an OPEN CHALLENGE to the DNC and Simon Rosenberg

[welshTerrier2]

Many Democrats understand that this is a critically important time for the Democratic Party. The Party is at a crossroads. During the recent election, our Party went to the polls unified. The "cause celebre", however, was not a "unity of thought" allied behind the vision embodied in the Party's platform or even its nominee. The "cause celebre" was ABB, i.e. anybody but bush ... ABB is not a theme that will hold us together going forward. There must be agreement on the values and policy objectives we stand for and there also must be agreement on how the Party conducts its internal business. Absent progress in both of these domains, we are likely to see a harmful splintering between the grassroots and Party insiders.

All this leads to a discussion of the DNC Chairman selection process.

One of the candidates, Mr. Simon Rosenberg, recently made the following statement regarding Iraq policy: "The war was a good idea". While Mr. Rosenberg is entitled to his opinion, that opinion does not necessarily represent the views of many other Democrats. There have been substantial discussions about whether policy considerations should or should not be a criterion in the selection process. Insiders generally seem to believe that the Chairman's role is primarily one of "blocking and tackling" and that the job requirements focus almost exclusively on fundraising and Party infrastructure issues. That view, however, is not shared by many in the Party's grassroots. The grassroots are viewing the selection of the next DNC Chairman in a much more symbolic way. What signal will it send about the direction of the Party if the new Chairman has advocated a specific policy position the grassroots strongly opposes?

So, we have a conflict in need of resolution. One view is that policy considerations are insignificant for the DNC Chairman selection process and the other view is that policy considerations are critically important. To make the wrong choice at this time could be very damaging. Trial balloons have been floated suggesting that both Dr. Dean and Mr. Rosenberg might "share the chair". But this doesn't lend much comfort. Seeking a "have your cake and eat it too" solution is the right way to go; but the shared Chair approach is not the right implementation. The argument here is not that there is anything inherently wrong with dividing the responsibilities of the job but rather that one of those being considered has issued a policy statement that may be unacceptable to many in the Party.

What is needed is a pledge by the DNC, with Mr. Rosenberg's agreement, to open up the platform process so that every Democrat, every single Democrat, can participate directly in the definition of key platform planks. I am issuing this OPEN CHALLENGE to the DNC and Simon Rosenberg to give every Democrat a direct vote via referendum specifically on the Iraq plank in the Party's platform. I am also asking that the same process be subsequently used for all other major platform issues in the future.

If non-Insider Democrats are to have faith in the Party and accept the premise that Mr. Rosenberg's statement on the war should not to be weighed in the selection process, we need assurance that his support from the DNC as either Chairman or Executive Director is not a sign that the Party is entrenched in its Iraq position. Verbal assurances that all policies are always open for re-evaluation would be inadequate. The only credible form of assurance is a party-wide binding referendum on the issue.

Let's put the small "d" back in the Democratic Party and let every Democrat have a say.

[CWebster]

1. Raising money

"Now an effort is under way to set this faux “centrism” in stone. One of the leading candidates for Democratic National Committee chairman is Simon Rosenberg, a former free-trade lobbyist and head of the business-backed New Democrat Network. His group is joined by even more organizations designed to push the party to the right. The Washington Post reports that a group calling itself the “Third Way” (read: “Wrong Way”) is forming to tout “centrist” policies for Democrats. Instead of leaving the Beltway and holding a town meeting to gauge the pulse of red America’s working-class core, the group held its initial meeting “over dinner at a Georgetown mansion.” Instead of engaging in grassroots funding efforts, it is openly relying on corporate contributions.

“The answer to the ideological extremes of the right has to be more than rigid dogma from the left,” said Senator Bayh, a leader of the new group and one of Washington’s most highly trumpeted “centrists.” But really, who is pushing a rigid dogma: these bankrolled politicians who have hijacked “centrism” to sell out America’s middle class, or the progressive populists who most often have the backing of the American people?"

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1216-20.htm


So, blocking and tackling would be raising corporate funds...to represent whose interests exactly if policy on major issues reflects corporate interests? And if policies reflect the views of say, Lieberman, co-founder of the New Democratic Network, how will that reasonate with the base or challenge the Right?

[naryaquid]

2. Right on, to both of you.....It seems that Joe Trippi, of all

people is now backing this Rosenberg jerk...I can't imagine why as his agenda is anathema to that of Howard Dean..The only man I see for the job.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. Conyers has endorsed Dean

See my thread in this same forum

[w4rma]

4. Is Rosenburg still a "free" trader? That's another strike against him (nt)

[crispini]

5. Hi, me again.

(Edit. LOL, I'm ahead of you, I posted this before I saw your reply to mine. this one's not about "role" though which I think is a discussion worth pursuing.)

I like your idea. I've been chewing over similar ideas. I'd be interested in your take about how this would be accomplished on a practical level. First, how do you define "Democrat?" Would that be everyone who's registered as a Dem? But then, my state has open primaries. Would that be everyone who voted in the most recent Democratic primary?

And, how do you boil down such a complex statement of intent as the Democratic party's Iraq plank into something that can be voted on?

I do think this is an interesting idea, but from a practical point of view, would it be feasible?

For reference, here's the Democratic party's plank on Iraq, more or less, from the 2004 platform.

---------------------------------
And they must – because having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance.

As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only
presence. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome, and we must bring them in to commit troops and resources. The Bush Administration has missed three great opportunities to do that.
First, the President broke his promise to build a legitimate coalition in Iraq by exhausting diplomacy before resorting to the use of military force. Second, when the statue fell in Baghdad,
Kofi Annan invited the United States to come to the table to discuss international support – but we rejected his offer. Third, when the President addressed the United Nations last fall, he once
again refused to acknowledge the difficulties we faced in Iraq and failed to elicit support from other nations.

The President has not given our troops the clarity of mission, the equipment or the international support they need and deserve. We have a different approach based on a simple commitment: Troops come first. Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best antimissile systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been forced to leave their families and jobs for more than a year – with no end in sight – because this Administration ignored the pressing need for a true coalition. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

To succeed, America must do the hard work of engaging the world's major political powers in this mission. We must build a coalition of countries, including the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political, economic, and military responsibilities of Iraq with the United States. To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous.

We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces. As other countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United States will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence.

Second, we need to create an international High Commissioner to serve as the senior international representative working with the Iraqi government. This Commissioner should be backed by a newly broadened security coalition and charged with overseeing elections, assisting with drafting a constitution, and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community, have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people, and work directly with Iraq's interim government, the new U.S. Ambassador, and the international community.

At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible, so as to rebuild their country and help themselves as individuals, while also reducing the costs of security and reconstruction on the American taxpayer and the cost of gasoline to American consumers. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being disrespected in their own country.

America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. This is a task we must do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. And this is a task in which we must succeed. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit for us and other nations.

The challenges in Iraq are great, but the opportunity is also significant. Under John Kerry and John Edwards, we will meet those challenges, win the peace in Iraq, and help to create new hope and opportunity for the entire Middle East.

[welshTerrier2]

6. how to hold a referendum ...

first, i'm sure people with far more knowledge than i have should be able to work out the kinks ... second, if the reality is that there is no way to find out what Democrats really think on the big issues of the day, how can the Party ever hope to succeed ... i mean, they are supposed to be representing us, aren't they ??

so, with all due humility, i propose something like the following:
first, i would mail a ballot to every registered Democrat ... i have no idea what the best mechanics would be for states with open primaries ... i suppose your idea of allowing a vote to anyone who voted Democratic in the last primary might work ... again, if we don't know who the Democrats are in open primary states, it's unclear how the Party can hope to represent their views ... perhaps the open primary system itself needs a re-think ... i'm not at all well versed on the issue ...

secondly, how could a simple referendum ballot be boiled down to clear, concise language ... the excerpt on the Party's plank goes on for miles ... I think the answer to this is relatively simple although i do think it's an extremely important question to consider ... getting the process of how the question would be worded is essential ... my two cents would be something like this:
choice A: I believe with the right leadership and changes in policy, continued military operations in Iraq could eventually help "win the peace".
choice B: I believe that continued military operations in Iraq cannot under any circumstances win the peace and I think U.S. troops should be withdrawn in the very near-term.

that's it !! the goal is not to express the specific language ... a referendum is not the place to iron out the exact details ... as you pointed out, that would be extremely difficult, and cumbersome, to accomplish ... the goal would be to assess the core preferences of Democrats on this issue and then craft the platform plank in a manner consistent with the outcome of the referendum.

[crispini]

11. OK, I'll buy that.

Especially this part: "the goal would be to assess the core preferences of Democrats on this issue and then craft the platform plank in a manner consistent with the outcome of the referendum."

Sounds like a winner to me. :) :thumbsup:

Do we wanna continue our discussion from the other thread? I forgot why you didn't like the dual-chair idea...

[welshTerrier2]

13. Share the Chair

from the base post in this thread:

Trial balloons have been floated suggesting that both Dr. Dean and Mr. Rosenberg might "share the chair". But this doesn't lend much comfort. Seeking a "have your cake and eat it too" solution is the right way to go; but the shared Chair approach is not the right implementation. The argument here is not that there is anything inherently wrong with dividing the responsibilities of the job but rather that one of those being considered has issued a policy statement that may be unacceptable to many in the Party.

I suppose if I believed that Mr. Rosenberg would not be able to influence the platform with his hawkish Iraq position, I would be more open to the idea of "sharing" ... absent that, I don't want him in any position ... Period ... frankly, i'm not all that comfortable with the rumors that Dr. Dean might be willing to go along with such a compromise ... I hope it isn't true ... Dr. Dean himself hasn't expressed strong opposition to U.S. military efforts in Iraq either ... Dean is my choice for Chair because I think he's "getting there" on Iraq ... and who the hell else is there to choose from ??

I want to see real reform in the Party, not mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy compromise ... either the Party is IN; or the Party is OUT on Iraq ... there's no room for big tenting on the issue ... slicing up the Chair's responsibilities is fine with me ... there are obvious distinctions that can be made among the various duties ... my objection to sharing at this time is 1. the absence of a binding referendum process on key platform issues and 2. Mr. Rosenberg's misguided remarks on Iraq.

[crispini]

16. More thoughts.

(This is fun!)

You seem to have this real concern that the DNC chair can influence the platform. I guess since I personally know some of the delegates to our state convention who helped work on our state platform, I don't see it. I see the Democratic party's positions on issues as being articulated: First, and most publicly, by candidates and elected officials (who don't always toe the line anyway, of course), and: Second, and most "officially," in the party platform itself. Which is made, a la sausage, in a very messy way at various party conventions. So I just don't get that bit. (Although I do like your idea of more direct participation in the platform-building process.)

And, I don't think someone is any less of a Democrat than I am for having a different view of the Iraq war. Although if Rosenberg is still, even now, saying that the Iraq war was a good idea -- I haven't found a source for the quote that was getting kicked around here yesterday yet -- then I would question his judgement a bit.

I guess I'm not really interested in a "shared Chair" idea so much as a CEO / President approach. Let Dean be the CEO, the public face of the party, the big cheese, the one who will speak to the grassroots. And let Rosenberg be the operations manager, the Rovian type, the techy guy, the long-term strategy man.

I like Dean, but in view of what, in my opinion, were, um, mistakes made in Iowa (don't flame me, I don't wanna refight the primaries here), I'm not entirely sure about his judgement in the whole tricks-and-sneaks department. I'd like to have someone who at least says, Yes, our party needs an answer to KKKarl, and I think I'm it. Dean, IMO, is not an answer to KKKarl.... he's a rockstar.

I like your "have your cake and eat it too" phrase -- I guess I'm always trying to do that. I'm a Libra, ya know, so balance and compromise and the Middle Way is in my nature. ;)

[welshTerrier2]

21. top notch conversation !!

it's more than fun, crispini, it's top notch conversation ... not enough of that to be found these days ... i'm so tired of feeling like i'm reading through People Magazine ... we need to be focussed on issues, processes and to a lesser extent key players ... a post about tax theory might get 3 responses ... a post that Kerry is too tall might get 300 ...

well, you've laid out a nice case about how the Chair really can't influence the platform ... if there's anything i can't stand it's someone trying to confuse me with the facts !! ... not being an "insider", i certainly can't demonstrate the concerns I have in this area ... I guess I just don't trust what I can't see ... and what i can see, a platform plank i bitterly oppose, sickens me ... and it's not just that i oppose it but i believe that a majority of Democrats oppose it ... all this leads me to be concerned that the plank was written as it was because someone felt that was the only way the Party could "win" ... i certainly can't believe it was genuine representation ... perhaps it's true that it was ground out of a sausage machine ... but i often think that it's not too hard within organizations for a nod and a wink and a few well-placed words to come down from the top ...

spread a rumor around for a few weeks before the platform process that Kerry or McAuliffe or Strum have studied the issue and think it would kill the Party's chances if the republicans were able to paint us as soft on defense ... and then all the little delegates go off to make sausage ... is it really a bottom up process or a top down process ?? i have no information ... all i know is that when i can't see it and i can't vote in it, i don't trust it and i certainly hate the results ... so, is it possible that the DNC Chair is just out buying paperclips and telling really good jokes at fundraising dinners, sure ... maybe that's the real deal ... but is it also possible that people in powerful positions can quietly "put in the fix", you bet ... the bottom line is that as an outsider i don't trust the process ...

on your point about the more public face of the platform ultimately eminating more from the nominee than the platform itself, this opens a whole other can of worms ... in my first response in yesterday's Heinz thread, i referred to a post i'm currently brewing that will be called something like "Men versus Memes" ... the basic idea of this will be to view the republicans as a party that keeps all of its servants, including, maybe especially, the nominee and key candidates tightly on message ... all ideas, all statements and all policy positions are tested against the core values ... noise ripples that are "off message" are dealt with rapidly and severely ... so, do i advocate such a rigid, controlling discipline in the Democratic Party ... i think i do ... we cannot be such a big tent that each player at our concert gets to write and sing his own song ... is there room for some variation? sure ... but ultimately, to be seen as a Party that stands for something, we need a clear, concise and consistent message ... within some tolerance, we cannot blow in the wind to the whims of each new candidate who comes along ... i agree that the candidates play a significant role in the public airing of the platform; i guess i'm calling for that process to be a little more tightly controlled ...

here's the problem i have with Rosenberg being the "long-term strategy man" ... i've pretty much covered this above ... it's not about him be any less a Democrat than anyone else ... if i said anything like that, i shouldn't have ... it's that i'm concerned that one of the criteria used to design the party's platform is likely to be whether it "will play in Peoria" ... where do we get to in platform deliberations when the word has been spread around that the "brilliant strategy guy" says "this is where we need to be on this" ... give me a "brilliant strategy guy" who agrees with me on Iraq (and other issues) and, perhaps hypocritically, i won't complain CEO / President configuration you've outlined ... but why would anyone want to "put the bad guys" in potentially powerful positions ... i can't measure the policy reach of any role you define for Mr. Rosenberg, but it's no comfort based on the position he's expressed (if it's credible), to know that he could potentially have any reach at all ...

which really leads me back to my original proposal ... if the Party wants to "stick me with people who are pro-war", I want something in return ... I want to make sure that all the little people, the little "d's", have a real say ... and hence, a referendum ...

i just received my "2005 DNC Membership" renewal ... of course, they're also looking for money ... my current position: no on money, not sure on membership ... Carville's "appeal letter" doesn't even mention Iraq ... I really could be on my way to becoming an ex-Democrat ... this is not a rant ... I cannot continue to support a pro-war Party ... and I don't see how the Party's misguided position can be changed anytime soon ... i tried to call the 800 number but got put on hold for like a half hour ... i'll try again tomorrow ... and the truth is, i'm not sure i'll even get through to anyone who gives a damn ...

last thing in my reallllllly long post ... i did not vote for Dean in the primaries and I have a number of "not so comfortables" with him ... just wanted to clarify that in repsonse to your "don't flame me" comment ... i was one of Dean's earliest supporters ... i connected his Burlington campaign office to DU and introduced him to DU ... i also pushed very hard for his campaign to reach out to all the bloggers and political forum sites like DU ... i've always wondered what role I played in turning him on to using the internet ... you always hear people giving the credit to Trippi ... you never hear them mention welshTerrier2 ... perhaps i have an inflated sense of my own importance ... :crazy: :crazy:

you're very bright and very articulate, crispini ... i really value that ...

[crispini]

27. Well, with regard to...

influencing the platform, top-down or bottom-up .... I don't really know either. The impression I get from the people who worked on the state platform is that it was pretty much of a discussion and argument process. Now, who's taking part in that, I don't know. :shrug:

I agree that sometimes the "bigs" can often be influences on a process. But, it's just my experience with activist work, that if passionate concerned persistent folks are in there, they can often have a subtantial impact on what gets made. And, the folks who wind up on these committees do at least put their butts in the chair and show up more than many -- which, IMO, does show a fair amount of passion, concern, and persistence. But, ultimately, I guess I don't really know either.

Your point re: the "bigs" attempting to influence policy towards what will play in Peoria is a good and valid one.

I guess I just see much more of the policy coming from the individual candidates. And you're right, we need to get people more "on message" than we are. It's hard for us; we are always the party of the inclusive. And there you get to the question of, If Representative X adopts a position on Issue Y because it will play in his community, how do you get Representative X to play along? I'm thinking here of some of the rural Texas Dems who got re-elected with a VERY moderate position on social issues. Some would call 'em DINOs for their position on social issues, but that's what plays for their constiuency, and they DO vote with the Ds, mostly.

Re: changing things. Unfortunately, something like "position on Iraq" is so big, it's hard for us as individuals to change, esp. quickly. Have you considered working with some anti-war groups in your area? Honestly, since the disappointing outcome of the election I am deliberately paying less attention to "national" issues and events, and more to local stuff. I hate to do it, but it's really more for my own sanity. Getting out of the house and working on some local activist committees, on training for local party members, education on local government, etc. is really fulfilling -- and you get results quicker. We're getting really excited about 2006, this is OUR chance to come out and shine!

Oh, and about "don't flame me...." and etc., that just a pre-emptive "beg" if you will.... the primaries and Dean are a verrrry sensative subject around here. :P That's very interesting about your early role, how cool! :) I'm enjoying chatting with you, I agree, it's good to have intelligent conversation! :hi:

[DaedelusNemo]

30. What about a continual-forum approach rather than referendum?

What you want in a representative democracy is to know what a well-informed populace thinks, after due deliberation. A forum allows that process to take place, as opposed to referendums which can only give us a snapshot of what people think they think. The DNC could be hosting a forum devoted to a continual debate on the platform. Perhaps everyone would get to vote in those online polls, and perhaps it would only be the delegates, but at least there'd be a place to make your voice heard, perhaps to influence the way choices are presented in the polls.

[crispini]

36. I like that idea.

And, one of the reasons I like both Rosenberg and Dean is that they seem to be thinking in that direction.

[welshTerrier2]

38. why support an "either - or" approach

if you're point is that there are benefits to an ongoing forum, count me in ... i think there is way too little involvement of far too many people in policy discussions ... the Democratic Party in my town meets once every 200 years regardless of whether it's necessary or not ...

just getting people involved in the process on a regular basis will enhance everyone's sense of connection to the party ... if the "get togethers" have a platform focus, or at least some of them do, i think that would be great ...

however, you turned down a very dark alley when you added the lingering phrase "and perhaps it would only be the delegates" ... that's exactly what's wrong here ... either stand up loudly and clearly to support a much more open process, open to every single Democrat WHO'S VOTE YOU HOPE TO HAVE, or understand that the party will not grow and that the grassroots will not feel adequately nourished ...

you're either on board with this or you're not ... an ongoing process, as you highlighted, allows evolution of the platform as events necessitate ... sounds healthy to me ... it also "keeps hope alive" for those seeking changes ... someone told me that the platform has already been decided on until 2008 and it supports continued military operations in Iraq ... my response was: am i supposed to keep supporting this party until 2008 with that as their stated view? i totally support the idea of an ongoing process ...

but openness remains the primary proposal on this thread ... ongoing is great ... but it has to be ongoing AND open ... and not just open to insiders ...

[DaedelusNemo]

42. You're right - not either/or

Although i do feel more strongly about the forum than the referendum. Either, though, is the nose of the donkey under the tent.

On the question of delegate participation, i'm trying to think ahead to the problems and the resistances within current structure to the proposal. If they want to preserve the role of the delegates, then their adaptation of the idea would be that the delegates still have the voting power even if everybody else does get to participate in the sense of reading & posting. I expect the forum in itself to be easier to set up than it will be to get the democratic party to dramatically increase their number of delegates, or even to consider everyone a delegate, though of course i hope i'm wrong.

I still believe that even if there was originally a vote limitation, the forces would be inexorable to loosen it. At the least, it seems the party would recognize that naming some delegates from the forum - or letting the forum vote up some delegates - would be a great way to increase participation. I guess i'm thinking in terms of trying to set up the slippery slope that leads to greater representation. If they resist the full-bore treatment, give them the softer touch. Obviously, i prefer the undiluted form if possible.

Indeed, imagine if it happened, and worked... and the repubs end up trying to copy to compete (or be branded as the non-representative party.) Once both parties have ventured into online democracy, it seems to me that the vista of an update of our entire governmental system is opened up. Online congress, anyone?

[ieoeja]

20. Why not a mailer to the 2.6 million members of the DNC?

There are multiple tiers to the DNC. There is the DNC which gets to make decisions. Then there are 2.6 million more members (like me). Our sole function within the DNC is to give them money. For that we receive a membership card and frequent newsletters (which ALWAYS include a request for donations).

But I have never, ever seen anything soliciting my opinion on an issue.

That kind of pisses me off. You want my money, but not my opinion?

[welshTerrier2]

23. works for me ...

my "membership" request for money just came today ...

i have Carville's letter right here ... forget giving your opinion, he didn't even mention the word Iraq ... that just won't do ...

of course, you can always go to their website and say your piece (or peace) ... i've done it ... they're probably working, even as we speak, on reversing the policy in response to what i wrote ... i expect to see the changes any day now ...

the worst part of Carville's letter was all the praise it had for the grassroots ... pretty words ... nice to be acknowledged ... but i'm not looking for compliments, James, I'm looking for real power and a new openness ... he didn't mention ANYTHING about that ....

[crispini]

37. Even better! nt

[Eloriel]

7. It's a decent idea, but why spoil it?

Dear GAWD, you're assuming that Rosenberg will BE the next DNC Chair. I'm offended. to the max. I mean, GREATLY offended, and the more I think about it, the hotter I get.

[welshTerrier2]

9. au contraire ...

i'm not assuming any such thing ...

not only do i personally not want to see anyone who could express such hideous comments on the war, but i'm deeply concerned that there seems to be a push for him from some of the Party's insiders ...

the point of a referendum, well, the first point, is to start opening up the Party so that it's not just insiders who determine the platform ... regardless of whether Dr. Dean gets the Chair, perhaps i should rephrase that, becomes the Chair, or not, i think every Democrat should have a voice in the definition of the Party's platform ...

the second point is that some have argued that we should ignore policy considerations in the selection process ... don't just address this relative to this election; look at the selection process itself ...

if one wants to argue that the Chair position is "beyond policy" considerations and that we need a Chair who has certain organizational skills, i think many are not comfortable with that definition UNLESS the process platform process protects their interests ... otherwise, it seems like nonsense to put on blinders and ignore policy statements made by any prospective candidate ...

the proposed referendum is not designed BECAUSE Rosenberg will be the next Chair; it's designed IN CASE he is ... and it's also designed to address what may be a "compromise" solution between Dean and Rosenberg ... I don't want Rosenberg within a million miles of the levers of power in the Party given the views he's expressed on Iraq ... but if he's successful or even if a compromise is worked out, i want progressives in the Party to push to protect our interests in the platform process ... what's wrong with wanting every Democrat to have a voice in the platform ??

so, sorry you're "offended to the max" but i think you've misconstrued my intent ...

[Thurgood Marshall]

8. Iraq

Should anyone who believes the war was a good idea be a candidate for the chairmanship? Does the Democratic party really want to be an alternative to the Neo-cons?

Supporting the Iraq war is about pandering. It has nothing to do with the needs of the people of America, only with an half-hearted attempt to appeal to some shaky Republican voters.

The was has been proven to be a lie again and again. Make the stark contrast, and go with it. We've already proven that this Repub-Lite can lead to elections close enough to be stolen.

Allowing this Lieberman-Kerry-Rosenberg group to lead will make the Democrats just another dog showing how it can heel close behind the master at the dog show.

Besides, what about any of these guys excites you?

[crispini]

10. Go read Rosenberg's website.

http://www.simonforchair.org/

I certainly found some stuff there that excited me.

Like this:
"Next is that we must build a new infrastructure. With billions of dollars of investments over the last two generations the Republicans have built a superior political machine to what we have today. I call it an information age Tammany Hall. They have invested in building media organizations like Fox and Rush Limbaugh. They’ve invested in over 80 think tanks and they have superior political organizations. We need both a long-term and short-term strategy to take on this machine. Long term we have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in modernizing our infrastructure, and short term we have to begin with our highest short-term priority, which is building the state parties from the ground up."

Dear God, the man GETS IT about the media! AND the state parties! AMEN!

[Thurgood Marshall]

14. It's possible...

Crispini,

If that was Rosenberg's sole focus, then YES!!! He does get it, and in areas that Dean may seem to be lacking. But I personally believe that support for the war machine will get in the way of building the party for America, instead of just another alternative for corporations.

Who ever said you couldn't take both their strengths and ride that two-headed monster? It would sure show who was interested in pulling together in the Democratic party and who would be in it for themselves....

[welshTerrier2]

12. welcome to DU, Thurgood !!

i always like to see new folks jumping right in ...

here's a link to a recent post i made on Iraq ... i couldn't agree with you more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1484127&mesg_id=1484127

the focus of this post, however, is not specifically whether Iraq is right or wrong, but whether "policy positions" should be a criterion for the selection of the Chairman ... a prominent Democrat visited DU yesterday and argued that the Chairman's role is outside the policy sphere and that policy should not be considered in the selection process ...

the goal of my "Open Challenge" was to find a solution to the opposing views on whether policy should be a consideration ... it was not intended to argue my position on Iraq ...

[Thurgood Marshall]

15. Hmmmm

Interesting, WelshTerrier, how the DNC at least in your description seems to be always just one step behind. I think it is why I supported Dean at the time as he seemed to be the only one taking a step FORWARD. Thanks for the welcome...

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Didn't the Democratic Convention already vote on a platform?

If you want to change the platform, you should probably run as a delegate in 2008.

[welshTerrier2]

18. 4 more years of support for war ???

so, does this mean that all the Democratic Party plans to offer until 2008 is that we should "internationalize" the process in Iraq and continue to watch people die for the next four years ...

do we only define the core position of the party every four years ?? that's crazy ... it fails to allow us to respond through a core document to the evolution of events ...

and again, what the hell say did i have in the process ... just because I was ABB and "went along with Kerry" doesn't mean i'm willing to wave a hawkish DNC banner for the next four years ... the war needs to be stopped NOW and we need to make sure every Democrat has a voice on the issue ... the insider process that brought us the current policy needs to be strung up on the old hanging tree ...

the whole point of this thread is that i should NOT have to be a delegate to have a real say ...

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. I don't suppose that you ran for a delegate spot last year?

Iraq wasn't an issue then? :shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

22. well ...

now you've outed me !!!

the truth is that i just joined (i think around last March or so) the Party, well rejoined, after a very long absence ...

i have no idea what, when, how or where to "run as a delegate" but i may have to have a go at it ... still, i assume winning a delegate slot is reserved for those in the Party who have the most prestige, give the most money, do the most work ... should defining the platform that represents all Democrats be the "reward" for these things or should all Democrats have a real say?

you seem eager to defend the status quo here ... and I'll be the first to admit I have almost no knowledge of the Party's inner workings ... what i do know is that I don't believe the platform is a majority view (on Iraq specifically) ... so, let me ask you this:

do you think the platform, not the wording and every nuance and detail, but the essence of the platform should represent the majority view of every Democrat or do you think that the current process is a better system ???

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. The platform at this point is essentially a symbolic statement

Policy is not driven by the platform. Members of Congress will use many factors to decide how they vote, but the party platform is probably not one of them. You probably won't find one member of Congress who agrees with every plank of the platform.

Do you really want to change this country's policy in Iraq. Convince Congress. But remember that they don't take their marching orders from what the party platform says.

[welshTerrier2]

25. first i'm delegate; now i'm a Congressman

first, i'm not calling for agreement on "every plank in the platform" ... and by the way, you still haven't really answered my central question: would you support a much more open platform process where every single Democrat would get a vote on the essential theme of all major issues?

second, your point about convincing Congress is, of course, valid ... but you still seem very quick to discourage efforts to try to influence the position of the Party itself ... why is that? are you pushing for more of the same closed system?? ... do you resent the calls for a more open process?? ... as you'll see below, i'm concerned that the republican meme that "Democrats don't stand for anything" has gotten some traction ... even your own point that it doesn't matter what the Party says (my words) because Congress sets policy without being constrained by the platform lends creedence to that theme ....

But remember that they don't take their marching orders from what the party platform says.

well, therein lies the rub ... again, what we're talking about here is that polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans no longer support our presence in Iraq and NEITHER MAJOR PARTY offers support for that point of view ... does this seem appropriate to you? second, i find little comfort in the statement that we are a party of individuals in Congress rather than a Party of core values, beliefs and policies ... this is what i wrote on the subject in another post in this thread ...

on your point about the more public face of the platform ultimately eminating more from the nominee than the platform itself, this opens a whole other can of worms ... in my first response in yesterday's Heinz thread, i referred to a post i'm currently brewing that will be called something like "Men versus Memes" ... the basic idea of this will be to view the republicans as a party that keeps all of its servants, including, maybe especially, the nominee and key candidates tightly on message ... all ideas, all statements and all policy positions are tested against the core values ... noise ripples that are "off message" are dealt with rapidly and severely ... so, do i advocate such a rigid, controlling discipline in the Democratic Party ... i think i do ... we cannot be such a big tent that each player at our concert gets to write and sing his own song ... is there room for some variation? sure ... but ultimately, to be seen as a Party that stands for something, we need a clear, concise and consistent message ... within some tolerance, we cannot blow in the wind to the whims of each new candidate who comes along ... i agree that the candidates play a significant role in the public airing of the platform; i guess i'm calling for that process to be a little more tightly controlled ...

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Ultimately, it is the voters who elect politicians who should set policy

Every Democratic member of Congress has won a primary. This is the chance for the Democratic voters in that district to set policy. Don't like Congressman Jones' position on Iraq? Nominate someone else.

You do have a good point about limiting this to only major issues. But the problem with that is who defines what is a major issue. Gay rights activists would probably argue that their issue is a major one. Democrats in Alabama would probably not be too thrilled with this.

My problem is not with how open the process of setting policy is, it is with the party setting the policy itself. I think that the more that we try to define policy in specific terms, the more people we will drive out of the party.

The problem in the last election wasn't that Democrats in general didn't stand for anything. It was that John Kerry didn't stand for anything. The GOP did an impressive job in pointing out inconsistencies in Senator Kerry's voting record and statements. Trying to force members of Congress to choose between what the party says should be policy and what their constituents say it should be will only further cause problems.

Trying to control members of Congress who differ from the party platform will likely backfire. The people most likely to differ with the platform are probably from swing districts. Back in the 1980's there was a Democratic Congressman from Texas who angered Democratic leaders in Congress by supporting some of Reagan's proposals. The punished him by removing him from the Budget Committee. He resigned from Congress, switched parties, and was elected as a Republican. Phil Gramm went on to serve three terms in the Senate.

[welshTerrier2]

33. platform issues: better representation, better politics too ...

nicely said, Freddie ... you've done a good job articulating your point of view here ...

but i can't get past 2 central points you've raised ...

first, you made the following statement:

I think that the more that we try to define policy in specific terms, the more people we will drive out of the party. ...

i couldn't agree more ... but the alternative to "no policy" is vague policy ... is this what not "defining policy in specific terms" endorses? you also seemed to go even further when you suggested you had a problem "with the party setting the policy" ... are you saying that there shouldn't be a party platform at all or are you making a distinction between "policy" and a broader definition of "values"? in this context, taking issues like Iraq and gay marriage, what statements would you suggest the party make? on Iraq, we could have a plank that says we support the rights of all peoples to live in a free society without taking any stand on what the U.S. role should be in achieving that ... on gays, we could say that we support the right of all people to "pursue happiness" ... is this what you see as the role of the party platform? i mean, when you get down to the vagueries of wishy-washy, touchy feely values, have you gotten so abstract as to be meaningless? ... to quote Frank Burns from MASH, "it's nice to be nice to the nice" ... the simple questions here are: should the party have a platform at all? for what purpose?

and second, this business of the independence of Congressmen versus the rigid adherence to the party platform ... as my republican friends are quick to point out (admission: i no longer have any republican friends), we don't live in a democracy we live in a republic ... well, fine ... whatever we live in, do we not aspire to have elected officials that reasonably approximate the views of the citizenry? i'm not calling for a plebiscite on every issue ... i don't want my neighbors writing the exact language on the next missile treaty ... but underlying the "big issues" (more on this in a moment), shouldn't the "direction" of the policy reflect public sentiment? you've said all the right things to me about this ... yes, we the citizens have the power of the ballot box ... of course, many people believe we're not playing on a level playing field ... without even getting into election fraud, is it just possible that both major parties are in bed with the power elite? and even if you're more trusting than i am on this issue, and i'm not at all arguing that there aren't important differences between the two major parties, what kind of system do we have when the views on Iraq offered by both parties are a minority view? whatever justification you provide, i, for one, can't seem to feel too comfortable with that situation ... and i guess i don't put as much faith in the electoral process as you seem to ... the re-election rate for incumbents is, what, like 90% ... the process isn't even close to be as open and competitive as it should be ...

minor point ... how would we agree on what the "big issues" worthy of party referendum are? first, there should be broad agreement that more is better ... we need to open up the process so that Democrats don't see THEIR party being run by a bunch of insiders who exclude them ... with that squared away, the second part is easy ... every item listed i the platform, including room for additional write-ins, becomes part of a "first step" referendum ... a card listing these issues is mailed to all Democrats ... the top 3, or 5 or whatever issues are the ones that will be made available for referendum ... or perhaps it shouldn't go by rank at all ... perhaps any plank that receives more than X%, say 15% or whatever, should subsequently be voted on by referendum ... the goal is inclusion ... if there are practicalities to drawing a line somewhere, so be it ...

anyway, back to the issue of "rigid adherence" to the party's platfrom ... one of the things i've tried to highlight, beyond the issue of better representation, is the politics of the "party's message" ... to be sure, there needs to be some degree of flexibility, especially on controversial social issues ... you provided a good example with your "gays in Alabama" statement ... so, i'm not arguing for "rigid adherence" ... what i am arguing for, however, is that we cannot fail to have a strong, clear, concise, consistent message as a party ... the message cannot be so vague that it lacks political clout ... the message must be the party's soul from which all, or at least most, policy and public speech eminates ... we do NOT have this now and we will not succeed without it ... i'm sure not the only one pushing this idea ... take a read on this => http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0112-02.htm

obviously a balance needs to be found between a wide open, freewheeling style where each candidate defines his or her own message and a controlled message style where candidates are "punished" for straying too far off message ... will we be a party of men or a party of our collective values and ideas? ... which is politically more viable? ... where we are now lies at the root of many election losses ... we need a new view of the importance of the platform and i think that your view weakens its importance even further ... perhaps, though, i've missed your point ... perhaps you're arguing that some vehicle other than the platform (but not individual candidates) should be the core party message ... you haven't said that but i wanted to ensure that wasn't your point ... if so, please elaborate ...

and finally, to come full circle and return to the essence of this thread, i'll simply reiterate, and i'm glad you seem to support the idea, that regardless of its purpose or how it's used, it's critical to allow Democrats a more direct participation in the Party's platform ... the perceived unimportance you ascribe to the platform is certainly not a justification for a closed, insider process ... at a time where i believe the Party may get a bit "shredded", and lose some hard-working contributors, there is just no excuse to exclude the grassroots from active participation in the process ... we can't wait four more years ... or two years ... or at all ... the changes i've proposed must happen very soon ... the Party needs a voice ... they need someone to speak out NOW to start healing the wounds ... regardless of the role of the Chair, a pro-war candidate is going to send a horrible message ... even if you see it as misguided empty symbolism, the danger still lies in the "resultant perception" rather than the possible impact such hawkish views might have ... to temper a potentially negative reaction, I've proposed an opening of the platform process ... that's not just good governance and better representation, it also sends the right signals about the responsiveness of those with the power to make changes ...

[DaedelusNemo]

43. platform should reflect consensus; beyond that, candidate's choice /nt

[David Zephyr]

26. "The war was a good idea"

What more does one need to hear from this man?

[buddhamama]

29. indeed

and it bothers me that some would say his stance on the Iraq war isn't significant. How can i trust Rosenberg to effectively represent and communicate the Party's stance on the issues and its forward movement (wishful thinking) if he doesn't agree with them?

Hiya, David :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

41. trusting Rosenberg and trusting the Party

well, buddhamama, you've rung the bell ...

that's exactly what this whole intra-Party squabble is all about ... there are obviously two, or more, factions that don't TRUST each other ... that's exactly the problem this proposal is designed to address ... exactly !!

some, not all, of the insiders who have responded here don't seem to get it ... the "it" is that we need to have "healing" and the fact that, "for the life of them", they can't understand what everybody's so upset about or why they feel alienated isn't the point ... they don't need to understand anything more than the point you raised: we don't TRUST the insiders and anything that keeps us on the "outside" or condones policies, values, or strategies we don't agree with is rubbing salt in our wounds ...

with that in mind, Mr. Rosenberg's pro-war statement, regardless of the role of the DNC Chair and regardless of its timing during the campaign, fails to heal the wounds on two scores ... one, we hate the war and hate to see it endorsed by anyone ... and two, we hate to see it endorsed from someone running for a powerful party position where we don't have a real voice in policy considerations ...

the message to all of us who want reform couldn't be much worse ... if there's no TRUST, what's left ???

[dolstein]

28. How is this any different than Kerry and Edwards?

I know that Edwards said similiar things. And Kerry, in his usual "split the difference" fashion, criticized the manner in which Bush took us to war, the the manner in which it was waged, but refused to call the war a mistake.

Personally, I'd like to see the full context of the quote. And my understanding is that this statement was made at some point during the campaign. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone should be upset by the fact that Rosenberg declined to take a position that was at odds with the position of the party's presidential nominee.

[welshTerrier2]

39. this wasn't really very responsive ...

kerry and edwards? that's your response? fine, i agree ... it's not all that different from them ... what's the point?

the whole point of this thread, is about the perception of how responsive to Democrats the Party is ...

your point that "I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone should be upset by the fact that Rosenberg declined to take a position that was at odds with the position of the party's presidential nominee." is true but totally irrelevant ... yes, I agree, it's totally understandable that Rosenberg would align his views with the ticket ... but, absent evidence to the contrary, that's still his view ... the election is over and the deaths in Iraq pile up higher and higher everyday ...

the central point here is that many believe the Iraq occupation is a minority view nationally and even more so within the Party itself ... whether you are critical of those who object to the war or not, and whether you, for the life of you, can't understand why they are upset with the views Rosenberg expressed or not is not the point ... the point is that many ARE upset ... the point is about showing some sensitivity to the very legitimate right of many Democrats to hold the views they do on the war ... the point is to try to open up the alienating insider feel that many, rightly or wrongly, perceive as a problem in the party ...

you see, that's the point ... those that oppose the war don't have to be right ... but the Party would make a huge mistake not to give them a very real opportunity to participate ... that's what's being proposed here: more openness ...

i'm arguing that a majority of Democrats do not agree with the platform plank that clearly endorses a military solution in Iraq ... i haven't seen the polls on this and the Party certainly has not taken a vote of all of its members ...

i don't intend to revisit the past and discuss my personal strong opposition to the views Kerry expressed on Iraq during the campaign ... what's done is done ... i reserve my opinion of Senator Kerry without comment at this time ... it would be wrong to assume anything about my assessment of him ... i will go as far to say that i believe the "jury is still out" and leave it at that ... anyway, if you would like to comment on the idea of making the party and its platform more open to its membership, I'd be interested to hear your views ...

[Walt Starr]

32. Yeah right. Like the PNAC/DLC/NDN would EVER let the people havve a voice!

:eyes:

Sorry if my cynicism gets anybody down, but I now see the situation as hopeless.

[welshTerrier2]

40. no problem, Walt ...

i more than understand how discouraged many are and the alienation many feel from how the Party, and the country, has been operating ...

nothing i've written in this thread should necessarily convey any sense of optimism that those currently in power will change voluntarily ... i hope they do but so far i see very little responsiveness ... if I were in charge "over there", i'd be talking to every Democrat everyday ... i just got Carville's bullshit fundraising letter ... not a single word about Iraq ... wake up James!!!!! some of us think you're not hearing us over there ... and worse, endless praise for the "grassroots", and of course a request for money, but not an inch of power to be shared or insider processes to be re-evaluated ... yeah, great appeal James ... keep watching your mailbox for my response ...

but here's where we may differ ... if those who feel alienated just "walk off the field", I, for one, have no problem with that ... but i believe that even in the absence of hope, it's important to at least make the case clearly and forcefully for the changes we seek ... and why? hopefully so that those of us who stand in opposition to those in power can first, ensure that we at least provided an opportunity for those in power to remedy the problem, and second, as a unifying point of agreement for those who eventually may leave or contest power ... for me, a clear answer to "will i be heard" helps define whether i stay or i don't ... in calling for a more open platform process, i hope to define what many of us believe will lead to the best definition of who we are and what we're fighting for ... if, or when, such calls are ignored or rejected, you'll have the clearest possible evidence of the need to move on (pun sort of intended) ... if such calls end up giving all Democrats a voice, however unlikely that may be, then perhaps a new day will dawn on the Party ... so far, and i'm sad to say i agree with you, it doesn't seem like much has dawned on them at all ... i know they know we're out here and we're alienated and angry; i'm afraid a negotiated settlement will not be the path they choose ...

[IndianaGreen]

34. A party Chair that supports the war in Iraq

is not going to challenge Bush on the war, and is not going to get one dime from antiwar Democrats. On the other hand, let us realize that the DNC Chair will whore himself to the same corporations that the RNC Chair grovels in front of. Two sides of the same corrupt coin!

[Dr Fate]

35. No Bush ass kissers for DNC chair.

For the record, this time & money donating DEM thinks the war was not/is not a "good idea."