With Soon-to-be new RNC Chairman Gillespie starting to return fire at the Dems, is the finger pointing about 9/11, uranium, and the recovering economy enough to reverse their losing streak in '04?

These recent statements of his are on CNN.com in an article on 7/25/03:

"The contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination sometimes seems to be a contest to see who can be the most pessimistic, who can protest the most angrily and who can take their party further back in time,"

"Americans want a president who is forward-looking," Gillespie said in the text obtained by The Associated Press. "They want calm leadership, not heated rhetoric. They want bipartisan accomplishments, not bitter partisanship. And they want a steady hand, not flailing arms."

"In place of solutions they serve up raw emotion," he said.

"They're angry that they aren't the majority party in the House or Senate. They're angry that they don't control a majority of the governorships. And they're angry most of all that they don't control the White House," he said. "As a result, they offer Americans a steady diet of protest and pessimism," Gillespie said. "They're still protesting the 2000 election. Some of their loudest voices protested removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. They protested a jobs and growth package. They protest qualified judicial nominees."

"The once-proud party of Franklin Roosevelt, who famously told us we have nothing to fear but fear itself, now seems to have nothing to offer but fear itself."

My apologies, aquapub. There is a question, it's just not very clear. Did you want to focus on RNC Chairman's comments, the partisanship among both parties, the possibility of the Democrats winning the presidential seat in 2004, and/or am I still missing it? Please PM me so we can reopen your debate.

Thanks-
Jaime