What the Dems Stand for.

[zendari]

They stand for something, but they aren't sure what it is yet. Have to wait until bush takes his stand.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: zendari
They stand for something, but they aren't sure what it is yet. Have to wait until bush takes his stand.

Man, that's a low blow. :thumbsdown:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Guess I didn't make my point clear enough. It didn't take long for Newt and the reps to develop the contract with america and put it into action once they decided to do it. It took a long time before the leadership came up with the idea but the formulation and implementation of the plan didn't take long.

How exactly did Clinton spank the republicans? Last I checked he lost 57% of the popular vote in 1992. If not for HRP spliting the conservative vote, Clinton would have had his ass handed to him. He failed to get 50% again in 1996. (Another three-way race that split the conservative vote) If you really think about it, Dubbya was the first presidential candidate to win 50+% of the popular vote since GHWB won in '88. I know I know... the popular vote doesn't mean anything. But it's hard to say your guy spanked the opposition when 57% of the country didn't vote for him.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: zendari
They stand for something, but they aren't sure what it is yet. Have to wait until bush takes his stand.

Man, that's a low blow. :thumbsdown:

The closer to truth, the harder it hits :thumbsup:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: zendari
They stand for something, but they aren't sure what it is yet. Have to wait until bush takes his stand.

Man, that's a low blow. :thumbsdown:

The closer to truth, the harder it hits :thumbsup:

Hah! You'd like to think that is the truth, unfortunately you are utterly naive to think there is nothing more to a liberal than Bush hating.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: zendari
They stand for something, but they aren't sure what it is yet. Have to wait until bush takes his stand.

Man, that's a low blow. :thumbsdown:

The closer to truth, the harder it hits :thumbsup:

Hah! You'd like to think that is the truth, unfortunately you are utterly naive to think there is nothing more to a liberal than Bush hating.

Well I'm (and I think the OP is based on the topic title) talking about the Democratic Party in general, not ideological Libs, who do have a variety of hair-brained schemes. The DNC though is floundering.

 

[imported_tss4]

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.

The Repubs had allready lost the congress years before. My point still stands.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Well I'm (and I think the OP is based on the topic title) talking about the Democratic Party in general, not ideological Libs, who do have a variety of hair-brained schemes. The DNC though is floundering.

I fully agree the DNC has some work to do, start getting their message across. The democratic party is the only voice for social and fiscal liberals in the country, that doesn't make them "hair-brained" or anything along those lines.

It's one thing to choose an ideology, and it's another to respect those who disagree when trying to accomplish the same goals.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Well I'm (and I think the OP is based on the topic title) talking about the Democratic Party in general, not ideological Libs, who do have a variety of hair-brained schemes. The DNC though is floundering.

I fully agree the DNC has some work to do, start getting their message across. The democratic party is the only voice for social and fiscal liberals in the country, that doesn't make them "hair-brained" or anything along those lines.

It's one thing to choose an ideology, and it's another to respect those who disagree when trying to accomplish the same goals.

I didn't say the Dem Party was hair-brained, I said Libs have a variety of hair-brained schemes.

This is the problem with the Dems that I alluded to here. They DNC is in a pickle, because they can't piece together broad, comprehensive plans because liberal ideas will be rejected outright by the voters. So they focus on narrow, singular concretes and defensively counterattack. What's missing is the long range detailed outline of what they want and HOW they will get there... and like I said, that's not by accident: Such a design would spell their electoral demise.

The only choice it seems they have is to play up the "oppositional party" thing and simply relegate themselves to assaulting the ideas and actions of Reps while presenting barely any solid alternative.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: tss4

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.

The Repubs had allready lost the congress years before. My point still stands.

Not quite sure what you're saying.

Guess I didn't make my point clear enough. It didn't take long for Newt and the reps to develop the contract with america and put it into action once they decided to do it. It took a long time before the leadership came up with the idea but the formulation and implementation of the plan didn't take long.

The republicans didn't spend 40 years trying to write the contract with america. They were doing more or less, nothing. Just like the dems are now. Newt and a few other guys came up with the contract, spent the better part of '93 promoting it and took over in '94. Pretty quick if you ask me.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I didn't say the Dem Party was hair-brained, I said Libs have a variety of hair-brained schemes.

This is the problem with the Dems that I alluded to here. They DNC is in a pickle, because they can't piece together broad, comprehensive plans because liberal ideas will be rejected outright by the voters. So they focus on narrow, singular concretes and defensively counterattack. What's missing is the long range detailed outline of what they want and HOW they will get there... and like I said, that's not by accident: Such a design would spell their electoral demise.

The only choice it seems they have is to play up the "oppositional party" thing and simply relegate themselves to assaulting the ideas and actions of Reps while presenting barely any solid alternative.

It is the job of the opposition to criticize the policy of the governing monopoly of the time, I have experience with that up here in Canada where the Conservatives (who I am a member and support) are the opposition party, they seem deconstructive with no motives and platform; but they do it's just not publicized as they are never the ones proposing legislation. When Clinton was in power, he proposed the agenda, the Republicans criticized.

It's the nature of our systems, you aren't going to change that. Blaming liberals for the complaining is totally ridiculous.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I didn't say the Dem Party was hair-brained, I said Libs have a variety of hair-brained schemes.

This is the problem with the Dems that I alluded to here. They DNC is in a pickle, because they can't piece together broad, comprehensive plans because liberal ideas will be rejected outright by the voters. So they focus on narrow, singular concretes and defensively counterattack. What's missing is the long range detailed outline of what they want and HOW they will get there... and like I said, that's not by accident: Such a design would spell their electoral demise.

The only choice it seems they have is to play up the "oppositional party" thing and simply relegate themselves to assaulting the ideas and actions of Reps while presenting barely any solid alternative.

It is the job of the opposition to criticize the policy of the governing monopoly of the time, I have experience with that up here in Canada where the Conservatives (who I am a member and support) are the opposition party, they seem deconstructive with no motives and platform; but they do it's just not publicized as they are never the ones proposing legislation. When Clinton was in power, he proposed the agenda, the Republicans criticized.

It's the nature of our systems, you aren't going to change that. Blaming liberals for the complaining is totally ridiculous.

Funny, I thought the job of everyone in congress was to do what is right for the country not what is right for their party. Opposition for the sake of opposition (ie: having no alternative plan) is not a good thing.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I didn't say the Dem Party was hair-brained, I said Libs have a variety of hair-brained schemes.

This is the problem with the Dems that I alluded to here. They DNC is in a pickle, because they can't piece together broad, comprehensive plans because liberal ideas will be rejected outright by the voters. So they focus on narrow, singular concretes and defensively counterattack. What's missing is the long range detailed outline of what they want and HOW they will get there... and like I said, that's not by accident: Such a design would spell their electoral demise.

The only choice it seems they have is to play up the "oppositional party" thing and simply relegate themselves to assaulting the ideas and actions of Reps while presenting barely any solid alternative.

It is the job of the opposition to criticize the policy of the governing monopoly of the time, I have experience with that up here in Canada where the Conservatives (who I am a member and support) are the opposition party, they seem deconstructive with no motives and platform; but they do it's just not publicized as they are never the ones proposing legislation. When Clinton was in power, he proposed the agenda, the Republicans criticized.

It's the nature of our systems, you aren't going to change that. Blaming liberals for the complaining is totally ridiculous.

Funny, I thought the job of everyone in congress was to do what is right for the country not what is right for their party. Opposition for the sake of opposition (ie: having no alternative plan) is not a good thing.

They do have an alternative plan, unfortunately the governing party rarely listens to the opposition. And you are naive to think that government does what is right for the country and not the party

Most opposition is for the sake of criticism, it's a good thing, keeps the governing party in check, this is not a dem/rep issue, just look at every other democracy.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Stunt
It is the job of the opposition to criticize the policy of the governing monopoly of the time, I have experience with that up here in Canada where the Conservatives (who I am a member and support) are the opposition party, they seem deconstructive with no motives and platform; but they do it's just not publicized as they are never the ones proposing legislation. When Clinton was in power, he proposed the agenda, the Republicans criticized.

It's the nature of our systems, you aren't going to change that. Blaming liberals for the complaining is totally ridiculous.

Not really... When Clinton was in power he proposed the administration's agenda, yet the Reps did more than criticize. They mobilized, reached out, connected with voters through issues, plans, and goals... and they were successful. The Dem have not done this since Bush took power. They have simply been whiny blowhards with little real meaningful alternative and coherent PLAN.

This is more than "blaming liberals for complaining." You've simplified it beyond meaning... and are missing the point.

EDIT: Do you think the DNC has done a good job? Have their tactics been good for their Party? Do they offer the voters reasoned alternatives BESIDES not doing what Bush does?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Trust me, I'm not naive enough to believe that our (US) two party system will ever work together. But the dems can certainly put forth other options. We do have a media here. The dems are allowed to go on TV and propose alternatives to what the republicans are doing. They have the opportunity to try to win people to their side with a positive message about what they think needs to be done and how they intend to do it. That's how the republicans did it.

Sadly, they choose the obstructionist rout which does nothing to advance the debate on things like social security, border protection, terrorism.... etc. What we are left with is the republican agenda and the anti-republican agenda. What we need is a republican agenda AND a democrat agenda.

If the dems want to get back in power they need to advance their agenda. People get excited about being able to contrast and choose between opposing views. It's hard to get people excited about an anti- agenda. And that is the boat the dems find themselves in right now.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Stunt
It is the job of the opposition to criticize the policy of the governing monopoly of the time, I have experience with that up here in Canada where the Conservatives (who I am a member and support) are the opposition party, they seem deconstructive with no motives and platform; but they do it's just not publicized as they are never the ones proposing legislation. When Clinton was in power, he proposed the agenda, the Republicans criticized.

It's the nature of our systems, you aren't going to change that. Blaming liberals for the complaining is totally ridiculous.

Not really... When Clinton was in power he proposed the administration's agenda, yet the Reps did more than criticize. They mobilized, reached out, connected with voters through issues, plans, and goals... and they were successful. The Dem have not done this since Bush took power. They have simply been whiny blowhards with little real meaningful alternative and coherent PLAN.

This is more than "blaming liberals for complaining." You've simplified it beyond meaning.

Proof of both of these??...this is very much open to opinion. 49% of the people has to count for some sort of a voice or reaching out. Can you explain the differences?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Trust me, I'm not naive enough to believe that our (US) two party system will ever work together. But the dems can certainly put forth other options. We do have a media here. The dems are allowed to go on TV and propose alternatives to what the republicans are doing. They have the opportunity to try to win people to their side with a positive message about what they think needs to be done and how they intend to do it. That's how the republicans did it.

Sadly, they choose the obstructionist rout which does nothing to advance the debate on things like social security, border protection, terrorism.... etc. What we are left with is the republican agenda and the anti-republican agenda. What we need is a republican agenda AND a democrat agenda.

If the dems want to get back in power they need to advance their agenda. People get excited about being able to contrast and choose between opposing views. It's hard to get people excited about an anti- agenda. And that is the boat the dems find themselves in right now.

Ya know....you are almost onto something while at the same time, being miles away from the obvious.

First off, what you are almost onto. The Dems need to do a better job of getting the media to cite what their plans, as listed in their agenda, are. How do they do this? This is the tricky part because of the majority party's stronghold on all of Congress and the White House. I think that Dean is getting it started by being everywhere he can and getting airtime on the talk shows and in the papers. He just needs to be able to control the rhetoric and promote the agenda.

Right now, it seems that they are only standing for bashing the Repubs at every corner. This isn't true, but the perception is definately that. Reasons:

1. It makes for better stories for the press

2. They are the minority party and have very little, if any, say in what issues get addressed or promoted

3. Politics has taken a very sharp turn toward the falls and the barrell it is in doesn't look too sturdy. What I mean by that is, the Repubs perfected the art of framing issues and going after the Dems with both barrels cocked and ready to fire. The Dems are still recouping from that a little and are firing back, but haven't been able to really frame the issues properly yet.

4. The opposition has to be very critical of the majority party to be able to show what mistakes are being made and how they will be exacerbated if the majority party continues to be the majority party. This is how the Repubs got control in 1994.

The things that you are off by miles on:

1. Dems are doing nothing but obstructing. If you would actually look at what has transpired since 2000, Bush has gotten 99% of his nominees appointed (judges and cabinet members).

2. The debate on SS was never a debate. Bush stated that he wanted private accounts. Period. How was there a debate? The dems did just what you are accusing them of not doing, they didn't think that was the direction to go, came up with alternatives which the WH completely snubbed and Bush went on a cross-country promotion and couldn't sell his snake oil.

3. The Repubs gained control because they had a plan. Bullsh*t. They gained control because they were able to make things like abortion, gun control and Christianity issues when they are not. There was also a lot of apathetic young voters that didn't turn out. that is why the Repubs were able to gain control. They were able to energize the "religious right" through scare tactics while those that normally vote Dem stayed at home on election day.

Your hero, from the way that you have mentioned him here and in other threads, Newt was on tv almost everyday criticizing Clinton and the Dems. And you want to talk about obstructionism, do you happen to be old enough to remember that the Republicans shut down the government because they didn't like what Clinton was proposing? Has that happened under Shrub? NO.

If you noticed this past election cycle, the Democratic base was out almost as strongly as the Republican base. I am predicting that that trend will continue because the Democrats HAVE been able to energize their base also. That they have shown, through the critical observations about the current congress and administration, that their agenda is one that will move this country further, faster. And Dean is doing a great job of this so far by being out in front of the voters and cameras as much as he can. McCaulligh (sp) wasn't seen or heard from until 6 months before the elections. Dean isn't making that same mistake.

 

[zendari]

Rightiswrong,

Mere minutes after Oconner resigned the Dems came out firing about how they were going to filibuster Bush's nominee. As of late that has certianly been their attitude.

This sums it up pretty well

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: zendari
Rightiswrong,

Mere minutes after Oconner resigned the Dems came out firing about how they were going to filibuster Bush's nominee. As of late that has certianly been their attitude.

This sums it up pretty well

Ummm... have you read the source links for that "article". The quotes are fabrications.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Even if democrats have plans, they can't execute them for now. It's not like the pubs are willing to work with them. It's actually naive to believe that the parties haven't worked together before. Clinton had six years of a mostly republican congress. They got plenty done.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Even if democrats have plans, they can't execute them for now. It's not like the pubs are willing to work with them. It's actually naive to believe that the parties haven't worked together before. Clinton had six years of a mostly republican congress. They got plenty done.

When we have checks and balances in government, some of the best legislation gets passed.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: zendari
Rightiswrong,

Mere minutes after Oconner resigned the Dems came out firing about how they were going to filibuster Bush's nominee. As of late that has certianly been their attitude.

This sums it up pretty well

Ummm... have you read the source links for that "article". The quotes are fabrications.

Hence the "more satire" link. It's not far from what he actually did though.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: zendari
Rightiswrong,

Mere minutes after Oconner resigned the Dems came out firing about how they were going to filibuster Bush's nominee. As of late that has certianly been their attitude.

This sums it up pretty well

Ummm... have you read the source links for that "article". The quotes are fabrications.

Hence the "more satire" link. It's not far from what he actually did though.

Hehe, that is funny. But what he actually said was far, far from the article.

 

[judasmachine]

OK tell us your grand ideas. The fact is that the conservatives by literal definition want to extend the status quo, and liberals by not quite so literal definition want something else. Change isn't easy, and they fall into the trap of just opposing the status quo. It doesn't mean they have no ideas, it's just that they get called "enemy, terrorist, hippy, etc." when they do have an idea.

Protecting the status quo is easy, as someone else has defined it for you, and you are just going along for the ride.

 

[db]

The thing that works so well for the Republican party
is to scare the sh!t out of everyone and then
offer to save them.

Meanwhile the Democrats are offering to make the world a better place and balance the budget.

How can the Dems compete against the Repubs, given the above choice between the two?
They can't. It's a cheap gimmick, but it definitely works.