had delivered majorities in both houses of Congress. Stating that Dean had left races “on the table” by deliberately withholding needed funds from marginal races, Carville and Greenberg opened fire in an internecine struggle for control of the Democratic Party. For some very obvious reasons, traditional centrists of the DLC such as Carville and Greenberg prefer the concentration of party resources on polling, focus groups and expensive media campaigns – all standard practices and products in their industry and the core products of their businesses.
After winning his office in early 2005, Dean announced that he would launch a vigorous reconstruction of the political architecture of the Democratic Party by refusing to kowtow to the group that he termed, “the aristocracy of consultants.” As the most financially successful political consultants in Democratic Party circles, Dean’s remarks have been interpreted as a stinging rebuke of the circle surrounding Carville and Greenberg who have become wealthy while the Party drifted into paralysis and coma. Another consultant who is identified as a leading figure in this ancien regime of the centrist school is Mr. Robert Shrum, who has the dubious distinction of having been the lead consultant in at least eight losing Democratic presidential campaigns. It seems rather odd that Mr. Gordon Brown, the hand-picked successor to Tony Blair, is an admirer of Mr. Shrum. But, Greenberg is an advisor to Tony Blair and New Labour, where his business interests are represented by his British partner, Philip Gould, a long-serving confidante of the deeply unpopular prime minister whose approval rating is in the low 20s - and trending lower because of his support for Bush’s war in Iraq.
Precisely one week after the glorious midterm elections of 2006 – when the neoconservative era in the United States was hurled into the rubbish pit of history - in what was to be a night of the long knives, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, two star performers for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - dutifully and metaphorically stabbed Governor Howard Dean in the back. The first response was swift and devastating. State party chairs and former aides to Hillary Clinton now working at the DNC defended Dean who has remained silent at the time of this writing.
When Adam Nagourney ended his interview with Greenberg who had echoed Carville’s charge that Dean should have invested more available funds in several marginal races, he asked a potent question that confused and embarrassed his subject. Recalling the second Swift-Boating of John Kerry who had made an appalling mess of his attempt to attack George W. Bush that dominated the headlines for at least three news cycles, Nagourney asked Greenberg whether that backlash could have made the difference in the loss of several of the close races including that of Heather Wilson in New Mexico. Nagourney posed a two-part question that flustered Greenberg. Nagourney reported that Greenberg “fumbled” and stuttered his way to an acquiescence that Kerry’s gaffe had, in fact, led to the slump that cost the Democrats several close races discrediting his original contention of Dean’s incompetence. In conceding to Nagourney on this crucial point, Greenberg was saying that he did not know what he was talking about in the first place.
With their attack now in tatters, it remains to be seen what the next move of the DLC led by their increasingly desperate pair of Brutuses – Emanuel and Schumer - will be to drive Dean out of the DNC.
Election Battles Are Over; Let the Infighting Begin
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page A05
Democrats wasted no time in turning on one another after winning control of Congress this month.
First, civil war broke out among House Democrats in picking a new majority leader. Now, James Carville, the Democratic operative who helped catapult Bill Clinton to power, has lashed out at Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
The former Vermont governor poured large sums into state and local party-building across the country, but his strategy was not popular with Democratic strategists and elites in Washington, who favored spending to try to maximize victories in House and Senate races. Dean clashed repeatedly with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, arguing that it was necessary to lay the groundwork for the 2008 presidential campaign as well as take control of Congress. The nasty debate seemed to cool after Emanuel and Dean struck a deal for the DNC to spend millions on voter turnout.
When Democrats picked up House seats Nov. 7 in unlikely places such as Kentucky and Indiana, Dean felt his strategy was vindicated. But Carville disagreed, comparing Dean's performance to failed Pentagon war strategies.
"I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its incompetence," Carville said at a post-election forum, according to news accounts. Carville asserted that the Democrats could have won more seats in the House than the 29 they have picked up thus far had a shrewder party leader been in place. He noted that Dean took out a large loan for the party but failed to spend most of it, while there was a great need for money in some close congressional races.
"He should be held accountable," Carville said. "Do we want to go into '08 with a C-minus general at the DNC?"
Dean's camp was not happy and showcased a bevy of letters from state party leaders defending the chairman. DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney called Carville's comments disappointing, "in light of historic Democratic victories all across the country, up and down the ballot." She added that Carville, a political pundit and TV personality, "simply doesn't know the facts about what the DNC did in this election."
At a gathering of the Association of State Democratic Chairs in Wyoming on Friday, Dean defended his record. "This is the new Democratic Party," he said, according to the Associated Press. "The old Democratic Party is back there in Washington; sometimes they still complain a little bit."
Emanuel has steered clear of the intraparty feud. He and Dean spoke late last week to discuss how they could further develop party organizations in key states, according to DCCC press secretary Sarah Feinberg.
Invested in Politics
As if we needed another reminder, recent disclosures documented the powerful influence of special-interest money on elections.
According to campaign fundraising data released shortly before this month's midterm elections, labor unions provided substantial support for Democratic challengers who won House seats, while lawyers provided vital support to the new Senate Democrats.
Baron Hill, a former Democratic House member from Indiana who was returned to office by voters this month, raised nearly $700,000 from political action committees through Oct. 18, more than any other Democratic challenger who won, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com. Newly elected House Republican Peter Roskam of Illinois raised more from political action committees than any other Republican, taking in nearly $1 million. His biggest supporters were conservative groups and the finance and insurance industries.
On the Senate side, Democratic freshmen-elect Robert P. Casey (Pa.), Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) raised roughly $1 million each from political action committees.
Another report, by the Center for Responsive Politics, showed the limits of what wealthy political challengers can accomplish by spending their own money. Forty congressional candidates spent more than $500,000 of their personal wealth, the center said; 23 of them made it to the general election, but only six appear to have won.
No comments:
Post a Comment