"State Dems oust leader"...Colorado..small margin.

[madfloridian]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33999~2747528,00.html

SNIP.."Months after their historic wins in November, Colorado Democrats have ousted party chairman Chris Gates in an upset organized by activists angered by his handling of Mike Miles' failed bid for the U.S. Senate.

Pat Waak - a nonprofit director from Erie who is little-known in statewide political circles - narrowly edged out Gates in a final vote of 187 to 184 during Saturday's meeting of the Democratic State Central Committee..."

"(Mike) Miles - a Colorado Springs educator who, like Dean, opposed the Iraq war - had been running for the seat for two years when party brass backed Salazar as soon as he announced his candidacy last spring. Miles complains that Gates placed fundraising over political conviction and urged donors not to give to his campaign.

"He created lots of obstacles," said Miles, who distributed a letter Saturday supporting Waak and citing "disturbing evidence" about Gates' record. Gates says he never endorsed Salazar, but he acknowledges that his apparent loss "exposes a disagreement, a rift in the party that is very real."

Democratic party leaders were ousted in NC and AR as well lately.

[NMDemDist2]

1. is the democratic wing of the party taking our organization back?

it's about freaking time IMHO

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Good. Maybe the Dems are waking up.

[dolstein]

3. Nothing annoys the left like success

Let's see -- the Democrats make historic gains in Colorado by nominating candidates with broad appeal to the voters, and how do the left-wing activists respond? By sacking the party leader.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Obviously, the left isn't really interested in winning elections. They'd much rather nominate candidates who satisfy their own narrow ideological litmus tests, even if it means they lose every race. That's the difference between the left wing and the groups like the DLC. The DLC, which has a solid core of progressive beliefs, understands that progress only comes through governing, and that in order to govern, you must be able to command the support of a majority of the electorate. The left wing, which thinks almost entirely in terms of protests and court challenges, really isn't interested in building a broad base of support necessary to govern in a democracy, because that requires compromise and flexibility.

[madfloridian]

4. What a bunch of DLC elitism quotes. Tired of them.

We compromised ourselves into the hellish situation we are in today, a country nearly bankrupt, no more respect in the world....and guess what....

the other party controls it all!

[rockymountaindem]

5. And yet you slam Kerry at every chance you get.

I don't understand...

[dolstein]

7. Actually, it's easy to understand

I don't really think of Kerry as a DLC type. Sure, the DLC embraced him, but only because they concluded that he was the only viable alternative to Howard Dean, who they viewed (quite correctly, in my opinion) as a disaster in the making. But Kerry was a deeply flawed candidate, for a variety of reasons. Sure, there's his elite background, which made him singularly unsuited for competing for the hearts and minds of the working class that ought to be our natural base. And then there's his extensive involvement in the antiwar movement, which made him unacceptable to large numbers of voters, particularly in the South. And then there's his inability to express his views clearly and in the kind of language that can connect with voters.

Don't blame me for Kerry. I wanted John Edwards to be our nominee.

[loudsue]

6. Dolstein, you're ALWAYS on the side of conservative Dems...

the DLC, holy Joe, status quo. You've been on DU pushing the "dems are stupid", "this makes Dems look bad" talking points for so long, it's just gotten out of hand.

Progressives and liberals are GOOD, mmmkay?
Going back to our populist roots is GOOD, mmmkay?

:kick::kick::kick:

[dolstein]

8. As soon as the left starts making some sense, I'll be on their side

But I don't see it. I see absolutely no evidence that the left has any concept of what it takes to build a majority voting coalition. The left is still operating under the belief that the Democratic Party lost its majority status because it moved to the right. This represents a fundamental misreading of history. The Democratic Party is, in point of fact, more uniformly liberal that it has been at any point in its history. Our political base also happens to be smaller that it's been at any point since the 1920s. Once the left wakes up to this reality, I'm prepared to treat them as a constructive partner, but until then, I will not spare the left the criticism they so richly deserve.

[madfloridian]

9. We lost our majority status because......

we did not stand for anything at all.

[dolstein]

10. That's a nice fantasy, I hope it makes you sleep easier at night

The Democratic Party didn't lose five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988 because it didn't stand for anything.

[madfloridian]

11. Well, let's see.

Clinton won. Congress we lost. Presidency we lost. They have control.

Tell me about it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Nothing annoys the left like collaborationist Democrats.

Who back Repbulican policies under the guise of "compromise" and being in the "mainstream".

[madfloridian]

13. Another article: Colorado Dems eye second Senate seat.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Surging%20Democrats

"Colorado Democrats are not entirely unified - because of his support of Ken Salazar, Gates is now out of a job. On Saturday, Gates narrowly lost the party's chairmanship to Pat Waak, a party activist upset because Gates supported Salazar over a more liberal candidate, educator Mike Miles, in the primary. Gates is challenging his loss.

Colorado College political science professor Bob Loevy said he wasn't surprised by Gates' ouster because the state party structure makes it easier for more liberal Democrats to seize control."

"On Thursday, Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, a member of a Western political dynasty, announced he would forego a widely expected gubernatorial bid in favor of a 2008 campaign to oust Republican Sen. Wayne Allard.

If Udall wins, he would give Democrats control of both of the state's Senate seats for the first time since 1974...."