Democratic Leadership

[lavender]

So, who should be the Democrat who stands up and points out all this Lott shit. Who should be the Democrat that takes a stand and leads the party in the assault against the Republicans.

I think Kerry should continue with his current statements and show us the leadership he has in him.

As far as I'm concerned, they should not let this rest. Kerry should be on Bush's ass for everything he does for the next 2 years. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The goose won last time with those tactics. I hope the gander was taking notes.

 

[mbb308]

Whichever one isn't wearing a pink tutu.

 

[perks]

I hope so too, but history repeats itself. Hopefully, it won't be so soon.

As for Lott, he should be held accountable, and more than censured.

 

[Problem Child]

Bunch a fuckin weenies. Sen. Levin wouldn't say he had to go.

Sen. Nickles from OK is calling for him to step down, but he wants the position.

All the consevatives on Fox were calling for him to go, so kudos to them for that.

 

[modest mouse]

I think rather than harp on Lott or GWB they should tackle issues like Social Security, Education, Privacy Rights, etc.

I think Kerry and any other Dem who wishes to run for President should work on his platform rather than "be on Bush's ass".

Of course these are my thoughts and I dont play in the two-party sandbox.

 

[Mischka]

The Republicans are now bickering internally over Lott's comments, and the second in command is calling for Lott's head so he can stand on top of the sand pile for a while.

The Dems need not get involved. They just look whiny doing it. The entire party is in serious need of an overhaul, and pointing fingers at the other side does nothing to define the Dems, except as hating all things Republican. That's a weak platform and doesn't attract support except among those that would never consider the other side anyway.

 

[Texan]

Interesting that any discussion of "Democratic" leadership immediately becomes a discussion of Republican leadership. It seems that the only way Democrats know how to "lead" is to show their skill at tearing down Republicans.

just a thought

 

[perks]

The Republicans are now bickering internally over Lott's comments, and the second in command is calling for Lott's head so he can stand on top of the sand pile for a while.

The Dems need not get involved. They just look whiny doing it. The entire party is in serious need of an overhaul, and pointing fingers at the other side does nothing to define the Dems, except as hating all things Republican. That's a weak platform and doesn't attract support except among those that would never consider the other side anyway.

this is such an excellent parallel to lots of things, and I whole heartedly agree.

 

[perks]

Interesting that any discussion of "Democratic" leadership immediately becomes a discussion of Republican leadership. It seems that the only way Democrats know how to "lead" is to show their skill at tearing down Republicans.

just a thought

and what did you as a republican just do?

 

[Mischka]

Texan, when Clinton was in office, the GOP was doing the same thing. The "outside" party in part defines itself by reacting to the "inside" party. It's part and parcel to the two party system. So don't sound so smug.

 

[sunstruck]

The Dems need not get involved. They just look whiny doing it.

Actually that's exactly what I was thinking. They can avoid any claims of whinning or kicking them when they are down. Taking the high road here might be the best thing.

 

[Texan]

there is a lot of truth in several comments in this thread. And, I typed my last post before reading the comments of MM, etc.

The "out" party often must distinguish itself from the "in" party by comparison. (as Mischka said) When Republicans were "out," there was quite a battle inside the Rep party as to whether to go after Clinton or only emphasize the postitive issues for the Republicans.

If this is a serious discussion about who Dems should choose for leadership, then I'm shouldn't really be here. You see, the few people that might do some good for the Dems are the same few that, as a Republican, I don't want to see gain influence.

Enjoy. I need a cig.

 

[bored1]

Robert Byrd would be my choice to stand up and take the high road in condemning old Trent.

 

[Problem Child]

Interesting that any discussion of "Democratic" leadership immediately becomes a discussion of Republican leadership. It seems that the only way Democrats know how to "lead" is to show their skill at tearing down Republicans.

just a thought

Just to be fair here, I don't think that asking someone to step down for making a statement in support of segregation is necessarily tearing down the other party. (I know you don't agree that's what he was saying, but I do).

Someone has to say something, and the Dems need to grow a backbone or they're going to be even further out of power in '04.

I don't see how Kerry could be hurt by asking for Lott to resign as majority leader. It's not like it's an unpopular position.

 

[miles]

There is no Democratic Leadership, and one of the biggest reasons the party is in such deep shit right now is exactly what's contained in your post: Who is going to be the lead attack dog against Lott and Bush? Instead of attacking them why don't they come up with some viable alternatives to Bush's policies that make sense and the public can believe in? The answer is simple. They don't have any. Just the same tired Liberal mantra that has failed for years, and nobody's buying anymore. While the nation is moving to the right, they choose one of their most liberal members to speak for them.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

[Spinaroonie]

Interesting that any discussion of "Democratic" leadership immediately becomes a discussion of Republican leadership. It seems that the only way Democrats know how to "lead" is to show their skill at tearing down Republicans.

just a thought

What are you doing in that very post? Doesn't matter, you'll make a pontius pillate post about how you were just wondering or some other bullshit.

Anyways, if they can point out they can educate people on the disrespect done to civil liberties and the fact that legally, we can all be treated as terrorists without any evidence, I think they can get a strong following.

however, I don't think they will so that they can appeal to the Cherrys of the world.

 

[Spinaroonie]

While the nation is moving to the right, they choose one of their most liberal members to speak for them.

1 election doesn't mean an ideological shift.

 

[sunstruck]

Like I said I'm only recently checking up on this (local politics have been forfront in my mind this month) but are there any links to comments by Joe Lieberman?

 

[Problem Child]

There is no Democratic Leadership, and one of the biggest reasons the party is in such deep shit right now is exactly what's contained in your post: Who is going to be the lead attack dog against Lott and Bush? Instead of attacking them why don't they come up with some viable alternatives to Bush's policies that make sense and the public can believe in? The answer is simple. They don't have any. Just the same tired Liberal mantra that has failed for years, and nobody's buying anymore. While the nationis moving to the right, they choose one of their most liberal members to speak for them.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Miles, if you think that I am not of the opinion that the democrats are a rudderless bunch with no positive agenda then you're wrong.

Why can't they call for Lott's ouster and come up with some ideas at the same time?

I don't see why politicians chould be excused from denouncing racism because they belong to one party or the other. Shouldn't denouncing racist ideas be an American thing afterall?

The way the democrats are sitting back and letting the Republicans take care of their own house is just as weak as them supporting Bush by voting him the power to go to war and then criticizing him for possibly actually doing it, IMO.

 

[Lancecastor]

legally, we can all be treated as terrorists without any evidence

The view from here: Martial law imposed so your country's rich can sell guns and colonize another OPEC member.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Shouldn't denouncing racist ideas be an American thing afterall?

The idea of Freedom of Speech kinda says no.

 

[Mischka]

The idea of Freedom of Speech kinda says no.

No, it doesn't Spin. Freedom of Speech means the government cannot infringe on your right to denounce or rejoice in racist ideas. Both extremes are "American" as is everything in between. Current legislation has attempted to infringe on that right, and time - and legal action - will dispel the unsavory edges.

 

[Problem Child]

The idea of Freedom of Speech kinda says no.

You should stick to being funny, 'cuz when you stray from that you come off as kind of clueless.

 

[zipman]

I think rather than harp on Lott or GWB they should tackle issues like Social Security, Education, Privacy Rights, etc.

I think Kerry and any other Dem who wishes to run for President should work on his platform rather than "be on Bush's ass".

Of course these are my thoughts and I dont play in the two-party sandbox.

Great post! This is the biggest problem with the Democratic party. They have forgotten that they exist to represent the people. The have forgotten to take a stance on issues, instead of using a "devil's advocate" strategy on Republican stances to decide the party's platform.

 

[REDWAVE]

Dems in disarray

The Democrats are in total disarray now. The polling I did here recently indicates that the three most popular candidates with the Dem rank and file are Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore. Of those three, Nader isn't even a Democrat, Hillary says she won't run in 2004, and Gore just announced he's not going to run.

The two who seem to be the favorites of the Democratic leadership-- Kerry and Edwards-- both have little support among grassroots Democrats. They represent the "samo, samo," when people are hungry for something new and different.

The 2004 Democratic National Convention will probably be a major catfight between between the Dems' left and right wings. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC-- the "Clinton" wing) is largely discredited now, due to its craven surrender to the Republicans, first acquiescing to Bush's usurpation of power, and now failing to go after him over his disastrous economic policies, and his drive toward a police state, resulting in their debacle in the recent elections. Bush is incredibly vulnerable politically, but the Democrats in Congress are protecting him, instead of attacking him as the usurper and tyrant that he is.