[url=http://www.democrats.org/about/bios/mcauliffe.html]Terry McAuliffe[/url] was elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February 2001. He has re-energized and revitalized the Party, using new state of the art technology to connect grassroots activists with the Party’s new information infrastructure…

Re-energized and revitalized? I don’t think so. I’ve [url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com/comments2.php?id=P111_0_1_0_C]written[/url] and commented several times that McAuliffe needed to put a win in the DNC column during this election cycle, especially after their 2002 debacle.

Even left-leaning pollster [url=http://www.zogby.com]Zogby[/url] was stunned by the results of this election. He had predicted a close race, but one in which Kerry would walk away with something like 325 electoral votes to Bush’s 213 electoral votes! That doesn’t really sound close to me, but, hell, what do I know? (no need to answer that question)

Just so you don’t think I’m being totally unfair, McAuliffe has been a loyal and effective member of his party. Does anyone doubt that McAuliffe can get the job done when it comes to fund raising?

I didn’t think the Kerry Campaign would be able to match, much less improve upon, President Bush’s impressive fundraising tallies. Yet, they did, and I have no doubt that McAuliffe played a large role in this, especially as this is his key talent; the guy knows how to raise money!

But is McAuliffe a good Chair for the DNC? I can’t see how, at this point, anyone could think he is. This morning around 5:15am, as I was waking myself up to get ready for work, I tuned into NBC to see two super-troopers, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, STILL on the job after who knows how many hours of covering the election. I felt bad for both of them and my respect for both went up a fair bit too. But I digress…

About five minutes into the Brokaw/Russert conversation, Brokaw paused, looked at Russert and asked the question, “if Democrats can’t bring Ohio into the win column, then it’s going to be, basically, a bloodbath for them, isn’t it?” Russert gave a short nod and said, “yes it will.” That’s a loose quote, by the way, but the term “bloodbath” definitely stuck in my head, which, at 5:20 in the morning, is saying something!

And a bloodbath it was for Democrats.

Not only did they lose ground in both the House and Senate, they lost decisively the Presidential race. So decisively that, even with legions of lawyers ready to act, it made no sense for Kerry to do anything other than to concede; which is exactly what he has done.

But Kerry’s loss is not the biggest blow to the DNC in this election. The biggest loss for Dems in this election cycle was the loss of their Senate Minority Chair, Tom Daschle.

Senator Daschle is, in my opinion, the DNC’s strongest party leader. A few years back, he managed to tilt the balance of power in the Senate, giving Democrats control for almost two years and, even after losing the majority status again in 2002, managed to turn back an impressive number of conservative initiatives and block a sizable number of Bush’s judicial picks.

Speaking as a staunch Republican, it looked to me as if Daschle was the guy in charge in the US Senate, not Bill Frist. But now, of course, Daschle has been ousted, and his loss is, by far, the biggest blow for Democrats.

Which is why Mr. McAuliffe needs to step down. It’s not all his fault, of course, but he is the Chair and, because of that, ultimately responsible.

Who should replace McAuliffe? Well, Senator Daschle will be looking for work come January. Why can’t he step up and take on a larger role? He certainly can’t do any worse than the trash-talking McAuliffe and he’s already shown he can lead his party effectively, even from a minority position in congress.

Kerry spent the last couple months of his campaign calling for change. Perhaps the DNC should follow his advice.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]