Establishment Dems treat their party like a house in the fucking Hamptons

[bigtree]

Firing Squad Looms for the Dem Party Oligarchy

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com.

"Establishment Dems treat their political party like a house in the fucking Hamptons. Who died and made these people gatekeepers to anything?"

. . . the Democratic Party has been operating for two decades without the active participation of its voters.

It raised money by appealing directly to companies in private fundraisers, and it used the commercial media to enforce its policy positions, in particular its desire to "clearly reject our antiwar wing," as Al From put it a few years back. It's a simple formula for running one-half of American politics; you decide on John Kerry two years before the presidential vote, raise him $200 million bucks, and let CNN and the New York Times take care of any Howard Deans who might happen to pop up in the meantime. The same greased track is being prepared for Hillary Clinton right now, and we can be quite sure that guns are already being aimed at Russell Feingold.

It's been an essentially oligarchic system of government, where all the important decision-makers have been institutions, with any attempts by ordinary people to circumvent the system coldly repressed. Remember 2000, when Ralph Nader was not only not allowed to debate with Al Gore and George Bush, but wasn't allowed in the building -- not even allowed in a second, adjoining hall in the building, not even when he had a ticket? Well, we have a replay of that proud moment in hour history going on now, with Hillary's Senate primary opponent Tasini being shut out of debates by New York's NY1 TV channel (owned by TimeWarner) which is insisting that qualified candidates not only reach five percent support in the polls (Tasini is at 13 percent and rising) but raise or spend $500,000. Said NY1 Vice President Steve Paulus: "All Tasini would need is for each to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent."

So a war chest is now the standard for representation? In order to get on television, you need a dollar from every voter? (Are we electing a Senator or holding a Girl Scout raffle? What the fuck?) And this is decided by... an executive for a corporate television station? One that recently sent a reporter to Japan to do features on high-tech toilets? In other words, NY1 will pay to put an exotic Japanese toilet on a few million or so New York television screens -- but insists on seeing a half-million dollar deposit before it will put a Democratic candidate with 13 percent support in a televised debate? Am I missing something?

This schism within the Democratic Party is the most interesting thing to happen in American politics in decades, because due to a system error, people have temporarily been allowed back into what had been a totally closed process. They're working round the clock to fix the loophole, though, because the Emmanuels of the world know what's coming if they don't. The firing squad. And this time it won't be in a circle.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/40744/

[ixion]

1. a 'must read', IMO

It'd be really cool to see the Democratic Party become truly progressive. :woohoo:

[w4rma]

6. Nah, this article is mostly ignorant. (nt)

[bigtree]

14. but, it's oh so much fun!

[ixion]

32. huh... care to be more specific?

I personally agree with the author the DLC has been leading the party down wrong road since the 80's. What do you think?

[CollegeDUer]

33. If you're a "with the party or against us" guy, sure

But if you want constructive criticism...

[blm]

2. Horseshit from Matt - The party didn't get Kerry the money, they helped

promote the idea that Kerry's campaign was dead in the water along with the media's portrayal.

They sent Kerry NO HELP and no donors in the final months and Kerry was forced to finance those last months with his personal money.

Matt is either LYING or he has a PISSPOOR memory of what actually occurred.

Matt is right on his initial statement then proceeds to inaccurately recall what happened in 2004 as an example. BAD JOURNALISM.

Why should Matt be given a pass for spreading lies just because he's a lefty journo? My ideal lefty journailist cares about ACCURACY - like Robert Parry.

[KoKo]

9. blm....didn't Kerry end up with a 14 Million surplus? Which caused many

who donated extra at the last to help him out to wonder how he held back that money when extra advertising in NC and Ohio might have helped him?

:shrug:

[blm]

11. That money came in around the time he HAD to transition from his own

campaign funds to FEDERAL FUNDING which kicked in the moment he accepted the Dem nomination at the convention. All the money collected in the days before that ended up as surplus AS PER the LAW governing campaign spending.

And much of that money has been given to the DNC and many candidates around the country, as well as still being used for the court cases Kerry is still involved with in Ohio.

[KoKo]

45. Can you give me a "link" as to verification of that RULE Kerry had to

follow or an article explaining why Kerry was left with so much money that he could have used for ads but didn't?

Thanks, blm. I know you can provide this.

[blm]

46. Is this for REAL? Everyone knows that once a nominee accepts they can

ONLY spend the FEDERAL FUNDS.

Come on - you MUST be pulling my leg. A DU member not knowing this simple fact is really a bummer.

[bigtree]

12. I agree on Kerry. His ascendance was the voter's choice

maybe the 'safe one", the establishment one, but, sometimes that's how the party faithful react. Many just can't accept that and blame some 'media' conspiracy for Howard's fall from the lead. Matt does just that in his mostly correct rant.

[babylonsister]

3. "...the Democratic Party has been operating for

two decades without the active participation of its voters."

Our Dem elites have been called out, I do believe. Write on, Matt Taibbi, and thanks, bigtree!

[MrPrax]

4. Oh thanks!!!

I wanted to post this one...but it would break my personal rule of involving myself too directly in American internal politics...to which I generally lurk and learn, but avoid getting into matters that don't concern me as a foreigner.

(Mind you I not above offering opinions on a certain pResident, his advisors and his scummy party)

But I loved that article...

To paraphrase James Whale..."a good 'line' is worth repeating..."

"Establishment Dems treat their political party like a house in the fucking Hamptons. Who died and made these people gatekeepers to anything?"

LOL...K & R'ed

[w4rma]

5. Sen. Kerry wasn't promoted by the establishment early on in the campaign.

In fact they didn't really get on board until they figured out that Sen. Kerry was the *only* candidate left who could beat Gov. Dean.

The "establishment" was behind Sen. Lieberman for the most part. The DLC had more power then.

[DemPopulist]

18. That isn't really true

The "establishment" was split for the bulk of the 2003 run-up: some for Gephardt, some for Edwards, many for Kerry, and very few for Lieberman or Dean. Dean attracted some establishment support once he became the frontrunner, and when Clark got in, a lot of Clinton people and some who had abandoned Kerry when it looked like he had no chance, backed the General. But basically, there was no clear favorite among the "establishment" until Iowa and NH.

The DLC is actually a rather small part of the Democratic establishment, and wasn't all that powerful even in the Clinton era, much less 2003.

[w4rma]

25. Don't underestimate the DLC's power. Or actually, don't underestimate

the power of the corporate powers behind the DLC.

[DemPopulist]

30. The DLC has very little power as a stand-alone organization

Witness the utter failure of the one pure DLC candidate, Lieberman, in the primaries last time. The DLC does have influence inside the beltway. But in terms of the Democratic presidential primaries, labor unions, African-Americans, pro-choice activists and many other constituencies have way more influence in determining the nominee.

[KoKo]

47. DLC hired Carville and Begala to get Clinton Elected their "War Room"

cowered the Repugs...and Clinton went on despite every thing they threw at him to win a SECOND TERM (first Dem since FDR to do this).

Hillary and Bill were instrumental in setting up the DLC which was HUGE in it's time (back then) to steer the party away from "Civil Rights/Peace and other annoying things that Repugs didn't want to deal with.) We WON...CLINTON WAS a TWO TERM PRESIDENT! What did he DO WITH WHAT HE HAD ENGINEERED? Allowed the RW to go after him...trashing his wife for Vince Foster...not coming back about Whitewater (a nickle and dime land speculation) so small folks today who Real Estate Speculate would be :rofl: at how tame it was.

So... RW goes after Clintons and decimate them..but can't even remove them from a second term. The "bitterness and anger reaches "Warp Speed" with Repugs and they "froth at the mouth in anger" and go for broke STEALING ELECTION 2000!

Repugs DOMINATE FOR 6 to 8 YEARS IN REVENGE...TRASHING EVERY DEM WHO EVER LIVED...destroying EVEN DEM PAST PRESIDENTS LIKE ROOSEVELT!!!

And we are supposed to believe the DLC is TODAY RELEVANT??? :shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. Please list the "many" who supported Kerry prior to the first primary

Is Ted Kennedy an "establishment" Dem, according to however the hell DU defines "establishment"? Because he was pretty much the most significant endorsement Kerry had prior to Iowa.

[William769]

7. I'm glad to see they treat their house so well.

Others should consider doing the same.

[me b zola]

8. Proud to be the 5th rec, wish I could recommend 20 more times

I must subscribe to RS!

[DemPopulist]

10. I hate that guy, to be frank

I saw him on the Daily Show when his book came out, and he came across as the ultimate smarmy Gen-X journalistic douchebag. He's trying way too hard to be the next Hunter Thompson. I wasn't a Kerry supporter in the primaries and I won't be one in 2008, but his stuff about the Dem establishment deciding on Kerry two years in advance is utter bullshit. And anybody in 2006 who's still complaining about Nader not being allowed to debate is clearly not on the side of right.

[bigtree]

13. he is really strident.

nothing wrong at all with the forceful way he's trying to challenge the party orthodoxy. Sure, folks will jump on his personality, his exaggerations, his bombast, in defense of their own little piece of the pie he's throwing . . . but, he's a pistol.

[DemPopulist]

22. I have no problem with stridency

I'm pretty strident myself when I argue with wingers, and I love Michael Moore, for instance, because I think he really believes in the cause......I just perceive guys like Taibbi and David Sirota as being primarily self-promoters who I wouldn't be surprised to see on the other side twenty years from now.

[bvar22]

15. K&R

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

8. Over 60% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[KoKo]

16. Rahm Emmanuel quote... ("an amoral, showboating cock.") & My Rant!!

I've seen him on Pundit shows the last couple of weeks and frankly that's my impression of him, too. I wish he and Donna Brazille would take their bags and join Lieberman.... I thought this was a hard hitting article saying much that needs to be said. I'm sick of the dissing of grassroots activists who worked their butts off for Kerry/Edwards and local candidates and who have been working since the 2000 selection to make the Progressive Internet GROW!

Steam comes out of my ears when I hear DLC'ers quoted dissing those out here working to get Dems elected. What do these DLC'ers have to crow about. They allowed Gingrich and the RWingers to steal the House and Senate since '94 because they wouldn't stand up...and then we've lost everything since then with the exception of Clinton because his personality got him re-elected in '96. Damned DLC'ers are scared shitless they won't have access to the K-Street goodies that the Repugs got...because the "Grassroots Activits" will work to get "K-Street" cleaned out of the Prostitutes and Whores! :banghead:

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

Quote from article:


What exactly does self-appointed congressional mega-celebrity and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emmanuel mean (says a friend of mine in congress of him: "He's an amoral, showboating cock") when he says, "Do I think and Al Sharpton are the future of the Democratic Party?"

[bigtree]

21. what DID Rahm Emmanuel mean by that quote about Sharpton?

:shrug:

[KoKo]

26. lol's..but at least Sharpton hasn't publically dissed grassroots, activist

Dems. Maybe you can pull a quote to refute that, though. :D

[DemPopulist]

28. I found the complete interview

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/19399/index.html">Q&A With Rahm Emanuel

It's a very short interview....I'm going to guess the reporter made some mention of Al Sharpton but it was edited out of the piece. There aren't too many Dems that bring up Al Sharpton without prompting.

On Rahm himself: I don't get all the people who complain about his abrasive, "showboating" persona, since they're typically the same people who've complained about the "wimpiness" of most Democrats. I actually agree with that complaint and say, "We need more assholes." But not Matt Taibbi. :)

[KoKo]

29. Check Again.....I went to the article you link and here's the quote:

Q: Are bloggers too powerful?

Do I think they’re important? Yes. Do I think the (bloggers) and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic Party? No! Welcome in, contribute, but it’s about winning in November and moving the country forward, not about a firing squad in a circle.

[DemPopulist]

31. Did you read what I wrote?

I'm going to guess the reporter made some mention of Al Sharpton but it was edited out of the piece.

They were talking about the Lieberman-Lamont race, which as you know, Al Sharpton was a part of at the very end. I can't imagine Rahm just brought Al up out of the blue. I also can't imagine that they only spoke for the two minutes or so conveyed by that article.

[bigtree]

34. what do you think he meant by that quote?

He's quite clearly says no, bloggers and Al Sharpton (alone) aren't the future of the Democratic Party.

I take that as Rahm putting his ass in my face.

[DemPopulist]

39. Uh, how?

Do you think bloggers and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic party? I don't.

[bigtree]

40. good for you

[KoKo]

44. Well then...what do YOU think is the future of the Dem Party?

:shrug: What?

[KoKo]

35. How was it "edited out" when I just posted the direct quote from the

link to the article you quote? :eyes:

[DemPopulist]

37. We obviously have a misunderstanding

I meant edited out of the New York piece, not Taibbi's article.

[KoKo]

42. huh? Taibi's article quotes the line? I don't get it.....n/t

[kenny blankenship]

17. "an essentially oligarchic system of government" like the rest of America

so why would this party act any differently?

[me b zola]

19. Here's a point that has not been lost on many of us...

(...)
What's amazing about the "firing squad in a circle" line is that it is inevitably used less than five seconds after the DLC speaker has just finished dumping on Michael Moore, peace activists, or whoever the party's talking-points-vermin of the day is (In this case, Sharpton and bloggers). He denounces Michael Moore as a disgrace to the party, then turns around and says that when we attack the party leadership, we're only hurting ourselves. These tactics are so transparent and condescending that one longs for some kind of cosmic referee to just drop down from the heavens and unilaterally disqualify their users on the grounds of their overwhelming general wrongness -- but the maddening thing about these DLC creatures is that that referee never arrives, and Al From is back on page one again the next day, shaking his head and grumbling piously about "unity" and "consensus" and "the lost art of bipartisanship."

[KoKo]

23. and I'll never forget Chuck Schumer's comment about Grassroots Activists

on the "Left" of the Party where he told a reporter "when they push ...we push back." It was disgusting. She had asked him how the Party felt about the anti-war activists on left of the party.

Showed what he thought of us...which is some of what Matt is getting at.

[autorank]

20. Your headline is just a degree short of totally perfect. K&R n/t

[Joanne98]

24. AMEN! Thank Gawd somebody finally said it out loud!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. But in All Fairness...

True - the candidacies may have been fixed.

But haven't they fought for us, the Middle Class? Haven't they aggressively ensured that we've shared in the wealth created by our labor? Haven't they stood firm when the Predator Class wanted to bust unions, offshore jobs, and drive down wages? Haven't they put their foot down when Bush declared himself absolute dictator, immune from any check or balance?

Come on people! Give them their due!

[bigtree]

36. there is a timidity that has clearly cut off our opposition at the knees

at key points in Bush's reign.

Court nominees, administration appointments, war funding, bankruptcy bill, health care givaways, Shiavo . . . etc. etc.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Bravest of the brave!

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

...

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge..

[Greyhound]

53. No, they haven't.

"But haven't they fought for us, the Middle Class?" - By decimating entire industries, allowing the importation of hundreds of thousands virtual slaves? Or subsidizing the export of millions of our jobs? By allowing their corporate masters to raid the pensions of workers, transfer the proceeds to the executives and then claim that they can't stay in business unless the government allows them to renege on their commitments?

"Haven't they aggressively ensured that we've shared in the wealth created by our labor?" - I have no idea what you could possibly be thinking on this point. They have done nothing that I can think of that would even remotely qualify as sharing the wealth created by our labor.

"Haven't they stood firm when the Predator Class wanted to bust unions, offshore jobs, and drive down wages?" - Again, what can you possibly be thinking? They enthusiastically supported, and even introduced many, legislation to hurt the unions ability to recruit new members, while simultaneously removing the few restraints that were in place on corporate union busting.

"Haven't they put their foot down when Bush declared himself absolute dictator, immune from any check or balance?" - Umm, have you been paying attention to what the cabal has been doing for the last 5 1/2 years?

Or did you just forget to include a sarcasm smiley? :wtf:

[dogday]

41. I do believe they will be aiming the guns

at Russ Feingold... They see a threat there...

[KoKo]

43. As "OTT" as Matt Taibbi is....I'll Give a Kick for GRASSROOTS DEMS!

Because that's what DU is all about!!! We fight, work for Dems and pass on info from links that support us. We are the "Internet/Activist Terrorists" that the DLC and those on the Right are SO ANGRY ABOUT.

If WE are OUT HERE...how can they "Pimp and Whore" as usual at the "Pig Tray" of GLOBALISM, Unfair TRADE POLICY and ENDLESS WAR as GROWTH!!!

[tomreedtoon]

48. Would have been good if Taibbi had named NAMES.

He only named one name. He described a lot of supposed quotes from DLC people, but they weren't from real people. It's all innuendo. It's like a Republican saying "Well, someone in Bill Clinton's cabinet was chatting about destroying the Twin Towers with Osama bin Laden the other day..." and refusing to give details.

Yeah, I agree that it happens, and that may very well be the DLC's attitude. But I'd be more impressed by this article if Taibbi had named names, dates and specific attributable quotes. Otherwise, he could just be mad at the DLC because they didn't send him a Christmas card. If this guy does write for the Rolling Stone, their standards for journalism and fact-checking have fallen off the edge of the earth.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. This is categorically bullshit. Taibbi is a joke of a "journalist"

"You decide on John Kerry two years before the presidential vote, raise him $200 million bucks, and let CNN and The New York Times take care of any Howard Deans who might happen to pop up in the meantime."

Really? Is that why the media declared Kerry's candidacy dead in the water right before the Iowa caucus? Is that why Dean raised more money than any other candidate? Is that why Dean was on the cover of Rolling Stone, Newsweek, and Time right before the Iowa caucus?

Lies, lies, and more goddamn lies. Taibbi is a piss poor excuse for a journalist, capable only of kool-kid posturing and stale attempts at wit, and this pile of garbage proves it. This piece is a slap in the fucking face to Iowa Democrats, who, contrary to Taibbi's holier-than-thou patronizing, are capable of thinking for themselves and chose the candidate they liked best. I suppose anyone who didn't support Dean isn't a "real voter"? Give me a fucking break.

[paulk]

51. great post, WEL

There's always plenty good money to be made stroking the kool aid krowd - left or right - as any ambitious, up and coming, "journalist" looking to make a name for himself knows.

[sandnsea]

52. That's a scary damned generation

The 80's generation was the most violent in their teens and still have no solution to anything except destruction. This incessant desire to destroy everything in their path, no matter what their political ideology, is a bigger problem than anything they are fighting against.

This guy is both wrong on the facts and wrong on his so-called solutions. I worry a whole lot more about what's coming up when these people start getting in power.

[Kurovski]

54. "...it used the commercial media to enforce its policy positions..."

[Senator]

55. Taibbi is far more correct than the Kerry Defenders

The simple reality is that the insiders beat back the outsiders in that battle. The morality of the tactics is largely a matter of opinion. But significant resources were applied, personal pressure was brought to bear, and the Euphemedia fully cooperated. There is no other way to characterize the 270-plus replays of the "crazyman scream" (lie) in less than 3 days.

Whether the Dems among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy selected Kerry two years out, or whether he simply was adopted as their clearly-preferred "anyone but Dean" option, is generally beside the point.

Also, the Iowa caucus (or any caucus) has very little to do with the "voters" in a party. It is more a control mechanism of the regular party apparatus. That doesn't make it a good or bad thing, just something to be taken for what it was. And "what it was" was the last, best opportunity to stop the deaniast movement from forcing the party to drop their silent complicity with stolen elections, war crimes, and self-serving ignorance-by-euphemism.

More recently, the similar battle over Lamont was won by the outsiders.

The battles will continue. Players (pols and pundits) will emerge, disappear, change sides, pretend to change sides, try to appease one side or the other, and/or try to sit on non-existent fences.

Fixating on one "hero" or another is more problem than solution.

---