During those first couple of GWB years the top Democrat in Washington was Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. I had the misfortune of hearing several episodes of Rush Limbaugh at the time, and because his show is nothing without a villain, he spent day after day raging against the radical politics and deeply anti-American agenda of Senator Daschle.
I remember it because it struck me as so ridiculous. It’s like raging against the evils of lukewarm water.
You’re not going to like this answer even a little bit. It’s time to bury the party of Andrew Jackson. (That is what the Democratic Party is. Did you know that? Weird, right?) It’s incoherent:[ul]
[li]Is it a labor party, or is it competing for the same upscale suburbanite votes and banker/corporate dollars as the GOP fat cats?[/li][li]Is it of the left, or of the middle? What even is a centrist party with no clear left with which to contrast?[/li][li]How can you be the party both of Andrew Jackson and of Jesse Jackson? Clearly you have to not just engage in doublethink, but actually embrace utter ignorance of history and political meaning, which is a sure path to political incompetence.[/li][/ul]Let the “Democrats” join their Whig cousins in the graveyard of history. Progressives should build a Labor Party, with a quasi-soviet bottom-up decision-making structure tied to local organizations.
Let the Kennedy clan, Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and so forth call themselves Democrats if they like; it’s not like they’re of any real use to the new party of the left. They can be a minor party like the LibDems in the UK, or what PASOK has recently fallen to in Greece.
Sorry, I know this doesn’t help you quickly win elections and save the world from Trump. But that’s my take.
So your proposal is to take the Democratic Party and turn it from a party that has almost half the seats in Congress, and about an even chance of winning the Presidency, and turn it into a party that won’t win a third of the seats in Congress, and would never win the presidency. Excellent idea there. :dubious:
I think what you are complaining of, though, has a kernel of truth. For far too long now, the Democracy (as it used to call itself) has been nothing more than the coalition of anti-Republicans. The trouble with this is that it relies upon the Republican Party to set the agenda. When Democrats have set the agenda, they do well, generally, for example in the period of the Great Depression, or the period of Civil Rights. But when the Democracy gets all squishy on things, it struggles. President Obama came into office with a definite plan to do certain things; several of those things never got done, and the enthusiasm associated with his 2008 campaign died in the process.
Some things don’t get done. That’s hardly a tragedy. It’s simply governing. You lay out a plan of what you want to accomplish and do as much as you can in that direction.
If, on the other hand, your only concrete goal is to build a Southern Wall, and you don’t, that could be viewed as a failed presidency.
Rule 1 - demand an explanation of that which I am objecting to.
Foolsguinea’s proposal might make sense in a parliamentary system, but we don’t have that kind of system in the US. In a winner-takes-all system, you can’t be a minority party because you don’t end up with a minority position from which to build up from; you end up with nothing. Our system of elections and government is like a full-employment act for a Two-Party system.
Nancy Pelosi has issued a scorching slapdown to those who think it’s time for new party leadership. She is loudly singing her praises.
"“Well, I’m a master legislator. I’m a strategic, politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country.”
So there. 
Confusing that “the opposition” is sneakily trying to oust Pelosi, while Trump is smirking that he wants her to stay on because she’s a screwup. :dubious:
Maybe the Democrats should decide whether putting these old warhorses out to pasture will benefit the party, without regard to who is spinning what on the Republican side. Or they can keep on propping them up, since it works so well.
Hillary in 2020! If not her, who? If not then, when?!?
The SJ Merc ran a political cartoon on the editorial page today with a picture of Pelosi next to a fax machine, a floppy disk and one other obsolete electronic item that escapes me right now.
The takeaway from this is that it’s silly for the Dems to change what they’re doing in order to avoid being demonized by the GOP and its allied nutjobs.
We know they’ll demonize lukewarm dishwater if that’s what’s leading the Dems, because they’ve already done it.
VCR cassette.
But in terms of control of the House, the ‘coach’ is the DCCC. Now I agree that the D-trip needs a major housecleaning, but I’m not sure what the connection is with Pelosi.
(I’m serious about that last clause, btw. I really don’t have much of a sense of who controls the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc. and how that connects with the persons in charge of the Dem House and Senate caucuses.)
Could the OP possibly provide some specific examples of how terrible Pelosi is? OK, she’s ‘abrasive’ but that’s often seen as a positive quality in men similarly situated.
Yeah, the coach analogy has its flaws. She is, however, the face of the Democratic party, and one of the party leaders. Both parties could probably benefit from a mandatory “retirement” age for their leaders.
Well, maybe not* as* bad, given how the GOP really hates and despises powerful women.
And black men.
Yes. The Rove hate & propaganda machine has vilified Pelosi and Hillary- and caused her to lose the election, bring in the Clown-in-Chief.
Good point.
Which is why they were just vilifying Karen Handel, in her race against Jon Ossoff?
I’m a fan of Seth Moulton. The democrats could do a lot worse than a young, handsome Iraq war vet without the stink of corporate & Hollywood money all over him as House Minority Leader.
Of course, Pelosi brings in millions from wealthy donors, so she is certain to stay until she doesn’t want the job anymore. I don’t particularly dislike her, but I do think it’s madness that she gets to stay on as leader after the last few elections. The Democrats need to bring in new blood, because the current strategy just isn’t working.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk