Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen




Mike Bayer, Addison County Prog: Why did you support Catamount instead of forcing Douglas to veto it? He contended gubernatorial candidate Scudder Parker would have had more to run on if the bill had failed.
Donovan: I agree.
Zuckerman: How often do Democrats speak against their leadership?

So on one hand Zuckerman says that the Dem tent is too big.

Then he says that the Dems don't speak against their leadership enough.

David is a walking contradiction.
There is no contradiction there. They allow almost anyone in..and then when the party goes to one end or the other (within their caucus) the other end does not speak out.
David doesn't know what he's talking about. There have been plenty of open and public disagreements among dem caucus members. Tell the "Lord of the Flies" it's okay to disagree with fellow party members in public.
The truly interesting part here is the completely frank admission by Donovan that the D strategy on health care was WRONG.
So? Have you never looked back and said maybe you should have done something different?

Besides, that's only one D's opinion.
It should be every D's opinion, cause it's true.

As for looking back... well, I am looking back now and thinking, "we told you so"... so, since they were forewarned, I find it hard to forgive that particular legislative failure on the part of the D's.

FAILURE... got that?
OMG you're so right and everyone else is so wrong! How could we have not seen it all along! Please let us worship you, master.
This is Party Tent versus Policy Tent.

Party tent: "we need warm bodies everyone in! Anti-choice? Sure, come on in! Anti-worker? No problem!"

See, that's too big... who wants to be in a tent with smelly anti-choice religious nuts?

Policy Tent: "Here's what we can get away with passing this year over the strenuous objections of a small minority who are holding us all hostage to their tantrums. Shut up, we talked about this already. No, seriously, shut the fuck up."

See, no real debate, no gutsy answers, no confrontations to reveal bad policy, no attempt to speak truth to power...

A policy tent should try to include everyone's interests in the hopes of making good public policy.

A party tent is part of the practice of elected representation of constituents, who are not, by definition, EVERYONE, but a specific group of people with various personal characteristics, and whom candidates are purporting to be able to "re-present" in the policy process.

Given the very real policy divides in this country at this time, it seems absurd to imagine that two or even three "parties" could really represent such a diverse country.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments


June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010