Democrats Not Calling Out Republicans

[erpowers]

I am wondering why Democrats are not calling out Republicans on issues like the supposed liberal media and social security. On different occasions Republicans like Bill Kristol have said that the liberal media was never that strong and that it was just an excuse for their failures. I have seen very few Democrats go on TV shows and point this out when debating about the supposed liberal media. In dealing with social security Republicans from the Cato institute have come out and said that the President's plan to privative social security will not sovle the problem. I believe some people from the white house may have admitted that it will not solve the problem. Once again I have not seen many Democrats coming out and pointing out to the people that privativing social security will not solve the problem. I know Paul Krugman has tried by writing columns and going on Democracy Now. Has anyone seen Democrats point out these facts.

[Prodemsouth]

1. From their Presidential candidate on down- there is no will to fight. The

only thing is another party coming in and eating their lunch. That might motivate them to finally get off their ass..

[wolfgirl]

2. I'm afraid we can't rely on our Democratic leadership

to speak out for us. We are going to have to do this beginning at the grassroots level. We have to remain proud to be liberals and to get loud in pointing out the wrongs going on. We have to be active and determined and united in this! We cannot leave it to others. We cannot waiver. It's going to be tough, but we can do it! Never say die!

[bklyncowgirl]

3. Democratic leadership more interested in fending off Howard Dean

Seriously folks. I think that they're still trying to figure out how they got where they are and where to go next--and of course how to consilidate their own power in the process.

These guys are unbelieveably timid except when in the process of defending their turf. Individual politicians and pundits will make proposals on these issues but my guess is that we're not going to hear anything bold or coordinated from the leadership.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Dean or some other reform minded leader will become DNC chair and set the party on the path of bold, outspoken consolidation with an overarching vision that captivates the imagination of the American people.

I doubt it but it could happen.

[OneBlueSky]

4. "Democratic leadership" is an oxymoron these days . . . n/t

.

[ikojo]

5. This does not surprise you?

Both parties rely on donations from the same pool of corporations. They are beholden to the same money people. The Dems really don't want to see a change in how things are done in this country. They rattle the base every four years and like good little soldiers, the base obliges by being the foot soldiers during the presidential campaign. After the presidential campaign the base is asked to recede to the background and not make any noise nor expect anything of substance.

Reason number one that people stay home on election day or vote third party. Until the Democrats articulate and prove they are different from the Republicans (and that they do not aspire to BE Republicans) they will remain a minority party.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. It's the fear of Alfred e Newman(kkkarl rove) sending them to misfit isle!

The apparatus of this government, is not only hostage four more years,but the culpability of its use from now on.Progressive attitude,nullifying affect on liberal goals.

[Pegleg Thd]

8. I have a 2 word answer

to your question "NO GUTS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cleita]

7. Because our Democrats with a few exceptions

are in the same corporate pockets as the Repugs. Paul Wellstone Democrats are what we need and look what they did to him. They totally neutered our other good Democrat, Howard Dean, but at least they didn't kill him.

[McMasters]

9. We need our own 'talking points'. For example, can you point to..

,,non 'partisan' sites showing how complicit the US/UK business were in the Oil-For-Food scandal.
..how much costs would go up, and in what, if 'illegal labor' were omitted from the US Labor equation.

Does anyone have links to hard evidence on this stuff? Things I can post on my wall at work, without the righties around here going "Oh, that is from namelesslibblog.org, you cannot trust them".

Oh, and yes, I'm new. Hi! I'm a big DKos guy, but I can get quicker answers over here, I think. :)

[newyawker99]

10. Hi McMcMasters!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[McMasters]

12. Hi! But, can you help me out with some info? :)

I'd really like answers to this stuff. Everytime I go a-searching, I can only get asides on blogs.

Are there any good, factual links to answers to my questions?

[erpowers]

13. Yes

Fair.org did a segment on what actually happened during the Oil-For-Food scandal. Also, The Nation magazine has done a few stories on what is actually behind the Oil-For-Food scandal. Fair.org may actually have links to places you can go to find more infomration on the issue. As far as costs going up if illegal labor was ended you may want to try to listen to flashpoints every now and then. Sometimes they talk about it. Jim Hightower talks a good bit about labor issues concerning Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart paid their workers a little more a year the price of their goods would go up about 40 cents. I am not sure how much prices would go up if all illegal labor was ended, but you could try to read Jim Hightower's books, especially "Thieves in High Places", and check out his blog every now and then.