Warsaw Station: Goodbye Colin Powell - It's a lateral transfer

Anybody notice nobody's saying anything about Rumsfeld going anywhere?

Rumor has it that Condi is up for the job, and will continue in State the cull begun at the CIA.

In other news:

DNC Chairman: Vilisack or Dean?

Kos is for Dean, so I'm for Vilisack.
Lieberman is for anybody but Dean, so I'm for Dean.

I'm afraid Dean would bring the energy and the new ideas the Dems need. On the other hand, it would send an angry message. . .

Then again, maybe we can hide Dean there at DNC chair.

I'd love a Midwestern governor running for Prez in 2008.

Weigh in.

Here's a funny link.

2 Comments:

: If we get to whine, they get the victory punch in the face-- we would have done no less, would we have? It's equal opportunity here at Warsaw Station. It's all part of the healing process.

It's good to take a look at it anyway. I appreciate any window into the mind of the conservative.

Anyway, I thought my readers would get a kick out of the rant I posted, but it's also not so funny. Some interesting information there though.

But have y'all heard about this fight for the DNC Chairmanship? Whaddaya think?

Do you have any questions for Treasury Secretary John Snow? Gustav meets him on Thursday.; 11/16/2004 07:07:00 PM
: I agree with almost everything Stomper, except this:

kerry was the moderate in the primaries that inexplicably swung to the left in the general electionKerry seemed the moderate to me in the election too, him being pro-choice, for stem cell research, for fiscal responsibility, etc. You know, for the war but against how we're fighting it.

And I'm not so sure it would be bad to give the job to someone from "the democratic wing of the democratic party." Dems need to show how they're different from the Republicans, not the same. I don't think the "democratic wing" means the "left wing;" most Dems are pretty moderate. Like I've said before, they just need to get the message right. The GOP has been really good at portraying the Dems as on the "far left bank" of American politics, but it's just not true. When they can convince the country that Democratic beliefs are centrist beliefs (as Clinton did), they'll start winning elections. During this one, it seemed to me that Bush was really the one who was on the fringes-- but 51% of the country didn't agree with me.

It wasn't because of their records though, it was because of their images.

Which is why it would be a bad idea to put Dean at DNC chair. IMAGE. I must say that I just don't think Dean is that out there, and would have supported him had he taken the nomination instead of Kerry. But one thing's for sure: He's got a left wing reputation now, for better or for worse (for true or for false). To make him DNC chair would put that "left wing" face on the party.

Then again, four years is a long time, and if he plays it right, Dean could shrug that reputation off. Besides, DNC chair isn't much more than a glorified fundraising position-- and if Dean is good at anything, it's finding creative ways to raise money.

It also might be nice to have a talking head on the Sunday morning political shows who already has such name recognition (and credibility--yes). One thing's for sure, as DNC chair, you don't get to control policy. So I'm still torn.

In the end, the dems don't "need leadership to move to them to the right, not the left." The dems sure don't need to move to the right, they've done that enough, to the chagrin of their base but, as you say:

the democratic wing of the democratic party isn't ever going to vote for the other guy, so why make huge strides to appease them, especially when it further alienates an increasing population.So they don't need to move to the left either. No, what the dems need is leadership that can express to the country that core Democratic beliefs are indeed centrist beliefs, not extremist-- as Bush would have us all believe.

And I'll support whoever can help make that happen, if it's possible to do that from the lonely position of DNC Chair.; 11/17/2004 07:48:00 PM