The Democratic agenda will be dictated by Congress, not the President...

[kentuck]

The next Congress will have to pass the laws and create the environment for the change that is desperately needed, not the next President. In my opinion, that is why the next Democratic President is not as important as the next Democratic Congress. All the debate about Hillary, Clark, Kerry, or whomever is not as important if we can elect a Democratic Congress, as it will be if the Repubs hold on to power. Of course, if Repubs maintain the Congress, a Democratic President would be important in his policeman's role, keeping more radical Republican legislation from becoming law. The leadership for change will have to come from the people's House - hopefully a Democratic House.

[liberal N proud]

1. That would make November 2006 more important than 2008

Although it is important to win in 2008, we must regain control of Congress in 2006.

[kentuck]

2. I think that is true.

The change will have to come from the people and the Congress are our most direct representatives.

[rodeodance]

4. yes, Nov, 06 is SO SO important.

[RC]

3. With all the election corruption across the land there will have to be

a large land slide for new honest politicians being installed in Congress. I do not see this happening even if the so called Dem's gain control of congress. Our One Party System will win again. The people don't matter much inside the beltway anymore.

[Meldread]

5. The Democratic Agenda NEEDS to be dictated by the base, the people.

A Democratic Congress, like a Democratic President, doesn't guarantee a Democratic Agenda or Democratic Policies.

[kentuck]

6. Since we all can't fit into the Congress....

we're supposed to elect representatives to represent us...

[Meldread]

8. I think the key phrase is "supposed to"...

...unfortunately more often than not we don't.

Name ten things that a Democratic Party, which has been faltering for the past six years (and arguably even longer than that), is going to put on their agenda? They can't even come up with a cohesive plan on what to do with Iraq.

The Democratic Agenda as it currently stands:

Iraq - Muddle your responses as best as possible to confuse the public so no one is sure if you are for staying or going. Send as many mixed messages as possible, take no stand too bold or strong.

Gays- Ignore them and their issues if you can, but attend their fund raisers if possible. If you can't do that personally, send a surrogate. If their issues become a problem, side with the Republicans or take a completely neutral stance.

Healthcare- What's wrong with the status quo? Send a few mixed messages to those without it to give some hope, but don't rock the boat.

Economy- How are we going to fix this? Hmm... Ideas... anyone? Anyone at all?

Environment- Hug a tree occasionally, don't let them drill in National Parks... maybe give some lip service.

Jobs- Is it our fault the American people are stupid, lazy and can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Go out there and tell them stuff they already know, like having their jobs outsourced is bad. Don't offer any solutions though.

National Security- Hmm... just read the Republican Memo on this one. Repeat everything they say.

General Agenda- When in doubt, don't say anything. Send mixed messages, and do your best to muddy the water. Maybe then no one will notice you lack substance. Don't offer any solutions, but instead just repeat the problems. If the Republicans start attacking, cave in and pretend like you were on their side all a long.



That's the current Democratic Agenda, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong, but aside from a few exceptions this is how it's been going. I don't see any incentive to change. Do you?

[blondeatlast]

7. So true. See this thread supporting a Campaign 2006 forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2507019