I got that article on a Deanie mailing list recently. There's nothing new in it, to me, and yes, I think he's exactly right. So do a lot of other people. It's good that he's writing about it, and getting it published in the New York Times, because it'll spread the message more. But this is pretty much the consensus of Democratic Party reformers and many of the new Democratic-leaning organizations and leaders of the past few years.

For example, having a permanent ground campaign like the Republicans, instead of forming a new one for each Presidential election, is precisely ACT's founding mission. If you canvassed for Kerry last year, you were helping build the Kerry in 2004 support database; if you canvassed for ACT, you were helping build the long term "elect Democrats to the presidency and Senate" support database for multiple elections. Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, is now giving talks on "a permanent ground campaign" - I might go to one of hers at Harvard this week.

The progressive media has been full of articles about the right wing's use of think tanks and funding of campus groups, ever since people started wondering how we got such an extremist presidency and spent some time going over the history. The consensus Bradley is expressing began to form around 2002 and had wide currency by late 2003.

Some more reading, if you're interested:
how the conservative message machine was built, and how we can do it
Powell's manifesto, to the US Chamber of Commerce, 1971
progressives need to build a movement of persuasion
Frank Luntz advice for Republicans