Leaders Wanted

I was preparing to write a post on this article entitled "Glum Democrats can't see halting Bush on Courts" in today's NY Times, but John Avarosis beat me to it by about six hours. He writes better than I do anyway:

From tomorrow's NYT: "Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views - in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights - appeared to be stirring little opposition.

"Republicans say that Mr. Bush, in making conservative judicial choices, has been doing precisely what he said he would do in both of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, they say, his re-election, and the election of a Republican Congress, meant that the choices reflected the views of much of the American public."

Ok, let's get a few things straight:

1. Yes, Virginia, the country won't just spontaneously rise up in opposition to President Bush. You need to actually LEAD the country, you need to actually CONVINCE Americans that Bush is wrong and you are right. You can't just sit back, do nothing, and hope that the simple fact that you're right leads you to victory.

2. Only an idiot thinks Bush won the election because "much of the American public" supported anything in his platform. He won by default. People couldn't stand him, they didn't want him back as president, but the Democrats presented the voters with an even worse choice. And when it's a choice between two evils, while Mae West may pick the one she hasn't tried, the American people prefer the lesser of the two. Any Democrat who thinks Bush won, and we lost, because he had some kind of mandate is a fool.

This is just that much more evidence of why there needs to be a major blood-letting in the Democratic party, and soon. Heads need to roll. ROLL. People need to lose their jobs, en masse. After 2000, no one took responsibility. After 2004, no one took responsibility. And now it's happening again. Our wonderful party leaders are sitting back and scratching their heads wondering why the country isn't simply running into our arms while they sit back and do nothing to earn the country's respect and loyalty.

There needs to be a major revolution in the Democratic party. Heads need to roll, and soon.

I would only add a couple of more points. Later in the article we find:

Democratic aides said there had been even less strategy than usual in trying to coordinate the questioning by the eight Democratic senators. The situation was complicated because senators and staff were out of Washington before the hearing.

Boo hoo. The poor Democrats couldn't do their jobs because they were on vacation. Boo hoo. That didn't stop the Republicans from coordinating their forces did it? What's wrong with these guys?

Also, Ted Kennedy is quoted in the article as saying:

These issues are so sophisticated - half the Senate didn't know what the unitary presidency was, let alone the people of Boston," he said, referring to one of the legal theories that was a focus of the hearings. "I'm sure we could have done better."

"But what has happened is that this has turned into a political campaign," he said. "The whole process has become so politicized that I think the American people walk away more confused about the way these people stand."

Well, maybe the half the Senate that doesn't understand this stuff shouldn't be in the Senate. And, yes Ted, this is politics. What did you expect?