The Democrats' Real Problem

[markalot]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030601613.html

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; A17

It is now an ingrained journalistic habit: After a period of bad news for President Bush, media outlets invariably devote time and space to "balancing" stories that all say more or less: "Yes, the Republicans are in trouble, but the Democrats have no alternatives, no plans," etc.

The pattern began to fall in place this weekend in the wake of two truly miserable weeks for Bush.

The stories about the Democrats are by no means flatly false -- Democrats don't yet have a fully worked-out alternative program -- but they are based on a false premise, and they underestimate what I'll call the positive power of negative thinking.

The false premise is that oppositions win midterm elections by offering a clear program, such as the Republicans' 1994 Contract With America. I've been testing this idea with such architects of the 1994 "Republican revolution" as former representative Vin Weber and Tony Blankley, who was Newt Gingrich's top communications adviser and now edits the Washington Times editorial page.

Both said the main contribution of the contract was to give inexperienced Republican candidates something to say once the political tide started moving the GOP's way. But both insisted that it was disaffection with Bill Clinton, not the contract, that created the Republicans' opportunity -- something Bob Dole said at the time.

The Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show how their critique of the Republican status quo is the essential first step toward the alternative program they will owe the voters in the presidential year of 2008.

This failure has made it easier for Republicans to cast anti-Bush feeling (aka, "Bush hatred") as a psychological disorder. The GOP shrewdly makes the president's critics look crazed and suggests that opposition to Bush is of no more significance than, say, the loathing that many watchers of "American Idol" love to express toward Simon Cowell, the meanest of the show's judges.

The president's critics need to identify precisely why they oppose him, not only so they can make clear that they are not psycho basket cases but also to convey the idea that they know what needs to be put right.

Bush critics will almost always point first to the administration's arrogance, a word used recently not by some left-wing Bush hater but by the loyal conservative writer Byron York. In the New Republic, York chose the A-word to explain why Republicans are turning on the White House's "we-know-best approach."

The cure for an arrogant government that doesn't take critics seriously is accountability. Divided government never looked so good. That's especially true at a moment when polls suggest that a majority is yearning for more competence and greater moderation.

For example, moderates and liberals alike are mystified by budget policies saddling our kids with debt tomorrow to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy today. Moderating this radical fiscal approach is something the voters clearly could accomplish with their ballots this fall.

But Democrats have no good answer to Iraq. True. And neither does Bush, who started the war and should be held accountable for where we are now.

The philosophical man who owns our neighborhood Chinese restaurant recently shared with me a brilliant aphorism to describe how to build a good business. "You have to do the right thing," he said, "and you have to do the thing right."

That summarizes what unites Bush's Iraq critics. Many Americans opposed the war in the first place, but many who supported it are aghast that the administration did the thing so badly. It did not dispatch enough troops to achieve order at the outset, and it failed to plan for the inevitable conflicts that would arise among the country's ethnic and religious groups.

What comes from this is not isolationism but an awareness that even a very powerful country needs to be a careful steward of its power. It should never go into a war without considering the probability of unintended consequences and planning for the worst case and not just the best one.

This is the basis for a saner foreign policy in the long run. As for Iraq, the voters should let the president know that he can no longer keep repeating his rah-rah mantras about standing down when the Iraqis stand up. Presidents deserve to be punished for insulting our intelligence.

Thus the shortcoming of Democratic leaders is not that they don't have a program but that they have not yet convinced opinion makers that fighting bad policies is actually constructive -- and that, between presidential elections, keeping matters from getting worse is sometimes the most positive alternative on offer.

postchat@aol.com

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[drexel dave]

The problem with Democrats are people who think they are not part of the same ruling global corporatists that run the Republican party. Just follow the money and they truth is quite evident.

[george]

I thought halitosis was the Democrats' real problem?

[akip]

the problem is that governing through reasonable consensus and incremental progress is a boring concept and hard to sell.

people are dense.

[george]

people are dense.

I'd say that attitude is the real problem.

I'm no fan of the current admin and I didn't vote for Bush, but when the left trots out their "people are stupid" tactics, it makes me wish I did vote for him.

Insulting people is no way to win their hearts and votes. I'm definitely not trying to single you out, akip. Jon Stewart, Barbara Streisand, Carville, and many others have made similar statements lately. The underlying sentiment seems to be "we Democrats are much, much smarter than all of you who didn't vote for us. So vote for us in the mid-terms and in 2008."

Given the seeming lack of intellect in the current administration, the sentiments might very well be true; but they are hardly a winning strategy.

[Shlep]

I'd say that attitude is the real problem.

I'm no fan of the current admin and I didn't vote for Bush, but when the left trots out their "people are stupid" tactics, it makes me wish I did vote for him.

Insulting people is no way to win their hearts and votes. I'm definitely not trying to single you out, akip. Jon Stewart, Barbara Streisand, Carville, and many others have made similar statements lately. The underlying sentiment seems to be "we Democrats are much, much smarter than all of you who didn't vote for us. So vote for us in the mid-terms and in 2008."

Given the seeming lack of intellect in the current administration, the sentiments might very well be true; but they are hardly a winning strategy.

My thoughts exactly.

The Right often portrays the liberal/the Left/the Dems of having an odious social/cultural/fiscal agenda, but at least in doing so they give them credit for being smart enough to be wiley and duplicitous. The Left, and the Democrats, on the other hand, tend to criticize conservative politics and conservatives in general by simply chanting "They're so stuuuupid! And their ideas are stuuuupid! And they look so stuuupid! Plus....they're just so stuuuupid!!!"

It doesn't help that they portray people who voted Republican as being brain-dead dolts who believe whatever pap is spoon-fed to them and vote out of either knee-jerk, blind idiocy or fear. There was an awful lot of undecideds and swing voters in 2004, and the election was quite close; bringing these people into their tent instead of telling them what morons they are (and, in my opinion, consolidating their proclivity to vote one way since voting the other = an admission that they were previously misinformed, gullible dipshits) and starting websites to apologize to the rest of the world for the way they voted ain't the sort of strategy of inclusiveness that is going to turn the tide.

Some sort of direction other than "We're just not the other guys" might help also. You could agree or disagree with Bush on his policies during the election, mainly because you knew what the hell he stood for. Kerry, on the other hand, could seem to offer nothing other than "I will do the opposite of whatever Dubya says he'll do" or "If it was me, I'd have done....well, something else."

And while they're at it, they could quit talking about being white and/or churchgoing as though it was some sort of greivous social offense. Get a clue, Democratic Party: when you accuse the GOP of being a "white, Christian party" as though that's a bad thing, don't be all friggin' surprised when the majority of voters in the country (who are white and Christian) wind up in their camp. It's a no-brainer. Anyone else remember when the South was "The Solid South" as in "solidly Democratic"? The Dems used to be able to count on the Southern vote, now they hammered down there. I guess depicting part of their core base as a bunch of pumpkin-rolling, dumbass, Bible-added, gun-toting rubes was a *bad* idea.

The fact that the GOP still has the grip on power that is does amidst continually growing disaffection among conservative voters looking for an alternative (i.e. me, and my finally climbing on board with the Libertarian Party, at least on the national level) stands as proof that the Democrats are seriously blowing a great opportunity.

[akip]

I'd say that attitude is the real problem.

I'm no fan of the current admin and I didn't vote for Bush, but when the left trots out their "people are stupid" tactics, it makes me wish I did vote for him.

Insulting people is no way to win their hearts and votes. I'm definitely not trying to single you out, akip. Jon Stewart, Barbara Streisand, Carville, and many others have made similar statements lately. The underlying sentiment seems to be "we Democrats are much, much smarter than all of you who didn't vote for us. So vote for us in the mid-terms and in 2008."

Given the seeming lack of intellect in the current administration, the sentiments might very well be true; but they are hardly a winning strategy.

i freely admit i am absolutely guilty of thinking people are very, very average, very simplistic in their thinking, but not on a dem-repub split. the entertainment-junkie, cement-head phenomenon cuts across political lines and probably reflects the fatigue of a stressed-out, unexceptional populace looking for canned ideologies to believe in.

i don't even blame the bush administration---they're just exploiting the landscape better than the dems. i blame the public for sinking to the lowest common denominator, for thinking that they are not themselves accountable for letting the politicians get away with their bullshit.

clinton wasn't the greatest pres who ever ruled the amber waves and purple mountains---he was egregiously undisciplined in many ways. but he did his homework, paid attention to many of the right people (he did not hand his administration over to a bunch of ideological radicals), made many sound, moderate political decisions, and went against his own party faithful on some things, like balancing the budget. compared to this oaf, he was a prince of reason.

how do you encapsulate moderate, reasonable governance in a soundbite? you can't. today it's all about TV personality, hayseed charm, the crap that doesn't matter at the end of the day. 'cause people are fuckin' dense. yes, they certainly are.

[euro60]

Some sort of direction other than "We're just not the other guys" might help also. You could agree or disagree with Bush on his policies during the election, mainly because you knew what the hell he stood for. Kerry, on the other hand, could seem to offer nothing other than "I will do the opposite of whatever Dubya says he'll do" or "If it was me, I'd have done....well, something else."
That right there, Shlep, is just about the best way to describe what is seriously wrong with the Democrats. You never know what these guys really and truly stand for!!!!!

[msbirt]

The problem with Democrats are people who think they are not part of the same ruling global corporatists that run the Republican party. Just follow the money and they truth is quite evident.

A -- FUCKING --- MEN!!!

[tobedawg]

good article Markalot, Thanks for posting it!

The Democrats have more than just a couple of problems.. The Democrats should just either 1) hang it up and call it a day or 2) restructure from the ground up..

They have problems with 1) Image and Marketing -- Let's look at the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore came across as a Stiff-Corporate Guy while George W Bush came across as a "Good Ol Boy" From Texas! We live in a day and age where marketing matters especially in politics!

2) The Lack of Message and Focus -- The Democrats like to criticize but DON'T actually come across as a party with valid solutions.. Yes, some may have solutions, BUT they just aren't getting their opinions heard as loudly as the Republicans..

3) The Fighting Spirit -- Republicans are STRONG fighters! When they are attacked, they attack back and use EVERY means at their disposal to do so.. The Democrats on the other hand, MIGHT throw out a few unconstructive insults, but DON'T launch the type of effective full scale attack plan that the Republicans do AND when and IF they do, they tend to back down once someone snaps at them..

4) Old Leadership, Old Ideas -- Ted Kennedy has been around over 25 years, there seems to be a SERIOUS lack of new blood in the Democratic Party.. In 2002, after Paul Wellstone's tragic death, The Democratic Leadership picked Presidential LOSER Walter Mondale to run against Republican Norm Coleman in the state of Minnesota.. NOBODY cares about Walter Mondale, Nobody Cares about Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, OR John Kerry.. Their message DIDN'T resonate the first time, Why rehash it now?

5) The Corporate Money Trail.. Sure California Senator Dianne Feinstein can criticize the War in Iraq and President Bush all she wants, BUT at the end of the day, one look at her bank records will indicate that she is rolling in the big bucks from the Iraq War, just like Dick Cheney!

[the happy prole]

It's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg kind of thing.

Yes, the Democrats have poor leadership and are currently rudderless. I'd like to see them posit some solutions at least to try to advance dialog and/or set themselves up for later. But at this point in time, I honestly cannot think of a plan the Democrats could put forward that would allow them to win the election. It's pretty much up to Bush to blow it.

I think the difference between the GOP and Democrats right now is the GOP in the late 80's and into the 90's was extremely organized both within political leadership structure and more importantly, at the grass-roots level. I think the turning point was '92. The GOP was already the more motivated party but the totally screwed themselves that election with a split between the religious right and the moderate right. After that, they learned to put aside differences and the leadership was ruthless about enforcing party discipline. They are still enjoying the fruits of that labor, although now their party structure is crumbling as well.

To me, you have to look at the local and state level. Sure, the Democrats could snag a Presidential election if they find a charismatic leader. But the GOP is completely dominant right now, and it will take a long time to break that dominance.

[slopechz]

Where is BigSugar? I'm sure he has words of wisdom on this subject. :D

[tempo]

i don't even blame the bush administration---they're just exploiting the landscape better than the dems.

They are VERY good at it. So good they just might succeed in taking the country back to the 1890s. Especially with no one to stand in their way but the Keystone Cops, er, Democrats.

how do you encapsulate moderate, reasonable governance in a soundbite? you can't. today it's all about TV personality, hayseed charm, the crap that doesn't matter at the end of the day. 'cause people are fuckin' dense. yes, they certainly are.

But hasn't it always been that way (depressing as that may seem)?

I suppose you could say the modern sound bite age started with the Kennedy-Nixon debate, or Reagan's "morning again" ads, or the Willie Horton ads. But weren't the radio and newspaper media exploited just as cynically before TV came along?

[markalot]

thinking people are very, very average

Hmmm, I thought that was obvious. I mean if they wern't average then average would be ... :D

[markalot]

So do you think it's Dean? He's had some grand ideas, but lately I here nothing but hate from the guy. That's not good leadership.

This is critical shit because I, as a conservative, do NOT want to see the house and the senate remain in republican hands.

[akip]

I suppose you could say the modern sound bite age started with the Kennedy-Nixon debate, or Reagan's "morning again" ads, or the Willie Horton ads. But weren't the radio and newspaper media exploited just as cynically before TV came along?

i think they were---politics in spirit has always been the same---but apparently candidates had to travel the country giving stump speeches; news took more time to get around. now it's just so much faster, more immediate, and repeated ad nauseum. also, the onscreen personality comes across quite differently than the in-person presence. just another level of distortion.

anyway, people really did sit down and read the newspaper once upon a time...and most towns had more than one newspaper.

[akip]

Hmmm, I thought that was obvious. I mean if they wern't average then average would be ... :D

average as in not smart enough to get a grip on this complicated, changing world. to put it kindly.

[akip]

Anyone else remember when the South was "The Solid South" as in "solidly Democratic"? The Dems used to be able to count on the Southern vote, now they hammered down there.

until they went pro-civil rights for blacks. LBJ knew it would be the end of the era of the democratic south, and he was right.

[tempo]

anyway, people really did sit down and read the newspaper once upon a time...and most towns had more than one newspaper.
Now that I think about it, the print media really are very different from TV and radio. They may try to grab your attention with a simplistic headline, but after that there's usually a fair amount of depth in each story. The reader can decide how much to read and how much to skip. Very different from an audio/visual presentation.

Anyhoo... I think news reporting in all media has become very lazy over the past 15 years. There just doesn't seem to be much sense of public responsibility left in the profession.

The voting public may indeed be dense and/or apathetic, but poor flow of information does almost as much damage.

[the happy prole]

Well I don't disagree with you that much. My point was that the GOP didn't win on the strength of having some kind of great solution or masterplan while the Democrats were lacking one. There was nothing in the Contract with America that hadn't been part of the GOP platform for years. Anything that was remotely hot-potato (abortion) was kept off of it.

When the economy does well, the mood tends to shift conservative. That served as the impetus. But a lot of it was because the South has been conservative for ages and it was just a matter of boll-weevil Democrats retiring or dying. And if you look at the local level, the GOP had been winning school district elections and local elections for several years as part of a deliberate strategy. It's like when you see a band seemingly blow up overnight, but if you've been keeping track you can see they've been building momentum for years.

The GOP won that election because they sold the public on a Republican revolution. They won by being anti-Democrat. That was the sentiment behind the vote-- that the Democrats were politics as usual and the new wave of Republicans were going to do something, shake things up. And give them credit, they did. It didn't matter what was in the Contract with America, it was just a PR piece that conservatives could point to as "substance."

The Democrats are losing because they don't have a plan. But the plan they need isn't a set of policy objectives for the country. It's a political strategy. They need to be ready when the time comes.

[drexel dave]

Thank you. And yet, they go on like there really is some difference and like these two parties are actually on different sides.

A -- FUCKING --- MEN!!!

[akip]

The Democrats are losing because they don't have a plan. But the plan they need isn't a set of policy objectives for the country. It's a political strategy. They need to be ready when the time comes.

i wholeheartedly agree---as well as THP's previous comments how the repubs started strategizing years before they got their chance. all these conservative think tanks like the enterprise institute and heritage foundation were created with the objective to take over the white house, the congress and the supreme court, and they worked feverishly over time to till the ground.

does anybody remember clinton's campaign policy objectives? i sure as hell don't. all i remember is carville saying "it's the economy, stupid." but clinton-carville were political campaign masters.

it's really the same issues, after all. low taxes v. safety net, regulation v. laissez faire, religion v. strict separation, global trade v. protectionism, diplomacy v. military intervention, etc. some people never change position on these, but there's a big pool that are ambivalent and will shift back and forth depending on their emotions and circumstances.

yep, it's how the game is played that really matters in the end.

[markalot]

I'm hoping conservative democrats make their move. The same kind of democrat that voted for Reagan. I'm not convinced there are enough conservatives left in the republican party for them to even claim they are conservative, other than socially conservative.

At the same time I have to face the fact that if the dems get back in power the liberals will slowly take over the agenda and then we're fucked, but right now they look better to me than the far right.

The democrats need soundbites and organization. The contract for america was an advertising campaign, and a good one. Every single republican candidate was on the same page with the same message.

[slopechz]

At the same time I have to face the fact that if the dems get back in power the liberals will slowly take over the agenda and then we're fucked, but right now they look better to me than the far right.
Markalot, your a trip. Don't you think we're fucked now? I mean seriously, the democrats are bizarre, but this country is unrecognizable to me. And it makes me both sad and furious. :eek:

[akip]

i would really love to see somebody run who would be aggressive about the right issues, like campaign finance, and moderate about the economy and foreign affairs. roll back the high end tax cuts, restore some sort of diplomatic credibility, tackle health care costs. normal things like that. i'm not looking for the anarchists to take over.

[markalot]

Markalot, your a trip. Don't you think we're fucked now? I mean seriously, the democrats are bizarre, but this country is unrecognizable to me. And it makes me both sad and furious. :eek:

I though that's exactly what I said.

if the dems get back in power the liberals will slowly take over the agenda and then we're fucked, but right now they look better to me than the far right.

I think you're looking for things to fight about.

The truth is that whenever a party gets in power they will always get taken over by their so called base. Republicans will go hard right, democrats will go hard left. I dislike both, but at the same time I think opposition is key to a balance of power. If the democrats had control of the house and senate we wouldn't be in this mess. Gridlock is GOOD!

[drougan]

Gridlock is GOOD!

I've heard this from several sources and I'm beginning to understand exactly what it means. Bush as president doesnt scare me, republican congress doesn't scare me, conservative supreme court doesn't scare me. But the combination of the three scares the shit out of me.

All the momentum of a mob mentality at the federal level ain't a good idea because changes happen so quickly. Debate and compromise (slowing the decision making process down enough for us to realize that the last decision was a good/bad idea and what to do about it), is a good idea.

[slopechz]

The truth is that whenever a party gets in power they will always get taken over by their so called base. Republicans will go hard right, democrats will go hard left. I dislike both, but at the same time I think opposition is key to a balance of power. If the democrats had control of the house and senate we wouldn't be in this mess. Gridlock is GOOD!
Hmmm, wasn't Clinton a moderate? The liberals never had control of the Clinton White House. Never. If they did, we would have Hillary's health care plan. Yikes.

When was the last time we had a really liberal president anyway? Democratic, liberal congress - yes. Liberal president? I guess that would be Carter who has been out of office for 26 years.

[slopechz]

Markalot, your a trip. Don't you think we're fucked now? I mean seriously, the democrats are bizarre, but this country is unrecognizable to me. And it makes me both sad and furious. :eek:
Oh BTW, I misspoke. I meant to say liberals are bizarre not democrats (although the dems are pathetic which is different). Sorry about that.

[markalot]

Hmmm, wasn't Clinton a moderate? The liberals never had control of the Clinton White House. Never. If they did, we would have Hillary's health care plan. Yikes.

When was the last time we had a really liberal president anyway? Democratic, liberal congress - yes. Liberal president? I guess that would be Carter who has been out of office for 26 years.

The republicans took over the house and senate during the Clinton Administration. Clinton was mostly moderate, I agree, which is why the economy did so good. There are many moderate conservatives in the democratic party.

[slopechz]

The republicans took over the house and senate during the Clinton Administration. Clinton was mostly moderate, I agree, which is why the economy did so good. There are many moderate conservatives in the democratic party.
There are indeed. Having said that, I would like to see some more liberal power in Washington. At least the Senate. I can dream, can't I?

[tempo]

i would really love to see somebody run who would be aggressive about the right issues, like campaign finance, and moderate about the economy and foreign affairs. roll back the high end tax cuts, restore some sort of diplomatic credibility, tackle health care costs. normal things like that. i'm not looking for the anarchists to take over.

I agree with everything in this post. I bolded the part about campaign finance because

1) It's the most important issue in politics today.
2) I can't see a solution for it. drexel dave made the point earlier -- even if a coalition of Sensible Democrats took over Congress tomorrow, they'd still be part of today's system of legalized bribery.

:(

[markalot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_vetoes

Take a look at those numbers. Bush, with his party in complete control, has not used the veto at all. Clinton used it 37 times, Bush senior used it 44 times.

If this isn't proof of the danger of one party being in control I don't know what is.


Having said that, I would like to see some more liberal power in Washington.

You're wrong, but if it takes a liberal in power to prove it then I hope it happens too. ;)

[george]

Bush, with his party in complete control, has not used the veto at all.

He just hasn't figured out how it works yet.

*rimshot*

[george]

i wholeheartedly agree---as well as THP's previous comments how the repubs started strategizing years before they got their chance. all these conservative think tanks like the enterprise institute and heritage foundation were created with the objective to take over the white house, the congress and the supreme court, and they worked feverishly over time to till the ground.


Things are changing everyday.

Two interesting articles in today's Washington Post. The first (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860.html) is about Harold Ickes and George Soros teaming up to create a for-profit company that would create a database of Democratic voters to rival the infrastructure of Karl Rove and the other Republican political operatives. The second (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_2.html) article is about conservatives' growing disillusionment with Bush. It isn't just a matter of policy disagreements, many big name conservatives are calling Bush and his administration reckless, inept, incompetent, pathetic, dictatorial, etc...

[markalot]

Things are changing everyday.

Two interesting articles in today's Washington Post. The first (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860.html) is about Harold Ickes and George Soros teaming up to create a for-profit company that would create a database of Democratic voters to rival the infrastructure of Karl Rove and the other Republican political operatives. The second (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_2.html) article is about conservatives' growing disillusionment with Bush. It isn't just a matter of policy disagreements, many big name conservatives are calling Bush and his administration reckless, inept, incompetent, pathetic, dictatorial, etc...

I hate it when people get all rational and shit, takes all the fun out of politics. :D

[akip]

Things are changing everyday. Two interesting articles in today's Washington Post.

thanks for the links. will print them up to read, not just skim, but quickly:
The first (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860.html) is about Harold Ickes and George Soros teaming up to create a for-profit company that would create a database of Democratic voters to rival the infrastructure of Karl Rove and the other Republican political operatives.

the spouse has been saying for a while this is what the dems need to do---build the same sort of infrastructure and fight back with similar strategies.

The second (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_2.html) article is about conservatives' growing disillusionment with Bush. It isn't just a matter of policy disagreements, many big name conservatives are calling Bush and his administration reckless, inept, incompetent, pathetic, dictatorial, etc...

it would be interesting to see where grover norquist is on all this, 'cause he's been a key conservative coalition builder.

[akip]

Hmmm, wasn't Clinton a moderate? The liberals never had control of the Clinton White House. Never.



When was the last time we had a really liberal president anyway? Democratic, liberal congress - yes. Liberal president? I guess that would be Carter who has been out of office for 26 years.

this is exactly right---clinton haters are so obsessed with the man, that they are blind to how moderate he really was, how well he co-opted those conservative issues that majority of the public tended to agree with.

i've also never understood why people were so comfortable when bush overturned many of the economic policies that served the country pretty well in the 90s---esp. the average person who didn't really benefit significantly at tax time.

[tempo]

article on Slate.com about the hopeless Democrat "leadership":

http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/?nav=ais

[markalot]

article on Slate.com about the hopeless Democrat "leadership":

http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/?nav=ais

My god that was a beautiful article. :D

Nancy Pelosi epitomizes this problem. To understand her politics, think Huffington Post without the flashes of wit. Here is a typical Bush-bashing, cliché-ridden quote of hers: "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back!" Pelosi dismisses people who disagree as hoodwinked or stupid. She's not exactly Hillary Clinton herself, though. A five-minute interview is usually sufficient to exhaust her knowledge on any subject.


:D :D :D :D

There you go Slope, A liberal in power is a wonderful thing.

[slopechz]

My god that was a beautiful article. :D



:D :D :D :D

There you go Slope, A liberal in power is a wonderful thing.
Yeah I saw that article. I think you understand my point. Or maybe you don't. One liberal wing of gov't might help balance things out a bit. Besides, are you trying to pick a fight? :p

[markalot]

Yeah I saw that article. I think you understand my point. Or maybe you don't. One liberal wing of gov't might help balance things out a bit. Besides, are you trying to pick a fight? :p

Of course! :D

[REMgirl]

The Dems do have good ideas and the atmosphere of the Republican Party is at its weakest level, plagued with corruption by party leaders like Frist, Delay, and Rove. The Bush administration is losing supporters in the GOP because they don't want to be associated with what is perceived as the ineptitude of our fearless leaders. Read some of the Rightwing blogs like Powerline or Redstate.com and see the doubts and concerns of the right wings.

In the meantime, the Dems do have a platform to stand on, including:

*Iraq - set a timetable for bringing the troops home.

*Tax cuts - replace Bush's tax cuts for the rich - with tax cuts for the middle class.

*Social Security - make it secure and protect it.

*Health Insurance - provide it for 45 million Americans who don't have any.

* National security - give first responders the tools they were promised by George Bush, but never received.

Remember, the GOP has a list of talking points, and the "Dems have no plans" is one of the favorites.


;)

[markalot]

In the meantime, the Dems do have a platform to stand on, including:

*Iraq - set a timetable for bringing the troops home.

*Tax cuts - replace Bush's tax cuts for the rich - with tax cuts for the middle class.

*Social Security - make it secure and protect it.

*Health Insurance - provide it for 45 million Americans who don't have any.

* National security - give first responders the tools they were promised by George Bush, but never received.

Remember, the GOP has a list of talking points, and the "Dems have no plans" is one of the favorites.


;)

A timetable based on what? That's a dumb idea. Either beef up the troops to finish the job, or bring them home now.

Tax cuts? Sure, whatever.

Social Security? Ha, what does make it secure mean? Where is their grand idea? They has plenty of time to come up wiht one, so where is it?

Health Insurance? Yea right, been there done that, rejected by a large margin.

National Security - now this one is good because I think they can show we are less secure, overall, than prior to 9/11. But then democrats are horrible about security, so I don't hold out much hope.

[REMgirl]

Okee dokee, here is a more indepth list of what the Democrats stand for;

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

They do need to work on the way they frame issues. They need to be more succinct and more forceful in what they say. It's not the perfect party; I've got my own gripes with the Dems, but I like them more than the "other guys". ;)

[markalot]

http://www.democrats.org/img/header_agenda.jpg

That pretty much sums it up. :(

[akip]

A timetable based on what? That's a dumb idea. Either beef up the troops to finish the job, or bring them home now.

Tax cuts? Sure, whatever.

Social Security? Ha, what does make it secure mean? Where is their grand idea? They has plenty of time to come up wiht one, so where is it?

Health Insurance? Yea right, been there done that, rejected by a large margin.

National Security - now this one is good because I think they can show we are less secure, overall, than prior to 9/11. But then democrats are horrible about security, so I don't hold out much hope.

i think you've absorbed all the usual talking points.

[slopechz]

http://www.democrats.org/img/header_agenda.jpg

That pretty much sums it up. :(
What is your point...

[Shlep]

A timetable based on what? That's a dumb idea. Either beef up the troops to finish the job, or bring them home now.

What is this job that needs finishing, markalot? Our troops were sent there to:

1) Oust Saddam. Check!
2) Route his regime and prevent them from coming back. Check!
3) Oversee and protect the creation and installation of a democratically-elected representative Iraqi government. Check!

So far as I can tell, their presence in the country only exacerbates the problem of the insurgency, the sound defeat of which *seems* to be a big part of this vague, ill-defined "job" we're doing and would be better accomplished with our boys out of the country getting rested and refitted while strategically redeployed to swoop in and bail the Iraqis if they need help (that being the Murtha plan, which I thought made all the sense in the world and which Congress took a giant shit on). The Iraqi military needs to cowboy up and start taking the fight to the insurgents or just relent and let them take over.

[bjk15]

oh, c'mon shlep, that may have been gdub and cheney's hidden agenda, but that isn't what he told everyone else in the world, so why sound so brash about it. and that doesn't change the fact that you can't turn a horse into a unicorn by slapping a horn on its head and then blaming the horse for not cowboying up and keeping the horn on itself. and if they let the insurgents take over then they did fail on your third point. oversee and install is pretty pathetic if it doesn't work as soon as you leave the shop.

[Shlep]

oh, c'mon shlep, that may have been gdub and cheney's hidden agenda, but that isn't what he told everyone else in the world, so why sound so brash about it.

Okay, granted-- I didn't mention the WMD thing, but I was thinking more in terms of the here-and-now job vs. the onset of the war. Anyway, the troops likewise accomplished the goal of making sure Saddam didn't have any to give to terrorists (albeit in a fashion the Dubya and Co. did not quite expect).

and if they let the insurgents take over then they did fail on your third point. oversee and install is pretty pathetic if it doesn't work as soon as you leave the shop.

So our troops should remain deployed in Iraq until we can be absolutely sure that there's no way some faction within the country could possibly rise up and seize power? Fantastic...let's run with that, and let the troops know that they can expect to be done with their mission right around the same time that the sun burns up and leaves the Earth a pitch-black sphere of ice.

The insurgents are not some monolithic all-for-one/one-for-all team of bad guys but a profusion of factions with different aims united only in their desire to drive out occupying forces. I point to the fact that various home-grown secular factions have begun gunning down foreign jihadists. I could be wrong-- wouldn't be the first time-- but I believe if we go, it'll have the same effect on the insurgency as the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan had on the mujahideen.

It's also worth noting that the Iraqi government-- which has already affirmed the more-or-less God-given right of the insurgents to violently resist our troops and refuses to call attacks on occupying forces "terrorism"-- has been extending olive branches to the insurgents and trying to bring them into mainstream Iraqi political discourse. So then: if they're not sweating buckets over getting toppled, why are we?

[markalot]

If we leave now Iraq becomes a bigger terror breading ground than aphganastan (I can't spell it). If we leave now we'll have to go back in some manner, so I just don't see that as an option. Perhaps timetable is just a bad word and instead it should be a goal table or something.

[markalot]

i think you've absorbed all the usual talking points.

National Security - now this one is good because I think they can show we are less secure, overall, than prior to 9/11. But then democrats are horrible about security, so I don't hold out much hope.


Wow, I had no idea that was a talking point. Look, sometimes I will hit these talking points because I agree with them, but I do not watch a lot of news nor do I read left or right wing bloggers, so I'm not hip to the talking points.

Those are my opinions. If you don't like them then let's discuss them.

[markalot]

What is your point...

A bunch of goofy people trying to act happy?

Democrats believe that after a life of hard work, you earn a secure retirement. Our commitment to protecting the promise of Social Security is absolute. We will not allow anyone to endanger Social Security or take even a single step toward dismantling it. We are open to any and all ideas that ensure that the current and future generations of retirees receive the benefits they were promised without heaping trillions onto our national debt.

Democrats also recognize that Americans rely on more than just Social Security for a secure retirement. Democrats will continue to fight for genuine pension reform that protects working families from future Enron-style abuse. We also want to work on new ways to help hard-working Americans create retirement savings.

Whooo, that's one hell of a plant isn't it.

We are open to any and all ideas that ensure that the current and future generations of retirees receive the benefits they were promised without heaping trillions onto our national debt.

Ok, so the claim that they have no plan is accurate, isn't it?

[markalot]

So our troops should remain deployed in Iraq until we can be absolutely sure that there's no way some faction within the country could possibly rise up and seize power? Fantastic...let's run with that, and let the troops know that they can expect to be done with their mission right around the same time that the sun burns up and leaves the Earth a pitch-black sphere of ice.

No.

Crush the insurgency, get Al Queda out of a country they weren't in prior to invasion, then go home. Anything can happen after that, but at least we didn't leave with a lit fuse.

[bjk15]

It's also worth noting that the Iraqi government-- which has already affirmed the more-or-less God-given right of the insurgents to violently resist our troops and refuses to call attacks on occupying forces "terrorism"-- has been extending olive branches to the insurgents and trying to bring them into mainstream Iraqi political discourse. So then: if they're not sweating buckets over getting toppled, why are we?
i didn't say that we shouldn't pull out at some point necessarily as much as i am saying that essentially it was a waste of money and lives to go there. it has been said that sadaam is so horrible that he had to be taken out. i agree he was a really really bad dude. but like all things, over time i'd say that the situation in iraq will not have improved, but will have stayed in line with their progression had sadaam been there. so then why did we go there again? for wmds? for taking out a bad regime... and replacing it with what ulitmately? there is no defending it, only politicking it, which is all that can be done.

[Shlep]

No.

Crush the insurgency...

This still doesn't answer the question I posed to you markalot. How do we know when this is done? That is to say, when do we stick a fork in this insurgency-crushing thing and declare it "done"? When there's not a single Sunni or Shi'ite militiaman trotting around armed and ready to shoot Americans? When there's no chance of another suicide bombing? If so, we're back to the projected timetable which ends with the sun burning out.

Then again-- as I already mentioned-- the actual Iraqi government which we're supposedly there to protect from the insurgency is currently trying to get some solid political discourse going with them. The Iraqi parliament doesn't want them "crushed" but made part of the program. Hence, our being there for the purpose of insurgent-crushing contravenes the policy aims and objective of the very government we're supposed to be supporting.

...get Al Queda out of a country they weren't in prior to invasion, then go home.

Mark, I'm fairly certain I provided you, are at least someone else on this board, links to stories reporting on Iraqi insurgents actively engaging and killing Al Queda cells in Iraq. On the Syrian border, they're doing a damned sight better job of running them down than our own forces, who've begun to step aside and stay out of it, content to let the Iraqis handle the foreing fighters.

Al Queda has worn out their welcome and squandered whatever goodwill towards, or at least willingness to tolerate their presence, previously existed. If we were gone, who do you think they'll be turning their attention to next?

[markalot]

When the insurgency is reduced to a level we feel like the police can handle.

Look, there is no easy answer, but if we leave now do you think we'll have to go back and if not, why not.

[george]

If we removed our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan we would lose the bread with which we plan to sandwich Iran.

[george]

http://www.democrats.org/img/header_agenda.jpg


Is this a new sitcom?

[bjk15]

Is this a new sitcom?
yes, starring bob barker.

[george]

yes, starring bob barker.

Bob Barker is Jorge, the patriarch of a first generation immigrant family. Thanks to George W. Bush's misguided tax cuts, Jorge and his wife Consuela are forced to share their two-bedroom retirement home with their grown children and grandchild. Jenny is a single mom who lost her customer service job after MegaGreedyCorp relocated the call center to Bangladesh. Fernando is a gay school teacher who moved in with his parents after the he lost his job as a high school biology teacher when the Christian fundamentalist school board outlawed the teaching of evolution in his school district.