DNC Chair: "It is a Big Deal...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

(Referencing a post on this page: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/27/1060/4930 )

maybe this time more than ever."

"i am an old time political hack and I've never seen a discussion of DNC chair go much beyond the beltway.


The fact that bloggers everywhere are having this discussion suggests to me an emerging power base that wants to be recognized, to be included and wants to have a say in the development of the party.


we are not creating a movement to oppose mainstream old fashioned dems, we are recreating the dems--potentially from the inside out if we can get someone elected who understands what is motivating us.


i am sorry to use the royal we. I have yet to find the words to define this movement--its not populism altho there is a bit of that--its not liberalism altho there is a bit of that--i am not sure what to call it yet but i see that as a job for the bloggers and the new DNC chair:


to find the language and craft messaging that defines what makes us different from them and what makes our ideas better.


Who better to do that than the chair of the Democratic party? It'd be a first."
-------------
TS Note: I have recently been through something of an odyssey. Without going into details, it has been an eye-opener, regarding political realities as a whole and especially on the progressive side of things. Sorry, no details will be forthcoming. That said, when I read the above, it was like I had my third eye opened for a moment, for what is said is right and true. There ARE deep, systemic problems at the DNC, largely based upon an inside-the-beltway ossified mindset. One that is hidebound and smug. Perhaps they don't even recognize it. Perhaps they are incapable of recognition of the realities. No matter. Change is the natural order of things.

Shorter Version of the above: You can change things, perhaps for the first time ever.

You have the power, as the country doctor said.

Get to work. Sitting on gluteal protruberances, whining and being bitter, only makes for big asses and raw throats. It solves NOTHING. Voting is not the only thing we have to fix.

It's gonna be a surprisingly short four years.

[WI_DEM]

1. two words: Howard Dean

Once it became clear he might be interested or that people were pushing him for this position, it became a bigger story than otherwise it would have been. That is the only thing I can think of because it's true I've never seen so much attention given on a national chair before either.

[Cha]

4. That and the fact that Terry McAullif

just left and the Dems need someone who is going to bring in the people and the cash to a winning majority.

Which I think we already are..we need a Rebellion!

[Eric J in MN]

12. That's true. If Howard Dean weren't a potential chair, most of

us wouldn't care.

[blondeatlast]

39. Even if Dean isn't interested, the fact that he's got LOADS of support

from long-time die-hard Dems like me (and I was a vocal OPPONENT of his in the primaries) for the DNC chair ought to be sending a very serious message to Washington.

[Cha]

2. Thanks for this T_S..

I like the way you said what the "country doctor" told us we have.


Hopefully, it's not business as usual with the Democrats these next four and beyond years.

[sangh0]

3. The DNC chair is the WORST place to change the party from

The DNC chair WORKS FOR elected Dems, not the other way around. The first time the Dems do something Deans supporters don't like, Dean is going to have backstab his supporters and defend the Dems, or he is going to have to quit.

A DNC chair that doesn't defend the Dems gets fired and ignored. Dean is doing a good job with DFA, so why do his supporters want him to stop doing something that is working?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. If we want change in the party...

We are gonna need a changer. It's just that simple. If we do not get that changer, we are simply gonna get more of the same.

[sangh0]

9. Slogans won't change the party

You can't change the party by trying to tell a Senator, who won election without Dean's help, what to do. The DNC chair has absolutely ZERO power over any elected democrat.

So you may need a "changer", but not as head of the DNC. Try putting a little thought behind your slogans. Changing the DNC chair is as effective as changing a baby's diaper, as far as what the Dems do with respect to policy. DNC Chair is NOT a policy making position.

[Zensea]

6. He should make up his own mind is the way I look at it.

If he decides to try to become DNC chair I would bet he'll have taken that sort of stuff into consideration.
I think people who say they want him to be DNC chair are just trying to make a push for a certain tenor to the Democratic party and that's the way they're going about it at this early juncture.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Whoever gets the job...

Ignores the clamor in the grassroots at his or her own peril. That will be the person who will be known as he or she who presided over the final dissolution of the party.

[sangh0]

10. And that's why it's stupid for Dean to be DNC Chair

We're all better off if he keeps working to build the pressure at the grassroots. *THAT* is how you change the party. That's how the repukes did it.

[blondeatlast]

41. Absolutely. nt

[Guaranteed]

8. It's a leadership position that would be what Dean would make of it.

And he would have the backing of a very large part of the Democratic voters. The DNC will know that, I'm sure.

He'll be fine.

[sangh0]

11. It's really more of a spokesperson position

and it most certainly would not be "what Dean would make of it"

The job of DNC Chair is to support elected Dems. That's who the DNC chair WORKS FOR. As DNC Chair, Dean would be *subordinate* to elected Dems. I don't think that's what we want.

And he would have the backing of a very large part of the Democratic voters.

A Dem with support from many Dem voters should be running for elected office. We don't need more appointed officials.

[Eric J in MN]

13. It's mosltly been fundraising up until now.

Terry McAuliffe made occasional tv appearances, but that's not how he spent most of his time.

I hope Dean can tie the DNC to the grassroots more.

[sallyseven]

15. Dean can do a lot.

He can build up the party where he is right now. He would make a fine DNC head. He could use those skills and hire someone else under his direction to do what he is doing now. The press will you know, s... a brick but screw them.

[sangh0]

19. If Dean is building the party "where he is right now"

why in the world would you want him to move?

He could use those skills and hire someone else under his direction to do what he is doing now.

So what Dean is doing now is something many others could do? Do you really believe that there are many others who could "build the party" the way Dean is doing?

[blondeatlast]

43. He's doing it in DfA, not as a big "D" Democrat.

Note my icon, then note this--I'm working locally NOW, and not for the Dems.

And I was vocally opposed to Dean in the primaries.

[sangh0]

48. I'm not sure why you responded to my post

I was asking sallyseven why she would want Dean to move away from doing something he's being successful at, because she seems to want Dean as DNC Chair. You don't say, but you seem to be agreeing with me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[blondeatlast]

51. I was responding to another post, don't know why it came up here.

Weirs--now I can't find the post I meant to respond to.

Apologies for that, can't explain it?!

[sangh0]

53. Another glitch in the machine

Thanks for explaining

[Guaranteed]

14. LOL "that's not what we want." You're HILARIOUS, sangho!

The DNC knows who Dean is. If he gets the position, it will be because they know he's the best person for the job.

If they change their mind for some reason after the fact, he's going to be the one with the mic. And you can bet that there will be a rather severe backlash.

[sangh0]

17. You're changing your tune BGL

Before, you said Dean would get the job because of pressure:

And he would have the backing of a very large part of the Democratic voters. The DNC will know that, I'm sure.

Now, it's because the DNC WANTS Dean because "they know he's the best person for the job."

Umm, the job is mainly fundraising and the occassional public appearance.

If they change their mind for some reason after the fact, he's going to be the one with the mic.

Yeah, right. The DNC Chair has no mic. Most of the work is behinds the scenes.

And you can bet that there will be a rather severe backlash.

Wow, I'm scared. What is Dean going to do to a Senator who got elected without Dean's help? Do you really think the Dems in the Senators state, who didn't vote for Dean but did vote for the Senator, are going to listen to Dean?

[Guaranteed]

24. You've demonstrated nothing of the sort.

I said the DNC picks who will be their chairman. And I said that Dean has the backing of a whole lot of Democratic voters, and that they will support him AFTER he gets the job.

Did I stutter?

Man, you're always trying to get all prosecutor on people, but you just stumble over yourself.

[sangh0]

54. Wrong

They won't support Dean when he's supporting Dems like Lieberman, which is job requirement for DNC Chair.

[Zensea]

16. Aren't Democrats supposed to support elected Dems?

where's the problem with that?

Unless your name is Zell Miller I mean.

[sangh0]

18. Can you translate that it into english?

And explain since when has the DNC chair been an elected office?

[Cheswick2.0]

21. it is an elected office

The person is elected by DNC members.

[sangh0]

22. Nope

still not an "elected office"

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Ann Arbor Dem]

27. The DNC chair is elected by party members in the next few months.

It's not a public office, but the head of the party is elected nonethless. I believe there are 447 people (who were all elected by the party members in their home states/territories) who will cast their votes.

I don't understand why you are saying it isn't an elected office.

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

45. Explain?

How ISN'T it?

[sangh0]

49. It's not a public office

We don't refer to the position of CEO of a corp by calling it an "elected office", even though CEO are appointed by a vote of a corp boardmembers

"elected office" is a figure of speech that is not supposed to be interpreted literally, just as a "coup de grace" doesn't refer to a fatal stab wound.

[Zensea]

29. Sure I'll translate

You said --

"and it most certainly would not be "what Dean would make of it"

The job of DNC Chair is to support elected Dems. That's who the DNC chair WORKS FOR. As DNC Chair, Dean would be *subordinate* to elected Dems."

So my response is that Dean wouldn't have any problem supporting elected Democrats and so that's not a barrier to him being DNC chair.

As for the other, you don't give up your right to run for office just because you are the DNC chair.
Despite any possible "gentlemen's agreements" about it.

[sangh0]

38. Dean would have "no problem" supporting Lieberman

when Lieberman speaks in support of the invasion?

As for the other, you don't give up your right to run for office just because you are the DNC chair.
Despite any possible "gentlemen's agreements" about it.

True, but if you quit in the middle of a term in order to run for office, none of the other Dems or their supporters will support you.

And no one here has explained how Dean, as DNC chair, wouldbe able to make any elected Dem change anything, or how he could change the party.

[Zensea]

72. Your question implies that every Democrat votes the same

Which is obviously not true.
Supporting Democrats is not a matter of agreeing with every vote they make.
You know that as well as anyone else I'd think.

[blondeatlast]

44. When HASN'T it been???

And we do have a voice--they are our precinct captains and on up.

[sangh0]

52. When hasn't "what" been?

If you mean the DNC Chair, it's NEVER been an "elected office". And though you DO have a voice, it's not the DNC Chair. The DNC Chair is the voice of Dems that have been elected to a public office, and not ALL Dems, like you and I.

[blondeatlast]

42. Once he's in, the position becomes what HE (or whomever) makes it.

I hope that whoever takes it doesn't operate in the McCauliffe mode.

[sangh0]

55. Wrong

What makes you think the DNC Chair can do whatever s/he wants? If the DNC Chair were to do something elected Dems didn't like, they could vote Dean out.

on edit; there's a post near the bottom of this thread that explains what the DNC CHair's job is. Please note that it doesn't set policy, and most of it's responsibilities involve providing support to others, and not telling them what to do or say

[NVMojo]

33. because it wouldn't be all that hard to turn from Dean for America to

Dems for America and they can keep their acronym. Dean would make a great leader for "change" in the Dem party, IMO. He says it like it is and it's time for that to be done in the Dem venue.

[blondeatlast]

46. They've already done it--it's now known as

"Democracy for America," and they are very activew.

[Dr.Phool]

20. The DNC needs a house-cleaning

From top to bottom. I spent a lot of time with them and DCCC earlier this year, and got a lot of promises and such. But, once you get home, they don't return phone calls or lose contact.

[Only Me]

23. I am not so sure I agree change is the what we need. I don't think it's

what we stand for thats a problem..I think it's a combination of many things. I to think we are in desperate need of leaders at the DNC.
I think they hold a lot of our collective ideals, but they are not aggressive and seem alittle out of touch with what has been happening the last few years. Every time I hear some of them speak I suddenly realize why we are so disorganized. The party has had no strategy to deal with the last 4 years and now we are scrambling to pick up this mess. I, personally, don't think we should clean house..I think we need to realign our house with the most familiar, aggressive, self assured, confident people we can get. We need to hold tight to our beliefs, there what this party is founded on. I sincerely
believe we need strong personalities to convey our beliefs. We need to come across like we have our *hit together and what we stand for is the only exceptable way.

I think they won so many votes because they had a long term plan since shrubs first election. They were diligent and collective in carrying it out, they a big one they "owned the media". There arrogance came across as self assured. Even with all the cheating an the lies this administration has done. In comparison, our party had no 4 year plan like Rove did, we were extremely scattered on the issues and by the time we got a candidate we just didn't have time to show the right picture to the public. Our party came across out of touch and weak on our own issues, especially here in the south. Kerry was a good leader, he just didn't have time to sway the south...they didn't trust him because they didn't have time to get to know him. If they don't know you down here, they won't vote for you. (in southern terms familiar means 'safe')
DNC chair should have the public persona of being strong and confident and very familiar to everyone.
Joe Biden comes to mind, among several others.

JMHO

[Mirwib]

28. The internet has democratized the flow of information

Now, a person can post an opinion and it is read by hundreds maybe thousands. Those that agree say so. Those that disagree also say so. The dialogues that grow up because of this exchange of information creates new consensus that challenge the opinions of old-time political insiders. The ability of a single person to affect the direction of the nation and world will increase significantly due to the internet.

[janx]

30. It's going to be a surprisingly short TWO years.

We don't have much time before 2006.

I read the DAily Kos at the link you provided. Lots to chew on there, to be sure.

[blondeatlast]

47. No kidding; I'm not gonna wait. It's all about the locals now! nt

[janx]

58. Yep. No matter how we do it--DFA, whatever--

we have to go from the ground up. Our voices aren't being heard. TS's thread and the Kos link really make that clear.

[crispini]

31. Question for Sang0 or someone.

Sang keeps sayihg "The DNC chair WORKS FOR elected Dems, not the other way around."

What does this mean? I guess I'm not really sure what the DNC chair does, if this is the case. I was always under the impression that the DNC chair filled a similar function to our local party heads -- campaign strategy and tactics and figuring out what the national "party" per se would be doing.

What does it mean to support elected Dems? What kind of support and why do they need it? Seems to me the minority leader in the two chambers support and lead THOSE elected dems, and who would that lead the DNC chair to support?

I'm not flamebaiting here, I'm genuinely curious.

[Julien Sorel]

35. He means it's not really an executive position

in the sense that the Deanites are under the illusion it is. The
Deanites are acting as if DNC chair is kind of like being "president" of the DP, when it's really more like being chief of staff. Quick: name Bush's chief of staff.

Anyway, with apologies to Sangho who is quite a bright guy, just because the position has been a support role in the past doesn't mean it has to stay that way going forward. The problem the Democrats have, and have had for quite some time, is lack of a unified message. This is in part due to the big tent nature of the party, but as conservative Democrats continue to lose in red America, the party is going to become less and less a big tent -- but I digress.

Somewhere somehow the Democrats have got to build a strong, centralized organization, one that sets an agenda, promulgates a unified message, and enforces discipline. (Notice this is actually the opposite of the "bottom up" organization the activists are saying they want, yet it is the logical result of their argument: by its very nature, the act of empowering a person creates a top down hierarchy). The rational place to start with that is the DNC.

Whether Dean is the right person to do that is a whole different discussion. Personally, I loathe the guy as a liar and a self-absorbed fraud, but that didn't seem to hurt Nixon for several decades. Dean has been playing games with the idea of taking the position, then running for president in 2008, which effectively means he would be chair for about a year. That's absurd. I also have concerns about Dean's followers, many of whom are hardly the kind of people who play well in middle America. The DNC is a 360 million dollar a year organization. Are Dean's internet crazies going to come up with that kind of green, or will Dean have to go to the same interest groups and corporations McAuliffe did to get money? I think you know the answer to that. And Dean as whipping boy for the right wing propaganda machine is another concern.

Ultimately, when I see this push for Dean as DNC chair, it reminds me of Dean in the primaries. No matter what he did or said, no matter how obvious it was the election was going to come down to security issues, and Dean had no credibility on the topic, his followers continued to push him down the party's throat, continued to pour money down the drain of his campaign, continued to bash everyone who found him to be a loathsome little creep who would lose big, as "DINO's, and "appeasers" and all the rest. You see the same language now. It's either Dean, or "MOTS," Dean or an "appeaser" and so on and so on. I don't think Dean is the right person to institute positive reform in the DNC, and I don't think his supporters care whether he's the right person or not -- all they care about is that he's Dean.

[sangh0]

40. You left something out

You didn't explain how getting the DNC chair position would "empower" Dean to do the things you want Dean to do as DNC Chair. You specifically referred to the need to "enforce" a certain amount of discipline in order to promulgate a unified message. How does getting the position of DNC Chair give Dean the power to enforce anything?

The DNC is a 360 million dollar a year organization. Are Dean's internet crazies going to come up with that kind of green, or will Dean have to go to the same interest groups and corporations McAuliffe did to get money?

Bingo!!

Power in politics comes from one of two things - money or votes. Dean and his supporters have some of both, but nothing near what the DNC and it's other members have.

Corzine has raised tens of millions of dollars for the DNC, and he won his seat with votes. How can Dean make a Corzine do anything Corzine doesn't want to do?

[Julien Sorel]

50. It isn't a case of simply getting the chair and being empowered.

Once the new chair is in place, his or her role needs to be redefined. Someone or something has to start the DP down the road to creating and promulgating central themes and a consistent message, and the logical place to start is the DNC. As for people like Corzine, there are always going to be folks like him. The Republicans have McCain, for example. This isn't the military, or even a corporation. But the flacks, the Dee Dee Myers-Susan Estrich types who go out and flail away on the talking head circuits, need to get marching orders from somewhere, and that place doesn't exist. From top to bottom, elected official to Bill O'Reilly, the Republicans are on message almost 100% of the time. We've seen several cases where someone deviating from that message was forced to backtrack and recant. The Republicans have goals, a plan, a message, and some kind of enforcement mechanism. That comes from organization, and every organization has a hierarchy. Ours needs to be restructured.

By the way, this isn't in reaction to the most recent election -- I'll leave the knee-jerk stuff to the chicken littles and panic button people. I've been saying this for a while now.

[sangh0]

56. And again, you left something out

*HOW* can Dean be the one to "redefine" the role, when he does not have the power to enforce anything?

I agree that the party needs to change, but no one here has been able to explain how Dean, as DNC Chair, could put those changes into effect and enforce them. By working at the grassroots, and getting progressive Dems into office, he can create the constituency WITHIN the DNC to change the rules. Standing by himself as DNC Chair, with no elected Dems (or very few) to support him, he can propose changes but they will never go into effect because the elected Dems (elected without Deans help) won't support Dean.

[janx]

59. Forget Dean for a minute. Nobody even knows if he's going

to pursue this position.

The DNC chair position, if you'll note the post from the DNC site, is chiefly about helping to get Dems elected and creating a message for the party.

It's important now because we don't have any strong mechanism like that in place right now. Jules is absolutely right about this.

Whoever takes the position will have to pay attention to the electorate, not just Dems who have already been elected.

[sangh0]

60. You are wrong

For one thing, if you read the OP, the thread is about Dean becoming DNC Chair, so it's awfully strange to forget Dean in this thread.

For another, the DNC Chair does not "create a message for the party". That's just wishful thinking. Your argument would be stronger if it didn't depend on fantasy

[janx]

62. Yes, you're correct, but I didn't mean it literally.

Reread Jules's post. He explains it pretty well.

[sangh0]

65. No, he doesn't explain it well

There's absolutely NO explanation of how the DNC Chair's position would empower Dean to do those things.

It's not going to happen through magic.

[janx]

64. This thread is not about Dean.

The point of the OP was much larger than that.

[sangh0]

66. The point is based on ignorance

It's based on the idea that the DNC Chair has the power to change the party, when the powers of the DNC Chair could be described as "the power to raise money for others, and the power to listen to what the DNC members (elected Dems) want"

[janx]

67. No, the DNC chair does not in and of itself have any power.

It exists to help the Democratic party reach certain goals, or should be. Its purpose is chiefly strategic.

[sangh0]

68. Wrong again

Go look at the job description a poster posted below. It says NOTHING about setting strategy or implementing strategy. The job exists for ONE reason - supporting elected Dems and the party members that support elected Dems.

[Julien Sorel]

70. The Chair would go to the DNC and ask

for what power he or she needs that isn't already there. I'm simply unclear on why this even needs to be stated.

As I said earlier, there is no way to control all elected officials, and it isn't even a good idea. But something is missing in the logic: the party can't control every elected official, therefore the chairmanship has no power at all? It doesn't follow. Corzine is Corzine, and has access to funds that few politicians of either party do. The rest of them need help, organizational as well as financial, and if they want it from the DNC they will play ball as they always have.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. without electoral reform/integrity, this discussion is meaningless n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

34. The chair has no power over elected Dems? So What?

The chair works for the elected Dems? Sez who? I am convinced Dean can effect change. He's not one to back down and he's not a quitter. We've seen that. We've seen him fire up the base. We've seen him encourage candidates around the country and get them elected (IIRC).

If the rules don't fit the situation (4 straight lost election seasons ... or is it 5? I'd rather forget.) change the fucking rules. If we have hacks and aparatchiks running the party, lose 'em.

Bring the party back to the people. If it isn't Dean then it should be someone with a substantial backbone and the charisma to keep the base fired and involved. We have no de facto leader of the party right now. That sorta leaves it up to the DNC chair, as I see it. If not the chair personally, then his hand picked designates, including a pack of media savvy junk yard dogs, with a few Luca Brazza types thrown in for good measure.

[JNelson6563]

36. Yes, it's a very big deal!

I for one amtierd of working so hard to build Dem grassroots in my neck of the woods with no help from state or national. Hell not even my district! Beyond the actual grassroots level there is no leadership from the party. Many local county parties have made lots of progress and receive no direction on how to best target those resources, much less keep building them.

I say bring in Dean and let him work some networking magic. Dean has shown he is a team player, can get people together and get things done. Who knows? Maybe we Dems could get our act together and actually accomplish something?? (An obviously terrifying thought to some in this thread.)

Julie

[Metatron]

37. The function of the Democratic National Committee

There appears to be some confusion on this thread about the mission of the DNC and the role that the chair plays. According to the DNC site, "The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promotes the election of Party candidates with both technical and financial support; and works with national, state, and local party organizations, elected officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and views of the Democratic electorate and the nation." Although the role of chair is not specifically defined, it seems obvious that he/she would be responsible for all the previously mentioned tasks.
http://democrats.org/about/function.html

Although I am not a huge McAuliffe supporter, I do appreciate his success at making the DNC debt-free.

[sangh0]

57. Please note that gives no policy role to DNC Chair

and most of the responsibilities are reactionary in nature, in that the DNC's job is to respond to other's needs, and not the other way around.

[janx]

61. I think that most people agree--being "reactionary" is no longer

an option.

[sangh0]

63. Which is why it's a bad idea

for Dean to become DNC CHair. It would FORCE him to support Dems who are not progressive. He would be REQUIRED to support conservative and moderate Dems, and it would take him away from getting progressive Dems elected, something he's been pursuing successfully with DFA.

[janx]

69. Well, all we can do is to voice our opinions on a local level

in the hopes that our state Dems will elect a DNC chair who has some great strategizing capabilities.

Thus far, I don't have a favorite, but I dearly hope it will be someone who listens to the electorate. I think that was the ultimate point of TS's post.

The Kos conversations, while they mentioned several potential candidates and possibilities, seemed pretty adamant about that.

[Metatron]

71. I understand your point

but I look at it a little differently. The active part of the position is getting candidates elected (promoting Dem candidates). The part you call reactionary I view as consensus building among the different factions of Democratic constituencies (working with and responding to the needs of different groups of Dems).