Monday, April 11, 2005

(Democratic) Foes cite progress vs. Bush agenda / News / Nation / Washington / Foes cite progress vs. Bush agenda

(Democrats) Say strategy fuels GOP infighting

WASHINGTON -- Senior Democrats are increasingly confident that they have blocked Republicans plans for historic breakthroughs in legislation under GOP control of the White House and Congress, declaring that the Democratic strategy of unified opposition to major items on the leadership agenda has succeeded in turning Republicans against themselves.
[emphasis added]

Democratic leaders say the focus on opposition, rather than on their own legislative proposals, has allowed them to hold up President Bush's plans to remake Social Security. They are honing a message that highlights what they portray as Republican abuses of power, and say their new level of party discipline is forcing Republicans to wrestle with their own divisions over judicial confirmations, foreign affairs, and taxing and spending.

wait a minute here ... is this a Parody?

Am I reading The Globe, or The Onion?

There's more:

''The Democratic caucus has never been as unified, and you've seen it on Social Security, the budget, and judges," said Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada. ''It took a while for us to realize that we weren't in the majority. I think, though, we have learned the lesson well. And we have also learned that the majority party won't be in the majority forever."
I'm happy for them, that they're all singing from the same hymnal (so to speak), but I have a problem with this:

Democrats acknowledge the strategy carries the risk that members will be viewed as obstructionists, focused on what they can stop instead of what they can accomplish. Republicans hope to use Democratic opposition as a weapon in 2006 elections, and Bush still has time in his second term to guide his priorities into law.

Nonetheless, after 10 years as the minority party in Congress, many Democrats who in the past have pushed for the party to offer explicit alternatives are realizing they can more effectively communicate their message by positioning themselves in the ways they oppose Republicans, said Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat.

''The official agenda is entirely in their hands, and it's very hard to get things that are being done unofficially into the public debate. Therefore, it makes sense for us to define what we are doing in terms of the opposition to the official agenda," said Frank, who was first elected to Congress in 1980. ''We do have a positive agenda to get to, but we first have to get everybody's attention by stressing our opposition to what they do."

[again, emphasis added]

Do I understand this correctly?
The Dems have officially discounted the principle that they "stand for something". They have decided that their best political position is to admit that they have no political platform of their own, except that whatever the Republicans want to do ... they're against it.

Am I right?

I think I'm right in my understanding of this . I mean, I do understand that the Democrats don't STAND for anything. They just so profoundly hate Bush and the Republican majority (if only because the Republicans are currently in power) that they have no political agenda other than blind, unreasoning opposition.

Well, that's refreshing.
This is the first time in recent memory that the Democratic Party has been entirely candid about their politics.

In 2004, we watched as millions of citizens voted, not FOR John Kerry, but AGAINST George Bush. There were so many citizens who hated George W. Bush that they nearly elected a political non-entity ... a man who had NO platform, other than "I'm Not George Bush!"

Thank God for that!

For the past several years, I've assumed that the Democratic Party has no agenda of their own; their platform has had only two planks:
(1) We're not Them
(2) Whatever They support, we're against it

It's pretty slim pickings, if you want to choose between political parties on a rational basis. But the Democrats haven't been rational since Clinton was elected ... or even earlier. I listen to the rhetoric, hoping to find some sort of "I'm For This" statement from the Democrats, and all I hear is "I don't like the people who are making the decisions instead of me!" It doesn't seem as if they have a vision, a plan to make the future of our country brighter than it is now. It's nothing more than outrage that they are no longer in power.

Most recently, the Democratic party has decided that they need to find something to say which will appeal to focus groups. No, they haven't considered changing their priorities, or their policies; they only need to make them more appealing to a few special interest groups.

I ask myself: "Is this a dynamic group who have a vision, who will attract me because of the wisdom of that vision; or this is a stagnent bunch of politicians who have no goal beyond regaining their lost power?"

The answer is clearly "Plan 'B'", and now they have even admitted it to themselves.

What a bunch of maroons.

(Hat Tip to Rush Limbaugh)

No comments: