Ed Rendel on Capital Gang was shockingly awful!

[Zen Democrat]

Did I have the wrong impression of Ed Rendel that I thought he was a REAL Democrat?

Just a few of the things he said tonight:

1. He doesn't agree with the way Barbara Boxer went after Condi Rice. He supports her right to question Rice, but thought she went about in the wrong way. He would vote to confirm Rice. Thinks she will do a good job when she has the power of the White House behind her. Huh?

2. He doesn't want to see Howard Dean as Chairman of the DNC. He admits Dean was a moderate governor, but since polls show that he is "perceived" as being a left-winger, it scares Rendel that he might get the chairmanship. Rendel believes there should be a "senior spokesman" for the Democratic Party -- and he suggested Leon Panetta.

What the hell? I'm marking him off my list!

[mirandapriestly]

1. He's awful

I remember in 2000 when he said that Gore should concede and was making it go on too long. yecch.

[WestHoustonDem]

2. He sucked. My list gets shorter every day

[BamaLefty]

3. He Did Pretty Bad

Why do I never see any watered-down Dems on the Republicans side?

They only have a few in Chafee, maybe McCain, Snowe.

[dsc]

4. You are wrong on point three

He stated he would support private health accounts not private retirement accounts. But he was pretty bad.

[Zen Democrat]

5. Thanks -- I'll correct it.

[still_one]

6. democratic party is dead

until we vote jerks like this out. I am sick and tired of democrats who believe in republican views. They should become republicans

People always talk about inclusion of different viewpoints in the party, and I say BULL

I want the DEMOCRATS TO BE FOR CHOICE
I want the DEMOCRATS TO BE FOR NOT MAKING SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATE
I want environmental safeguards, and stem cell research

Until the democratic party stands for a difference from the republicans, then they are irrelevent

If it wasn't for these so-called democrats, we wouldn't be in IRAQ NOW!!!

[Zynx]

16. The problem is that if you exclude too many viewpoints, we don't have a

viable party anymore. For instance:

I oppose the war on Iraq and have opposed it from the beginning. I am opposed to privatizing Social Security. I believe that the government has an obligation to provide a strong social safety net for economically disadvantaged citizens. I support the progressive income tax. I opposed Bush's tax cuts. I support universal health care. I support efforts to control pollution to a point. I oppose the death penalty. I am opposed to our nearly fascist sentencing laws in this country where we eliminate even low level criminals' chances to rehabilitate. I support stem cell research.

However, I oppose abortion strongly personally and I wouldn't define myself as pro-choice necessarily even though I want to do everything possible to avoid seeing it in the back alleys. I find abortion morally reprehensible and I do view a fetus as human life. Anyone can try to convince me that abortion is exactly the same as using a condom, but that is bullcrap. Let me put it this way. If my wife had an abortion without consulting with me about it first when it was medically unnecessary to do so, I wouldn't say "Oh, that's great honey. Way to excersise your right to choose!". No, she would be served up with divorce papers within a couple hours.

Suddenly, even with all of my other views, I am no longer a Democrat in your eyes. You have to sacrifice a little bit to build a large party. Take my stance on the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty VERY strongly and I could say, "Well, I'm just not going to vote for any candidate that supports the death penalty.". Well, suddenly I just shrank the size of the party down to about 25-30% of the electorate. One thing I must say though, no responsible political party would have ever dealt so readily with Bush as the Democratic Party has. A political party must oppose any large measures proposed by the other political party with all of its power or try to compromise to the point the measure does nothing or accomplishes something you want. The Democratic Party has just let Bush pass his shit largely unammended because we don't keep our members in line at all. It's one thing to have a couple members split off here and there, but it's entirely different to have half the party vote for the Iraq War or have 13 senators vote for Bush's tax cuts.

[Mirwib]

21. The real problem is that there are only two viable parties

We need election reform. Proportional representation is a much better way to elect a body to represent us than the "all or nothing" elections that we have now.

[Zynx]

25. So long as there are at least four parties running the gambit from...

extreme right to extreme left. If the left fractures itself among two or three parties, that's no good.

[merbex]

23. I respect everything you have written and I come very close to your

positions

What gets to me about Rendel and other Dems in leadership positions is that they fail to realize that we are now the OPPOSITION PARTY.

I want this party- at this point in its history- to forcfully highlight its DIFFERENCES with the Repugs

Do not badmouth other dems on tv,shift the question /answer to badmouthing B*

Is that too much to ask?

[Zynx]

24. I will agree he is far to cozy with the Republicans for comfort.

In order for the Democrats to survive, we must stake out our ground firmly, but we must pick our issues wisely.

[still_one]

28. no it isn't

[brainshrub]

7. Here's a short list for you:

http://brainshrub.com/essaysfolder/true32.htm

[Nite Owl]

14. That is a short list

unfortunately. Thanks though, hope we get to see it grow.

[Zynx]

19. You are talking about a party that wouldn't be large enough to oppose Bush

at all. I do not believe that the litmus test should be something as shaky as whether or not you believe there was electoral fraud in Ohio. Sure, there were voting problems. However, when one looks at Kerry's numbers it is hard to make the case that his vote numbers were supressed in Ohio. There were record numbers of Democratic voters in Cleveland(highest since 1964) and the highest numbers in Frankling county ever on an absolute basis and the highest percent since 1936. We had a deficit from 2000 to make up and while we took out a solid third of it, we fell short.

[brainshrub]

22. If you've ever used an ATM, then you know that their should have

been ZERO problems.

The only litmus test is that the candidates prove that they are willing to fight for Democracy.

[merbex]

8. I heard him and was absolutely stunned

My fervent wish is that Dean gets it and that the DNC starts the reforms needed (growing the grassroots),we win in 2006 by taking back the House and Senate, and these naysayers are forced to watch vidoes if themselves trashing Dean.

[LibDemAlways]

9. I saw him interviewed before the

election and he said if chimp won, we'd should all rally around him and unite. Another spineless wimp.

[jrthin]

10. And then we wonder why

the dems are on a serious losing streak. Gawd, people turn on the teevee and they see the dem leaders (?) AGREEING with the rethugs on everything. Why the hell would they vote for the dems?

[merbex]

11. One more thing - I hope his team loses tomorrow too

[flordehinojos]

12. he also said that 75% of democrats say that we should cooperate (go along)

with ........yeah, you guessed it, the most infamous president in history -- (actually he said GWB) i am the one calling him the most infamous president in history.

[markus]

27. Did he say 75% of Dems, voters or people surveyed?

I don't recall it just being Democrats.

If it were true that 75% of Democrats agree that the Party should capitulate (which is what "cooperate" means to Bush, Delay and Frist), then, well, it's probably time to for the Democratic Secessionist Party.

This is another instance of how the GOP manipulates language. Most reasonable people would want their elected representatives to cooperate for the good of their country.

However, I think a poll asking if Democrats should all kneel before Bush and suck his nipple, well, I think you might get a different answer.

[flordehinojos]

29. now that you are holding me accountable to what he said, i can't swear to

it ... but in my mind it registered as his having said, "75% of democrats. the statement stuck with me because it shocked me... but .. in my agitated anti-bush state of mind ...... i can't swear to what rendell said. i could swear that that is what I heard.
:-)

[Andromeda]

13. This isn't the first time Rendel

has gone after a fellow Democrat. In 2002 he called for Gore to SUCCEED when we were going through the election fiasco. With him as an ally you don't need any enemies.

Go suck an egg, Rendel. We want a REAL Democrat as Chairman of the DNC. I'm getting sick of these so-called party leaders telling us what's good for us.

:thumbsdown: to you too Leon Panetta.

We've got to get some effective party spokespersons or we are in deep doodoo.

I wish all the Democrats were more like Barbara Boxer. She's my hero.

[formernaderite]

15. REmember in 2000 he was one of the first dems asking Gore to concede...

...he's an appeaser and media whore.

[robbedvoter]

26. No, that was reich. Rendell however conceded for Gore on CNN

when the SCOTUS decision was announced. As his campaign manager it was even worse.

[peacetalksforall]

17. A good thing is happening....we are learning a ton of information about

our unelected Dem leaders. We are learning who we don't want.

Problem ahead - the media will embrace the embracers and progressives might get cut out.

Both the Dems and Repubs are suffering from splits.

[Eloriel]

18. I think they've all been put under some evil spell

Only people like members of the CBC seem to have escaped it (a few others, perhaps, but not that many).

I can say, tho, that it's very, very discouraging to see these prominent and elected Dems pandering to the right, saying things that fucking clueless DLC-aligned consultants have apparently convinced them is "the thing" to do and say.

Meanwhile, the cognitivie dissonance I experience on a daily / hourly basis (what I know and perceve as Reality versus what I see and hear others perceiving and experessing as Reality) is getting absolutely intolerable. If it gets much worse, I'll either have to disengage permanently and completely or I feel I shall go bonkers -- neither very attractive potentialities.

[zulchzulu]

20. Rendell was always a bit moderate to right..so why the surprise?

Nothing new with him on this...glad you saw it firsthand so you never think he should run in 2008...for anything.

[seabeyond]

30. honesty issues

boxer speaking out in truth, he has issue and doesnt mind a liar in sec of state

dean who speaks from the heart most of the time, though he is moderate like what he is looking for doesnt want

clearly the man has an issue with honest speaking politicians

[Vadem]

31. After the 2000 fiasco, when we were waiting for the recount and to..

hear what the USSC was going to say--the minute the Gang of Five handed down their opinion from the Supreme Court handing the Presidency to Shrub, ED RENDELL demanded Al Gore to concede--this, even before he, or anyone else, had had a chance to read the USSC opinion!!! I wrote the DNC, (Ed Rendell was Chairman of the DNC at the time) and DEMANDED that he be fired!! In my view, he was NO Democrat, to be insisting that Al Gore concede, before he even had the facts.


I have had NO USE for Ed Rendell since that time, (and absolutely, still do not, and never will!) In my book, he is no Democrat!

[Tinoire]

32. Here's the transcript --- what a JOKE!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/22/cg.01.html

RENDELL: Well, I think the party's in a little bit of a quandary. A recent poll showed that 75 percent of Americans want the Democrats in Congress to cooperate with the president, and we should. But that has to come from the president reaching out. Let's take health care as an example. The president wants health care security accounts. That's fine. I don't think they'll work for ordinary Americans, but let's give the president that option. But at the same time, let's ask the president to put more money into the Children's Health Insurance Program, so every child in America can be guaranteed health care. That's a minimum that we should ask as a party. Let's try to forge that alliance on mutual issues of concern.

And I think we need to do that. If all we do in Congress is trash and burn everything the president says, I think we'll pay for it. And we've got to stop this idea -- the election finishes in November, and the next campaign begins in January. The American people, the people in Pennsylvania and Kansas and Nebraska and Arkansas -- they're sick of it. They're sick of it. We've got to try to work together. And we have some challenges in selecting our new party chair, as well.

===

Now that I've :puked:

Here's the part I LOVED! We've got them by the balls :) They understood the bit about the money and this is a GOOD thing. It means they are realizing that we will not be forking over our cash unless we get something in return. Getting Dean in as DNC Chair would be just a START for us and they know it...

PONNURU- .... And I think -- you know, look at Howard Dean. I don't think that people are backing Howard Dean for the DNC race because they want to make the Democrats go left. A lot of them are backing him because they want money. They think he's a good fund-raiser, and these cash- strapped state parties think he's going to be an ATM machine for them.

But the result of making him the chairman is going to be to move the party left in the public mind.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/22/cg.01.html

[IndianaGreen]

33. Rendell is a fat white pig that hasn't got any clue other than to repeat

the same tired DLC mantras of the past that have brought us nothing but defeat and retreat. Enough retreating, and enough defeatism. It is time to go on the offensive by providing the American people with a vision and a program that begins and ends with the dismantling of the Reagan "revolution" and Bush's police state.

Rendell is the DLC's Squealer, telling the sheep to stay in the pen and ignore those malcontents in the Democratic insurgency.

[autorank]

34. Rendel is the ultimate "Surrender Monkey" Gave in immediately in 2000

I remember his ugly mug right there on CNN saying the election was over about 72 hours after the fact. I'm glad he's governor and so forth but he's not the guy I'd want next to me in a street fight, and that's what this is.

He and the rest of the nay sayers will be blown away when Dean gets the nod. He'll raise money like nobody's business. More importantly his position on Iraq and that of Wes Clark will be total redeemed very shortly when the media can no longer hide the monstrosity and abject failure that is our current Iraq policy.