Pogo Politics

"Everything is pointing to a pretty big Democratic victory if attitudes toward Congress remain as negative as they are and attitudes toward President Bush remain as negative as they are. It's hard to imagine any way that wouldn't happen."

Thus spoke Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, presumably before regaining his senses and recalling that Democratic leaders once again have met the enemy, and it is, of course, themselves.

It’s not at all hard to imagine how they could take the looming certainty of “a pretty big Democratic victory” and snatch it from the jaws of that selfsame victory, since the party’s power players, whenever they can stand the sight of each other, convene on how best to splinter both strategy and resources.

It has been reported that “Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who is leading the party's effort to regain majority status in the House, stormed out of [Howard] Dean's office [earlier this month] leaving a trail of expletives.”

And why did the DCCC chairman storm out of the DNC chairman’s office in less than wholesome form? Because the former’s strategy of short-term trench warfare in critical battlegrounds met head-on the latter’s strategy of long-term party-building as an affordable luxury, and the latter wouldn’t budge.

Many hardcore and especially left-leaning Democrats love Howard for his outspoken rambunctiousness. He possesses a directness that borders on innocence -- a rare commodity in this age of politicians saying nothing not tested in common-denominator-seeking focus groups.

That is to his credit. But Howard also has a knack for reading the situation wrong. His own presidential campaign quickly flowered into a textbook study in what not to do, particularly when it comes to spending money. He raised -- and blew -- a phenomenal amount of cash in record time, dreaming all along of general-election grand strategy rather than next week’s bloody battleground.

His opponents didn’t. They stayed in the day-to-day trenches.

We are now spectators at a trench warfare vs. broad strategy rematch, one of only slightly different form.

Newspaper reports speak of the “tension that has pitted Democratic congressional leaders, who are focused on their best opportunities for electoral gains this fall, against Dean and many state party chairmen, who believe that the party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up -- even in states that have traditionally been Republican strongholds….

"Howard Dean … has … sent money he has raised to state parties for party-building” -- and here’s the key -- rather than funneling that money into targeted Congressional districts.

That’s a mistake, big-time, as Veep Cheney would say. And for once he’d be right.

Naturally state chairmen want the cash for local purposes, but those targeted districts that could unseat the House’s majority are the only ones that count -- for now.

Predictably, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman is on target, saying “in an interview that most of [the money his party has raised] would go to help embattled Republican Congressional candidates, a show of financial force that could frustrate Democrats in their search to win control.”

In short, it won’t be a fair or pretty fight if Republicans pour a mound of cash into those places it counts, while Democrats spread their resources hither and yon in pursuit of an unattainable 50-state organization.

Howard, you’re wrong. Rahm is right.

Comments

[cre8fire]

Bull. You and Rahm are wrong, and Dean is right. We've had years of doing Rahm's way, and what do we have to show for it? Our blogosphere is going to do just fine at putting cash in the hands of Democrats in tough battles, you and your consultant friends leave the overall party money alone to be spent on the overall party.

[tomas]

The conservatives have had a national grassroots strategy for years. Why again won't that work for the Dems?

[cervantes]

Yeah PM, sorry, but I can't agree with you. 2008 is more important than 2006, and so is 2010. One of the biggest problems with our political system is that it can't seem to look past next week -- whether that concerns policy (viz. the Democratic response to high gas prices consisted of wanting to eliminate the gasoline tax) or politics. You are completely wrong, in fact your viewpoint is defeatist, timid, and ultimately cynical and unprincipled.

[Alta]

The Republicans didn't come into power overnight. They built up their party infrastructure for decades. When the mood of the country changed, in large part due to the effective, long-running, Republican propaganda campaign, they were ready.

The Dems, by contrast, have relied on a seat-of-the-pants, high-priced consultant strategy every election year. Emanuel and his ilk have had and seemingly continue to have no problem blowing large amounts of contributions on ineffective consultants but balk at spending money on building a legitimate party apparatus. If they had won a few elections in the past (I don't count Clinton - he won his own elections solely on the basis of his own political talent, not on integrity or anything else that really matters), I would be inclined to say that they have a point. But they haven't and every indication is that, if Dems do pick up some seats, it will be solely because they aren't Republicans. I haven't heard Emanual or his minions come up with a winning message.

If the DNC gives the DCCC a sizeable chunk of those contributions, all we will be left with after the elections is another loss because the money will be spent on those idiotic consultants that tell the party insiders what they want to hear instead of what is important and relevant. And, we will have a party structure that is only partially reassembled.

[Mike Grello]

It seems to me that it is not a feast or famine proposition. As a Democrat in one of the states the party typically writes off, I feel abandoned; and I know that if we put in some effort in South Carolina we could have our voices heard. We don't want a one party system either, and in those states that we don't carry we can at least be a force to be reckoned with. Further, a party that sells itself as having egalitarian ideals should act like it. Thus the compromise; spread some of the money to those areas that just might surprise you if nurtured a little bit and make a big deal of your inclusiveness everywhere. Tell your constituents in the "battle states" that they will not be held hostage by "solid republican" states because they ain't so solid and we're going to prove it.

The Democratic candidates in South Carolina, for example, have to assert themselves and point to what a lousy job the republicans have been doing at all levels of government, and for that they need the party's support.

[quiet american]

Why the HELL would the Democratic Party want to keep doing things the same old way (Emmanuel's way) and then expect a different result? That's the definition of insanity.

The Dem Party workers in those states that have long been ignored by, and disorganized due to, the failed past strategies of the Democratic Party are now enthused and engaged like people who've been stuck in a windowless, airless room and are now are exposed to bright sunshine and fresh oxygen.

This is the time when ground workers are needed most, especially to reach out to disaffected Republicans and fill in the vacuum left by years of Bush incompetence and criminality.

If Howard Dean is wrong, I don't want to be right.