MyDD :: Crises of Democratic Leadership

Crises of Democratic Leadership

by Parker, Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 03:20:22 PM EST

The Democratic party sunk to a new low today. Democratic Leadership was non existent. Harry "Charlie Brown" Reid once again let the GOP set him up to fall on his ass... taking the party and Democratic base with him.

There is a Crisis of Democratic Leadership a vacuum as big as the breaches in the NOLA levies. In this time of crises the only "strategery" Ried could come up with was that the Democratic senators played "Trading Places" with their votes so that no one could be "typecasted".

The blame for today's Roberts debacle which will be with us for at least the next 20 to 30 years lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid (I don't give a "Cheney" how he voted personally). Harry Reid it to blame for not demanding that the minimum qualification of documentation to be forth coming before a vote took place. This was an abandonment of post... and a greivous injustice to not only the Democratic base but to all Americans as well.

Hilliary should not escape blame for she wants so desperately to LEAD THE DEMOCRATS TO VICTORY yet she failed miserable to even persuade 22 of her colleagues to do the right thing. Hilliary showed absolutely NO LEADERSHIP and if this is the preview of what she has in store for the party then it is highly dissappointing.

The only "strategery" Those people in Washington DC with a (D) behind their names did was put all of their votes in a box and randomly pick... so that some "libruls" voted like a conservatives and some conservatives looked librul for one day in their miserable lives... ie Bayh.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment

Parker (3.00 / 1)

Why don't you just run for the Senate get elected then run for the leadership position and tell us all what we are supposed to do, then see if they all bow to your feet.

by THE MODERATE on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 03:52:07 PM EST

Right. (3.00 / 1)

"yet she failed miserable to even persuade 22 of her colleagues to do the right thing"

What if some of those who voted against Roberts did so at Hillary's urging? And even if she had persuaded more of her colleagues to vote against, would you give her any credit?

by JRyan on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 03:56:27 PM EST

Parker (none / 0)

parker parker... OH parker parker parker.... tsk tsk tsk...

(shakes head)

bad Charlie Brown analogy, by the way. Charlie Brown doesn't take anyone else down with him... better a sinking ship analogy, or something like that.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 04:45:21 PM EST

Re: Parker (none / 0)

The analogy is falling for the same old trick AGAIN.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 04:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THE SKY IS FALLING! (3.00 / 1)

THE SKY IS FALLING! LOOK! LOOK! THE END OF THE WORLD IS UPON US!

Please, it really isn't THAT big of a deal. So we swap one Rehnquist for another. What do you expect? I have to agree with John McCain on this, "Elections have consequences."

The real test is this next nomination. You wouldnt want the dems to blow their load too early.

Just sit tight, relax, and let's go to round two.

by dayspring on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 05:54:28 PM EST

Re: THE SKY IS FALLING! (none / 0)

Uh... hey... if elections have consquences, then we should just give him the next one, too, right?

BS - The Dem Leadership needed to go to the mat on this one. Why try to look bipartisan when the GOP is looking corrupt and incomeptent? Screw 'em. I don;t care who Bush sends up, just say NO.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 09:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reid needs to go as Dem leader (3.00 / 1)

With the Roberts nomination he threw in the towel early and allowed his caucus to vote their conscience and vote for Roberts. He allowed this to happened because he allowed the sham judicial compromise get rid of the filibuster. It got rid of the filibuster, because the Dems can't use it, it has to be an unusual circumstance which mean an ethical problem. So, if Dems have a issue on politics, then that they can't use the filibuster, so it is useless. Chris Dodd or Daschle would of found another way to allow the Dems to filibuster the Supreme Court nominees without giving up the power of the filibuster like Harry Reid did. Harry Reid isn't interested in protecting Roe, he is pro-life like Bob Casey Jr., and as long as the judge seems reasonable, he is going to allow him through. His vote against Roberts was for show, but he techniquely voted for Roberts by allowing the judicial compromise, and allow his caucus to vote their concience. I hope by the time his next election rolls around he retires and let someone else be Dem leader.

by mleflo2 on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 09:14:18 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.