DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe must go!

[Cascadian]

I hope some of you agree with me. This guy has been a stain on the Democrats ever since he took over. He should have been removed after the 2002 elections. The man has proven himself a weak and ineffective leader for the Democrats. Howard Dean is right. There needs to be a huge shakeup in the Democratic Party leadership in both DNC and DLC. McAuliffe has been part of the Democratic Party's lack of a spine and the current division it finds itself in. Particularly if Bush and the GOP win in 2004. If that happens the Democratic Party will be dead thanks to the spineless and indecisive leadership.

John

[joeybee12]

1. I agree, he needs to go

I only agree on him that the Dumb-o-crats need to be united in California recall farce, but the idiots in La-La Land can't seem to accept a winning strategy. Well, maybe it's TM who's to blame for this also--at times like this you'd like a Rove or Delay who could keep people in line.

[ShaneGR]

2. Point in FACT

Terry has raised more money than any DNC chair in history. The job of the chair is to raise money in order to elect a President.

He has repeatedly faced a LOT of criticism from the media for doing what you say he is not, criticizing Bush.

Go to dnc.org and read the press announcements. Sign up on their website for the daily emails that I get from him and other Dem leaders bashing Bush.

[Cascadian]

4. Anybody can raise money but....

as I have said before and I will say it again...Actions speak louder than words! If I had my way, I would love to somebody like Dennis Kucinich become the DNC chairman. The Democrats need to stop playing the middle of the road and start attacking the Republicans not with words but actions. Vote against Bush bills, filabuster, invesitgate! I was really disappointed with Bill Clinton when he told the press to give Bush a break last week. Why the hell should we, Bill? Forget it! You just attack, attack, attack!


John

[Rose Siding]

7. So Terry should...

"Vote against Bush bills, filabuster, investigate!"? He's not in Congress!

He only has words. He called Bush a liar in DNC e-mail the day after Clinton made his comments.

[Cascadian]

9. Then he should get his Congressional people in line!

Terry needs to start getting the elected Democrats to go on the attack! Not just act like a bunch of wimps.

John

[Pepperbelly]

17. he works FOR them ...

they do not work for him.

Get real because you have not yet located the real cuase of our pain. It is not Terry.

[sandnsea]

12. A couple things

I don't like McAuliffe either, but just anybody can't raise money. If that were the case, we'd all be millionaires. It takes skill and he has done an excellent job according to local Democratic committees. But I still don't like him.

And I was disappointed with Clinton too. Of course I'm also disappointed with those who would rather hammer on the Democrats and the war vote than expose Bush. Both can't happen.

But I think I'm changing my mind on the Bush strategy. Maybe. I watched Hillary and Joe Biden in the last two days. What became very clear is that we actually don't NEED to attack Bush personally. His policies are SO BAD, we can attack them directly and stay above the fray of any personal politics. Joe Biden slammed the Administration on the Iraq war, just point after point after point. But it was the lack of planning, lack of good information, lack of foresight, damage to U.S. credibility, that he slammed. He said if George Bush lied that's his problem, he doesn't care about it at all. The damage to the U.S. is what he cares about. Then he went back to Kennedy & DeGaulle and the missile crisis. France said if the U.S. President said there was a problem, that's all he needed to hear. When will get that kind of credibility back? And he let it sink in.

So it wasn't a personal attack on Bush. He just let Their for shit policies speak for themselves. Hillary did the exact same thing in her judicial speech yesterday. She pointed out their policies and then just ran them into the dirt. Only once did it get sort of personal and that was the Catholic Need Not Apply thing which was so straight-forward there was no way to misinterpret the sleeziness. Biden did it too when he said Republicans had implied Democrats were racist when they questioned Iraq reconstruction plans before the war. So they allude to the dirty tricks, but are focusing on the disastrous policies.

Getting that message out is the problem. Poor spokespeople, like Donna Brazile, I don't know. The inability to engage in public exchanges and keep their focus? Maybe. The press is terrible, we all know that. But after listening and watching those two, I have a little more hope. If we can actually get some of this into the mainstream, we'll be great in 2004!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

3. Straight Up.

Clean the fuckin' house.

[thermodynamic]

5. No argument there!

He's a disgrace.

[jrthin]

6. I am in totally agreement w/you. n/t

nt

[SyracuseDemocrat]

8. No, if Bush and the GOP win in 2004,

it will be because of Nader or one of his ilk. The DLC have won two elections for us, 92 and 96. We've put three far left candidates up against Republicans in 80, 84, and 88, and they all got creamed. Can't you take away any lessons from this?

[Cascadian]

11. The situation in America is worse than it was during those days

Even when Reagan and Bush Sr. were presidents, the situation was not as bad as it now. Bush Junior is the worst president ever and yet he is getting away with it. If you guys go along with Bush's war on Iraq and put a Democratic spin (Yes. I said SPIN!) on it, you will look weak anyway. This is why I like Howard Dean. He maybe centrist but he is a straight shooter. He doesn't appear to be a waffler. This is the kind of man that the Demos need. Somebody not afraid to take Bush head on!

John

[hedda_foil]

13. Wrong.

None of the candidates in those years was anything close to far left. Carter, Mondale and Dukakis were all extremely moderate. Dukakis was the epitome of a DLC type.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. They Weren't Far Left

but by any fair rendering, Dukakis and Mondale were garden variety liberals

[poskonig]

14. Clinton, not the DLC, won in 92 and 96

While Clinton is DLC, there is no evidence the DLC is responsible for the victories. Would the DLC even have been a force without WJC's genius? Doubt abounds.

[jfkennedy]

20. Well no

This is 2003 different times. We as party need to get back to our liberal roots. JFK got elected president not just because he was a card carrying liberal, which Clinton is not, but because he had his own vision of how to run a country. He did not run on the DLC or the DNC vision or because he had more money then the Republicans.

He took advantage of the great changes (the revolution) that was happening in the country, the need for Welfare, civil rights, and labor rights (well in theory) were developed from this revolution ,which was on peoples minds at the time of what needed to make our country great, and respected around the world.

At that time people around the world loved Americans. Kennedy at the time would only go to war if he had a just reason, unlike the Republicans that go to war for wars sake to keep the military industrial complex running. So Republicans have and are hiding behind the flag to do their evil deeds around the world.

With the year 2000 coming in the picture the people voted in a liberal named Al Gore. This so shocked the powers that be to think that the people and not the DLC would pick a leader how so un-DLC.

If Gore was in power we would of had no wars.

[GayboyBilly]

10. In my opinion...

If Democrats ever want a chance to win back Congress or the White House, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe must go!

[joeybee12]

15. One point of clarification

Terry M. is head of the DNC, not the DLC.

Still, gotta go. Someone needs to be held responsible for 2000 and 2002. His ass would be out in any Fortune 500 company, or even any Mom and Pop biz-ness.

[Pepperbelly]

18. come on, now ... stop the bomb throwing ...

I challenge you to find any chairman of the party in its history who has accomplished more things that needed accomplishing.

He got the committee out of debt and with money in the bank. i don't know when else that was done. He computerized many things that SCREAMED to be computerized that were not. He streamlined the organization.

He did good things.

What do you want out of a chairman? Someone to throw bombs on television or someone who will do the work that needs doing?

Terry ran no one's races and no one at the DNC tells Demo candidates how what to say or how to run. Herding cats.

[Rose Siding]

19. Considering that repubs can get more money than God

when*ever* they want it, I think McAuliffe's amazing. And he's never lined up with Bush policies the way some dems have.

Maybe if he wore a t-shirt with a rendition of Bush as a chimp on the front of it... and then he could rig it to appear as though steam were coming out of his ears? :silly:

[Pepperbelly]

21. LOL

Now THAT is comedy!

:toast:

on edit: as I think about it, I cannot remember Terry EVER doing anything but hammering Bush at every opportunity. Do you think the steam thing coming out of his ear might assuage some of our very own bomb throwers?

[ScotTissue]

22. Why wasn't Terry toast in November 2002?

The Republicans have no problem firing people in their party when they FAIL on the level that the DNC's strategy failed in 2002.

[izzie]

23. He really turns me off. They had a guy from the South that

should have got the job. I recall hearing him but do not recall name.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Absolutely

I expect a big hue and cry to rise agianst him on October 8, the morning after the California recall election.