Will Democrats ever make any progress with Pelosi and Reid as Leaders?

[kentuck]

If the idea is to put out front the two most milquetoast, timid people as a front for our Party, then we have succeeded. However, in these times, with the Republicans defending torture and the former President Bush's policies overseas and at Gitmo, we need aggressive and competent leaders to lead us out of this mess. If the idea is that if we have less-threatening Democrats leading our Party, then we have a better chance for bi-partisanship, then that idea has failed miserably. Republicans do not understand compromise or bi-partisanship unless you are compromising with their positions and their own partisanship. How much more do we need to see?

[Vinca]

1. We need pitbulls. We've got angry goldfish.

[atreides1]

3. The Goldfish Aren't angry

There floating like that because the oxygen ran out.:)

[abq e streeter]

4. "angry goldfish" --you give em more credit that I would. more like passive goldfish

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. But are they really passive?

Or are they actively shilling for the Repukes?

It's always been my contention that the purpose of the DLC was to undermine the Democratic party from the inside and make it a subservient clone of the Republican party. And the opportunity for them now is even better. Although the people overwhelmingly voted, in both 2006 and 2008 to move away from neoconism and corporatism, the DLC (who are neither Democrats nor leaders) and BlueBalled cowards are determined to do exactly the opposite. Regardless of the numbers on the official roster, and regardless of the will of the people, it's still, in reality, a Repuke majority in Congress, especially the Senate. :evilfrown:

[Echo In Light]

7. Institutional collusion is a given

[abq e streeter]

11. You're absolutely right--I used "passive" just for semantic "cleverness" in response

to the person who called them "angry goldfish" , and that person was using that term to mock them too. I just took it a step further as a way of actually agreeing with them. But yeah, your post is unfortunately right on the money. And that makes me, a lifelong Democrat (ever since being a politically aware kid) very sad,and feeling rather hopeless and defeated.

[jgraz]

2. No

[OHdem10]

5. Kentuck you NAILED IT.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Depends.

Incremental gradualism produces a much slower rate of change. It also guards against the kind of cataclysmic political overreaching that destroyed Bush's ability to propose legislation second term. Keep in mind Social Security reform was supposed to be only the first of a battery of reforms to destroy the entire New Deal and replace it with "the ownership society." Yet they botched the hell out of that, and Bush didn't successfully pass any major new legislation in his second term.

[kentuck]

9. But do we need incrementalism at this time...

or do we a clean break from these criminals that ran the country for the last eight years? Do we need radical change?

[H2O Man]

10. No.

Rather, they will lose opportunities to make progress, and once lost, those opportunities can never be found again.

[Vidar]

12. No, which is precisely why they're in there.

[aquamarina]

13. No and No.