I know, you and shodan, poor fellas. Tell you what: start a thread about what Republicans can do to reverse their downward trends, and I’ll be sure to come along with some advice!
Daniel
Republicans do a poor job and then Democrats get voted into office and then they do a poor job and Republicans come back and the cycle continues. It seems like nothing changes.
Possibly. But only Congress can declare war, and the president gets his authority for military action in Iraq from the resolution passed by Congress in Oct 2002, in accordance with the war powers act. I was assuming that Congress could modify the authority given to the president via another resolution. No?
This would be a bold move, no doubt, but Americans are getting more and more tired of this war every month. We invaded in 2003, it seems reasonable that 4 years later we should at least START to bring the troops home. Just start.
I also think that would send a strong message to the Iraqi government-- get your shit together to keep order in your country because the US won’t be here forever. Like I said, the dates and %s can change, but I think the American people want to know when this is going to end. Their not clammering to bring the troops home immediately, but let’s set a timetable. I don’t buy the excuse that that plays into the insurgents hands. If they want to lay low until we’re gone, so much the better.
I assume you meant ‘I don’t much like the Democrats, but at least they stand for something’…otherwise I don’t get it.
That said, it seems you are falling into the same old trap the Dems always seem to fall into…you are just hoping to capitalize on Republican fuckups, not push through a fresh new agenda that will TAKE new voters away. Not just get them by default. I suppose that the passive approach is bound to work out for you guys sometime…keep up talking to the faithful and just wait patiently for the other side to screw up sufficiently that they become disillusioned and jump ship. I’d just think that, well, maybe a more proactive approach might be something fresh. Or at least something different.
Oh, I disagree. The Dems have vision…the problem is their vision is decades out of date and they are too stuborn to revise it. They have been hammering on the same old things for as long as I’ve been following them…with a few rare exceptions (like Clinton in his second term). They want to please everyone in their base all at the same time…and that makes their ‘vision’ a watered down mess that just doesn’t appeal to anyone except the faithful.
Think of it this way…for all the screeching about the Republicans moving towards the right (especially their loony religious right), what have they actually DONE for that part of their base? They have paid lip service. They KNOW that this part of their base is in their pocket…where else can they go in a two party system? So, they toss em an occational bone, maybe put in some references to God and such…and then ignore them.
Instead they focus on issues that are important to the center…or at least thats what they did when they first started off. They have drifted away from that during this presidency…and opened up an opportunity for the Dems. But frankly I don’t see the Dems rushing in to take advantage of that…and I don’t see anything here to indicate that the Dems on this board see the main chance either. It seems to me you are just in passive mode, hoping the Republicans screw up enough to alienate the center so they will run to you…instead of actively going after the center by addressing their issues.
I’m not going to go into what I think the Dems should do…I’ve done it before and been shot down with cries of ‘REPUBLICAN LITE!’ by the faithful on this board. All I’m saying is that you need to revise the direction of your planned contract…instead of doing the same ole same ole, as if just refining the points or making them more radical will suddenly make people sit up and take notice…to actually take a good hard look at WHO it is you want to get to vote for you over and above the folks you already have…and to take a look at the issues THEY are interested in.
BTW, you didn’t really answer my question. Do you think there is a vast untapped pool of left wing voters somewhere in America that you can win over to your side by moving more leftward, or even by simply repackaging the same old mantra in new coverings? If not, then where do you expect to get new voters from that you haven’t gotten them from in the past? Who are the voters that you wish to capture away from the Republicans? Just those who hate Bush? Say you get them (the passive approach), and you get them simply because they are disillusioned with Bush, not because they are advocates of your shinny new repackaged contract. What happens in the NEXT election when Bush is forgotten?
-XT
Gawrsh, thank you John. I seldom agree with your posts but you make your points well and I don’t think I’ve ever seen you get snippy or personal with anyone.
Back to the Democrats. We absolutely need to win the 2008 election. But we don’t have to sell our souls to do so. There is at present no charismatic opponent in the GOP ranks. The war is going to be the 800 lb gorilla and it shows no sign of turning out well and being something to point to with pride if you supported it. The Republican corruption (Frist, Delay, Plamegate) hangs like the sword of Damocles over the elephant’s head. Katrina may have done more to solidify the black vote than anything in a generation. We can win for what we believe in. We don’t need to be afraid to be Democrats. There is a fine line between standing up for what we believe in and giving the enemy ammunition to use against us. We can move to the right since we own the left, but there is no need to transform ourselves into GOP Lite.
. . . Hey, waitamminit . . . What about term limits? I seem to recall the original CWA included term limits for Congress.
Maybe I was unlcear. I wasn’t talking about your proposal so much, since it was pretty vague. I don’t know what it would be like when turned into specific policy proposals. For instance, what does your “contract” say about Iraq, other than we won’t do it again? I don’t think Republicans are proposing more wars…
Unless your username is a joke, then your politics aren’t mainstream-- how many people are self described Liberal Democrats? Same with Evil Captor. I wasn’t suggesting GOP lite, and if you look at the 3 proposals I made, I think those fit squarely within the Democratic mainstream. Perhaps I was linking you to the “living wage” stuff unfairly, especially since your proposal didn’t contain it, but that’s the kind of stuff the Democrats have to stay away from. That’s far left stuff, at least in the US.
:dubious:
Dare I ask for a cite on what constitutes “mainstream” in this case? Aside from your personal feelings on the matter, I mean.
Get real. A constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage (and, more importantly, to index future increases to inflation) was approved by the voters in Florida last November. And this is a purple state! (Half-red, half-blue.)
LHoD, I agree with you that the Democratic Party needs a clear central vision for what it stands for. And this vision needs to be packaged in a format that is easy for the American people to grasp.
But this isn’t the forum to develop it.
You don’t create a new product with your competitors in the same room. It seems like most of the people contributing to this thread are from the right end of the political spectrum. Even if they’re posting in good faith, they have a vested interest in seeing you fail.
FWIW here’s what I’d suggest. The Democratic Party stands for three things:
FAIRNESS
Everyone in the United States deserves a fair shake. And everyone in the United States must pay their fair share. That means universal health insurance for every American. It means increased funding for public schools. It means increased college scholarships for bright kids whose parents aren’t rich. It means recognizing that straights and queers have the same rights. It means religious freedom for all Americans. And it means rolling back the ruinous tax cuts for the wealthy that the Republicans and their priveledged friends have pushed through Congress.
Everyone gets a fair chance, and everyone pays their fair share.
DUTY
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” We are strongest when we stand together and pull together toward a common goal. We are weak when we are divided by the forces of selfishness and greed. This means helping Americans to work together for a better future. It means better pay for our soldiers and our teachers. It means better equipment for our firefighters. And it means punishing the corporate thieves and the war profiteers who put lining their pockets ahead of the national good.
*Everyone sacrifices, and everyone pulls together. *
RESPONSIBILITY
We are faced by extraordinary challenges and threats that can only be tackled by people who believe in the power of government to make a difference. We must balance the budget and return fiscal responsibility to this nation. We must reject foreign adventurism and concentrate on taking the fight to Al Qaeda. We must confront rising fuel prices and global warming head-on through aggressive research into alternative energy sources. In short, we must act like adults, taking responsibility for our own fates and for the fate of our children. We must be clear-eyed and brave in these troubled times. For the only way to defeat your enemies is to face them head-on.
We are a great nation. We have the power to do great things if we have the courage to take responsibility for our fate.
Then you are acknowledging that Democrat=Left end of the political spectrum (I won’t even get into how you figure ‘most’ of us are to the ‘right’, or where exactly the center happens to be in your world view)? Because if you are saying that and fully admitting that Dems are ONLY interested in the left then you are making the same old mistakes that have got you in your present straights as a party. Just to underscore this: You couldn’t even beat frickin BUSH…you couldn’t beat Bush during an unpopular war, an economy in recession. Think about that for a moment if you would.
I have no vested interest in seeing you or your party fail. The Republicans aren’t MY party, and if the Dems would come more in line with my world view, if they would show some interest in things that are of interest to me, then I would gladly vote for a Dem candidate. For instance I voted for Clintons second term because I felt that he was actually breaking with the same old Dem crappola that has plagued your party for decades…was making a good faith reach (for his own selfish reasons which actually made it ‘cleaner’ to me) towards the center and even towards the less radical right.
-XT
I think in this case you don’t get it, and I don’t mean that as an insult. I meant what I typed: I think a lot of folks who voted for Republicans last time around did so because the Republicans stand for something, and they do not see the Democrats standing for anything. Sure, the Democrats do stand for something, but that something is buried in position papers and deep in websites: it’s not declared passionately, vigorously, and clearly. And a lot of voters want someone who stands for something, even if that something doesn’t seem so wise to them.
With that in mind, I think it responds to the rest of your post as well.
Pochacco, I agree that this isn’t the place to develop such a platform; this is just a place to have fun with the idea.
Some other sub-proposals:
FLU PREPARATION: Our country is woefully unprepared to face the next flu epidemic. We will become prepared. Within two years, every schoolchild in the country will be required to receive a free in-school flu shot every year. Schools are a major breeding ground for contagious diseases, and by protecting this vulnerable segment of our population, we will indirectly protect the elderly and other vulnerable groups.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: We recognize that affirmative action is a necessary tool to create equal opportunity for members of disadvantaged groups. However, we also recognize that in today’s complex world, race is not necessarily an indicator of disadvantage. We will therefore enact legislation that gives an extra hand to those who can demonstrate disadvantage through relevant standards. For example, colleges will offer extra consideration to those coming from impoverished backgrounds. We will adopt the best practices put forth by Democrats or Republicans. Florida’s Republican Governor Jeb Bush has initiated a successful program by which the top 10% of students in each school are guaranteed admission to a Florida state university. Raleigh, NC has initiated a busing program based on neighborhood economic profiles. Both programs have increased diversity and performance in their educational institutions. We will adopt similar programs across the country.
(See, that’s how you get rid of a program you don’t like: you propose something that works toward the same goal, only better).
As for gun control, there’s a reason why I think repudiating it is a bad idea. I know this is anecdotal, but it made an impression on me.
Back in 1994, I lived in Olympia, Washington. We had an extremely conservative Republican candidate for Congress, and a fairly liberal Democratic candidate. The Democratic candidate was great in almost every way, except that she opposed gun control.
This was a big enough issue with many local liberals that they formed the Gun Control party who ran a candidate. Their one difference with the Democratic candidate was on the gun control issue.
Final vote? It was very close to:
Republican: 50,000
Democrat: 48,000
Gun Control: 3,000
It’s extremely likely that, had she adopted a pro-gun-control platform, she would have won the race. I think that some anti-gun-control folks underestimate the level of passion on the opposite side of the issue, when it suits them to do so.
Daniel
I wasn’t aware the Contract With America was a bipartisan effort… . 
No, the Contract With America was a concise statement of **conservative ** principles packaged in a way to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters.
A similar effort on the left should be a concise statement of liberal values designed to resonate with the center and pull the country to the left. It’s not about winning elections, it’s about winning minds.
The American people are more in tune with liberal values than conservative ones anyway. This is why conservative judges have to hide their records. It’s why conservative legislation gets misleading names like “The Clear Skies Initiative”. It’s why the Republican plan to scuttle Social Security dropped lower and lower in the polls the more people learned about it. One side lies about what it stands for. One side doesn’t. That says a lot about where the real center is.
So, no, I’m not suggesting we play to the base. I’m suggesting that we show the center exactly how much they agree with what the left has to offer.
So, what ever happened to that? Did Gingrich even try to get it enacted?
I ask because I remember a political cartoon dating from 1995 or so: The Republican elephant, riding in a carriage with a “Just Married!” sign on the back, wearing groom’s dress and an innocent eyed-rolled-up expression, is kicking an astonished bride labeled “Term Limits” out of the carriage.
If I recall, there were pretty serious court challenges to term limit ideas in various states, and it came down to the idea that it’d require a constitutional amendment (since it was placing limits on who was eligible to run for office beyond the limits set in the Constitution). The idea got dropped, since nobody in a position to pass the limits really wanted them that much anyway.
However, it does make me think that maybe one bullet point should be:
UNENACTED PROVISIONS FROM THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: When Republicans have good ideas, we want to see them enacted. Unfortunately, several of the best ideas from the Contract with America were dropped from consideration as soon as the Republicans entered office. We will pick up the work that they have dropped, and will pass: A Line Item Veto. [and any other sensible and neglected bits from the original Contract: did the audit ever happen, and is zero base-line budgeting both wise and in effect, and do all laws apply to Congress as they do to the rest of the country, and are committee meetings open to the public?]
This should have a different name, but I think that it’d be a good thing to have in there in one form or another. It makes it clear that Democrats are willing to adopt good ideas regardless of their source, and also gets across the idea that Republican promises of improving ethics in Congress have fallen through, without simply being a whine.
Daniel
No insult taken…I certainly didn’t see what you were saying though I do now. I have to disagree with you that the common perception is that Democrats don’t stand for anything…its just that they try to stand for EVERYTHING, for every little splinter group within their party. I agree with you if you are saying they need a more focused message…I even agree that reguardless of what that message is (even if it moves further to the left) that it would be better than what they currently have.
Well, I disagree with much of this because I don’t think its reality but a partisan viewpoint…but thats another debate. I will say that generally the kiss of death for a politician in the US is being labled ‘liberal’…not ‘conservative’.
Ok…I understand where you are coming from and respect that. What do you think are the issues you could sell to the center that would show them that they actually agree and should move left?
-XT
I think we’re in substantial agreement then, with the proviso that a more focused message that at least doesn’t move any further to the right would move us closer to a victory that I would want. A focused message that moves toward the right (at least on many issues) would end up being a Pyrrhic victory. I’m not interested in a Democratic win: I’m interested in achieving a more just and equitable society. The Democrats are a means to an end for me, not the end itself.
As I understand it, this is a relatively recent phenomenon, one that kicked in around the time of Reagan’s ascendance. What is done can be undone; and while I don’t know that the campaign I’m talking about should call itself “The Bleeding Heart Brigade,” I think that the first step toward making “liberal” no longer a kiss of death is by saying, “Yeah, actually, I am a liberal. I want a better America, and here’s what I mean by that, and here’s how I plan to achieve it.”
Liberals haven’t been doing that lately. They’ve been saying, “Liberal? What? No! I’m a moderate, not a liberal! Look over there, at all the nasty conservatives, those zealots, those bad guys! Me, I’m not as conservative as them, so vote for me!”
That’s not been a winning attitude, and that’s not going to make people respect liberalism.
Daniel
Oh, and by the way, there is a such thing as a religions left, so don’t be so quick to disparage us Christians. Some of us do care about social justice. We just don’t necessarily use the same words.
(Like me, for example, I oppose abortion on principle, but I also think that the best way to deal with that would be to raise the living standard of women who would most likely get one because they couldn’t afford a baby. Some part of me would also like to have a little more decency in the public arena, I also recognize that one man’s trash is another’s treasure. And so on and so forth.)
I hope I wasn’t coming across as disparaging Christians. While there are certain sects whose adherents I’m happy to disparage (Identity Christians and Fundamentalists, for example), by no means am I going to disparage Christians in general.
Daniel