Daschle is running an ad with him embracing Bush in it?

[Eloriel]

And now Corzine is saying, "Tom Daschle does embrace the President (sic)" when it's important for America. This is on Fox.

Dear God, spare me the Vichy Dems.

And don't anybody bother to tell me that Daschle is in a tough, conservative state. If there's no space between him and Bush, who in their right minds would bother to choose differently (why get excited about a Dem)? Or why not go ahead and vote for the Repug? (Truman said it best: If the choice is between a fake Republican a real Republican, voters will choose the Real Republican every time.)

[xultar]

1. So, is he DaschZell? n/t

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. This is why he is no longer relevant as minority leader

[calico1]

7. I really don't understand why someone like

Daschle would be picked as Minority leader when obviously, coming from such a Conservative State he really can't say everything he wants to say. Why not pick someone from a strong Democratic State? I just don't get it! As for the ad with him hugging Bush, I have not seen it. But he is from a tough Conservative State. I know you didn't want me to say that, but if he wants to be reelcted he can't be real Liberal, KWIM? But look at it this way. In CT of the 5 Representatives we have, 3 are Repubs. But....they all have solid pro choice voting records, and their voting records in general are Moderate. If any of them started acting or voting strong Right wing, guess what? They wouldn't be reelcted. Where you are from most definitely affects how you have to behave if you want to be reelected. I'd rather have a Moderate Democrat in a strong Republican State than a far right wing Conservative. I am not from SD and have never been there but I imagine that if Dashle wants to be reelelected he can't come out too strongly against Bush or appear too Liberal to the voters.

[sangh0]

10. It's because Minority Leaders have no power

The Majority Leader gets to set the agenda in the Senate because s/he has the power to decide which bills are going to get voted on, when they'll be voted on, how much debate will be allowed before the vote, and whether or not the bill can be amended. Majority leaders can use this power to coerce their members into towing the party line.

Minority leaders have none of this power, so they can't force their members to do anything. So why would you elect a Minority Leader who is going to try to get the other members to do things they are unwilling to do when the Minority Leader won't have the power to force it through?

Minority leaders can only get things done through compromise. A Senator from a strongly dem state has no need for compromise because they know they can be re-elected. They can push for more radical change, but they won't be able to get the dems who aren't as safe to support those changes. Having a leader from a safe state increases the chances of intra-party squabbles.

[calico1]

14. Yes, but with the Senate this close

(Daschle was Majority Leader for a while) they should still pick someone from a Strong, solid blue State.

[sangh0]

15. I wouldn't argue against that

There are arguments that cut either way. I don't see it as a slam dunk in either direction, and I do think that Daschle gets less credit than he deserves.

[Was_Immer]

3. South Dakota is HEAVYILY concervative

He wants his job. He has to be concervative. If you look at his voting record, he is on the concervative side of the scale more often.

[AndyTiedye]

12. He Wants to Stay Alive

He got a lot more "conservative" after receiving the anthrax in the mail.

[flowomo]

4. I've disliked that spineless jellyfish for years..... but...

I'd sure like to hold that seat!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasSissy]

18. Could be trying to show that Daschle is a uniter, not a divider?

Whatever it takes to win. Let's just hope he wins. And let's not worry about how he does it this year.

We have a similar situation here in Texas, where the Dem. (Frost) is running ads indicating he'd voted for some Bush-backed bills, etc. Some local Dems are upset about it. But this is a heavy red state, and his red opponent was ahead in the polls, last I heard. If Frost needs to be moderate and point that out, in order to win, more power to him. He wouldn't have a chance of getting elected here if he's far left.

If "moderate Dems" don't get elected, we're left with Repubs. I can tell you that I think the latter situation is much worse (although I'm not as offended as some, being closer to center than many Dems).

[K-W]

28. That is exactly what he is saying.

The Corzine quote is saying that as much as they hate Bush, Democrats put the needs of the people first, before partisan politics.

Kerry has said similar. The point is that democrats are willing to be bipartisan, it is the republicans fault that washington is polarized, it is thier partisan war, not ours.

[TwilightZone]

6. It was months ago.

On a related note, is this really helpful?

[Eloriel]

49. On your related note

Probably not. I doubt if it'll lose him any votes HERE though (esp. since I think we have but 1 SD DUer).

But I was just so shocked when I heard it today.

I think it's very bad form, very bad strategy, very bad all around for ANY Democrats to "make nice" with these fascists, support their goals and agendas, their legislation, anything at all that they do or propose. I think it's important to fight them tooth and nail at every single solitary possible turn.

I agree, IOW, with Paul Krugman:
Krugman on what to expect if Kerry wins.....interview in TX Observer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2527051&mesg_id=2527051

TO: The day after the election, what’s the column if Kerry wins?

PK: Do not be magnanimous in victory. I hope the people around him understand that this is not politics as we know it. It’s not, “OK, well, we won an election. After the election we’ll get together and work in a bipartisan way to help the country.” They didn’t work in a bipartisan way when the United States was attacked. They immediately saw it as a way to achieve political dominance. Kerry has got to understand that he has a window of opportunity to expose what’s going on and to rock these people back to the point where we can try to reclaim the normal workings of democracy. Unless there’s a true miracle and the Democrats take the House—which is extremely unlikely—it’s going to be very bitter political civil war from Day One. The House leadership will try to undermine Kerry. I’m sure they’ll try to impeach him almost immediately. On anything.

snip

PK: We’re within inches of having most of the world, actually all of the world, and quite a few Americans, believing that we’re no longer a functioning democracy. That could happen a month from now. Moderates and liberals made a terrible mistake in 2000. Their attitude was well, this was very bad, but the right thing to do was to basically gloss over it and pretend it’s okay. That just encouraged these guys. It should have been a mobilizing point. Instead, everything we really know about the voting looks worse this year

[Zhade]

64. As usual, Krugman knows EXACTLY what he's talking about.

The man recognizes fascism, and understands that fascists don't play well with others.

[TwilightZone]

8. Perhaps you should actually bother to review his positions.

He's not a Republican, fake or otherwise.

[Kanary]

9. I suggest you Duck And Cover.

Really.

[TwilightZone]

13. Well, it would be nice if people would bother to have a clue about

a candidate before declaring that they are Republicans.

Daschle is rated 91% by the NEA, he voted against school vouchers, no on ANWR, no on school prayer, he's for stem cell research, pro-education, pro-agriculture, pro-affirmative action, pro-alternative energy, pro-health care, opposes the death penalty, opposes privatizing social security, etc., etc.

Sound like a Republican to you? Sound like Bush?

[Kanary]

19. If he's as good as you say he is.......

I'm sure he doesn't address people in such a disdainful manner.

:thumbsdown:

Kanary

[TwilightZone]

24. Disdainful? You mean like declaring that our party's leader in the Senate

is a Republican less than 10 days before the most important election of our lifetimes? And that people could just as well vote for his opposition because at least he is a "real" Republican?

If you want an example of disdainful, that would be it.

My point, which you apparently missed, is that the original poster is dead wrong. There is most certainly "space between him and Bush", and I provided many examples to that point.

Daschle gets exactly zero credit for his two-plus decades of service to our party and ALL of the blame for every negative event that occurs in the Democratic party. Blindly branding him a Republican based on one TV ad is ludicrous, particularly when there is 20 years of evidence to the contrary.

But, then, I personally hope that we win this election and win back the Senate. If people supposedly in our own party are openly hoping he'll lose, then there isn't much hope, is there?

[m berst]

26. Disdainful? Yes IMHO

We live in a representative democracy and it is entirely appropriate and patriotic for we as citizens to criticize politicians, regardless of which "team" they are on and regardless of what is happening in the country. That is not equivalent to taking the same tone with your fellow citizens here on this thread.

Saying that because this is the most important election of our lives - in your opinion - and that therefore people should or should not say certain things because of that, shows disdain not only for your fellow members here, but for the spirit - the very heart and soul - of what it means to live in a democracy.

I respectfully submit this, my humble opinion, for your thoughtful consideration and reflection.

[K-W]

29. This isnt a free speech issue.

The issue here is that Tom Daschle, for all his supposed failings is NOT a republican, NOT anywhere near Bush in his policies, and the fact that he runs on his willingness to be bipartisan is not an endorsement of Bush.

Daschle is a scapegoat to some people here and there is nothing wrong with pointing that fact out. And you have to wonder why someone who supposedly shares our goals is spending time right before the election spinning a quote about Daschle to attack him.

[m berst]

33. only if we are ruled by suspicion...

would we have to wonder about people's motives in this case. I cannot see how any comments that people have made here could possibly have any effect on the upcoming election. Do we really imagine that criticism of a Democratic politician here would lead someone to vote Republican?

When does free speech become no longer an issue in a public forum other than in matters of protocol or decorum?

If we are to say that any criticism of any Democrat before an election - if it is a sufficiently important election in someone's opinion - is cause for suspecting the motives of the speaker, then we will need some guidleines as to what is and what is not ok to say and when the appropriate time for it would be.

Can we criticize Democratic politician Zell Miller at this time? Can any politician who calls themselves a Democrat do anything and be immune from any criticism for the sake of party loyalty? Is it not true that the very reason that this election is so important in part because of a failure by the leadership of the Democratic party to take a strong stand against the rise of tyranny from the Right?

Do we not contribute to the bitter us versus them partisanship when we try to force all Democrats to only speak well of presumed allies? Does not the atmosphere this creates ultimately buttress the forces of oppression and hurt Democrats in the bigger picture?

Some people say that criticism is ok, but "not at this time." The problem with this that I have is that it is saying that the ends justify the means, and that depending on how important the particular election is - which really means "how emotionally upset I am" - our tolerance for a wide range of opinions should be abandoned.

Should Kerry win, and the intolerance of one Democrat for another has gone unchecked, then I think people will take that to mean that suppression of criticism for the sake of loyalty and unity is a winning strategy, and we will see a lot more of it. So the "not at this time" idea is really an illusion. If it is wrong, it is wrong - at any time.

As Democrats, we should have as a goal and a vision that many people who are now voting Republican will soon be voting Democratic. Those people, in my conversations with them, give a lot more credence to criticism of the Republican party when they can see that I am also willing to express disappointment with Democratic leaders and criticize them when I believe they are wrong.

Democrats, unlike Republicans, are strong enough that we don't need to be afraid of criticism of our leadership. Criticism of our leaders makes us stronger, as a party, as a community, and as a country - not weaker. Tolerating criticism for our leadership makes it more likely that people who are now voting Republican will join us, not less.

[K-W]

37. I will repeat, this isnt a free speech issue.

The poster you are complaining about is expressing his opinion that people not tear down democrats at this point in the election, not that some authority should be censoring them. This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, so please stop trying to make this a free speech issue. Telling someone that you dont think now is the time to be complaining is NOT the same as telling them that they have no right to complain, I assume you can make that destinction?

[m berst]

41. ok....

I didn't say it was a free speech issue, especially in the way that you are defining what is and what isn't a free speech issue. I said it was a matter of tolerance for the viewpoints of others, and was making a distinction between criticizing leaders and criticizing other members.

Telling someone that you dont think now is the time to be complaining is NOT the same as telling them that they have no right to complain...

Having offered one's opinion - that this is the wrong time to be saying certain things - is fine, of course. Moving on from that and repeatedly stating that this criticism is harming the party, or the chances for a Kerry win, and by extension endangering the country, as though it were fact, is IMHO an attempt to silence people.

[Zhade]

66. Thank you for this enlightened, reasoned response.

You are quite welcome here.

I, too, wonder where the "don't criticize, because there's an election coming up" line is drawn. I mean, there's ALWAYS an election coming up, right?

When Kerry wins, will we be told "he has to be re-elected, please stop criticizing him"?

[Eloriel]

51. Yeah, you have to wonder why someone with over

18,000 posts at DU is doing that.

Read downthread for my post quoting Krugman. Bipartisanship will cause you (and all of us) to wake up in a fascist dictatorship, lightly camouflaged with the trappings and illusion of democracy, if Daschle and others aren't careful. If that works for you, hey, go for it. It doesn't work for me, and I itend to speak up about his complicity, however well-intentioned it may have been, whenever I get the chance.

I don't advocate anyone not vote for the jerk. Hell, I'll be voting for my own assortment of jerks, starting right at the top of the ticket. But you don't get better representation if you don't speak up and take a stand against the thoroughly inadequate representation.

[TwilightZone]

31. I respectfully disagree.

We have less than ten days to change the future of our country, a goal which we can accomplish only if Kerry wins and more effectively with a Kerry win and control of the Senate.

Attacking our party Senate leader and insinuating that people should vote for his demise ten days before the election does not contribute toward that goal. Quite the opposite. It is nothing but corrosive.

Complain all you want about the party's leaders after the election. Now is the time for everyone who does not wish to live under four more years of Bush's rule to come together and ensure that we HAVE a future by electing John Kerry and doing everything we can to regain the Senate.

[m berst]

34. thanks for the response

"We have less than ten days to change the future of our country, a goal which we can accomplish only if Kerry wins and more effectively with a Kerry win and control of the Senate."

Changing the future of our country is not a job that has anything to do with a time frame of 10 days if you are serious about seeing meaningful change.

Only if Kerry wins? That is you opinion. Kerry is not the only path to accomplishing changing the future of our country, nor is the only path to changing our country circumscribed by the Kerry candidacy. It is not disloyalty, nor does it hurt his candidacy, to disagree with your statements here.

on edit - italics added to quoted excerpt from TZ

[TwilightZone]

36. Do you truly believe that we will have the power to change America

if Bush wins again?

Don't count on it.

If Bush maintains the White House and Congress, there is nothing stopping him from pushing further to the right because there are no ramifications in doing so. He can't run again, so campaign promises are meaningless and he has no reason to keep them.

Cheney certainly isn't going to run in '08. So, all candidates in the Republican pool for a presidential run in '08 can claim they had nothing to do with Bush's extremist policies. They can stake out the same moderate stance Bush did in '00 and distance themselves from his extremism.

[m berst]

40. easy...

We are not enemies, TwilightZone. You are putting words in my mouth and lecturing me here.

You don't really think that those who are critical of Democratic leaders for moving too far to the right need a lecture or a reminder about the dangers of the Bush adminstration, do you?

I said we have a bigger job ahead of us than merely electing Kerry. I also would say, that should Bush win, we fight on. You are re-framing this to suggest that I am somehow promoting a Bush election when you say (in a disdainful and condescending tone IMHO) "Do you truly believe that we will have the power to change America if Bush wins again?" I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't imagine that anyone does. How did you get to that though, from what I wrote?

My observation from 30 plus years of political activism - those who criticize the Democratic leadership for their conservatism are the ones who are in for the long haul, and will be fighting long after this election is over and many of the Kerry supporters have gone home, regardless of how the election turns out.

[TwilightZone]

43. Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote.

It is you who is misinterpreting what is being said. I suggest that you review what you said and then see how it applies to my question.

Only if Kerry wins? That is you (sic) opinion. Kerry is not the only path to accomplishing changing the future of our country, nor is the only path to changing our country circumscribed by the Kerry candidacy.

Nowhere did I claim you were promoting a Bush election. I frankly can't see where you could make that inference.

The link from your statement to my question, on the other hand, seems rather obvious. I stated that change can happen only with a Kerry win. You said, "Only if Kerry wins? That is your opinion."

This infers that we can change America even if Bush wins. Hence, my question - if Kerry doesn't win, do you really believe we have the power to change America?

You may believe that we can still change America if Bush wins, but after the events of the past four years, I think that this is overly optimistic.

If Bush wins, he'll push the same policies that have already proven destructive. He will continue to plunder social programs and will likely start another war or four to push his ideological agenda.

In addition, he will have the opportunity to replace one, if not several, Supreme Court justices, loading the SC with conservatives for potentially decades to come.

I submit that we MUST win this election if we are to have a say in our future. A Bush win is unacceptable, and bashing our leaders less than 10 days prior to an election is not my idea of getting the presidency and the Senate back.

[m berst]

58. ok, I re-read your posts and mine...

We are talking past each other a little TwilightZone.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong.

1. Bush is a terrible threat

2. Electing Kerry alleviates the immediate threat

3. Nothing other than electing Kerry can stop the threat

4. Democrats are the good guys and Republicans are the bad guys

5. Daschle is a Democrat, therefore a good guy

6. Criticizing the good guys helps the bad guys

7. Therefore, critical remarks about Daschle help to elect Bush

8. People should not make critical remarks about Daschle, and if they do they are suspected to be covert enemies

9. Anyone who takes exception to #1-8 above is either suspected to be a covert enemy, or is ignorant about the situation and needs to be educated by you

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

50. Oh, good grief -- now I see the problem, TwilightZone

YOU think I called Daschle a Republican? I think you need to learn what hyperbole is, not to mention simile.

Really poor comprehension and debating skills, TZ. Unless, of course, your intent was to be inflammatory by exaggerating.

For the record, I don't think -- and didn't say -- that he's a Repbublican. But he HAS disappointed me time and time again, and I'm freakin' fed up with it.

[TwilightZone]

56. Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote.

"Truman said it best: If the choice is between a fake Republican a real Republican, voters will choose the Real Republican every time."

And what exactly did you expect us to think you meant?

Nice try, no cigar.

[Eloriel]

61. I expect typically sophisticated, savvy, well-educated, smart

and highly verbal DUers to see a quote from Truman (which probably 99% of them have heard before), and recognize immediately that his point is about what candidates should do, not what voters should do: present a strong difference between them and their opposition.

Reading anything more into it than exactly that is -- obviously, as demostrated here, terribly counterproductive.

[Julien Sorel]

39. LOL

Talk about "Duck and cover."

"We'd better not risk another frontal assault. That rabbit's dynamite!"

[Zhade]

65. Problem is, b*sh isn't a Republican. He's a radical rightwinger.

His cabal even moreso.

Really, I think it's funny that a low-count poster such as yourself comes on here and tells others who have been here for years that they should know what they're talking about.

No offense, but they do know what they're talking about. Daschle is compromised. I'm positive he's a good man, but he is in a precarious position that forces him to roll over way too often.

Elect a minority leader from a safe state, and half the problem goes away. Prosecute those behind the anthrax attacks (probably the b*sh cabal), and the other half goes away.

[jwirr]

71. Stop! Think!

We need to elect Daschle as a Senator before we talk about his being leader of the Senate. That position is not determined in the general election. It is decided by the Democrats in the Senate. It is truly an issue that can be handled after the election and is separate from his election in 10 days. The time to work toward senate and house leadership is when the new bodies elect their own leaders.

[Zhade]

74. Hey, people should vote for Daschle. He's our only option in SD.

I'm not saying don't vote for him, just that the Dems need to realize he's fatally compromised, between the conservative area he's in and the anthrax.

[Kanary]

78. whew........ you seem really upset that some of us are voicing our opinion

I really can't imagine how this is impinging on your vote for whomever you want to vote for.

Are you really wanting everyone here to only speak about things that are acceptable to you? Really?

I don't know why you seem to have such a bad opinion of us. Many of us have been working hard, and are very concerned about our country. We need to be able to express what we see happening, and what needs to be done about it. If we can't speak about that here, then where is the place we *can* speak freely?

I'm sorry that you are so upset, but I think at least some of it is misplaced. Our thoughts and words really *don't* creat reality. They're just that..... thoughts and words.

Nobody is working against Dashle's reelection. We just want better leadership in the Senate, and we deserve that.

Kanary

[jwirr]

84. I am so sorry

that you are upset about a statement that merely tells everyone that our time for fighting the appointment of Dashle to a leadership position is when he is actually being considered for another term in that position. Right now he is only being considered for the senate in his own state and the only other alternative is a RW repug. I have not defended his actions as minority (or majority) leader in any of my posts. Merely pointed out that we are talking about two different elections - the general election where the goal is to elect as many Democrats/Independents as we can and then when the democrats have elections of congressional leaders within the senate where the goal is to chose the best leaders they can for the session. That is where we can best protest Daschle's appointment through our own legislators. We are all tired and have our hands full with the work of this election and I don't know about you but I need to channel all of my strength toward the immediate goal. Taking back our country. Then I will go on to the next goal.

[Democat]

20. He may be a good Senator from his state, but he sucks as Dem leader

Just because he represents his local voters does not make him a good leader.

Daschle sucks as our leader in the Senate and the fact that he is still in that position proves that Democrats still don't understand how the game is played.

Daschle is a sign of the wimpiness and strategic failures of our party.

He's a pathetic leader, even if he's a great guy.

[K-W]

30. clearly you know alot more than the people who work with him every day

Has it occurred to you that your perception of the party and of Daschle is based on much less reliable information than the people who know him and work with him?

First off you seem a bit confused. Daschle is not a leader of the democratic party. He is the minority leader in the senate. He is in charge of working within the senate on legislation, a jobe he has done by all accounts very well. The republicans hate him because of his profficiancy with procedures and politics in the actual senate. That is his job. His job is not, as some people here seem to think, to lead the party or the senate politically. The democrats are in a position in the senate where they have no choice but to always compromise in order to have any say in the legislation that the senate produces, thus Daschle is in a position that absolutely neccessitates that he work with Republicans. That is his job. Moreso than it is his job to be a liberal firebrand. If he tried to be a political leader or liberal idealogue, he would be less able to do his job in the senate.

Daschle is not a sign of anything. He is a member of the US senate who has served our party and our nation. He doesnt lead the party, nor is he supposed to.

[Democat]

75. If you don't think that Daschle is a Democratic leader, then we agree

Daschle is, or was, probably the most high profile elected Democrat in the United States when he was the majority leader of the Senate. If that isn't someone who is required to be a leader, then there is no such thing as a leader.

He was the person that represented the Democratic Party to most Americans and he blew it. The guy was pathetic as majority leader and he is even more pathetic as minority leader.

As far as being in a position where we always have to compromise - Daschle is a major part of the reason we are in that position. Did you forget the 2002 election?

You are defending him by saying that he can't do anything else because of the pathetic position that he himself help get us into.

Daschle does not belong in a leadership roll in a Democratic Party that can win against the current Republican Party. He doesn't have what it takes and he's proven it.

I'm not hoping for him to lose. I hope he wins, but I hope he steps down as our Senate leader the next day.

[Julien Sorel]

87. I'm still waiting to see what makes Daschle

responsible for 2002. You keep accusing him of "blowing it," but run away when you are asked to prove what he did or didn't do that "blew it."

The sound of crickets chirping...

[Democat]

92. He was the highest ranking elected Democrat in the country and Senate head

When our side lost big.

His leadership in the Senate did not inspire the American people to vote for Democrats, did it? His policy of kissing Bush's ass repeatedly and refusing to fight for our side turned off Democrats and made Republicans laugh at us. He makes the Democratic Party look weak in the eyes of voters when we very much needed to look strong and he allows the Republicans to run over us time after time.

The list of reasons that Daschle needs to step down as leader is long and obviou. If you don't see it, then there is probably very little that can convince you. Daschle is part of the problem with the current Democratic Party and I can't even fathom how anyone could not see that.

I will leave you with one simple reason that Daschle should have been booted out of the leadership position after the 2002 election. One of a thousand reasons.

How many subpoenas were issued or reqeusted to be issued to the Bush admin by Senate committees while Daschle was the Senate majority leader? How many? Answer that question and then tell me that Daschle deserves to be the Democratic leader of the Senate.

[Julien Sorel]

93. Exactly what does issuing subpoenas have to do with anything?

And for someone who claims there are "thousands" of reasons Daschle is a terrible leader, you came up with a failure to issue subpoenas for some unknown reason??????? Keeerist.


Daschle isn't responsible for "leading the party." Whether he was the highest ranking Dem or not, his responsibility as leader of the Democratic senators was to represent them in the senate, not nationally.

A little translating:

The list of reasons that Daschle needs to step down as leader is long and obviou. If you don't see it, then there is probably very little that can convince you.

To translate that into plain English: "I'm angry at Democrats, and Daschle makes a handy target for my anger. I feel he is bad, but actually I don't have much of a clue about what he does do, or what his responsibilities are. Actually, I'm kind of clueless in general about behind the scenes politics, but I don't know how clueless I am, and besides, I don't care about facts, what's important is my anger. So I'm just going to keep repeating that he sucks, even though I can't point out specifics, because if I feel something is true, it must be."

[Democat]

94. What does issuing subpoenas have to do with anything?

Are you serious?

When we had control of the Senate, we had a chance to damage Bush, if not bring him down, by getting subpoenas for Bush admin officials in the various scandals that broke during the time. But our elected officials in the Senate, lead by Daschle, did nothing because they were too busy kissing Bush's ass.

If the Republicans had a chance to issue subpoenas against a Democratic president, what do you think they would do?

Better yet, when Clinton was president, what did they do?

Daschle is a failure as Senate leader. If you don't see it by now, then I really doubt anything anyone says will change your mind.

The guy is part of the problem.

[Julien Sorel]

95. Scandals? What scandals?

Just as you left out the "thousands" of reasons Daschle is a terrible leader, you left out the scandals. Even accepting that the failure to issue subpoenas (and how ridiculous is it that this is the only charge you can make? Hello? Anyone home?) is somehow a sign of weakness, Daschle was majority leader by exactly 1/2 of a senator, and at that, for two whole years. How many subpoenas should he have issued in that time? How many times did the Republicans subpoena Clinton? Where are these scandals Daschle should have been pursuing? You made the ridiculous charge, now back it up with some supporting evidence.

Daschle is a failure as Senate leader. If you don't see it by now, then I really doubt anything anyone says will change your mind.

The guy is part of the problem.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. If it did, we'd have a booming economy and the sun would be shining in Iraq 24/7.

[Eloriel]

55. AFAIC, he doesn't even know what game it is

But well said.

[nonconformist]

11. Ugh. See, this is Daschle's problem which reflected out to the party

That the Democrats are weak and there's really no difference between us and them.

I understand that he's in a conservative state, but come ON. I'm in a red state and I know the drill - local Dems have to run on some conservative issues to win here, like on abortion and gay marriage. But this Daschle move just looks like weak pandering and I doubt anyone will be swayed to him for this, but some might be swayed away.

I don't hate Dashle or anything, but he frustrates me regularly. I definitely hope he wins, but I definitely hope that he will not be Minority (Majority? hopeful) Leader anymore.

[Julien Sorel]

16. About a month late for this one. Already been beaten to death.

But I suppose it's time for the real Democrats (who vote Green, but that's a minor technicality) to come out of the woodwork and start attacking the fake ones who are trying to stay in office. Much better to lose, but be tough about it.


And Daschle is in a tough, conservative state, where he's in a neck and neck battle against an opponent who is heavily supported by the RNC.

And there is plenty of space between Daschle and Bush politically. But if he isn't vomiting rage at Bush, he isn't a real Democrat, and hell, the Republican might as well win. In fact, there have been plenty of jackasses who've posted here saying they hope Daschle loses. Those are the real Democrats for you, hoping a Republican beats a Democrat in a campaign.


Keeerist.

[Democat]

22. Not wanting him as our leader does not mean we hope he loses

There are plenty of people who are great men or women but who should never be put in leadership positions. Daschle may (or may not) be a great guy and a great Senator, but he is a proven failure as our leader in the Senate.

Maybe you missed the 2002 election for starters?

[Julien Sorel]

23. Some people are proven failures at punditry.

Daschle did his part in 2002, getting his Democratic co-Senator in SD re-elected by 500 votes. I believe he actually went door to door at one point asking for votes. He also helped Stephanie Herseth take SD's House seat, another Democrat.

Not bad for a "proven failure" -- the entire congressional delegation from one of the reddest states in the union is Democratic.

Exactly how, now, is Daschle to blame for 2002? I always enjoy this "discussion."

[TwilightZone]

25. I have family in SD. They said that Daschle has been going door-to-door

relentlessly the past few weeks, particularly in small towns.

I agree - anyone who can help get two Democrats - one of them a woman, no less - elected in heavily-conservative South Dakota is doing something right.

[creeksneakers2]

17. I don't think this is as it appears.

Thune's campaign is a smear on Daschle for being an "obstructionist." Daschle is pointing out where he has differences with Bush but is also making the point that he also works with Bush. Minorities do have to work with incumbents.

Daschle is just countering a false characterization.

[K-W]

32. Correct, this entire thread is based on bad spin.

Nobody was sucking up to Republicans, the issue is whether or not Daschle and democrats are willing to be bipartisan for the good of the nation. I would hope we all agree that they should.

[KittyWampus]

21. Daschle Seems To Be Your Favorite Punching Bag.

[Eloriel]

60. Meow yourself

:evilgrin:

No, can't say he's my favorite punching bag. I actually have a lot of "favorites." I expect better of the lot of them, and if we don't get it -- and FAST -- we're gonna be in a world of hurt, that's all. If you're content, who am I to quibble?

Edited to add: I don't recall STARTING that many threads of astonished dismay about Daschle's activities (tho I certainly add my 2 cents when the subject comes up and I happen to see it). Do you think it's because you have a better memory than I do?

[K-W]

27. Get the tar and feathers everyone!

Apparently some democrats think the American people want politicians in office who are willing to be bipartisan. We must critisize and demonize these foolish democrats.

You do realize that all the Democrats, including Kerry are running on this. The basic argument is that Democrats are not at all responsible for polarization, the democrats are willing to and have worked with the republicans and this president, but it is the republicans and this president whos actions have created polarization in washington and the nation.

All Corzine is saying is that the democrats put the american people before partisan politics.

It is a very nice argument and position, and I just dont understand your objection.

[Cleita]

35. I really wish the DLC would break away into a third party and

take Daschle, Lieberman and the rest of the DINOs with them.

[Kanary]

38. Here's what I'm thinking.........

After (if???) the election if finally decided, both parties will implode.

The traditional Republicans will wash their hands of the neocons and either finally get rid of them, or leave the party.

If they leave the elephatella, they can join with the DLC to form a new party. Maybe it will be called the Democratic Party? :)

The Dems will split between the more traditional Dems combined with the more leftist Dems, and get rid of the DLC, which has already joined with the traditional Republicans. The newly formed Party, getting back to basics, and taking a page from Byrd, can join with the Greens and Socialists, and call itself the New Patriot Party, and recommit themselves to the Constitution, and the social policies of FDR, with the intention of moving the country towards the models of European democracies.

Wanna be a charter member?

~~gigglesnort~~

:pals:

Kanary

[Cleita]

42. If you are as old as me, the traditional Democrats were the

so-called liberals. The ideals were close to what the Greens want now. They still were sexist but at least they listened to us ladies when we complained about our unfair wages and other problems. We really need to get back to our liberal, working class, unionists roots and kick these neos back to the Republican Party, where they came from when their party went so far right they couldn't accept it.

I really can see us outlawing the fascist GOP or at least that element. They can't uphold the Constitution with their ideology and that in my mind is treason.

Charter member coming up. :toast:

[m berst]

69. member #3 signing up....

We have the best hope for a populist progressive movement right now that we have had since the 30's. That is very important, and IMHO represents the last hope to save our republic and representative democracy. The Kerry campaign took a lot of stuffing out of that blossoming movement, and my fear is that people will relax and go back to their lives after a Kerry win. That will leave those on the margins (that is millions of people) at the mercy of the police state and the predatory economy. While the Clinton era was wonderful for some, it was murderous for many, much worse than the early Reagan era, and much, much worse than the Nixon era.

There is a growing populist movement among conservatives. If Kerry wins, I predict an alliance between radical leftists (so-called, I guess that is what I am) and freedom-minded and sane conservatives. That puts me potentially on the wrong side of any confrontations with a Democratic party justice department.

Many of us on the left see much of the Dem program as fascism light - endless restriction and conformity with "nice" corporations pulling the strings, and lots of laws for our own good, and don't see the party supporting the individualist, the traditionalist, the workers, the poor and needy, the elderly, and the free thinkers. Many on the right see the same problem with the Republican party. Both parties have betrayed the poor and the minorities shamefully. Both parties have sold out the small independent business person.

So that leaves us with both parties seriously fractured, and that is being disguised by this bitter partisan contest.

We can't hope to make everyone in the same mold - college degrees, corporate job, suburban house, consumer-oriented and security minded - and don't forget that it helps a helluva a lot to be white, too, and to grow up with suburban parents.

I see a lot of the current rural and blue collar support the Republicans now get, as well as the progressives, the urban poor and minorities, banding together in a populist movement. I see most of the suburban Dems, and many of the professional moderate Republicans banding together into a moderate Republican party. That would better reflect the divisions in the country right now.

Professional people in the suburbs - Dems and Republicans - have no idea as to how the sytem oppresses people outside of their world, because the system is so much geared to support their world. This has led to a remarkable callousness on the part of suburban liberals to the victims of this new consumer society. Workers at Wal Mart? They damned well better be polite to me when I stop in to shop, and if they weren't lazy or stupid they could go to school and be just like me so they have nothing to complain about.

Do you know what suburban liberals say to me if I try to criticize, say, AOL? "They must be doing something right, look how successful they are." That is not liberalism anymore. It is stock-holding, corporate job holding, real-estate investing, aristocratic moderate Republicanism. Nothing wrong with that! Those that have wish to protect what they have, and psychologically they want to feel that they "earned" everything they have, despite the evidence that 99% of the people in the world - more and more of whom are slaving away to support the American suburban life style - will never have any opportunity to attain what the suburbanites have as a birthright.

The problem comes when suburban liberals claim to represent the working class - they cannot, because their needs and goals are in opposition to the working class. Suburban liberals claim to represent environmentalism - they cannot, because their lifestyle is the most wasteful on the planet. They claim to represent diversity and tolerance - they cannot, because their wealth is predicated on real estate which is predicated on racism and white flight. They claim to represent civil liberties - they cannot, because the protection of suburban property is the number one driver for increased police state regulations. Likewise, one cannot really be against the oil wars and live in the suburbs. Likewise, suburban culture is consumer culture, and creators and builders and artists and entrepreneuers will never fit in or be fairly treated. Suburbs require conformity, security and intense organization. All of these work against creativity, small business and risk taking, and leave out most of the population from full and equal participation.

Inevitably, so long as the Democratic party is dominated by suburban liberals, it will be in opposition to the needs of the rest of the population. This is where all of the blue collar strength in the Republican party comes from - resentful victims of suburbanization. What is good for the suburbs will always be bad for the cities, the small towns and the third world. It will always be bad for the environment. It will always be bad for agriculture and the arts, the inventor and the entrepreneur. It will always be bad for public transportation, and it will always be bad for minorities.

So that is the long version of why I am not too thrilled with a Kerry candidacy. Nothing wrong with Kerry, and nothing wrong with people who support him in my opinion. There is something wrong, however, with trying to tell me that he represents me or the people I care about when all of the evidence points the other way. In my view, and I could be wrong, Dean, Clark and Dennis do represent the people I care about, and Bush and Kerry do not. I looked at the platforms and listened to the men. Kerry's words and platform planks are far, far closer to Bush's than they are to the other three candidates.

Will we sooner and more safely get to true representation for the non-suburban people with a Bush win or a Kerry win? I don't know. I can see more violence with a Kerry win than a Bush win. I can see more complacency and compromise with a Kerry win. There are great risks from a Bush win, as well. Then I have to ask - how did the Democratic party allow the Republicans to get so much power, and what do they promise to do to prevent that from happening again?


on edit - separate from what I said above, and not in any way inconsistent with or contradictory to what I said, voting for Kerry is the one and only sane choice in the coming election for president, and voting for him is the simplest and most obvious step that people can take for the good of the country at this time. My post is to address concerns larger than, and beyond the parameters of deciding which lever to pull in one particular election.

[Kanary]

72. How do you see this as a propicious (sp?) time for a progressive

movement? I'm interested in what you're seeing.

With all of what you said, I concur. Completely. And, I think Dennis was the one to bring those "dissimilar" parts of both the current Republican Party, and the current Dems together in support of their true interests. We've allowed our issues to get all mixed up and miscontrued, to our own peril. Dennis is so conversant with the centrists that he can bring their own interests to light, and that would go so far in untangling this mess.

Bush has done more to bring the Dems together than just about anything. Now, the trick will be to keep that momentum and sense of urgency, without the evil force from the outside. There is so much work to do, that it makes me tired just to think of it. I share your fear that so many will breathe a sigh of relief, and go back to business as usual, while fascism strolls on.

"New Patriots R Us". :hi:

Kanary, who is frustrated that the PM still doesn't work, because she got a new book from the library that is really exciting! :)

[m berst]

77. hi Kanary

Step by step I am becoming a regular so PM should be working soon. I got called a freeper today! (I think that is progress for a new member yes? )

I am glad that what I wrote made some sense for you because I am struggling to put what I see into words. I "see" it but don't have words quite yet. I am a performer, and you get a feel for the public mood from audiences, I think, that would be hard to get any other way.

Going from the African American churches in the big cities, to the little towns in Appalachia, to the deep South on tour, and then living in farm country after having lived in an African American neighborhood in Detroit for many years, it seems to me that people have more in common than not and that the divides between people are artificially created for a purpose. It also seems to me that the pressures are so great now on people that they are ready to find common cause with each other. I see that the politicians and the media are dramatically out of touch with the reality that most people are living and people are ready to listen to new ideas. And then people are finding that consumerism and materialism are leaving them empty spiritually, and they are ready to reject selfishness as a social ethic. That is my feeling.

[Kanary]

80. That is precisely what makes me feel so sad......

There is so much commonality, and yet we are so divided, and look for what seperates us, rather than what unites us. In that sense, the Neocons have won. :(

Well, I hope you're right that the pressures are creating the need for unity. I don't sense that, and certainly not at DU. I know that however carefully I word something, there is someone who will pick a fight, just for the sake of a fight. I'm so weary of that! Many have given up because of that, and I'm close to it myself.

Speaking of which...... I hope you alerted when someone called you a freeper! That is against the rules. Besides that, there's just no reason for that kind of behavior. It's time we learned at least that much. :(

I understand about the struggling for words. In my case, it's often because of misplaced brain cells. :) I understood you just fine. Maybe because you put words to what I've been thinking and feeling.

The book my fave "commie-librarian" saved for me today is:
"Healing The Heart Of Conflict" by Marc Gopin, and I hope it's half as good as it looks. Have you heard of it?

Kanary :hi:

[m berst]

82. not familiar with that title

"Healing The Heart Of Conflict" by Marc Gopin - I have put it on my list now though. Thanks. :)

I am reading "Last Train from Berlin" by Howard K. Smith. Pleasantly surprised - he is a brilliant writer and it is a great read.

I didn't alert on the freeper thing (wasn't aware of the option, but I see it now)I just asked "why the hostility" and left it at that.

"I know that however carefully I word something, there is someone who will pick a fight, just for the sake of a fight. I'm so weary of that! Many have given up because of that, and I'm close to it myself."

Yes, I know. I was intitially in the Clark campaign and then moved to the Dean and then the Kucinich campaigns. As each candidate dropped out, it was awful watching fear and anger take over and many gentle souls be driven away. I think that fear and anger have about run their course now, though.

The most important thing IMHO is to reclaim the language and to keep speaking patiently and sincerely until people listen without quitting or getting angry with them - just as how drops of water can erode away hard stone.

[jwirr]

76. Are you poor?

I am. And I have no complaint against the treatment I received from the Democratic Party. I think that if I were black I probably would but I am not. The Democrat Party approved of programs that supported me and my three children, educated me, gave me great health care coverage, extra money for food, energy assistance, helped me to take care of my severely disabled daughter for 45 years and paid for health care for her that has kept her alive 15 years beyond her life expectancy. Now when I am too old to care for her personally they have programs for community based care that allows her to live in the same town I live in so I can see her. I think it is presumptuous of anyone who is not poor to speak for the poor without acknowledging that it is Democrat programs that have helped us. For God's sake name a program that repugs started that has helped any of us?

[m berst]

79. yes, I am now...

... and have never been wealthy.

Hi jwirr. I have personally experienced poverty, but I would be concerned for those in poverty in any case, I hope, and I have no complaints for myself. Expressing concern for others is not the same as speaking for others. I agree with your sense that those who are not poor should not be speaking for them.

I don't have a complaint about the way the party treats me. I would like to see it - I would like to see all of us - treat others better, particularly the less fortunate.

Of course, as you point out, the Democrats are responsible for every piece of progressive legislation ever written. That is why I have voted straight Democratic and have volunteered for the party for over 30 years. That is also why the current trends in the Democratic party worry me.

[Kanary]

81. Now that you have received the very kind response from the person

you posted to, I will add a response of my own.

I don't know if you intended to respond in a bit of an angry way, but that's what it comes across as. You received a very gracious response, and I hope that it helps to reassure you.

I really don't understand what is upsetting you. We are DEMS here, and understand what you are saying, of course. Yes, it has been DEMS who have instituted these programs that are so necessary for you, and me, and thousands of others. I doubt there is anyone here who needs to be reminded of that. I don't think you'll find anyone who would confuse that with the work of the RW. :)

What you may not be reading here is that what we're so worried about is wishy-washy DEMS letting all those programs be destroyed by the RW. Clinton did much harm with his welfare deform, and now the HUD housing is in danger, as is Social Secruty and Medicare, and Medicaid, and all the other programs that are so necessary. Surely you want us to hold the DEms feet to the fire and make sure they work in your best interest, and don't let those programs be cut, and cut until they are gone? You see, I just don't understand your upset. I've wanted for so long to have Dems who are more vigilant, and here was someone who responded in that way, and it seems to bother you.

If it's OK with you for us to have some spineless Dems who let those programs fail, then we will have to agree to disagree, because it's NOT OK WITH ME! I will fight. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's how it is. I will NOT be a loyal Dem and watch it all go away. That has nothing to do with race, or anything else. It has to do with justice.

Kanary

[jwirr]

83. I am upset because this thread

does not seem to understand that in politics there are times when you have no choices. The danger to housing, social security, etc. has been mainly accomplished by repugs - not Democrats. When the House and Senate are in the hands of one party the other party or parties have little they can do short of filibustering or work for compromise.

If you read my other messages here you will see that I am upset about the idea that we somehow have to start a NEW party to save the programs I and a lot of others need desperately. Since nearly 49% of the voters in this country are RW idiots who want to get rid of these programs, what kind of power will we have if we decide that unity is not what we want and just go our own ways.

As for Clinton welfare reforms and health bill - he had a congress that was in no mood to pass anything he wanted liberal or not. He could have vetoed to welfare program but he would not have been re-elected for a second term. Also in case everyone has forgotten Massachusetts under a Democrat governor was the first in the nation to experiment with welfare reform requiring recipients go to work. They wanted it to be more liberal - living wage, etc. - but it was much like the program we have today minus the 5-6 year limitation. I think the repugs under newty wanted a 2 year limit.

I have been an activist since 1958 and I have had to work with compromise all that time. You move ahead one step at a time until the time comes that you can move in for the kill. I think we have to understand that the best thing that has come out of this election is a coalition of voters who are powerful enough to take those steps and if it takes some weaker links to make the whole then so be it. Some states will never send a truly liberal Democrat to Congress. As long as they vote with us we need to accept that. We need to stay under one umbrella and work out our different ideas together. If we don't we merely become two separate weakened links.

One thing I agree with is that we need to continue on this site after the election. We have more work to do but I say that as a life long Democrat and I will not be joining any other party. I think it is self-defeating to split our forces. I also think that one of the first things I want Kerry to do is election reform that divorces us from corporate power because the way things are run today nothing can be done unless we do. Hope this explains why I sound upset. My daughter cannot afford any more repug help!

[Kanary]

85. Clinton has recently reiterated that he wanted the welfare deform

and, in fact, said his mistake was in not doing it sooner!! So, I think you are mistaken on that count.

Y'know, you seem to have formed some assumption that those of us who are saying something other than what is acceptable to you know nothing about poverty. You are, again, wrong. I have posted many times that any more cuts and I will no longer be among the living. So, I know whereof I speak.

One thing I can tell you is that I'm just too tired to be fighting with others who are in much the same boat, and who should be able to understand some of what I'm talking about. So, if you want to continue assuming that I'm somehow confused about the differences between the RW and the Dems, then I'll just bow out and let you continue being upset.

I have my own problems to worry about.

Kanary

[jwirr]

86. I am not at all suggesting that

you are confused between repugs and Democrats. I don't know where you even get that idea. I think you are reading more into what I say than I am saying. Is it wrong to want to win this election before we go to the next step? That is all I want and I think we are wasting our time arguing about something that we mostly agree on (Daschle's status in the senate) when we could be going after some RW position instead. Everyone is of course free to continue this thread but I am going to go see if I can find something else to do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Clinton was the head of the DLC

Is he not welcome in the party?

[Kanary]

45. "Clinton was the best Republican President of this century"

Freddy, we've gone around and around on this. You love Clinton, and are fiercely loyal to him. You take any criticism of Clinton personally.

Many of us have been hurt by his policies.

That seems not to matter to you, and you just get angry and start calling names.

That goes nowhere.

If the time comes that you are able to have concern for those who were hurt by Clinton's policies, and talk about it in congenial terms, then we'll talk.

Until then.......:hi:

Kanary

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Funny how Kerry would want someone who has hurt so many people

campaigning for him. At least Kerry isn't associated with the DLC. ;)

[Kanary]

48. Y'know, I gave you a very welcoming and gracious opportunity

to let some of us know you have concern and caring for us.

It's all so funny to you, and that is just NOT what the DEM party has always been about. You have demonstrated right here just what has happened to this party, and it is NOT pretty.

I would have had concern and caring for you, had the shoe been on the other foot. And, someday it might.

You might want to consider that, before alienating all of us you seem to feel who are inferior to you.

And, on that note, I'm done.

Hope you find some heart there, Freddy.

The last word that you so crave is yours............have at it.

buhbye... :hi:

Kanary

[m berst]

88. people are really frightened eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. Poverty was at a 20-year low when Clinton left office

That is what the Democratic party is all about.

[Cleita]

46. Clinton was part of the problem. Somewhere Democrats

running for office thought that all the RW propaganda being spoon-fed by what we know now is a compromised and lying media, was what the nation wanted. When he lost part of the Democratic majority in Congress in the election of 1994, he said, that the people had spoken and this is what they wanted.

So he dumped the national health care program he had promised us as well as lesser really socially Democratic programs and concentrated on lowering the deficit. Not only did he succeed, but he created a surplus. I believe now he knows what was really going on and that he isn't part of that program anymore.

I haven't really researched it, but it is my understanding that the original more conservative DLC has moved to the right considerably since Clinton was involved. I get the impression that neither he nor
Al Gore are involved anymore, but like I said I haven't looked it up. Maybe something to put on my list of what to look up.

[Eloriel]

62. Don't know about Clinton, but Gore is DEFINITELY not

involved. Definitely not. I don't know that he's spoken out against them (as Howard Dean did during his candidacy, when the DLC attacked him and his "elitist" supporters), but when Gore finally came out of his self-imposed exile, it was real obvious he'd found his center (at long, long last), and it did NOT include the DLC.

[Zhade]

68. If you want to research, start with my signature.

All excellent DU threads provided by none other than Eloriel.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. Al Gore certainly did move away from DLC policies when he ran for Pres.

And look where it got him.

[hansolsen]

52. It is a profound mistake to keep Daschle as Senate leader even

assuming he wins. We cannot afford to have Dem leadership in the Senate so compromised. For example, Daschle had literally no choice but support Shrub on the war in Iraq. This made it very difficult for other Dems needing cover to oppose Bush on the war.

[Q]

53. I'm still amazed that any Democrat thinks...

...the Right is in any way interested in 'bipartisanship'. You can bet the farm that Bush* is laughing his ass off at Dems who still think that they can work with Republicans for the 'good of the nation'.

- Democrats have been completely shut out of the legislative process. They're just pushed aside or trampled on as GOPers build their ideal fascist government.

- There is a REASON the Democrats are in the minority. They're perceived as weak when they go along with policies and programs that hurt our nation and people while benefiting the wealthy. From the unread patriot act to the invasion of Iraq...giving the Bushies everything they want has made the party irrelevant.

[AlamoDemoc]

59. I blame this

on the democratic leadership...they should have never given that position to someone that can be challenged. I hope Daschle doesn't lose the election, otherwise it will be a major embarrassment all around

[Zhade]

63. Begala said he's good friends with the guy who did the "Wolves" RNC ad.

Vichy "Dems", indeed.

[fujiyama]

67. I agree

that Daschle has been a terribly ineffective leader, either minority, or majority. His two only accomplishments I can think of is getting Jeffords to switch (and Jeffords was getting sick of the GOP...not sure how much credit goes to Daschle), and getting Johnson reelected to the senate.

Otherwise, he's been weak. As others have said, it makes no sense to have your party's senate leader coming from a very conservative state.

However, it's a mistake to call Corzine a "vichy dem". He's had a great (albeit somewhat short) record.

[jwirr]

70. I think that Tom Dashle is

fighting for his job in a conservative state in the only way he can. He is fighting a very tough battle. I suspect he was demonstrating that he was capable of compromise when it is needed. Two points: 1) a group of unknow repugs (they think Augustana College Repugs) did a mass mailing that has accused him of being for sodomizers and 2)we need to support him and every other democrat candidate running this year so that we can get both the senate and the house back in our control if possible. That is the only way we can get anything done.

[Skittles]

73. Daschle sucks

nt

[RapidCreek]

89. Yep...he has a commercial on out here where he says....

"I support President Bush more often than not". Our other "Democratic" congress person has as of late been suggesting how "independant" she is....which basically translates to "I'm a Republican Democrat".

God I love living in this state. I shall say that I campaign for both of them...because the alternatives are pure fascists of the lowest order.

Keep in mind folks....what is considered a Democrat here whould be considered a Republican in Illinois. What is considered a Republican here whould be considered a Nazi in Illinois.

True it's a sad state of affiars but it is all we have, unfortunately.

RC