The Other, Corporate Side Of The DNC

I am sitting Denver out on the sidelines this year, but I do know what a convention looks like, at least in Boston. The speeches, the freebies, the networking and especially the parties. Now the Democratic Party is my party, but it still needs some work and reducing the corporate influence is especially important. At the moment though, big business has tremendous influence and it is on display if you look for it. I remember going to a couple of bashes in Boston where it had to of costs in upwards of half a million to produce the venue, band, amazing food and all that free alcohol.

My roommate and I (he was a delegate in 04') were getting back from the Fleet Center that Monday night and were looking for something to do. We ran into one of the state party brass at the hotel and he couldn't go to the premiere event because his daughter was feeling ill, so he gave us his tickets to the Democratic Governor's Association Ball. At this time I was more awed by tickets, getting into the cool parties and I was all about the free food and booze.

We got there around midnight and the place was breathtaking, the band was amazing, the view of the harbor spectacular and there were at least a dozen tables filled with shrimp, crab legs and lobster. In addition to the regular open bars, there were attendants that poured cosmos and martinis through ice blocks to give the drink that perfect chill. So with food and drink in hand, we set out to mingle in the crowd, but that was where it all fell apart.

First I looked up and noticed the huge banners on the walls, adorned with the logos of the corporate sponsors who ponied up for the event. The sight of them gave me a funny feeling in my stomach, and I knew that it wasn't a good sign. However, I figured what the hell, those bastards aren't going to influence me and in the meantime I'm going to have a good time at their expense.

Then came the mingling part. People were friendly at first for the most part, but when the "what do you do" question came up, most conversations died quickly. I ran into investment bankers, Wall Street execs, Hill staffers and some party elites and when I introduced myself as a grassroots organizer (working in AZ at the time) they lost all interest in me. Clearly, this was a place for the moneyed to connect with those that had political influence.

After repeating this pattern a few times, I started wandering the tables and just listened to the band play. It was definitely a wake up call that there was some serious problems in our party. Unfortunately they still exist, despite the fact that we fight so hard against it. Amy Goodman did a piece yesterday that highlights the corporate influence when she tried attending one of these parties Sunday night. Here is a portion of her conversation with Glenn Greenwald and others outside the Blue Dog party sponsored by AT&T. Clearly, the organizers of the event did not want the press, and certainly not people like Amy Goodman anywhere near the people who attended this event.

From Democracy Now:

AMY GOODMAN: These were big guys, and they weren’t kidding around. It was interesting. The lobbyists were a little more willing to speak than the actual delegates who were being rushed in there. A lot of limousines were coming in.

GLENN GREENWALD: Absolutely. I mean, I found the symbolism of the event very revealing. First of all, as you say, there was a very intended-to-be-intimidating wall of private security surrounding the event, and they were actually infinitely more aggressive and angrier than the Denver police were. And in fact, I was there with Jane Hamsher, the blogger from FireDogLake, who at one point was trying to speak with one of the individuals entering the party, and she was physically pushed by one of the private security members, notwithstanding the fact that the Denver police had been there the entire time, navigating and negotiating where it was that we could stand.

The other aspect of it was, was that what the police had been clearly trained to do is create this façade of being accommodating and cooperative and pleasant, but what it really does is it masks the fact that their strategy is to ensure that any sort of dissident voices, or people off script, are relegated to places where they can’t really be heard.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s very hard to figure out in these situations. You know, you have a sidewalk, which is owned by the private venue, and where the public can use the public sidewalk, they’re showing you the cracks, the crevices in the sidewalk, and they’re saying that’s theirs, this is yours.

So as you can see from this brief excerpt and even more so from the entire exchange, there is an influence on Democratic politics that isn't 100% kosher and needs to be remedied. The combination of money and politics is nothing new in America, but that does not mean that it has to stay this way. That is why we must elect more and especially better Democrats to make sure that the people at large take precedence over those that can write large corporate checks.

Finally, There Is A Price To Be A Blue Dog Dem

In this past legislative session Congress has disappointed us on several occasions. While the Democrats regained the majority, it is not a party that is in lockstep. Conservative members in the party, known as blue dogs, have sided with the President on highly controversial....and unconstitutional measures, such as FISA. It is heart breaking to see members of Congress who were elected to change Congress become the status quo and a few of them did so as freshmen. One of those people is Chris Carney, representing the 10th district of Pennsylvania and groups like Blue America are sick of him.

From Politicker PA:

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is turning on U.S. Rep. Chris Carney (D-Dimock), actively campaigning against the incumbent despite his difficult re-election bid against Republican Chris Hackett, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The political action committee Blue America is campaigning against Carney and other Democratic lawmakers it perceives aren't progressive enough, particularly after some sided with President George Bush's domestic-surveillance program. The paper reports the PAC has taken out radio, TV and newspaper ads against Carney, who considers himself a moderate Democrat, also known as a "Blue Dog."

"Our goal is to attach a real price to the type of things Chris Carney is doing. If that means he ends up losing, then so be it," said Glenn Greenwald, one of the group's organizers, told the Journal. "I would rather see a smaller majority but fewer Blue Dogs than a big majority with the Blue Dogs in charge."

Within the party, this is a highly controversial move. Democratic activists are supposed to be electing more D's, not less of them. The mantra on DailyKos and across the blogosphere is "more Democrats and then better Democrats." Well, we have more Democrats, currently the majority has a 30+ seat lead and will likely increase that number by a significant amount.

Personally I want to see a large majority, but what does it matter if members of your caucus put the interests of George Bush and the telecom lobby ahead of the people that think they are protected by the 4th amendment in the Constitution? Right now Carney and other Blue Dogs think they can get away with these kinds of votes as long as they go along with some of the party platform. Nancy Pelosi certainly hasn't been able or willing to herd the cats when push comes to shove. So now that we have more Democrats, we need to elect more Democrats with better progressive principles.....or else we'll just have more of the status quo under the guise of Democratic leadership.

CNN's John King Throws A Hissy Fit

I would like to personally thank Glenn Greenwald for posting John King's email about a John McCain interview. By publishing it in its entirety, we can see the delusional grandstanding that "journalists" like King imagine themselves to be. At the same time, they like to belittle anyone that critiques them for things like...I don't know, fawning over candidates and letting them stick giant loads of bullshit up their ass. King isn't alone, many cable news whores are guilty of it, but the email gives a good look at the people in that industry.

From Salon:

Yesterday, I received a response from King via e-mail, the authenticity of which was confirmed in a subsequent exchange:

From: King, John C

To: GGreenwald@salon.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:40 PM

Subject: excuse me?

I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game.

But a friend who understands how my business works and knows a little something about my 20 plus years in it sent me the link to your ramblings.

Since the site suggests you have law training, maybe you forgot that good lawyers to a little research before they spit out words.

Oh trust me, it goes on and on, belittling Glenn for not reading up and doing his homework, blah, blah, f'in blah. Any of these buffoons can whine about how they are professionals and bloggers are just scum of the Earth (on both sides of the political spectrum) who just like to rant about people who supposedly are unbiased reporters. Well Glenn obliterates that argument:

They invariably point to criticisms from both Left and Right as proof that they're unbiased straight-shooters. They chide you for being unaware of the secret, concealed information (interview questions that weren't broadcast, paragraphs that were edited out) which somehow disproves your critique of what they did broadcast or publish.

They proudly inform you that there have, indeed, been some instances over the many decades that they've been working when they've stood up to someone and asked something other than mindlessly reverent questions, and if you had looked hard enough, you might have found a couple. They tell you it's appalling to comment on what they publish to their readers or viewers without first talking to them about it, even though you linked to or even printed in full everything they said and wrote. And they close by telling you that you have no standards, no ethics, no understanding of their Complex Profession, and no decency -- that you're just a shrill, ignorant partisan pushing a lowly agenda while they are in the business of Real Unvarnished, Objective Reporting.

Ponder how much better things would be if establishment journalists -- in response to being endlessly lied to and manipulated by political officials and upon witnessing extreme lawbreaking and corruption at the highest levels of our government -- were able to muster just a tiny fraction of the high dudgeon, petulant offense, and melodramatic outrage that comes pouring forth whenever their "reporting" is criticized. All this energized invective from King because CNN aired an "interview" with the GOP front-running presidential candidate consisting of one adoring question after the next, which I printed in full.

That is the problem, they are beyond manipulated by the politicians in Washington. By sucking up to people like McCain they ultimately forget the people they are supposed to be serving, the viewers. When so-called journalists like King ask pathetic non-invasive questions of McCain and others, the freedom of Americans who tune in suffers by limiting their access to things they want to know that are essential to their day to day lives.