Help Daschle!

sozobe - I repeat what I said. Daschle is minority leader of the senate. In that role he has certain jobs. One of his major jobs is to keep the democrats united, to try to push forward in committee and group what they stand for, to try to get backing for their bills.

This is the same kind of job occupied by Hastert, Gephardt, and Frist. These are not leaders elected by the group to offer star roles in bill presentation or anything else. Their major role is to act as a unifying force for the particular party. And that is where Daschle has done a good job. It may not be a rip-roaring, headline-grabbing act, but he has accomplished some difficult tasks - and that filibuster is one of them. The duration and so-far success of it is not a common thing. Frist occupies the same role on the opposite side. Part of his job was to get these nominations through. Individual senators are free to bring up legislation; the leader's role is to coordinate and get them working smoothly as a team.

It's difficult to characterize separate acts when what is required is the mechanics of a group action. There will always be people saying "show me, show' when they don't really want to be shown anything, but have other aims in mind.

So this is my repeated take on Daschle. He is doing a required job well. Loud-voiced heroics are best left to others. A good leader knows what to pick and choose; knows about working with others; knows the importance of bringing disparate peoples and views together to make a whole; and many times knows the value of not being in the public limelight as a glory-seeker.

Now, if someone wants specifics, they can be found by doing a little minor research. This thread talks about Daschle's current job, his efficiency at it as a democratic senate leader, and the threat to him that exists because the opposite party wants him out so they can come in. For efficiency in the job, and what the job means, look at the Frist replacement of Lott. Same roles.

sozobe - I repeat what I said. Daschle is minority leader of the senate. In that role he has certain jobs. One of his major jobs is to keep the democrats united, to try to push forward in committee and group what they stand for, to try to get backing for their bills.

This is the same kind of job occupied by Hastert, Gephardt, and Frist. These are not leaders elected by the group to offer star roles in bill presentation or anything else. Their major role is to act as a unifying force for the particular party. And that is where Daschle has done a good job. It may not be a rip-roaring, headline-grabbing act, but he has accomplished some difficult tasks - and that filibuster is one of them. The duration and so-far success of it is not a common thing. Frist occupies the same role on the opposite side. Part of his job was to get these nominations through. Individual senators are free to bring up legislation; the leader's role is to coordinate and get them working smoothly as a team.

It's difficult to characterize separate acts when what is required is the mechanics of a group action. There will always be people saying "show me, show' when they don't really want to be shown anything, but have other aims in mind.

So this is my repeated take on Daschle. He is doing a required job well. Loud-voiced heroics are best left to others. A good leader knows what to pick and choose; knows about working with others; knows the importance of bringing disparate peoples and views together to make a whole; and many times knows the value of not being in the public limelight as a glory-seeker.

Now, if someone wants specifics, they can be found by doing a little minor research. This thread talks about Daschle's current job, his efficiency at it as a democratic senate leader, and the threat to him that exists because the opposite party wants him out so they can come in. For efficiency in the job, and what the job means, look at the Frist replacement of Lott. Same roles.

sozobe - I repeat what I said. Daschle is minority leader of the senate. In that role he has certain jobs. One of his major jobs is to keep the democrats united, to try to push forward in committee and group what they stand for, to try to get backing for their bills.

This is the same kind of job occupied by Hastert, Gephardt, and Frist. These are not leaders elected by the group to offer star roles in bill presentation or anything else. Their major role is to act as a unifying force for the particular party. And that is where Daschle has done a good job. It may not be a rip-roaring, headline-grabbing act, but he has accomplished some difficult tasks - and that filibuster is one of them. The duration and so-far success of it is not a common thing. Frist occupies the same role on the opposite side. Part of his job was to get these nominations through. Individual senators are free to bring up legislation; the leader's role is to coordinate and get them working smoothly as a team.

It's difficult to characterize separate acts when what is required is the mechanics of a group action. There will always be people saying "show me, show' when they don't really want to be shown anything, but have other aims in mind.

So this is my repeated take on Daschle. He is doing a required job well. Loud-voiced heroics are best left to others. A good leader knows what to pick and choose; knows about working with others; knows the importance of bringing disparate peoples and views together to make a whole; and many times knows the value of not being in the public limelight as a glory-seeker.

Now, if someone wants specifics, they can be found by doing a little minor research. This thread talks about Daschle's current job, his efficiency at it as a democratic senate leader, and the threat to him that exists because the opposite party wants him out so they can come in. For efficiency in the job, and what the job means, look at the Frist replacement of Lott. Same roles.

sozobe - I repeat what I said. Daschle is minority leader of the senate. In that role he has certain jobs. One of his major jobs is to keep the democrats united, to try to push forward in committee and group what they stand for, to try to get backing for their bills.

This is the same kind of job occupied by Hastert, Gephardt, and Frist. These are not leaders elected by the group to offer star roles in bill presentation or anything else. Their major role is to act as a unifying force for the particular party. And that is where Daschle has done a good job. It may not be a rip-roaring, headline-grabbing act, but he has accomplished some difficult tasks - and that filibuster is one of them. The duration and so-far success of it is not a common thing. Frist occupies the same role on the opposite side. Part of his job was to get these nominations through. Individual senators are free to bring up legislation; the leader's role is to coordinate and get them working smoothly as a team.

It's difficult to characterize separate acts when what is required is the mechanics of a group action. There will always be people saying "show me, show' when they don't really want to be shown anything, but have other aims in mind.

So this is my repeated take on Daschle. He is doing a required job well. Loud-voiced heroics are best left to others. A good leader knows what to pick and choose; knows about working with others; knows the importance of bringing disparate peoples and views together to make a whole; and many times knows the value of not being in the public limelight as a glory-seeker.

Now, if someone wants specifics, they can be found by doing a little minor research. This thread talks about Daschle's current job, his efficiency at it as a democratic senate leader, and the threat to him that exists because the opposite party wants him out so they can come in. For efficiency in the job, and what the job means, look at the Frist replacement of Lott. Same roles.

OK.

I, personally, have been rather unhappy with the job the Democrats have been doing. I am extremely opposed to the Bush Administration, and feel that numerous opportunies to right some of the B.A. wrongs have been squandered, and that the Democrats have been doing a poor job of communicating with Joe Public. What with the war fought because of WMD's that weren't, and the terrible state of the economy, Bush's approval rating should be miserable and it should be obvious that his days are numbered. This is not the case, and I blame the Democrats.

That's one issue.

Another issue is merely that you took an accusatory tone when perfectly reasonable questions were asked. I say "perfectly reasonable" because I had the same questions, and I'm a liberal. That is the main reason I wrote anything -- I felt the response was out of proportion, and wanted to ensure that Gen and Scrat felt free to express their opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

A third issue is that I find these personal smear campaigns utterly repugnant, and have no wish for it to succeed in Daschle's case.

Mamajuana, I'm sorry to report that the article is for subscribers of The New Republic only. Would you mind posting the relevant excerpts for us? At this point, I don't see how the Republicans' "folksy ads" add up to "a very viscious campaign".



If energy efficiency is good, why does the government have to cram it down the throats of unwilling car producers and car consumers? I don't see any value in economizing on fuel rather than something else. And assuming there is indeed value in the idea -- wouldn't higher fuel taxes be a more efficient implementation of it than regulating what kind of car Detroit is allowed to produce?

Serious question, that.



I can see that. But why did you have to repeat it five times?
-- Thomas

(Thomas, the site has been goofy today and that is something that happens -- repeat posts.)

Sozobe: I see. Pointed remark retracted.

In broad terms I too dislike what I would call "smear campaigns", but since I cannot access the linked article to determine what specific allegations are made--what "smear" tactics it indicates Republicans intend to use against Daschle, I can't tell whether I would consider them to constitute a "smear campaign".

I can write that if they intend to shine a light on his deeds and statements that relate directly to what kind of a representative he is, then it is fair game. I'm not so naive as to think that conservatives don't fight dirty, though I'd rather they would keep it clean.

Anyhow, since I can't read what mj refers to here, perhaps we can agree that it is fair to hold Daschle accountable for his record--good or bad--but wrong to imply or state untrue things to damage his reputation.

I would go further and say if it has to do with his public service record, of course, but if it is that he enjoys dressing up in a French maid's outfit now and then, that is irrelevant to whether or not he should keep his job.

I'm inclined to agree with you in principle, but with one caveat...

While perhaps there should not be any stigma associated with cross-dressing in our culture, there is. This means that the information that a politician enjoys cross-dressing could be used to blackmail him into doing things against the country's interests. (This is why security clearance background checks look into such things.)

Cross-dressing has led to the downfall of various British politicians over the years. Overall, not a good hobby for someone with a legislative career...

Ya see, that's all a matter of cultural acceptance. The Chief of the Prussian General staff once died of a heart attack while dancing before the Kaiser in pink tutu and tights . . . some poor young staff officer had to come in an' wrestle the corpse into uniform as rigor was setting in. A little more tolerance, and they could have had a wing-ding of a public funeral . . . another missed opportunity . . .

To think that the Prussians have been stereotyped as being rigid! Well, I guess that poor guy was, but you know what I mean!