Netroots Need to Focus on Beating Republicans, Not Democrats

Amen. We have bigger fish to fry.

#

In order for the Democrats to enjoy their recent success, the GOP had to make a tremendous mess.

As a partisan D, I also cannot support partisan cannibalism. That being said, in order to win consistently w/o being in the midst of a brutal middle eastern quagmire while GOP Congressman stalk children, we are going to have to pull together and present our party to the American people as a real alternative, and not just as "not Republican". Dems need the courage, even in tough districts, to stand for what they believe, and not always flavor it for the perceived rightward lean of their constituents.

Senator Paul Wellstone (and now Sherrod Brown) have illuminated a path past the "too liberal" naysayers. Hopefully, before any Dem decides to allow doomsayer pollsters and new dem strategists to temper their core beliefs, they will look to see how these two guys succeeded in the face of adversity....

#

Welcome, oh self-professed luddite, to the blogosphere and thanks for (apparently) frequenting Calitics. There is one thing about the netroots that I do need to correct you on, however. Saying we have a litmus test for our issue du jour is actually mistaken. Lieberman's support for the war did not in and of itself fuel our enthusiasm for Ned Lamont; many Dems supported the war. It was the zeal with which he undermined Democrats time and time again that spurred the movement to challenge him. He'd go on Fox News and spew rightwing talking points about the war; he announced publicly that Democrats criticize the president during war time "at our nation's peril"; and he gave Bush political cover by allowing him to say "oh hey, look, Lieberman supports it, so it must be bi-partisan." In other words, he's been a horrible Democrat. Bi-partisanship is not a bad thing; Joe Lieberman's brand of it, however, is. For too long, we've seen Democrats run away from and apologize for the values that make us Democrats. Joe Lieberman is of this school and Ned Lamont was the antidote.

As for Tauscher, despite her having solid Democratic credentials on many issues as you note, she has shown herself to be similarly cozy with Bush. That's why her meeting with him on Friday rubbed people the wrong way, although it's my position that the moderate Dems invited to meet with the president would have been foolish to turn the invitation down; to me, a meeting does not a betrayal make. Another concern about Tauscher is her less than stellar record on fighting for the middle class (see bankruptcy bill.) Economic fairness more than even the war, I think, motivates the netroots and if Tauscher has even an ounce of fear about the trouble we might be able to cause her, she'd would do well to get on the economic populist bus and show us she's a real Democrat. Because as you full well know, her district is no longer red. And we've already made Harman a better and tougher Dem through the challenge of Marcy Winograd. The thing is, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Please don't make the mistake of thinking primarying Tauscher is somehow our only priority; there are plenty of Republicans to take down. Democrats just need to know that they don't get a pass; like it or not, we will use the primary as a means to hold them accountable.

#

I'm sick and tired of political elites telling me to stop complaining and toe the line when they can't even be intellectually honest in their disagreement. So let's start off by acknowledging that you don't know why the blogosphere is unhappy with Tauscher. Either that or you're intentionally creating a strawman. Either way, your argument is predicated upon a faulty premise.

I acknowledge that you worked with the grassroots to get Tauscher elected in a Republican district. Why won't you acknowledge that the district's changed and so have the expectations? It went 60% for Kerry, so it's hardly the CA-10 of 1996. Furthermore, it's Tauscher's responsibility to understand this and represent her constituents accordingly. But she hasn't. And so there is a lot of anger out there.

When is the last time Tauscher went to the Lamorinda Democratic Club? What about the El Cerrito Democratic Club? What did they have to say about the war? I bet it was substantially similar to what the netroots are saying, and I bet no more than 1% of the membership of either club read blogs. I wonder if you'd care to speculate about what people thought about Tauscher's role in Steve Filson's run for CA-11 against Jerry McNerney. Do you think that it made people think that she was a good Democrat? (Here's a hint, it pissed people off). What about her support of a Republican over a number of Democrats for Community College Board? Is that what a good Democrat does?

You don't get to control the narrative anymore. You can tut-tut all you want on this blog, but that doesn't mean you understand what you're talking about with respect to the netroots. So don't presume to tell me what I should or should not do. I deny your expertise in this matter because you have demonstrated none.

#

So far everyone has behaved themselves, but this could get out of hand very quickly. Remember to keep it civil folks.

#

My response turned out to be too long for a comment, but you can read it here. It echoes the points made by emetbloom and ollieb.

#

Although I admire Congresswoman Tauscher and I am probably more moderate than most of the people who post on this site, I strongly disagree with Katie Merrill on this subject, at least as I understand her.

How often are grassroots progressives (as an example Ralph Nader supporters in 2000) told that they need to support the party nominee? How often are they asked to go and walk precincts and man phone banks for candidates they disagree with on many issues?

If they can't challenge an incumbent they disagree with, how are they supposed to express their point of view within the system? The fact is that those voters live within a jurisdiction and they usually wind up paying taxes to help support the decisions an elected official makes. Now they are supposed to consider and incumbent who they think is not as progressive as their district as a lifetime member of congress without ever getting a chance to make their arguments to the voters of their district. I don't think that's right.

I would also point out that those voters who go out and cast a protest vote against an elected official they think is too accomadating usually give extra votes to other candidates and measures on the rest of the ballot. Votes that are often needed in close races. The strength of the Democratic party is that we can tolerate diversity of opinion and we can accept the majority view in a primary because we are not afraid to find out what the voters want through the gauntlet of public opinion.

On the other hand, if voters are discouraged from expressing themselves, especially because political leaders try and discourage "rocking the boat" then I think eventually the protests still happen, but in a much more malicious fashion, again like Ralph Nader in 2000 and Democrats are unable to effectively ask for unity. I think competitive elections, including competitive primaries are a good thing for all concerned, including the challenged incumbent who is forced to examine his or her views and decide how strongly she believes in them and whether or not they reflect the views of the voters of his or her district.

#

Obviously I only can speak for myself, but I find some in what you say that I agree with and some that I disagree with. First of all, I agree with you that the "netroots" shouldn't shun all things moderate as a knee-jerk reaction. Every case has to be taken on its own merits. But I also am put off my your knee-jerk response.

I find it silly that you talk about "the divisive efforts of the netroots" with respect to Rep. Tauscher, especially when discussing "partisan cannibalism."

My impression is that Ellen Tauscher put herself in that situation when she talked about saving the Democratic Party from the "left cliff." You allude to it by saying they "don’t like her comments about the need for the Democrats to govern from the middle." I feel you are either trying to minimize Tauscher's comments or you are just being dishonest with yourself. If she had said it like you put it, I would be able to agree with you.

But she didn't, and to make that kind of a statement in the LEAD UP to the midterm elections is certainly divisive partisan cannibalism. Those are the comments that (for the sake of party unity) are best left until after the election, if they are so important to say at all. That was definitely something that was distracting during the campaign and caused a lot of people to notice her. Was it strategic? Maybe. Was it divisive? Entirely.

There is a long way to go until 2008. I find it surprising that you are so worried about this right now. If, as you say, she serves her district well, then I don't know what the fuss is about. They will choose who bests represents them. You are jumping the gun, I think. The 110th Congress hasn't been sworn in, so how can you be in a position to say what people are or aren't doing to help the leaders govern? I suppose we could talk about supporting Pelosi's choice for Party Leader. You could argue that everyone is entitled to support who they think will do the best job, and you would be right. Those who earn the support will get it. Nobody should feel entitled.

You also mention Jane Harman. The primary challenge to her fell apart when she was able to admit her mistakes. Lashing out in anger the way you are doing probably will not have the same effect. It certainly doesn't strike me as inspiring those you criticize to be constructive, as you ask. Actually, I suspect you could be more constructive, yourself.

Bottom line (my opinion): No politician should feel above a primary challenge. That is what primaries are about. It is a chance for the voters to have a say in who represents them and what it means to be a Democrat. If Ellen Tauscher can't stand up and tell her constituents what it means for her to be a Democrat versus any random person that the "netroots" can provide, then she doesn't deserve to represent them against the Republican.

No matter how divisive a primary, the netroots will always throw their support behind the Democrat in the general. I take it from your comments about Lieberman that you don't agree with doing that. I think that that attitude is part of what crippled Angelides from the beginning. It just got too personal. You can have your fight about the ideas, but you have to fall in behind the representative of the Party.

It is fine that you are defending Ellen Tauscher. But it would do well to listen to what is actually being said and debate those points instead of just calling names on the netroots, lest you become the divisive cannibal you so detest.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

#

All I'll add is that if Tauscher or any other Democrat loses in a primary, don't blame the netroots. It's called democracy. District voters have every right to choose their representative.

#

You must have missed my request for civility.--Donald

#

Party affiliation is a deeply personal decision and it's no secret that in California the "None of the Above's" (DTS) are winning the registration battle. To remain the Big Tent Party we gotta understand that there must be something on our partisan plate for everyone.

Be they dejected greenies, progressive meanies, Kucinich beamies, or Howard Deanies they have made a conscious decision to identify with the Democratic Party and it is our duty to give 'em a hug. No matter which end of the political spectrum we are on, or what methodology we use, the task at hand is still all about hugging the middle third to win.

#

You censored me? For pointing out how stupid this was? I mean, has any online effort ever backfired to the degree this post did?

#

I think it's fair to say I take a laissez faire approach to comments. But "you're so stupid, nah nah nah" is neither productive nor intelligent. Challenge the parts of her post that you disagree with it. Don't just attack.

#

On the contrary, my post far from backfired. In fact, the critical responses to my post on CMR and on different blogs prove my point.

Rather than unifying behind a common purpose to move the country forward under the Democratic leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, which the moderates are doing, those who responded critically reaffirmed their desire to target (e.g “primary”) moderates they don’t like – no matter how strong the moderate’s record is on key Democratic issues and no matter how well they serve their districts.

A full quarter of the Democratic caucus of the 110th Congress identify themselves as moderate Democrats – many of them newly elected last month. If we eschew the Big Tent and cannot unite as a party to support a quarter of our House Democrats, then our party is in big trouble.

Despite the fact that the internet has become a powerful small-donor fundraising tool, the resources that we Democrats (I say “we” because, despite our disagreements, we are ultimately on the same side) can devote in any cycle is finite. So every volunteer hour spent targeting an incumbent Democrat for defeat is a volunteer hour not spent helping a challenger Democrat beat a Republican. Every contribution made to a candidate that is trying to knockoff a moderate incumbent Democrat is a contribution not going to a Democrat trying to beat a Republican in a competitive open seat. Not to mention the resources that are being diverted from protecting our vulnerable freshman for 08. As more than one commenter pointed out on Kos, it took resources from all over the Bay Area to get Jerry McNerney in CD-11 elected, and we will need all of those and more to get him re-elected. Let’s focus on our common goals and win.

#

I don't disagree with what you say as general statement. I actually agree with it. But I think every individual situation deserves its own consideration. I am tempted to say that Ellen Tauscher is the exception to the rule. It has nothing to do with her personally, but with the positions that she takes and the way that the district was redrawn after 2000.

You keep saying how well she serves her district. Isn't that EXACTLY what primaries are for? If she has, she has nothing to fear. On the contrary. I think she should stand up for what she believes in and not be afraid of it. You are confusing the effort at the primary with the effort at the general. They are two different things.

You argue that because there are so many moderates in Congress, and Tauscher is a moderate, that she deserves to be re-elected. That just doesn't make sense to me. It is up to the voters in her district. And specifically, it is up to the Democrats in her district to decide whether she represents what they think it means to be a Democrat. I don't think anybody is suggesting that there be a Green candidate supported against her in the general (or something like that).

#

I strongly disagree with Katie's statement. Every hour spent on a campaign is an hour discussing with your neighbors how they are governed and that is never a bad thing. As far as having a finite number of resources, primaries often bring new resources to the table because competition brings new donors (and campaign workers) into the process and if we are talking about Democratic primaries increases the overall pool of available contributors to progressive causes. Primaries if they get extremely nasty, can be a bad thing, but if it gets to that point, there was already trouble in the works. In general Democrats have nothing to fear from an open discussion and contest of ideas. All you have to do to see that is look at the history of our strongest candidates and see that most of them came out of challenging entrenched Democratic Incumbents, either as candidates themselves or as volunteers for another candidate. You will also see that most of our major progressive donors got started in politics when they were backing an insurgent challenger to the power structure. If you discourage primary fights, pretty soon we become like the Republicans, an "insiders club" with no connection to real people. Any real Democratic elected official should look at a possible challenge, not as a threat, but as a sign of an aware electorate whome if they are doing their job are likely to reelect them.

#

Katie, the point of your post was to stop a primary and the result was to guarantee one. That is failure to a huge degree, normally referred to as counterproductive. Yesterday an 18 year old high school kid proved he has more communication game than you online.

Resources are only finite if the donor base doesn't expand, but anyone who has worked on an online effort can tell you all kinds of stories people told them of donating for the first time. So not only are you out of touch when it comes to comm, but you have failed to see how fundraising has changed in recent cycles.

Please keep it up because every time you touch your keyboard you hurt your cause.

#

I am glad to see that Katie has been paying attention to the response, but her understanding of the netroots/blogosphere is still extremely inaccurate. Here is my reply to her comments on this thread.

#

Great response Juls. It was only a few months ago that Counterproductive Katie announced on this very blog that she was a political Luddite who had no clue about online politics but knew enough to declare that online politics wouldn't win races in California.

The one thing we do know is that Counterproductive Katie has no clue about online communications, the question is whether Tauscher turned to a rube to try and stop a primary.

Was this disaster Katie's doing or Tauscher's?

#

This has degenerated into farce. We are being told that a primary challenge to Ellen Tauscher is illegitimate because every Democratic dollars and every Democratic volunteer hour is sacred and must be spent fighting Republicans. So tell me again why it made sense for Tauscher to back Steve Filson in the primary against Jerry McNerney? Tell me again why it made sense for Tauscher and her allies at the DCCC to put Filson on the Red to Blue Program before he won the primary? By your own logic Tauscher has been a very bad Democrat.

But then again, I don't think you're trying to be logical or reasonable. You're spinning and you're spinning badly. (Incidentally, You might want to call Colin Bishopp because he's able to sound much more authentic and reasonable when he's spinning this way. I know you know how to find his number. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to give you some pointers. He's an excellent coach.)

And I know why you're spinning. You're spinning this for your friends who read this. You're spinning this for the journalists and the Sacramento-types who might be reading this. But while spinning you neglected to consider that you're totally misrepresenting what the netroots is all about or the proximate cause of the ire directed at Tauscher.

The netroots is not a soundbite environment. It's not good enough to make a pleasing story that sounds good but has no substance. The vigorous and heated debate that characterizes the netroots tests ideas on their merits, helps flesh out the unstated premises, and helps ground the factual assertions. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the ideas are correct, but no type of debate guarantees the correctness of the result.

But one of the particular virtues of these debates is that they do a great job of deconstructing spin. And your spin fails to satisfy the basic terms of a netroots debate, which opens you up to both appearing foolish and being mocked for your foolishness. You have provided no evidence that your characterization of the netroots is accurate and in the face of widespread netroots criticism you responded by spinning some more without any evidence to back up your claims.

Your response is absurd on its face. Your contention that the netroots is opposed to moderate Democrats is absurd on its face.

You said, "Rather than unifying behind a common purpose to move the country forward under the Democratic leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, which the moderates are doing, those who responded critically reaffirmed their desire to target (e.g “primary”) moderates they don’t like – no matter how strong the moderate’s record is on key Democratic issues and no matter how well they serve their districts."

Mark Warner of Virginia was very popular at Yearly Kos despite his moderate positions. More recently, just three of the biggest progressive blogs have raised over $26,000 for the Christine Jennings recount fund. You know, the Christine Jennings that was set to join the Blue Dog caucus.

Look, I expect you to vigorously defend Tauscher. I expect you'll try to summon every rhetorical trick at your despoal to do so. But people like me were turned off to politics by people like you. We were told that we didn't know what we were talking about, that you were the expert and we had to be content with spin, soundbites, and a lot of other BS. The netroots is the result of the alienation of people like me caused by the actions of people like you. And now we're realizing that we have the power to make a difference, that people like you don't have a monopoly on the expertise, and that often your pretensions of expertise eclipse your actually abilities (a diary like this is a perfect example of what I mean about pretensions of expertise). In any event, I think there are a lot more people like me than there are people like you. I look to the results of the CA-11 primary as direct evidence of this. Maybe I'm wrong. But you may want to consider this and change your attitude towards the netroots accordingly.

Go re-read the comments of Doughnut70 and take them to heart. You'll look a lot less foolish that way. And if nothing else, at least learn how to spin better and less transparently.

#

I say identifying yourself as a "Moderate Democrat" is the core of the problem. Is it any wonder that the party struggles to win when 1/3 of their Congressional Delegation has to qualify their membership in their own party? Just another example of a way in which we dilute, divide and diminish ourselves as Democrats. In extreme cases (Nick Lampson in TX-22) we need mavericks who distance themselves from the party in order to get re-elected. But when distancing yourself from the party by qualifying your membership becomes so common, how can it not take a toll the party image? I think this kind of thing resonates in the general population as the kind of insecure mealy mouth pandering that constantly drags Dems down.

How about "proud Democrat" instead of "moderate Democrat"?

#

Ms. Merrill's comment says:"Every contribution made to a candidate that is trying to knockoff a moderate incumbent Democrat is a contribution not going to a Democrat trying to beat a Republican in a competitive open seat."

Her argument is apparently that any resources devoted to unseating a Dem incumbent are wasted. This means that once elected, no Democrat should be challenged, period.

What would things look like if people actually abided by that rule?

Any Democratic incumbent in a safe blue district would be entitled to that seat for life. The only opportunities that Dem voters would get to pick their representatives would be every twenty or thirty years when a vacancy occurs. They'd get one shot to pick their rep, and if the makeup of the district changes from a toss-up to a safe Dem district, that rep still is entitled to that seat, even if she's out of step with her constituents.

Dem incumbents could do whatever they wanted - anything, except to officially leave the party - and they'd be safe from having to face any consequences. They could undermine the party's objectives, reinforce Republican talking points, you name it. And Democratic voters would be forced to accept them no matter how dissatisfied they were with them because, well, they aren't Republicans, and it would be wrong to do anything against a Dem so long as there are Republicans out there somewhere.

Fortunately, this isn't how it works. Dem's in safe districts are accountable to the voters in their districts, and can't simply point to the (D) after their name and be immune from voter dissatisfaction. In regards to Rep Tauscher, bloggers are definitely focusing on her right now - a lot of criticisms that I agree with, by the way - but ultimately it will be up to voters in the district who will decide if their arguments hold water or not and decide whether Rep. Tauscher should be unseated. This is as it should be.

#

The sense I got from Katie Merrill's original post (and Katie, you can correct me if I'm wrong) was: "Look, we as Democrats just took back Congress last month. Now Kos et al. are already targeting Ellen Tauscher for a primary battle? Let's see how the 110th Congress unfolds." Hopefully Speaker-elect Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats (maybe even some "R's") will pass their initial agenda and continue to press for a sensible, progressive agenda.

However, even Speaker-elect Pelosi stated that the Democrats will govern from the middle. Speaker-elect Pelosi visited with President Bush. Photos and film footage were shot of Pelosi and Bush sitting together. Kos'12/18/06 post equates Ellen Tauscher's sitting with Bush and standing at the lecturn with Lieberman, Bush, DeLay, et al with her agreeing with Bush and those others on most, if not all other issues. That is a gross oversimplification. What Kos does not disclose in his 12/18/06 post is that this photo in particular was after passage of the Homeland Security Act, which Tauscher backed even before Bush hijacked the issue. Does this mean that anyone who appears in a photo with Bush is subject to a primary battle? Is Pelosi subject to a primary battle for that reason? After all, Kerry took over 80+% of the vote in Pelosi's district. Should George Miller and Ted Kennedy have been subject to primary battles because of their photo-ops with Bush after passage of "No Child Left Behind"? Does Kos want to target Heath Shuler in North Carolina? Nick Lampson in Texas? The Democrat in Colorado who won Joel Hefley's seat? I would happily invite Kos and others to compare Ellen Tauscher's voting record with the Representatives from Utah, even Democratic representative Jim Matheson. Based on the 2006 Almanac of American Politics, Tauscher's voting record is significantly more progressive than Matheson, in line with her District even as it stands now.

It also sounds like and appears that Kos and others are unaware of the many times since April 2003 that Rep. Tauscher, Senator Feinstein and others have spoken angrily about being lied to about the basis for going into Iraq. How ideologically pure does Kos et al want Democrats to be? 2006 has a chance to be a harbinger, like 1978 from Dem towards conservative Republican, of a fundamental shift in American politics, to a much more progressive and sensible and practical brand of politics and policy. Doing that will require intelligence and pragmatism, as well as a central belief in progressive policies. Let's not circle the wagons and fire inward.

#