The Democratic National Committee Is A Mess - And That's Not Good For The Party

 

I am a Democrat. I believe the Democratic Party has the solutions to make this country better for all of its citizens - both socially and economically. 

Currently, the party is not doing well. We lost the presidency and both houses of Congress in the last election. And most polls show Democrats faring as poorly as Republicans. It is imperative that this be changed. We must especially make it clear to working men and women that we still put their good before that of the rich.

But there is a problem with the organization that is supposed to build a stronger party - the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Instead of working together to grow the party and make it stronger, they seem to be engaged in partisan infighting.

Last February, the DNC elected a new chairman - Ken Martin of Minnesota. At the same time, some new officers were installed. One of these was David Hogg. Hogg is a young progressive who wanted to reach out to younger voters.

Hogg believes the party leaders are too old and don't represent younger voters as much as they should. He also said that he would use his Pac to support opponents to some elected Democrats in safe districts, because they are not fighting for constituents (or opposing Trump) as hard as they should - being more interested in just keeping their jobs.

That upset Martin and some other DNC members. They say the DNC should not interfere in party primaries, but remain neutral. Martin even claimed he couldn't do his job because Of Hogg and his supporters. That just sounds like a weak leader to me. The DNC should probably rethink it choice for chair.

Instead, they voted to have a new election for vice-chair - prerequisite for kicking Hogg out of his job. Hogg resigned. Now two at-large members (both union leaders) have resigned at DNC members - claiming the leadership is not acting to increase party membership.

I have to agree. If a DNC member wishes to remain neutral in primaries, that is their right. But it is also the right of any Democrats (including DNC members) to be active in party primaries (and support the candidacy of some running).

There are some elected Democrats who seem more interested in keeping their job for a lifetime than actually fighting for American citizens. Those should be opposed in their primaries - and kicked out of their jobs if the voters agree.

Frankly, I would have no problem with EVERY elected Democrats facing one or more primary opponents. If the party's voters think they are doing a good job, they will be reelected. If not, they would be defeated.

The neither the DNC nor party voters should be protecting Democrats in safe seats with a lifetime job. The party needs a youth injection - one provided by the voters.

The DNC needs to stop the infighting and do their job - growing the party and making it stronger. If they won't, the party's rank and file should choose new DNC members. 

Elizabeth Warren Tells A Blatant LIE About The DNC

I have always supported Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). She is a good progressive, and I agree with most of her stands on national policy -- especially economic policy.

But yesterday, she greatly disappointed me. On CNN, she said she thought the DNC had rigged the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016. She offered no proof of that ridiculous allegation. Evidently she based the allegation on excerpts from a book by Donna Brazile -- where she said that the DNC was a financial mess under Wasserman, and that Clinton has given a lot of money to the DNC to keep it solvent.

I don't see Clinton donating money to the DNC as proof that the primaries were rigged. Sanders could (and should) have also donated money to the DNC, but chose not to do so. That was his right. But accusing the DNC of rigging the election because they were helped financially by Clinton requires some proof of rigging -- and Sanders, Warren and Brazile have offered no proof. All they have is accusations.

I challenge them to name a single action the DNC took to help Clinton in the primaries. There was none. The DNC didn't do anything for Clinton that wasn't also done for Sanders. It didn't do any ads favoring Clinton. It never publicly endorsed Clinton, And it never took any action to rig any state's primary or caucus for Clinton. Clinton won the Democratic primary fair and square -- and she won because millions more Democrats wanted her as their candidate over Sanders.

Warren has deeply disappointed me with this spurious accusation against her own party. Unless she walks it back, and apologizes, I doubt I could ever cast a vote for her (if she was to run for president in 2020).

Congratulations To New DNC Chairman Tom Perez

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) finally has a new chairman. On Saturday, the DNC members elected Tom Perez (pictured) to lead them. It took two ballots between the leading candidates -- Tom Perez and Keith Ellison. On the second ballot, Perez received 235 votes (with 218 being required) and Ellison received 200 votes.

Perez is a solid liberal/progressive Democrat, with a long career in government service. He served as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights from 2009 to 2013, and as Secretary of Labor from 2013 to 2017.

In an effort to establish party unity, Perez's first action as DNC chair was to appoint Keith Ellison as his deputy chair.

Ellison's candidacy had been pushed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the party (even though Sanders still says he is not a Democrat). Will the Bernie-crats accept Perez as the party leader? I hope so. It's time for Democrats to come together to oppose Trump and his GOP Congress before they do serious damage to this country. We simply can't afford to further extend this party squabble.

Why Russia's Putin Has Acted To Support Donald Trump

(Cartoon image is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.)

On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, a series of e-mails from the Democratic National Committee was publicly released. They showed no wrong-doing by the committee, but did contain some stupidly embarrassing e-mails from some committee members (especially one from the chief financial officer). The release was obviously designed to hurt the candidacy of the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

We now know those e-mails were discovered when Russians hacked into the DNC computer. The question that brings up is -- why would the Russians want to hurt Clinton? Why would they want to interfere in the United States election? The obvious answer is they were trying to boost the candidacy of Donald Trump.

Some people posed that they wanted to help Trump because Trump has significant holdings in Russia, or that Russian investors have significant money invested with Trump in this country. The Trump campaign was quick to deny that. Personally, I think that was a straw man argument (probably designed by Trump supporters). If Trump does have holdings in Russia or Russian investors, I doubt making him president would help that (because he would need to divorce himself from his business interests if elected).

But that doesn't mean Russia doesn't have an interest in seeing Trump elected president. For one thing, Trump has expressed his admiration for Putin. It would not be wrong for Putin to think he could get along with Trump (and use him) better than he could with Hillary Clinton (who would continue the foreign policy of Barack Obama).

But perhaps the most important reason is Trump's attacks on NATO. Trump has said NATO is outdated, and even suggested that he would not act to defend some NATO countries (who he claims are not paying their share of the burden). That had to be music to Putin's ears.

NATO is the primary defense of Europe against Russian aggression, and Europe depends on the United States keeping its word and honoring the treaty. Hillary Clinton would do that. Donald Trump has said he might not. Donald Trump would make NATO weaker, and maybe useless.

That's the real reason Russia would act to help Trump -- because Trump admires Putin and does not believe in NATO. Trump would put Europe at the mercy of Russia.

DNC E-Mails Do NOT Prove The Election Was "Rigged"

The "Bernie or Bust" crowd is still trying to throw a monkey wrench into Hillary Clinton's campaign. They are now claiming that e-mails, released on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, show that the Democratic National Committee rigged the primary/caucus elections to defeat Bernie Sanders. That is simply NOT true.

The worst of the e-mails they could find was one from Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the DNC. That e-mail said:

"ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

The e-mail was undoubtably improper, and personally I think Marshall should probably be fired if he does not resign -- even though he has apologized for his stupidity. But the real question is -- did anyone from the DNC act on his ridiculous suggestion? And there is no evidence that anyone did.

The DNC members (and leaders) are good Democrats (which is why they hold the positions that they have, and they have as much right to hold a presidential preference as any other Democrat. What they do not have the right to do is use their position to help one candidate over another, or hurt any candidate. And there is absolutely no evidence that any DNC member, or the DNC as a whole, took any action to help or hurt any candidate.

The truth, whether the "Bernie Bros" will admit it or not, is that the DNC was fair to all candidates in the primaries/caucuses. They remained neutral, and took no action. Hillary Clinton won the nomination, not because the process was "rigged, but because millions more Democrats voted for her -- giving her many more delegates, and the nomination. She won fair and square.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (pictured), the head of the DNC, seems to be taking the brunt of the criticism -- even though she did not write the e-mail, it was not sent to her, and she took no action to favor or hurt either candidate. The "Bernie or Bust" crowd just demand a sacrificial lamb, and they have decided she should be it.

Fortunately, I think these whiners and sore losers are not indicative of most of Bernie Sanders' supporters. Most will support Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump -- as Bernie Sanders has made very clear that he does. Bernie Sanders, and most of his supporters, know that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country.

But that tiny minority seems to relish trying to tear down the Democratic Party and its candidate -- and that's sad. I challenge them to show one example of the DNC taking any action to hurt Bernie Sanders or help Hillary Clinton. It just didn't happen.

Bernie Is Trying To Bully Democratic Party And It Must Stop

The lady pictured here is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). All day long yesterday, the cable news networks were repeating a story that some Democrats in Congress were beginning to discuss how to remove her from her position with the DNC.

Why would they supposedly want to do that? To make peace with Bernie Sanders and his supporters -- in the hope of having a peaceful national convention, and unifying the party for the November election.

I call BULLSHIT!

Bernie Sanders has been trying to portray himself as a victim for months now. He wants people to think that the only reason he is not going to be the party's nominee is because the DNC has "rigged" the primary process to favor Hillary Clinton.

And the person he has demonized the most, because of her position as head of the DNC, is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He has portrayed her as being unfair, and doing all kinds of nefarious deeds to block his nomination. He has gone so far as to say he would remove her from her office if he became the nominee.

Well, he's not going to be the nominee. Hillary Clinton will be. And as the loser, Sanders has no right to pick the chair of the DNC, or remove the current chair. Sanders should be ashamed of the vicious attacks he has leveled against Wasserman Schultz. Neither she nor the DNC as a whole have done anything to hurt the candidacy of Sanders. They have been scrupulously fair to all candidates in the race. Washerman Schultz's (and the DNC's) job is to elect more Democrats at all levels -- and taking sides in the presidential contest wouldn't further that job.

Sanders knows he has lost the nomination. Now he is just trying to bully the Democratic Party into giving him what he wants. He has already been given more seats on the platform committee (and I have no problem with that, since a Sanders and Clinton platform would look much the same). But now he wants more. He wants to bully the party into giving him virtual control -- something he has not earned.

There are some fools in the party who are giving in to this bullying. They think the party cannot unify if they don't give in to Sanders' bullying, and are afraid progressives won't get back on board if they don't cater to Sanders' ridiculous demands. I disagree. I think it's time for Sanders to stop the bullying, and for some Democratic officials to grow a backbone.

Are progressives going to abandon the party if Sanders doesn't get what he wants? Do we even need Bernie Sanders to bring progressives back into the fold this November. I say the answer to both questions is NO.

There will be some die-hard "Bernie or bust" people who will stay at home or vote third party in November -- but there numbers are tiny. There are not enough of them to affect the election. Most progressives are smarter than that, and they understand that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country. They understand that Trump would be dangerous in foreign policy, and would undo many of the hard-won progressive advances this country has achieved in the last few years.

And the Democrats have a "secret weapon" to help those progressives come back home -- Elizabeth Warren. Warren has impeccable progressive credentials, and in fact, was the first choice of progressives to run for president. She remained neutral throughout the primary season, because she recognized that both Clinton and Sanders would pursue a progressive agenda if elected -- and that is what she wants most of all.

And Warren is a true Democrat, who will aggressively support the Democratic nominee. She has already started attacking Trump, and no doubt will continue her efforts to elect Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign season. And her advocacy will bring many progressives back on board.

Does the party need part-time Democrat Bernie Sanders? NO! Not as long as they have full-time Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Party leaders need to realize this, and stop giving in to the bully tactics of Sanders. And that includes going along with the demonizing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Third Democratic Debate Had The Largest Audience So Far

There have been a lot of accusations of favoritism leveled at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in this race for the presidential nomination. Many Sanders (and O'Malley) supporters claim the DNC wants Hillary Clinton to be the nominee -- and to further that they limited the debates to only six.

I've always thought that was a disingenuous argument. The DNC has no dog in this fight. Taking the side of any candidate can only hurt them, because it would anger the Democrats supporting other candidates -- and that could hurt the chances of down-ballot Democrats in November (as those people could be so angry they would stay at home or vote for a third party). While the DNC members may have their personal favorite, they are not about to let that affect how they manage the primary season -- because their job is to help Democrats across the country get elected. The DNC did't takes sides in 2008, and they haven't done it in 2016 either.

Limiting the debates to six did not show any favoritism either. Frankly, I don't know why any sane person would want to watch more than six debates (except maybe for die-hard supporters, and more debates won't change their minds).

Another argument of the whiners claiming favoritism is the fact that this last debate was scheduled on a Sunday night -- a time that they say most people won't (or can't) watch, supposedly to see their favorite candidate out-debate all the others. Nonsense. If we've learned anything in these debates, it's that all three candidates are excellent debaters -- and none of them is going to be "out-debated".

That argument was also exposed by the fact that the "hidden" Sunday night debate turned out to be the most watched Democratic debate so far (see the chart above). More than 10.161 million people watched the debate on NBC -- and another 1.2 million watched it on the internet (NBC.com or YouTube) or a mobile app.

The point is that anyone who wanted to see the debate watched it, and more than a half-million who couldn't watch it live, watched a rerun. There are just too many ways to watch a debate these technologically-advanced days (live or reruns) for any group to be able to "hide" a debate.

It's time to stop the crying and accusations of favoritism. We have three very good Democratic candidates -- and the DNC has been very fair in making it possible for all three to get their message out. I applaud the DNC for the job they have done.

Sanders Campaign Is Wrong In Claiming DNC Bias

(This photo of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is from CNN.)

When Bernie Sanders announced his bid for the Democratic nomination, he almost instantly got between 25% and 30% support from Democrats (mostly progressives). But the campaign has not been able to improve on that for several months now. Why? If you listen to the Sanders campaign and Sanders supporters, it is because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton -- and has rigged the primary election race to favor her.

They base this belief in bias on three factors. First, they say there haven't been enough debates scheduled for the Democratic candidates. I would have to disagree. There are six debates scheduled, and that should be plenty to allow Democrats to decide who they want to vote for. In fact, I doubt that most Democrats will watch more than two or three of the debates, knowing they will just hear a repeat of those arguments in the other debates.

Second, they say the debates have been scheduled at times when viewers will be busy with other things (such as last night's debate being scheduled on a Saturday). This is also a spurious claim. Those who are interested will watch the debate -- if not on Saturday night, then a rerun on TV or a replay of it on their computer. With today's technology, scheduling is not nearly as important as it has been in the past.

This belief by Sanders' staff and supporters seems to be because they believe he is a superior debater, and more debates scheduled at better times will bring Democrats flocking to his campaign. He is a good debater, but so is Hillary Clinton (a fact they refuse to accept). In fact, most Democrats who watched the first two debates have declared Clinton to be the winner of those debates. There is no rational reason to believe that more debates or scheduling debates at a different time will change that.

The other thing they point to is the DNC blocking the Sanders campaign from accessing the DNC computer for a couple of days this last week. What they won't admit is that it was a necessary action by the DNC in light of the data theft by the Sanders campaign. The Sanders campaign brought that on themselves with their unethical behavior in accessing information they had promised not to access. And that access to the DNC database has now been restored.

The DNC has been scrupulous in staying out of this primary race, and done their best to be fair to all the Democratic campaigns. Any claim to the contrary is simply not supported by the facts.

The DNC is not responsible for the failures of the Sanders campaign. Whether the Sanders campaign and supporters like it or not, the Democrats have just decided they do not want Bernie Sanders to be their candidate in the general election. The Democrats know who the candidates are (and what their beliefs are), and a clear majority has chosen to support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

Sanders Campaign Steals Data From The Clinton Campaign

The Sanders and Clinton campaigns both make use of the database provided by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). But they do not share information with each other. There is a firewall separating the information collected by the two campaigns, and both campaigns have agreed to abide by that separation.

Unfortunately, one campaign has now violated that trust.

That firewall was down for a short time recently, and realizing they could now have access to the Clinton campaign data, four Sanders staffers jumped on the unethical opportunity and ran at least 25 searches of the Clinton data. They built lists and saved them to their own accounts. This was not just some volunteers. The effort was led by Sanders campaign political data director Josh Uretsky.

The DNC data base provider realized what was happening after about 25 minutes, and deleted the information collected in accounts they knew about. The DNC has now suspended the Sanders campaign's access to the database until an audit can be done to insure they possess no data they should not have. The Sanders campaign has fired Uretsky, but isn't cooperating with the audit.

Instead, they have gone to court to have their access returned, and say the denial of access is just the DNC trying to give Clinton an advantage in the primary election. That is ridiculous. The DNC has been very careful to stay out of the campaign, and if it had been the Clinton campaign stealing data, they would have denied them access for an audit.

This was nothing short of theft, and it was done by only one campaign -- the Sanders campaign. It cannot be fixed by blustery rhetoric or accusations. They need to apologize and give the DNC what it needs to clear up the situation and restore access.

Sanders has bragged since getting into the presidential race that he plans to run the most ethical campaign of any candidate of any party. Sadly, it looks like some of his employees don't have that same high ethical standard. They seem to think that anything goes as long as they think it will help their candidate. I can understand their frustration over Sanders being unable to turn the race into a real contest, but frustration doesn't justify theft or dirty tricks -- and their unethical actions tend to smear the entire campaign effort.

This mess will undoubtably come up in tonight's Democratic debate. I hope Sanders doesn't try to play it off as the DNC unfairly trying to help Clinton. If he does, I'll lose a lot of the immense respect I have for him.

(The caricatures above of Sanders and Clinton are from DonkeyHotey.)

Republicans Still In Financial Trouble

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has a new chairman (Reince Priebus) but it looks like their financial problems continue to plague them. The former chairman, Michael Steele, had proved to be a failure at both raising and spending party funds, and had left the party at least $21 million in debt after the recent elections. This marked the first time the RNC, which has been very good at fund-raising in the past, entered a new electoral period that deeply in debt.

The party had hoped that removing Steele from his leadership position would spur donations and help them to climb out of debt. So far that isn't happening. The party was able to raise $5.2 million in February, but they spent $5.3 in that month (slightly more than a million of which was spent to pay down the debt). But they still finished the month with the same amount of debt -- $21 million. That's because they found about a million in debt they weren't aware of. They finished February with $2.1 million in the bank.

Meanwhile the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is not only in better financial shape, but continues to outraise the RNC in political donations. The DNC raised $7.1 million in February -- about $1.9 million more than the RNC. They spent $5.7 during the month ($1 million of which was to repay debt). They finished the month with $17.9 million of debt and currently have $10.5 million in the bank.

If the Democrats are going to be able to compete in the 2012 elections they need to keep out-raising the Republicans. That's because many corporate moguls (like the Koch brothers) have shown they are willing to spend big money to help the Republicans. This corporate spending gives the Republicans a big money edge, even though the RNC seems unable to get a handle on its financial problems.