“Reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed Bush Administration policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world.”
Umm-hmm.
To claim to be able to accomplish such a feat shows either a huge amount of naivete or comtempt for the intelligence of the voters. I think it’s a little of both.
I’m sure that all of the problems in “Iraq, the Middle East and around the world” will disappear when Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as Speaker of the House.
I dare them to offer specifics. I require amusement.
That’s a bit tough, Evil. After all,we have to replace the failed policies, not the ones that are going so splendidly. Perhaps you would be willing to help out a bit? Ya know, point out for us which policies are, in your estimation, just peachy-dandy?
Blanket statements about “policies” are difficult to examine, luci. I am in partial agreement with the way some things are being done, more firm agreement with others and would do other things differently.
That’s why I’m being so harsh about pie in the sky promises with no details.
Well, after seeing how you nailed it down so comprehensively…
I share the opinion of others that this is a plan in the sense that people might point to it and say, “There is a plan.” I have never, ever seen anyone develop any sort of comprehensive or detailed political plan. Somehow, someone still will win the election, and observations of the lack of a detailed plan by supporters of his opponent will fall on deaf ears.
I think these planks are moot. The issues that will motivate voters in 06 will be the economy, Iraq and to a lesser extent, corruption in Congress. There’s no real emotional fire behind the planks. People are sick of Bush and his Pubbie cronies and want to dump them. They don’t care what the Dems do to improve things, they just want them to improve things. You’re way overestimating the intelligence of the people who elected Bush twice (or more accurately, provided enough votes to allow Bush’s minions to steal the election in the swing states).
So, its your opinion (shared by a few in this thread) that the Dems need do nothing more than focus on Bush, Iraq, etc? Maybe they should up the percentage of that focus from 75% to…what? 80%? 90% All?
If the Pubbies have thier way, they won’t have the opportunity. Do you imagine that the Pubbies are going to run on substantial issues like that? Not a chance. Their strategy of Darth Rove and his minions will be to concoct a stampede issue, some hot button screamer.
However much you may crave such a polite exchange, and however much I may concur, the Pubbie have staffs of highly paid, well trained political hacks. Even as we speak, they are searching for that issue. Just lately, was looking like they wer going for “World War 3! Hizbollah comin’ to get yo’ Momma!”, but there have been a couple of peace scares lately, so that might be shaky.
I noticed that the Republicans are still keeping it simple. On Hardball today when the Democratic rep mentioned structuring government policies to give some relief to the middle class the Republican came back with “tax cuts.” Tax cuts are directly understandable but the niceties of the federal deficit, national debt, and the funding of those items aren’t. If Mr. Average making $50,000 per gets a $1000 income tax cut he doesn’t care if Warren Buffet gets $100 million.
I’d like to see the Democrats come out with a proposal to demand a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. I’m not sure they could actually force Bush to submit a timetable and keep to it, but it would make a great campaign issue and would be a way for the Dems to “nationalize” the election. Almost everyone is really weary of this neverending war, and they want to know when it’s going to be over. Just this week, Bush announced that he’s sending more troops over there. I think most Pubs were expecting some troops draw-downs before the election (as were most analysists), and are not prepared to go into the post-Labor Day campaign with troops strengths being increased.
I sincerely hope the Dems are able to win control of the House. We need divided government now more than ever.
I’m gonna quibble with you a bit about that timetable thingy, after a brief smattering of applause. Pip, pip. Good show, that.
The question of timetables has too many fishooks inwoven. Logistics, foremost. How long would an “orderly redeployment” take? How long for a “gather shit and split”? I can’t reasonably form an opinion on that, much less advocate. As a hippy, not exactly the go-to guy when it comes to armored divisions.
What I do want is a clear statement of intent. A clear repudiation of the blank-check approach typified by “stay the course” rhetoric, a statement that the White House kids now have to play under adult supervision.
And, of course, a few well-placed subpoenas. Oh, my, yes.
Saying “we need a strategy in the Middle East that will truly serve the interest of all Americans” will ghet the message out that Bush is the shits and still sound positive. “We need to strengthen the economy for ALL Americans, not just the rich” gets the message out that Bush is tha shits for the regular guy and still sounds positive.
Oh, there’s ways, my friend. Rove isn’t the only one who knows how to spin.
Sadly, some of the posters on this board – on both sides of the political spectrum – appear to be much better at spinning than the hacks the Dems have working for them.
I’m no more a military tactician than you are, but I’m not even calling for a “gather shit and split” timetable. I’m OK with the timetable Kerry proposed-- the first one, not the one after he changed his mind: Start the exit this year and finish next year. That gives the Iraqi government plenty of time to prepare to do the job it has to do, which is to police it’s own country. I don’t even mind the reasonable concession that we leave some troops there as advisors or to aid with additional training, as needed. Leave it to the experts to determine how many that is.
Didn’t mean to suggest that you were offering a “gather shit and split” option, only to suggest that a spectrum of timetables were available, from a stately recession to a immediate bug-out.
We can probably agree that no further talk of “enduring bases” is to be tolerated?
I think it’s more important that there be a timetable than that it conform to any specific timeframe.
My own preference would be that we stay within NATO longterm, which gives us Turkey in the M.E., as long as they’ll have us. But Bush was right when he said it would be up to future presidents to decide that. I don’t expect us to have no presence at all in Iraq by Jan '09.
You lost me there, John. How can there be a timetable without a time frame? A time table without any specificity at all is another “blank check”.
And again, where I suggest that we should hear no more about spending our money for “enduring bases”, you answer with something about NATO? Do you mean we are building the bases on the presumption they will be occupied by NATO troops? At the invite of the Sovereign State of Greenzonia? I had always been under the assumption that they are intended for occupation by US troops. Advise.
And I don’ t think “Troops out by '09!” is gonna sell either. We want our people out, sooner more than later. We are willing to consult and negotiate the details of such a committment. We would insist those details are dependent on logisitics and practicality, and not on some set of milestones that exist only in the minds of the Bushiviks.
So, if we cannot resolve such an issue between such kindred minds as ours, doesn’t seem smart to try to saddle the whole party with such a debate.
First, I’m not a Democrat. (I’m not a Republican either. I consider myself a sort of easy-going libertarian.) Anyway, I like divided government. Really, I do. (I actually voted against Richardson in 2002 not because I don’t like the man or thought he’d make a bad governor but because the New Mexico state legislature is always Democratic. He’ll get my vote in 2006 anyway and he’s gotta be a lock.) I don’t care for Bush, though I don’t hate the man with the passion a lot of people here do. I’ll be voting against the Republican incumbent in the House for my district, not as a referendum against Bush but because I hate the woman and have voted against her every single time I’ve been able to. Similarly, I’ll vote for the Democratic incumbent in the Senate race, again not as anything against Bush, but because I like the man and seniority is important for a state when it comes to the Senate. Besides, Bingaman’s a lock anyway.
As for the “Six for '06” it makes me think of the Contract With America but without any actual content. As my personal vote is already set and not going to change I don’t really care what the Democrats come up with, but if they want to win, they’ve got to finally take a stand on something. I’m just not sure that Iraq, for instance, is the way to go. Nor am I sure that attacking Bush personally will work and I think pledges of impeachment proceedings would backfire.
Whether the timetable is 1 year, 18 months or 2 years is less important to me than that there is a timetable.
Bases in NATO countries. Iraq is not a NATO country, Turkey is.
As per my clarification above, I don’t care what timeframe they pick-- just pick one. We get all our “fighting troops” out by X date, with the exception of Y number of military advisers and trainers which we will pull out a later date. Pick any value fo X and Y you want. If you want Y = 0, fine. That wouldn’t be my preference, but I’d rather have some known value of Y than any unknown value.