Time For Terry McAullife to "Move On"
Published November 03, 2004
Terry McAuliffe was elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February 2001. He has re-energized and revitalized the Party, using new state of the art technology to connect grassroots activists with the Party's new information infrastructure...
Re-energized and revitalized? I don't think so. I've written and commented several times that McAuliffe needed to put a win in the DNC column during this election cycle, especially after their 2002 debacle.
Even left-leaning pollster Zogby was stunned by the results of this election. He had predicted a close race, but one in which Kerry would walk away with something like 325 electoral votes to Bush's 213 electoral votes! That doesn't really sound close to me, but, hell, what do I know? (no need to answer that question)
Just so you don't think I'm being totally unfair, McAuliffe has been a loyal and effective member of his party. Does anyone doubt that McAuliffe can get the job done when it comes to fund raising?
I didn't think the Kerry Campaign would be able to match, much less improve upon, President Bush's impressive fundraising tallies. Yet, they did, and I have no doubt that McAuliffe played a large role in this, especially as this is his key talent; the guy knows how to raise money!
But is McAuliffe a good Chair for the DNC? I can't see how, at this point, anyone could think he is. This morning around 5:15am, as I was waking myself up to get ready for work, I tuned into NBC to see two super-troopers, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, STILL on the job after who knows how many hours of covering the election. I felt bad for both of them and my respect for both went up a fair bit too. But I digress...
About five minutes into the Brokaw/Russert conversation, Brokaw paused, looked at Russert and asked the question, "if Democrats can't bring Ohio into the win column, then it's going to be, basically, a bloodbath for them, isn't it?" Russert gave a short nod and said, "yes it will." That's a loose quote, by the way, but the term "bloodbath" definitely stuck in my head, which, at 5:20 in the morning, is saying something!
- Time For Terry McAullife to "Move On"
- Published: November 03, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: David Flanagan
- David Flanagan's BC Writer page
- David Flanagan's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
It was a blood bath? 70% of eligible voters voted. 51% voted for bush. 51% of 70% means that 38% of the population supported bush. 38%. Bloodbath?
Boom,
The term, 'blood bath' used by Tom Brokaw on NBC was not meant in regards to percentage who voted for President Bush. Brokaw was talking about the fact that Democrats posted no electoral gains at all in this election.
Instead, they suffered huge defeats, including the loss of their strongest leader, Senator Daschle. It was as disasterous an election for the DNC as the 1994 cycle when Democrats lost majorities in both the House and Senate.
And for that reason, if Terry McAuliffe had any love at all for his party, he would step down and let someone else take his place. I would wager a guess that, if that conversation has not already begun behind closed doors at the DNC, it will soon enough.
David
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/21824)
Above are my thoughts on Terry McAuliffe. I've been saying that the guy is a disaster for his party since the 2002 debacle. I'm not a Democrat, but I think McAuliffe is a trash-talker, which is fine if you are someone in the campaign whose job it is to talk down the opposition, but it's beneath the position of the DNC Chair.
David