Take their money, use their energy, but don't pay too much attention to their demands.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-17-08 01:00 AM
Original message

Take their money, use their energy, but don't pay too much attention to their demands.

Yes, I posted this last year. But I was reading it over again in the light of the transition team, in the light of Obama's staff picks. We are still in waiting mode, but never too early to be on guard. As an aside: I think we are very lucky to have Obama as our President Elect. If I question, it is the people around him I mean.

I see the same attitudes emerging from some people involved in all this change-over. I feel like many of us who worked for and donated to the DNC are not going to be needed again for the next four years. I did not think it would be that way. It does not hurt to be on guard. I felt like hubby and I were making a difference in the party since 2003. I do not feel that way right now, and someone needs to assure a whole lot of people.

For the over a decade that the Democratic Party has turned message control over to think tanks like DLC, PPI, and Third Way...all interconnected....they have been taught to think one way. They have been taught to be of the mindset that anyone other than the leaders of the party who make the decisions are not especially worthy to be involved in the planning. They use various names for us...netroots, nutroots, grassroots, bloggers, liberals, activists.

I have gathered several examples of what we are facing in trying to be relevant in a party that decided the direction years ago. It will be an unhill battle.

This following statement is absolutely the clearest evidence ever of the role that a corporate party thinks that the liberals, activists, grassroots, netroots should have in the party, the place that should be consigned to them. It is perfectly and beautifully said by a Democratic lobbyist in 2006.

Steve Elmendorf, lobbyist. (BTW...I saw his name mentioned as possible DNC chair. Can't find the link now.)

Note his words well. Contrast them with our outgoing chairman's attitude.

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

"The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

To paraphrase, use them and toss them.

Now for Simon Rosenberg's words:

Blogs attack as party reaches for center

Simon Rosenberg who helped found the Democratic Leadership Council left little doubt about the purpose of their founding. He has distanced himself somewhat from the leadership such as Al From, but still calls his group the NDN..the New Democrat Network.

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
How the DLC Does It

More about their opinions of us from a DLC editor, Peter Ross Range.

"My liberal friends are quick to point out that the left's chief grievance is with the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. But what does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb. These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror."

Liberals' war

No, Peter, you got it wrong. We recognize that the terrorist alarmists are pushing for war. We see that some in our own party are equally guilty of trying to play the fear factor.

And there is the old "there are not enough liberals" theme which is used by the groups that control Democratic policy.

"Since the 2004 election, wealthy liberals, lefty bloggers, and interest groups have been demanding that Democrats reciprocate their opponents' belligerent partisanship. Only by standing up for core liberal convictions, they argue, can Democrats galvanize a new progressive majority and "take America back." It sounds stirring, but there are three problems with that theory.

First, most 2006 voters expressed a strong preference for cooperation over partisan confrontation between Bush and the Democratic Congress. Second, in moderate America, there simply aren't enough liberals to get Democrats anywhere near a majority. Third, liberal and centrist Democrats sometimes interpret their party's core principles differently, especially on such important issues as the use of force, the benefits of trade, the role of government, and questions about religion and morality."
Polarize This

Yes, we do interpret those things quite differently. We are in the majority on the issues. There are a whole lot of liberals around.

In a low point in Democratic Party history, Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention for being opposed to abortion rights. This year, his son, Bob Casey Jr., who holds the same views, was actively recruited by that same Democratic Party and unseated Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

"This was a welcome move in a party that is home to vocal and organized far-left activists and bloggers who have grown increasingly shrill and threatening toward moderate and conservative Democrats. They also have excoriated former president Bill Clinton's brand of centrist politics. They argue for "party discipline," best exemplified by their jihad against Connecticut's Sen. Joe Lieberman for deviating from the party line on the Iraq war. During the past election for Democratic National Committee chair, delegates booed former congressman Tim Roemer of Indiana because he, too, opposes abortion rights."

Election Signals Decline of Old School Liberalism

No, it does not do that. It signals the willingness of the centrists in the party to give up the rights of women to win elections more easily. More of the giving up of the "traditional" interest groups.

And they invariably bring up the Lieberman case to prove the grassroots were wrong. They never point out that Lieberman became the Republican's poster child...they took up his cause because of the Iraq war. That is called dishonesty.

They believe that the Democratic leadership in Washington has been far too accommodating -- some would say feeble -- in its oppositionand that the only way to win electorally and legislatively is to fight ire with ire.

These polarized Democrats, who fueled the rise of Lamont's candidacy, have gone past disagreeing with the Republicans, to despising them.

They no longer see Republicans as the opposition, but as the enemy. And they believe that the end of defeating this enemy justifies just about any means. On the other side stands the school of problem-solving"

Lieberman Comes Back

The spin put on the most obvious things is amazing.

Even our most outspoken Democrats have learned, are learning, that you simply go along if you want to get along. Unfortunately one I greatly respect is becoming that way now. Maybe he is justifying his silence with the thought that his job of rebuilding is not yet finished, and that he needs to win the next election. Maybe he really goes along with much of the capitulation by congress. I doubt that, though.

A conversation today with Mr. Dean is a study in discipline compared with his offhand remarks that were prone to generate headlines four years ago. He doesn�t disagree with the assessment, saying he is �unlike the old me.� Why such caution? �You live and you learn, right?� he replies.

Quiet Dean leads party

Updated today: He did his job well, he stayed on the talking points as best he could while making sure we knew he was still speaking for us. He's out now, and accused of being too partisan.

The party's congressional leaders, the WH staffers, have two directions in which to go. They may assume that the activists, grassroots, netroots, liberals are not their enemy after all, that many of us actually have good ideas, intelligence, and common sense....or they will continue to relegate us to the status of fringe.

The consequences of that will be a one-party country with no opposition party that is powerful enough to matter.

The Policy Shop is trying to grab the reins of power.

We need to be on guard.