Handwringing Democrats

By my reckoning, as each quarter comes to a close, it's time for Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza to write a story about handwringing among Democrats who are unhappy with Howard's performance as DNC chairman and about DNC fundraising in general. (Adam Nagourney also has a handwringing Democrats story in today's New York Times. They seem to be his stock in trade.)

In November Cillizza wrote “Democrats Losing Race for Funds Under Dean,” which bemoaned the sorry state of DNC fundraising under Howard's leadership. It was only toward the end of the story where you discovered the truth: “In the previous election cycle, the DNC had raised $31 million, compared with the RNC’s $80 million, at this point in 2003.” So Howard actually cut the RNC's traditional 3-1 advantage (or more) in fundraising to a 2-1 advantage and raised $11 million more than Terry McAuliffe raised in 2003. Not to mention that his numbers came the year after a presidential election, while McAuliffe's came during the presidential cycle. And that Howard cut the gap in just nine months on the job at the time of this story.

Well Cillizza is at it again, and this time he brought a friend, fellow Postie Dan Balz. Why it took two stenographers--erm, reporters--is beyond me. Balz and Cillizza repeat the same tired complaints, quoting anonymous Democrats who are unhappy with Howard's focus on building up the state parties rather than raising funds for the 2006 midterms:

Democratic congressional leaders are particularly worried because the Republican National Committee holds a huge financial advantage over the DNC. One congressional Democrat complained that Dean has -- at an alarming rate -- burned through the money the DNC raised, and that Republicans may be able to swamp Democrats in close races with an infusion of RNC money.

Who are these anonymous congressional Democrats and why are they granted blanket anonymity, which further detracts from the story’s credibility? Why are Balz and Cillizza allowing them to disparage Howard publicly without having to take responsibility for their comments? The only reasonable answer is that Balz and Cillizza are trying to prop up a weak story with an overused theme.

The meeting that is the subject of this story took place a month ago. Yet Balz and Cillizza omit any explanation of why a month-old meeting is still newsworthy. There is nothing new at all about this story because the Post has published stories about congressional Democrats who are unhappy with Howard since he took office as DNC chairman. If they had their way, he wouldn't have gotten within 500 miles of D.C.

Dean campaigned for the DNC chairmanship by pledging to make Democrats competitive in all 50 states, not just in the 16 to 18 presidential battlegrounds. One congressional Democrat responded: "Nobody's suggesting they do 16 states, but not all states are equal."

And which states are more equal? What kind of test would you apply to determine that?

Frankly, I’m getting tired of reading the exact same story about the alleged Democratic unhappiness with Howard. It's time for reporters like Balz and Cillizza to begin reporting real news and get back to covering issues that actually deserve publication.

All of the scandals surrounding the Bush administration and the Republican Party are a good place to begin.