You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next: "He hasn't called a single leadership vote or enforced any internal discipline in any noticeable manner. Givng Reid credit for what may very well be a temporary party unity is like giving Custer credit for uniting the Indians. "
Also, "Reid opposed Howard Dean" No, Reid did not oppose Hoard Dean. Who did you get that from?
I know that Harry Reid "gets it" so I don't see a need for a new leader. Just look at the unity we are seeing from Democrats now! And look at what he accomplished with the "closed session" strategy. THAT is an opposition party forming before your eyes.
He also understands about message and responding. It's his office that has been leading on this.
LONG-term strategy is another story across the board for Progressives. But that's not the job of a party or of a House or Senate leader. That is the job of a supporting infrastructure, and Democrats just don't have one. Some are working on it, though.
For example, the 1983 Cato Institute plan for getting rid of Social Security. Cato is not the party, but this strategy is what all elements of the Right's infrastructure have followed. Cato is a supposedly "independent" non-partisan tax-free research organization.
Criticizing the Democrats made sense a few years ago. But they are reforming. I mean, we got Dean in! Now we have to start letting them know we have their backs when they do good things. And we have to start building the apparatus for supporting our ideas and getting them to the party and the general public.
Here is another key organization that is being built.
One way to talk about $5/gal is the question of who gets that next $2. It IS going to happen. So does it go to oil company CEOs and the Middle East, or do we get it to use to build alternatives, provide health insurance,build schools and pay teachers, build infrastructure, etc?
If we had done something about this twenty years ago, and added a 50 cent tax, ALL of the above-listed programs would be significantly well along now... Where are we going to be 20 years from now?
"An impeachment fight isn't a bright idea. Not to mention it makes us look as petty as them."
Prosecuting them for launching aggressive war is not petty. Impeachment for a blow job was petty. This isn't about political posture, it's about right and wrong and restoring democracy. Without impeachment for what they have done we as a country are making the statement that we consider a blow job more serious than making war.
Everyone concerned about energy policy - and jobs and unions and environment - should go read about AND JOIN the Apollo Alliance.
"...a moonshot for energy independence and good jobs. A crash program for sustainable energy independence would create three million good jobs, free the nation from imported oil, and promote a healthier environment.
I didn't say this publicly before the election, but if Prop 75 passes -- the one restricting public employee unions from putting money into elections -- then the unions will finally have to start putting money into a different kind of approach. I'm talking about strategic communications organizations designed to reach out to the general public with a long-term strategic approach aimed at changing public attitudes.
In other words, GROWING THE BASE instead of just trying to get more of a shrinking base to the polls.
So don't take it as a big loss if prop 75 wins. It will mean unions have to start putting money into "Progressive Infrastructure." Try Googling "Progressive Infrastructure" to see what I mean.
I think what we're seeing reflects that Zell Miller is OUT more than a reflection on Daschle. With Zell gone any leader of the Senate has more room to oppose without a "Democrat" like Zell ready to undercut everything.
Just the last few days:
Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA, "Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. ... Some absurdly claim that Plame had nothing to do with her husband's political activities against President Bush."
One more thing. If you think the Democrats were so bad, look what happened to the country and the world after the Greens and Nader got Bush elected! THAT is what the Democrats were holding the line against. So we have a very good case study here of how much good the Democrats were doing - by looking at what happened since 2000.
Remember that the Republicans had the Congress and the Senate for all but two of Clinton's years as President, and the presidency for the 12 years before that. So the Democratic Party was in the position of maintaining a holding action, not one of accomplishing Progressive goals.
So stop this crap about Democrats being for corporate power. All that has happened since Bush got in SHOWS what they were accomplishing -- holding off the incredible union-busting and polluting and militarism and all the rest that has swept the country since the 2000 election. 90,000 people voted for Nader in Florida that year because they listened to the kind of crap that you are putting out. About a hundred thousand dead Iraqis can tell you that made a difference.
A key core value of Progressives was sticking together to fight the moneyed interests. The Democratic Party has always been a coalition of diverse interest groups organized together for strength to fight corporate power and class-warfare by the rch.
Nader and the Greens broke the coalition. Ad look at what has happened to the country and the world as a result.
I wonder if the President of the United States, giving an official press conference in the White House, is carrying out an official duty of his office. What I'm getting at is this might be more than just a lie, it might be a crime, just as lying to an FBI agent or to a prosecutor is a crime. I'm not a lawyer... Is there a law that covers government officials lying in an official reporting responsibility?
We also had the most Progressive president since FDR, from the environment to labor to civil rights. You can't always get everything you want, especially with Republicans controlling the House and Senate.