« A Strong Office | Main | Non partisan analysis »
January 17, 2005
In defense of Martin Frost
Via Atrios, I see that all the cool kids are going after Martin Frost, and that they are led by one Annatopia.
Now, first of all, the television segment that Atrios and Annatopia link to describes the district that Frost ran in as "drawn to favor a Republican." Not quite. The state of Texas is about 58% Republican, on average. When thinking about Texas, would you say it slightly "favors" a Republican, or that it almosts guarantees that a Republican will get elected on either the state or federal level? I would go with the latter.
Frost's district 32 was drawn to be about 65% Republican, on average. That's about 7 points more Republican than the state of Texas, which is considered to be one of the safer Republican states. In addition, Frost's district was located in urban and suburban Dallas County. I'm quite sure that there are some rural counties in Texas (as there are in Georgia) that give 65% or more of their vote to Republican presidential candidates while remaining competitive on a local level for Democrats, but suburban districts generally aren't some of them.
Now, Frost held his Republican opponent to 54%, and a third party candidate got about 2%. In other words, Frost managed to do about 9% better than the average candidate, and in the mean time helped Democratic candidates on the local level -- most prominently in electing a Hispanic lesbian sheriff of Dallas county.
In the process of coming closer than probably anyone else ever will to winning that district, Frost offended some on the left with the advertisements he ran. Remember though, advertisments and campaigns are not produced to satisfy ideological donors/activists but to win the votes of the people that live in a district. Obviously, Frost was onto something, and instead of taking cheap shots at him (you try running in a 65% Republican district -- I have some experience at this and did not do nearly as well as Frost) just maybe more bloggers should give Frost at least an open mind to hear about his proposals to make it easier for Democrats to run in districts we've been losing by 15 or more points.
The thing that many people seem to forget is that a congressional candidate gets at most 2 years to run for Congress in a district and generally only has the money to actually be up on the air presenting him or herself as a choice to the voters for about 2 or 3 months. Frost first saw his district about a year before the election and in that time, I'm sorry, but one just does not have time to reinvent the Democratic party. He had to run the campaign (like it or not) that had the best chance of returning him to Congress, and I'm positive that with the exception of very minor tweaks he did that. It didn't work -- but he had only about a 10% chance of it working anyway. Probably less.
Now, as DNC chair and given more than just 2 or 3 months, someone like Frost would at least have the opportunity to reshape what the Democratic Party means to the general population. I think the response of the left/Democratic blogosphere to the Roemers and Frosts of the world kind of highlights those of us that get the whole Southern/rural problem thing and those that either have to have it explained to them or are shocked to see it in action.
Some people see the kind of campaign Frost ran and say that's the reason we keep losing, if only he'd "stand up" for his Democratic values or run a real Democrat instead, we'd win. I know someone like Frost would rather not have to run that kind of a campaign (after all, he's still a Democrat), but he personally hasn't been in charge, and neither has someone like him (he supported Hoyer instead of Pelosi, so he tried). So he doesn't have much of a choice.
So given the the chance to take the reins of the national party, I think a Roemer or a Frost's main goal would be to find ways for other guys like them to run more of a "Democratic" campaign and less of a "Republican-light" campaign. In other words, the reason Roemer and Frost have had to be "Republican-light" in the past is that where they're from, the Democratic brand is very tarnished.
They've lived it. I think others, specifically Rosenberg get it. Dean pays a lot of lip service to it, but I don't think he's the right guy to combat it (he certainly hasn't lived it, and I'm not sure he really understands what it's like to automatically have the biggest negative against you be your party id, while simultaneously your opponent's biggest positive is his).
I hope I've been able to get my point across. If you look at where these guys are from, and if you've been there through involvement with campaigns, you know they are being "Republican-light" to survive, not because they want to. They want an active role in the party in order to create the atmosphere where a Democrat can run a "Democrat" campaign regardless of where they're running. And like it or not, Roemer is right about one thing -- the perception is that the Republican tent is bigger. They're partisan ID is growing, ours is shrinking (that's a zero sum game). It doesn't matter that in the actual leadership, there is little room for differences in ideology -- the man on the street thinks there is room for him in the Republican tent and doesn't see a place for himself in ours. That's who the party chairmanship is about, not us. My goal is not to sit around enforcing some sort of purity.
You've got to find common ground with more than 50% of the country. If you find yourself to the left of the spectrum, the only way you'll ever advance the ideas that are important to you are by gaining trust on issues and values that you already have in common with 50%+ of the population. Only then, when that trust is gained, can you even begin to hope that a greater share of the population will give ideas you hold dear a closer or second look. Frost and Roemer get it -- that's why they aren't Republicans.
Posted by Chris at January 17, 2005 11:16 PM
Comments
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 ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.chrisishardcore.com//nav-commenters.gif)
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
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)