Fundamentals of a 2008 Success:
---------------------------------------

i. No Howard Dean
ii. No Al Gore
iii. No John Kerry
iv. No John Edwards

Simple enough for me.

...and NOT ATTRACTING ATTENTION WHILE DOING IT!!!

So I found somebody else, finally.  I think he would do the best job, and I am beginning to be impressed.  Right now few people know who he is, but that will change.  His name is Simon Rosenberg.  Get to know him and see what you think.

WE ARE NOT SELECTING A PRESIDENT!!  THE JOB DESCRIPTION IS DIFFERENT! heheh.  I'm for Simon Rosenberg.  Let Dean run for Prez if he wants, he's not the guy for the job of DNC chair.  Do you think he can "unify" the Party even?  Much less do the largest part of the DNC chair's job which is raising money, and getting out the message, talking candidates into running, putting ideas out there without backlash results, working the blogosphere and NOT ATTRACTING ATTENTION WHILE DOING IT!!!

I'm listening to Radio Left and the host is saying how you should contact your local dems to show your support for Dean and tell them what you want.  If we all flood their Emails, phone's, snail mail's, fax's we could have a good chance.  Look at what happened with Rep. Boxer.  Let's make sure Dean get's in! Spread the word to flood all the democrats! Say no to Romer and yes to Dean. Romer is too connected to the right-wing!

Race for DNC chair kicks off


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST  Jan. 15, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As President George W. Bush prepares to celebrate his second inauguration Thursday, Democrats are beginning to reassess the reasons behind their 2004 defeat and are struggling to redefine the party to make it attractive to more voters.

One of their first steps is to elect a new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the key party body that raises money for candidates and helps spread the Democrats' messages. Terry McAuliffe, the current DNC chief, has announced he is leaving. And on February 12, 447 DNC members will elect a new chair in Washington.

The campaigning has already begun and some, including within the Jewish community, are raising eyebrows about some of the leading contenders, wondering if they are the faces that can help lead to greater turnout at the polls for Democrats and keep up record-level donations to the Democratic party. The DNC raised an unprecedented $400 million during the 2004 election cycle.

Among those who have entered the DNC chair race so far are former presidential hopeful, Howard Dean, an ousted Democratic congressman from Texas, Martin Frost, and former congressman from Indiana, Tim Roemer, who served on the national commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Roemer says the House and Senate minority leaders Nancy Pelosi of California and Harry Reid of Nevada, who replaced Tom Daschle after his defeat in November, have encouraged him to run.

Roemer's supporters say his participation on the September 11th commission helps project strength on issues like terrorism. But some political observers have quietly questioned his record in the House, which included consistent votes against foreign aid --including for Israel -- as a potential political liability. In 2001, he voted against a plan to punish Lebanon if it did not crack down on Hizbullah.

Others say he is the wrong guy for the job since he is out of sync with most Democrats on social issues like abortion and the separation of church of state. Roemer is pro-life and voted in the late 1990s in favor of a Republican resolution praising an Alabama judge who said the public display of the Ten Commandments in government offices and courthouses should be permitted.

Dean, who raised a war chest of funds via the Internet during last year's Democratic primary, but then ran poorly in the Iowa caucuses, announced this week that he was running for the chairmanship, a decision that suggests he has abandoned hopes for another run for the presidency in 2008.

"The Democratic Party needs a vibrant forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state," Dean wrote in a letter to DNC members. Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq endeared him particularly to left-wing Democrats but more centrist Democrats believe he is the wrong leader to have at a time of war.

During the primary campaign, Dean frequently stressed to Jewish audiences that his wife Judith Steinberg Dean was Jewish in an attempt to signal that he would be supportive on issues of concern to the Jewish community.

But he alienated some pro-Israel Democrats when he said he would pursue an "evenhanded approach" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After being criticized by Israel supporters, Dean noted, "I never use that word anymore. I've discovered that 'evenhandedly' is a code word to certain people who think that is being unfair and I don't want to ever repeat that word again." He added that terror must end before Israel will be willing to withdraw from the West Bank.

One official with a Jewish organization said, "The person people (in the Jewish community) are most concerned about is Dean. I don't think anyone should perceive Dean as anti-Israel. The concerns about him stem more from the people who support him and their attitudes toward Israel. And they worry that his overall attitude toward foreign policy would be less robust."

"I think his comments about Israel were disturbing on the merits, but I think they were even more disturbing in what they revealed about his judgment," said Dan Gerstein, a senior strategist for Senator Joseph Lieberman's (D-Connecticut) presidential campaign who now works as an independent consultant in New York. "He said some things that were almost na ve and didn't think about the implications."

Gerstein noted, "Traditionally a DNC chair has nothing to do with foreign policy. But I think that's one of the things the Democrats have to reexamine" in a post-September 11 world. "The Democrats haven't gotten how dramatically [9/11] changed the political landscape as the Republicans did."

In a blistering critique of senior Democratic officials, Gerstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that the Democrats did not "seem to know how to pick winners – or fire losers."

He described Pelosi and Reid as "two honorable, decent people who nevertheless have done little to inspire confidence that they could successfully fight a parking ticket, let alone the war against terrorism."

Gerstein endorsed Simon Rosenberg who chairs the New Democrat Network, a Washington-based organization that works to court Democratic support nationwide. Rosenberg, whose father's family was Jewish but who was raised Christian and attends an Episcopalian church, is from the Clintonian, centrist branch of the party. He is also known as a modernizer, and as someone who early on recognized the need to employ new technologies and strategies to tap new Democratic voters.

Among the others running is Martin Frost, the ousted Democratic congressman who lost his seat from Texas because of a Republican redistricting plan. Frost, who is Jewish, is known as an adept fundraiser as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which this week appointed Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois), the son of an Israeli, to be its chairman and help raise funds for the 2006 House elections.

Other DNC chairman candidates include Donnie Fowler, the son of a former DNC chair and Wellington Webb, the former mayor of Denver.

I think I found the problem about Dean from the perspective of Heart, Dante and others.  Maybe the question isn't whether we are being paid by Dean but whether you think Dante is being paid by Lieberman?  :o

Paid? Moi? I should be so lucky! Dearie I am an activist from the grass roots of boston politics. I would take money in a new york second and then do whatever I liked. If you think I am as easily bought off as some of the trust fund set you haven't been paying attention!    

http://www.simonforchair.org/

"What we need at the head of the DNC is someone who can take on Rove, Reed, Norquist and Mehlman.  Someone who understands how to defeat the modern Republican machine at its own high-level strategic game; someone who understands the demographic, attitudinal and socio-economic complexities of the coming America; someone who is deeply rooted in the emerging new media world of databases, digital media, satellite and cable television; someone who understands the internet and modern community-building techniques; someone who can speak for the mainstream of the party and connect with its increasingly youthful activist base; someone who has successfully raised money and worked in all regions of this diverse country; and someone who has a proven track record at running a business or political organization."

With Rosenberg as DNC chair, the RNC will facetiously crow from the rooftops that they are glad DNC chair is supporting the President on the war on terror and in Iraq. While supporting the war is not a kind of position that would disqualify anyone from the position of DNC chair, the way in which Rosenberg defended and continues to defend the president’s decision bothers me.

For instance, he gave the RNC ammo on John Gibson’s show on Fox News, Sept. 9th of this year. Rosenberg said “I think the debate that is not happening is whether or not the war was a good idea. The war was a good idea. I think the American people were behind the President.” In that same interview with John Gibson Rosenberg said “The President was resolute and strong in his decision to go to war. He may also have been wrong in the way they executed it.” Rosenberg's problem is that he says the President MAY have been wrong in the way he executed that while our candidate was very clear that the President WAS wrong. This kind of statement illustrates how Rosenberg cannot lead a strong, aggressive opposition party, which is essential in today's DNC chair.

http://mars.typepad.com/no_retreat_no_surr...ase_agains.html

Quoting Beamer:  "Maybe the question isn't whether we are being paid by Dean but whether you think Dante is being paid by Lieberman?"

Beamer, you are not paying attention again, as usual.  Can't you learn to keep up?  Can't you learn to read faster?  Don't you know how to find what members have previously posted?  Do you need help?

I think I found the problem about Dean from the perspective of Heart, Dante and others.  Maybe the question isn't whether we are being paid by Dean but whether you think Dante is being paid by Lieberman?  :o
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...9233026&apage=2

Anyone who's never advocated the use of nuclear weapons probably hasn't spent much time in bad rush hour traffic!

Huh?  What is that supposed to mean?  You think I support Rosenberg over Dean because of something other than the 20 reasons I have spent all of this time on this forum outlining?  Why do you think I'm against Dean as DNC chair?  Why publish a Jerusalem Post article?  Are you suggesting this has something to do with Israel?  What the heck does the DNC chair have to do with that anyway?  What does Lieberman have to do with it?  I don't like Lieberman very much, cause he's boring mostly, but I don't hold any dislike of him either.  I just don't understand how conspiratorial this has all gotten.  If you're thinking what you seem to be saying why wouldn't I be supporting Martin Frost?  C'mon Beamer, you can read why I support Rosenberg better than that.  You don't have to insinuate all of this stuff.  I sure haven't said that about those supporting Dean.  I believe that the people supporting Dean are sincere.  My support for Rosenberg has to do with the job description, and his ability to fill that job, not with anything else.

With Rosenberg as DNC chair, the RNC will facetiously crow from the rooftops that they are glad DNC chair is supporting the President on the war on terror and in Iraq. While supporting the war is not a kind of position that would disqualify anyone from the position of DNC chair, the way in which Rosenberg defended and continues to defend the president’s decision bothers me.

For instance, he gave the RNC ammo on John Gibson’s show on Fox News, Sept. 9th of this year. Rosenberg said “I think the debate that is not happening is whether or not the war was a good idea. The war was a good idea. I think the American people were behind the President.” In that same interview with John Gibson Rosenberg said “The President was resolute and strong in his decision to go to war. He may also have been wrong in the way they executed it.” Rosenberg's problem is that he says the President MAY have been wrong in the way he executed that while our candidate was very clear that the President WAS wrong. This kind of statement illustrates how Rosenberg cannot lead a strong, aggressive opposition party, which is essential in today's DNC chair.

http://mars.typepad.com/no_retreat_no_surr...ase_agains.html

Brendan, I think you're interjecting your own interpretations here and they may not be the correct interpretations.  Then you're making conclusions based on interpretations that may be incorrect.  Hence I am nothing but confused and would prefer to know exactly what was said, word for word, without anything taken out of context or altered in any way; then I can come to my own conclusions which may or may not be different from those you have stated.

Personally, I believe Simon Rosenberg is an excellent choice and also far superior to any Democratic riffraff that might want the DNC Chair.

Beamer, besides being annoying and refusing to read what posters have posted here before you accuse them, you are causing me to be troubled due to my concern re:  your lack of a life.  Get one.

Spoken like a well paid anti- Dean, attack squad operative.

I'm listening to Radio Left and the host is saying how you should contact your local dems to show your support for Dean and tell them what you want.  If we all flood their Emails, phone's, snail mail's, fax's we could have a good chance.  Look at what happened with Rep. Boxer.  Let's make sure Dean get's in! Spread the word to flood all the democrats! Say no to Romer and yes to Dean. Romer is too connected to the right-wing!

Right, claiming opinion is truth makes it not be bashing!

Listen in to the conference, and come away with your own truth.

Gee, I don't think a pro-war candidate for DNC Chair, such as Rosenberg, would be the best choice right now.

Your commentary already told me the truth, it just wasn't what you were trying to convey.

very deep.

If the job pays well I'll apply!

COMMENTARY 


The Terry McAuliffe Syndrome

By DAN GERSTEIN
January 11, 2005; Page A20

When John Kerry ripped defeat from the jaws of victory last November, losing to a wounded president with a failed record, a few of us Democratic outliers took some solace in thinking that his campaign's dismal performance might actually force the party to own up to its mortal electoral weaknesses. Turns out we grossly underestimated the national Democrats' capacity for self-delusion and self-defeat.

Yes, it's only been two months, and it's not realistic to expect the party to remake itself even before Inauguration Day rolls around. But consider the head-scratching choices that Democrats have made so far since hitting close to political rock bottom. (That being defined loosely as losing in 81% of the nation's counties with a war hero running against a draft-avoider who has bungled both Iraq and our national finances).

We chose as our House and Senate leaders (and thus the public face of the party) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- two honorable, decent people who nevertheless have done little to inspire confidence that they could successfully fight a parking ticket, let alone the war against terrorism. We chose (by abdicating responsibility to two extreme-ish members of Congress) to mount a formal, indignation-filled challenge to the results in Ohio -- despite the fact that George Bush won by 100,000 votes, as compared to the 537 he (ostensibly) won by in Florida.

And now we hear there's a move afoot to choose Terry McAuliffe -- another decent, honorable man who nevertheless presided over two consecutive election cycles in which the number of elected Democrats at almost every level shrank, and who will never be mistaken for a base-expanding communicator -- for another term as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The "Keep Mac" pack's rationale? He'll save us from Howard Dean, who most believe would have led the party to an even bigger catastrophe last fall had he gotten the nomination. Call me a curmudgeon, but that seems like an odd way to project strength at a moment an historic political realignment is taking place -- at least the old guy won't humiliate us!

Taken together, these developments indicate that, beyond our rural-state problem and Hispanic problem and our values problem and our security problem, we Democrats have a far more fundamental leadership problem. To put it crudely, right now we don't seem to know how to pick winners -- or fire losers.

Stop and think about it. The national party had back-to-back election seasons in 2002 and 2004 that were successively despairing and disastrous -- the kind of record that if it were experienced by a pro sports team would have prompted the owner to clean house. And what are we doing? Mostly wringing our hands about changing the floor wax.

Now, is Terry McAuliffe or any other single leader wholly responsible for our failures? Certainly not. In fact, Mr. McAuliffe did a lot of important work to modernize the party infrastructure and strengthen our long-term financial stability. But the fact is, politics provides clear, irrefutable ways to measure performance, and by most any standard our recent performance stinks. That begs a few questions. Such as, what does it take to hold someone accountable for losing? And more importantly, when do we stop beating our heads against the wall and try something -- and someone -- different?

To many, saying that out loud (and going the next step to name names) may sound exceedingly impolitic and harsh -- I know this because people were shocked when I had the gall to point out publicly that maybe we should not entrust our next big campaign to a strategist who is now 0-for-8 in the Presidential Super Bowl.

But I am guessing these are many of the same folks who urged Mr. Kerry not to respond to the deeply damaging calumnies that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were slinging at his war record. God forbid we dignified those tactics by standing up for ourselves and actually fighting back (instead of robotically telling people we'll fight for them).

The point is, to state the obvious (something our party often seems to have trouble grasping), that politics is a contact sport -- particularly when you are competing against folks as cunning and ruthless as Karl Rove and company. So if we hope to win, we Democrats have to get over our predilection to preserve people's self-esteem at all costs, stop engaging in the politics of self-destruction, and start making some hardheaded calculations about what it takes to become a majority party again.

Of course, upgrading the salesmen won't dramatically change the results if we don't also upgrade the product we're marketing. Right now the clear majority of voters -- including large swaths of the country -- don't trust us to keep them safe or share their values, and we have a long way to go to rethink our messages and policies and ultimately rehabilitate our credibility. But we have to remember that politics is the art of persuasion, and in this era of diminishing party identification, elections more and more are tough tests of individual leadership. This last presidential campaign proved that in spades. And our test now as Democrats is whether we can select and empower strong, savvy and compelling men and women to not only chart our course but change it.

In this we cannot be satisfied right now with "means people" -- those like Mr. McAuliffe who know how to raise money, compile databases, and get out the vote, all of which are necessary, but not sufficient, not when we need to pull millions of skeptics to our side. We desperately need "ends people" -- those who are committed more to building winning coalitions than to feeling morally superior and placating pariahs like Michael Moore, and who have the vision to think ahead of the curve and the guts to run straight over people when necessary to get more votes than the other guy.

A good place to start is in the DNC race. Of all the candidates in the mix, the only one I know of who can imagine a different kind of politics that transcends obsolete clichés of left and right, harness the power of new ideas to win over new voters, and be tough as hell when it's called for is New Democratic Network Chairman Simon Rosenberg. He can do all those things in large part because he's already shown he knows how to win, having been an integral part of the take-no-prisoners Clinton war room in 1992. I'm not crazy about the fact that he has often worked closely with Mr. McAuliffe and the rest of the current Democratic leadership. But that may ultimately prove to be an asset in helping to bridge the differences in the party and build the broader coalition we need to win again.

Maybe then we can really start thinking outside the Beltway box. For example, in this era of war and global insecurity, why are we not finding a new Ike to like, and recruiting well-respected, Democratic-leaning military leaders like former Joint Chiefs Chairmen William Crowe and John Shalikashvili to be public spokesmen for the party, or even better to run for office. No disrespect to Leader Pelosi, but I suspect a four-star hawk -- especially one who can't be cast as a serial flip-flopper -- will play better in Boulder than a Haight-Ashbury dove.

The bottom line? We need more bottom-line thinking before we decamp to New Hampshire once again. Adapt or Die, I say.

Mr. Gerstein, an independent consultant in New York, was communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for the senator's presidential campaign.