Posted on 06/28/2003 3:59:25 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Liberals without a leader
At this point in history, one could look at the Democratic Party as a ship, having lost its rudder and its captain, floating wherever the tide takes it. At the same time, there are numerous people attempting to assume the empty position as captain, but this vast struggle for power and order is causing the ship to lose its purpose and a unified agenda.
On this particular ship, there happens to be very radical people on one side and a calmer, moderate approach to leadership on the other. The question must be asked: Which approach will be the most successful and how will this affect the realm of politics?
A recent attention-grabber in the unification struggle on the left is speculation that Sen. Hillary Clinton could replace Sen. Tom Daschle in 2004, when he (hopefully) retires or (hopefully) fails to be re-elected in South Dakota, as the minority leader.
The most logical candidate for unifying the party once again is Sen. Clinton – a political heavyweight with command, position and experience. Many look to her in the 2008 presidential election, thus one would assume that the next logical step for her is walking in with a Senate leadership position, since Daschle's political future looks pathetic.
In addition, with her recent best seller, things are looking good for the New York senator and it appears that doors are being opened to political leadership despite her hard-line political ideas. Still, hers is not the only example out there of a struggle for power.
A landmark event for the Dems occurred last November as the Democratic legislators voted on the next House minority leader. After leading into a very moderate position and working with the White House on Iraq, Dick Gephardt stepped down from his leadership role to make way for an alternative Democratic force in the House. However, the Democrats showed they had no intention of electing a more moderate Harold Ford Jr.; instead, they elected Nancy Pelosi in a 177 to 29 vote.
The two Democratic frontrunners in the presidential race are, arguably, Sen. John Kerry and Howard Dean - two very liberal candidates. A step behind, moderate Joe Lieberman looks to capture the less radical constituents of the Democrats, but he lacks charisma and a sleek appearance – something that seems to be a requirement for a president and those in a true leadership position. Indeed, it appears Howard Dean has assumed that role as a commanding and strong politician – leaving any idea of being moderate in the dust.
The big question surrounding this radically liberal trend is whether it is truly a good step for the Democratic Party and how it will affect the rest of politics. Can a liberal socialist really gain support from the American people right now?
It would be hard to say yes. It appears that many Americans have taken a slightly conservative view of politics with their support of the president. A recent CBS News Poll found that 66 percent of Americans approve of President Bush's job, and with the war, this is to be expected. But it also shows that being moderately conservative is paying off politically.
For true conservatives, it looks like a hard-line liberal Democratic Party can only mean more losses. Recently, the GOP has compromised on many issues to simply gain political capital or to look like good bipartisan politicians. And recent history shows that the Dems usually won't compromise to that extent with Republicans.
Another interesting effect these radical liberals have on politics is the perception of a conservative. Conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat – they all are relative to each other. Therefore, the radical liberals on the left start to make moderate conservatives look like hardcore right-wingers, while making true conservatives out to be wackos.
Although this bigger and more public step toward socialist leaders in the left may precede sure political failure, one cannot underestimate the power of their friends in government education, entertainment and the news media.
Will the Democratic Party find a true leader and a captain before the stormy elections roll along? Only time will tell, but if the more liberal and less moderate approach to party leadership offers any insight, the future for true conservatives isn't going to look very bright.
Alas, since the political wing of the liberal movement is the democrat party, and since democrats hate and despise blacks, Sharpton will not be able to lead. True liberals, those of us who do not measure a leader by the color of his skin, will support Sharpton no matter which party eventually nominates him.
The future of our nation will suffer greatly if Rev. Al Sharpton does not run on a national ticket for President of the US in 2004! All of us true liberals must rally to support Sharpton and overcome the anti-black racists who control the liberal movement in this country.
Do people really think that Hillary wants Daschles' job? If Dubya gets the 56 or 57 Senators most people are predicting in 2004, the only thing Minority leader Hillary would experience in the Senate is defeat at the hands of Dubya.
Get Real! She is not going for that losing strategy.
Hillary will lay low until 2006 then announce she is not running for re-election to the Senate. She will say she promised New Yorker she would serve full terms and she plans to run for President in 2008.
She will then become the de-facto voice of the Democratic Party and appear on network TV at least 1000 times a year. She will have more air time than the alphabet network anchors combined. She will be the Democratic party on TV... THAT IS POWER and the media will give it to her.
She and Bill will set out to break every fund raising record set by Dubya. She and Bill will raise hundreds of millions for the Democratic party. By 2008 every democratic candidate will owe thanks for his campaign money to the fund raising ability of Hill and Bill.
In addition by taking on the total fund raising task, Hillary will be able to shut off funds for any possible challenger for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
People who think She wants to be an ineffective minority leader of the Senate do not understand the way Clintons think.
Position? As a freshman senator and the wife of an ex-president? Experience? Two years in elected office? Command? What kind of executive experience or abilities does this woman have? How good is she at getting along with people as a team player? What kind of leader and motivator is she?
How often does the Senate choose first-term junior senators to run the show?
What Hillary DOES control is a ton of money (probably billions in swiss accounts); a ton of FBI files (far more than the 900 openly acknowledged); a powerful machine, with her own man running the DNC; mob connections; and the prostituted media.
So, she has no real abilities, experience, or character, but she does have a huge and powerful machine under her control. That's why she's a real threat as a presidential candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.