We need to become the party of change. In these times of PR being half the battle, that means changing the face of those who seek the change. Follow my thinking here a minute.....

When the average American watches TV news, they see our Senate leader, close to 70, but looking older than that. He doesn't smile, he does not evoke CHANGE. They see our House leader (Speaker Pelosi) - another longtime politician approaching 70 who has proved to be very much a "go along to get along," personality since her rise to power. Then look at the leadership TEAMS. Clyburn? The senate team is full of long-term, lifelong politicians.

We need new blood. We need a new generation of leadership to present to the American people. Right now, it looks like the party of "change" is the party that's been there for thirty years and hasn't done much to change anything.

We need courageous new Democrats willing to stand for something and present a "fresh face" for change.

Just my opinion. What's your take?

Pelosi and Reid HAVE GOT TO GO!

They are just Republican Lite. Dangerous, but not quite as dangerous. :eyes:

They are ELECTED to their leadership positions by THEIR peers--not US.

The Democrats in the Senate chose that Majority Leader.

The Democrats in the House chose that Speaker.

It's not UP to us.

But who elects the people who elect the leadership?
WE DO! Therefore, we have a voice in what we think about the leadership.

out of office based on their choice of a Leader/Speaker. You just aren't. Unless you enjoy cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you don't like your Senator/Rep and he or she IS from your party, but too X or not enough Y to suit you (X and Y being issues of import to you) then you want to get rid of that person no matter how they feel about the leadership.

If he or she isn't from your party, that person doesn't select your leadership anyway. They select the GOP/minority team.

Now, you can talk to your Senators/Reps until the cows come home, but they're pretty comfortable with the leadership team in both chambers. It's only the far left of the Democratic Party that is all exorcised about Pelosi or Reid.

It's only the far left of the Democratic Party that is all exorcised about Pelosi or Reid.

My problem isn't even with their politics. Again - it's the image of CHANGE. How hard is that to understand? It's kinda like Dick Cheney deciding to run for president under the slogan, "It's time for change." These lifers that have lived off the government dole for years are not necessarily the best choice for leadership. Yes, they have the "power" to intimidate and win the votes - but that's part of the problem!

But SS, DD. No REAL change. Just "Kid Nation." Whoopee. Not that you or anyone else can make that happen.

Newbies can't do SHIT on the Hill. That's the way the system works, and like it or not, it's entrenched.

There's ONE exception that I can think of--and that's Bill "The Rove Puppet" Frist, who was a newbie who was installed by the White House after they flogged a story about a fucking racist who was always a racist making a racist remark at a dinner for an old racist geezer--and pretending to be SHOCKED about it--in order to get that pesky racist "leader who led" Trent Lott GONE. And look at him now--crawling back up the Hill lickety split.

At least there is some merit built in to the advancement system now, and competence in specific areas, particularly the high viz ones like Armed Services and Judiciary, for example--back in the days of Russell, someone had to DIE for the next guy up (and it was always a guy) to get the gavel. It's better now, but leadership remains a function of seniority, and wishin' and hopin' ain't gonna change that dynamic.

Along with that geezer seniority that time warming the seat affords, there's something that newbies don't have--political acumen. It does come in handy when dealing with an opposition that isn't going to put their sweet, idealistic, fresh faces forward, but instead, will do battle with the oldest, crustiest, nastiest, sharpest, most mendacious, slash-and-burn, stomp-yer-face-in-the-mud mon-freres that they've got.

Yes, when JFK said, "The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans," I guess there was some "ageism" there. But, it's hard for people who have made their home on the hill for decades to be the agents of "change." That's just a fact.

If you need new blood, go to the hospital

Why don't they just quit and go volunteer at the polls, like all the other old farts???
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:

Sometimes the best thing a person can do for their country is sacrifice their own ambitions for the greater good. Look at how the British Conservatives have leaped ahead of Brown in the polls. All observers say that the Brits are taken with the fresh faces and the young, vigorous calls for change. It would be a HUGE mistake for the UK (imo), but the Tories are playing the PR game of "change" right. Complete with fresh faces as agents of that change. Even Thatcher said it was time for a new generation of leaders for the Tories. Some things are more important than "rewarding" those who've played the game for a long time and have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

edit subject line

There have been only 122 black members of congress since 1868.

If you are serious about change, why not promote getting rid of whites?????

In the past 100 years, there have only been about 240 women in congress. Why not get rid of the men.

I had no idea this would be so controversial. DU seems to be a very unfriendly place to be right now. Can't we discuss political issues without all the snarky remarks? It makes one wonder if our opposition isn't toying with us and disrupting this board. Disclaimer: I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about all the rancor of late.

Pelosi, Reid and so on, they're the ones who have done the damned heavy lifting for lo, these many years, when we were the minority and out in the damned wilderness.

Here's a little "PERSPECTIVE" for you. Read it for comprehension:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrats-eating-their-old.html

Friday, October 12, 2007
Democrats Eating Their Old
The party that prides itself on being a big tent for diversity is showing signs of cannibalism since it took over Congress a year ago and, in a reversal of eating its young, is threatening to devour some of its long-standing stalwarts.

After all the furor about anti-war legislators not being anti-war enough, now we have Rep. Barney Frank, of all people, defending himself from charges of not being pro-gay enough by backing a bill to protect homosexual men and women in the workplace that might leave transsexuals vulnerable.

“There is a tendency in American politics,” he said yesterday, “for the people who feel most passionately about... a single issue to be unrealistic in what a democratic political system can deliver, and that can be self-defeating.”

In an era when George Bush is still blocking almost everything with his veto power and remnants of a monolithic Republican minority, Democratic activists only play into his hands by forgetting that politics is the art of the possible and that the perfect can be the worst enemy of the good enough.

Push for perfection by all means, but don’t trample those who are out front navigating the minefields.

Incremental improvement in energy standards and cutbacks of farm subsidies are not very exciting for generations that want it all now. But politics has never been the best place for instant gratification, except for those who exercise their mouths rather than real power.

From half a century of observation and activism emerges the lesson that inertia, while it slows progress, can also be the best protection against violent, destructive change.

Those who find that old fogeyism can eat me, too.

It's not just DUers and the DEM base who got DEMS elected in '06- and who are growing impatient and have congress polling at all time lows.

I hate to tell you this, but it's not just your straw-man "nut-roots" activists who are unhappy with the war and the direction of the congress.

One would think that congress could open a paper and SEE their record low poll numbers for themselves.

I agree that calling them and reminding them never hurts- but congress being aware that everyone disagrees with them isnt the real problem- they can read any poll and see that.

If it's okay with you (Or even if it is not)-I will indeed complain to my congressmen as always *AND* I'll also discuss their actions here at DU and elsewhere.

That's what the polls REALLY say.

It's OK with me. That's why I suggested it.

I'm glad you have excuses crafted for why this is (save them for the swing-voters who were polled, not us), but the fact remains that a DEM congress doing a good job wouldnt be polling this low.

That's why that "generic" poll is just carping.

A Dem Congress with a veto-proof majority, not a RAZOR THIN one in the Senate (with Lieberman sorta batting on our team) would do very well.

But we DON'T have that now, do we? And it's disingenuous to suggest that because we have something called a MAJORITY that we do.

OOPS...forgot the 'contrary data'--pardon me, courtesy of our liberal (cough) friends at Rassmussen: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/405660/poll_most_american_would_vote_for_a.html


Poll: Most American Would Vote for a Democrat for the House of Representatives
By Regina Sass
Published Oct 06, 2007
There has been much talk about the level of confidence that the American Public has in the job to Congress is doing, and what effect it would have on the up coming election. In addition to the entire House of Representatives being up for grabs, one third of the Senate is also going to be out campaigning. Every month, Rasmussen Reports takes a look at the overall trend...If the Congressional Election were to be held today, 48% of Americans say that they would vote for the Democrat who is running in their district and 36% picked the Republican. The margin was less than last month, but this is the third month in a row that the Democrats have had a double digit lead over the Republicans.

The Democrats lead across the board in all the age groups, but there are differences. In the under 30 age group, they lead by a margin of 62 to 30%. In the 30 to 39 age group it is 50% to 30%, with those 40 to 49, the Democrats have their lowest lead with 41 to 40%. With those who are between 50 and 64, it is 45% to 38% and in the 65 and over group 48% to 39%.

The Democrats also lead among with white voters, with a 44% to 39% margin and with black voters by 64% to 24% and with those who classify themselves as belonging to another ethnic group it is 70% to 23%.

Their level of support over the past two months is the highest it has been in all the polls taken this year.....And when the respondents were asked if they thought that the Democrats would be able to keep control of the Congress, 43% say they are very likely to remain in control and 30% say they are somewhat likely to remain on top.

The survey was done by telephone and the participants were 800 likely voters from across the nation. The survey was taken on September 4 2007 and has a margin of error of + or - 4%.

Source: Rasmussen Reports http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/405660/poll_most_american_would_vote_for_a.html

I've seen this data and similar data. To me the poll suggests that in general, people might be willing to hand power over to Democrats in the next election- but nothing specific about how DEMS are handling the war right now...


I hope I'm wrong, but it Reads more like "I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils" than "I really approve of what DEMS are doing right now."

I see nothing in that data showing taht most folks are happy with the jobs their Senators or reps are doing concerning the war or what is happening in the now.

I'm not sure if you are right, but maybe you are- maybe people taking those polls think that if DEMS get the majority, they will start opposing the war and getting more things done. If so, then thanks for the encouragement...

I dont see why those same demograpics would give congress as a whole such record low numbers after giving DEMS an election victory...something isnt adding up.

Fact is people are unhappy with congress- but I hope that your predictions and your data plays out they way you say...

I dont think '08 is in the bag, and I dont think "well enough" will do it. I think that if we had stronger leadership, we could get all these numbers even higher...

A DEM led congress shouldnt be polling so low, no matter what the excuses- but if the public really will blame the GOP for DEM inaction, then great.

But thanks for the data-I was aware of it and I agree that it is somewhat encouraging...

Once that veto-proof majority is in hand, we're off to the races. Of course, we won't need it if we have the White House, but it will still be a comfort.

Here's the truth behind that "Congress Sucks" theme--see, THEY suck, but "MY" Representatives are great (this is from the Dem-unfriendly--I wager they'll get friendlier the more our majority grows-- The Hill): http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-to-launch-pr-blitz-to-beat-08-media-frenzy-2007-10-23.html

On the surface, the numbers for Democrats do not look good. A poll for National Public Radio conducted earlier this month by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies found that only 25 percent of voters approved of the job Congress is doing, while 38 percent approved of President Bush.

But Greenberg polled in competitive congressional districts in August and found that the public’s disappointment is not directed at individual Democrats, who were leading Republican candidates by an average of 51 percent to 42.

Despite the absence of anti-incumbent data, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been leading the caucus’s public relations effort. She began holding weekly press conferences earlier this month and has been appearing on more news and talk programs. She is scheduled to appear Monday on “The Tavis Smiley Show.”

Democrats are keenly aware of the public’s frustration. Many believe that they were elected to bring an end to the war in Iraq, and they have been unable to do that because of an unwieldy Senate and President Bush’s opposition to any change in strategy in Iraq. But House aides have not coordinated the two-month public relations push with their Senate counterparts, Democratic aides said.

“We have a slim majority, we cannot get things before the Senate, and we have an obdurate president,” Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) said. “There is frustration out there about what Congress has done. There is so much information out there, it is hard to break through ...Democrats also are frustrated that Bush has threatened to veto spending bills even though he never issued a similar threat when Republicans controlled the Congress. Moreover, Bush has vetoed an Iraq war-spending bill that included a date for withdrawing American troops, as well as a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and legislation expanding stem cell research.

And then there's this study: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/cqpolitics_analysis_house_demo.html

The Democrats have more opportunities in the 2008 elections to expand their newly minted majority in the U.S. House than the Republicans have to whittle the Democrats’ edge in seats, according to the first ratings of next year’s House races by Congressional Quarterly’s CQPolitics.com.

Barring a tidal shift of voters to the GOP’s side over the next 13 months prior to Election Day 2008, the Republicans appear highly unlikely to achieve their goal of reclaiming the majority that they held for a dozen years...The Democrats — who currently have a 232-201 majority, with one Democratic-held seat and one Republican-held seat vacant — could have expected to begin the 2008 House campaign in a defensive and perhaps vulnerable position, because their 30-seat gain in the 2006 elections was a much bigger pickup than even many Democratic optimists had anticipated.

Many of the Democrats first elected in 2006 won in districts that had long elected Republicans, and history shows that freshman officeholders usually are more vulnerable to defeat than more established members. There also was no guarantee that the strongly anti-Republican political environment of 2006 would linger ...Yet the aggressive campaign push exhibited by national Democratic strategists in 2006 has continued into the 2008 cycle, with the party acting early to defend its potentially vulnerable incumbents — and maintaining strong candidate recruitment efforts targeted largely at districts in which Republicans staved off the Democratic surge in 2006, but by narrow margins.

While polls show a largely disgruntled national electorate thinks no more highly of the current Democratic-controlled Congress than it did of the previous Republican-controlled chamber — with the lack of resolution of the unpopular war in Iraq a driving issue — the same surveys show that congressional Republicans as a whole remain more unpopular than their Democratic counterparts.

My strategy would be to acknoledge the low polling and bring it up NOW- not spin it and wait until we are handed the whole bag. Assuming we will even win in '08- many a slip betwixt a cup and a lip.

I hope your take is correct, b/c I'm sure it is closer to what the Beltway strategists are thinking.

It certainly isnt anything close to my thinking- which involves increasing our current poll numbers by showing real oppostion to Bush in the now, not later.

In any event, please know that I am sincere when I say I am glad we can come to some sort of an agreement...

They're gonna get out there and tout, on a number of fronts. They won't be as confrontational as you might like, but they will do the "compare and contrast" routine:

Democratic leadership aides huddled with rank-and-file chiefs of staff, legislative directors and press secretaries on Monday to persuade them to do more to promote a positive message. Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, and Mike McCurry, one of President Bill Clinton’s former press secretaries, also were on hand to press for a concerted effort.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent last week to lawmakers, the six senior House Democratic leaders noted that bipartisan majorities have passed lobbying and ethics reforms, an increase in the minimum wage, a massive increase in student aid, legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and other initiatives that President Bush has signed into law.

Democratic leaders want the rank and file to do more to publicize those details, because they are concerned that the public is unaware of those accomplishments and that it will become more difficult to hype their message as the presidential race further dominates the news.

Those leaders expect their members to hold more press conferences and town hall meetings, send out more franked mail and develop better online strategies. Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is expected to keep tabs on which Democrats are doing their part to play up their record, leadership aides said.

“We’re concerned obviously that the accomplishments of both the House and Senate are overshadowed by failure to change direction in Iraq,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “We’re hoping in the next three or four months to make it clear what has been done and make it clear we are upset that more has not been accomplished because of the president’s refusal to change direction.”

I think confrontation is just what the Dr. ordered.

Since I know that DEM leadership will always see that they are on the receiving end of confrontation, I hope to be wrong about the need for it on our part, but very recent history shows otherwise- playing the nice guy doesnt work. It just doesnt.

Frankly, I dont trust the political instincts of the "centrists" anymore- and I gave them almost the complete benefit of the doubt until 2004. They were wrong about the war and wrong about supporting Bush, and I think they might be wrong about current election strategy (it's all the same, really)

I think Hoyer is out of his mind if he thinks four more months of doing the same thing is going to make much of a dent.

They want to send out letters and ask us to talk to people? That is being done already. Seems like some real confrontation that gets on television would be something new that we are not already doing.

Confronting BUSH- not confronting Moveon or Stark, mind you.

Your whole strategy seems to hinge on voters trusting us to FINALLY grow balls once we are handed the bag, instead of showing that leadership in the now.

Your polls show us that voters might give us that benefit of the doubt- but those polls could change unless we reinforce it.

I find the strategy you offered in the last post to be obvious and inadequate. Letters? Meetings? Great, but we already do that.
It's what is in those letters and what is said at those meetings that matters- it cant be excuses for why we are not fighting Bush- it has to be examples of or ways to fight him (AKA confrontation)

They want DEMS and the rank & file to be more frank? Sorry, but that is Bullshit. Tell that to Pete Stark or Moveon.org.

They are the ones to do the talking. On the national stage, in major venues--it's a Get The Message Out strategy, and the entire caucus is being shoved onto the same page.

There WILL be talking points, there always are, but you'll see the full spectrum from Blue Dog to Uber-progressive get out there and start flogging for talking head time, and all of them pushing the same peanut (we worked, we tried to find consensus, we tried to be bipartisan, but Bush just shit on us--and he didn't shit on the GOP when they were in the lead, the baaastid!! See, the fucker ISN'T bipartisan!!! Oh, and here's what we wanna do next, write to him and tell him you agree with us....) down the lane. And we'll get the time--even Meet The Potatohead Russert is sucking up, he sees the handwriting on the wall.

Of course, plenty of them will, in the right venues (their own districts, e.g.) get a little more down in the weeds as to their personal platforms. But they'll be pushing 'caucus themes' when next you see them--that's the idea. They'll be doing the same thing when they meet with reporters off the record--that little push-push-push to get points into the paper, on the radio, in that magazine(GOP does it too--it's why you see the same fucking bullshit story EVERYWHERE that really isn't that important, some times).

We already send out letters and we already erroneously expect reporters to get our talking points out for us.

It's what is being said. How it is communicated down to the rank & file is only part of the problem.

As it is, I dont see how blaming Bush for not letting us fight him is better than coming up with WAYS to fight him and then acting on them.

The difference b/t GOP media strategy and DEM talking points boils down to what you are afraid of: CONFRONTATION.

Repubs are not afriad to go on TV and say "Clinton is a liar"- or "DEMS hate America" even if it isnt true. It stirs up debate and gets people talking. They dont just count on reporters to say it FOR THEM- they go in front of cameras and say it themselves. And no one in their party freaking censures them for it either.

Of course when we try confrontation with things that are TRUE, our own DEMS attack us. (See Stark & Moveon)

I dont see anything new in that strategy, and I dont think that "We tried to fight Bush but he wouldnt let us" is better than actaully confronting Bush.

I can see how this is going-same as it ever was-so I hope your "voters will give DEMS the benefit of the doubt" poll stays steady until the election- otherwise we might get screwed again.

I think they are going to challenge Bush, but they'll maintain the "We're the adults" attitude.

I know a good fight is satisfying in some regards, but everytime the GOP opens their mouths, they screw themselves. They come off like petulant two year olds.

But you may have a point- many people over 30 also voted for DEMS in '06 hoping an end to the war would be in sight by now.

Unless you can show us different, the people who are taking polls and giving Reid's Senate such low numbers are a cross section of all voting ages- not just young, unreliable hippie protestors...

Your strawman image of hippie bloggers storming congress is funny, but the reality is that Congress is polling low with most voters- including folks in the over 30 crowd...

Rather than reading the post as inciting a storming of the gates, I thought the OP was trying to point out that maybe our DEM led congress wouldnt poll so low if there was better and different leadership.

However, you and I could probably agree that it is the ideas, not the age that matters.

But the Senate.... they are fiefdoms on both sides and only death and old age gets them out.

But remember also, some of our most courageous representatives are lifers in the Senate, precisely because they are so secure in their seats. When you are a young congressperson, you can lose your seat over one controversial vote.

Rangel, Frank.

They couldn't be as strong as they are if they weren't so secure in their seats because they have been re-elected so long.

for a long time.

No new blood, no one likes to be in the minority. This was predicted even before the 2006 win, and this is what the Republicans are going through - difficulty in recruiting new blood.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3631883&mesg_id=3631883

Let's hope that 2008 will bring more new faces and that the old timers will recognize the need to gracefully bow out.

Webb as the Senate leader?

LOL- Just kidding.

Apparently there is a notion on this thread that if you agree with any suggestion in the OP in any way, shape or form, you are "shitting" on senoirs and advocating a "Dont trust anyone over 30" hippie revolution.

I can see how new faces and new leaders might be just the thing we need.

If you look at those two posts and a few others, you will see that my characterization is spot on.

a bit...sketchy.

So I'm not sure what you are saying-I was never trying to mince words or hide the fact that I was talking about certain comments being made in this thread-but sorry if it seemed sketchy to you.

Congress has an 11 percent approval rating. Those aren't all Super Liberals on the Democratic side of the polling, who are rating Congressional leadership so low.

It seems to me that Harry Reid lacks the energy and "killer instinct" that someone doing his job would benefit from. I'm trying to think of a single example where Reid effectively outsmarted or outplayed the GOP... I'm drawing a blank.

Same goes for Pelosi.

age does not guarantee that .. .. look at Robert Byrd . . . 90 in less than a month . . .
John Murtha is 75 . . .
Ted Kennedy . . . also 75

Why do you assume simply installing younger elected officials will bring about change?????????

It is as it has always been . . . we need to look at individual characteristics for a good leader . . . not age . . . not race . . . not gender . . .

Your suggestion is just as obscene.

Look at the damn WHIP--does this guy look white to you? He's got Steny's old leadership job, only he isn't doing it from a minority perspective:


Who's Ways and Means (the most POWERFUL job on the Hill)?



Who's Judiciary?



Who's Homeland Security?



Who's Ethics?




Hell, that's off the top of my head, not necessarily all inclusive. This is the most REPRESENTATIVE leadership team on the Hill...

EVER.

but the rest are white . . .


Senate
President Pro Tempore Byrd
Majority Leader Reid
Minority Leader McConnell
Minority Whip Lott

House
Speaker Pelosi
Majority Leader Hoyer
Majority Whip Clyburn
Minority Leader Boehner
Minority Whip Blunt

That's why they have the damn gavels, because they are IN CHARGE of committees.

Good grief.

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/leadership.cgi?site=ctc

If I meant to include committee chairmen, I would have said so.

Good grief.

a member of the Democratic leadership in Congress. Go on. You tell the man, do.

:eyes:

I have tremendous respect for Charlie Rangel. But . . . he probably knows he is not on the leadership page at the house. No need for me to tell him. I am sure you are more upset about that than he is.

But . . . please do not tell me what I meant by my posts. That is insulting.

If you want to make up your own rules . . . feel free. . . . I have no objection . . . just do not do so in response to mine . . .

does not make it true. I'm calm. Zen-like, in fact.

You're the excessively excitable one, unable to post in complete sentences, and relying on the lame "three dots trick" to string your disordered thoughts together.

And I'd invite you to take your own advice.

Charlie Rangel is a Congressional Leader. He is a committee leader, not a caucus leader, but he is a leader. Everyone, save you, knows that.

It's not a question of my making the rules. He holds a gavel, he is a Committee CHAIR. As a chair, he directs, and exercises authority and responsibility over his very powerful committee and a number of subcommittees.

See, that's what "leaders" do.

:eyes:

Your juvenile use of profanity and "WTF"'s clearly illustrates a lack of calmness . . .

And once again . . . and this time much slower . . . take . . . a . . . look at . . .the . . . . leadership . . . page of . . . . the House.

No . . . committee .. . chairs . . . to . .. be . . . found. . . .

But all are leaders, with leadership roles.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/a_three_sections_with_teasers/leadership.htm

well well, all white . . . .

That's unsurprising.

There's only ONE black Senator--his name is Obama.

He's running for President, so he's probably not a good candidate for a leadership job. Hell, he's missing a lot of votes because he's on the campaign trail. He wouldn't have time to do all that paperwork that goes with those duties.

you are smoking something . . .

Your posts are becoming incoherent.

Not participating in caucus management.

Here, slowly, in big letters, and very simple words, so you can understand it:

Obama is the only black in the Senate.

There ARE no other black people in that body.

He is running for President, and too BUSY to do leadership work.

That's why there are no Blacks in Leadership positions in the Senate.

:eyes:

:rofl:

Couple of blacks on this list . . . but it includes Chief Deputy Whips . . .

But . . . . hmmmmm . . . no committee chairmen . . . except for the Democratic Steering Committee

Try to grasp the intent of my post . . . . .

I'm not hissyfitting, I'm correcting a grievous error.

And even at that, you apparently still don't appreciate that Congressional leadership includes committee chairs.

calm down . . . you are clearly upset . . . with no need. . . .

We are on the same side of the war . . . perhaps not on this battle, obviously . . . .

There is room for opposing views . . . I have justified mine with a link. Please do the same. Just do not make stuff up.

If anyone needs to calm down, I think it's you. You are mistaken in your assessment of the Democratic leadership. The ones you list are caucus leaders, but the ones I noted are Committee leaders--and they're all Democratic Leaders.

Charlie Rangel controls the money, all of it--it doesn't move without his gavel. You think that position doesn't carry a considerable amount of clout? If you don't, you might want to rethink that view.

If you have the courage of your convictions . . . you will do so.

Like all of those who have leadership responsibility over a committee do.

He's not with the caucus leaders, because that's not what he does. He is in charge of a committee.

But hey, whatever.

Revel in it. Stew in it, too.

You enjoy it so much!!

So I post something about the leadership of congress.

Why do you assume you know more about my post than I do. You start to read in to it something about Charlie Rangel, and caucuses, and your view of who the leaders of the Senate and the House are.

I point out the House and Senate sites that list the leadership . . . in support of my original post. And you still take exception.

Are you just out to argue . . . or to disagree. . . . or to prove that you know more than others who post on this site????

What is your agenda? You may have a lot of posts . . . but you does not give you an edge over me on my opinions.

He played around with special interests who love paperless voting machines and won't move HR 811, the one bill that might have had a CHANCE to protect the 2008 election.

If we "lose" another shaky one, this time you can thank good old Steny.