Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Ed Kilgore says that on the whole presidents should get their pick of cabinet nominees. But on Gonzales? No way.

Everyone seems to agree.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine edging toward Loud and Proud status?

As most all of you know, there's a heated race going on for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, something that hasn't happened since before the Clinton era. The race will be decided in about two weeks; but so far I've only done a handful of posts about it.

Partly that's due to time constraints and the inherently opaque nature of the selection process. But mainly it is because I have been so focused on the Social Security issue. And getting into a tussle among Democrats is not easy to square with doing what you can to unify them. As I guess must be pretty clear by now, I think preserving Social Security is the transcendent issue today for the Democratic party -- indeed, for the country as a whole.

A few weeks ago I actually wrote some version of what you'll find below, but then trashed it because I didn't want anything getting in the way or anyone's negative reaction distracting from what I was trying to do on the Social Security issue.

So, with that over-long introduction, let me just address the issue here briefly and in one shot.

If I were one of the four-hundred-odd people who have a vote in this race, I'd be voting for Simon Rosenberg. And I'd feel very strongly about the vote and cast it without reservation.


Two basic reasons.

First, I think Simon is one of the relatively few people in the Democratic party today who combine two things: a) a deep and considered understanding of why we must and how we can rebuild the infrastructure of the Democratic party and -- and it's a huge 'and' -- b) the organizational abilities and skills to be part of making it happen.

This means everything from building up the decrepit state of state and local parties, to funding and nurturing think-tanks and activist organizations that are an essential part of a modern American party, to harnessing the roiling political energy emerging on the Internet, the whole bit.

I'm not telling anyone anything new by noting these imperatives. It's become almost a cliche -- though an awfully important one -- among all thinking Democrats of late that the Democratic party has to undergo the sort of process of internal transformation that the Republicans did beginning in the early 1970s.

But how to do it exactly? This is a different era and the Democrats are a different party. I've spoken to Simon about this a number of times and I think he understands what needs doing and has a keen sense of how to proceed.

Second, the issue of party divisions. There are obvious divisions in the Democratic party today. From some vantage points, it seems like a left/right, Old Dem/New Dem issue. But I think it's more an issue of establishment vs. rising activism and very different understandings of the Democratic party's role in a country where Republicans now control all of the federal government and are the dominant national party. I think everyone who observes the Democratic party today knows the cleavage I'm talking about even if it's not always clear just how to define it.

Simon's the only candidate in the race who has credibility and strong associations in both camps. You only have to look at the name of the group he runs -- The New Democrat Network -- to see his connections to the Clinton/New Dem part of the party. On the other hand he was one of the few people from that world who was a defender of Dean during the primaries and someone very in touch with the new and unruly world of net activism. Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, is now actively supporting Rosenberg's campaign for chair.

All of this is very important because the Democratic party will be a cracked vessel without both camps coming together, not to agree on everything or make nice, but to build a powerful coalition. We can't afford to let either feel like they wholly lost out in this contest or that the other group is in the saddle to their exclusion.

What I'm saying here isn't aimed against anyone. I think Howard Dean and Marty Frost are both great Democrats. In very different ways both demonstrated that in the last two years. I just don't think either is the right one, right now, for this position. I think that's Simon Rosenberg.

Back in July, at the convention, I sat down with Simon for a few minutes at an NDN event. And this was just after the Matt Bai article in the Times magazine had come out about the movement afoot to rebuild the Democratic party's infrastructure and so forth.

Spirits were high all around at that point in the campaign. And Simon's work had figured prominently in the piece so he was very jazzed with that along with everything else that was happening at that moment (check out the piece, if it's not clear what I'm talking about). And at one point he said that what this network of people were trying to do would take a good ten years to accomplish -- building new institutions, sustainable sources of funding, new party infrastructure, and so forth.

I entirely agreed, I said. But my great worry, I told him, was that if Kerry lost the whole thing could be snuffed out in the cradle. Even today the sort of things we're talking about have only been in motion for a year or two. And the truth is that that's just not nearly enough time. So my worry was that you had all these people joining these new groups and giving money and getting involved in online activism and throwing themselves into the political fray. And if Kerry lost there might be some collective sense of, Wow, we did everything imaginable, had a united party, a motivated base, gave money, went door to door, blah blah blah. And it didn't work. So it's hopeless. Or all this rebuilding infrastructure business just didn't pan out after all. Or, in some sense, what we thought was the beginning of something new was just a dead-end.

And, so, here we are. In case you haven't heard, Kerry lost. And so what was my worry -- and I'm sure one many others felt too -- becomes a concrete challenge. A year or two was never going to be enough time. It's a much longer process, one with rhythms deeper and more sustained than the every-other-year election cycle. I remain excited and optimistic about the Democratic party's future. I think that a decade and two decades from now we'll look back and see what happened here in the first few years of this century as a beginning point, the beginning of a process that bore fruit in powerful and consequential ways in subsequent years. For reasons I've described above, in this race, I think Simon's the one to push that process forward.

Rep. Allen Boyd, Dean of the Fainthearted Faction, has added a new "Saving Social Security" icon atop of his congressional website.

"In its current form, Social Security cannot last," writes Rep. Boyd.

Read the rest and see what you think.

Stop what you're doing! Spit out your drink!

Does Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska want out of the Faction?

We're not going to make any precipitous decisions, given how thoroughly Fainthearted we've long understood the senator to be.

But according to this article just out from Bloomberg ...

Private accounts should be set up as an addition to Social Security rather than a partial replacement, said Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a key Democrat working with Republicans on reform.

Any political solution to the controversial Social Security restructuring must include some "tweaking" of the program, such as raising the retirement age and increasing the $90,000 cap on taxable income, Nelson said today in an interview. Nelson, who is in talks with Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said a Republican proposal to change the formula for calculating benefit increases would be a "a non-starter."

How lame is Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas going to feel if Nelson leaves the Faction before she does?

What about Evan Bayh? I can just see the 30 second primary ads now. Cue ominous music: "Bayh left the Faction after Ben Nelson. Can we trust Evan Bayh? I'm John Edwards and I approve this message."

Oh, the humanity ...

After we get done with the smelling <$NoAd$> salts we'll try to bring you more on these startling developments.

Hmm. Club for Growth has set up their own pro-phase-out blog. But they always seem a few days behind the curve. Just today for instance they got around to savaging Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of New York for entering the Conscience Caucus is his radio appearance last week on a local NPR station in his district. I guess I have to credit them with points for vitriol -- describing the encounter as a "nauseating exchange between a boot-licking radio jockey and the pork-loving, misinformed Boehlert," -- but as a website put together by the leading lobby of self-interested wealth, can't they manage a better intel network?

No state-of-the-art data-mining?

No bank of Tivo-ed TV screens?

No way it's a lacking of funding.

I thought phase-out was the new new thing ...

Yep, Kevin's right. On Social Security you can't trust the Cato folks as far as you can throw'em. On other issues, they may be wrong. But that's just a difference of opinion. On this one they're wrong and full of it too. Kevin looks at their privatization calculator.

Meanwhile, TPM reader KL notes Cato's declining standards of rhetorical hygiene. Use the search function on Cato's SocialSecurity.org to find the word "privatization" and it pops up 1427 documents.

CJR Daily chats up reporters from the Post, the Times and AP about personal and private accounts.

And if you're curious, I say Tomato.

I keep hearing from constituents of Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida's 5th district who've gotten her phone call today. But no matter how many times she calls, Ginny keeps forgetting to answer the question on the table. She tells voters she won't cut benefits for current or near-retirees. But she never remembers to answer the question on the table: Does she support carving private accounts out of Social Security?

I'm not even going to be a stickler about the White House's latest rhetorical flim-flam. Does she support personal accounts carved out of Social Security? Gently inserted into Social Security? Making personal accounts part of the Social Security family.


In any case, Ginny is clearly sitting in her office working the phone all day today, placing countless calls. But she never departs from the script. So if anybody runs into her, please remind her to answer the question. Ginny, where do you stand on private accounts?

If you're FIW, fine. At least that's an answer.

Following up on the earlier post about Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R) of Florida's 5th district, we hear that this morning she has her own phone messages running in the district trying to push back against the initial run criticizing her support of privatization. The message, I'm told, doesn't touch 'privatization' or 'private accounts' at all but only hits the 'no cuts for current or near-retirees' line.

We've also gotten reports from readers in three other districts around the country who say they received the same phone call which the Miami Herald reports ran in Florida CD 5 and CD 10.