OK, it seems the only thing the Democrats in Congress can to is criticism

[still_one]

All they do is criticism the repukes, but they are NOT coming out with any solutions.

What is the Democratic solution for Iraq?

Why don't the Democrats take the lead in an energy proposal, social security proposal, medicare proposal?

[Ezlivin]

1. You spelled criticize wrong

That's my only criticism.

[still_one]

13. I screwed up

valid criticism

[DistressedAmerican]

17. You Can Still Edit...

[still_one]

26. thanks

[bowens43]

2. How exactly do you suggest they do that?

Nothing makes it too the floor without the approval of the Republicans.

[still_one]

15. Whenever the opportunity comes

Demand press conferences, give interviews with the national news magazines, whatever it takes

Just pound, pound, pound, until the message get out

[TheFarseer]

3. I'm sure they are submitting legislation and amendments

that fail along party lines and you never hear about them. Watch a little C-Span and you will see amendment after amendment fail, not to mention legislation that never gets out of committee.

[crispini]

4. It's called being an opposition.

It's our job to criticize.

Anything we throw out there will be ignored and shot down anyway. We are in the minority in both houses.

[still_one]

18. That is defeatist

yes, we should be the opposition, but we MUST also so what we stand for, and what we would do

[crispini]

25. Nope, it's called being a realist.

Time is a valuable resource. Should we expect our Democratic legislators to spent gobs of time crafting great, well-thought out legislation that will be promptly shot down? No. It's a waste of time.

But they SHOULD -- and they are -- putting out there very targeted and pointed amendments which they are using to show what they stand for. For example, Harry Reid's "Rove" Amendment, which he offered last week. Or, Jesse Jackson Jr's THREE constitutional amendments about voting rights which he has in front of the house.

IMO, the fact that you think our Dems "aren't coming out with any solutions" means you haven't been paying attention.

[still_one]

28. It isn't me they need to convience is it?

A perfect example was during the 2004 election. We knew since 2000 there was major issues with the election process, and Diebold? We were told by the DNC they had everything under control. Obviously, they didn't.

My point is our representatives have not got the message out to the people where it needs to reach

Dean is actually doing it, but the DLC isn't too happy about that

[crispini]

29. Well, the election issue's a different kettle of fish,

I myself am not entirely convinced the Dem party "gets it" with regards to THAT.

But as for the rest, I just don't really understand your problem. You write, "Why don't the Democrats take the lead in an energy proposal, social security proposal, medicare proposal?" but as one of the other posters pointed out, politically speaking, now is not the time for the party to propose major new legislation. It wouldn't get passed and it would get picked to pieces between now and 2006 anyway.

If you are worried about "getting the message out to the people," well, that needs to be put in a *context* of a piece of legislation or a campaign. See what I mean? The Dems aren't going to be putting out much new legislation (because of what I mentioned above) and there are no campaigns going on right now. So what, exactly, do you expect them to be doing?

Edited to add: and your original post is straight outta Rush Limbaugh, by the way. why do you listen to that nonsense?

[still_one]

30. I have never listened to right wing hate radio

and haven't watched the MSM since November 2004

I agree it probably is too late to propose any new legislation, but the bankrupcy bill was a perfect example where the Democrats dropped the ball

Also, what is the Democrats proposal for getting out of Iraq?

[blondeatlast]

37. Isn't it? If they didn't, you wouldn't pose the question, would you?

Think about it...

They have NO power. None. Zippo. Dean isn't a god--he needs your help to get his message out.

Democracy for America does a good job ogf getting out LW talking points--Google it. It's the ex-Dean for America site; they are doing lots now to help the Dems get power.

[still_one]

40. you are preaching to the choir

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. A little history on Contract with America:

That abomination came out in September 1994, two months before the election. That gave the dems no real time to pick it apart.

There is the tactical reason the dems are keeping a lot of their powder dry. If they were to make bold, sweeping announcements, that would give the repukes 18 months or so to slice, dice and make julienne fries out of any proposal.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Not "with"... "on"

[crispini]

27. Good point!

Very clever!

[Telly Savalas]

39. If we were to propose a Contract with America...

the GOP wouldn't pick it apart. They'd just make up a bunch of lies and bullshit, and they can concoct a set of such talking points in less than a week. If anything we need the 18 months to clear through their obsfucation.

[texastoast]

6. I agree

The Dems had better come up with sound plans to fix stuff and have answers when their plans are criticized (as surely they will be). And who wants to hear a bunch of posturing? They don't need talking points. The pukes have given them plenty. They better have concrete solutions for all the current pervasive fuckups and get to stumping NOW.

There are many issues sites that the Dems would be well advised to visit. There are lots of great solutions thought of already. They must commit to sound ideas that have been arrived at with true foresight. Oh, God, I wonder if anyone in Washington can do that.

[Tom Joad]

11. All to often they just agree, but only criticize the implementation

Pelosi is a fine example. She has backed the President in crucial ways in its war-occupation in Iraq. She has refused to support any timetable for withdrawal of troops, and supports *victory* in Iraq. She continues to support full funding of the war, recently voting it another $82 BILLION.
She does not support Barbara Lee's resolution to make it officially policy to Not have permanent bases in Iraq. Opposes Woolsey''s "Homeward Bound" initiative for withdrawal os US troops.

Pelosi has said that the war was mismanaged. I am sure she felt that Clinton's attack on Iraq, its deadly sanctions, were much better implemented.

More on Pelosi here http://tomjoad.org/pelosivspeace.htm On Sept 26th there will be large anti-war protest at her office in San Francisco.

It is time to reject the policies of war, imperialism from any party. Even Democrats can do a lot better than Pelosi.

The Democrats need to become an opposition party.

[still_one]

24. You articulated much better than I did

What made it really hit home was during the 2004 election. I had met a person voting for bush, and when I expressed the mess he had got us in economically, internationally, especially looking at Iraq, that person replied, what would Kerry do differently?

The Supreme Court, social security, medicare, and some other main issues were obvious, but when dealing with NAFTA, the Iraq war, the patriot act, it was much more nebulous.

Why couldn't we get the message out?

I think because we were trying to appeal to everyone, and ended up not giving the people a real choice

[Bethany Rockafella]

7. You need to revise your subject line.

Thanks.

[madfloridian]

8. Exactly what Rush says.

Please don't use the right wing's talking points on this. It is their way of deflecting blame and attention from the disastrous policies of this administration.

[JDPriestly]

9. They are coming out with solutions.

Barbara Boxer and others including possibly Biden if I remember correctly have requested that we set benchmark target dates or times for meeting certain goals in transferring responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqis and for taking our troops out. That is an excellent solution, which Bush has rejected. Clearly we can't just walk away and leave the Iraqis to another dictator no matter how wrong our involvement in Iraq is and was. The Democratic solution is excellent.

You need to open your ears and eyes and pay attention to what Democrats are saying. The Bush machine emits a lot of noise -- like an old, tired engine on its last leg. The Democrats are more of a smooth running machine, functioning efficiently and quietly. Sorry to be so rude, but you are not paying attention.

As for energy, Democrats are vociferously in favor of alternative energy and are pushing for it as hard as they can. Social security is a non-issue. There is no problem with funding Social Security provided we keep Americans employed so there is no need for a proposal on that other than better protecting the trust fund. As for medicare, Bush lied about the cost of his prescription plan. It is hard for Democrats to talk about alternatives when they are dealing with out and out lies. Besides, Democrats mostly favor a single payer national healthcare plan. That has been known for years. That would take care of Medicare and everything. Kerry has excellent plans for beginning with a child health care. Dean did wonderful things on health care when he was governor. You just aren't paying attention.

[shance]

I have to agree. Its as if they are stuck in neutral, too afraid

to take the most important actions they should take.

Its pretty concerning actually. If there is no opposition party, this country is witnessing the end of Democracy.

That's how vital it is for them to TAKE ACTION and forget the cheap talk. Our nation, our reputation, our future is on the line. If they fail us, the Democratic legislators, minus Dean, Conyers, McKinney, Sanders, and others, will be equally to blame.

[eleny]

10. Congressional committee heads control the agenda

Republicans control the committees and have all but shut out Dem proposals. Get the picture?

[wli]

14. checkmate

This doesn't look good.

[tx_dem41]

12. Wise, wise words often come from short posts.

I think DU and the Democratic Party desparately need this advice.

[jsamuel]

19. Anything they propose would be shot down because they control neither part

of congress. Even if they managed to pass, Bush would veto. That is what happens when one party owns 2 branches of the Government. Soon to be 3...

[blondeatlast]

22. Minor correction--all 4.

Otherwise, you nailed it.

[blondeatlast]

20. Well, gosh, they have so much power in Congress now...

:sarcasm:

What on earth do you want them to do? :eyes:

[laureloak]

21. OK, why don't you go first.

[blondeatlast]

23. Exactly! nt

[blm]

31. WTF are you talking about? Try reading the Dem proposals and don't rely on

corporate media for your information.

The media keeps repeating Rove talking points that Dems never offered their own plans, even after Kerry clobbered Bush over the head with them during the debates.

They IGNORE Dem proposals at the same time they accuse them of never offering them. It's a stupid, lying TALKING POINT for REPUBLICAN operatives.



Since you missed it, here's Kerry on Iraq as a pre-counter to Bush's speech on Iraq:






The Speech the President Should Give



By JOHN F. KERRY







Boston



TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.



The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.



Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.



So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.



The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.



He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.



He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.



The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.



Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.



The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.



The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.



Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.



The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

[Redleg]

32. Exactly.

Why is it that some people here at DU just swallow the Rethuglican talking points without trying to first find out the truth? Having said that, the Dems do need to be more assertive about their proposals- they need to insist that the main-stream media pay attention to them. Easier said than done, I know, but still important.

Keep up the good fight, BLM.

[blm]

33. Hey, you. Long time no see.

;)))))))))

[Redleg]

41. I have been busy. It's good to see that you are still here from time to

time.

[Cocoa]

34. your assignment, still_one

you must visit the websites of the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC, and report back to us with an in-depth summary of the Dems' solutions to issues facing our country.

You must do this as penance for falsely criticizing the dems in exactly the same terms as the RW propagandists do.

[blondeatlast]

35. Perfect. nt

[blm]

36. heheh...that's why I luvzya, Cocoa.

.

[Skittles]

38. yeah I get it

we try like hell to prevent the disastrous things the repugs do but when they go ahead and do them we are expected to come up with the solutions. Where is republican accountability in all of this?

[blm]

42. heh....just like at the circus. The broomsweeps after the elephant act.

.