What the Dems Stand for.

[Moonsabie]

here a nice artical to show where there party is going http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/e...article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3928918,00.html

i like this quote. "If we are willing to stand up for what we believe in, if we set aside this idea that we ought to be like the Republicans in order to win . . . then I promise you we will take this country back," Dean said.

but the question is what do you stand for.? all i can see is abstruction and feet draging in a effort to make bush a early lame duck.

here something you can do -fix SS

 

[conjur]

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


And a for your flamebait.

 

[KidViciou$]

what the hell? where's the hate speech??????

 

[daveymark]

although it's a question that many wonder, the actual discussion is already here on P&N:

Text

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

unfortunately, that agenda is overshadowed by trying to get bush out of office, the Karl Rove scandal, etc

For proof, just click the "read more info" at the end of each of the agenda's paragraphs: on to the Bush bashing! all the articles on why bush is bad, etc.

The ironic thing is that if the Dems actually focused on that agenda instead of spewing hate and anti Bush rhetoric, they would have more respect.

They'd still be wrong, of course, but they'd have respect

 

[KidViciou$]

i still don't see anything that dean said as being wrong, i don't even see him mentioning bush in that speech!

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i still don't see anything that dean said as being wrong, i don't even see him mentioning bush in that speech!

he still attacks Rove and Limbaugh. Anythime you need to put down someone else to try to make yourself look better, you lose respect.

That's why I have no respect, sadly.

 

[KidViciou$]

uhhhhhhhhhh, where did he say anything about rove??? and here's what he said about rush:

"I'm not going to be lectured about moral values by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson - not going to happen.


what's so bad about that? i actually agree with him! he didn't call rush limbaugh a fat druggy or anything like that, so how is he putting him down?

 

[irwincur]

I see the Democrats still trying to beat Bush. Time to look forward folks.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i still don't see anything that dean said as being wrong, i don't even see him mentioning bush in that speech!

From the article:

Dean got big laughs and lots of applause at the Oxford Hotel as he ribbed President Bush and the three Rs: Republicans, Rove and Rush:

 

[KidViciou$]

the incumbant white house sets the tone for the succeeding white house of the same party, thus bush policies will be a platform for the next republican candidate, erego they have to be addressed!

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i still don't see anything that dean said as being wrong, i don't even see him mentioning bush in that speech!

From the article:

Dean got big laughs and lots of applause at the Oxford Hotel as he ribbed President Bush and the three Rs: Republicans, Rove and Rush:

"Focus on the Family? What focus on the family? If you want to focus on the family, how about raising minimum wage?"

? "No Child Left Behind ought to be kicked in the behind."

? "I'm not going to be lectured about moral values by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson - not going to happen.


i ask again, what did he say that was wrong???

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Website aside... the best way to determine the Dems agenda is to watch what they do.


They count the votes in Florida several times
Dems - Bush "selected, not elected"

Bush nominiates qualified judges
Dems filibuster on ideological grounds unrelated to judges' qualifications

One reporter says "Rove" - Dems go apeshlt.
Things start to look like maybe Rove wasn't the guy - Dems go more apeshlt

Dems and Reps alike say there are WMD in Iraq
No WMD
Dems - "Bush lied"

And on and on...
It doesn't take a genius to see what the Dems are about. They need a PLAN, and fast.

 

[KidViciou$]

oh gee, thanks for simplifying it for me. i'm glad to see politics in their lowest common denominator! makes the truth so very apparent and unbiased!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
oh gee, thanks for simplifying it for me. i'm glad to see politics in their lowest common denominator! makes the truth so very apparent and unbiased!

Always happy to help.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i still don't see anything that dean said as being wrong, i don't even see him mentioning bush in that speech!

From the article:

Dean got big laughs and lots of applause at the Oxford Hotel as he ribbed President Bush and the three Rs: Republicans, Rove and Rush:

"Focus on the Family? What focus on the family? If you want to focus on the family, how about raising minimum wage?"

? "No Child Left Behind ought to be kicked in the behind."

? "I'm not going to be lectured about moral values by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson - not going to happen.


i ask again, what did he say that was wrong???

I was actually addressing the part about you not seeing where he mentioned Bush. The article only contains snippets of the speech anyway.

As far as saying something wrong; Dean wouldn't ever do anything like that, would he?

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
oh gee, thanks for simplifying it for me. i'm glad to see politics in their lowest common denominator! makes the truth so very apparent and unbiased!

Always happy to help.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i still don't see anything that dean said as being wrong, i don't even see him mentioning bush in that speech!

From the article:

Dean got big laughs and lots of applause at the Oxford Hotel as he ribbed President Bush and the three Rs: Republicans, Rove and Rush:

"Focus on the Family? What focus on the family? If you want to focus on the family, how about raising minimum wage?"

? "No Child Left Behind ought to be kicked in the behind."

? "I'm not going to be lectured about moral values by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson - not going to happen.


i ask again, what did he say that was wrong???

I was actually addressing the part about you not seeing where he mentioned Bush. The article only contains snippets of the speech anyway.

As far as saying something wrong; Dean wouldn't ever do anything like that, would he?

well the article needs to reproduce what he said if they are going to make conclusions as to his speech, or do they produce the news and digest it too? if they can't reproduce it, then what they say is meaningless


btw, i don't agree with a decent amount of what dean says

 

[Stunt]

Take all the things Republicans do, Invert and you get Democrats.
Of course there is a spectrum, so you have moderate dems, moderate reps.

What an ignorant troll post

 

[judasmachine]

the fact is that we have no ideas that you people will even listen to. closed eyes and minds, and open mouths are all i see.

 

[Rainsford]

Democrats stand is overshadowed by their opposition to the Republicans in many peoples' minds, including several in this thread. All those people see is the Democrats attacking Bush, the Republican majority in both houses, and various incidents like Karl Rove's classified information oops. In other words, people seem less interested in looking for a Democratic stance than in assuming they don't have one because they are very vocal about opposing the Reps.

Which is of course what they SHOULD be doing, and what the Reps do when they aren't in power. The primary function, IMHO, of the opposition party is to be, well, the opposition. Especially with the current set of moral values (wink, wink) Republicans in the government, someone needs to keep an eye on the party in power. Look at the Republicans during the Clinton years. All I remember is them bitching about Clinton non-stop. Hell, a lot of conservatives are STILL doing that. Which is fine, that's what insures we have a good Democracy. The Democrats have ideas if anyone was listening, and that doesn't mean they can't play opposition party as well.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Democrats stand is overshadowed by their opposition to the Republicans in many peoples' minds, including several in this thread. All those people see is the Democrats attacking Bush, the Republican majority in both houses, and various incidents like Karl Rove's classified information oops. In other words, people seem less interested in looking for a Democratic stance than in assuming they don't have one because they are very vocal about opposing the Reps.

Which is of course what they SHOULD be doing, and what the Reps do when they aren't in power. The primary function, IMHO, of the opposition party is to be, well, the opposition. Especially with the current set of moral values (wink, wink) Republicans in the government, someone needs to keep an eye on the party in power. Look at the Republicans during the Clinton years. All I remember is them bitching about Clinton non-stop. Hell, a lot of conservatives are STILL doing that. Which is fine, that's what insures we have a good Democracy. The Democrats have ideas if anyone was listening, and that doesn't mean they can't play opposition party as well.

There is a difference though. How did the republicans win control of the house and senate? They had a plan. Instead of only screaming about "minority rights" :roll: in the senate and sending their version of Nancy Pelosi in front of the cameras every day to talk about what disgrace the (then) current administration is they also presented the american people with the Contract for America. A list of points that they would address if given control of the congress. Y'know what? It worked!

The democrats have nothing like that. They have their standard playbook and obstruction. They aren't offering anything new. They don't have a plan. What they have is a policy platform. Policy platforms don't say doodly about what you intend to do. Only what you stand for.

If they want to succeed they need to come up with their own "cotract". Otherwise they might get lucky and the republicans will self destruct. But that's no way to build the future of your party.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Democrats stand is overshadowed by their opposition to the Republicans in many peoples' minds, including several in this thread. All those people see is the Democrats attacking Bush, the Republican majority in both houses, and various incidents like Karl Rove's classified information oops. In other words, people seem less interested in looking for a Democratic stance than in assuming they don't have one because they are very vocal about opposing the Reps.

Which is of course what they SHOULD be doing, and what the Reps do when they aren't in power. The primary function, IMHO, of the opposition party is to be, well, the opposition. Especially with the current set of moral values (wink, wink) Republicans in the government, someone needs to keep an eye on the party in power. Look at the Republicans during the Clinton years. All I remember is them bitching about Clinton non-stop. Hell, a lot of conservatives are STILL doing that. Which is fine, that's what insures we have a good Democracy. The Democrats have ideas if anyone was listening, and that doesn't mean they can't play opposition party as well.

There is a difference though. How did the republicans win control of the house and senate? They had a plan. Instead of only screaming about "minority rights" :roll: in the senate and sending their version of Nancy Pelosi in front of the cameras every day to talk about what disgrace the (then) current administration is they also presented the american people with the Contract for America. A list of points that they would address if given control of the congress. Y'know what? It worked!

The democrats have nothing like that. They have their standard playbook and obstruction. They aren't offering anything new. They don't have a plan. What they have is a policy platform. Policy platforms don't say doodly about what you intend to do. Only what you stand for.

If they want to succeed they need to come up with their own "cotract". Otherwise they might get lucky and the republicans will self destruct. But that's no way to build the future of your party.

It took time for the republicans to organise and come up with a plan. Its no different with the democrats.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Democrats stand is overshadowed by their opposition to the Republicans in many peoples' minds, including several in this thread. All those people see is the Democrats attacking Bush, the Republican majority in both houses, and various incidents like Karl Rove's classified information oops. In other words, people seem less interested in looking for a Democratic stance than in assuming they don't have one because they are very vocal about opposing the Reps.

Which is of course what they SHOULD be doing, and what the Reps do when they aren't in power. The primary function, IMHO, of the opposition party is to be, well, the opposition. Especially with the current set of moral values (wink, wink) Republicans in the government, someone needs to keep an eye on the party in power. Look at the Republicans during the Clinton years. All I remember is them bitching about Clinton non-stop. Hell, a lot of conservatives are STILL doing that. Which is fine, that's what insures we have a good Democracy. The Democrats have ideas if anyone was listening, and that doesn't mean they can't play opposition party as well.

There is a difference though. How did the republicans win control of the house and senate? They had a plan. Instead of only screaming about "minority rights" :roll: in the senate and sending their version of Nancy Pelosi in front of the cameras every day to talk about what disgrace the (then) current administration is they also presented the american people with the Contract for America. A list of points that they would address if given control of the congress. Y'know what? It worked!

The democrats have nothing like that. They have their standard playbook and obstruction. They aren't offering anything new. They don't have a plan. What they have is a policy platform. Policy platforms don't say doodly about what you intend to do. Only what you stand for.

If they want to succeed they need to come up with their own "cotract". Otherwise they might get lucky and the republicans will self destruct. But that's no way to build the future of your party.

It took time for the republicans to organise and come up with a plan. Its no different with the democrats.

It's been 11 years since they lost the congress. It's been 5 years since they lost the Whitehouse. How long does it take to write a 10 point list? When Clinton won, the republicans were primed and ready for battle by the next election cycle.

This isn't an issue of time for the dems. It's a complete lack of leadership.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Democrats stand is overshadowed by their opposition to the Republicans in many peoples' minds, including several in this thread. All those people see is the Democrats attacking Bush, the Republican majority in both houses, and various incidents like Karl Rove's classified information oops. In other words, people seem less interested in looking for a Democratic stance than in assuming they don't have one because they are very vocal about opposing the Reps.

Which is of course what they SHOULD be doing, and what the Reps do when they aren't in power. The primary function, IMHO, of the opposition party is to be, well, the opposition. Especially with the current set of moral values (wink, wink) Republicans in the government, someone needs to keep an eye on the party in power. Look at the Republicans during the Clinton years. All I remember is them bitching about Clinton non-stop. Hell, a lot of conservatives are STILL doing that. Which is fine, that's what insures we have a good Democracy. The Democrats have ideas if anyone was listening, and that doesn't mean they can't play opposition party as well.

There is a difference though. How did the republicans win control of the house and senate? They had a plan. Instead of only screaming about "minority rights" :roll: in the senate and sending their version of Nancy Pelosi in front of the cameras every day to talk about what disgrace the (then) current administration is they also presented the american people with the Contract for America. A list of points that they would address if given control of the congress. Y'know what? It worked!

The democrats have nothing like that. They have their standard playbook and obstruction. They aren't offering anything new. They don't have a plan. What they have is a policy platform. Policy platforms don't say doodly about what you intend to do. Only what you stand for.

If they want to succeed they need to come up with their own "cotract". Otherwise they might get lucky and the republicans will self destruct. But that's no way to build the future of your party.

It took time for the republicans to organise and come up with a plan. Its no different with the democrats.

It's been 11 years since they lost the congress. It's been 5 years since they lost the Whitehouse. How long does it take to write a 10 point list? When Clinton won, the republicans were primed and ready for battle by the next election cycle.

This isn't an issue of time for the dems. It's a complete lack of leadership.

You're wrong. Things like this take a lot of time. How long was it before the Republicans had control of congress the most recent time? The Democrats were on a roll since almost WWII, if I remember correctly. As for Clinton, he royally spanked both Republicans he ran against (way worse than Bush did for either of his victories, IIRC). They may have had a plan to retake the White House, but it took them 8 years to do it. I'd give the Dems at least that long before you start the hyperbole.