SIGN THIS PLEASE : The Dems have an actual agenda !!!

This was posted earlier but DID YOU GUYS READ THIS STUFF???? The Senate Dems have come up with 10-point legislative plan -- and it's very good!! (I know, don't faint -- the Dems are finally fighting back hard and smart!).

Please take a look and sign this (it takes less than a minute to fill it out):
http://democrats.senate.gov/cosponsor-form.html

Click on the bottom left hand corner of the petition to read more about the ten pieces of legislation they're proposing. It looks to me like a well-crafted political bludgeon that will make Frist, Bush and the rest of them drool. It's "tough" on defense (it proposes funding 40,000 more troops to drive home the point that Bush is abusing out National Guardsmen), proposes strengthening Medicaid, has a strong education funding proposal, and demands election reform.

In the education bill there's even a proposal for funds to buy new school buses to replace dilapidated ones in rural areas of the country!! (It's like saying: See rural voters!! Dems care about your kids!! Republicans say they're gonna ban gay marriage but they renege on the deal as soon as they get elected.... vote for us Dems .... we won't lie to you....)

Please kick this so it stays up where DUers will see it.

Also, please forward the petition to anybody you know who may be interested in signing...

Edited to fix link and to add:

Also, 'Clarkie1" has a poll going asking which of the ten items is most important to you (last I looked, election reform was leading by a mile...... )

Finally, a "review" of the agenda in the Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/24/16443/0031

It only takes you to post a message on the DU board.

I hope I'm not getting overly excited, but that agenda really looks good to me.......

to sign this.

criminal Administration and represent We the People!

I also asked the DEMS to add VOTE/ELECTION REFORM to their list!

I'm not happy about all the military posturing, because it doesn't sound like much of an alternative to what's in place now. It sounds like the soldiers would be treated better and the efforts might be more specifically targeted, but I don't hear anything in there about rejecting the neocon agenda of pre-emptive strikes or the "axis of evil".

The rest of it I'm pretty much on board with, though, so I signed it. I think this is exactly what the Dems need to be doing if they hope to win in 2006 and beyond.

on edit: typo

I think it's necessary, though: This is like a big chess game, with the Dems maneuvering to back Bush into a corner he can't get out of. Putting a shrewd legislative agenda on the table is just one piece of the strategy. Exposing the neocons for the frauds and incomptenent jerks they are will be another piece (hopefully Boxer and others will dig into some of that tomorrow, at Rice's hearing).

Unfortunately, I think at this point the American public has been so suckered by the neocon agenda that if the Dems didn't take a strong military stance, they would lose because of all the people who would think they were "soft on terrorism". Sigh.

and not taking care of them is horrid. This agenda is a harsh rebuke of the Bush policies in this area.

finish the job. So the troops should get whatever help we can give them. That's how i look at it.

It's more than an agenda and they will need all our help lobbying to push this through!

Another summary of this here: http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=265

Perhaps I missed the section as a stance for non privatization of Social Security. It would seem this would be a big part of an agenda since it is a focal point of the *** administration.

This is their attempt to pro-actively put an agenda on the table. (It's what I've been wanting them to do -- not just react against Bush proposals, but to come out swinging with a set of their own ...) It think it's a good mix: Fight Bush hard on SS, push ther ideas at the same time.

No signage from me, though. There's some good stuff, but they're twiddling around the edges of healthcare and NCLB, both of which need to be revamped, not "improved" or "fully funded". Pretty mild, really.

The 10-point plan is part of tactical strategy to get back into power. It's not a comprehensive list of everything that needs to be done. It's modelled after Newt's "Contract with America", which successfuly grabbed Americans' attention and got the Repubs into power. You're exactly right that their twiddling around the edges of certain issues. This is just a start -- Dems can't get anything huge done until they have the votes in Congress and that means electing more Dems.

This isn't the whole enchilada, but it's a start. If for no other reason, please sign it because election reform is one of the ten proposals. The more public support the Dems have, the more likely they'll be able to defeat the Bushies at their sleazy PR games, and the more likely Dems will start winning again. Sorry for this lengthy reply, but do you see what I'm saying?

My point is that they did a poor job of modeling the CwA. As Lydia notes below, no one is going to take notice of this.

This is just a start -- Dems can't get anything huge done until they have the votes in Congress and that means electing more Dems.

Gingrich dreamt big dreams with the CwA, and the GOP was completely out of power when he put it forward. We get elected by putting forward big ideas and selling them.

I wanna see in plain talk that they are going to bring universal healthcare to America--or BUST!

Until I see that, I will not vote for any Democrat nor support any Democrat in any way.

They couldn't even come close to getting that passed now!
The Dems have got to get back into power before we can do a major health care initiative. This 10-point agenda is the first step: It's a smart, calculated move to get a Democratic agenda on the table and get the American people to WAKE UP. It's got a medicaid proposal in there (that's a first step at least -- isn't something better than nothing?) as well as election reform (my personal favorite -- something critically needed to elect Democrats).

Please don't let your anger at no-spine and Corporate Dems prevent you from getting the Democrats back into power. It's not like you're voting for all of the platform itself -- by signing it, you're helping the Dems start fighting back hard againt the insanity that is the Bush administration. I don't like all of the Dems, but I've taken a strong liking to Harry Reid and I'm guessing he's behind this (hey, he's being tough on SS, that's pretty good). I see this agenda as one more move in a gigantic political chess game to back Bush into a corner.

Forgive me for rambling, but if 1/3 of America is watching Fox News, 1/3 is watching American Idol, and the 1/3 on the left that knows what's going on doesn't act because it's not "good enough" we are DOOMED!

One of the primary principles of negotiating is to always ask for more than you really believe you can get.

This is a timid set of proposals, and the Republicnaites will chip away at it even more.

The way to get back into power is to make the voters sit up and take notice, to put forth initiatives that are so bold, so beneficial, and so carefully targeted at the population's actual needs that no one can ignore them.

Do you think that they'll take notice of some bureaucratic tinkering? They'll be on page 23B of the newspaper, will get a one-minute mention on the nightly news, and will not be mentioned on the local news at all--but the right wing shock jocks will tear them to bits anyway.

Everything they put in there is designed for a POLITICAL reason. They are proposing 10 specific, concrete pieces of legislation, all of which have a POLITICAL thrust to them -- they're all designed to SCREW BUSH!!!!! It's supposed to be like Newt Gingivitis's "Contract With America" -- I think this is a VERY IMPORTANT salvo in the war against the Republicans.

Take the 40,000 troops, for example. On one level, Dems can use this to call attention to the fact that Bush is abusing the National Guardsmen. On another level, it takes away the "Dems are soft on terrorism/tyrants" argument. It also highlights that Bush "went into Iraq" with too few troops, which bolsters the "Bush is g-damn incompetent a**hole" argument.

I really think this is a highly partisan, political dagger they just issued (e.g., the funding for buses in rural areas -- if GOP opposes it, they look bad and lose votes in the rural areas. IF GOP goes along, Dems get credit for proposing it.)

Not everthing we want to see is in here -- it's not supposed to be a comprehensive list. Please, please don't dismiss the agenda out of hand. Read the specific pieces of legislation and you'll find little nuggets of ammo buried all over the place. If GOP opposes these things, Dems can run on it in '06. AND WIN!!

Please consider signing the petition if you haven't already. I honestly think it's critically important: If the dopes in the country believe Bush -- yet the intelligent people don't support the Dems because they find fault with the political steps they need to take to get back into power -- this country is DOOMED TO FURTHER INSANITY.

(Sorry about getting so emotional.)

I think they are definitely trying to pinch Bush into a corner in more ways than one here. We can't always get everything we want but this is a good start.

You have to start somewhere. These rich bastards in the Senate would rather do play it safe than fight for universal healthcare for the 45 million who do not have it, and the tens of thousands who will go into bankruptcy this year because of medical bill, and the 18,000 who will die this year for lack of medical care.

FUCK THEM. I wanna see them tried for this criminal negligence.

All those examples you listed of things that are horribly wrong with not having universal health care in this country are right -- and we could add another 100 travesties to the list if we spent twenty minutes thinking about it.

But universal health coverage is dead in the water right now. We've got to get the Dems back in power before we can try again and my personal opinion is that we need to start small on health care (i.e., the Medicaid legilsation proposed in this plan) before we can go for the whole thing. There is still too much "fright" out there in America about universal health care coverage, left over from Hillary's attempt and that GOP smear campaign to kill it.

I'm not defending the rich B**tards in the Senate. I'm saying this agenda is a good first step in ultimately getting what we want. If we don't back the Democrats because this isn't everything we want, we help Bush -- that's how stronlgy I feel about this.

When buying a car, you negotiate by starting with YOUR price, and work from there. You don't start off with a "pre-negotiated" price, which would be a price somewhere in the middle. You start off with an offer on hte LOW side, not the middle. Everything the Democratic party leadership does reeks of pre-negotiation.

SOMEONE has to start talking about why America lags so far behind west Europe in providing a high quality of life for its citizens.
LEADERS are supposed to do that sort of thing! Where in the name of the sweet two-fisted Jesus are our so-called Democratic leaders on things like universal healthcare and stopping war and progressive taxation?

I'll tell you where our Democratic "leaders" are: cooking up pantloads of amorphous, corporatist, "pre-negotiated", "pre-surrendered" crap. That's where.

The laughable rightwing slam on the French is "surrender monkeys". But anyone can walk into French hospitals can get care without hassle or bankruptcy. You wanna know where the REAL "surrender monkeys" can be found? In Washington DC--on the Democratic side of the aisle.

That's what's so scary about what's been going on lately -- people's minds are being swayed by dopey slogans and fifth-grade-level propaganda!! It's just appalling... But I think there's a pre-existing, American predisposition against certain things, French policies in particular, that makes it effective. This is why I'm in favor of the start-slow approach. For example, I think the number of people in favor of a French-style social safety net is EXTREMELY low. Part of this, I think, is inate American dislike of what is perceived as "socialism", flamed, of course, by the "surrender monkey" propaganda. Also, I think Hillary's attempt at universal health care set the effort back 30 years. Some of the blame can be laid at the feet of her and her team, while some can be laid at the feet of the propaganda effort against it. Whatever the cause, I think there's great fear about exactly what universal health care coverage would entail.

Proposing grand, comprehensive solutions would only, in my opinion, push people AWAY from us. I think we need to show them what we can do, building on our successes, until we achieve a workable, American-style solution.

That type of negotiation works when both sides want the same thing to happen. In this case that just isn't true. This is a situation where the two sides want very different things and one side has the power to say yes or no. This is a fight not a negotiation. Different rules apply. When your in a fight that you are at a distinct power disadvantage the way you win is to fight a better fight than your opponent not to try and out punch them.

while remarking that I thought the last thing we needed was a bigger military (S11) or to chase after the phony terrorist bogeyman (S12). I guess we should support it critically, since there may be some reasonable social legislation coming out of it. As to the healthcare part (S16), I suggested that they stop dancing around the issue and go for a single payer national health system like people have in the industrialized world. I pointed out that even Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, so we should be able to do better with all our wealth.

That should be a top priority on this AGENDA!

:shrug:

It's called the "Democracy Begins At Home" bill:
http://democrats.senate.gov/vote.html

I love the title, don't you? If this was holding you back from signing the petition, please give it another look and please sign... thanks....

I hope the link works, I'm pretty spazzy with linking:
http://democrats.senate.gov/vote.html

If this doesn't work, click on "Democracy Begins At Home" in the list of ten pieces of legislation -- that's the name of the bill and it describes it in more detail. (I love how they named it -- does seem kind of ridculous to be invading other countries to "bring democracy" when we seem to have a bit of trouble with it here in the US)

We must make election reform a top priority. In addition, campaign finance laws must be refined to ensure that all candidates, no matter what office they hold, be provided equal access to the press and be given equal press coverage.

The Fairness Doctrine must be reinstated. The media should not be allowed to claim they are fair or equitable when they tout one candidate's or parties' agenda over the other.

We must make sure that the Hatch Act is not violated during the campaign, the president and all others that hold office should not be allowed to campaign on federal property, whether it be office buildings or military bases.

Partisian politics must be removed from the Election process, therefore, no elected official that has the authority to influence, control or oversee state or federal elections should be allowed to serve on any campaign, in any capacity. If the elected officials, then he/she should face federal criminal charges.

I especially like #2, about allowing certain media outlets to claim they are "fair and balanced" -- Fox is a giant propaganda machine! I read a post on DU the other day saying there was a Supreme Court decision saying news shows don't have to tell the truth -- I've got research that because that sounds insane!

the issues were a little more involved than what apparently was posted. If I come accross a link, I will post it for you.

We have to keep the media out of politics.

in my comments.

a thing.

I am particularly against the call for 40k troops. They should be focusing on a roadmap out of Iraq instead of encouraging a draft.

This is not a progressive agenda and does not address root problems.

The 40K troops thing is in there to beat Bush over the head with (this whole agenda is a political weapon). Bush has been purposely AVOIDING asking for more troops to avoid Americans getting "riled up" about the war. If Americans are FORCED to think about the true cost of the war, it will become even more unpopular. The DEMS are forcing America to confront the Iraq War by proposing this.

How can you flat-out say this is not a "progressive agenda"? It contains specific, concrete proposals to strengthen Medicaid and education!! And it's got an election reform plank! Is there anything more important to achieving the progressive agenda than getting real election reform???!!!

The "root problem" we've got is that Bush and the Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House. This is designed to get them the heck out of there. We can't get ANYTHING accomplished if we don't break through the wall of manipulative, lying b-s spewed out every day by Fox and echoed by the stupid (complicit?) jerks on the other stations.

will die in Iraq if we don't send them the help they need. Unfortunately, * started this war. We can't just turn around and yank them all out. So we have to make sure they can finish the job so they an COME HOME. They need more help in order to do that. * sent in far too few troops to begin with. We all know that.

my reproductive rights. I don't want to be a moderate Republican, I am a progressive Democrat, and I expect better than this lame, tail between our legs, crap. Sorry, I will not sign, I admire the vigilance of the poster, regretably I wish our elected officials were as tenacious.

fighting "hard and smart." Unfortuantely, Rieid's operation is going to be run by the same 0-for-the-last-four-years losers, who are neither smart, hard, nor capable of fighting the GOP.

"business as usual"

No thanks.

I'll repeat what I said to someone else about this:

"The 40K troops thing is in there to beat Bush over the head with (this whole agenda is a political weapon). Bush has been purposely AVOIDING asking for more troops to avoid Americans getting "riled up" about the war. If Americans are FORCED to think about the true cost of the war, it will become even more unpopular. The DEMS are forcing America to confront the Iraq War by proposing this."

Please re-read the whole thread if you have time -- unless I'm completely hallucinating, I really think the Dems have finally gotten their act somewhat together. I really think they can get through to more Americans with this agenda.

1. As an agenda, it's another sop to the center. 40,000 more troops? I get your point about bringing it home to the heartland, but you have to know what they'll do if Iraq ever *really* blows up in their face. They'll blame it on the Dems who, after all, wanted to send 40,000 more troops.

2. As a political weapon, it's the equivalent of bringing a pop gun to an artillery barrage. We have GOT to stop trying to plant clever little pitfalls for the GOP and HAMMER THEM BACK WITH A STRONG, PROUD, PROGRESSIVE AGENDA. The Contract with America was NOT a centrist document.

Back in the fall, a certain strategist posted here about the need to "play chess" with the GOP. Screw that. We can play chess when the opposition is no longer destroying the fabric of the nation.

You stop play chess when you are the majority, other wise you keep the competion at the table as long as possible.

was not chess. The GOP was not in the majority when they put the CwA forward.

I disagree with your argument that the "CWA' was somehow a bold, non-centrist document. In fact, during the construction of the Contract, Gingrich insisted on "60% issues", meaning that the Contract avoided making promises on more controversial and divisive issues. They completely stayed away from foreign affairs, for instance, instead mostly focusing on "cleaning up" the entrenched, allegedly "corrupt" Democratic political establishment. Items were (see link below for more detailed description):

1) all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
2) conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3) cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4) limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5) ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6) require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7) require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8) guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.


It was an extremely partisan, political document that stayed away from controversial, substantive issues (and it did the trick). Wikipedia has a good summary.


Text of "Contract with America"
issues.http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

they violated many, if not most of these. And then they went off on tangents like trying to defund PBS and privatize the national parks. They failed in both cases, but they still won re-election.

I've heard from more than one source that the military is hollow. We probably need this many just to fill mundane positions. That would be my guess, anyway.

How nice.

and not have a freaking draft instead. The troops have to be replenished somehow. It would be nice if we didn't do it with a draft.

The military is hollow. That has to be filled out somehow.

So many whiny liberals.

The way you talk about Universal Health Car or nothing, Pull the troops now, voter reform should be top priority, you would think that democrats were the majority. For the years of the Clinton white house the republicans did something right, they chipped away. They understood that the majority demands and the minority negotiates.

What is on the table here is something that chips away at their base. For once we are using terminology to our advantage with "Democracy Starts at Home". The issues that are important to us as a party and as idealists are there. Health Care, Education, Economic Opportunity, Fiscal Responsibility, and the democrats Pro-Life plan to reduce abortions not make them illegal. These are all finally worded in a way that arguing against will make the republicans sound 'Un-Patriotic' and 'Amoral'.

One of the few things that the republicans have over us is their understanding that Politics is just like big business. Slow regular gains win out over the fast buck 90% of the time. That is until that opportune moment comes along when you can proceed with a corporate take over of your competition. This is a plan that will put us back on the right track. If we keep on asking for the get rich quick scheme we have all lost before we can even push the touch screen on our next un-papered ballot.

Welcome to DU :hi:

Love that last paragraph. Mind if I paste it in other threads from time to time? I'll give the proper attribution...

This 'pledge' does nothing to address the real problems facing America. It fact...it skirts around most of the major issues and looks and smells exactly like the DLC agenda. (See their website).

They want to fight the SAME phony 'war on terror' as Bush in Iraq and other places that pose no threat to the US. Their solution to an illegal, immoral war that never should have happened? Send more troops!

Healthcare? Their solution is more tax credits and 'incentives' instead of directly confronting the rising cost of healthcare and getting coverage for the 50 million plus Americans that have none AT ALL.

Education? The New Democratic approach is to support Bush's inadequate 'No child left behind' program that has a tendency to make private industry richer as resources are taken from public schools.

They talk about eliminating tax incentives for corporations who send jobs overseas...but what they don't say is that their 'solution' is not much different that Bush's supply-side, trickle-down, give tax bucks to corporations in the hope that they create jobs instead of more personal wealth.

It wasn't until I read this Democratic Contract With America that I fully realized that the DLC really IS in complete control of our party.

This is step one in a plan to take back America from the evil empire that is Bush, the neocons, the money-driven RW corporatists, the crazed Christian Right, and the host of other RW collaborators.

Many of the specific proposals you suggest could only be enacted into law in Greenwich Village and certain parts of Southern California.

was not enacted. Then again, a lot of it was, and the GOP gained control of the Congress in '94 using it.

...corrupt Bush admin...which includes the Dems allowing Bush to escape accountability for starting an unnecessary, aggressive war against a country that posed no threat to our security.

The Dems could start with simply TELLING THE TRUTH. Anything else is just a means to manipulate the rank and file into believing that they still live in a democracy and have a representative government.

As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, I most often agree with your major point, but usually differ with you in the conclusions. i agree with you that while some Dems are "telling the truth" (Boxer, e.g., and some others today during the Rice hearing), others can't quite bring themselves to take the leap.

I don't see the reasons for this quite as starkly as you, however. I think some of them fear the truth won't sink into the propaganda-filled heads of many Americans. Many Americans seem to have swallowed the FOX propaganda about Iraq being an essential part of the "war against terrorism" and are now predisposed to see Democratic objections to the war as "unpatriotic" and "partisan" and "typical knee-jerk anti-war wimpy Democratic whining".

The people that voted for Kerry already see the truth. It's the ones who voted for Bush we have to convince -- somehow we have to un-brainwash them. The only way to do it, in my opinion, is to do something that grabs their attention, which I think this legislative agenda will. To me, being able to whack the Bushies with this agenda is a good thing in and of itself. In my mind, it's an essential part of the strategy to turn around the framework of the debate. Then, and only then, I think, will the Bush voters be RECEPTIVE to the truth. So, my feeling is, break the stereotype, then zoom in and see if we can get these poor deluded people to WAKE UP and see what's been going on. (Boy, are they gonna be mad when they realize what a gigantic mess Bush has made of our economy and the world...)


P.S. Was running off in a rush to pick up my son when I was finishing my original message to you. When I got back and re-read it, it sounded rather rude (especially the title). Sorry for that, if that's how you read it as well.

here's what i told them:

I can't support an agenda which does not include a repudiation of war as a tool of international relations and an examination of the root causes of terrorism. Nor can I support the approval of Rice and Gonzales.

I went against my conscience and voted for Kerry because I thought it would stop what I see as a march to Fascism. I should have voted for Nader. When Franklin Roosevelt agreed to call out the National Gaurd against the sit down strikers in Flint Michigan when my father was in Chevrolet Plant 4, I should have recognized that both the Democratic as well as the Republican Party are parties of the corporations. Of course I was only a kid and Roosevelt certainly was an improvement over Hoover. It is only now when I am approaching my 84th birthday that I can see clearly that over the years we Americans have been manipulated by the corporations with a phoney two party system.

Kerry's quick concession, like Gore's, and his refusal to attack the Bush administration for the war criminals they are indicated that he is as much in thrall to the Military Industrial complex as is most all of the government. Kerry said that he would fight for Americas right to committ preventive war. Hitler's blitzkreig into Poland and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor were "preventive wars".

Howard Dean proved that a political campaign can be run without corporation money. In all of my years in politics I have never seen a voting public that is so ready for a new political party. We should get all of the lone rangers like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Jim Hightower, Barbara Boxer, and Mollie Irvin to come together under one tent. We should bombard the Labor Unions that have been a kite to the corporation control to join us. Their very existence is at stake.
I call for a people's party and that we totally reject the other two partys. They have had us believe that this form of professional wrestling was on the level for too long. It is time for us to wake up.
another four years of Bush could mean open terroristic fascism.

welcome to DU! :hi:

I agree. In my most irritated moments, I think the gutsy Dems and the Greens should join together and let the mushy, timid centrists try to oppose creeping (or galloping) fascism with water pistols.

:thumbsup:

must not forget to stand up for equality in America and not let the republicans change the constitution to allow discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.

There is a lot of bching on thread about DLC and Rethuglite. I say we have to resist 24/7. Every opposition to the commander and thief is a victory. If you don't want to sign on with this because it does not address your special issue directly, don't. WTF do you think is wrong with he Democratic party? It will not unify and support a set of core principals. IMO they should be

FIRST Open Fair Elections
Second Universal Health care we need to take the profit out of health and name the primary purpose CARE
Third return the Government to it's mission to provide for the general welfare of it's human citizens not inhumane corporations

I will sign and support every move in directions

Thanks for your time and attention.

Please expose the secrecy of this Bush administration. Especially, the PNAC neocons like Wolfowitz and Feith need their ideology exposed and their hand in falsification and exaggeration of intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

Looks like DLC puppetry to me. Nothing on the environment or alternative energy but lots on military. A big key to "winning" the "war" on terror is reducing our dependence on the Texas tea.

I'm guessing they picked the issues they thought would most resonate with "middle America", and "middle America" drives big honkin' SUVs that get 15 miles per gallon (if that). Talking "conservation", "environment, and "alternative energy" with these people won't get us very far. It's not like environmental issues aren't a critically important concern to the Democrats, it's that this Agenda is geared towards a specific target audience (deluded, brainwashed Bush voters).

Millions of Americans have been bamboozled by Bush and the GOP into thinking that Democrats are all liberals who want to raise taxes, give money to slackers, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah (you know the rest of their shtick). My extended family, many friends and neighbors, and many of my acquantances really believe this!!! I honestly think this new Democratic agenda is a first step into breaking the headlock the Republicans have on the suburbs and the rural areas of much of the country (both Red State AND Blue).

because of the number one item on the agenda, political weapon or not. I cannot support this.

Edited to add: I could be convinced to change my mind on signing this depending upon the outcome of February 12.

what happens on February 12th that's so important??

Also, did you see whole bill for item #1 (the military proposal)? They actually say that the number of casualties may have been under-reported!! In case you didn't read the whole thing, it's a powerful indictment of what Bush has done to our troops.

http://democrats.senate.gov/troops.html

Yes, I read the whole thing.

I'll wait until after February 12 to reconsider because I may no longer be a Democrat after that day.

he seems to be building momentum. Right after i read your post, I saw this in the LBN section:

Key Black Leaders Endorse Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1182384

If anybody told me a month ago Dean had a chance, I would've said they were doing crack....

I heard this figure from an actual DNC delegate, so it looks like it's Dean's to lose, right now.

Agenda! What is their problem? Agenda. They are calling it an agenda. At best I think the word sounds elitist. You have an agenda for a corporate board meeting. At worst it is only a little better than scheme. Couldn't they come up with a better term or phrase? Like Vision. People like vision. Remember "that vision thing" OK - maybe that is old. But some one please buy these guys a thesaurus. It doesn't matter how brilliant the plan is if the title turns people off.

Thats' the term I always use (I'm a management consultant, self-employed): It implies, well...ACTION!! (As opposed to INACTION, which is what we've become accustomed to.) And instead of America's Promise or whatever Hallmark-style name they came up with, how about "WAKE UP AMERICA!!" (didn't Ronald Reagan have some "Morning in America" kind of slogan -- they should have played around with that somehow).

Obviously, I agree with the point you made (and your scream of frustration).

However, I'm in my new "give them a chance, they seem to be getting their act together" mode so I can't say anything else bad. (But seriously, that plan they came up with is really good -- the more detailed descriptions of the bills are jam-packed with goodies.)


ATTENTION ALL DNC-TYPES: I am available for hire at rates 1/1000th of what you currently pay. Sure I suck, but so did Bob Shrum and look what you paid him! At least you'd be saving money.

I posted that in another thread on this topic.
Why do we pledge allegiance to the flag? Our government should Pledge Allegiance to Americans!

"This is our Pledge of Allegiance to Americans". Maybe that would help get out patriotic mojo back (which those &%$#@ Repubs keep trying to steal from us with all their "not supporting the War is unpatriotic crap").

Call the DNC, they should hire you.

when I signed as a co-sponsor, the message to the senators had 3 suggestions (did not use this phrasing):

1 - Don't call it agenda. Pledge, Promise, etc.
2 - Nix the reference to Islamic Fundamentalim in the terrorism piece. It will be perceived as anti-Muslim, even if it isn't.
3 - The sentence structure about health care for women and children and defending medicaid makes it sound like women and children will defend medicaid.

I told them that * has no mandate and for them not to watch the MSM but check out the blogs because that's the true feel of the country. Then I gave them some sites to go to, including this one.

Felt good.

At least that's what many swing voters would ask, IMHO. I'd like to see a little more on that subject, too. The Federal debt is killing us in so many ways.

My solution, of course, is to tax the hell out of the rich since they've made out like bandits since the early '80s when a lot of other people have been struggling.

An energy policy would be great, too, to counter the abomination that * will undoubtedly push during the current congressinal session.

I was wondering about that myself -- I didn't see anything in the write-up that addressed the funding. The cumulative cost of all ten proposals would be in the mega-billions.

I'd also VERY MUCH like to see them go after the tax cuts for rich. As a start, I'd like to see them put a cap on the dividend tax cuts. What a travesty this has been! I keep reading articles in "Fortune" talking about mega-millionaires having their companies issue big fat one-time dividends -- since these guys own millions of shares, they reap a windfall. I wish MoveOn and groups like that had done commercials about stuff like this during the campaign. That tax bill was one HUGE rip-off.

We need to name it.

NGU.

1. click link in base post opening "citizen sponsor" page
2. click link to read 10-point plan
3. search for mention of "Iraq"
4. find only this one reference: "As a new generation of veterans return from Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats are united to fulfill that promise."
5. close browser without signing petition

drop me a line when they have a plan that can help stop the dying in Iraq ...

And I'm gonna hold my breath till Hillary Clinton gets down on her hands and knees and personally apologizes to me for not being PURE enough!!!

<LOL>

Whatever.

NGU.

nobody called for perfect ... but when people are senselessly dying everyday, when families are going to have to live the next 50 years or more with a one-legged parent or a blind parent and when we once again fill our country with the damaged psyches of people returning from war, failure to even mention a policy is unacceptable ...

the deaths of thousands of innocent people is on the hands of all who don't fight against bush's military madness ... i read the pathetic document the Democrats are peddling ... what a bunch of cowardly ostriches ...

i'm not giving up on this issue ... it's too bad the 10-point plan did ... NGU indeed !!!

...frickin' paralyzed! They take a step in the right direction and we call them "cowardly ostriches." Talk about specious.

NGU.

the Dems are, to use your words, "frickin' paralyzed!" ... by your own observation, they are afraid to act ... all you've done is blame me for causing them to be cowardly ... you haven't denied they are ...

Iraq has to be job one ... people are dying there TODAY ... i see this document as a clear statement that Reid has no plans to make an issue of bush's Iraq policy ... i relate to it like this: you have a wrongfully convicted murder suspect about to be executed ... the document talks about better healthcare for prisoners, better food, better living quarters, better access to legal counsel, more humane prison guards ... it's a wonderful, important list ... unfortunately, it does nothing to even try to right the most immediate, egregious wrong ...

<LOL>

The DUDQ wants you.

NGU.

when it comes to dealing with politics in this country. We had our own reps fall into lockstep with Bush after 9-11 only to be found out and now they are headed in a more decisive direction and we nail them. Really, it is funny. Human nature, I guess. Trip the guy up just so he really doesn't accomplish anything.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but its more of the timid, pussy-footing, }oh, dear-Republicans-will-you-please-not-get-upset-with -us-for-voicing-a-few-objections" approach that has infuriated me for going on 25 years.

...of your personal frustration in one document??

<LOL>

What. Ever.

NGU.

without putting up a fight for 25 years.

But you cannot fix 25 years of bad in one fail swoop, especial if your in the minority in the house, and in the senate, and in the white house, and on the supreme court, and % of governors, and...

We start by starting, not by expecting to cross the finish line with one step.

then you're not going to attract the voters who think that the Dems don't care about the little person.

The goals should be big and bold. The incremental steps may end up being small, but this idea of starting with baby steps is just dumb from a PR point of view, because in real life, everyone knows that there's a lot of compromise in politics, and if you start out by saying that your "goal" is to move an inch, when you really need to move a yard, you'll end up moving half an inch, barely enough to notice. If you state that your goal is to move a yard, then you may have to negotiate down to moving six inches, but you'll still be ahead of where you would end up with your timid little one-inch "goal."

1) The agenda is an intensely political document designed to get "middle American" voters to start listening to the Democrats again (hence, the promise of new school buses in rural areas).

2) The agenda is not intended for "the base", which is generally highly intelligent and already knows Iraq was a terrible, horrible counterproductive mistake.

3) This is one piece of a multi-faceted Democratic attack: A) Fight Bush proposals to the death, e.g. Bush's Social Security Destruction/Wall Street Enrichment Plan; B) Propose a pro-active legislative plan that appeals to a wide range of voters and backs Bush and GOP into a corner, C) Have Boxer and non-wimpy Dems expose Condi and Bush's manipulation of intelligence (true, having all Den Senators be non-wimps would have been better but we've gotta work with what we've got).

4) Everybody's waiting to see what happens with the Iraq elections. No sense in Dems making a proposal until we see what happens and give things a few weeks to settle down. What if election goes well?? Dems will look dumb. (Granted chance of this is .0009%, but what if??)

5) Dems don't have the power to get us out of Iraq -- we must convince Americans that it is the right course of action. Since Bush has made such a gigantic mess over there, figuring out how to extract ourselves isn't easy. What if we leave and a civil war leaves a million Iraqi's dead?? War was wrong/stupid, but leaving poor Iraqi people to chaos worse than what exists now would be completely immoral. My guess is that coming up with some kind of plan is going to take time.

for starters, read a few of the articles on this page ... it's important to understand just how hopeless thinks in Iraq are: http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/

regarding the elections, "waiting to see" is not the kind of "leadership" i'm willing to go along with ... the elections are already nonsense ... the Sunnis will not participate ... candidates running for office remain unidentified ... no one knows who they are ... they have not spoken out on where they stand on anything ... and just whom can we count on to count the votes honestly ??? this will not be an election; it will be a dog and pony show ...

"what if election goes well?? Dems will look dumb" ... first of all, a few Dems have already called for withdrawal ... Dems already look dumb because on one of the most important issues facing our country and the entire world, the Dems don't really even have a position ... if they are to convince the American people that this war must be stopped, they need to start an education campaign NOW ... if they are going to convince Americans that they can formulate policy on the global stage, they have to have a policy regarding Iraq ... the last thing Democrats need is to be labelled the "domestic party" ... then, as long as bush's 100 year war lasts, Democrats will remain in the minority ... burying their heads in the sands of Iraq is not only immoral, it's bad politics too ...

and civil war?? Iraq is a bitterly divided nation ... the election that will "legitimize" Shia dominance of the government is going to make things worse, not better ... and the U.S. military is a target ... "we have met the enemy and they are us" ... i think that civil war in Iraq is inevitable ... and i don't see how killing 100,000 Iraqis and setting up a phony democracy will do anything but delay the onset of that reality ...

and with regard to this statement: "leaving poor Iraqi people to chaos worse than what exists now would be completely immoral", i agree and disagree ... unfortunately, i believe all the choices we have are immoral ... we can subject the Iraqis to more occupation for the next 5 to 10 years only to have them battle each other when we leave, or we can leave now and offer as much financial and humanitarian support as we can afford ... the factions in Iraq need a negotiating format not led by the U.S. ... to pretend that "elections are the fairest way to resolve the conflicts" is absurd ... minority factions, especially the Sunnis, will not recognize the legitimacy of the elections ...

anyway, things are getting much worse in Iraq everyday ... the next phase for the Iraqis, whether it's civil war or a negotiated settlement with tons of aid from the outside, has to be better than the hopelessness the U.S. military strategy is imposing on them today ...

Democrats need to adopt the slogan: "no more money for war" ... i totally agree with your statements: "Dems don't have the power to get us out of Iraq -- we must convince Americans that it is the right course of action." ... unfortunately, the 10-point plan makes no mention of the "education campaign on Iraq".

You're completely right about Dems not having a cohesive policy on Iraq. Today's hearing illustrated the point At least, though, they do seem to be inching towards finally standing up and speaking the truth. Don't ask me to defend the ones that won't oppose Condi -- all I can say is they're dopes or cowards or both. I see the pro-IWR in somewhat more sympathic terms than most on DU, but I think they should have realized by now the mistake they made (for one thing, that bizarre "Axis of Evil Speech" should've tipped them off that Bush was going off the deep end).

As to your point that Iraq was a mess, hell yes, it sure is. I personally can't see a resolution, or a way out of it that's not going to be horrible. My guess is that Dems are waiting until the elections (which will result in God knows what more horrible things) and then do something (what exactly, I have no idea). My guess is that as events unfold, the American people will finally realize Bush screwed up and the Dems will be able to take it from there. In a bizarre way, it's almost a blessing Kerry didn't win -- Bush made such a mess over there it's past salvaging and you know darn straight the Repubs would have blamed him for "losing Iraq".

In any event, my point is that there are many things the Dems are doing and the "agenda" wasn't the right place to go into a detailed discussion of why we should get out of Iraq. That document had a very specific purpose: To break through to the more intelligent Bush voters. The more signatures it attracts, the more we help the Democrats bring some sanity back to our government.

in response to your statement "I see the pro-IWR in somewhat more sympathic terms than most on DU", i think we all need to move past that ... most of us, almost all of us, worked for Kerry ... i hated his IWR vote ... what's done is done ...

and although i thought it was nonsense, the Democratic Party's call (and Kerry's) to "internationalize" the "war" at least might have been possible if Kerry got elected ... i thought the Party and Kerry were dead wrong but at least if Kerry had been elected the idea was a possibility ...

but what now??? internationalization??? no country will help the U.S. in Iraq ... in fact, more and more countries are withdrawing what little support they had provided ... so where are the Democrats now??? all they offer is a "leftover" policy from the election ... it really is nothing but a "non policy" ...

i've focussed on Iraq because I think it's the most immediate, most critical issue and the Dems are nowhere to be found ... but i have to tell you i see other problems with the 10-points ... i won't elaborate here because, for me, the focus has to remain on Iraq ...

you've made a good case for the idea that Reid is using it as a political tool ... the problem is, the Democratic Party needs to find its soul ... you don't do that by starting out with a political pitch ... until the party is more "open to the grassroots" and we really define who we are and what we believe in, we're not going to get anywhere ... "pretty talk is not a substitute for making a deep commitment to fight for what we believe in" ...

I respect your deep principles.

I'm deeply cynical about politics and it's reflected in my outlook.
Whereas you want the Party to find its soul, I think we have to get pragmatic and appeal as best we can to Bush voters who have been brainwashed by years of watching Fox News and being manipulated by those Bush/Rove creeps. I don't think it's possible to sit the average American down and explain what's really been going on. Most of them are too busy watching American Idol to pay much, if any, attention to world events (as a test-case, come to NY and try explaining "the neocon agenda" to my brother-in-law -- I'll have a bottle of Jack Daniels ready for you when you're done because you're going to need it -- make sure your explanation includes analogies to sex and/or football).

Can we still be friends even if we don't agree about methods??

thanks for the kind words, moggie12 ... yeah, we can be friends ... i also respect how you've fought for your points ... i don't respect those who label people who take principled positions as "purists" ... i could just as easily label them "appeasers and sell outs" ... what's the point in all that name calling ... it won't influence anyone to your point of view ...

now, with regard to your "pragmatic" statement, i think you may implicitly be arguing that strongly principled positions, especially those further on the left, may not be as "pragmatic" as thinking that we need to appeal to the center more and tone down our rhetoric ... i think you've made an implicit argument that doing the "politically savvy" thing may be more pragmatic than rigidly adhering to our beliefs ...

perhaps you're right ... but perhaps you're wrong ... i think one of the lessons of this last election was that trying to be all things to all people and being a "big tent" that can tolerate virtually any point of view doesn't work ... some of it was inept media and some of it came from republican PR, but i really did feel like the Democratic Party didn't start with a core message ... we adjust our platform for this candidate or that candidate ... i'm so sick of all these "who ya supporting in '08" threads ... i often look down the thread index to see how many threads are focussed on people instead of issues ... i think too many have celebrity fixations ... we need to show America that we're not just playing politics ... i think what is "pragmatic" showing voters the depth of your commitment to your beliefs ...

voters may not always understand the issues in depth but i do think they have a nose for sniffing out those who lack deep commitment and passion ... i think if we keep dancing in the middle to attract republican moderates, we'll come across as not deeply committed to our beliefs ... it smells like politics ... so for me, there's no difference for fighting hard for what i believe in and being politically pragmatic ...

btw, i'm originally from Merrick, NY ... spent lots of time upstate too ...

When Kerry was running we needed a strong message to rall behind, to distingush between the two parties. Now though, we are in a very different position. We need to start winning small battles now and doing are best to stalemate them on the ones we can't win. Push hard to win back some seats in '06. So that we can push for larger items on our way to '08 and maybe get back the control so that we can push towards our ultimate goals of universal health care, better education funding, and better economic opportunities for the middle and lower classes. But we cannot be over zealous and try for everything at once.

I totally agree with you about not wanting to hear anymore about who people are supporting in '08. Give it time, the right candidate will present themselves if we watch closely. There is to much that can and will happen in the next 4 years to even start to think about who the right person will be. Personally I hope it is someone we have not even heard of yet who comes out of the wood work to lead us. Until it gets closer though, we need to focus on the fight at hand.

So you lived in Merrick. I grew up in Seaford. I can still recite the LIRR announcement: "Merrick, Bellmore, Wantagh, Seaford.." And my husband's uncle owned "Bagel City" in Merrick for 20+ years.

Small world. Anyway, I agreed with your entire response. Without passion and strong views, we don't stand a chance. Although I was until very recently dead-set against Howard Dean getting the DNC job, now I'm 100% for him. I think he'll really light a fire under the party. I just hope the two sides that seem to be at war within the party can work together. If what's going on in the DNC is anything like the battles going on here at DU between the various partisans of particular candidates and views, things could get ugly.

Not only is that agenda too timid, but it's couched in big paragraphs that will make the average swing voter's eyes glaze over.

Anyone who has been anesthetized by Fox News and other mass media will not have the patience to read through this agenda, and they'll think, "Oh, there go the Democrats, being elitist and bureaucratic again." Note that the Republicanites' Contract with America was stated in single sentences or phrases.

Objections to its chicken-shittedness aside, the agenda needs to be laid out in short, pithy sentences that are easily adaptable as sound bites.

Newt's could be summed up in single sentences because they were actually "small ideas", not policy proposals. And they all fit into the same "anti-Democratic-power-grubbers-in-Congress" theme. I don't exactly know how Dems could sum up each of their ten proposals, but I hope they'll be able to do something on that: Just saying "strengthening education", for example, won't get them very far.

Now about that "chicken-shittedness" thing. I realize after reading the replies on here that many people are disappointed: They wanted big proposals like universal health care.

That's not going to stop a smart person like you from signing the petition though, right? I mean, maybe the Dems are mostly still chickens, as you say, but, up until just a few weeks ago, they were only at the gnat stage of development. You're going to encourage these nascent signs of fighting spirit, right?? You're gonna strengthen Reid's hand by signing and getting all your friends and co-workers to sign, right?

Right?

Right?

Hey, where'd you go?

Come back, come back......

approach.

I'm not going to applaud them for pussyfooting around the nation's most serious problems.

You are breaking my heart.

What about this analogy?

A group of misguided teenagers have been causing mischief in a neighborhood. One day, one of them (let's call her Barbara), does something exceptionally good, far beyond what anyone had ever expected. The neighborhood rejoices. Soon, many of the other teenagers start acting better. Some of them get together and develop a plan to spruce up a neighborhood park. Should the neighborhood say:

a) "That's great kids, we're behind you 100% -- we'll help you get some rakes and tools."

--OR--

b) "What the hell good is a cleaned-up park going to do us? Build us a neighborhood recreation center and pool complex or we're not going to have anything to do with you."

the problem with analogies, my new friend, is that they are often not analogous ... they are usually just scripts written to prove a point ... yours is a good script that "proves" your point ...

so here's another script ... the schoolyard bullies have been regularly beating up on a bunch of pretty defenseless kids ... you find out your kid and a few friends have stood by watching these beatings and said nothing and did nothing ... your kid comes home one day and proudly announces that he and a few friends helped clean-up the park and while they were doing it they saw the bullies beating up a couple of more kids ... one of them died ...

the situation is not quite as black and white as you painted it ... presented with this conduct, duality exists ... perhaps cleaning up the park is worthy of honorable mention ... in the meantime, bush and his bullies are responsible for 32 additional American deaths in Iraq TODAY ... and your kid wants a merit badge for cleaning ...

i don't agree with the argument that this means i'm seeking perfection ... i don't agree with the argument we should start with "baby steps" ... i don't agree with the argument that framing issues to appeal to the center is being "pragmatic" ... people are dying TODAY ... we cannot allow the republicans to muzzle us ... they will, of course, say that we are putting the troops at risk and undermining their efforts ... but the truth is that Democrats are putting our American kids at risk by remaining silent ... i just can't see how the Party's current position on Iraq is politically viable ... it screams "Democrats are only good at domestic policies" ... if we're afraid to take tough stands on war, i'm afraid we won't be given a chance to govern ...

Oh well.

Your analogy was very good (as much as it pains me to admit it).

The problem, I think, is that the time for "the good kids" to have yelled and screamed and stopped the insanity was back somewhere between Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and Powell's UN speech. It amazes me that more Dems didn't realize (or were to afraid to say??) that Bush was going off the deep end. It's going to take the historians to explain the mass hysteria that gripped the country and the psychologists to explain how Bush was so effective in whipping-up mass delusion with all his flag-waving.

Now, however, the whole thing is a gigantic mess. If I thought just up and pulling out was a workable solution that wouldn't result in even more chaos and death over there, I'd say absolutely, the Dems should stand up and call for the withdrawal of our troops. I just don't think we can morally do that, though. I can't imagine that it wouldn't result in death of even more innocent Iraqi civilians than currently.

i hear the passion in your request for people to go sign the petition ... you believe in it ... i admire your dedication fighting for your beliefs ...

on Saturday, Jesse Jackson Jr. addressed a PDA conference ... i'm paraphrasing here (because my memory would scare away small children and several species of tiny rodents) ... Jackson chastised the left as being too disjointed because of single-issue causes ... he talked about NOW and women's issues, the NAACP and racial issues, the anti-war movement, the labor movement, the pro-choice movement and on and on ... he referred to each of these groups as "a patch" ... i missed the end of his speech ... i think he was leading up to the idea that we need to work together and that, without "pooled energies" (woven into a patchwork quilt if you will), we will not succeed ... and we have not succeeded ...

i've watched the dynamics on DU get more and more heated since the election ... we were very far apart during the primaries ... we were truly united under the great ABB banner once we had a nominee ... and now, poof ... the great holy war has been joined ...

here's my take on the dynamic ... assuming you accept as a model that there is a left-center divide, and frankly i think that model only gets you so far, i see the center (i think of them as "Dems no matter what") as applauding the Party when they take positive steps ... but i also see tremendous animosity (from many) when the left doesn't join in the applause and continues to criticize ... i think it's this criticism and lack of tolerance that will ultimately rip the Party into factions ... in a sense, i'm blaming these people who condone this attitude ... here's why ...

look at things from the left ... first, you're falsely accused of requiring "perfection" ... these are harsh words after many of us sold our souls to work for Kerry even though we hated his support for IWR and his support for continued military operations in Iraq ... who the hell are these people saying we require "perfection"??? yesterday's favors have been all too quickly forgotton ...

secondly, it's important to understand that many on the left have remained in the Democratic Party, presumably for pragmatic reasons, even though many of us don't feel represented by any, or at least not many, elected Democrats ... before anything even occurs, most of us feel very alienated ...

while we all have our individual priorities, two of the more prominent issues on the left is "corporatism", i.e. the buying of our government by big money and the setting of government policy to benefit a select few ... and, the use and abuse of U.S. military power ...

so the left does not demand that every Democrat come out against capitalism ... the left does not refuse to support any Democrat who accepts corporate money or soft money ... in the last election, the left did not refuse to support candidates who continue to support the "war" in Iraq ... of course, these are generalizations but i believe these views are representative of most on the left ...

i think the Party is at a very critical crossroads ... the rift must be healed or a real split will occur ... the name-calling that passes for reasoned debate and discourse will not convince anyone to support anything ... the bottom line now is that the left, who feels like they came to help, now feels that they are being left out ... sensitivities are running off the scale ... everything is a symbol of whether we have a voice or we don't ... when we see the big boys plotting the "great new strategy" and it leaves "our issues out", then it leaves us out ... no amount of screaming and chastising from those who like what they see will change that ...

it is time to "open the platform process" ... Reid's edict came from the top and does not reflect the views of many on the left ... whining about the left's rejection of Reid's document (you didn't do this) is not going to change the reaction ... THE ONLY SOLUTION IS OPENNESS AND NEGOTIATION ... and if this doesn't happen, the left won't be there the next time ... it's not a threat ... it's a prediction ...

the left is not intolerant ... the left is not seeking perfection ... the left is seeking a seat at the table where their voices and ideas will be heard ... if they're not invited, trust me, they won't show up ... and so far, the only invitation they've received is an invitation to send in more money ... on issues most important to us, we've been invited to "just go along" ... it just won't ever work that way ... as i said before, the Party is at a crossroads ... let's hope the sign they put up there does not say "no left turn" ...

I think it's a shame the left/center "divide" came to this -- I do see a rift developing and it didn't have to. There are certain true, huge problems that we have to deal with, but there is more agreement than disagreement, especially between the "grassroots" people on each side.

The name-calling is horrendous and you're exactly right -- it's not going to move us to where we need to be. I find myself in the middle between the two camps. I was pro-invading Afghanistan, but anti-invading Iraq. I was pro-welfare-reform, but wished it had been grandfathered in so the women who'd known nothing but welfare their whole lives hadn't been thrown out into the cold (I worked in local government for many years and, oh boy, that system truly needed reform). I think the government needs to take into account the legitimate business concerns of corporations, but I hate the corporate give-aways sanctioned by some Democrats. I'm not reflexively anti-Wall Street, but I think some Dems have gotten into bed with the Wall Street crowd and failed to crack down on all the abuses and shenanigans.

I think there's way too much concern with labels these days. If the center and the left could talk about some basic, practical realities and specific proposals, maybe the differences could be better ironed out.

One last thought in regard to your well-taken point about the Dems needing to solicit input: I haven't seen anything in the newspapers about the Senate Dems agenda. Maybe they're actually going to work on the agenda based on the comments they've been soliciting? Possible?? Maybe. Likely?? Well, probably not. Thought I'd hope for the best.

Anyway, I'm hopeful they don't put that "no left turn" sign out. On the bright side, I don't think they can, not with Boxer seeming to be leading the somewhat more timid-seeming men these days. Go, Barb!

And what they're doing with these ten points is not "exceptionally good, far beyond what anyone had ever expected." It's more like same-old same-old.

I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats were the party of big ideas. I'm convinced that one reason they lost power is because they started getting concerned with this program and that regulation and the other subsection of the population and lost sight of the big picture. They also let slip possibilities of really helping people who were being hurt by Reaganomics--and this was during the time they still had a majority in Congress.

The Dem proposal isn't like the kids planning to spruce up the neighborhood park. It's more like the kids saying, "We're going to ask for some rakes" and "We're going to put on our grubby clothes next weekend." without revealing what their ultimate goal is.

I repeat, "What's wrong with stating a bold goal in a simple form?"

What do you mean "stating a big goal in a simple form"? And which goals would you pick?

P.S. Yeah, my analogy wasn't spot-on ("Welch Terrier" pointed that out, too). One niggling point, the "exceptionally good thing" was in reference to what Boxer has done, not the 10-point plan. The point I was trying to make was that even though the Senate Dem's agenda is not all that everyone wishes we should all still support it because it will help them better fight Bush and that success will, in turn, inspire them to become bolder. That's what I'm hoping anyway.

1. We will work toward single-payer health care for all Americans.

2. We will give preference in government contracts to companies that do not outsource jobs overseas

3. We will remove barriers to voting and ensure that everyone's vote is counted fairly and accurately.

4. We will decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil by promoting alternatives to petroleum products and funding mass transit and intercity rail.

5. We will repeal No Child Left Behind and replace it with broadly defined curriculum standards and sufficient support for meeting them

6. We will preserve Social Security forever by adjusting FICA assessments so that the poor pay less and the rich pay more.

7. We will withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, turn their administration over to the international community, and institute a Marshall Plan-like program to help these countries rebuild as they see fit

Whether you agree with the specifics (and I'm not trying to hijack the thread here, so I don't want discussion of individual proposals), this is the type of boldness that we need.

And now that I think of it, the Dems probably would've been better off sticking with 6 or 7 points as they are easier to remember and hit you harder. Your point #2 is especially good - a few months ago there was much talk about tax code provisions that favor shipping jobs overseas. The issue seems to have slipped off the radar. That's definitely one the Dems should focus on.

Not to quibble, but the SS battle is being fought hard elsewhere - this is the Dems agenda so it's not discussed here. And turning over Iraq to the international community would be wonderful, but those guys are way too smart to "take it" from us since it's such a gigantic mess. That's the problem with calling for a US withdrawal at this point, IMO.

All in all, though I agree with your belief that we should put a few bolder and more important proposals on the table (off-shoring in particular) I still think the Dems' proposals are worthy of support. They're not what I would've come up with but they're a start and we can pressure them to be bolder as the battle against Bush unfolds over the next few years. I would much rather be a staunch supporter "publicly" while "privately" urging the Dems to be more aggressive. It looks like we think somewhat similarly as to issues but disagree as to strategy .

Standing With Our Troops? Targeting Terrorists More Effectively? How about telling the truth about Iraq and ending the war on American cities a.k.a. the prison industrial complex? And what about environmental regulation and Social Security anyway? And oh yeah how about the frickin' debt? This is GOP lite.

Your reply illustrates my point: You start out by saying "Standing with our troops?? Targeting Terrorists more effectively?".

What, you don't want to do that?????

Until Dems break through the stereotypical image many Americans have of our party, they won't listen to us. Once we get them to start listening to us, then we can get back into power. These are weird, bizarre, scary times, with a Bush/GOP media message machine spewing out propaganda 24/7!! Many American are brainwashed and we have to cut through the fog and reach them. This 10-point plan is designed to do just that. Newt did this with his Contract with America, giving people a short set of ideas to grab onto -- he specifically chose "non-controversial" items (Wikipedia has a brief description).

bogus. 9/11 was just a super-successful hijacking that wouldn't have happened if Bush was paying attention, period. The military response has been criminal in every way.

And that's what Kerry has said REPEATEDLY in his book, in the Senate, in the debates, and all through September and October of the campaign. I'd like to see Dems stick to THAT message.

We've got to unbrainwash the more-intelligent Bush voters and the Independents who support him -- I think the Dem's 10-point plan is a very effective tool to do this. I was nodding my head when you said "super successful hijacking". That's the joke about all this: We over-reacted so badly to 9/11!! All Al Qaida did was steal our planes!!! I do think eliminating their base of operations in Afghanistan was an appropriate response, but invading Iraq?? When the historians write about this period 50 years from now, they're going to use words like "mass hysteria" to describe what's going on. Bush will go down in history as our worst President, of that I am 100% certain. What I'm not so certain about is when this mass hysteria will end -- I personally think it's going to be another year or two, as the situation in Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., further deteriorates (or explodes one of these days).

It's not like they made just a little mistake, and it looks like guys in Congress are beginning to understand that, so I hope Reid radically rewrites his agenda before taking it on the road.

And I think it's critical that we back them up. The more we help and encourage them during these "baby steps" they're taking, the more they'll be successful in fighting Bush, and the bolder they'll get. I really believe that.

I'm really glad you're signing it -- I hope more people do.

The only real concern i've heard is that it doesn't address the environment. Aside from that it touches a lot of important issues and i'm happy to see reid bring this to us for support and feedback.

You know, the one that got so many voters "excited" about what the Democrats would do for them?

The one that NOBODY (even the candidates themselves) could clearly define for the electorate?

Sorry, but this just more of the same: it's like putting a band-aid on a severed limb. It's way too little, way too late.

Why do we want to throw 40k more troops into the charnel house that is Iraq?

Why do we want to funnell more money into the pockets of big insurance companies, when over 1/2 the population wants universal health care?

Why do we want a measly $1 increase in the minimum wage, even though it's still well below the poverty level?

Why don't we ask for reasonalbe curbs on corporate power (something that 70%+ of the population wants), instead of more appeasement of Wall Street.

The time for "moderation" was four years ago. We're in crisis mode today. "Playing nice" with the Republicans makes as much sense as trying to pet a rabid pitbull.

Be reasonable-- DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE. And when that doesn't work, compromise all you want.

But don't give one inch before you ask for what you really want-- NOT what you'll "settle" for.

Did you really just say, "Demand the impossible"?

Of who?? Who's going to listen to our call for gigantic new government program like universal health care right now??

And what did you mean by, "And when that doesn't work, compromise all you want"? With who??? We're out of power -- the GOP doesn't have to compromise with us, they've got enough votes on their own!

(Hang on a minute, regaining composure)

Okay look (taking a deep breath), this is a complicated subject, and you're right about several things. Like you, I wish the Dems would take a tough stand against all the Wall Street give-aways. There's nothing in here about how the Dems would fund all this stuff -- I'm imagining they're going to say "get rid of some of the tax cuts for the rich". (I sure hope they do, because the deficit we're building up is terrifying.)

Casually tossing this plan aside by saying Kerry didn't win on it is totally unfair. This plan is a TEN-TIMES-MORE politically astute agenda than Kerry's. Did he promise new school buses for rural areas? Did he articulate all the detailed proposals contained in the "Support Our Troops" legislation or the "More Effective War Against terror" legislation (click on the links for each bill - there's a lot of detail in each piece of legislation). What the hell was Kerry's plan anyway? All I can remember is that "W is for Wrong" slogan (which my 12-year-old daughter found intellectually beneath her). I liked Kerry's "fighting a more intelligent war against terror" concept but it took up only two or three lines in his acceptance speech and he didn't really start talking about it until late October!! (Oh great, now I'm gonna get flamed by the Kerry people).

Look, like it or not, the Dems need to cut through the Bush/GOP propaganda cloud of b-s and manipulation and get the attention of average American voters.

Yes, damn straight, I am willing to settle for what is in this bill. If we get even some of this stuff, we can take credit for proposing it. If the GOP opposes it, we can use that opposition to beat their candidates in '06 (tell me you can't see how useful it would be to a Dem in a rural area to run commercials saying his Republican inncumbent opponent voted against new school buses)

Jeez!!


edited to fix bad sentence structure

At the Seneca Falls conference in 1847, women's suffrage was not even on the agenda. The conference had been convened to discuss ways of getting property rights for married women, since in those days, a woman who married ceased to exist legally, and her husband gained full control of all her possessions and property, including anything that she had worked and paid for or inherited. (That's why eighteenth and nineteenth century novels are full of men eager to marry heiresses.) A divorced woman was not only disgraced but pennyless and lost all rights ever to see her children again, even if her husband was abusive.

One delegate proposed that the ways in which the legal system was stacked against women could be rectified if women were allowed to vote.

This was such a radical idea that even the conference organizers were shocked. Why, espousing such an idea, which had never been seriously considered anywhere in the Western world, would turn the "moderates" of the day off to property rights and child custody rights.

But somehow the "radicals" prevailed, and the women's suffrage movement gots its start.

It took seventy years to get the vote nationwide, but along the way, you know what happened? American women got property rights and child custody rights and all kinds of other rights, including voting rights in some states as early as 1869, that may have taken longer if they hadn't thought big.

If you start from a radical, easily understood stance, such as "votes for women," and keep making noise about it, you get the opposition thinking, "Welll, maybe they shut up if we give them property rights."

Or maybe they won't because who knows what will happen to Social Security if we don't de-brainwash Bush voters.

That was actually a very compelling history lesson (this is off point, but I'd never heard about how the vote idea was originally raised, i.e., that a delegate raised it at a conference that had been convened to discuss a more narrow problem). The thing is, there's so many issues we could try to "radicalize" the debate on, which we would chose? Or which three, if just standing on one wasn't enough given how many there are?

And we need to win mid-term elections in two years. I can't think of how this could work. I really don't think we're in a position of strength at this juncture in the Party's history. Bush doesn't seem to care whether we shut up or not. He just keeps rolling right over us, not even bothering to "throw us any bones".

The one issue where the Dems could have made a dent was with Condi, though. I really think the Dems missed a golden opportunity. There was a compelling, persuasive case to be made that she failed to present a balanced, accurate view of events. If all the Dems had stood together on this (and jeffords) they could have really shaken-up public opinion. i think it would've been well worth the firestorm.

If you start negotiating from a compromised position, don't be suprised when you end up with something much much smaller than when you started.

Any decent union negotiator knows you don't start off with your most-compromised plan-- you start with the IMPOSSIBLE plan-- the one you know will probably get shot down right away.

Then, when you "give way" to some of managements' demands, you look like you've compromised and can "work with" management to find a solution that's agreeable to both parties.

NEVER, EVER do you start from your least-satisfactory position-- because you'll be forced to "compromise" that away to come to an agreement.

If you want to jump a canyon, you don't do it with a pogo stick.

I guess we're coming at this from two different directions. I don't see this as a negotiation at all. We're not in the kind of power position you'd need to be in order to negotiate effectively. For example, there's not a large enough "universal health care" constituency out there to back up the Democrats in a hypothetical negotiation about a national health care policy. Way too many people got scared off by Hillary's chart and the GOP campaign against the plan.

I still see the Senate Democrat's agenda as a way to back the GOP into a corner using smaller, more widely-supported proposals. I think that's what the Dems are trying to do: follow Newt's tactic of framing your argument around proposals most people would look at and say, "yeah, that sounds like a good idea".

More imporantly -- and this is based upon my personal perception of what the Dems "problem" is in attracting suburban and rural voters -- I think the package helps dispel some ugly stereotypes perpetuated by our slime-ball adversaries, the ever despicably-underhanded Bush/Rove/RW GOP crowd. They have painted some Dems as "unpatriotic" for questioning the war and "liberal" (an all-purpose phrase that, in many voters' eyes, means Dems want to raise taxes and give their hard-earned money to "slackers".) The good thing about the Senate Democrat's agenda, in my mind, is that I think most Americans would look at the 10 items and say, "okay, the Dems care about our troops and defending the country against terrorism -- and those things they want to spend money on, hey, I kind of like them".

So my take on it is that we win by getting through to people who voted for Bush even though they "should have" voted for Kerry: That is, they "should have" voted Dem because their economic interests are much more closely aligned with the Democratic agenda, as well as their foreign policy outlook (e.g., they believe international cooperation is the better route to an effective foreign policy). In my opinion, we wouldn't be able to break through to these people if we proposed gigantic, more-controversial ideas. (I come at these opinions because my extended family, the vast majority of my friends and neighbors where I used to live in VA and KY, as well as most of the people I grew up with on Long Island, have a "knee-jerk" negative reaction against anything sounding "liberal". Several voted against Kerry simply because of the Bush ads calling Kerry a "liberal". I know this sounds insane, but that's how a lot of people make their voting decisions!! That's why I like the Senate Dem plan so much -- I'm hoping it cuts through some of this.)





I think come at this perception 'm r articulate , don't see us as being able to re-enter the battle on it for awhile. So, too, with Iraq, a majority of Americans there

idemhuge teot

sorry to double-post, but this just needs to be addressed.

The thing is, there's so many issues we could try to "radicalize" the debate on, which we would chose? Or which three, if just standing on one wasn't enough given how many there are?

For one thing, we need to STOP letting the Republicans define the debate.

All of a sudden, a living wage is "radical". It's so "radical" that Nixon proposed such a thing in 1972.

Not to mention a universal healthcare system-- another "radical" idea that Nixon also supported-- back in 1972.

It's pretty frightening when even Dems are afraid to address issues where they have overwhelming public support, for fear of being labeled as "radical".

Over 70% of the American people (including 60% of Republicans) support some sort of national universal healthcare plan. Most Americans also believe that big corporations have too much say in the government, too. They also think that if you work full-time, you should be able to afford a place to live, clothes to wear, and enough food to eat.

These are not "radical" proposals by any stretch of the imagination. These are things that most Americans believe in, and will support-- if only somebody is willing to stand up for them.

JFK announced that the U.S. would put a man on the moon and bring him back safely by the end of the 1960s. In those days, that sounded crazy to the general public (I was in junior high at the time, and it sounded impossible to me). Yet he stated the ultimate goal, no matter how crazy it sounded.

Now suppose he had said, "Listen up, people. We're going to do sub-orbital flights!"

And the public would have gone, "Yawn. What's a sub-orbital flight? How is that different from the flights into the stratosphere that you're already doing with the X-15?"

Sub-orbital flights were one of the baby steps required to get to the moon, and NASA did two sub-orbital space flights before sending John Glenn around the earth 3 times. Then we did a lot of orbital flights, first with one astronaut, then with groups.

But the goal was always to go to the moon.

If you want people to follow, you have to give them a vision to follow. The radical right understands that, so they provide a deceptive vision of a society where everyone practices fundamentalist Christian morality, the U.S. military kicks ass just because, and no one pays taxes. It's a malignant vision, even a stupid vision, but it captures the attention of a certain segment of the population, and they are unshakably Republican.

What are the Dems offering to counter that anti-Utopia? Piddly little paragraphs that sound as if they were written by teams of lawyers.

If the Dems are working toward universal health care, what the hell is wrong with saying so up front and clearly and unambiguously? "We are working toward a vision of single-payer health care for all." See how easy it is? The "we are working toward" part gives you wiggle room, since obviously not only the Republicanites but also the Dems who in the pockets of the insurance industry will fight it, but it makes people sit up and take notice.

Who but a cowardly policy wonk is going to be inspired by "We're going to put Scotch tape on this unsustainable health care non-system that everyone hates because if we try to do any more the Republicans might pout"?

nice job, Lydia ... you really did a super job articulating the "vision thing" ...

these paragraphs were tragically accurate:

If you want people to follow, you have to give them a vision to follow. The radical right understands that, so they provide a deceptive vision of a society where everyone practices fundamentalist Christian morality, the U.S. military kicks ass just because, and no one pays taxes. It's a malignant vision, even a stupid vision, but it captures the attention of a certain segment of the population, and they are unshakably Republican.

What are the Dems offering to counter that anti-Utopia? Piddly little paragraphs that sound as if they were written by teams of lawyers.

i wonk, you wonk, he she or it wonks ... wonkiness ... wonkification ... wonkosity ... when you lose the war of great themes, you have no chance of winning the policy skirmishes ...

while some are busy tinkering with the politics, the rest know that job one is to define who we are ... it is from there that all other activities must eminate ...

We and the entire Democratic Party know what our end goals are, and so do the majority of the repubs. We have all already stated that what we eventually want is universal health care. And that is what we hope to get 70 years down the road(God I hope it doesn't take that long, but I will never stop fighting). But this proposal is the property rights and child custody rights and the all kinds of other rights. And on top of that this will help get more reps voted into office in '06 which will help us to set a more brazen proposel which will helps again in '08.

The road is winding and you will drive off it if you head directly for the final destination.

Look at the 2004 platform, and you will NOT see any mention of Universal health care. Even in 1988, when Dukakis was the nominee, we at least mentioned that universal healthcare was the stated goal. This time around, there's nary a word about it-- except for increased "access" to "health insurance".

Yes, we Democrats may "assume" that certain ideals are our goals, but we do not SAY they are-- not anymore, and certainly not to non-Democrats.

We cannot assume that the general public even KNOWS what we stand for anymore-- mostly because we don't know what we stand for ourselves, if the past four years are any indication.

You play by the Repubs rules, you lose every time.

When you refuse to take truly principled, opposing stands, you'll go down to defeat to the guy who stands FOR something.