CAFTA and Energy Bill-as unpopular as Bush's SS plan. How come no...

[European Socialist]

attacks by dems on these two turkeys.

[karynnj]

1. Several Democrats attacked both very aggresively

The Democrats fought for amendments to make the bill better. Several even passed the Senate - but the Republicans stripped than out in the reconciliation process. The Republicans have done this ALL year on small business legislation written by Kerry and Snowe which passed easily, the various veterans benefits etc. The game is the Republican Senators then claim (and can point to the Senate record) to have voted for some of these amendments - all the while the administration knows it's a game.

Here is a link to Kerry's comment on energy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x37540


Here is a link to Kerry's comments on CAFTA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x33437

[European Socialist]

3. Kerry's comments were good....

But the perception that week was that Bush was victorious, instead of how badly the people had lost. Democratic leadership lost the PR battle and should be replaced.

[karynnj]

4. It was a victory for Bush

The Democrats in the Senate fought as much as they could to improve the bill. When it comes down to it the Republicans have control of every branch of government and the majority of the media.

The key is to use the stripped out amendments on all these bills in 2006 to make the election a choice. They also need to call the Republicans on this shameless voting for something - with the intent to take it out. (It makes a flip flop look good as it is just disgusting.

What we need to do is at least improve the margins in 2006.

[karynnj]

8. who would you lke to replace them with?

I think they are in a very tricky place - with very little media on there side and NO branch of government.

[European Socialist]

12. That's their excuse! If the public knows what is in the bills...

they would be against it- 2 to 1.

[BillZBubb]

2. Too much DLC, not enough guts.

A lot of our representatives are in the corporatist camp. They don't want to bite the hand that throws them a few crumbs.

Until our leadership learns to use issues like these and we weed out the corportist stooges from our ranks, we'll be the minority.

[Al-CIAda]

10. Bingo, we have a winner. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. They seemed to be pretty popular with Congress

[European Socialist]

7. Yes, but the public didn"t want billions for oil companies...

or more trade agreements with low wage countries. This should be red meat for the dems-there is no excuse for their lack of media clout. The GOP has not paid much of a price for these two bills.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. A majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the energy bill

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

I doubt that the Democratic party will be making much hay on that bill.

[European Socialist]

13. So What!

Probably ethanol senators. Still no excuse for billions of dollars for oil companies that the Chimp said wasn't needed. Can't Dems mention that-or is that to clever.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. So the party should run ads that attack something that a majority

of the party supported? :shrug:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

6. Too many corporate whores in the dem congressional delegation.

[wli]

11. it's pretty easy to explain

First, the most easily-seduced dems are bought off with porkbarrel projects and bribes from the usual methods of circumventing the law.

Second, the less easily-seduced dems are bought off by threatening to cut off vital spending.

Third, the difficult-to-seduce dems are intimidated with threats like the anthrax letters sent to Daschle and Leahy or otherwise generalized blackmail.

Fourth, the truly obstinate dems are assassinated outright like Paul Wellstone.


No mysteries at all.

[bvar22]

15. Nicely summarized!

:patriot: