Message from Chris Heinz

Hi Folks,

I have been watching the debate over DNC Chair here at DU for some time. I agree with the assessment that it is the most important that Dems will make over the next two years. I also understand and respect that many here support Gov. Dean's effort. I cannot blame them, given the innovative leadership his campaign for Presidency brought to the party, and because of the efficacy of his term as head of DGA.

Some of you may have seen that I am supporting Simon Rosenberg for chair. A link to my statement can be found here:

http://www.simonforchair.com/press/press_releases/01-11...

I think the statement speaks for itself. Simon is someone that I have seen put a lot of energy and thought to the long term strategy necessary to rebuild the party. Indeed, I have seen many post noting that he shares many of the same ideas of the Governor, whom I greatly respect and got to know a little after the primary.

Anyhow, I would just say two things:

1) My endorsement is not a signal from John Kerry, my stepfather, who I think has very responsibly removed himself from influencing the process.

2) I have seen many people note policy disagreements with some who are running for the Chair. The war in Iraq is a particularly pointed issue here (it is for me, too), as is a woman's right to choose. These are valid data points. Personally, I am less concerned about the DNC chair's own policy positions, and more concerned about the blocking and tackling we need to improve to win in the future.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts about point 2.

In the end, however, maybe some combination of leadership is best. In the meantime, I am very excited about the prospect of Simon's leadership.

Best to DU,

Chris

And I don't even have the motivation to find out. I just want Howard Dean because I know we need a fighter.


Cher

The WSJ also is rallying behind him.



With all do respect to Chris Heinz, no thanks.

More of the same what got us here.

does not represent my interests. Neither, do I suspect, would Rosenberg.

So Simon Rosenberg is supported by the Wall St J?

Gee, I hardly wait to go to work for Mr Rosenberg. Or maybe I could work directly for the GOP, and save going through the middleman?


Thanks tons, Mr Heinz, but NO THANKS!

D. Gerstein, a democratic activist, wrote about Simon's candidacy and the need for change in an op-ed.

to anyone it wasn't clear to before that their newspaper represents "privileged people". See the publishers letter printed last week. She goes into great detail.

People should not expect their editorials (op-ed or otherwise) to represent multiple views. They know what their values are and they are sticking to them.

On the opposite page from the publisher's letter, they ran two editorials supporting our countries use of torture. (None opposing).



See downthread - Even Chris Heinz does not see an endorsement in the WSJ as good for a Democrat. I'm actually afraid he is wrong - that it is the "privileged people" that Democrats think they have to pander to....

(Just like what the heck is Roemer doing with Scaife support. )

OTOH - here is Chris Heinz trying to drum up support among us for Simon Rosenberg & emailing Will Pitt.... Maybe Dean should compete by coming on here himself.

If you say the WSJ, show me the article.

In Style with Joe

Monday, December 27, 2004 1:00 p.m. EST

..." Democratic eyes are falling increasingly on Simon Rosenberg as a potential new leader of the Democratic National Committee. He's currently head of the New Democrat Network, which Mr. Lieberman founded and co-chaired along with retiring Sen. John Breaux. Mr. Rosenberg's elevation would be a clear and welcome vindication of Liebermanism.

It doesn't hurt that his group was relatively low-profile in the recent Kerry loss. NDN had originally expected to play a bigger role thanks to the McCain-Feingold reform that shut off the Democrats' soft money spigot. But it was rapidly outshone by the sudden arrival of MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, which raised millions for "independent" advertising in support of the Kerry campaign. Those efforts (especially MoveOn.org's) are now being second-guessed by Democrats as having done more harm than good with their Bush-bashing and conspicuous overtone of Hollywood arrogance.

A campaign aide to Bill Clinton, Mr. Rosenberg created his PAC in 2000 to battle paleolibs in raising money for "New Democrats" who adhered to modern positions on economics and national security. He's increasingly seen as a palatable alternative to Howard Dean (too liberal because of his antiwar stance) and former Rep. Tim Roemer (too conservative because of his anti-abortion beliefs). Speaking at a cattle call in Orlando earlier this month, Mr. Rosenberg talked intelligently about the need to groom new Democratic candidates and operatives who are more in touch with mainstream America. "Republicans are winning with growing regions and groups," he pointed out. "They won in 97 of the fastest growing 100 counties; most of the so called red states are gaining population, the blues ones losing."

Unfortunately, Mr. Rosenberg's biggest obstacle may be memories of NDN's first big battle, in which the group raised millions in corporate dollars to support and defend Democrats who voted in favor of liberalized trade with China. That's exactly the kind of responsible position-taking the NDN was created to encourage and reward -- and which the party's protectionists and union bosses are not likely to forgive or forget. 

--Holman W. Jenkins Jr.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006077

More like an item.

What has been said:

"The WSJ also is rallying behind him."

"So Simon Rosenberg is supported by the Wall St J?"

The publisher of the Wall Street Journal said in effect: "People should not expect their editorials (op-ed or otherwise) to represent multiple views."

The WSJ is not the New York Times. The New York Times presents multiple viewpoints - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. The WSJ prints editorials that they and the business community which they represent - agree with. The publisher said so herself. Look up last Thursdays or Fridays paper and you can read it yourself.

The editorial (which they claim to agree with or they wouldn't have printed it - re: themselves) said:

Democratic eyes are falling increasingly on Simon Rosenberg as a potential new leader of the Democratic National Committee. He's currently head of the New Democrat Network, which Mr. Lieberman founded and co-chaired along with retiring Sen. John Breaux. Mr. Rosenberg's elevation would be a clear and welcome vindication of Liebermanism.

While not officially an endorsement - considering the source and their stated policy - its pretty darn close.



Are you getting paid by the NDN? You seem awfully caught up in this.

hmm....no thanks.



the DNC has been stuck in the rut of err..."joementum" since...well 2000, eh?

nt

does one set up his/her own tax-exempt political organization as an adjunct to the DLC/newdemsonline (ndol.org), and the Progressive Policy Institute* (ppionline.org/index) - all hyperlinked from the ndol website; then, self-promote it as one would any start-up business; set oneself a salary; declare same as its 'Chair'; get a foot into the Washington, DC establishment door, i.e., get on the acceptable guest spin room guest list as a spokesperson for "the Democratic Party" ...

or something entirely different and more democratic?
I really want that to be so.

- what did he do before NDN?
- where does the start-up capital to set up an organization like NDN originate?
- do we have a right to ask questions?
- do we have a right to know?

Simon Rosenberg is a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute - you can visit Aspen's website and draw your own conclusions ... I see it as a corporate elite/conservative think tank ...

Aspen Henry Crown Fellowship Program "2001 High Five Class"
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp?bid=459

Henry Kissinger is on Aspen's Council of Honorary Trustees
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp?i=53&bid=1221

another Simon Rosenberg thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Aspen funding, i.e., David 'Cato Institute' Koch Foundation - "Following the footsteps of their father, a member of the John Birch Society, the Kochs clearly have a conservative bent" wasn't David Koch a Bush** Pioneer?
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on... http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/koch_family_fo...

*PPI funding, i.e., Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
the country's largest and influential right-wing foundation
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on... http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_founda...


I really think Al From (self-proclaimed DLC "CEO"), Will Marshall (declared "President" of PPI), and Simon Rosenberg ("Chair" of NDN) sailed in on the same boat - mho.

I thought the Democratic Party post-Chicago 1968, had become more grass-root oriented ... and, away from establishment-type-style politics ... guess not.

I agree: "With all do respect to Chris Heinz, no thanks."

then went about raising capital for the PAC.
sort of like DFA.

of kids here and they were left without a net after the election. No one's fault, growing pains.

I myself am not familiar with your pick. Will do some homework.

I am, however, very concerned that the Dem leadership seems to be forwarding Mr. Roemer, whose record on women's health and Middle Eastern policy looks pretty awful.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Beth

Chris Heinz takes time out of his day to tell us that he supports Simon Rosenberg. Even though he knows most of us support Howard Dean?

He gives no real reason for his support, doesn't talk about why not Dean, and he signs onto DU just for this?

Is there any chance that this wasn't him?

I certainly have a raised eyebrow.

But it's no longer about blocking and tackling. It's about change, and I don't know that Simon represents the change we need.

and the DLC is exactly whats WRONG the Democratic Party. We need to stop trying to be Republican-Lite, and a DNC chair who holds true democratic party principals (like Dean) is who we need in my book.

And he's not hiding that fact either.

http://www.newdem.org/

if they agreed fully with an existing one.

One disseminates moderate policy ideas, the other one works to build a stronger party by assisting candidates who support moderate policy ideas.

BTW, Dave McCurdy, former DLC Chairman, currently serves on the NDN's Advisory Board.

I dunno, his ideas sounded very similar to Deans. It would be my guess he was a Dean supporter LOL.

Actually he is a co-founder. The other co-founder is some guy named Joe Lieberman.

a link to some more in-depth info on this guy? (Mind you, I am pretty interested in seeing Howard make a go of it, but would be glad to research other possibilities.)

----------------------------------------------------------
Save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/112326/490

n/t

didn't know that much about him

sounds pretty good

sounds like the person we need to lead this party

the party needs a good organizer

Everyone should check the link above to the KOS article. It gives a different take on Rosenberg than you usually hear.

Seriously though, or less seriously. Perhaps Rosenberg would rather run for the head of "Democracy For America" as they seem to have more power these days

The most relevant part to me was at the end:

>>As I've said before, my concern with Rosenberg is not substantive, it's stylistic. The guy is really nice. The DNC chair will be the face of the Democratic Party for the next three years (until the 2008 presidential cycle). Do we want a nice guy going up against Mehlman, or do we want a pit bull?<<

As far as I'm concerned, "nice" is a distinct liability these days, NOT a recommendation! I am totally fed up with Democrats who "play nice" and keep on losing elections. We need a pit bull, and that's why I'm supporting Dean.

He would be a stronger candidate if John Kerry had won -- ie politics mouthpiece would have been at the WH and the DNC could have gotten its shit together.

Meanwhile, I do think it is important to keep him involved in the effort.

I, however, am supporting Howard Dean. He's one of the strongest leaders our party has left. Plus, he was against the Iraq war from the begining. Instead of moving more to the center, we need to take 2 more steps to the left and Dean can do that.



http://www.dubyaD40.com

but I've seen and heard from Howard Dean. I'd feel comfortable with him as DNC chair. Rosenberg needs to get on TV, and show people what he's all about if he wants support.

it has more info on his bid:

www.simonforchair.com

hope this helps.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe it is time for Beatty

most of the media nd most of the voting machines. Those are the only two reasons that the GOP maintains its stranglehold on government.

The media claiming Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America and need to change their platform policies is BS, Chris. They are further conning the American people. I will not trust any DNC chair candidate who parrots that line.

I will support any candidate for chair who understands the reality of the task and will work to expose the REAL culprits and not engage in blaming Dem policies to further amuse the Republican propaganda machine.

So far, I have seen the most awareness from Dean. Rosenberg would have to speak out more forcefully on these issues to satisfy me.

Dean is the thorn we need. He tells the truth. The scariest thing in America today, telling the truth!

And Dean is smart as a fox. (outfox the Faux!) I think we need him, even as I was almost sure America is not ready for someone like Dean as President-and I commend him for putting the party and what he can accomplish above political personal gain.

of being able to vote for any of the Candidates. Frontloading seemed to hurt the process the opposite of what was intended to do by giving the Dem Frontrunners more time to be organized and pick up extra campaign funds.

Also many states were gerrymandered by the Republicans and their Primaries were held so late that they weren't even important. North Carolina, for instance had a primary just a week before the Democratic National Convention. All of the excitement and momentum was lost for the campaign because of that. This of course wasn't the DNC Chairman's fault that gerrymandering intefered with State Primaries but it's part of the overall picture that the DNC needs to be more organized and focused on what's going on in the states and how it can be confusing and disheartening to Dem voter enthusiasm to have Iowa and NH decide the candidate and not to be able to vote until just before the Democratic National Convention.

Front Loading must go. We need either Regional Primary Elections staggered over a few months or a "Super Tuesday" which is more inclusive and representative of all the states.

And I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

talked about the media consolidation and his thinly-veiled contempt for the media.

He's well aware of the problems with voting machines -- I personally thrust a 50-page report into his hands when he was in Atlanta in August 2003, and when he was in Atlanta again last Friday, I got to ask him about it. He remembered it well, and commented on it. He has talked about the machines and understands quite a bit about them.

A distinction you won't hear any serious candidate for DNC chair say.

If he know about problems with the voting machines, why isn't he making speeches about it?

Ah- once again, you have crystalized my thoughts to a tee.

Love ya Chris, but I'm w/ Blm!!!

Most likely, he wouldn't be a traitor to his class, after all.

It seems institutional support is very much split between Governor Dean and Martin Frost.

The longer we are "moderate" dems, the longer Republicans hold the office
The Democratic party needs to grow a pair and go after the Republican party like thay have done to us for the past 12 years.

We're all here in support-but we're feeling like the party has let us down. Stand up and fight! There's plenty to fight for, we just needs someone who is willing to fight.

Some Democratic Leaders are back Roemer.

I agree with you WRT the DNC chair's policy positions. I couldn't give a bippity-boppity-boo about the DNC chair's personal positions because I don't see that they have a lot of impact either on the candidates' policy positions, or on the Democratic national platform. (Although, not being a DNC insider, I don't really know if that statement is correct.)

I've been a big fan of Rosenberg ever since I heard about the famous Rob Stein "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" Powerpoint (do you know any way we can get a copy of that?)

I also really like this quote from Rosenberg:
''If you're a 32-year-old state legislator and you're a conservative, you get to go through all these philosophical trainings,'' Rosenberg said. ''You get all these organizations that are trying to put you through their leadership institutes. You get all these groups sending you their materials.

''Now, you're a 32-year-old Democratic state legislator, and what you do is you learn how to check boxes,'' he continued. ''You learn how to become pro-choice. You learn how to become pro-labor. You learn how to become pro-trial lawyer. You learn how to become pro-environment. And you end up, in that process, with no broad philosophical basis. You end up with no ideas about national security. You end up with no ideas about American history and political theory. You end up, frankly, with no ideas about macroeconomics and economic policy, other than that it's scary."

(Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/112326/490 )

I'd be happy with Dean OR Rosenberg, IMO.

BUT, here is my #1 concern. There is a HUGE grassroots effort around Dean. If the party chooses Dean, it will be considered a signal that they are serious in the committment to the grassroots and that they are serious about the fight.

If the party does NOT choose Dean, I am concerned that this campaign will perceive it as a negative: "not choosing Dean" instead of the more positive "choosing X because of Y."

That's really what I'm worried about WRT the next DNC chair.

Thanks for coming by! Always nice to see you post!

Mainly the last part, after the link to Kos.

I happen to support Dean "on the merits", but also worry about what a choice other than Dean might mean for the party's chances to win back the grass roots, particularly the left part of the party (who have for years been left **out** of the party!)

>>BUT, here is my #1 concern. There is a HUGE grassroots effort around Dean. If the party chooses Dean, it will be considered a signal that they are serious in the committment to the grassroots and that they are serious about the fight.<<

Right now the Democratic Party needs to send a clear and unequivocal message that it supports the grassroots, and choosing Dean would be a very effective way of sending that message.

... and was certainly impressed by his ideas for not just winning elections, but for shifting the attitude of the country back away from the right. I especially liked his promise to help bring along media outlets on the Democratic side, like Air America Radio, by helping to fund them through DNC donors.

As far as STRATEGY goes, he's a guy I could find a lot of upsides to.

However, as far as ISSUES go, the one that I cannot get past is his unflinching support for the war on Iraq. Reading statements he made prior to the invasion just makes me want to .

Would I seriously object to him as DNC chair, a position mainly about strategy and fundraising? No. Would I object to him setting policy and issue stances for the party? Absolutely.

If Rosenberg GETS IT about the media, that would be half the battle for my support.

Indeed, he and the NDN introduced me to Rob Stein and his work.

vote for Ralph Nader in 2008?

I think it IS important to know the policy positions of the titular head of our party, it outlines those Democratic values he / she deems a priority.

At this point in time, I think it is MOST important that we clearly define our shared values as a party, with election strategy flowing FROM that, not vice versa (i.e., concentrating on blocking & tackling as a priority over our mission stmt).

When we clearly articulate our shared Dem values we operate from a position of progressive strength, not defensive response, in an effort to "win".

That is why Gov Dean has my vote over the party 'strategists'.

Thanks for dropping by

I think it is MOST important that we clearly define our shared values as a party,

I'd totally agree with your post. However, I'm interested in your use of the word values. It seems to me that posters above are using the candidate's position on the Iraq war as a sort of "values" litmus test.

However, Lakoff points out, this isn't a "value," this is an ISSUE. Lakoff writes: We came together because of our moral values: care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1119-22.htm

IMO, it IS important for us to articulate our shared Dem values, but there is still room for us to differ in our positions on the issues.

To me, our shared Dem values are like those Lakoff describes, just slightly more defined:

the individual's right of liberty unfettered, the community's responsibility to the furthering of society as a whole, social justice for the individual and in the collective subset of society, etc.

Once we define those democratic values (our mission stmt), then we can apply them to the issues (war, reproductive rights, civil liberties, etc).

The issues may evolve, but our Dem values will be the bedrock of our party. And yes, while there is room for dissent on our response to the issues, we will approach them through the same sense of purpose, what we VALUE as Democrats.

My list would be liberty and justice for all, and a commitment to the American Dream - opportunity for anyone willing to make the effort.

but Dean has my vote for titular Chairman. Thanks for your point 1 disclaimer, but it did seem to me and many others that your stepfather was "influencing the process" earlier when he was advocating his good friend Gov. Vilsack (and earlier, Jeanne Shaheen) to run as DNC Chairman.

As for my thoughts on point 2, I am concerned about the DNC chair's own policy positions, because they must resonate with the Democratic base or the Party will
risk widespread alienation among the very people who are its backbone of support.

BTW, how does Simon stand on election reform? I ask because all the strategy in the world will not allow us to win in the future without it. Or is he ignoring the need for it and just giving lip service to the need for verified voting like so many in the Party leadership?

who's recent bounce back from the fabricated Scream sabotage to conquer talk shows and public events was itself an impressive victory. He is a charming and friendly, grass roots hero ahead of his time and right now, grass roots is ready to go mainstream. Lets milk this cow before the milk goes bad! Dean is proven. He recently demonstrated his clout when Dashell needed cash in a hurry -- Just a word from him and Deaniacs reached into their pockets and gave bigtime. And with Dean campaigning for this job, this is a no brainer. In this celebrity obsessed age of zero attention spans, it doesn't hurt to go with the guy who has cult like appeal. Go with the rockstar. They do. We can play the rockstar card, too.

I love it. I hadn't heard that before. Good post.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/deanfordnc

And there are more like it circulating!

Now, show me the groundswell for Mr. Rosenberg.
Oh, that's right, there is none.

The party will be in REAL jeopardy if Dean does not get the slot.
Much money and shoeleather will vanish.
You will find it at work through DFA and MoveOn.

Of course, this is not a threat from a lone, looney poster on a web site, just an observation from a democrat, active in local politics who is calling it like I see it.
Thanks for your interest.

He's a Fighter, he has a LARGE loyal Following, he's a "do'er" at the Grassroots level...which is the only way to win this.

And he won't take any guff...AT ALL!

Dean for the DNC!! I second that motion!

As for point number 2 - I think it is vitallly important that the DNC chairs policy positions match those of the stated goals of the Democratic Party. I can't take another "I personally don't believe in abortion, but support it" candidate. Who can trust someone like that to stick to principles they don't whole heartedly agree with? And what does it say about the Democratic Party if their Chair doesn't believe in the partys' principles?

I realize this may not be exactly the point you are making in #2, but it is vitial that we have someone who is outspoken on the issues, and strong, giving us a clear direction. That may be why so many here are supporters of Dr. Dean. He is straightforward and gives the impresion he won't back down on issues that are important to us.

We cannot be forever blocking and tackling. We must put them on the defensive. We must have a strong offense, and that will be our willingness to stand behind our principles.

Thank you Chris, for taking the time to listen to us and gather opinions. Although you have stated your preference, I'm glad to see that you still value input.

It's that we don't believe in abortion for ourselves, but refuse to force our beliefs on someone else, much less legislate our beliefs on someone else.

I support that stance. I appreciated it when I found out my candidate did too. And I bet if we took a poll, we find that there are alot of "personally wouldn't chooose abortion, but supportive of choice" people. I suppose it's too "nuanced" but that is honestly where some of us are at.

Actually, I wish the dialog could be moved to pregnancy prevention rather than abortion.

And I think more should be done to frame the discussion. During Clinton's two terms, there were fewer abortions nationwide than under Bush. There are fewer abortions in Massachusetts than anywhere else (IIRC). What's the secret? Hope.

but not necessarily abortion in and of itself. There's a difference that that I think is important to stress - I/we support the RIGHT, not necessarily the action. Same with the selling of pornography, cigarettes, alcohol, going to church, listening to some particular genre of music, etc - plug in whatever activity you don't personally favor but think other people have the right to.

I support Rosenburg as a replacement for the DLC leadership, not as a replacement for the DNC leadership.

http://mars.typepad.com/no_retreat_no_surrender/2004/11...

not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but is still defending Bush on it.

From Fox News Channel, speaking to John Gibson:

“The President was resolute and strong in his decision to go to war."

This was said on September 9th, 2004.

While I appreciate Chris Heinz's input here, I can't support someone who backs Bush on the Iraq occupation.

As I couldn't find Rosenberg's position explicit on the links I looke at:

The war in Iraq is very complex. I'm not sure Kerry or even Dean would be having the troops coming home. But most importantly, there needs to be honest accounting of the reality. Iraq is not improving and appears to be descending into absolute chaos. It's becoming routine-with the death tolls and bombings-and it would be nice if anyone could tell us what we are truly going to achieve-and how many more dead Americans and Iraqis are worth it to us forcing them to have "freedom." Not to mention the financial cost. Ultimately-to take a stand that the troops must come home is going to make sense-and the American people will come to support that. I hope it doesn't take ten years. It really is Deja Vu all over again.

Regarding choice-I don't think the party needs to equivocate on that one iota. Of course it matters what the chair's personal position is-as a woman, I simply will not support anyone that wants to erode my rights.

Sadly, we can't say that about many other so called leaders of this party, your step dad included!

I hope Kerry enjoyed his Christmas party talking with schmucks like Dennis Miller when we the base haven't seen him anywhere since he went back on his word and conceded.

I was at the party too. It is held every year. JK has known Maria for 30 years. And I havent seen it mentioned anywhere that Bruce Springsteen, Rob Reiner and alot of other committed Dems were there too.

you have to start understanding how we the base, the ones who phone banked, donated money, got as many people to register as possible felt when Kerry conceded hours after John Edwards step out to say they will fight for every vote.

Many here have had enough with this corrupt system. We want real leadership. We want people with guts and a voice to step up and call voting fraud, FRAUD! Many of the leaders that have our party in this mess need to start emulating the actions of John Conyors.

I do.

At the same time, I didn't exactly nap through the election. I consider myself and my opinion as part of the base's too.

Thanks for the head's up on this Chris and the reminder that you and all Kerry supporters were part of the base.

We all worked hard during this election, regardless of who our initial support went to.

Sometimes I think that people may not understand that those of us who supported JK from the gate feel a profound sense of loss. Yet, we're all still here fighting the good fight.

It's great to see you on here again. Please send regards to your mother and JK from the Kerry "First Blogger".

understand I'm giving you the opinion of many average everyday people who belong to this party.

I suggest in your travels you let these top party people know just how important the issue of election reform is to our party. This message has to be forced through the MSM filter at every level and every chance possible if we have any hope of taking back this country.

...but the larger 'base' is the working men and women...many just scraping by with jobs that don't pay a living wage and healthcare costs skyrocketing...that is IF they're lucky enough to even have health insurance. Their jobs are being outsourced and downsized. Unions are extinct. Public schools are underfunded and neglected. America is literally falling apart at the seams and the Dem leadership is still in Business As Usual mode.

With all due respect...you may be part of the 'base'...but you're also one of the 'haves' and most of the base consists of the 'have-nots'. When was the last time you had to go without healthcare? When was the last time you had a hard time paying the mortgage or make a choice between paying a bill or buying prescriptions?

It seems to me the Party Leadership is out of touch with the base and has no idea about what's going on out here in the trenches. They make decisions ( like DNC chair) based on political opportunism and playing it safe rather than choosing someone who will fight for the have-nots. They cooperate with the corrupt Bush government or turn a blind eye to some of the most self-serving, anti-democratic legislation this country has ever seen. They don't even bother to go on the record in opposition as Bush and his cronies run America into the ground.

Kerry simply added insult to injury when he ran away from the battle for election reform. And this after he couldn't give a direct answer about his support for an illegal, aggressive war that had nothing to do with the 'war on terror'. He had a chance to lead by example. He simply failed to come through and fight for the people. And now...like the rest of us in the 'base' have to do each and every day of our lives...he must suffer the consequences of his actions. Money and social status can't buy loyalty (except in the GOP).

Thanks for listening.

voted for Bush?

People on this site need to stop excluding others by defining what they think "the base" is - and I notice without fail that those defining the base are always part of the group.

...the 'party insiders' have excluded the base. I think it's absolutely absurd that some Democrats don't seem to know who is in their 'base'. It's as if the New Democrats are being intentionally obtuse about it to give themselves an out when they pander to the phantom swing voters.

I've been a Democrat for over thirty years and the BASE has always been the same...that is until our party started moving to the right in the 90s and suddenly the base became the 'middle class' and the working classes became invisible.

The Dem leadership should just come right and say that they don't want to be the 'party of the people'. That way we can find a party that wants to fill this role and we can all stop pretending.

Beyond attending for social reasons, CA is an important state for Dem. politics. His presence at the Gov's bash seems to me a good thing. Now if you told me he went on a hunting trip with Scalia and Cheney, I'd worry.

Thought you handled yourself well throughout the campaign. I can only imagine the pressures you've had to deal with. Glad you post here.

There's a lot of debate on DU about whether Kerry is fighting the Ohio election results "behind the scenes." Is this true or a rumor?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

losing one's father at a very young age is not considered a privilege.

We'll never forget your father here in PA, Chris. We desperately miss him.

I have just started to research the people who are running for chair.
At this point, I am inclined to support Gov. Dean. He has a vitality and presence that is sorely needed. I also do not support this insane war.

I am keeping an open mind, however, since I know very little about the other candidates. Thank you for your post and for keeping us informed!

I like Dean, but I'm not unwilling to learn more about other candidates. I don't know much about Rosenberg. Chris, maybe you can fill us in here.

1. In his vision statement, he says "If we are to win again as Democrats we must adopt a different and better path and we must do three things and do them well. First is we must create a new agenda, a new vision, a new argument that embraces the very best of what it means to be a Democrat, that makes the word “Democrat” work in all 50 states ..."

What does he mean by creating a new agenda? He summarized that so much that it's coming across to me as his vision is that we need a new vision - but I'm sure he means something much more solid and specific than that; do you know what his thoughts are behind that statement?

2. There is a mention on the site of him working to elect democrats in 12 different states. I'd like to know which democrats he helped support.

----------------------------------------------------------
Save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#...

name, I will study. However, support from the WSJ is a grand negative for me.

How can I argue that?

secondary. After all as Chair he or she will be representing all Democrats--regardless of how they voted on the Iraqi War resolution. Rosenberg is my second choice--my first remains Howard Dean. I think the party needs a strong wake up call right now. The current chairman of the DNC is a wizard at finance, but in my opinion, he has not effectively been able to coordinate a strong Democratic message in opposition to the Bush Administration. The Republicans are in a much stronger position now in Congress than when he first assumed the chairmanship. I think Dean can coordinate a strong message of standing up to Bush and effectively raise money--especially among the grass roots. He also recognizes that Democrats must start at the bottom and work their way up. His organization, DFA, got involved in races for county commissioner, auditor, insurance commissioner, state assembly, ect--these are where the future stars of the party will be coming from. I also like Dean's emphasize that we can't go on as "Red States and Blue States"--he actually has been saying that for quite a long time.

I also think that the national party has done a terrible job of not emphasizing two important details of the 2004 election which proves that Bush had no mandate: 1) John Kerry received the second biggest vote in the history of politics in this country--approaching 60 million. He received better than 48% of the vote in an election which saw a huge turnout of over 120 million citizens. This country is as divided as ever. Bush got no mandate. 2) Yes, Republicans gained ground in the congress of the US, but look at how well Democrats did in local races. Too little has been said about this, and the "liberal" media in this country just feeds the country the bull about a Bush mandate.

I feel that policy is very important to those willing
to put leather to the pavement .

It will drive our energy for change. I just dont think the personal policy positions of the DNC Chair are as importnat as his or her ability to organize and bring folks together. At the end of the day, I believe the Chair should be a facilitator for Candidates and their positions, but not a candidate himself. From personal experience, I think Simon would excel at that. He gave me very precient advise about our efforts on capturing young voters in this election.

But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to the people in all of these states as members of one community.

That word—'values'—has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values.

We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party—and the vast majority of Americans—together.


I agree with you that it's important.

It really doesn't matter what your point is what matters is getting it out. Okay so we got "beat" this time ( wink ) but a HUGE operation was put in place and those who oppose W and the words he reads are not going to go away. I can tell you from my own experiences here in Virginia people of every kind (and some Republicans) came out to get rid of Bush. We block and tackled well, especially considering the state of "the team" just a year before but we have to do better.

I am not that familiar with Simon but I will look him up.

ON EDIT- f**k it put me in charge I'll make a complete a** out my self (take them on) and get EVERYONE pissed off and really get this ball rolling.

If raising money is all that matters, than the present party chair fills the role perfectly.

The problem IS the Democrat's mushy sense of identity. How can the chairman not have a sense of that? Isn't that the point of "new ideas"? Who are we? Where do we stand? What can we SELL? Where is our appeal?

I would prefer a direct straight talker who has populous appeal rather than a policy wonk consultant for the corporate class. The fact that he advised the Kerry campaign about appealing to the youth vote--which turned out to be a no-show...well...

If personal positions didn't matter, might as well select a Republican.

we won it 54 - 44

voter turnout in 2000 for ages 18-29 was 41.9%
voter turnout in 2004 for ages 18-29 was 52%
In battlegrounds, turnout was 64%, above the national average in 2000, but slightly below overall turnout (68%)

see below for details:
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/Release_Turnout2004.pd...

it was supposed to hinge the election, wasn't it?

Instead of the RR? But then, the Republican base wasn't getting mixed messages all over the place.

Think of how many more there could've been if their was a clear opposition on Iraq.

Positions are the values.

He responds with facts that show you to be wrong and you act like he didn't say anything you need to respond to.

vote are correct.

Did you see the youth vote swamp the election? Or was it the Christian Right that has got the Dems scrambling on their values-morals message.

Of course youth is going to go proportionally Dem. That is a given, but they didn't swing the election as anticipated.

Is there a particular reason that you are not supporting Dean for this? I am willing to look at Rosenberg, as I don't know much about him, but I am really leaning toward Dean.

I know very little about Simon , and feel
very dedicated to Dean .

I will try and learn a bit about Simon , but
I have to admit what I learn would have to be
pretty fantastic to take my allegiance from Dean.

He's the reason I came back to the Democratic Party.

And I didn't come on the board to change minds. Honestly. Just to explain myself so Simon's announcement wouldnt exist in a vacuum. I got to know and enjoy Gov Dean personally over the last year. I respect him very much, not something I would have said on the eve of the Caucus last year.

hopefully both will have meaningful roles going forward. Indeed, it may not be Simon's time now. I have no idea. But I am proud to support his bid and I am certain he is a great, if underappreciated, backstage leader of the party whose best days are ahead of him.

Allegiance was too strong a word for me to use .

I hope we can best utilize the strengths
of our brightest stars

this, i think, demonstrates exactly where we disagree over your second point ... it's a perfect example of how we see the "right" process ...

you stated: I believe the Chair should be a facilitator for Candidates and their positions, but not a candidate himself.

i do NOT believe that the Chair should be a facilitator of Candidates ... I believe the Chair should be a facilitator for the Party's core values and its positions on key issues ... every Democrat with a public voice should fight for our core values and beliefs ... and that includes not just the Chair but all our candidates as well ...

this is the central problem I've had with the Party's approach and I believe it's why we are a minority party ... what you advocate is that we put the "cart before the horse" ... it's backwards ... we need to start with who we are ... and everyone who speaks for the Party must be deeply committed to its central themes and highly skilled in articulating them ...

the Chair is "not the candidate", every single spokesperson for us must be "the candidate" ... because we are not selling a person; we're selling a Party and it values and its policies and its ideas ...

Food for thought.

But isn't there room in the party for a high-level strategist? You don't see KKKarl Rove or KennyBoy Mehlman out in front of the cameras much, and Rosenberg would be their equivalent.... Strategist should be focussed on strategy, not values and policy. You can bet your sweet bippy that KKKarl doesn't give a rat's ass about WHAT the Rethuglicans actually DO, he just wants to win.

first, OK ... if we're going to "hide" the new Chair away and only let him have access to the "smoked filled rooms" where big money deals are negotiated, policies are not as essential ... but that hasn't been the only role of the Chair ... the Chair is also a spokespersion ... a very public spokesperson ... and just what kind of strategy will our "boy genius" develop if they are not selected based on our values and our views on the issues ... shouldn't that be the first ingredient in developing the strategy ???

what you are arguing for suggests that we should define a strategy in the absence of defining who we are first ... do you really want to condone a process that puts the DNC Chair in a back room to come up with a plan to win regardless of what it is we're "winning" ?? is that what's being advocated here? defining a winning strategy rather than defining what we're fighting for first and then determining how to achieve our goals?

if the republican model of victory at any cost is what the DNC plans to peddle, I'll shop my values and issues around somewhere else ... let's hope they don't make that mistake ...