David Sirota imagines himself the next great strategist of the Democratic Party and he points to his work for Montana Governor Brian Schwietzer as his masterpiece while attacking Rahm Emanual for not having clear positions on issues
Out here in Red America, we live in a place seemingly unknown to people like this in Washington: it’s called reality. And we have a name for talk like that: it’s called B.S. Because here’s what Emanuel never seems to answer: how is someone “tough” if they are so wimpy as to refuse to push their party to take clear contrasting positions on the most important issues facing America? What “ideas” that matter is Emanuel proposing? What position on key issues shows Democrats really represent serious “change” from Republicans? And are Democrats like Emanuel so arrogant/elitist to think that the American public doesn’t inherently understand that all this rhetoric hides the fact that the party still is afraid of its own shadow?
As I have written before, Democrats right now have no official position on Iraq, energy, bankruptcy, protecting citizens’ legal rights, trade, repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the Supreme Court…and the list goes on.
Because you know what really gets lots of votes–long policy papers. Yep, kills the other guy every fucking time. And, there’s no one like Sirota to be talking about Red America because, you know, he’s lived there for so long….
Before Sirota’s book project, Sirota was a fellow at the Center for American Progress. Before that, he was the chief spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, and before that, the spokesman for Congressman Bernie Sanders, the House’s longest-serving independent. In 2000 and 2004, Sirota did press work for Brian Schweitzer, now the governor of Montana. Sirota lives in Helena, Montana with his wife. For more info on how to reach him, see his website at
In fact, that’s why Brian Schweitzer won isn’t it?
Actually, no. Schweitzger won exactly because he didn’t bother with long policy papers–he talked about values and put his arguments in terms of values. He didn’t attack the natural gas industry with a policy broadside, Schweitzer attacked the industry as being a threat to Montana values.
In These Times and the Nation are great opinion journals, but they aren’t going to win anyone the majority.
Your post is hilarious…who said anything about “long policy papers?” That’s called “creating a straw man” – because I sure as hell didn’t. Having a “clear position” on an issue means “not having a long complex policy paper.” It means being able to sum up a position in one sentence – which Democrats are unable to do on most major issues.
Sorry to see you ripping on Schweitzer and his campaign team who won a red-state through strategies you clearly don’t get. But don’t let your lack of understanding transform into aimless, pointless attacks at straw men. It just makes you look idiotic.
Oh yeah, one other thing – I certainly don’t “imagine myself to be the next great strategist of the Democratic Party.” I am an author, and a progressive political operative – but I’m not angling to be the next James Carville.
That said, I would remind you not to throw stones from glass houses. I’ve been working on campaigns for a while now. And while I am certainly not the most successful campaign guy out there, I have been intimately involved in at least two major races (one congressional one gubernatorial) where we took a red seat and turned it blue. So that ought to count for something more than being called “clueless” – especially in an era where turning blue seats to red seats is so rare.
Here’s the thing. Frankly, I’m not sure you know how or why Schweitzer won, just like I’m not sure I’m the person to ask about Obama’s victory.
You want a non-Sirota take on why Schweitzer won from someone who covered the race and later helped out with independent expenditures on it?
Here’s mine:
Now, these weren’t white papers, but they were policy positions and no one ever doubted that Schweitzer had ideas for government.
Hell, one of the biggest things the Montana Democrats point to as key to their rebound was the creation of something like a 19-point economic development plan.
Your white paper might not win you an office. Showing that you’ve got a plan just might.
As for the natural gas industry, I’m not sure exactly what you’re talking about, whether it’s CBM or cyanide heap leach mining that you’re trying to get at. Or are you discussing the recent gas(oline) price gouging?
Heap leach mining was scorned by Schweitzer, deservedly (it went down 42-58 at the polls). On CBM, Schweitzer’s message was, “Do it right.”
But, hey, what would I know about this whole ordeal in Montana? I just live here.
===That said, I would remind you not to throw stones from glass houses. I’ve been working on campaigns for a while now. And while I am certainly not the most successful campaign guy out there, I have been intimately involved in at least two major races (one congressional one gubernatorial) where we took a red seat and turned it blue. So that ought to count for something more than being called “clueless” – especially in an era where turning blue seats to red seats is so rare.
And apparently you want to go back the other way:
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/07/which-of-15-dem-sellouts-should-start.html
Melissa Bean was elected in what was previously the most Republican district in Illinois–it’s been surpassed by the 19th now. I suppose by your purity tests, we’d be better off with Phil Crane or David McSweeney?
===Sorry to see you ripping on Schweitzer and his campaign team who won a red-state through strategies you clearly don’t get. But don’t let your lack of understanding transform into aimless, pointless attacks at straw men. It just makes you look idiotic
I’m not bagging on Schweitzer, I’m bagging on you.
===.” It means being able to sum up a position in one sentence – which Democrats are unable to do on most major issues.
Like Culture of Corruption? You are attacking the guy running the DCCC with an actual message for the first time in years. And despite Bean and a few others, it attacked CAFTA. It’s been strong on Social Security.
What you are asking for is a long laundry list of issue positions that not all Democrats agree upon and yet insist that your issues are the way to win. Yet Republicans never won with such laundry lists. One can try and point to something like the Contract on America, but that was largely a document that dealt with the institution–and not a long list of issues on which Republicans can’t agree fully.
You’ve confused how a single candidate wins with how a national campaign body for Democrats for Congress wins. Emanuel is trying to drive a message on which Democrats agree, not highlight the differences.
For a guy who claims to be a born again state’s is where the action is, you are missing one of the most successful models in the country for retaining a legislature–Mike Madigan’s in Illinois—and for your information, Madigan has seldom used a centralized issue to run his Members on–in fact, he’s known for targeting races very specific to the district instead of taking broad policy stances.
You might notice that with Mike Madigan leading the way Illinois has had a string of progressive victories on policy the last three years. It’s not a coincidence that Rahm cut his teeth there.
In defense of the guys out west, I would say that Madigan’s opponents haven’t been the most impressive bunch which has made Madigan’s success much easier. The same can’t be said at the national level.
I use to run with some Big Sky Democrats back in the early 90’s. One was in the statehouse leadership I believe. He also ran for governor. We served together at the Guard Bureau and became friends. I also worked with the MT Governor Scweitzer’s office earlier this year on a Medicaid bed tax issue that the Dem. Gov. wanted to veto. My fundraising director was visiting the state and the nice lady — I think she was General Counsel — told me to have him stop by the Capitol to meet the Governor. (We ain’t Illinois anymore).
My experience with Montana has been that their democrats are often to the right of Illinois republicans. Does ideological split at all play into your discussion?
I think Larry is dead on in his comments about disagreements in the democratic party and that you can’t unite around a list of issues a la a Contract for America.
The Democratic party has pretty much become a bunch special interests all seeking money and power from Government. When resources get tight, you pretty much feast on one another. It’s easier for a lot, but not all Republicans, to agree on a host of issues because they usually, but not always, center around getting government out of our lives.
The national leadership on the left has purposely rejected ideas — as has the grass roots. In sum, Rahm and AP are doing the best they can with the cards they are dealt.
And oh, I agree with the statement that Montana is in the real world, however the Democrat party isn’t.