The Case Against Simon Rosenberg

There have been many names mentioned in the articles about DNC chair, so many you begin to realize that reporters just start naming people whose resume could simply get them a job at the DNC. But who actually wants the job and is seeking it out? The buzz in DC is those people are a select few, that doesn’t include Harold Ickes ... but does include the result of the Kerry/Pelosi/Reid meeting - Gov. Shaheen. I will get to Shaheen later, but, one of the the people who definitely wants the job is the founder and chair of the New Democratic Network - Simon Rosenberg.

He should not get it.

I like Simon Rosenberg and I have met him on more than one occasion but despite his quick moves to embrace the blogosphere (like bringing on Matt Stoller as an NDN Blogger) he is not the man the grassroots should want for the job. He is still not firm against the President’s war and the GOP has a lot of firepower if he becomes Chair. Staying at NDN, and being a reasonable answer to the DLC is definitely a better job for Rosenberg and his staff.

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.

Sadly, he has many more statements that can be used to handicap the Democratic Party. In the end the RNC will be able to neuter Rosenberg as the mouthpiece of our party and; close friend of mine here in DC said “they will turn him into another yippy dog.”

In contrast NDN’s project with Hispanics and online work is important for the party and must be continued. Rosenberg has the ability to be very effective at NDN in shaping the future and direction of our party and our ability to reach a wide subset of voters. I believe Rosenberg should stay at the NDN were he can stay a more effective force in our party.

Comments

[Need Some Wood]

Who do you think would be better?

[Howard Beale]

Dean, baby, Dean

[Jeremy]

Howard Dean is really the best choice for the chari to energise the party and signal a change. I can not believe Mcauliffe has been asked to stay on since he has been in charge we have lost more and more seats. We need someone that is passionate and willing to crack the whip and get the party in line speaking with one voice. I really think Dean could do that.

[Joanna]

Howard Dean is the only one who truly understands what needs to be done and how to do it.

[A supporter of Donnie Fowler for DNC Chair]

Donnie Fowler.

http://www.changetheparty.com

[Patricia Gracian]

DEAN!!!!!

[Roxanne Smith]

If they chose anyone but Dean, they can't count on me and a bunch of people like me. I'm tired of, and I've got better thing to do with my time than support the insiders at the DNC and their loser policies. Barak Obama and Dean are two only two inspiring people in the democratic party right now. If the DNC and ABBD crowd had chosen to support Dean instead of Kerry this time last year we wouldn't be stuck with four "moron" years of Bush. Senator Schumer, who I usually like, has even put forth a proposal to have Terry McAuliffe stay another year until they can find someone. McAuliffe has lost two presidential elections and we lost seats in congress every e;ectopm somce McAuliffe took over. So here's a great idea let's get him to stay another year or two. How crazy is that?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I tink that sums up the DNC.

[nate]

DEAN

[Jeff Boatright]

FWIW, Dean.

[Helena Kay]

After watching the nominees for DNC chair, Howard Dean emerges as the leading contender in my opinion. He knows what needs to be done. Particularly, we need to run a campaign for four years not just six months. He made other statements that are right on.

[paul k-dc]

Dean is the FIRST ONE to stand up against the war in Iraq. Only after the other candidates saw that this position was a "popular one", did they follow course. Dean is the FIRST ONE to reach lots of new voters via the internet and raise $$$. Hey, why not pick a guy with vision and actual experience?

[jannycrow]

Dean in the only credible choice. We have already seen what apeasement gets us. Right now we have only to convince 3 million people to come over to democracy. If we do as the other side is suggesting we will lose all the millions you did vote for democracy. Pandering to an agenda defined by the enemy will only result in the end of the democratic party. Keep the heat on...Dean has the integrity, ability, imagination and independance to re-claim the party.

[Drew Nogopostal]

Dean for DNC....however,; We must alter the State Party as well...that WILL be happening here in Colorado..find out how you can do it in your State...

[josh]

dean is a horrendous choice, and i'll get to why in a second. first, mcauliffe was a better chair than most gives him credit for, and he's not responsible for the dems losing in 2004 (he wasn't chairman during gores embarrassing run). a chairman is responsible not for the ideas of a party as some seem to think, but the infrastructure of it...registering voters, communication, turnout, candidate selection, etc. anyone who thinks the dems don't need to copy the gop in this regard is insane. dean was not responsible for the so-called "revolutionary" aspects of his presidential campaign, but merely a beneficiary of them. anyone who doesn't know that should do a little research. also, why, when their party has the stink of defeat and dissaray would they put someone in as chair whose image personifies just that? this is a guy who had the nomination wrapped up and then proceeded to destroy himself not gradually, but in almost one gigantic explosion. being against the war isn't something the dems should continue to harp on since that decision was made long ago and continue to have a debate on it makes them look out of touch. one of the big things that cost kerry is he didn't really know what he would do with iraq. rosenberg is the best choice among those running, but i agree there is no obvious choice. if the party continues down this path, which is one of denial, then it will be out of power longer than they otherwise could be.