Stung by Losses, Party Buzzes About Its Leader

New York Times ^ | 11/11/02 | TODD S. PURDUM

[kattracks]

ASHINGTON, Nov. 11 — In the days before the election, Terry McAuliffe talked the talk.

The Senate would stay Democratic. Jeb Bush would be "gone." Mr. McAuliffe told anyone who would listen, "George Bush has never had coattails" and "We hope George Bush goes to all our highly contested races" to campaign.

Even on the morning after Election Day, Mr. McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, assessed his party's stunning swath of losses with much the same bravado, declaring, "I could clearly make the argument George Bush should have done a lot better last night."

These days, it is disgruntled Democrats who make the argument that Mr. McAuliffe could have done better. In telephone calls and private gossip, grass-roots activists, big donors and presidential prospects alike are assessing the party's trouncing, and for some of them, Mr. McAuliffe is a big target.

"I think we should get rid of him immediately," said Toni Goodale, a veteran Democratic fund-raiser in New York City who was incensed that Mr. McAuliffe did not do more to help H. Carl McCall's campaign for governor of New York. "He's not ready to be the image and the spokesman for the Democratic Party. We need strong moral leadership at the top of the party. We don't need somebody who says, `O.K., let's find the next loophole.' We don't need a cheerleader. We need a leader without the cheer, who looks at this realistically."

Few party loyalists are half as blunt, at least for quotation. But even those who most need Mr. McAuliffe's bulging Rolodex of donors — the 2004 presidential prospects — largely declined to defend his performance, and even his supporters quietly acknowledge the long and well-known bill of particulars against him.

To his critics, the Macker, as the irrepressible Mr. McAuliffe, 45, is known, may be a master fund-raiser and schmoozer, but he was too dependent on the soft money that is the parties are now forbidden to solicit, and a bad example for Democrats who would claim the moral high ground on campaign finance. He is too close to former President Bill Clinton, his patron and golfing partner, who remains toxic to many swing voters. He is too relentlessly optimistic to be an effective spokesman for a party in trouble.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been quick to note that Mr. McAuliffe turned a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, one of the companies that has emerged as a symbol of corporate wrongdoing, into an $18 million profit after it went public.

In the midterm election, Mr. McAuliffe shipped millions of dollars to Florida to the party's novice nominee for governor, Bill McBride, whose finance chairman was Mr. McAuliffe's father-in-law, in an all-out effort to beat Gov. Jeb Bush. But some Democrats say that money would have been better spent on tight Senate races in other states, and that former Attorney General Janet Reno would have been a stronger candidate than Mr. McBride.

"We needed the couple of points with women she could've given us, and the couple with African-Americans and South Florida and progressives," said Carole Shields, a major donor in Miami. "You add up all those couple of points and you've got a race."

Ms. Shields said she thought last week's results "portends leadership changes at all levels, including the national level."

Mr. McAuliffe declined to be interviewed for this article. But he campaigned hard for the four-year term of chairman two years ago, and party strategists say that there are no obvious candidates to succeed him at the party's next meeting in February. Any effort to open the question could prompt intraparty strife among factions seeking to fill the vacancy.

Most party insiders say Mr. McAuliffe did a solid job under trying circumstances and cannot be held responsible for the party's failure to offer voters an appealing alternative to President Bush's tax cut and prosecution of the war on terrorism. Some noted that his job is to be the Democrats' chief booster, although he was far too optimistic in his predictions. Spokesmen for Mr. Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said both supported his continuing as chairman.

"I think it's ridiculous," Thomas Nides, a veteran Democratic strategist who ran Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's vice presidential campaign two years ago, said of the criticism.

"The fact of the matter is that if we'd won 10 seats more, Terry would be a hero. This is politics. You take the good with the bad. Terry has done a superior job in doing what a D.N.C. chairman needs to do, which is rally the troops, raise money, motivate people and be an eternal optimist, which is what he is.

"I've talked to a lot of people," Mr. Nides added, "and there is no groundswell to move him out. It just doesn't exist."

A Democratic strategist who has worked with Mr. McAuliffe said that the same traits that left him open to criticism — his cockiness, blarney, optimism and glibness — also helped make him effective.

"Terry gets under people's skin; that's what you need to do as chairman," this strategist said. "Terry is the mechanics guy. Holding him responsible for lack of a national message is like holding the piano tuner responsible for an atonal sonata."

Mr. McAuliffe gets praise from party insiders for working to update donor lists from the state and national parties, and improving other data-processing and communications efforts. But an initial plan to spend millions of dollars on a new party headquarters drew widespread criticism, and officials said it now appeared likely that the existing building would be renovated instead.

In this midterm cycle, Mr. McAuliffe raised about $130 million, most of it in the so-called soft money from major donors that cannot be spent directly to advocate election of a particular candidate, compared to about $180 million raised by Republicans, the majority of it in money from smaller donations that can go directly to support candidates. He has said his goal will be to develop a better network of small donors.

Minyon Moore, a former chief of staff at the Democratic National Committee, and one of several officials recruited by Mr. McAuliffe's staff to call a reporter who asked about his standing, insisted that the party chairman was supposed to be a cheerleader.

"I would be hard pressed to see anybody say Terry McAuliffe was not out front to rally the troops," Ms. Moore said. "Sometimes, he took on people in tougher terms than some in our Democratic family would've liked."

Mr. McAuliffe is hardly the first Democratic chairman to preside over a loss.

"I would say with some perspective, but also some candor, that the job itself is one when the good things happen, you get very little thanks," said Paul G. Kirk, who took over as party chairman after Walter F. Mondale's 1984 defeat and served through Michael S. Dukakis's drubbing four years later.

"When bad things happen." Mr. Kirk added, unable to suppress a rumble of rueful laughter, "you get all the credit for the bad things."

Copyright The New York Times Company

[johnny7]

The Clintons still run the party. McAuliffe will stick around... he is a loyal dog.

HRC needs him for 2004... when she tries to become the first woman president.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

You say the Macker, and I say the Macher,
You say the Whacker, and I say the Wackier,
The Macker, the Macher,
The Whacker, the Wackier,
Let's call the whole thing off!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

LOL - "the Momser" - some of us out here get it!

[prognostigaator]

"Democrats and Republicans alike have been quick to note that Mr. McAuliffe turned a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, one of the companies that has emerged as a symbol of corporate wrongdoing, into an $18 million profit after it went public. "

You can be sure that it will be investigated by a Republican committee.........

[handy]

Most party insiders say Mr. McAuliffe did a solid job under trying circumstances and cannot be held responsible for the party's failure to offer voters an appealing alternative to President Bush's tax cut and prosecution of the war on terrorism. Some noted that his job is to be the Democrats' chief booster, although he was far too optimistic in his predictions. Spokesmen for Mr. Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said both supported his continuing as chairman.

Although I am by no means a Dem Party insider, I too feel Mac did a solid job, and I am an advocate for him staying in his present position as long as he meets the same standard of performance he displayed in the 2002 midterms.
heh heh heh

[GOPJ]

Good one. LOL:The Dems made their bed with Clinton, and they're surprised that one of his cronies is also corrupt? Boo friggin' hoo!

[Liz]

The Clintons still back McAwful?

They better be mighty careful.....some of the bad political blood spilled from the 2002 election is clinging to them.

Like the Cuomo back-stabbing, the knifing of Reno out of the Floriduh race, turning their backs on McCall, repeated campaigning for Dem candidates that went down to dismal defeat, the two of them whopping it up at the Wellstone rally.....and so on and so forth ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.

These once-hailed architects of the Dem party and its supposed 2002 resurrection turn out to be dimwitted devils of defeat.

[aristeides]

I'd like to know who got the contracts for building McAwful's new headquarters building in D.C.

[aristeides]

This is in the New York Times. The knives are out.

Does this story mean the Clintons are ditching McAwful?

By the way, where have the Clintons been? They were apparently both missing from the Veterans Day parade in NYC yesterday. Bloomberg and Schumer were there, but neither Clinton was.

[Wphile]

There is a line in the article that states the clintons, both of them, back him as chairman. Also noted that he was elected 2 years ago for a four year term. So, in order to get rid of him, he'll have to resign. I think he's got way too much hubris in him to do that.

Personally, I think it is great having McAuliffe as the dems lead guy. When pitted against Marc Racicot, McAuliffe looks and acts like the total slimeball he is.

McAuliffe, Pelosi, McDermott - these are the faces of the democrat party. It ain't pretty, unless you are a Republican!

[Senator Goldwater]

The knives are out, because they know that this cretin is only good at raising soft money.

Now that they need small donors committing to specific candidates, the Democrats are facing permanent minority status.

[aristeides]

There is a line in the article that states the clintons, both of them, back him as chairman.

Of course. The Clintons are, above all, duplicitous. Do you think this article would have appeared in the NY Times without the Clintons' approval?

[Destructor]

The beautiful thing is that the "leadership" of the Dimocratic Party is still clueless as to the cause of their losses! Either that, or they are in deep denial.

[Destructor]

"Here. my friends, is the difference that conservative, caring voters can make!: "compared to about $180 million raised by Republicans, the majority of it in money from smaller donations that can go directly to support candidates" Let's not forget that the 10-20-50 dollars can go directly to helping the candidate of our choosing. Better impact, direct usage."

That is where I draw the line. I will not donate to any politician directly. Instead I make regular donations to the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America.

If the politicians want my contribution, then they can darn well stay on the right side of the gun issue!

[Gritty]

This entire article is all fuss 'n feathers. The only line that really means anything is the following...

Spokesmen for Mr. Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said both supported his continuing as chairman.

McAwful will remain Chairman. Period. The rest is just the NYT (and the Clintons) allowing the malcontents to blow off a little steam, making them feel like their voices are important.

McAwful will be elected the same way as the Soviet Politburo elected it's Leader - by 100% acclamation. But, instead of visions of blood-spattered Lubyanka cellars dancing in their heads, the cannon berms at Ft. Marcy Park will softly sway in the background!

[texson66]

[Burkeman1]

"I've talked to a lot of people," Mr. Nides added, "and there is no groundswell to move him out. It just doesn't exist."

I think that is right as far as I can tell. I have been following the fallout in the Democratic party very closely since last Tuesday and there simply is no move to oust MacAuliffe. In fact- there is no organized opposition to the Clinton controlled DNC at all within the Democratic Party that I can discern. And if that doesn't speak volumes about the quality of elected Democrats in Congress and at the National level then nothing does. They are ossified and incapable of even self examination. They have allowed their small donor fundraising ability (and even local and state party fundraising ability) to go by the wayside and are dependent on corporate donations wrrangled by sleazes like MacAuliffe. They couldn't get rid of him if they wanted too right now.

He has said his goal will be to develop a better network of small donors.

No he won't. First- it is against his interest (and the Clinton's) to develop small donor lists since that would make the party less dependent on him and his small circle of corporate and wealthy donors. And Second- it is hard gritty work to develop those lists. It requires meeting with people who wear clip on ties and buy their suits at Syms- it requires getting in the trenches with the blue haired ladies that control local and state parties. And that is not what Terry MacAuliffe is about at all. He is a corporate sleaze bag and liberal snob.

He will stay in power and that is good for the GOP.

[pepsi_junkie]

"I could clearly make the argument George Bush should have done a lot better last night."

It's true. The democrats should have lost New Jersey, for instance, but a suitably obedient court stopped that from happening. I would tend to guess that, as always, vote fraud on the part of the dems has also contributed to at least a few dem victories that otherwise would have gone to the GOP. So you see, Terry is acknowledging the moral bankruptcy of his party with this statement. A refreshing moment of honesty.

[1Old Pro]

. Spokesmen for Mr. Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said both supported his continuing as chairman.

No kidding, he's their PUPPET.

[pepsi_junkie]

By the way, where have the Clintons been? They were apparently both missing from the Veterans Day parade in NYC yesterday.

I can't swear it, but I was in St. Maarten all last week and I was told that Bill Clinton was in town staying at the hotel across from my resort, apparantly attending a conference that ended yesterday. Sadly, I never got a chance to snub him.