Throw Terry McAuliffe out on his ass NOW!

[AntiCoup2K4]

Can anybody give me one good reason why this asshole is still in charge of our party after 3 consecutive major losses? :grr:

[paulsbc]

1. great question

i've heard it is because he can raise money. why not keep him as head of fundraising, and get a new strategist?

[Classical_Liberal]

40. Not as well as Joe Trippi

and Trippi does it without compromising the Dem party with repuke contributers.

[quinnox]

2. I'm guessing

skull and bones... but seriously, I'm not sure he should get the blame.

[JI7]

7. HAHAHHA

but i agree. it's like those who blamed davis for the electricity problem. i think people are just looking for someone to blame and take responsiblity for the california recall and pointing to terry. when it was the media whores who gave arnold a free ride which was the problem. i'm in california and their ass kissing of him was disgusting to watch. and they have been attacking davis for years.

[CMT]

3. two major losses

in '02 and now this. He wasn't DNC at time of 2000 election. He only had one good year under his belt as chairman--2001 when Dems won governorships in NJ and Virginia despite Bush's popularity due to 9/11.

Still I agree we could do better.

[LoneStarLiberal]

12. I'd Say Three to Five Losses

1-2002 elections
2-Texas redistricting
3-California recall
4-Ohio redistricting*
5-Pennsylvania redistricting*

Perhaps my view is biased because of my location, but I have not seen nor heard of any substantive Democratic Party support for the Texas Democratic Party in their David vs. Goliath fight against the Republican redistricting efforts here in Texas.

Forget that it is in Texas and we're a hopelessly Republican state. This redistricting is going to cost the Democratic Party seats in the House of Representatives. That has a very direct impact both on Congressional and Presidential elections at the national level.

And as far as I can tell all the Texas Democratic Party has received are some words of support from the DNC. This was always going to be a losing battle without support, but with some national mobilization it could have been a very costly one for the Republicans.

Now it's just fact.

[Freddie Stubbs]

What the hell could he have done to stop the redistricting in PA?

Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature and the Governor's office.

[LoneStarLiberal]

27. Same here in Texas; So Should We Surrender?

They control both houses of the legislature and the Governor's and Lt. Governor's offices.

As in Texas I'm not saying that national party support could stop it.

I am saying that national party support could have changed both of these situations from an "oh well" foregone conclusion to a national issue. With the application of some national support to get the message out, this would not be accepted as "political momentum" (as it now is) but instead would be viewed as "racial and economic gerrymandering" (which is the effective outcome of it, at least here in Texas).

Hell, no one outside of Democratic online forums and Democrats in these two states cares about nor knows what has gone on!

How in the hell are we supposed to win back the White House when we have a national party that doesn't seem to give a shit about the details? The Republicans got to be where they are today as a national party because they paid painsaking attention to details and built up from there.

We got where we are today as a national party because too many in our executive leadership DON'T pay attention to details. "Pennsylvania and Texas are both Republican-controlled? Ah who cares." "Redistricting gerrymandering going to create new whitebread Republican seats and relegate minorities to junk districts? No sweat."

No one at the national level is carrying water for the state parties that are under siege. And that's a preventable problem.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. If you were McAuliffe, how would you have stopped the redistricting in PA?

[LoneStarLiberal]

34. It's Not A Matter of Stopping, It's A Matter of Opposing

The redistricting in Texas and Pennsylvania could not be stopped.

What could have been done was for the national party to support the opposition to the redistricting with something more than a pat on the back and a "go get'em, Tiger" speech.

There's a reason redistricting is not isolated to Texas or Pennsylvania. This is part of a state-level nation-wide strategy to increase the imbalance between Republicans and Democrats outside of the electoral process (actually, the electoral process is the end-game for redistricting).

Without national support, the state Democratic Parties cannot stand up to the state Republican Parties who certainly have the support of their national party! Standing up to the Republicans does not mean defeating them in the state legislatures where they have majorities. Standing up to them means outing their malicious activities hidden behind "representing the people."

If we don't stand up to them, an act that requires both state parties AND our national party, they will simply keep on pushing and prodding us right out of relevance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. But Democrats committ gerrymandering also

The only reason that there is a big hubbub about the Texas one is that it is being done after a map has already been put in place.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by whining about how the mean Republicans drew the lines in their favor in the states that they control? Just to look a hypocrit? The Democratics in MD and GA are just as guilty of gerrymandering.

[LoneStarLiberal]

46. Little g Versus Big G

I tend to subscribe to the view that there is gerrymandering and there is Gerrymandering. Little g includes both Democrats and Republicans; take a district border in here, expand it there, maybe with 2 or more districts. Big G includes Republicans who have re-written the map of voting districts in Texas.

To my knowledge nothing on this scale has been done this late after a decade census/redistricting .

The main thing I would like to accomplish is to limit this kind of institutional re-definition to the times when it is supposed to occur (informal though they are) rather than whenever one party or another has a big enough majority to stick to the minority party to the fullest extent.

I believe that it will not be an important issue in 10 or 20 more years if we don't address it now because as a party we will be remapped out of relevance and your political choice will be a quaint thing you can recollect with friends over a beer. These types of moves have to be checked now or the Republicans will keep doing it. They are pretty methodical that way: If it works, they stick to it (blame Clinton, neuter the judicial branch, liberal stereotyping...redistricting?).

I suppose we're just not going to agree that this is either A)Important or B)An issue for the national party to become involved.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Yep. No excuses for having allowed Herr Gropenator to win.

[clar]

5. I agree

Surely we can do better than this.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. Amen ! Amen!...Terry has got to GO!!!!!

FUCK TERRY

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cocoa]

8. he may have had the right strategy in CA

he practically ordered no dem to enter the race and legitimize the recall.

I don't know how much control he had over Bustamante. Maybe it's a legitimate criticism of McAuliffe that he couldn't keep Bustamante from running, I don't know.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Taking the Ah-nold circus out of the picture, the recall numbers were ....

...still high enough. For Terry to order no Democrat to run was pretty irresponsible, in my opinion. The pukes were able to bury Bustamante in Davis' baggage in a similar way to how they somehow (in the eyes of the sheep) managed to attach Monica-gate to Al Gore.

If another Democratic candidate, Dianne Feinstein or whomever, had been on the ballot, Ah-nold and McClintock wouldn't have been able to attach Davis' alleged failures to her (or whomever). Hell, even the Green's candidate Camejo said that Bustamante would be a continuation of Davis.

[Cocoa]

17. but then doesn't that support focussing on "No"?

I think the strongest point the dems had was to focus on the illegitimacy of the whole recall.

Just totally blow off all criticism of Davis by saying that he just won an election, so according to the democratic process he has to be allowed to finish out his term.

[pippin]

21. which was as predicted by

some as the wrong strategy:
"the Democratic Party has done exactly what the Davis camp wants. No credible Democrat has stepped forward to appear on the ballot. It's a strategic game: Davis's campaign advisors say they can better defeat the recall if there are no Democrats running and it can be portrayed as a purely partisan effort. That way the Davis operatives can do what they're good at and attack the GOP without trying to defend the incumbent's record.

But it's an irresponsible gamble. . . But that's by no means a sure thing, and there's far too much at stake to risk it all on a governor who is so vulnerable (and has done such a consistently good job of making himself vulnerable). . .We're not big fans of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but the polls show she would crush any GOP candidate. . .
A strong Democrat ought to run too – or Californians could wind up by default with a Republican governor they don't want or deserve. "

written in July, 2003
http://www.sfbg.com/37/43/news_ed_gray.html

Whether McAuliffe could or couldn't keep Bustamente from running is not the point. Bustamente was neither a strong nor well known figure. From interviews with him, it appears he was pretty much outside the governor's circle--said he hadn't talked to Davis for a long time. Banking everything on Davis was what was a bad strategy.

[Cocoa]

24. but dropping Davis would be a gamble too

one of the big criticisms of the democrats is that they don't stand up for principles. If they had dropped Davis, and then went on to lose, it could be very demoralizing to the democratic base.

There is one bright spot the way the dems handled this, Bustamante aside. At least they articulated what a lot of us have been saying about the republicans assault on democracy.

Now the democratic candidates can point to what happened in CA as being part of a pattern, and they can be consistent saying it, since they campaigned for Davis. If they'd dropped Davis, they wouldn't be able to say this without sounding like hypocrites.

[Classical_Liberal]

41. I don't think taking Bustumante out of the race would

have made Davis more appealing.

[Larkspur]

9. Because Bill Clinton supports him

And Bill is a Dem god for now.

[pippin]

10. I have said this

for the last three years. After 2000, there should have been a serious reconsideration as to his abilities. And certainly, there should have been no excuse for the huge republican wins in the bielection of 2002. The democratic party should have kicked him out then. Why they didn't god only knows.

[diplomats]

16. Terry wasn't around in 2000

but he was on board for 2002 and this.

[Flying_Pig]

13. Agreed!!!

And I don't give a crap if Clinton supports him or not. Clinton and the rest of the DLC'ers were out here in California trying to help Davis, and it didn't do squat! People are fed up! The DNC better listen up, and dump the DINOS and the DLC'ers, or get ready to hand the country over to the Repugs on a silver platter! How many times do they (we!) have to get our asses handed to them, before they'll listen to the people???

[no name no slogan]

14. And none to soon!

That man and his minions continue to lead this party down the drain. Sure, we weren't doing so great before him in many respects, but we still had control of the US House (and occassionally the Senate) and a majority of governorships.

Right now, the party is circling the bowl. Another swirl or two under the DLC's leadership and we're gone.

[diplomats]

18. We did not control the House or Senate or a majority of governorships

immediately before Terry took over. Let's stick to the things that happened on his watch.

[no name no slogan]

38. Clarification

We had control of the US House AND Senate in 1992. I should have stated it was the useless DLC who lost our position over the last 10 years-- and I see Terry McA as part of them, and part of the overall problem with this party.

[birdman]

15. How many times does Terry have to screw up before he's shown

the door ?

He played the recall wrong from day one, not
realizing that Davis was a lost cause and discouraging
better candidates from entering the race.

[JI7]

19. isn't that how most of us felt

if terry had encouraged another dem to run and it still went arnold's way people would be saying he should have opposed the recall entirely as he did. republicans kept losing with real candidates so they got a moron to run and marketed him as something that could get votes. he didn't appear on political shows. he appeared on jay leno, oprah, larry king only. these are things someone who is selling a movie does.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Teh best candidate did not want to enter the race.

DiFi knew better. Why would she trade her safe Senate seat for a position that would likely cause most Californians to hate her? She is much smarter than that.

[jrthin]

20. NOPE, cannot give even a stupid

reason as to why this man is still in charge. (Well, maybe I can. He's a repug plant.) I want this man out!

[Kimble]

22. Um, he raises a ton of money? nt

nt

[lovedems]

23. Grassroots campaign: AL FRANKEN TO LEAD DNC

He would be great! He knows the rethuclican game and spin. He is so eloquent and intelligent. He has been an inspiration to a party that has taken alot of hits.

[ByeDick]

35. I SECOND THE NOMINATION

Franken to DNC Chair

[DemNoir]

25. It is not Terry McAuliffe's fault

This is an ignorant nation with no capacity for critical thinking. We care only about celebrity and entertainment.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. excuses excuses

.

[ShaneGR]

26. Huh????

Terry is the chairman of the DNC, who's main function is to win Presidential elections. If you want to blame someone, blame Gray Davis.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. And how are we going to win the Presidential election without Cal's 54

..electoral votes? Because make no mistake, Governor Hitler Admirer is going to have electro-fraud installed in every precinct from Yreka to San Ysidro, and McAwful should have realized that as easy as I did.

Whether he deserved it or not, Davis was toast going into this thing. The Repuke media machine did its job, and successfully attached the blame to him for a crisis that Ken Lay, Pete Wilson, and the Bush Criminal Empire created. Terry's so called strategy was to bet the entire farm on Davis and it was a dumb move that could very well lead to 4 more years of America's destruction. :grr:

[Classical_Liberal]

44. Shrub won't win California

There is no way it can happen.

[cspiguy]

28. YAY!

:party:

[Snellius]

32. So what difference would that make

I understand why people would feel better to see some heads roll. But the whole party structure should be overhauled, especially on the state level, and especially to the state level of complacently "D" states like CA and NY. Above all, Democrats have to recommit to what they believe in. But just changing McAuliffe will make little difference unless they get rid of the whole Clinton third-way strategy.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. You're right but McAuliffe would get the ball rolling

.

[Unknown Known]

37. I still blame Davis for this mess

I'm not a fan of McAuliffe and believe we definitely need new leadership in DNC, but Davis handled the CA energy badly from the very beginning and it was the public's PERCEPTION of him being weak, impotent and unable to stand up against the big energy companies, thus wreaking the economy.

Davis, himself, admitted on Larry King that the one thing he regrets not doing was connecting with the public.

[Yupster]

39. because he raised a lot of money

for the Clintons?

Otherwise he had no qualifications for the job.

[Robin Hood]

42. Agreed, Re-call Terry McAuliffe NOW!!!!

eom