The Gravy Train...how consultants take over campaigns completely. Alarming

[madfloridian]

These are a few paragraphs from "Crashing the Gate". This is really a damning chapter in many ways. I honestly never knew that you did what the Democratic congressional and senatorial campaign committees told you to this extent. It is alarming.

These are pages from the Chapter entitled The Gravy Train.
This statement is from Brad Carson. He is telling of his bad experiences with the DC consultants sent to work his campaign.
Page 74.

They're above you in the food chain," said Carson. "You have to negotiate about what you do in your commercials. They call up the DSCC and complain if you're not doing the 'right thing.' They're a source of intelligence to people back in D.C. And these guys are all powerful people, prominent people. They aren't even working for you. It's an amazing thing in a lot of ways, really amazing." Carson lost the election 53 to 41 to Tom Coburn.

And this is about Nancy Farmer's campaign. I remember Dean going to stump for her during her campaign. Her supporters were enthusiastic.

Page 75

Sometimes the party takes complete control of a campaign. Missouri state treasurer Nancy Farmer, who ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, is a good example. A successful statewide candidate, Farmer had no real Democratic primary opposition and could take aim
straight at the three-term Republican incumbent, Senator
Christopher “Kit” Bond. The DSCC officials told her that they’d
build her campaign and help her raise up to half of her campaign
funds. Faced with an incumbent who was clearly going to raise three
times as much, Farmer wasn’t in the position to tell the party committee
to leave her alone; that as state treasurer, she already knew
how to win a statewide race in Missouri. So not only did the DSCC
pick almost all the consultants for her campaign, they eventually
forced significant changes in her campaign staff, including ousting
her hand-picked campaign manager—the same one who had successfully
managed Farmer’s previous campaigns—in midstream and
bringing in one of their own. Farmer lost to Bond by a 56-43 margin.

And it is definitely a lucrative business according to this couple.

Page 79

One of the few who will talk is veteran political strategist Mike Ford, who mentored Howard Dean’s unconventional campaign manager Joe Trippi and has worked a number of presidential campaigns with his wife Sally Ford. And not only did he talk, he minced no words. “It’s a nasty, bullshit business, consulting,”

Sally Ford added, “It’s also become a very lucrative business.” There’s
nothing wrong with having the tough work of political consulting be
lucrative, especially if it draws the best and brightest to the business
and leads to electoral victories. But the system is not a meritocracy— it rewards too many losers and keeps too many talented people out.“Consultants haven’t been very good for the Democratic Party,”Mike Ford said. “You’ll have a consultant who will go after potential candidates and flat out lie to them. They will say, ‘Oh yeah, you’ve got a chance, you’ve got to run.’ And they have no chance in the
world!”

[LaPera]

1. And what's that consultant hacks name who keeps losing elections for the

Democrats...This guy is the epitome of playing it safe, kissing ass and believing the republican spin, as the repugs just keep laughing at him and the Dem's for believing their shit polls.

[madfloridian]

3. The one who comes to mind is .....

Bob Shrum.

There is so much more about this in the book. It is a long chapter. I think Rose Siding posted about Feingold's campaign in fighting the consultant mindset...but I am up to my 4 paragraphs.

The book really digs into this.

[LaPera]

6. That's the clown...Bob Shrum. Pathetic DLC type, never attack even

when the republicans are in overdrive attacking their character...which is what they always do...If the Dem's just got smart instead of watching polls and start attacking and NEVER let up...The democrats would blow their republican opponents away...but they play it safe and want to be nice...and hope for Bush fuck ups and think that's how they'll win, as the republicans reduce them to dust by attacking...that's why the Dem's keep dwindling each election...and the perennial loser Bob Shrum is one of the main reasons...and it won't change until the Dem's start attacking the republicans, their policies, agenda, ideology and lies...All the republicans can do is talk tax cuts and destroying Dem's character.

[AtomicKitten]

2. One would think with the losing track record of many of these bozos,

that someone would think to try a different route. Part of why I think Al Gore must run. He has long since cut ties to any of these I believe well-meaning but clearly ineffective, good 'ol boy organizations. Sorry to be pimping Al Gore all the time, but he brings so much fresh air to the table.

[madfloridian]

4. More on this....about Feingold..

This is from Alternet, so I can at least link if not quote any more paragraphs per rules.

It starts with this quote by a Republican:

"I don't get it. When a consultant on the Republican side loses, we take them out and shoot them. You guys -- keep hiring them." --(Nationally prominent Republican official.)

This is what Feingold had to put up with.
http://www.alternet.org/story/34113

"But Feingold had more than his Republican foes to worry about. The Democratic Party establishment was making his life difficult as well. Apparently Feingold wasn't running his campaign according to the script, and the party was determined to save the senator from himself. And as is the case with most political problems, money was involved. Feingold's crime, as the Democratic establishment saw it, was his refusal to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions or "soft money" expenditures by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)"

[Jane Eyre]

5. Horror story from 2002

In the fall of 2002, the NC Senate race was really heating up and it looked as though Erskine Bowles really had a chance. The polls looked good, many showing Bowles with a slight lead over Liddy Dole. So the DSCC makes the decision to send money - lots of it - to the Bowles campaign a few weeks before the election.

So, what to do with the money? It was too late to make a media buy before the election, so the decision was made on some non-local level to bring in consultants who hired thousands of people to canvass on elections day and the three days prior to election day.

What a mess! The consultants started coming in and started hiring people left and right, with nary a word to the local folks about what the heck was going on. Many of the people that were hired were from the local homeless shelter. There were no background checks, so we had convicted felons assigned to go out to some of our nicest neighborhoods. The consultants also did not make plans as to how to get everyone checked in on the first morning of canvassing, so we had angry mobs of people standing around the party headquarters for four hours trying to get an assignment. And since the local party was not brought into the loop at all, we had another group trying to set up for a press conference and reception for a visiting Senator from another state who had come to endorse Erskine while all of this was going on!

The net effect of all this was that local GOTV plans went into the scrap heap while we tried to minimize the damage being done by the consultants who had descended upon us en masse. The DSCC money would have helped the campaign more had they just thrown it out into the streets. The disaster that was purchased with those funds possibly cost us that Senate seat.

[LaPera]

7. A truly great book.... "Being Right Is Not Enough:

What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success"

A great book by Paul Waldman

Every Dem needs to read it. It's simply right on the money and great!

Do check it out EVERYONE!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471789607/sr=8-1/qid=1146800046/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1090610-1916667?%5Fencoding=UTF8

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0471789607&itm=1

[madfloridian]

8. This part sounds like what the party is doing.

Except for the part about attacking moderate Republicans. I kind of feel funny about that part. My hubby and I are about the only Democrats in our family, most of them are moderate Republicans who are becoming alarmed at their party. I would hate to think of attacking that type. Maybe I misunderstood Waldman.

The quote:

"He maps out a rhetorical strategy, a "thematically unified master narrative" in answer to the "four pillars of conservatism": low taxes, small government, strong defense and traditional social values. "We're all in it together" is Waldman's progressive answer, a maxim that encompasses five principles: "government that works for everyone, opportunity for everyone, security for everyone, individual freedom for everyone, progress for everyone." Under each principle one can fit any topical issue (e.g., corporate accountability), Waldman explains. He details more grounded, if less conventional, strategies as well: attract moderate voters to the Democratic Party by attacking moderate Republican politicians instead of radical conservatives, and focus on the Southwest instead of the South. Daunted progressives may take heart in Waldman's pragmatic if untested ideas."

I don't mind the word progressive, but all the types of Democrats claim it. I usually call myself a moderate, but not sure what I really am.

[mrgorth]

9. I agree

on going after the south and mountain west. I hope Dean is targetting this.

[madfloridian]

10. "Why do Democrats promote campaign advisors who lose races?"

That question is from Amy Sullivan who wrote the article called "Fire the Consultants" in 2005. It is amazing how our party just keeps using the same ones over and over. They can have a totally losing record, and they just keep getting hired again and again.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html

"If you were a Democrat running as a first-time candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002, Joe Hansen was most likely a familiar part of your life. As the field director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Hansen was responsible for recruiting promising candidates, and then for getting the nascent campaigns off to a running start. In the first overwhelming days of your campaign, Joe was a lifeline. He took you out to dinner for pep talks, broke down the fundraising process into something almost manageable, walked you through the selection of campaign staff and consultants, and promised that—if you proved you were a serious candidate by putting together the right team—the DSCC would happily write the checks that might make the difference when things really heated up in the fall. And when it came to choosing just the right firm to design and produce the fliers, postcards, and door hangers that would blanket your state in the closing weeks of the campaign, Joe recommended the very best consultant he knew: Joe Hansen.

In addition to his job at the DSCC, Hansen was also a partner in the direct mail firm of Ambrosino, Muir & Hansen. His sales pitch must have been effective—Democrats in nine of the closest Senate contests in 2002 signed up with Hansen, including Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Max Cleland in Georgia, and Alex Sanders in South Carolina. The day after the election, only two (Tim Johnson in South Dakota and Mark Pryor in Arkansas) were still standing.

Despite widespread grumbling about his aggressive sales tactics, Hansen is still part of the DSCC (he stepped down as field director midway through 2002 as criticism mounted; officially, he is now a “consultant” for the committee). What's most surprising, though, is that Democratic candidates continue to hire him despite his lousy record. After losing seven of nine close races in 2002, Hansen was again a man in demand during the last election cycle. His firm handled five of the most competitive Senate races in 2004, including the two—Tony Knowles in Alaska and Erskine Bowles in North Carolina—that prognosticators thought were most winnable. Only one of Hansen's candidates, Ken Salazar in Colorado, pulled out a victory."

I thought of this post again after the reading the thread about the Democrats being tied to corporations so much now. The consultant mindset sort of fits that image.