Are Democrats better-off without Tom Daschle?

[Ian David]

Poll question: Are Democrats better-off without Tom Daschle?

Here are two articles picked more-or-less at random.

One Pro-Daschle, the other anti-Daschle.


It's Doubly Difficult for Democrats: They Have to Battle the Bush Cartel AND Tom Daschle's Ineptness
November 24, 2003

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

In four editorials in 2002 and 2003 (this is the fifth), we have expressed our serious concerns that Tom Daschle, George W. Bush's secret weapon, is still Minority "Leader." That is a total misnomer. Tom Daschle is Minority "Enabler."

More:
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/11/edi03004.html


Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004
George McGovern on Daschle's Defeat in South Dakota and the Politics of War

<snip>

GEORGE McGOVERN: Well, I feel especially sad about the defeat of Tom Daschle. We have never had a senator from this state who has worked any harder than Tom Daschle has to serve the people of South Dakota and who stayed in close contact with the people of the state. He had a practice of visiting all 67 counties in the state every year. Whether it was an election year or not. So, it's a particularly bitter disappointment to see him expelled from office. It was done largely with the so-called social, or what you might call personal issues, the question of abortion, and the same sex marriage issues. I don't think that either of those issues even ought to be in politics. They're basically personal and moral and medical questions. But it's essentially the same appeal that was used against me 24 years ago when, like Tom Daschle, I was coming up for my fourth term in the United States Senate. Tom, this time, and I, 24 years ago, had reached the apex of our power and influence and capacity to get things done in the Senate. So it's a great loss to us to lose not only a South Dakota senior senator, but also the democratic leader in the United States Senate.

More:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/03/1520244

[bunkerbuster1]

1. Voted "what are you thinking?" but here's why

We're certainly not "better off" without Daschel IN THE SENATE. Every seat we've lost SUCKS ELEPHANT ASS, 'k? Daschel worked his butt off for his constituents, he was a good guy, and I wish he were still there.

That said, yeah, Reid is consistently demonstrating that he can be a tough mofo. Assuming that we make no better than incremental progress in 2006 (picking up some seats but still not control over both House and Senate) Daschle will be seen as a caretaker to a party that was in transition from the congressional Establishment to a feisty, kick-ass opposition.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Couldn't have said it better.

Daschel the Senator we needed. Daschel the Minority Leader we're better off without.

[Ian David]

3. What lost him his seat?

Too liberal for Republicans or too conservative for Democrats?

Or both?

And what some see as "serving his constituents" others see as pork-barrel politics and pandering to special interests that may have had a negative effect on his out-of-state contributions.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. A "D" next to his name.

That was enough for a well-financed hit squad to take him out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I think he was a little too liberal for the state.

And I don't say that very often, but when your state goes to Bush twice while have two Democratic Senators, something tells me that it's a moderate state stuck between extremes.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. I don't consider him bad rubbish

but I do think that he was very ineffective as minority leader and that we're better off with someone else in that position.

I couldn't really vote in the poll the way it was worded.

[Jacobin]

7. No, we need more pusillanimous whiney types in congress

:hi: