Skip to main content

View Diary: Piling on Frost (217 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Length of loyalty isn't the point (none)
    I would hope. Rather maybe it is the indications of loyalty or evidence of it that is. this is why I say with frost it's a bad sign that he acted in such a manner just 6 months ago, and his actions should be a factor. Not the only one, but a factor.
    •  If length isn't a factor (none)
      and the loyalty has never been tested, how does one know that it exists?

      We all know that it's easy to fake anything, particularly when the rewards for doing so are high, for a short period of time.  Much harder to fake in the long-term or when it is put to big tests.  Even when tested, I would submit that it still takes time to affirm it.


      •  So you believe Clark is faking it ? (none)
        I just want to make certain I understand your point.

        For the record, it comes down to trust. Are there any indicia of reasons to trust or not trust someone. Clark has never denied his past, and he hasn't changed his stances from what I understand. He is pretty much a moderate guy with some liberal views. In 2000, one can think that he may have thought the Republicans were still the party of Bush Senior but I honestly don't know. With Frost, the issue isn't his length of service, it is the seriosu allegation of whether he has been loyal to the party enough to become Chair when this role, and I do agree with Kos on this, is the most partisan role that one can take? Clark isn't running for this role. Finally, the nice thing about the election being in 2008 is that it will give us the benefit of time to be able to deteremine whether Clark is the man he presents himself as. This isn't a luxury with DNC chair. I am just glad I am not the one making the decision because each of these men seem like they have their flaws and strengths. Some are totally unacceptable like Roemer (sorry, the conservative think tank did it for me). But, others I am not so sure of what to think. I guess I am in s upport of Dean just because he seems more reform oriented, but I could be persuaded.

        •  No, my question was more (none)
          generic.  The one thing that has struck me in reading leftwing blogs for three years is that standards, criteria and facts play such a small role in evaluations of candidates, politicians and strategies.  I was horrified when so many at dKos thought that it was a good idea for Kerry to choose McCain as a running mate, and equally horrified that Kerry begged him to do so.  Horrified when people couldn't say why they liked a candidate but they just did.  And I was also horrified to read Clark's Pulaski County GOP speech (2001) and his 5/03 Op-Ed and see all the Democratic support for the man for POTUS.  From everything I could see, Clark is not much different from Powell and Powell isn't a RINO; he is a Republican.

          I know people change over time, but first becoming more liberal in one's late forties or fifties is the exception.  And such exceptions are normally linked to some sort of crisis, usually personal.  Therefore, I am very cautious in accepting such a change and extremely cautious when a crisis doesn't exist.  I just don't get why people who profess to be Democrats would want to vote for a Republican.

          •  There is a saying right now (none)
            He perhaps didn't leave the Republicans, as much as the Republicans left him. What I am starved for, and I don't know about you, is leadership. I will take it from the middle, the left and occasionally (though rarely) conservative leaning Dems. Choosing candidates for me- although this has  changed a bit- is about weighing the good and the bad. None of these guys are ever perfect. The criteria that I started to develop even before the election was over is now a bit different. I am looking for leadership. Those intangible qualities that go beyond policy and into understanding how to talk to people, how think strategically, character and not being afraid to take risks. You maybe right about Clark but I don't sense that yet.  Also, I don't want to generalize from what generally is suppose to happen with what may have happen with this guy as a person. Until the late 1990s this guy was a military guy. This was a stark shift for him to leave this mostly conservative world.  But, that is a guess.  When looking at men who have this I look at men like Clark, Dean, Spitzer and maybe some more left leaning people (but frankly the only one I know who was in the field was Kuccinich and I don't sense he has all the ingredients- convictions yes, but commmunications- I am not so sure) maybe also Barbara Boxer for what she's bee n doing lately, Obama for what he has the potential to do. Do I always agree with these people? No. But, they all have or are exhibiting those intangible qualities in some ways. Right now, even a mong the rank and file, this is where the party and progressive leaning people in general face a deficit.
            •  Sorry -- I think we've have (none)
              drifted into some zone of viewing "leadership qualities" as something similar to what is seen in movies, and that is a very narrow formulation.  That's about selling an image of what a leader looks like -- someone who seems tough, resolute, confident enough that people are willing to trust them.  People trust charlatans all the time and lead them to places they never intended to go and don't want to be once they get there.  

              I'm not discounting the need for politicians to have a certain level of charisma.  In our TV world nobody could get elected without it.  However, if leadership is what we want, than GWB/Rove is one of the best -- they are taking this country to new places.  They were instrumental in getting a GOP Congress that aids and abets them and in that way are more effective than Reagan or Nixon could ever have hoped to be.  OBL is a leader that I want nothing to do with as is Sharon.  The best leaders always have a firm philosophical foundation that guides them and persuades others.  Caretakers/administrators in high office are fine if maintainging the status quo is what is called for, but they are not likely to be seen as leaders.  Leaders are change agents and therefore, knowing what they plan to change is absolutely critical.

              •  you can either fight the reality or accept it (none)
                if you fight it you will lose over form, not substance (which is what we are doing now in part.) Or y ou can devote your energies to finding folks who fit the form but provide your substance. You aren't going to get both.
                •  Huh? (none)
                  If the Democratic Party continues not to be different enough from the GOP, it will continue on as the minority party.  Five guys in Ohio who swing back and forth between the two sides will define our elections.  Those five guys want government services that benefit them personally at no cost to them, lots of wars, no competition in any area of their lives from women or minorities and government protection of only those rights that they personally value.  Unfortunately, that doesn't inspire half the population that doesn't vote and they see no difference in the two parties.

                  Barbara Boxer -- one of the most liberal Senators cruised to her re-election.  She outperformed the conservative Senator Feinstein who in her last election (2000) only garnered 56% of the vote to Boxer's 58%.  GWB improved his margin in CA in 2004 over that of 2000; but a liberal Senator did even better than the non-liberal did in 2000.

                  Everytime I ask for data supporting the position that DEMs need to move right -- I get nothing except "Clinton won two terms and McGovern lost in a landslide."  Well, McGovern also ran a terrible campaign (Eagleton), conservative DEMs refused to support him and he looked "soft" on TV.  And we don't even know how effective Dickey's dirty tricks were that year.  Nobody can say that had Perot not gotten into the mix that Clinton would have won - please not the polls that show that Perot drew equally from GOP and DEM voters -- first, there are error rates in polls, but second the most important thing Perot did in that election was to discredit GHB's economic policies which Clinton then grabbed an ran on.

                  •  my point was about the form of leadership (none)
                    not the substance of leadership. There are somethings you aren't going to change. I was being cryptic b/c I am at work. if you want to understand more fully what I mean go look at a diary that I wrote about leadership, how Bush and Newsome (the Mayor of SF) are in fact very similar. Indeed, in someways, the connection people feel with Dean is very similar to the connection that Bush supporters feel with Bush. These are about qualities of leadership, not policy. Your statement seemed like you had a problem with the nature of how we look at leaders. My point to you, if your goal is policy change, to focus on that rather than also fighting the nature in which we look at leaders. In other words, take some advice a friend of mine gave me once- Don't ran into town on the horse backwards. figure out what your goal is or at the very least what is more important you. Is it more important to you to change the way Americans see leadership or is it important to shift the paradigm from moving right to moving left? My point is that you can fight for one, or the other, but not both because energy and time wise you can waste a lot of time railing against what is partly human nature, and partly historically how people look at leadership. Again, if you are curious look at my diary, because I am doing this pretty fast at work.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site