How about the energy bill, where Daschele chose local pork over party leadership by supporting it due to the ethanol subsidy?

We need the Democratic leader to be the occupant of a safe seat, so that he can do what is right without worrying about his local special interestes too much.

I don't know how cynical Dashcle is, but I would note that on the big issues where he has voted wrong-- the Energy bill and the Bankruptcy bill being another-- both laws seem to end up dying anyways.

Part of good leadership, given state ideosyncratic needs, is allowing various folks to "go off the reservation" for a vote that makes the voters back home happy, but is ultimately irrelevant to the final result. Counting the votes well to allow that is a key skill.

Maybe it's just worked out that way, but Daschle seems to have given himself a "free vote" in both the Energy bill and Bankruptcy bill, that ultimately didn't matter as the bills died.

Maybe it's just coincidence, but I'd be more annoyed with Dashcle if you pointed out a bill he voted for that became law because he supported it.

Good point.

Of course, I hate that the only way I'll ever be acknowledged as correct is if we have a disaster. It's sort of like the Global Warming debate.

"It's possible someone else could have done a better job, but the majority of Democratic Senators who have elected and reelected Daschle for the job may have good reason to disagree."

Maybe that's why they're in the minority.

Daschle allowed himself, and "true Democrats," to be excluded from the Medicare conference without a word of protest and without retaliation. That by itself is sufficient to give him the boot.

Paleo- The Dems were protesting their exclusion from the Medicare conference strongly. But the reality is that their tools for "retaliation" are pretty limited. Folks who criticize Daschle are ignoring the fact that he DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES, so he has to maneuver with the limited tools of delay and such filibusters give him. But that requires keeping support from the most conservative Dems-- which means that punishing folks like Breaux is not really a possibility.

Folks are way too leadership-centered in explaining the problems of the Dems-- the problem is that the grassroots structure is weak, although getting better. We elect leaders; they don't elect the voters. We need to actively campaign among voters to move public opinion and increase turnout of progressive voters. Do that, and the Dems in Congress will vote better.

Let me ask you this question. Can you picture Lyndon Johson, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, or even Bill Frist allowing themselves to be excluded from the conference and (1) not raising holy hell about it and (2) not getting the bulk of their troops in line to threaten to filibuster anything that came out of that conference unless they were let in? I can't. A strong leader who is unafraid to speak out can make a world of difference. One who is meek and who is unsure of his seat has no business being leader.

Can I imagine any of those folks, when they were IN THE MINORITY, losing a fight like Daschle. Sure. As for Lott, you should read the Freepers talking about how wimpy he was when he was in the minority-- and I don't totally disagree with them on certain fights, where Daschle expertly rolled him back in 2001-2002. On the Medicare fight, Daschle did raise hell and almost won the fight.

As for Johnson, when he was majority leader, he was nauseatingly bipartisan and screwed liberals repeatedly. By the Johnson standard, Daschle is a liberal partisan saint.

As I've said, I think Daschle's had a weak hand, both with the total number of Dems and having to keep conservative Dems in line for any filibuster, and he's done a good job with that hand. I think folks displace their frustration with the number of Dem Senators onto Daschle, which I think is counterproductive.

Kos has made a powerful structural argument against Daschle as leader. He's a decent guy, but because he's from a "red" state, he has to occasionally oppose his own caucus--never a good thing for the putative leader, after all--and support particulary execrable legislation, e.g. the energy bill, in order to protect his increasingly tenuous seat. I do view the temporary failure of that bill and others as something of a coincidence, and, moreover, Daschle's expedient behavior during that debate should not be precedential--again, that's ok for a back bencher, but not for the leader of the party caucus--he should be driving policy and politics, not conflicted about them.

Kos goes on to make the obvious corrolary point that the GOP makes sure that its leadership comes from safe "red" state seats, and, therefore, it never needs to compromise with indigenous constituencies (sometimes, it has to compromise with the White House, but that's a problem the Dems would like to have). Structually, it makes sense to have a leader who doesn't have to worry about reactionary voters back home who might send him/her packing--better to pick somebody from a solid Dem state from the west coast, or New York/New Jersey or New England. Daschle has many fine qualities, but they are undermined by his need to cover his ass back home.

Richard- I understand the structural point Kos makes; I'm just not sure I buy it. I actually don't admire Trent Lott or Bill Frist as leaders-- I think they have overplayed their hand a number of times-- the Energy Bill AND the Medicare bill being examples. Politically, a bipartisan bill would have been a much better political win for the GOP, but instead they got a bill that doesn't fulfill the real free market goals of their conservative base, but alienated many seniors-- the worst of all worlds as far as I'm concerned.

And both the pork-driven defeat of the Energy bill and the ham-handed win of the Medicare bill both reflect the arrogance that comes from leadership solely from "safe" states. I actually think there is an advantage of having leadership from a good solid liberal like Daschle who is still very sensitive to conservative sentiments because of the state he represents. I think it means he has calibrated his actions well.

I don't think Daschle is a wonderful public spokesperson on the TV, but I think it's made him very astute in managing his marginal majority in 2001-2002 and managing from the minority position in deploying filibusters.

Lousy majority leaders were those like Mike Mansfield in the 1970s, who had massive majorities of Democrats, yet still lost major votes to the Republicans on issues like capital gains cuts and filibusters against labor reform.

By historical standards, with a weak hand, I think Daschle stacks up well.

Lousy majority leaders were those like Mike Mansfield in the 1970s, who had massive majorities of Democrats, yet still lost major votes to the Republicans on issues like capital gains cuts and filibusters against labor reform.

The same Mike Mansfield who guided civil rights and Great Society legislation through the Senate. Daschle should only wish he had his ability.

"As for Johnson, when he was majority leader, he was nauseatingly bipartisan and screwed liberals repeatedly. By the Johnson standard, Daschle is a liberal partisan saint."

My point wasn't Johnson's substantive positions, but his ability to lead his party, which was even more divided than the Democrats are now.

Paleo-- If Daschle had those kind of Dem majorities, he'd be passing even more impressive legislation. I don't think anyone thinks of Manfield as being the main force behind those bills.

Although the Senate Majority leader I should really hit is Robert Byrd, who presided in the late 1970s and presided over the complete crackup of the Democrats, even as they had the majority in the Senate.

As to Johnson's ability to lead the Democrats, he often led them in ways that were incredibly bad and destructive. Robert Caro's MASTER OF THE SENATE is hardly an advertisement for progressive legislation promoted by Johnson-- leadership is only valuable when it leads in the right direction.