The Democratic party has strong leaders - (too bad they're not in control)

[Q]

- They're eloquent, forthright and don't mince words. They're brilliant statesmen who every single day defend the rights of the American people and their Constitution. They fight for Democratic values and principles: the environment, choice, civil rights, worker's rights, government accountability, public education, social security and social programs to help the poor.

- The problem? These strong leaders have little or no power within the party. The appointed and anointed leadership ignores them as they compromise our party to death and sell-out on so many issues.

- I'd like to see the current 'leadership' compromise with the many other dedicated leaders within the party as much as they do with the Republicans. Better yet...they should be leading this party against the likes of Trent Lott and King George.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Don't forget Kucinich and Lee

Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

[Q]

2. Consider them counted...

- We need new leadership...willing and able to lead and fight for our party and the American people.

[redqueen]

3. I would say the same thing.

What an oversight!

[Q]

5. No oversight intended...

...so let's not get caught up in semantics. The point: there ARE strong leaders within the party...but they're being ignored and turned away.

- We need to change leadership BEFORE we have to confront the Bushies in the 2004 election.

[redqueen]

9. Very much so

I've told Byrd's staff on more than one occasion that Daschle should take his counsel!

[Q]

21. I removed references to any particular Democrat...

...that would provide stronger leadership than now exists.

- There are many...and it was unfair of me to pick a few names while leaving out the rest.

[Tatiana]

4. Kennedy should be the new minority...hopefully MAJORITY leader. N/T

[mlawson]

24. Yes, he SHOULD. But don't hold your breath.

Daschle will stay there until he gets defeated in SD, or he voluntarily gives Leader up.

Why?? It's some 'inside baseball' deal that we can only speculate about. It's the way it's always been, always will be.

[Cleita]

6. We need form a new Democratic committee with those

true Democrats involved and let the DNC and DLC go the way of the dinosaurs.

[mzmolly]

7. Don't worry, Dean will be 'in control' very soon.

:)

[ShaneGR]

8. Q enlightens us on anti-Dem feeling

Nothing like reading my daily Q thread to find out Q doesn't like about Democrats next.

BTW Q, who do you support for the Democratic Nomination?

[redqueen]

11. Oh come now

Surely you can admit to yourself that the Democrats have moved far to the right these past few decades, right?

If not... well then I just don't know what to say.

[ulysses]

12. you don't understand.

ANY criticism of ANY Democrat means that you're anti-Dem. To some folks, anyway...

[ShaneGR]

18. Any is fine, ALL THE TIME sucks

And with q, IT IS ALL THE TIME.

[ulysses]

20. some of them deserve it ALL THE TIME. n/t

[Q]

13. Say what, Mr. Gadfly?

- That you read my threads doesn't mean you have to respond to them. You're welcome to contribute.

- And please...stop the 'litmus test' of asking me which Democrat I support for the nomination. Would you consider me a 'better Democrat if I choose someone on the sgr2 approved list? Bah.

[ShaneGR]

15. Fair question, who do you support?

Any of them?

[welshTerrier2]

29. Cheap Shot

Seems like you took a cheap shot to me ...

why you ask?

your earlier subject line referred to the base post as having an "anti-dem" feeling ... now, if you were opposed to one democratic candidate, or even a bunch of democratic candidates, it wouldn't be proper to call that "anti-dem" ... it would be anti-Dean .. or anti-Clark ... or anti-whoever ... to be "anti-dem", you have to oppose most of the people and most of the policies of democrats ...

and from the base post, it seems this is not the position of the poster:

The Democratic party has strong leaders - (too bad they're not in control)

Edited on Thu Nov-20-03 05:29 PM by Q
- They're eloquent, forthright and don't mince words. They're brilliant statesmen who every single day defend the rights of the American people and their Constitution. They fight for Democratic values and principles: the environment, choice, civil rights, worker's rights, government accountability, public education, social security and social programs to help the poor


Does this sound like someone who opposes most democrats? it doesn't sound that way to me ... it sounds like Q supports a different faction within the democratic party than the one currently in control ... to refer to this as "anti-dem" earns you my cheap shot award for today ...

and, while we're on the subject ... i'm not supporting any democratic candidate ... I see strengths and weaknesses in many of them ... does this mean I'm not worthy of your acid test?

why not respond to criticisms of the democratic leadership in a less inflammatory way ???!!! if you support the current party leadership, why not make your case for them instead of accusing others as being "anti-dem" ... in fact, you never even responded to the theme of the base post ... so i'll ask you ... do you, or do you not, think that there are many excellent people in the democratic party who might do a better job running the national campaigns and setting the strategic direction for the party ???

had you responded with a real response instead of an attack on Q, I wouldn't have had to ask this question ...

[ShaneGR]

39. It's a simple QUESTION!

Who do you support?

[welshTerrier2]

53. Still non-responsive

first of all, i answered that question ... i see both good and bad qualities in many of the democratic candidates and see no reason to rush to judgment this early ...

secondly, you again have failed to answer the question I asked and you certainly have failed to respond to the points Q raised in the base post ... your post is NOT RESPONSIVE ... i asked you whether you agreed or disagreed with Q's base post where he stated that there are many great people in the democratic party who could do a better job controlling the party's reigns of power ...

your non-responsive response so far has been:

"who do you support"

is it too much to ask that you make a reasoned response to the topic this thread is about instead of levelling accusations ??? no one is asking you to agree with Q's arguments ... but to ignore them should not be what a discussion board is all about ... is it safe to assume you have no opinion on the subject ??

[Cocoa]

10. Byrd voted for the abortion ban

so he's out.

Kennedy voted for No child left behind, so he's out.

Even the late Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act, so his ghost is out.

[Q]

16. I thought you didn't like that 'single issue' stuff?

- It could be true that none of those I mentioned would be good leaders for the party. I'm speaking in generalities. But if nothing else...they would actually LEAD the party and motivate us to seek greater things.

[tom_paine]

17. Damnit, if you look for perfection, you will find NOTHING!

And you will have no one to lead you.

Even if Byrd were fully anti-choice, I would support him for leadership. Why? A disagreement on a single issue should nto be enough to toss out a leader.

And I guarantee you that if Wellstone hadn't been murdered, that he would be among the most vocal admitting his mistake and atoning for it by speaking out.

[Cocoa]

19. that was my point

well said. Can I quote you on it? :-)

[Q]

23. I'm not sure I would want an 'anti-choice' leader...

...but I believe someone like Byrd WOULD make a good leader because he understands the importance of the Democratic Process. While he may be against abortion...he would allow others to vote their conscience.

- Being a strong leader isn't about particular issues as much as it's about knowing HOW to lead and uniting the party against the opposition.

[Cocoa]

30. take off your pink tutu Q

what does the dem party stand for if not choice?

How can you of all people accept nothing less than total committment to that democratic party CORE issue?

[redqueen]

32. Um, what?

So the core issue for Democrats is that women should be able to abort right up until birth?

God, I really hope this is sarcasm.

[Cocoa]

34. choice is a core democratic issue

I can't think of a single other issue that is closer associated with the democratic party.

[redqueen]

42. *speechless*

You must be very young, then.

:(

[tom_paine]

14. Good point.

[Cocoa]

22. did you edit your post to remove Byrd and Kennedy?

you don't like them anymore?

[ShaneGR]

25. No, they didn't stand at the gates of the White House today

Screaming WE SHALL OVERCOME!

So they're on the shi*list.

[Cocoa]

28. no one can live up to Q's ideal...

Al Gore! No I'm not making it up, Q likes Al Gore more than any of the other candidates.

[Terwilliger]

Q ideals?

is the counterpoint that you have no ideals?

[Cocoa]

49. no

how did you get that?

[Q]

45. It's not 'my' ideal...it's the time-honored Democratic ideal...

- Don't tread on me simply because I'm not willing to sell out my party for a few pieces of silver.

- You make it sound as if I should feel ashamed for supporting Al Gore. Is he not the actual winner of the last election? Is he not a Democrat? Why would I not 'like' a Democrat who wins elections despite all the obstacles thrown in his way by the opposition AND certain factions of the party itself?

- I'm not anti-Dem. I'm anti-stupidity.

[Cocoa]

51. Gore is a actually one of the original "New Dems"

not really a time-honored ideal of a dem.

You shouldn't feel ashamed one bit. I like Al Gore too. But having won elections is not an ideal. All the dems you trash would meet that test, they all won their elections.

[Q]

55. Gore is as 'Democratic' as they come...

...but even you have to admit that he and the DLC NeoDems parted ways when they found out they couldn't control him. They wanted a corporate stooge and Gore wouldn't play.

- Yes...many others have won elections...but then they became...Republicans.

[Cocoa]

56. why do I have to admit they parted ways?

Why should I see Gore being a founding DLCer, and serving two terms in the first New Dem administration, new dem through and through, see him name Lieberman as running mate, and then take his last-minute populist strategy as proof that he's not a new dem?

[Q]

26. Yes...see post #21...

- I believe it was a mistake on my part to mention any particular Democrat. There are literally dozens of Democrats who would make better LEADERS than the current crop of weak-kneed victims of bipartisan date rape.

[Cocoa]

27. your edit came right after my post

where I demonstrated that your game can be played with any given person.

Byrd and Kennedy were off the top of my head, I bet you could do it with anyone, just go over to Znet and do a search and find something that prove how bad they are.

[Q]

31. I'm talking about leadership...not issues.

- We need leadership that can inspire and make Democrats proud of their party again. We need someone who will FIGHT the opposition on every issue important to the Democratic party. We need a leadership unafraid to hold hearings and investigate wrongdoing in the White House and let the chips fall where they may.

- Leadership. Now more than ever.

[redqueen]

33. Some of us get it, Q. :-) n/t

[Q]

38. Yeah...I know...

...but it's for sure we're not getting anywhere the way things now stand.

- Much more of this and we'll ALL be Republicans.

[Cocoa]

36. you sold your chosen leaders down the river

you held Kennedy and Byrd up as your ideas of what you want in a leader, and then when it was shown they didn't live up to your ridiculous standards you dropped them.

[JohnKleeb]

37. Personally as a pretty far leftist I would count those as my leaders

Ted Kennedy is great, one of my favorites if not my favorite senators. I like Byrd for a lot of what he does. If I could choose the minority leader, Ted would be on the list, as would be Feingold, Harkin, amongst others.

[Q]

41. Better to have 'ridiculous standards'...

...than no standards at all.

- I removed the names so people like you couldn't use them to trash others for suporting them.

- I would take Byrd or Kennedy or Alice in Wonderland over the current so-called leadership.

- Do you actually have a point?

[buddhamama]

35. quite right! now how do we go about changing that?

[Tellurian]

40. Ok-- so who should we get rid of?

If you don't want to diss anyone, which I totally understand.

Can you at least point out the Dead Wood?

I can suggest several names:

...Lieberman

...Zell Miller

...Gephardt

for starters...

[Q]

43. We don't need to 'get rid' of anyone...just change the leadership...

...of the party. They've proven to be ineffective and prone to capitulation instead of fighting for what they supposedly believe in.

- The problem is...the great leaders of the party tend to be more 'liberal' and they've been rejected by the NeoDems who can't seem to decide which party they belong to.

[Cocoa]

44. Kennedy is a strong Daschle supporter

he's constantly defending Daschle, and vice versa, against the republicans, although they don't always vote together.

I think if your man Kennedy wanted, he could arrange for Daschle to step down, I don't think Kennedy is as powerless as you think he is.

[Q]

47. Okay...I'll confess:

- If I had my choice (and I don't)...I would choose Gore to lead our party. There...now you know the whole truth.

- But given that Gore isn't running...I can only suggest that we need new leadership. Otherwise...many of us will die of old age before the party becomes the majority again.

[Tellurian]

50. Ha!.. A diplomatic response if I ever saw one..

::poppycock::!

I'll be happy if Gore manages to get the word out via a network program.

[Cocoa]

54. so it's about gaining the majority?

Is that the ultimate goal?

You do realize that "showing spine" means risking losing don't you?

If having courage guaranteed they would win, it wouldn't be courage.

[Tellurian]

46. But we do...

The non performers are taking up valuable space that an enthusiatic newbie could fill and possibly guarantee no crossover vote!

The worthless ones, like the ones I've mentioned, are a disgrace to the Demo Party-

[Q]

48. We can make sure they're not given leadership roles...

...but it's up to the people of their state to vote them out. Luckily...Miller will be retiring soon.

[MuseRider]

52. 100% correct.

I don't even care really if they are not particularly progressive, although that would be my choice, but they must be able to stand up to the Republicans and hold their stance. I don't even have a problem with negotiation, that is why the two parties, but this current bunch considers negotioation saying they don't like it and voting for it anyway. It seems to me that our leadership has been thrust onto the shoulders of some of the others who are willing to speak out but then they just get left hung out to dry, little support. I agree with you, we can't win elections if we aren't distinctive and right now it has become hard to tell the difference IMO.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. There is a reason Democrats won't stand up to Republicans

over certain issues. On certain issues, that's what they are supposed to do. Think about it.