A 50-state party

[tristano's ghost]

The National Journal's Hotline on Howard Dean's impact as the DNC chair:


DNC: Spreading The Word. And The Boots.

"Howard Dean has turned out to be the biggest surprise of the season. He's a good man. And he truly gets it." Those are the words of Charles Soechting, the TX Dem chair who when Dean announced his bid for DNC chair had Soechting grtting his teeth. At the time, the Texan worried that Dean didn't get the problems parties grappled with and certainly didn't possess the regional sympathy to figure out how to win elections in the South.

But now, closing in on Dean's 1st anniversary as DNC chair, Soechting has seen enough to convince him that Dean "knows what it to makes Texas truly competitive."

Veterans of Dem politics who work on state and local campaigns are eager to praise Dean. In part, that's because Dean has devoted the bulk of the DNC's staff, energy and time to fulfilling his chairman's campaign promise: to revitalize the Dem Party at the precinct level.

Dem strategists in DC often ask their colleagues: "What is Dean good for?" They moan that he's not raising as much as money as they expected or his surrogates promised; that he hasn't been Joe Trippi-like and revolutionized the party's small donor outreach; that he can't shut his liberal mouth. Dean's admirers have ready counter-arguments, but they've lacked something tangible to bat down the critics. But now, they say, the party's investment in states is beginning to pay off.

There are approximately 1,963 election precincts in WV. At the beginning of '05, the state Dem Party could only identify six with active Dem organizers. Twenty years ago, WV Dems abandoned their precinct-level party building operations. Part of the problem was parochial: precinct chairs didn't trust county chairs, who didn't trust the elites running the state party, who certainly didn't trust the effete liberals running the national party. The cycle of neglect desiccated what organization remained.

When Dean was running for chair, he took a keen interest in that state's tale of woe. And it was typical of what he saw in states across the country. So Dean promised state chairs: where the party had nothing, it would have something. The DNC would pay for organizers to spend four years in their states, training county chairs and precinct captains. In return for the paid staff, Dean would expect results -- larger voter files, more volunteers, higher vote totals. State chairs liked the message. Dems like Soechting, in TX, had complained for years that the national party saw them as ATMs and ignored them most of the time. Dean promised he'd repair the relationship between the party and its state affiliates. In large measure, he did. (Soecthing says today that the state party feels more connected to the DNC than ever before.)

Dean's defenders say he's making good on his pledge. The DNC has trained 136 new organizers and sent them to 30 states, and by the end of 3/06, party officials say every state's precinct training program will be up and running. In WV, the party now employs four full-time organizers. Recalcitrant county chairs are warming to their presence; one small county that had zero precinct captains in 2004 has twelve today.

"That may not seem like a huge step," says Parag Mehta, the DNC's director of training, "but in that party of West Virginia, where Democrats were afraid to put up yard signs for fear of being taunted, suddenly, there's a Democratic presence."

What's Dean Doing With My Money?

"Building the party's capacity," a favorite phrase of Dean and his staff, takes time, and results might not be visible for years. Fundraisers, in particular, like to see parties win elections, and many view the national committee as a vessel for money and message -- not for organization.

Dean based his chairman's candidacy on the opposite premise: cede the message propagation to the party's Cong. and state leaders, and use the national party's resources to birth more Dem precinct captains and seed victories years from now. Adds DNC exec. dir. Tom McMahon: "There's a lot of disinformation about this. Because it's a new way about doing something. Until you have the face-to-face conversations, you can't explain to them what you're doing." To Democrats concerned about money and allied with potential WH '08 candidates, McMahon says he tells them, "Our goal is: whoever the nominee is in 2008, we want them to be able to look at all fifty states and see where there best chances are, versus trying to make a snap decision based on limited information in many states six months before the election."

Dean's detractors say that spreading 130 employees across 40 states isn't the best use of the party's resources. And they complain he hasn't leveraged his Internet fundraising talent, that he has poor relationships with major donors, that he can't keep his foot out of his mouth. Some in his circle of advisers admit that DC has not tamed what one delicately termed as Dean's "independent streak," which has led him to pontificate (with specifics) on contentious policy matters, often angering elected officials. But another of Dean's close advisers, Steve McMahon, said: "He sometimes gets out there in front of people. More often than not, he's absolutely right." And aides to Dean say he recognizes the critical role that major donors play in financing the party's operations and that he has scheduled more personal meetings with them. He often brings along documents explaining his state-based efforts.

So far, the party elite has not paid close attention. There are signs, though, that when they do, they like what they see. NH Dem Chair Kathy Sullivan exudes enthusiasm when asked about her DNC contingent: "We now have 10 people working under the [party] banner, including the DNC organizers. We have never had this big a staff so far in advance of the election cycle." ND Rep. Earl Pomeroy told Dean to "shut up" after a radio interview where Dean seemed to pooh-pooh the idea of victory in Iraq. When Pomeroy called Dean to apologize, he said, according to a Dem briefed on the call, that what the DNC was doing in his state was making a difference. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) stopped by to greet Nevadans when they trained with Mehta. Even Sen. Ted Kennedy sat down with trainees from MA, ME and RI.

When Clay Middleton returned to SC after a year with a National Guard unit in Iraq, his former boss, Rep. James Clyburn (D), encouraged him to apply for a DNC organizing position. Middleton, 24, is already a rising star. SC's party had been unable to furnish a how-to guide for potential precinct captains; Middleton read dozens of them at the DNC in DC and then wrote one for his state.

The DNC says it sees measurable results in MS, too. For years, the state party had one full-time staffer. County chairs had little contact with one another and were only active right before elections. Less than six months into its effort, the Dems claim to have trained precinct captains in 20% of the state's 82 counties.

Getting The States On Board

Several states have yet to agree on a plan with the DNC. Others say they'd rather have the national party pay for non-staff infrastructure like computer systems. FL wants the DNC to pay for a voter file director. And there is also a bit of friction between the organizers and state-based interest groups. In OH, many labor union officials habituated to providing the field capacity for Dems are curious about what the organizers will do. The answer is: it depends on the state. Within weeks of Dean's election, Tom McMahon and DNC pol. dir. Pam Womack traveled to each state and territory and took stock. McMahon says they consulted with state party rep, elected officials, consultants who had worked in the state, activists and key interest group leaders.

The DNC then asked state parties to draw up a plan. The DNC haggled; the states haggled back. Many wanted full-time communications directors; the DNC coughed up money for 23 of them. After agreements were signed, states hired the staff, and sent them to Mehta, a soft-spoken 29-year-old from Texas, for training. For two days, Mehta leads his charges through the basics of organizing: How they build precinct organizing programs. How press and communications work best. How the party targets particular voters. What the laws are. How to raise money. How to decipher voter files. How to canvass. How to run phone banks. They get a personal visit from Dean (he's an incurable gossip in private, one trainee noted to his delight] -- and they meet the party's regional political directors -- the men and women who will make sure they meet their targets back in the states. The organizers themselves are diverse. Rita Royals, a 56-year-old former rape crisis counselor, plies the rural counties in Northern Mississippi. She describes her training as intense - but "wonderful."

Royals: "I guess because I'm from the South, I wasn't quite used to the pace. We had five minute breaks." When staffers like Royals return home, the organizers work with county chairs -- or work with state executive committees to find chairs to fill counties without them. The organizers and county chairs recruit precinct captains. The precinct captains are given specific targets: find 25 volunteers by 11/06 -- say -- and assign them specific tasks within the precinct. Some county chairs are at first reluctant to open their doors to the organizers.

That's usually when Middleton shows them his new precinct manual. He promises to attend their county executive committee meetings. He helps them to raise money and to recruit volunteers and candidates." Mehta is constantly on the road, tweaking the system and rah-rahing the troops. "We train them and we train them repeatedly," he says of his organizers. "This is stage one." Stage two is to help the state party conceive the 2006 coordinated campaign plans. Stage three is to test those plans; stage four is to refine them and help draft county-by-county plans for the 2008 general elections. By 2008, he hopes the party will have volunteers in all 203,000 American voting precincts (Hotline reporting, 1/5).

[tristano's ghost]

Dean being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

BLITZER: Let's talk a little bit about Iraq. The president sought to reach out to some of his critics earlier in the week, bringing in some former secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright, among others -- William Cohen, the former defense secretary during the Clinton administration.

Are you satisfied right now that the president's getting enough information from a variety of sources to better move forward as far as the situation in Iraq is concerned?

DEAN: Well, most of the reports that came out of that meeting, Wolf, were that the president engaged in a filibuster of his own in there. He talked at them for some time and then went in for a photo op and really didn't bother to ask most of them for their advice at all.

So, I think these photo op ideas that he's going to get advice and they're really nothing more than photo ops -- I think we're in a big pickle in Iraq.

The president, frankly -- I was disgusted when I read in the New York Times yesterday that 80 percent of the torso injuries and fatalities in the Marine Corps could have been prevented if the Pentagon, the secretary of defense and the president had supplied them with armor that they already had.

They requested that from the field; the Pentagon refused. You know, I, two years ago, thought Secretary Rumsfeld ought to resign. He ought to resign.

These people are not qualified. They haven't served themselves; they don't know what it takes. They ought to protect our troops. Our troops are doing a hell of a job and they deserve better leadership in Washington than what they're getting.

I was incensed when I saw that story, 80 percent of the torso- based wounds that led to fatalities in the Marine Corps -- surely our Marines are worth something more than that.

BLITZER: About a month ago, Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee spoke out, urging his fellow Democrats, including yourself, to restrain themselves in criticizing the president's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that, in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you think? Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman?

DEAN: No. This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office.

He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power. He's not consulted others. And he's not interested in consulting any others.

And I think, frankly, that Joe is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

We're going in the wrong direction, economically, at home; we're going in the wrong direction abroad.

...

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.

[jesus marion joseph]

I'm curious why the head of either political party machine is looked to for answers to questions involving politics. Is it really news, for instance, that Dean would criticize the Iraq war? Why don't they stick to asking questions about what the chairman *should* be doing (IMHO), which is organizing the party machinery to win a stinking election?


Talk about fluff.

[sonic1]

I wonder if Dean would not have won the presidency against Bush had he won the Democratic ticket. Looking back it does seem it was not his time. But also, Kerry could have used some of his straight-forwardness. He probably would not have won. But I think Monte-esque types too quickly underestimate him.

[tristano's ghost]

I think Dean would've gotten creamed. Rick Perlstein argued for just such a debacle, because he saw Dean as the Democratic version of Goldwater '64--the guy who revitalizes a party through passion and principle, even if he himself never gets to the promised land.

I'm really glad, though, that Dean is the DNC chair. He IS organizing the party--see my first post in this thread. And what impressed me about the interview with Blitzer was his steadfast refusal to let a reporter get away with that "even-handed" crap when the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. Sure, many pols of both parties have been on the take in the past, but this is a GOP mess... and too many of our scared, cowed reporters are all too ready to go along with the Republican talking points. Dean firmly and clearly rebutted Blitzer's attempts to make this a bipartisan ( ) scandal.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

I think Dean would've gotten creamed. Rick Perlstein argued for just such a debacle, because he saw Dean as the Democratic version of Goldwater '64--the guy who revitalizes a party through passion and principle, even if he himself never gets to the promised land.

I'm really glad, though, that Dean is the DNC chair. He IS organizing the party--see my first post in this thread. And what impressed me about the interview with Blitzer was his steadfast refusal to let a reporter get away with that "even-handed" crap when the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. Sure, many pols of both parties have been on the take in the past, but this is a GOP mess... and too many of our scared, cowed reporters are all too ready to go along with the Republican talking points. Dean firmly and clearly rebutted Blitzer's attempts to make this a bipartisan ( ) scandal.

Dean is indeed doing a very good job, organizing at the grass-roots level. Check out www.democrats.org to keep up-to-date.

We'll see what comes of it. Who knows?

[Monte Smith]

It was my dream that Dean would be nominated in 2004. Next to Rita, I was his biggest backer on this board (though my heart of hearts belonged to Nader). Not that I wasn't richly satisfied by the accomplishments of the Kerry campaign.

[bluenoter]

Dean and DFA have been working to achieve (not just talking about) a 50-state party since long before he became DNC chair. He's doing a good job fundraising, too--and, again, allocating much of the intake to the local Dem party organizations.

[Monte Smith]

He can't be doing a worse job than Terry McAuliffe, who lauded himself (and was lauded) for leaving the party with an account in the black for, I think he said, the first time in history. That is, after all, a queer marker for success for a political party. Or for some other organizations. It's like NASA saying, "We missed the moon and lost our space chimp but we have a great cash reserve."

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

I think Dean would've gotten creamed. Rick Perlstein argued for just such a debacle, because he saw Dean as the Democratic version of Goldwater '64--the guy who revitalizes a party through passion and principle, even if he himself never gets to the promised land.

I don't think that Reagan, the only President who could be called a Goldwaterite with any degree of accuracy, would have been denied the Republican nomination nor the Presidency in 1980 if Rockefeller had lost to LBJ in 1964 instead of Goldwater.

A very non-Goldwater like Republican, Richard Nixon became President four years after Goldwater got creamed.

I really don't see how Goldwater's nomination and annihilation in the general election paved the way to Reagan's election 16 years later.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I really don't see how Goldwater's nomination and annihilation in the general election paved the way to Reagan's election 16 years later.

It's less A to B than sometimes formulated, but surely the Goldwater election was a major event in Reagan's political life. He gave the speech that made his political reputation and some of the dispirited conservative troops of Goldwater ("A choice, not an echo!") became the spirited boosters for Reagan, joining a wider constituency. Of course there was more to Reagan's appeal than ideology and more to his ideology than Goldwater; and of course you are right that LBJ's triumph was followed immediately by Nixon's, not Reagan's, election; and, of course, the conservative movement was not defined by nor created at nor pre-destined to any end by the Goldwater loss.

[jesus marion joseph]

Are you channeling Don Rumsfeld?

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by sonic1

I wonder if Dean would not have won the presidency against Bush had he won the Democratic ticket. Looking back it does seem it was not his time. But also, Kerry could have used some of his straight-forwardness. He probably would not have won. But I think Monte-esque types too quickly underestimate him.

The whole spin of the above quote is a case study of a fundamental problem in American politics, which is entirely too much focus on personalities and none at all on politics. Of course the whole system is designed to make us think in these terms. Not so much the much vaunted separation of powers (which nevertheless is problematic) but a whole series of election law reforms passed in the early part of the last century under the influence of the progressive movement which specifically undermined the importance of political organization in favor of personality oriented campaigns.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Are you channeling Don Rumsfeld?

I was! I actually thought the same thing when I wrote that, jmj. One more subordinate clause and I would have bombed Iran.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I don't think that Reagan, the only President who could be called a Goldwaterite with any degree of accuracy, would have been denied the Republican nomination nor the Presidency in 1980 if Rockefeller had lost to LBJ in 1964 instead of Goldwater.

A very non-Goldwater like Republican, Richard Nixon became President four years after Goldwater got creamed.

I really don't see how Goldwater's nomination and annihilation in the general election paved the way to Reagan's election 16 years later.

Gordon,
If you get the chance, read Rick Perlstein's BEFORE THE STORM: BARRY GOLDWATER & THE UNMAKING OF THE AMERICAN CONSENSUS. I met Perlstein at a party about a year ago--very bright guy, now working on a followup book about Nixon. He was (still is?) the political writer for the Village Voice, and even once somehow won permission to start a "I'll take on all comers" thread at Free Republic. Not sure how he managed that one...

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

The whole spin of the above quote is a case study of a fundamental problem in American politics, which is entirely too much focus on personalities and none at all on politics. Of course the whole system is designed to make us think in these terms. Not so much the much vaunted separation of powers (which nevertheless is problematic) but a whole series of election law reforms passed in the early part of the last century under the influence of the progressive movement which specifically undermined the importance of political organization in favor of personality oriented campaigns.

Of course it is. If I was to really care about governing I wouldn't vote for any of these bastards. Unfortunately we all need to think in terms of who is electable, because if they are not elected, it doesn't matter how much integrity the person has. He (or she) has no say in governing if he (or she) is not elected.

[Scott Dolan]

Politicians are human.


Humans are fallible.


Humans can be persuaded and/or corrupted.


They're a product of the same environment that we are.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Politicians are human.


Humans are fallible.


Humans can be persuaded and/or corrupted.


They're a product of the same environment that we are.

Thanks Scott. That excuses everything...

Do you have any piercings?

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Politicians are human.


Humans are fallible.


Humans can be persuaded and/or corrupted.


They're a product of the same environment that we are.

Politicians are not human. They are reptilian.