Are They Ready?

[journalist3072]

If the Democratic Party manages to take back the Congress next year, on either side, are they ready with a progressive agenda? What is their plan?

The 2006 mid-terms cannot be ONLY about how bad the Bush Crime Team has been for our country. We already know the damage they've done. The Democrats need to spell out their own plan for this country.

Someone from the Democratic Party called me yesterday evening asking for money (fundraising). I refused. I politely explained that although I would love to give money to them, and that I still hold Democratic values, I am very disappointed with the Party right now.

I told her I became a registered Indepedent because of my fustration. I said "I wish the Party all the best next year, but I hope you all do things much differently." (read: actually grow some spine).

[mike_c]

1. no, they're not....

This will likely be another historic missed opportunity. The biggest problem with the democratic party, IMO, is that it has no real alternative platform for America. To a very large extent it shares the fundamental ideals of the republican party in areas like foreign policy, national security, and increasingly even domestic social justice. It simply wants its own crack at achieving those ideals by a slightly different route. I don't mean to imply that there aren't important differences, but I do think that if dems come to power for, say, another 8-12 years, then lose to republicans again, they will hand over a nation that is not fundamentally much different than it is today. Sure, they will pursue different fiscal policies (I hope) and the like, but does any dem with a chance of real leadership have the courage to start over in foreign policy? To admit that the "war on terror" is a scam and that a whole different approach is necessary to address the global injustices that create such desperation? To put environmental concerns and workers rights before corporate profits firmly enough to affect lasting paradigm changes, e.g. repeal of corporate personhood? I don't think so.

[journalist3072]

2. Unfortunately, I think you're right....

I want to know: where is the Democratic Party's version of the GOP's 1995 Contract With America?

Where is that one document from the Democrats that says to the American people 'this is what we will do if you give us back the Congress.'

This is precisely why I refuse to give them one penny right now.

[newspeak]

5. you mean, "Contract on America"

We need media play----I'm tired of hearing where are the Democrats? When the real Democrats usually are not given a sounding board with MSM. Lukewarm, DLCers, get sounding boards more than progressive Dems. Where are the Democrats? Yelling in an empty hall, trying to be heard. When you have a hearing in a basement of a building, thank God C-span covered it, you can see where our voices are.

[BuyingThyme]

3. They have to run against corruption.

It' ain't complicated.

Once you convince a few morons that the word morality has nothing to do with sex, it's in the bag.

[journalist3072]

4. But I don't think....

I don't think it will be enough to just say "The Republicans have been bad, bad, bad."

The Democrats have got to say how they'll do things differently. They've got to get specific.

Will they repeal the bankruptcy law?

Will they repeal CAFTA?

Will they repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Will they STOP funding the Iraq war, the like Congress eventually stopped funding the Vietnam War?


So my point is this: I think the American people finally "get it" that the Republicans have been bad for this country. What they want to know is: What can the Democrats offer us in exchange?

[BuyingThyme]

6. The specifics have to be in regards to things like

billions missing in Iraq, Plame, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, and the deficit.

They have to point big arrows at the people who have destroyed our country, and then at the people who allowed them to do it.

ALL Republican candidates have to be exposed as Republican candidates.

[newspeak]

7. and most media is complicit

you know I watched before the election of 2000--I already did researching on my own about the Bush family business dealings. Yet, here was MSM letting Bush slide on a drug question, here was the MSM slide on insider trading that made Martha Stewart look like a Girl Scout. Every possible scandal, the MSM let him slide, while spinning over and over again how Gore was a liar. It boggles the mind!!! I knew about his record as Governor of Texas. That two of the positions that governors are allowed to appoint were being investigated by the FBI. One, dept. of Housing, who he appointed his own crony (no surprise there} just happened to own a construction company, and the labor department, who gave money to corporations basically to do nothing. They were supposed to re-train people for employment-but let's face it, it was a pay-off to his cronies. So where was the media? Why weren't they saying over and over again about the corruption of Bush? See, that's what I'd like to know.

[TahitiNut]

10. That's the Catch-22, however.

If the Democratic party were to list a series of specific measures they'd repeal, they'd collect a panoply of single-issue opponents. For each and every measure they'd repeal, there are narrow interests who'd attack them saying they were "negative" and still not proposing any affirmative agenda to "deal with the nation's problems." It's that last phrase that's the killer. Each individual interprets it in what they think is a clear way -- but which falls apart into fragmented constituencies when analyzed.

IMHO, the reason the Democratic Party is foundering is because they're prevented internally from planting their flag on the highest peak: a mainstream liberal ideology that benefits all equally and eschews entitlements for the already-privileged. The Nanny-state constituency prevents them from firmly advocating truly 'liberal' individual liberties (eschewing "for your own good" legislation) - which is by far the greatest PITA for moderate (somewhat libertarian in the true sense) conservatives. The corruption of corporate funding is well-understood on DU -- pretty much trumping any firm regulatory stance.


The most obvious Catch-22 is, however, that the focus needs to be kept on the corruption and failures of the Republican Regime. While it'd be "nice" if the media were able to host "A/B" discussion of how the Democratic approach is/was/would be better, that's not how the media reports. Attacks on the Democrats' proposals would be wholly separate and the word "obstructionist" would be the most frequent heard.

[mike_c]

14. I agree with the comment that it's not enough to simply say...

..."we'll repeal the bankruptcy law" or "we'll repeal CAFTA." Dems need to articulate alternate policy visions that benefit all Americans and in which there is simply no place for things like the bankruptcy law. Push anti-usery legislation and limit the rights of corporations, while simultaneously affirming the default philosophical superiority of real citizens whenever corporate interests conflict with individual needs. Work for FAIR TRADE in general, and modify trade agreements like CAFTA to reflect respect for workers rights, environmental protections, and social justice BEFORE corporate profits. And so on.

[Greyhound]

13. They can't run against, nor even point out, repuke corruption

because they are just as corrupt. What a sorry state. :cry:

[elehhhhna]

15. Goood cop/bad cop--all on the same payroll. Eff the Dems. They're

irrelevent.

I want a party that represents the PEOPLE.

Hil's owned by SaudiBank. Screw her and the whores she rode in on.

[Greyhound]

16. And Tata, don't forget about Tata. n/t

[KG]

8. no.

there is no plan for a progressive agenda, only more trying to be replublicans on the mistaken notion that's what it will gain them votes.

[kentuck]

9. Democrats need to challenge the Republicans..

Challenge them from every front. The war in Iraq, the deficits, their plans to privatize Social Security, their taxbreaks for the wealthy, their corrupt politics, their incompetence and cronyism, their compassionate conservatism, their failure to act in the face of natural disasters, their lies, their spending taxpayer dollars for government propaganda. My God! There is so much!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. First thing they need to do is "erase" all the

dead in Iraq... and that ain't gonna happen.

[Greyhound]

12. Would someone explain to me why I should believe that the dems are

not part of the same march toward servitude for the masses? For decades they have instituted or gone along with every step along the road to corporate dominance of our country. They love to limit or eliminate citizens rights. They vote in favor of corporate welfare at every opportunity. They restrict our freedoms and give themselves exemptions so they don't have to live by the rules they impose on us. I just don't get it.
Now I'll probably cast my vote for the dems, but it's only a vote against the neoconvicts, and given the opportunity I'll support an alternative candidate.