"The Republican anwer was no, no, No, NO, NOOO! NO No!!NOOOOOO!"
Posted on 02/26/2005 12:59:36 AM PST by neverdem
As it turns out, Howard Dean is not the best choice to lead the Democratic National Committee. If the party is looking for a new spokesman, there is a better choice--David Spade (with apologies to his Capital One ad):
Social Security reform? No. Clear some judges? No way, Jose. Find some agreement on national security? Nyet. Sure, the Democrats are struggling to find their voice, pick their leaders, and agree on a legislative strategy. It's hard work. But it's also too bad they're allowing themselves to look like a bunch of minority naysayers--defined more by old tactics than new ideas. Sad to say, the Democrats are becoming the party of no.
The rationale is inevitably tactical: Democrats are the opposition. They do not control any branch of government. So why not sit back and watch the president take on a sacrosanct program--such as Social Security--and fight with his own Republicans? And since the president hasn't yet offered his own reform blueprint, why should the Democrats? "Right now, the president asked us to give him time to have a plan," says Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who runs the Democratic House campaign committee. He is happy to oblige. Besides, it's not as if the president eagerly courts Democratic voices. "They are so arrogant," fumes one party strategist. "When the administration gets off its high horse, then maybe we can talk."
All well and good. But can't the Democrats walk and chew gum at the same time? Last I checked, voters in the 2004 election weren't sure what the party stood for. Given that problem, the old "give 'em enough rope" strategy to hang Republicans won't work--particularly if voters have no idea what a Democratic agenda looks like. "We're murky, obtuse, and ambivalent," says Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic think tank. "The danger is that we let the tactical imperatives of opposing Bush lead us to the point of view that that's all we need to do."
Exactly. After all, since the Democrats have spent much of the past 30 years talking about saving an endangered Social Security system, how can they now say there is no problem? "If we become the do-nothing party, we become the default party," says Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a "red state" Democrat. "We only win leadership when the other guys fail if we stand for nothing." Sure, he asks, "should the president be required to put forward a program first? Absolutely. But then should we have an alternative? Yes."
Eyeing the exits? But this isn't about solutions; it's about getting even. Democrats point to the success of Newt Gingrich and his revolutionaries, who opposed Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform plan--riding their opposition to a congressional House takeover. But they conveniently forget some important differences between 1992 and 2005: that Bill Clinton won with only 43 percent of the vote, that Gingrich also proposed an agenda-setting "Contract With America," that conservatives had already made progress with disaffected Democrats. Today, Democrats are losing support with working-class voters--most of whom trusted the president more than John Kerry to handle both terrorism and the economy. "They knew what Bush stood for," says Bayh. "We run the risk of losing our credibility if people don't know what we are for."
And it's not just on domestic policy, either. It's tempting for Democrats to say "I told you so" when CIA Director Porter Goss testifies, as he did last week, that the U.S. occupation in Iraq has become a handy recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Or to complain that a successful Iraqi election doesn't guarantee a defeat of the insurgents. But do the Democrats really want to rally behind the Ted Kennedy "bring the troops home now" refrain? "This is not the time for casting anxious glances towards the exits," writes Marshall in an open letter to Democrats.
Ironically, it's the Republicans who understand the Democrats' predicament. "We were the party of no since the 1930s," a top White House aide told me. "It took Ronald Reagan and his 'Morning in America' for us to get out of that mind-set and start proposing solutions to problems." And there is no going back. No way. Never.
Well, Evan, nobody's stopping you.
The quickest route to Social Security reform is a few of the younger Senate dems waking to the reality that, along about the time they've risen to leadership roles in Congress, the existing system is going to hit the wall. If a half a dozen of them broke ranks on this, we could have Social Security reform pretty fast. It wouldn't take many.
The "do nothing" approach suits the Kennedy types, who will be gone before the reckoning, but younger 'rats have an interest in an honest solution unless they want to close out their careers dealing with a shambles. But so far, they show every sign of following their senile leadership over the cliff. Can't think beyond the next election.
The dem's don't give a rat's patootie about anything but the pursuit of power. The fact that the voters have figured this out is a problem.
The party of NO and HATE .
democrats: the party of no, from 2/16/05.
-PJ
E-I-E-I-NO;
MARCO! POL-NO!
MARCO! POL-NO!
LOL, very witty of the author to think of this analogy. Amazing to see a piece like this in the MSM.
Although, like everyone else, she overlooks the real reason "Hillary Care" failed, because the plan stunk. If Bush and co. come up with a lousy plan on Soc. Sec. it will fail too; if they come up with a good one it may well get enacted. And she is right, the Dems really look esp. dim suddenly seeing NO PROBLEM with Soc. Sec., nobody, but nobody is buying that angle.
It wasn't the author.
See link in post #5
Nice words but were they spoken before or after he voted against Condi Rice for Secretary of State in a naked attempt to appeal to the lunatic left.
One is to presume this was positioning for the 2008 primaries.
Let them make all the grand statements they want.The American people know what they are for and their credibility has already been lost by their unending political maneuvering in lieu of leadership.
(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")
"The Republican anwer was no, no, No, NO, NOOO! NO No!!NOOOOOO!"
It is not a party. It is a crime syndicate. Listen to their words. Watch their deeds.
Criminals are anti-freedom, anti-life.
"The rationale is inevitably tactical: Democrats are the opposition. They do not control any branch of government."
Except the courts, and Bush is trying to fix that problem.
The dims are QuasimoNOs!
And of course, there is the Capital One punch-line, perfect for the Dems:
"What's in YOUR wallet?"
When you've become a party of selfish perverted desire.
When you are willing to fight for things most know in the heart's are the antithesis to good and right.
When all you do is bitch and moan about what the other side is doing.
You will never rise to a position of "respected" power under those circumstances or choices.
Such as:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.