New DNC Chair?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


For now, yes. Things have gotten bad enough for me to question. They haven't reached the point where I'll answer the question with a yes.

I grew up in a very Republican household, Dan. My parents LOVED Reagan (and so, then, did I). I have been very proud to be an American, I've loved my country... and that's crumbling. It's not something that happens overnight.

...

LotM,



You're not actually going to question that it was a key component in the election, are you? Bigotry, intolerance - those things may not be new (of course they're not), but the party in power has exploited them wonderfully (:vomit to stay in power. That disgusts me.

This election is illustrative of a trend. A trend away from the ideals of the Enlightenment and towards backward social conservatism. That's a trend that both repulses me and scares the **** out of me. If it continues, there are other places to live.

-Arrian

First I will question it - the sole anti-gay social policy the GOP ran on was gay marriage. Now while I personally and impressed by many of the arguments forgay marriage, and even more, oppose the family amendment on federalist grounds, I can see some rational people opposing gay marriage. And i can see some non-rational grounds that dont strike me as bigoted, or as unnatural reactions to rapid change. Now you may consider anyone who oppose gay marriage as anti-gay (hell, i have to constantly remind myself that not everyone who opposes the idea of a Jewish state is antiJewish)
but to go from that, to all this vomit, is really a bit much. I know its fashionable today, just as the all the rightwing loonies vomiting about Clinton was fashionable then, among a different set. Or the insane accusations that Kerry shares the opinions of a Michael Moore just because he exploited them. Politics is politics. It isnt life. Or it isnt life till someone takes action.

Leave if you want. We'll even be happy to have you back, if you change your mind. But since you love the enlightenment, it would be wise to choose with your head rather than your heart, to see the comedy and question the tragedy where no tragedy exists.

[lord of the mark]

and its interesting to say that you loved Reagan.

I never did. I not only voted against him twice, i worked against him. Twice. I saw the repudiation of what was good and progressive there, and drive to a country that was alien from what i knew.

And I was a lot of people overlook that for a man who made a good impression on TV, and gave the impression of niceness. As Bush makes a poor impression, and the GOP gives the impression of meanness.

I find few things more amazing than the Reaganites, fans of a man who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who consolidated the "southern strategy" griping about the bigotry of the current admin.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ronald Reagan wanted a place alien to what I knew. Of course progressive also want a place thats "alien" thats what makes them progressive.

I never like Reagan or what he stood for- as for progresives, again, it becomes about core values-.

And what they want is still rather more progressive than what America was actually like for most of my life. So they want to go back a little - thats the nature of change, two steps forward, one step back.

The people in power today wants 2 steps back, and an end to the walking.

I wouldnt leave a country cause of what people want - id leave it cause of the reality of the society - if arrian and wife find a place they want to go to, best of luck to them - but to paint a dystopian picture of the US today is just silly.

Not of today, of tommorrow

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I never like Reagan or what he stood for- as for progresives, again, it becomes about core values-.

And what they want is still rather more progressive than what America was actually like for most of my life. So they want to go back a little - thats the nature of change, two steps forward, one step back.

The people in power today wants 2 steps back, and an end to the walking.

Of course. And some folks want 4 steps forward. NEITHER gets what they want - either the four steps forward, or the two steps back - thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers, and the balanced, complex system they gave us. Which will serve us well again, as it has in the past.


God bless America.

[GePap]

thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers, and the balanced, complex system they gave us. Which will serve us well again, as it has in the past.

A system than can break down, either becuase it is ill prepared for the changes that need to happen, or because it is built on the assumption everyone will buy the premise of it- in the end, if one side does not, the system breaks down.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like this "dont' whine unless you are leaving" attitude by DanS... very Bush-like . I'm waiting for him to call Arrian a traitor next.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap

wars on questionable justifications? Grenada, Panama, ....

Conflicts that took less than 2 months each, or that cost under 30 American lives combined hardly compare to Iraq. Those two interventions were part of a long American tradition of screwing around in L.A., like in nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and so forth. Iraq is brand new.

Not brand new. In size it's more like Vietnam or Korea but a lower intensity version of both.

[DanS]

I like this "dont' whine unless you are leaving" attitude by DanS...

You misunderstand. I don't mind the whining. Rather, him saying he's leaving is rather childish unless he is, in fact, leaving.

[DanS]

Because I still love my part of America, Dan. CT, and New England in general.

44% of the voters in CT voted for Bush.

[PLATO]

Presidents come and Presidents go. The trend in this country has always been progressive and will likely continue to be. It is really a question of pace...nothing more.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO


Senator Byrd from West Virginia, a former KKK member, comes to mind right away.

A lot gets made of ol' Porky's card-carrying klan credentials, but a few things conveniently get glossed over - in the day, the Klan was a huge political movement, and a lot of politicians became at least nominal members to get their support, the same as politicians now cozy up to the NRA or any other PAC that has a lot of clout.

If the Klan resurged to a 15 million or so membership like in it's second heyday, you'd see politicians start looking for Klan endorsements again.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


A lot gets made of ol' Porky's card-carrying klan credentials, but a few things conveniently get glossed over - in the day, the Klan was a huge political movement, and a lot of politicians became at least nominal members to get their support, the same as politicians now cozy up to the NRA or any other PAC that has a lot of clout.

If the Klan resurged to a 15 million or so membership like in it's second heyday, you'd see politicians start looking for Klan endorsements again.

Nonetheless...He is the only member of the Senate to have had those credentials and he is a democrat. It was a valid answer to Oerdin's question. I am not trying to speak to the values he holds today, but to the ones he held during the period in question...the late '60s and early '70s.

[PLATO]

Interesting article on where the Dem leadership is heading:

Dodd clears path for Reid
Crushed Senate Democrats seek to regroup swiftly after Daschle’s defeat
By Geoff Earle


Senate Democrats tried to regroup yesterday after two crushing defeats left their party without a leader or a clear strategy for stopping the GOP agenda.

Democratic aides expressed sadness and devastation at former Rep. John Thune’s defeat of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) after a close and bitter race.

Although Daschle had been considered highly vulnerable, many in his party had been convinced that the Senate’s most prominent Democrat would find a way to pull out a win. No Senate leader had been defeated in more than 50 years.

Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stepped in immediately after Daschle’s defeat, telling Nevada reporters yesterday that he had secured at least 30 assurances of support from fellow Democrats — enough to succeed Daschle when Senate Democrats meet to reorganize Nov. 16.

Reid appeared to be put on a clear path toward victory when Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) told reporters yesterday that he would not challenge Reid, saying a contested race “would be very harmful to our party at this juncture.”

Leading Senate Republicans, meanwhile, boosted by the party’s gain of four Senate seats, are urging President Bush to push ahead with a strong conservative agenda.

Reid has earned plaudits from colleagues for putting in long hours working the Senate floor.

Dodd, who lost the race for leader to Daschle by a single vote in a 1994, had been preparing for a challenge to Reid — who has a more conservative voting record than Dodd does and represents a swing state. Senate aides said Dodd had reached out to colleagues Monday and Tuesday to assess support.

“The next couple days are a time for reflection and introspection,” one Senate Democratic aide said. “After that period, it’s time for the Democrats to get their act together and serve as an effective counterweight to the Republican majority.”

Reid has tried to establish himself as Daschle’s heir apparent, having claimed to secure pledges of support from 35 Democrats when Daschle considered retiring or running for president last year. But some have argued that Democrats need a leader who can be a public counterweight to President Bush and that Reid’s strengths are too institutional.

Before Dodd withdrew from the race, it was unclear whether leaders of the Senate’s more liberal faction, including Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), would try to give a boost to Dodd’s candidacy. Kennedy, a major force in Sen. John Kerry’s presidential bid, backed Dodd in his failed run against Daschle. A source said that neither Kennedy nor Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) was on Reid’s initial list of supporters.

But even before Dodd withdrew, aides to several senators gave Reid the edge.

Reid’s bid for leader opens up a race for party whip that could expose deep ideological rifts within the party and provide a forum for reexamining Kerry’s defeat.

Squaring off will be Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), who chairs the Democratic Policy Committee. Although both men are well-respected in the caucus, some critics have said Dorgan is haunted by the same liability as Daschle: He represents a conservative state that could hinder his dual role as a party leader.

“Why would we vote in another Dakotan to be in leadership right now to be in a solidly red state?” one Senate Democratic aide asked. “There’s still simmering bad feelings because Dorgan voted for the Medicare bill, and nobody’s forgotten. That’s two big strikes against him.”

One Democratic Senate aide, who also spoke highly of Reid, said Durbin is “sharp, savvy [and] thinks well on his feet.” Another aide said the party would do well to elect either of them.

Some aides speculated that centrists and liberals alike would enthusiastically back Reid because of his work ethic during his tenure as whip — even though he is to the right of some Eastern liberals. But the party’s liberal wing then might try to assert its influence in the whip’s race by backing Durbin over Dorgan.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), already a top fundraiser and de facto party leader, might not have much to gain by seeking a party leadership post, some insiders said.

“Each and every one of these senators thinks that he or she is going to be the next president of the United States,” one Senate aide said. “Do you think that any one of them is going to give her a leap up over them by allowing her to move up in the Senate?”

Republicans were giddy at capturing the presidency while expanding their majority in the House and Senate.

“It makes a huge difference,” said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “The Democrats are going to have to take stock of their situation, their obstructionism. It may have blocked the legislation, but I don’t think it helped them politically.”

But the key number in the Senate is still 60 — the number of votes needed to break a filibuster. “You can’t do much of anything in the Senate without 60 anyway,”
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill. “Obviously, 55 is better than 51. I don’t think this is a time to get smug about it.”

Despite all the talk of “healing” in Bush and Kerry’s concession speeches, brutal battles await the Senate, with as many as four Supreme Court confirmation fights possible during Bush’s second term.

“They are short of the 60,” a Senate Democratic aide said. “The whole goal now of [Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-Tenn.] is to pick up the additional votes necessary … to try and move their radical agenda. The sole focus of the Democratic leader is to try to prevent that from happening.”

Senate fights will put new pressure on such Democratic centrists as Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), who is up for reelection, Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Tom Carper (Del.). The retirement of other centrists, such as Sen. John Breaux (La.), has made the
Democratic caucus more liberal. “Those old boll-weevil-type Democrats are gone,” Lott said.

The Republican caucus, meanwhile, is growing more conservative, with the impending arrival of the sharp-tongued former Rep. Tom Coburn (Okla.) — who frequently clashed with House GOP leaders — and Rep. Jim DeMint (S.C.). Lott praised Coburn for running an incredible race, adding, “I also would expect that Tom has learned a few lessons along the way — maybe a little humility.”

Some personal bonds have survived the bitterness of the election. Lott said he placed a call to Daschle on Tuesday after learning of his defeat. “On a personal basis, I feel for Tom,” he said. “It’s always sad to see a career ended like this.”

© 2004 The Hill
733 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20005

http://www.hillnews.com/news/110404/reid.aspx