Vote for Us Because... Well, Just Because

[BPSCG]

With Republicans seeking to define Democrats by their votes on such hot-button issues as gay marriage, the estate tax and flag burning, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is arguing that Democrats need to tell voters about themselves before Republicans succeed in doing it for them.

The time to criticize the Republicans’ “culture of corruption,” a Democratic refrain for nearly a year, is at an end, Pelosi said; Democrats need to begin promoting their own vision of America.

“Now it’s time to talk about us. Enough of the Republicans. It’s time for us to talk about what are the priorities we’d like to see addressed, if we have the opportunity,” Pelosi said in an interview with The Hill on Wednesday.

Democrats have been struggling for months to devise a unified message to take to voters, debating whether to be general or detailed, to come out early or late, or to present a succinct list of points like the GOP’s 1994 Contract With America. Pelosi has been seen as favoring an early message,

But...

“I’m even hard put to say what our agenda will be when we win...

The Speaker-in-Waiting doesn't know what her party's going to do when they take over the House five months from now?

Link

 

[geni]

But...
The Speaker-in-Waiting doesn't know what her party's going to do when they take over the House five months from now?

Sure repulican president and senate that is likely to block stuff. Not much they will be able to do. This may not be a bad thing.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The Democrats' strongest talking point is that they aren't Republicans.


Of course, the Republicans' strongest talking point is that they aren't Democrats. . . .

 

[David Swidler]

I saw a dictionary once that had under D:

Democrat see Republican

and under R:

Republican see Democrat

They're both slime, with few exceptions.

 

[Upchurch]

The local conservative radio talk show guys were complaining about Kerry, et al, calling for the president to name a date when the troops with be withdrawn from Iraq. Their beef was that it was just a political move that is bad for America just to get votes.

I'm guessing they've been living under a rock the last month or so and missed the latest debates on the Gay Marriage Amendment.

 

[punchdrunk]

Republicans campaigned heavily on social issues only to ignore most of them once they got in office. I guess the difference between her and them is she was honest about her plans for the Democratic agenda.

So go choke on my tu quoque.

 

[BPSCG]

...she was honest about her plans...

...or lack thereof...

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I saw a dictionary once that had under D:

Democrat see Republican

and under R:

Republican see Democrat

They're both slime, with few exceptions.

Name one exception. I can't.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

I saw a dictionary once that had under D:

Democrat see Republican

and under R:

Republican see Democrat

They're both slime, with few exceptions.

I don't know. Sometimes it seems to me that the Democrats are up to 4% less evil than the Republicans.

The Democrats don't propose imperialist wars of aggression based on a pack of lies, they just vote in favor of them and mail out flyers asking us all to support Our Boys Over There.

 

[BPSCG]

Name one exception. I can't.

I can. James Moran, D-VA. He's not a slime.

He's a corrupt, influence-peddling, violent, antisemitic loudmouth.

But he's not a slime.

He is my congressman, and has about as much chance of losing that job as Ted Kennedy has of losing his.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I never really see politics as something that needs "branding" as part of an advertising campaign to "sell it" to people. Isn't government just supposed to do the governing? Isn't "we'll do our jobs" enough? I don't want to hear a bunch of crooks explain their "vision" for wrecking everything; they never stick to their "mission statement" anyway. Save the buzzwords for talking the missus into that threesome, and just try to hold your office more or less above the bounds of criminality and/or treason. Hell, I don't even ask for competence anymore, just "when you screw up, try not to get too many of our own people killed". I'd vote for someone who could guarantee that...not that I trust any guarantees coming from the sort of jerk who wants to hold office.

We're going to get ****ed over with a rusty spike no matter what. I just would prefer it without the damn PR campaign trying to pretend it isn't happening.


eta: For a moment there, I was afraid I might be getting a little cynical.

 

[JamesDillon]

Behold the Democrats' recently-unveiled "New Direction" agenda platform. I'm not sure what Pelosi meant in the article cited in the opening post; I suppose she was just being unclear.

Edit: That's weird; it didn't require registration earlier, but now it appears that it does.

 

[BPSCG]

Behold the Democrats' recently-unveiled "New Direction" agenda platform. I'm not sure what Pelosi meant in the article cited in the opening post; I suppose she was just being unclear.

Well, finally, issues to debate in the election. Let's see how hard they push this agenda platform in the coming months, as opposed to simply naysaying everything the Repubs stand for.

 

[JamesDillon]

Well, finally, issues to debate in the election. Let's see how hard they push this agenda platform in the coming months, as opposed to simply naysaying everything the Repubs stand for.

I think it sounds great as far as it goes, but is disappointingly lacking in foreign policy/national security items. If the Democrats are still afraid to get into a fight over these issues, then they're doomed to keep losing.

 

[Upchurch]

"New Direction"

• Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices - sounds good.
• Fund stem cell research - for it.
• increase access to healthcare - need more details.
• Increase science research - for it.
• ensure the teaching of evolution - for it.
• increase funding for community colleges - generally for it, but not sure this is a federal government role.
• Cut student-loan interest rates by half - need more details.
• Ensure access to family planning methods and abortion - sounds good-ish, but need more details on the abortion part.
• fund infant and child-care - sounds good, need more details.
• Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour - undecided.
• increase employment benefits - need more details.
• Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission - need more details.
• Institute lobbying reform - for it.
• implement balanced budgets - for it a lot.
• pay down the national debt - for it a lot.
• Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs - for what definition of "entrepreneur"? Need more details.
• Focus national security strategy to nation's borders - need more details.
• increase port security - need more details.
• Fund more public transportation - for it, but need more details.
• promote environmental restoration - for it, but need more details.
• Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels - for it.

 

[geni]

• Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices - difficult with free market healthcare
• Fund stem cell research - waste of money.
• increase access to healthcare - I doubt it is posible to build an NHS style system today.
• Increase science research - depends what it is into.
• ensure the teaching of evolution - how could you do that from a federal level?
• fund infant and child-care - expensive
• Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour - increases the market for illegal imigrants
• Institute lobbying reform - what does this mean?
• implement balanced budgets - everyone says that
• pay down the national debt - and a free puppy for every child.
• Focus national security strategy to nation's borders - isolationism isn't going to work
• increase port security - risks slowing down trade

 

[gnome]

I'm not fond of the phrasing for "Ensure the teaching of evolution"... it can too easily be pointed to as an attempt to control science politically.

Instead the platform should be "Ensure that the teaching of science is based firmly in the scientific method and the best-known facts." That supports the teaching of evolution without the "because we say so" attitude.

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm not fond of the phrasing for "Ensure the teaching of evolution"... it can too easily be pointed to as an attempt to control science politically.

Instead the platform should be "Ensure that the teaching of science is based firmly in the scientific method and the best-known facts." That supports the teaching of evolution without the "because we say so" attitude.

No, that opens the door to all kinds of "teach the debate" nonsense that the I.D. crowd spews on a constant basis. Of course science education should be informed and revised in light of ongoing scientific discoveries, but the basic theory of biological evolution by natural selection is so well established at this point that the chances of it being disproven in its entirety, as opposed to merely revised in detail as our understanding deepens, can be treated as negligible.

 

[JamesDillon]

• Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices - difficult with free market healthcare

• 
  Are you really suggesting that the government can't influence the price of consumer goods? It happens all the time.
  

  [*]Fund stem cell research - waste of money.

  Why?
  

  [*]increase access to healthcare - I doubt it is posible to build an NHS style system today.

  Why?
  

  [*]ensure the teaching of evolution - how could you do that from a federal level?

  The No Child Left Behind Act established some federal control over public school curricula. It wouldn't be so difficult to work the emphasis of evolutionary theory into the existing framework. Congress could also pass a resolution recognizing that the teaching of creationism/I.D. in the public school system is unconstitutional, and that Darwin's theory of evolution is the only theory regarding the existence of biological entities that is accepted within the scientific mainstream. This resolution would of course be symbolic, but it might nonetheless influence the policy of the various states' boards of education.
  

  [*]fund infant and child-care - expensive

  So? Lots of things that are worthwhile are also expensive. That's why the government is in an ideal position to take action that would be impossible to accomplish on an individual level. If your argument is that the cost of such a program would outweigh the benefits, then feel free to make that argument. The mere fact that a program would be expensive is not itself a reason against its implementation.
  

  [*]Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour - increases the market for illegal imigrants

  And make sure that legal employees have sufficient income to meet their basic needs.
  

  [*]Institute lobbying reform - what does this mean?

  No more Abramoffs and Duke Cunninghams.
  

  [*]implement balanced budgets - everyone says that

  Yeah. Clinton said it, and succeeded. Bush said it, and the neocons are now rejoicing that the 2006 deficit is "only" a projected 300 billion.
  

  [*]pay down the national debt - and a free puppy for every child.

  Right, cause it's not like we could ever achieve a $500 billion budget surplus.
  

  [*]Focus national security strategy to nation's borders - isolationism isn't going to work

  Is the current strategy working?
  

  [*]increase port security - risks slowing down trade

In exchange for not getting blown up.

 

[peptoabysmal]

• Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices - sounds good.

By not accepting political contributions (the cost being passed onto the consumer) from drug companies?

• Fund stem cell research - for it.

Already done by the current president. What they mean is to make human harvesting acceptable. What better combo could you hope for than abortion and stem cell research? A match made in heaven.

• increase access to healthcare - need more details.

Translation: Socialized medicine and higher taxes.

• Increase science research - for it.

Too ambiguous. A huge grant to study why monkeys throw poop or some such? Who cares? I'm for it if there is potential benefit to mankind.

• ensure the teaching of evolution - for it.

Already done. What they mean is to ensure that I.D. is not part of the curriculum. I have nothing against teaching about religion in public school. Preaching religion in a public school is against the Constitution. It is acceptable to explore different beliefs in an academic context.

• increase funding for community colleges - generally for it, but not sure this is a federal government role.

Translation: Increase taxes. Community colleges in California get a small percentage of Federal money. I imagine it is the same with other states. What would the money distribution be? Would it be fair and across the board or concentrated on urban areas? It would seem to benefit the Democrat party to concentrate the money on urban areas heavily dependent on welfare and other social spending.

• Cut student-loan interest rates by half - need more details.

Translation: Increase taxes to subsidize loan rates.

• Ensure access to family planning methods and abortion - sounds good-ish, but need more details on the abortion part.

Translation: Ensure access to under age minors.

• fund infant and child-care - sounds good, need more details.

Will only happen in urban, heavily welfare dependent areas. K-12 education has already become mostly a free day care system in those areas. It is just extending the idea to infants. The details are higher taxes.

• Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour - undecided.

Bad idea. Just creates more demand for illegal aliens willing to work for less than minimum wage.

• increase employment benefits - need more details.

Whoopee! More government involvement in private business.

• Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission - need more details.

The U.S. government should offer to join with other nations in generously supporting a new International Youth Opportunity Fund. Funds will be spent directly for building and operating primary and secondary schools in those Muslim states that commit to sensibly investing their own money in public education.
http://grumet.net/911/recommendations.html

Sweet. The US should fund the teaching of Wahhabism. With ideas like this, how can we go wrong?

• Institute lobbying reform - for it.

Put the fox in charge of the hen house?

• implement balanced budgets - for it a lot.

Meaningless without the next item, reducing the national debt. The national debt has moved at a steadily increasing rate since the 60's. The so-called "balanced budget" of the Clinton years didn't even make a dent in it.
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

• pay down the national debt - for it a lot.

Hasn't happened in the last 4 or 5 decades. What will change?

• Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs - for what definition of "entrepreneur"? Need more details.

Translation: Illegal aliens who want to own mini-marts.

• Focus national security strategy to nation's borders - need more details.

Concertina wire would be a good start. Probably they just want to increase what Bush has already done by sending more National Guard to the borders.

• increase port security - need more details.

Translation: Raise Taxes.
Some of the ideas I agree with, such as the equipment to detect nuclear weapons in cargo containers. Most are pork, under the name of Homeland Security Grants.

• Fund more public transportation - for it, but need more details.

Translation: Fund more public transportation in urban welfare dependent areas. This will, of course, require raising taxes. The US is mostly spread out with rural and suburban areas. How often does public transportation extend to those areas which require the most fuel to commute to jobs?

• promote environmental restoration - for it, but need more details.

Bring back the dodo perhaps? Is Kerry going to run again?

• Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels - for it.

Cool. The subsidies are mostly for ethanol and were the result of a government effort to "encourage renewable fuels." Now the solution is to do away with the subsidies. LOL.
Let's see... a lot of corn is grown in Iowa. The subsidies benefit corn growers. What political race is often centered on Iowa?