Time For Terry McAullife to "Move On"
Published November 03, 2004
And a bloodbath it was for Democrats.
Not only did they lose ground in both the House and Senate, they lost decisively the Presidential race. So decisively that, even with legions of lawyers ready to act, it made no sense for Kerry to do anything other than to concede; which is exactly what he has done.
But Kerry's loss is not the biggest blow to the DNC in this election. The biggest loss for Dems in this election cycle was the loss of their Senate Minority Chair, Tom Daschle.
Senator Daschle is, in my opinion, the DNC's strongest party leader. A few years back, he managed to tilt the balance of power in the Senate, giving Democrats control for almost two years and, even after losing the majority status again in 2002, managed to turn back an impressive number of conservative initiatives and block a sizable number of Bush's judicial picks.
Speaking as a staunch Republican, it looked to me as if Daschle was the guy in charge in the US Senate, not Bill Frist. But now, of course, Daschle has been ousted, and his loss is, by far, the biggest blow for Democrats.
Which is why Mr. McAuliffe needs to step down. It's not all his fault, of course, but he is the Chair and, because of that, ultimately responsible.
Who should replace McAuliffe? Well, Senator Daschle will be looking for work come January. Why can't he step up and take on a larger role? He certainly can't do any worse than the trash-talking McAuliffe and he's already shown he can lead his party effectively, even from a minority position in congress.
Kerry spent the last couple months of his campaign calling for change. Perhaps the DNC should follow his advice.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
- 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