chrisishardcore.com

Comments: In defense of Martin Frost

Good points here, but don't you think it'd be bad PR to have the guy heading your national party be someone scared to call himself a member of that party? All the sunday shows would just love to run, run, and rerun this ad whenever Frost came on to defend his party, and Frost's election to the post would possibly be interpreted as a cog in the "Democrats have no new ideas" meme going around these days.
I don't think someone like Frost would be effective because the choices he has had to make as a Congressman in a coservative district are (judging by the commercial, which is all anyone will see anyway) too out of sync with the Democratic leadership in general. Everyone is quick to say that the race for chair isn't about ideology, and it's not, really, it's about approaches to the DNC as an institution. But having a paper trail IS a problem if your paper trail is at odds with the party. Frost is actually the lesser of two evils; Roemer is the real poison here, because the Democrats need someone who will and can attack on social security. Roemer's conciliatory, bipartisan approach is useless.

Posted by LeftTheCapitol at January 18, 2005 08:08 AM

I guess I kind of split with others. I think the biggest problem we face is message and perception. That's why I think picking someone like Dean (who I used to be a big fan of) is a bad idea.

But, picking a Frost or Roemer is not necessarily a good idea. I will give you that. I just think that when a huge area of the country (the South) has a huge percentage of conservatives, and we obviously need to start doing better in that area of the country, small choices like picking a Southerner go a long way.

Posted by chris at January 18, 2005 08:37 AM

Do you think the aesthetic southerner thing is going to be effective for very long? I think that non-Democratic Southerners more and more think that southerners in the national Democratic party are little more than window dressing. How useful was John Edwards to the Kerry ticket? How far do you think these small choices actually go? I agree with you that message and perception are important, and because of that Democrats need to put someone in the chair who is vigorous, smart, politely nasty, and fearless. What Democrats most certainly don't need is someone conciliatory, someone who can simultaneously combat president Bush's agenda and reform the party from the top. Someone like Frost or Roemer can't do the latter because they've got voting records, commercials, and so on blurring, not sharpening the distinctions between Democrats and Republicans. If a good old boy wants to take the helm of the party, he needs to be someone who a) hasn't had to justify policies on a national level (like say a governor), b) someone whose national image is defined by being a partisan Democrat, or c) someone completely lacking a paper trail. Each of these options has its weaknesses (1-no national political experience, b-too shrill, c-if he lacks a paper trail he probably also lacks a profile), but a is probably best (this is why Roy Barnes would have been good, though Profile in Courage award notwithstanding I'm not sure he could have shaken things up enough). So who would I vote for? Probably Dean, just because he might be the most viable of the better choices (Rosenberg is good too, for different reasons, but he doesn't have a chance)

Posted by LeftTheCapitol at January 18, 2005 02:39 PM

That's funny, as I was reading your comment I was thinking "Roy Barnes", and that actually is who I would pick if I could pick anyone. If you're a Dean guy, why not be a Rosenberg guy instead?

I'm serious in that. Rosenberg has a much longer history of smart activism within the party, while Dean has much more of a HISTORY of being a Frost/Roemer kind of guy who just happened to pick a very popular (though misleading) position on the war in Iraq while he was running his presidential race.

Basically, I'm not sure that the people who truly love Dean (the netroots -- what a terrible term!) really have a good reason to. I think it's less Dean believes in the "power of the netroots" and more he had a longshot campaign and was willing to take a risk with something new and Trippi just happened to be the guy selling the whole netroots thing. If Dean had the bio/stature of a Kerry or Edwards or Gephardt do you really think he would have run such an untraditional campaign? I have a hard time seeing that. Knowing all of that, why not support the guy that Trippi supports?

Posted by chris at January 18, 2005 03:11 PM

Agreed on the term "netroots." It doesn't even make metaphorical sense. Maybe the "webstrands" or something would be better. I think Dean succeeded (insofar as he did) because of Trippi plus attitude. In any case, I think the Dean campaign itself (as opposed to the Doctor) is probably the best argument against democratic reform in the DNC and state parties I've ever seen. I still believe that reform would be a good thing (like letting all card carrying members vote for important stuff, kind of like the parties in the UK do) because a lot of the crazies are too proud and pure to sully themselves with a party identity, but it could go very, very wrong.

Posted by LeftTheCapitol at January 19, 2005 08:58 AM

I agree that the Democratic message and strategy must focus on capturing both moderates as well as the left. Frost and Roemer are experienced reps from red states and I think they get it. My concern with Roemer is his opposition to the Clinton 1993 economic plan and support for the Bush tax cuts. Frost might be our best bet. I don't know what Rosenberg and Fowler's chances are, given their experience level, but they both have good skills and both probably have a bright future in the party. Dean is a mixed bag, he can energize people, he has charisma, a great speaker who understands the issues well. But the organizational skills in his campaign (or lack thereof) are a huge concern, plus a weak appeal to moderates. Remember how he openly criticized the DLC? Not a helpful step.

Posted by Keith McNulty at January 20, 2005 10:23 PM

Post a comment