"We have no base," Rahm said of the Democratic party.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-08-08 09:39 PM
Original message

"We have no base," Rahm said of the Democratic party.

My response to that is yes, we do have a base, a party full of people with ideals and hopes and dreams of making our country better. When you have the philosphy that our party has "no base", then you are free to pursue any group of voters and run candidates with any views at all...if you have "no base."

It's really convenient to believe that though. Makes it easier not to have to stand for something.

The Meaning of the Midterms

But the more compelling story, which continues to unfold even today, comes when Bendavid pulls back from the day-to-day of the campaign to examine what the midterm elections meant for the identity of the Democratic Party. In an election where more moderates and centrists were elected than in any year past, many -- bloggers being the loudest among them -- have wondered whether the party has abandoned its base.

Certainly Emanuel holds no such romantic notions that there even exists such a base of voters loyal to core Democratic values. He is adamant that "we have no base!," a view that clearly guided his strategy for selecting candidates. As Bendavid writes, "he would not support the most loyal Democrats, or those whose populism was purist. His only criterion, he said, was who could win." This kind of single-minded, values-be-damned vision is anathema to some on the party's left. Writing for The Nation after the election, John Nichols complained that "many of the Democrats who prevailed on November 7 did so despite Emanuel's efforts, not because of them" and argues that liberal candidates could have won had Emanuel made the decision to support them. Yet as Bendavid points out, "of the 30 candidates who took seats from the Republicans, about 20 had been nurtured, funded, advised, and yelled at by Emanuel for months. Perhaps a half dozen had been supported by grassroots activists with little help from the DCCC."

The relationship that epitomizes the rift between Emanuel and the party base is the congressman's tenuous partnership with Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean. As the book relates, Emanuel spent most of the campaign furious with Dean, whose Fifty State Strategy to build up party infrastructure nationwide he saw as little more than a way to throw money to the wind. In May 2006, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer, his counterpart in the Senate, met with Dean to ask for more money for their respective campaigns. Banging his hand on the table, Emanuel chided Dean's grassroots plan, "No disrespect, but some of us are arrogant enough, we come from Chicago, we think we know what it means to knock on a door. You're nowhere Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's fucking bullshit." The two wouldn't speak again until election time.

When you believe that you have no base, and running real Democrats does not matter...you end up picking millionaire Republicans like Tim Mahoney.

It's really convenient to believe that. Makes it easier not to have to stand for something.

Just as a reminder since Rahm accused Dean of money issues, people are never told that Howard Dean far outraised Terry McAuliffe.

The issue now is money -- not so much Dean's ability to raise it but his propensity to spend it. From Jan. 1, 2001, when Terence R. McAuliffe took over the committee, through March 31, 2004, the DNC raised approximately $127 million in funds that could be spent directly on campaign activities. Between Jan. 1, 2005, and March 2008, the DNC raised $190 million, considerably more.

But the DNC had $27.5 million in the bank at this time four years ago, as opposed to $4.4 million now. Dean aides say that money was well spent, creating organizations in all 50 states upon which Obama has been able to piggyback his campaign, reaching deep into an untapped electorate and developing the DNC's most complete national voter database ever. The investment will pay dividends not just in November but for years to come, they say.

It did pay off in conjunction with Obama's powerful campaign which mostly combined with the local parties. We had a victory.

The staffers are being laid off at the end of November.

Here in contrast is what Howard Dean said about the base.

Dean's permanent campaign

My view of all of Democratic politics is that we’ve been making a mistake. The Republicans figured it out before we did. We’ve got to energize the base voters and get them enthusiastic. The swing voters will come your way because they’ll be swept up in the enthusiasm.

Yes, our party does have a base. It is dangerous to say we do not. It leads to becoming just like the Republican party.