I love Jon Keller because he always knows how to press my buttons, God bless ‘im … First, I’m sure YearlyKos attendees David and Bob would be amused to hear themselves called “The ideologues who flock to the most polarizing, ultra-partisan corners of political life”. YEAAAAAAARGH! Wow, there’s a low price of entry to that particular club. Here I was, thinking they were just garden-variety liberals.
In any event, I’d like to know exactly what problem Jon has with this Daily Kos post, about the DLC’s attempts to nose into the Democratic tent. Is there anything factually wrong about that post? What’s missing? What’s your beef?
The DLC doesn’t want a victorious Democratic Party unless such victories happen using their formula. We’ve been there, done that, and it simply didn’t work. Even working out of their own playbook, we couldn’t get that magical majority of the popular vote. We lost control of the House and the Senate. Things truly seemed hopeless. We as a movement sprung from those failures.
So we arrived on the scene. We didn’t flinch from our position on the war. We held the line on social security, even as the Very Serious People told us it was irresponsible. We championed Dean when we were told it would kill the party. We championed Lamont when we were told it would cost us the Senate. We celebrated Nancy Pelosi when we were told we would be demonized as “San Francisco liberals”.
And we won in 2006. And we didn’t eeke out a victory, but won a wave election. And yes, we won the popular vote in 2006. (54-42 in the Senate, 54-46 in the House, and 56-44 in governor races.)
Pretty straightforward to me. What am I missing? (A TV show.)
It’s just a simple fact that bears repeating: While nostalgia-mongering pundits like Jon love to talk about Clinton as the great DLC triumph, somehow they seem to forget the ugly trend of congressional defeats from 1994 to 2004. OK, we got Clinton … and Newt Gingrich. And Tom Delay. And Trent Lott. And Bill Frist. Was that a good trade? What was the DLC’s response to that? Did they lead us to smashing victories cycle after cycle?
No? Well, maybe we can talk about other strategies, already.
Jon doesn’t actually mention the Yearly Kos convention — his beef (at least in that post) is with one specific post by kos himself. And I have no doubt that, if asked, Jon would agree that Yearly Kos was attended by an eminently respectable bunch — none of these left-wing loonies in attendance there! đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Hmmm, now let’s make an edit.
<
p>
<
p>
Do you still find Kos’s statement to be straightforward?
<
p>
I carry no water for the DLC, but they are Democrats.
For once Id agree with Kos on an issue (that quote was from his presentation no?). Al From vigorously defended the Iraq War and visciously attacked Howard Dean in 2004. Ronald Reagan once said that the golden rule is never attack a fellow Republican no matter how much you disagree with him. Ditto the Dems. Clearly in attacking Dean he cared more about winning with triangulation, pro-business, pro-war, Republican-lite politics than with winning period. Even Grover Norquist would not attack a GOP frontrunner during the primary season just to make a point, and he has tried to unseeat every “RINO moderate” from Chaffee to Spector just to make a point.
<
p>
That said in my view Kos can be just as bad, he’d rather win with the looney left than with the moderates, he’d rather win with the netroots and grassroots than with traditional campaigns, but as evidenced by his support for Stephanie Herseth, Brian Schwitzer, and even big old Ben Nelson at the end of the day he’d rather win than lose, I am not sure sure about From.
<
p>
I think From secretly delights when liberals lose since it confirms his worldview. That said the influence his organization ever had beyond the Clintons was always negligible. Id say Simon Ronsebergs New Democrat Network is a much more savvy moderate response to Kos. And Rosenberg is willing to sacrifice his own ideology for party unity. From has even endorsed real Republican-lites such as Collins and Snowe.
I hadn’t heard that; that’s pretty awful.
<
p>
I would just point out that a LOT of people attacked Dean, some of them fairly liberal.
<
p>
I refuse to accept Kos’s premise, though. The DLC would prefer Guiliani to, say, Obama? That just doesn’t hold water.
<
p>
All this said, I don’t think any extra-party organization is needed to respond to Kos; he has his view, that’s fine. I said this yesterday, but we’re all in this together.
Kos championed Tester early and pushed Webb hard.
<
p>
These guys are not exactly liberals.
Kos (and I use the name meaning the influence wielded by his site, not just his personal preference) wants to see Democrats elected and in power. In seats where he has a choice between a progressive Dem and a conservative Dem, he’s going to favor the progressive. In seats where a grassroots Dem is challenging an “establishment” Dem (and the political dynamics are, more often than not, progressive v. moderate), he’ll go for the grassroots candidate.
<
p>
But when it’s a moderate or conservative Dem versus a Republican of any stripe, he has the sense to see that there’s more at stake than a single seat. We may like our moderate R friends, but so long as they’re in office, that’s one vote against our control of the legislature. Chafee seemed sweet and all, but Whitehouse was part of getting us the Senate.
<
p>
And when it comes down to it, the editors and readers of Kos understand that there’s no single formula that will win every campaign. Of course they support grassroots efforts, because they believe that tapping into the people that you’re trying to win over is the best way to win. But they readily acknowledge that the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC all played a role in the takeover of 2006.
<
p>
Sure, he’d rather win with the looney left candidates. So would I, frankly. But in cases where that isn’t an option and control of the House or Senate is on the line, Kos and I will take the Dem who can win the seat.
Eury13’s reading of The Great Orange Satan, as Atrios affectionately calls him, matches my reading.
The Kos/Armstrong book Crashing the Gate is also a good read to get a sense of their overarching campaign philosophy, and it lays out why they find the DLC so ineffective.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether a critical re-examination of that book now wouldn’t be interesting and useful.
Ironic that you’re invoking a rule that “dems shouldn’t attack dems” — and defending Kos with it.
<
p>
Kos’s whole raison d’etre is that he’s delighted to attack other Dems.
Sure, he’s delighted to attack other Dems, when he feels that they aren’t being good Dems. As are we, for the most part (as Rep. Donato has come to learn…)
<
p>
But his reason for being is the same as most of us who get involved in politics: because we have a vision for what our town/state/country can be and we believe it isn’t currently living up to that potential.
In its opposition to other Democrats, the DLC has been pretty toxic to the Democratic brand as a whole.
<
p>
Charley would never do that.
That wasn’t my point; my point is that Kos’s statement is incendiary, not straightforward.
<
p>
I don’t know if I’d go as far as toxic, but like I said, I am not a fan of the DLC.
Maybe accurate, too. Unfortunately.
<
p>
Marshall Witman (the former Bull Moose) now on their staff formerly worked for the Democratic Senator from Arizona John McCain. Their loyalty to things Democratic does not run deep whereas Kos has been shepherding folk into the party for years.
My suspicion, though, is that the DLC does not really have much of a following. The anti-populist positioning (pro-NAFTA for example) does not resonate among broad swaths of the Democratic Party. Their message is too nuanced between the GOP and the mainstream Democrats to have much appeal.
I’d go futher — I don’t think they ever had much influence. Bill Clinton made deft use of their earlier members, like Sam Nunn, to boost his profile. But if he had lost, you’d never have heard of the DLC again.
<
p>
And that’s why it’s so annoying to me when people ascribe conspiracies to them. They have no power to do anything except get press.
<
p>
Press and funding: they also seem to be a magnet for corporate funding.
<
p>
The DLC has too much of that contrarian appeal beloved of TV producers. (“Vegetarian eats entire cow — raw!” “Virgin Mary appears to Imam.” “Democrat praises Reagan.”) Just as before Lamont, it was hard to get Lieberman off the television, so too is it hard to keep From and friends off the editorial pages.
Good heavens, KB, was that cow-eating vegetarian a real headline? Maybe it was a cow made of soy or something.
Kos made a statement about the DLC, that I happen to think is correct.
<
p>
You made “an edit” that turns it into the same statement about Charley, and from what I’ve seen of Charley, I think that statement is incorrect. It does not apply to Charley.
<
p>
But either way, I can’t fathom why you’d think that sheds any light on kos’s statement. Whether Charley is or is not fairly characterized by the second statement doesn’t have any bearing on whether the DLC is or is not fairly characterized by the first.
<
p>
I believe that Kos is right. The DLC does not want Democrats to win through anyone else’s formula, only through its own. They desperately want their formula (which they think of as “centrism”, though it isn’t really) to be right, and fear anything that might show it up. They’re in active denial about the fact that they have been shown up, and because of that, they’re steadily losing relevance. Which is just fine with me – it means we get to pay less and less attention to them.
<
p>
None of which applies to Charley.
Kos’s statement was defamatory, not what I consider straightforward. In retrospect, I probably jumped the gun, taking straightforward to mean objective. Charley likely meant it literally, which means I really did hijack the thread.
<
p>
And again, there’s no mark against Charley in my book; I was just “transferring” the statement to make a point about how defamatory it was.
It seemed like a reasonable question to me and I enjoyed disagreeing with its premise.
I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. I didn’t even see Keller, and I agree with you. He’s so smarmy.
Hijack more threads. It was a good exchange IMHO.
OK
<
p>
Huh? Republicans are attacking Mitt Romney not for his “restraint” but because he’s radically changed his position on almost every single issue important to them, from one pole to the other, in a fairly short time, and as a result they see him as someone who just says what he thinks people want to hear so that they’ll vote for him, and they don’t trust him. I don’t see anything extreme about that. Ironically, Republican right-wing extremists are more sensible on this point than Keller is.
…whre Mitt was explaining that he didn’t break the promise to Mass. voters not to change abortion laws despite his own convictions. This Iowa idiot suggested that Mitt missd the boat in not declaring a theocracy when he won and to hell with promises.
<
p>
Note – it isn’t ‘Republicans’ attacking as you say, but just this one.
<
p>
Such a selective use of “we were told.”
<
p>
I thought mostly Kos was doing most of the telling, predicting that Dean and Lamont would win. No?
<
p>
Cmon, there was a long string of failed Kos-backed candidacies since the site’s inception.
<
p>
Then 2006, with Bush approval at such shocking lows, and everyone with a “D” claims they engineered it, from Schumer to Rahm to Kos to Dean.
<
p>
I mean: was it BMG that drove Patrick to a landslide victory, or the $2 million from the teachers union (well spent, I must concede, they’re getting a 1000x return on that investment), or the strategist who doubles for Obama….or was it a little bit of all of them plus mostly that Healey was an impossibly weak candidate in an election where all Republicans were weak?
<
p>
It’s the same unanswerable question every election: whichever side wins, both the wing and the centrists claim credit; whichever side loses, the wing says “we didn’t hold true to our values, we were the other side lite” and the centrists say “see, we told you, we’re out of the mainstream.”
That tipped the balance đŸ˜‰
<
p>
As we all know, however, success has many parents and failure is an orphan.
<
p>
The most interesting point of all, I think, is that slowly but surely blogs are starting to set more and more of the political agenda — as evidenced in some tiny measure by Keller’s post. The MSM and the powers that be are still very much in the driver’s seat, in my opinion, but the “internets,” or “people powered politics,” or whatever one wants to call it, are steadily shouldering their way to the table.
Actually, Kos’ predictions have tended to be pretty dour. He was very slow, for example, to have guessed that Democrats would take the House in 2006.
IIRC, he was more optimistic in 2004. I seem to remember him explaining his dour expectations in 2006 based on overestimating in 04 [and perhaps 02, 00, but I’m not as sure about that].
Kos:Democrats::Sabutai:Red Sox
<
p>
I still think they’ll lose the division.
With 49 left to play.
Regarding Keller, recognize that he has been hired by Sumner Redstone (Viacom, owner of CBS) to provide filler between commercials. Nothing more, nothing less. Why anyone pays attention to what Keller says is something of a mystery to me.
<
p>
Kos’s whole raison d’etre is that he’s delighted to attack other Dems.
<
p>
Let’s put this in perspective. Actually, Kos is using his web site to sell his campaign services. That is why he is delighted to attack other Dems who happen to be in office. He’s a salesman. Nothing more, nothing less, and the product that he is selling is–himself.
IIRC, kos has not been on any campaign’s payroll since Howard Dean. He makes plenty of money from his site, and it’s easier work that gives him lots of time to spend with his wife and kid. If I’m wrong, feel free to provide a link proving it.
And they both courted Warner when he was planning to run in 08 for blog services. Certainly DailyKos is unique because it was powered by the entroots and furstration but one cannot argue that Kos is using the blog to enrich himself and become a player in the party. Hence the KosConvention what other convention is named after an individual?
has nothing to do with kos. And I do not think he’s on the Edwards payroll, but feel free to correct me with a link. Don’t just say stuff.
<
p>
Is kos using his blog to “enrich himself”? Well, sure, just like anyone uses their occupation to enrich themselves. It’s how he makes his living. Do you have a problem with that?
<
p>
I agree that naming the convention “Yearly Kos” is a bad idea. The convention has nothing to do with Daily Kos or with kos himself (except that he allowed them to use his handle), and the name just created confusion (as well as a big opportunity for Bill O’Reilly, of which he took full advantage). Fortunately, this was the last “Yearly Kos” convention. Next year it will be called “Netroots Nation” — a much, much better name.
It was announced this year that this was the last one to be named YearlyKos – next year’s convention will be called Netroots Nation. See this post for more info:
<
p>
http://yearlykosconv…
<
p>
And the fact is, Kos doesn’t have to “become a player in the party” – Kos IS a player in the party, and he has been for quite a while.
Gee – does that apply to Mike Wallace, the CBS news staff, and Bob Schieffer, too?
<
p>
This idea that media magnates control media content is silly. You just didn’t whine when it was Bill Paley.
<
p>
Once again – magnates would tolerate 24/7 horoscope and tarot readings if ad revenue remained stable. They really don’t want to micromanage content – but they DO want high ratings.
Gee – does that apply to Mike Wallace, the CBS news staff, and Bob Schieffer, too?
<
p>
I’m not exactly sure what your point is supposed to be, but, as the WSJ told me two decades ago, in an advertising driven medium, the advertisers are the customers, not the listeners or the viewers. The stuff between the advertisements is what gets the listeners/viewers to stay around for the ads. I had believed that I had explained that more than a few times even here on this weblog. Keller is nothing more than the “carny barker” for the advertisers of CBS4.
<
p>
BTW, You just didn’t whine when it was Bill Paley. Are you another one of those wingnuts who pretend to read minds? How do you pretend to know what I was doing as a teen-ager in the 1960s? I have encountered so many wingnuts who pretend to know what I believe, how I voted, and what I did as a teenager 40 years ago.
<
p>
Re David @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:38:02 AM EDT He (KOS) makes plenty of money from his site so tell me, how does one make money off a web site? I’ve never believed the Google business model, and this advertising-driven medium (see above) appears to be like a house of cards. The bigger fool theory. Like antique dealers that we visited in the early 1980s.
he sells ads (via blogads, not Google). At present, ads on Daily Kos cost $9,000 a week for the premium spot, $7,000 a week for the no. 2 spot, and $3,275 a week for the standard slot. Right now he’s got 2 premium ads ($18,000) and 6 standard ads ($19,650) running. That’s $37,650 for one week. Pretty good money. He’ll ride it out for as long as it lasts. If it dries up, he’ll do something else, but it doesn’t look like he’ll need to anytime soon.
Pretty good money. He’ll (Kos) ride it out for as long as it lasts.
<
p>
…why would anyone want to pay to advertise on his web site? I, for one, never look at the ads on any of these blogs (I know where they are, even on your blog here, and I scroll past them) and it seems to me as being a bit of a silly business model. I don’t even look at the ads on google, even though I make use of their search engine.
<
p>
Paid subscriptions (re JohnT001 below), now that’s a different thing.
you’ll have to ask his advertisers that one! One could similarly ask, in the age of TiVo and DVRs, why companies spend far more money on TV ads that many viewers — particularly those in desirable demographics — skip. I’m no ad exec, so I can’t speak to studies or whatever that justify the $$ spent either on blog ads or on TV and print ads. I just know that, at the moment, kos is more or less raking it in. And even BMG, which sells far fewer ads than kos and charges orders of magnitude less for them, is able to fund trips to YearlyKos and the like through ad sales. So no complaints here!
…Kos grosses about $50,000 per month in advertising revenues and paid subscriptions – he gets lots of eyeballs every day, and every page has multiple ads on it unless you’re a paying subscriber. He also has significant expenses, a couple of years ago he admitted to spending upwards of $7,000 per month just on his hosting bill, and I’m sure that’s gone up since then. Where’s his bottom line? He’s very comfortable, I’m sure…