There is talk that McAuliffe

[SamSpade]

As long as the Democratic Party wants to BE the way they've been for the last umpty-ump years, I'm all for McAuliffe remaining. He remains the perfect picture of what the party has been, and will continue to be, at least if people like THIS guy have anything to do with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ei=5006&en=abb533bc6cfdc7c7&ex=1100235600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

To them, it's not that they were too harsh, out of touch, too shrill or did anything wrong. They just didn't do it ENOUGH.


They need to get a grip - there was an all-time RECORD turnout - and Bush won handily. RECORD TURNOUT. Bush wins. They can no longer afford to say to themselves "it's just a tiny group of conservative whackos". It's the country. That's what they want.

McAuliffe will keep them in this tailspin. Fine. A new party can emerge then.
Maybe a new third party.

But keep McAuliffe if they intend to be honest about their intentions.

 

[Larry Gude]

And there it is...

...Sam nails it once again.

You're telling them, as an ex Dem, what is wrong. But nooooo.

I guess they can get the 'flood' of ex-Republicans signing up as Democrats to testify that they were atracted by the nastiness and hope for more?

 

[FromTexas]

Sam,

Don't forget this guy...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

 

[Pete]

Sam,

Don't forget this guy...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

UFB

I think that was a chic BTW

 

[dems4me]

UFB

I think that was a chic BTW

Hen :shrug:

 

[Pete]

Hen :shrug:

Did you read what your party supporter believes? I would say buzzard

 

[rraley]

It is my understanding that party chairman, regardless of their effectiveness, are only able to serve for one term.

As for McAuliffee, he was great for fundraising, but terrible for directing the party.

 

[Nosferatu]

It is my understanding that party chairman, regardless of their effectiveness, are only able to serve for one term.

As for McAuliffee, he was great for fundraising, but terrible for directing the party.

I think you are incorrect. I believe that they serve as chairman as long as they (and the party, or in this case the Clintons) want. You may be right, I may be right, don't know which one of us is right.

 

[rraley]

I think you are incorrect. I believe that they serve as chairman as long as they (and the party, or in this case the Clintons) want. You may be right, I may be right, don't know which one of us is right.

I am not sure if it is actually written, but in the Democratic Party, that has been the standard for the last decade or so. Ed Rendel, who did an incredible job, left after a term as did James Andrews (I believe that was his name, he was from Indiana anyhow) after guiding the party to a win in 1996.

On the Republican side, I am not certain...there have been several party chairmen over the past four years due to resignations.

 

[FromTexas]

What is amazing is that the above so-called media intelligent elite can't figure it out, but P. Diddy can...

P. Diddy says he got off on the wrong foot when it came to his political endeavors in 2004. If he could do things over again, he wouldn't have yelled for folks to get George W. Bush's "ass out of office."

"I was a little reckless with my comments, to be honest," Diddy said on Tuesday (November 2). "I realized I relinquished my power too early after I educated myself. I shouldn't have said that until I felt that there was somebody that could be better for my people. ... I learned a lot in this process. I learned that my power could be used better. Instead of attacking Bush, it would be better to light a flame under young Americans and let them make the decisions."

Note: I don't look at P. Diddy as unintelligent in the least. He is an extremely business savy guy. I am just saying the media elite consider themselves the super intelligence brigade.

 

[Ken King]

RRaley is correct one 4 year term then out. See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf But they can always be elected again to serve the position.

 

[UrbanPancake]

As long as the Democratic Party wants to BE the way they've been for the last umpty-ump years, I'm all for McAuliffe remaining. He remains the perfect picture of what the party has been, and will continue to be, at least if people like THIS guy have anything to do with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ei=5006&en=abb533bc6cfdc7c7&ex=1100235600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

To them, it's not that they were too harsh, out of touch, too shrill or did anything wrong. They just didn't do it ENOUGH.

They need to get a grip - there was an all-time RECORD turnout - and Bush won handily. RECORD TURNOUT. Bush wins. They can no longer afford to say to themselves "it's just a tiny group of conservative whackos". It's the country. That's what they want.

I think your also missing the point that John Kerry won the second most voter turnout. So I wouldn't give Bush the mandate quite yet.

 

[UrbanPancake]

My point was a reiteration of yours (actually a concurrence), that long time southern Democrats have become disillusioned by the current activity of the party. No spin, just agreement, but I guess you are so p!ssed off at Kerry’s losing that you can’t see anything but attack.

I didn't see attack. I was having civil conversation with you.

 

[FromTexas]

I think your also missing the point that John Kerry won the second most voter turnout. So I wouldn't give Bush the mandate quite yet.

And the voting population also grew between 2000 and 2004.

Whether the number of voters is higher or lower, it still is a majority. Bush is the first president to get a majority of the vote since 1988... Not even Clinton got that.

 

[UrbanPancake]

And the voting population also grew between 2000 and 2004.

Whether the number of voters is higher or lower, it still is a majority. Bush is the first president to get a majority of the vote since 1988... Not even Clinton got that.

You failed to see my point.

 

[FromTexas]

You failed to see my point.

There is no point. Bush didn't have a mandate last time by you all because he didn't win the popular vote. Bush didn't have a mandate by you all because Gore was a sniveling whiner and wouldn't concede a state that has since been proven to have been correctly to Bush.

Now, you don't want him to have a mandate because it was record voter turnout.. Despite having the popular vote, no one state close call like Florida, and improving Republican seats in the House and the Senate... along with having the first majority of the vote since 1988.

Dems were schooled on their attitudes... and you just don't get it. There is a mandate for Repubs across the board.

 

[Voter2002]

After reading Jane Smiley's article on Slate.msn.com, I can see that there are no bounds to the HATE that demoncrats have for republicans.

If anyone is working to divide this country, it's the demoncrats! All the talk of unity and pushing a unified agenda is nothing more than the demoncrats blowing smoke up the arse's of republicans and trying to get THEIR agenda into play 'cause they couldn't get their demigod elected as president!

 

[SamSpade]

I think your also missing the point that John Kerry won the second most voter turnout. So I wouldn't give Bush the mandate quite yet.

What does "second most voter turnout" mean?

High voter turnout - votes for Bush. I don't see the problem here.

See, in the past, Dems have whined in off-year elections that Republicans have gained because their own base doesn't show up. Voting is light, and that seems to favor the Republicans. I don't know why they think that - it tends to make Democratic voters look bad.

They operate on the premise that - if ONLY we get our message out - if only people will SHOW UP - if only we can register more voters - we can win, because after all - deep down, everybody HATES Bush and they agree with our ideas.

That guy on Slate just confirms what Dems have been saying about the people for years - echoing the sentiments by the famous Mo Udall upon being voted out of office - "The people have spoken - the *bast*rds!*". When you are so consumed with politics that you have to assault the electorate, you're no longer SERVING the electorate, but yourself - or a set of ideologies that don't concur with the electorate.

In logic, this is what is known as "invincible ignorance" or a priori thinking. I'm right, so therefore how could this happen? It's like Nimzowicz throwing a temper tantrum when beaten by a lesser chess opponent, exclaiming "how can I lose to this IDIOT?".

Accept the fact. The people believe something else. He's not an idiot, because he beat *YOU*. They're not b*stards. They're not *stupid* and they're not manipulated. They disagree with you. It's an all too common liberal trait to confuse having an opinion with being right about something. It's why they've shown themselves to be violent or borderline violent in this election. They're so convinced they're right, decorum is irrelevant.

The guy in the Slate article is the very cream and flower of the current Democratic party - people voted for Bush because they're duped, and stupid. ONLY the people who voted for Kerry have any sense. My mom said to me this afternoon, the Democratic party is shedding all of its conservative elements - you can't be a moderate or conservative Democrat any longer, you're not welcome. And those people are defecting to the Republicans.

I'm not crazy about THAT either - there's just no other conservative option right now.