« Netroots Win Political Play of the Week | Main | Weekend »

Saturday, August 06, 2005

DCCC: Fight with the 'Roots or Lose with the DLC???

Posted by Bob Brigham

One thing that has been missing from the discussion of Paul Hackett's success is the fact that he earned the respect of voters who disagreed with his stances. Hackett never compromised his message to try and align his stances with his district. Hackett stood proud and won the prima facia battle for respect. Straight talk and bold action. The exact opposite of the DLC (who did nothing for Hackett).

Kos said:

Every time you hear a Democrat talk about how Democrats don't stand for anything? That's the DLC, as they urge Democrats to chase after a "center" that gets constantly redefined rightward by an ideologically principled Republican party.

As we strive to find our core convictions, and define who we are and what we stand for as a party, the DLC is one of the roadblocks -- a divisive, fundamentalist organization willing to sell any and all progressive ideals to the altar of big business. And anything that threatens their dominance has met with their ire -- be it Howard Dean, the netroots, or regular people suddenly interested in transforming and reforming the Democratic Party.

Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party. It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil. Obama twice had to demand the DLC take him off their list. California's Phil Angelides -- the next governor of the Golden State given Ahnold's spectacular collapse -- also demanded to be taken off their list. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who's anti-war floor speech made the internet rounds last year, also demanded to be taken off their list. (emphasis mine)

DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel is still on the list of shame.

Congressman Emanuel has a choice to make...

Posted at 11:49 AM in 2006 Elections - House, Democrats | Technorati


The thing I worry about is, how much of Hackett's succsess was honest backlash at Republicans and how much was just the fact that he was an Iraq War veteran? Had Hackett not inlisted, and he had gotten then same internet support, would he still have gotten 48%? I hope, but don't think so.

Posted by: jkfp2004 [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 6, 2005 01:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I do think that the DLC and the blogs can coexist, and must coexist if we expect the Democratic Party to survive. Look at what Republicans have done. They have an impenetrable conservative base that dominates their party, yet their most popular politicians, McCain, Giuliani, Arnold (until recently), are relatively moderate. When the independent voter sees the GOP, they think of these guys, yet when the base sees the GOP they thing of Santorum, Bush, Cheney, and Brownback...and this works perfectly. Why can’t we do this?

The problem you have with the DLC is not that they don't stand for anything, it's that they stand for things you don't. Most of those members are not the spineless cowards you describe them as, but simply have honest, genuine disagreements with the left wing of the party. If we can't get past our own divisions within the party, how do you expect to come together in 2006 and 2008 and defeat an already unified party.

Posted by: jkfp2004 [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 6, 2005 01:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Do you really want to do something about big business? I have a way you can counter big business influence on government. You do it by creating a NO BUY ZONE with some big Republican contributors and with a mass consumer boycott you will force them to go to the Republican Party to get our progressive legislation passed. It serves two purposes. It lessens the influence of big business and increases the regular citizens influence who TIE DOWN a GIANT somewhat like the Lilliputians tied down GULLIVER.

Join the revolution for progressive legislation.


Posted by: buckfush [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 7, 2005 07:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

They fund candidates they think have a shot at winning. To the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (almost $300K for Hackett, if Jesse's post on their blog is to be believed, and there's little reason not to). Do they fully fund all candidates? Of course not. The DCCC is not a bottomless well, and neither are the netroots.

OH-2 was a fantastic effort by the blogosphere, local Ohio progressives, and was assisted at the end by the DCCC. Will we be able to raise those kind of dollars to contest each of the hundreds of races in 2006? We can all hope, but we've got to be skeptical. The idea of offering infrastructure and logistical support everywhere is a good one, but adbuys in 70% (R) markets is money unwisely spent.

OH-2 and Hackett proved a strong, straight-shooting progressive candidate can contest, and maybe someday, win, what seems like a strongly conservative district in the current politically divided climate. It proved the netroots can make a huge difference. It did not prove the DCCC is irrelevant. The DLC is irrelevant, with their elephant hugging, corporate pseudo-centrism. The DCCC is just trying to spend money where it will yield results.

Idealism is a fantastic virtue, but idealism without pragmatism is a lose. The blogosphere will get behind good candidates, regardless of what the DCCC does or whose yard, ideologically, the race is in. I think we'll find the DCCC will often pitch in when it's clear that our candidates have a real chance of winning - as pragmatists, that's their bottom line. Not everyone has the same role, here, and that's the way it should be.

Posted by: forethought [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 7, 2005 10:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment