"The majority" is not a panacea, WHO is in office matters

[CTLawGuy]

The Democrats in Congress made DLC apologists who say "don't go after bad Dems, all we need is a MAJORITY" look foolish with their cave in to Bush on this funding bill.

We as the Democratic base need to vigorously fight for the best candidates for every office, becuase the kind of leader who is in office DOES matter. If we don't do this, the Dem leaders have no incentive to listen to us since there would otherwise be no way we could do anything about it.

People forget that the Dems had a MAJORITY in the Senate when Congress approved this horrible war. But Tom Daschle decided to do his Tony Blair impression, and a real leader might have put more of a monkey wrench (that is to say made the bill anything other than a complete blank check) in it.

We need a strong primary system.

[Heath Hatcher]

1. Yeah but that really wasn't that much of a majority

It was basically the majority we have today and rmember this was after 9-11 and the Dems didn't have control of the House, this wouldn't of happened today

[CTLawGuy]

2. enough of a majority so that Tom Daschle could have

tabled the IWR and not even brought it up if he wanted to.

[Heath Hatcher]

3. Yeah but remember this

DASCHLE WAS A CRAPPY LEADER, you all think Reid dosen't have a spine well look at tough guy Tom. Although I was angry that a Democrat lost that seat in 2004 to John Thune I was still pretty glad to see that egghead gone out of DC.

[CTLawGuy]

4. me too man

but I was pissed they picked Tommy's protege Harry "red state" Reid.

Tell me, when have you seen a republican Leader from a blue state? I mean a real leader, not Dennis Hastert...

[Heath Hatcher]

5. None

Because there not any "good leader" Republicans that are from blue states. Whats you point on thst though?

[CTLawGuy]

6. poltiicians from the opposite-colored states

tend to be more moderate. thus, Rs pick leaders that are more conservative and more in tune with their base and Dems pick leaders from red states who are less liberal and are probably worried about appealing to swing voters more than they are pleasing the base.

[Heath Hatcher]

7. I can explain that

You see the Republican Party is what you call a "lock-step" party. They want all of there members to embrace EVERYTHING that there party stands for and anyone that is considered a "moderate" is considered a cutcast liberal that is in bed with Nancy Pelosi and her "ultra liberal San Francisco adgenda" and those won't be considered for a leadership position. The Democratic Party keeping there juncture as the "big tent" party dosen't care what your views are just as long your a Democrat you will be treated equal. Swing voters and Independents are important to please. And reemmber our Speaker woulldn't be considered a moderate at all, Reid and Hoyer, absolutely but our House and Senate (Clyburn and Durbin) are pretty liberal is that pleases you.

[CTLawGuy]

8. our speaker is from california, hardly a red state

and it's fine for a party to accept people with divergent views, while at the same time ensuring that the leadership represents the base of the party. Ben Nelson is a perfectly fine Dem, but he doesn't represent the base of the party and would not be an appropriate leader. Someone like Chris Dodd or Dick Durbin from blue states are more appropriate.

[Heath Hatcher]

9. Yes but she's not a centrist like Reid and Hoyer

Dick Durbin as Senate leader, I see that happening one day when Reid ever retires, he would be the strong liberal leader we can all be proud of, am I right?

[CTLawGuy]

10. well I hope so

NT