Doug Ireland has done a mixed job covering the DNC chair race (his previous article inexplicably spoke of the NDN as a DLC front group, which I'm sure comes as surprising news for both Simon Rosenberg and Al From), but his latest post, "Dean Wraps It Up", strikes me as about right, unfortunately.
Dean enthusiasts are going to be in for a very rude awakening when they discover the DNC's irrelevance in setting the party's message and policy agenda. For the moment, the people to keep an eye on are Pelosi and Reid, both of whom progressives have good reason to be ambivalent towards.
Meanwhile, we need to keep an eye out for good presidential material. As the Dean campaign showed, early grassroots support from progressives can define the primary race. Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, and Biden are all totally unacceptable as political incompetents with blood on their hands when it comes to Iraq. Russ Feingold, who I'm increasingly drawn to, is making noises and being talked about.
Apparently Bill Frist has already announced he's not running for re-election to the Senate in 2006 (which almost certainly means he's running for president in 2008), and Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Memphis) is planning to run for the open seat.
Ford has gotten a lot of fawning press, partly for his speeches at the last two national conventions (Paul Waldman's post today is a good example).
I'm not so enthusiastic. Ford voted for the war in Iraq and the $87 billion supplemental. He's not only a card-carrying New Democrat (in other words, directly affiliated with the DLC), but he's also a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats who frequently abandon their caucus in casting votes. All this despite the fact that he represents a strongly Democratic district.
Yes, he gives a great speech and does well on T.V. But is it too much to ask for Democratic "rising stars" who are actually loyal to their party?
I recently heard a fellow Seattle native who lived in D.C. for a few years remark that one of the things he disliked most about it is that it's filled with so many talented, politically effective people who don't give a damn about the city itself, which is one of the poorest and most decayed in the nation. And that includes a lot of Democrats.
Today, Josh Marshall provides us with a case in point, pointing with apparent approval to Drop Cropp, an effort to recall the city council president for her role in stopping the recent baseball deal there. Or, more precisely, insisting that at least half the funding for a new stadium come from private sources.
Good for her. Washington D.C. lost its only public hospital three years ago for lack of funds. Its library system is among the most underfunded in the country. The size of its homeless population is a national shame. The infant mortality rate there (14.2 deaths per 1,000 live births, according to the CDC), is the second-highest in the country and higher than much of the third world. Much of the most valuable real estate in the city is federally-owned and hence exempt from local property taxes, which severely limits the city budget (which, as with all city legislation, is subject to amendment by Congress any time it chooses); sales tax in the city is already 10%. This is not a city which has a half-billion dollars lying around to spend on a new baseball stadium, of all things. For a fuller argument covering the specifics of the deal, see former-mayor Marion Berry's recent op-ed in the Washington Post.
"Drop Cropp" is a project of Grassroots Enterprise, a Democratic web firm headed up by Mike McCurry, Clinton's former press secretary. So there's no doubt this is a serious, well-organized effort (likely by a bunch of affluent white Democrats) to flood Councilmember Cropp with outraged e-mails.
Here's the appreciative e-mail I'm sending her (lcropp@dccouncil.us, if you'd like to join in):
I'm writing to offer my congratulations for your courageous actions regarding Major League Baseball in Washington D.C. Though I do not currently reside in Washington D.C., I recently spent several months there, and am simply baffled by the notion that a new baseball stadium could be the highest fiscal priority for a city struggling with so many pressing social problems.I'm from the "other Washington" (Seattle), where taxpayers in the '90s were forced to pony up billions for two brand-new sports stadiums. While both are beautiful additions to our city, I hardly think either could now be considered justified in a time of record-setting budget deficits at all levels of government.
I'm sure you are now under a great deal of pressure to cave into the demands for a half-billion in corporate welfare for Major League Baseball. I urge you to stand strong in defense of the hard-working citizens of our nation's capital.