Can we retire Bob Shrum?

[x-g.o.p.er]

Maybe this topic has been broached before, and if it has, I apologize. I've been staying out of the GD rooms and trying to limit my time to mostly in the lounge. GD and GDP have become dangerous places lately.

But can we agree that Bob Shrum has had his chance to try and win a presidential election, and since he is 0-8 he can move on to bigger and better things?

Am I the only one who thinks this, or am I off my rocker here?

Bring back Carville and Begala, they were the last ones (at least IMHO) who took no shit from the RW attack machine and struck back right away, before the news cycle had a chance to steamroll.

I would say that the Republicans took a page or two out of the Carville playbook this year, and were able to frame the debate much like JC and Clinton were in 1992.

Shrum was completely reactionary and always seemed one step behind, both in 2000 and this year.

Tell me where I am wrong on this, but I don't think I am.

[Vincardog]

1. Retire him AND the DLC

[x-g.o.p.er]

5. I think the DLC can be a bridge

to those in the Republican party that have yet to drink the hard-right kool-aid. It is a fact that when Democrats and Republicans can work together for a common cause, the country is much better off. Moderates in both parties are where that common ground will be found initially, I think.

Yeah, it's naive, but it's what I believe.

[Robbien]

7. The DLC has more in common with the DeLay type GOP

The Progressives in the Democratic party would be more willing to work with the moderates of the GOP. The DeLay type GOP and the DLC both believe things should be done their way or the highway.

[x-g.o.p.er]

12. I wholeheartedly disagree

The DLC is as ideologically opposed to Tom DeLay as Ralph Nader is.

I'm sorry, but please back up your assertions.

[Robbien]

13. Both DeLay GOP and the DLC are interested in corporate lobby money

It is their first priority for both parties. Please see this thread where the DLC clearly states corporate money is their first priority:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1365751

[DaveinMD]

9. Shrum in not DLC unless Ted Kennedy is DLC

Kennedy is Shrum's biggest backer.

[Vincardog]

14. I did not say that he was I think neither helps our progressive cause

[Julien Sorel]

16. People here don't realize how liberal Shrum is.

Shrum's politics would probably be mainstream at DU, which is certainly to the left of the average Democrat. But the reflexive anti-DLC mania here means that anything negative must be traced back to the DLC in one form or another. And of course, once the DLC is sufficiently vilified, we need to cast about and find the most anti-DLC candidate we can find and run them, because the goal is to defeat the DLC, not the Republicans.

[DaveinMD]

17. sadly

I think that's true at this point. We need to beat Republicans. Not each other.

[autorank]

2. This was my massive denial: what kind of guy would hire an 8 time loser

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[Robbien]

3. All of them are DLCers and use the GOP Lite playbook

none of the ones you mentioned can win an election. Under their lead, why vote Dem when you can vote the real GOP.

[GainesT1958]

4. Anyone who runs for the Democratic nomination in 2008...

And has employed Bob Shrum--or anyone working at his consulting firm--to do so, should automatically be DISQUALIFIED from winning that nomination, as they've precluded themselves from winning the general election by vitue of employing Shrum, or his minions!:mad:

B-)

[Julien Sorel]

6. Who is "we"?

The candidates choose their staff and advisors, and all of them wanted Shrum. If Shrum sticks around, I imagine there will be candidates who want him in 2007-8, too.

"We" don't have the power to retire anyone except the candidates themselves with our votes and support, or lack thereof.

[yardwork]

10. We the members of the Democratic Party have an obligation to speak

Year after year, the Democrats run lousy campaigns for president. There. I said it.

Year after year, the party underestimates how dirty and devious and just plain evil the Republicans will play.

We need plain speaking. We need tough speaking. We need candidates and advisors who are not afraid to get their hands dirty.

[x-g.o.p.er]

11. Fair enough...

It was more a rhetorical question, I suppose. I know "we" have no control over the hirings and firings of campaign staffs, but what will it take for someone to realize that Shrum is not the friggin' answer? Another loss?

[Lone Pawn]

8. Retire him by force

eom

[Leilani]

15. If you start the petition

I will GLADLY sign it.

I will not, NOT support a candidate in 2008 who hires Shrum.

End of story!

[proudbluestater]

18. Retire Shrum immediately

On the other hand, Begala and Carville are the masterminds of "it's the economy, stupid" and they kept trying to tell Kerry this THIS year and it just was not true. Everytime Kerry tried to step out of the box and talk about other issues, LIKE THE WAR, they wanted him right back IN the box, talking about the economy.

I would like to see a strategist advise whatever candidate that comes along to talk about the NEOCON agenda! Talk about the right-wing media! Talk about the nastiness that comes from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity and Fox who have no real answers to offer, only slurs against the Democrats.

[DaveinMD]

19. there is a ton of consulting talent

that goes unused because because they aren't insiders. Time for some new people to get their shots.