Bush hits Democratic 'agenda of the roadblock'

[ylexot]

President Bush last night ripped the Democratic Party as do-nothing obstructionists bent on derailing his reform agenda, saying that on issue after issue, Democratic leaders in Congress 'stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership.'

There are some awesome zings in the article...

'I was hoping that Governor Dean could make it tonight,' Mr. Frist said of the former Vermont governor. 'But sadly, he's too busy to make it. He's too busy helping us expand the Republican majority.'

ZING!

'It is not enough to be against everything: What are their ideas' While Republicans are working to meet the needs of the American people, the Democrats are in meetings to figure out what the heck to do with Howard Dean.' To laughter and applause, Mr. Hastert delivered the punch line: 'And between you and I, they might have the tougher challenge.'

ZING!

 

[rraley]

Smart political move by the Dems: hold off on any concrete proposals or "ideas" as these Republicans have labeled them until we are closer to the midterms. Reminds me of the September 1994 unveiling of the Contract with America. Before then, congressional Republicans had "no" ideas either.

 

[sleuth]

Smart political move by the Dems: hold off on any concrete proposals or "ideas" as these Republicans have labeled them until we are closer to the midterms. Reminds me of the September 1994 unveiling of the Contract with America. Before then, congressional Republicans had "no" ideas either.

If they'd quit thinking about what is a "smart move" and just do the job they were elected to do, then maybe they wouldn't be in the situation they are now.

How they expect to sit around for 2 years doing nothing and then win big in 2006 is beyond me.

 

[rraley]

How they expect to sit around for 2 years doing nothing and then win big in 2006 is beyond me.

Sleuth, look at the GOP playbook and see how successful the strategy is.

First convince people that the other side's agenda is wrong, then offer your own alternative. Democrats stand up for ideas, etc. We have them and we know them. We can only absolutely fight for them when we have a chance (and when you are a minority in an increasingly partisan Congress that is rare) of winning. Otherwise we are to function as the "loyal opposition" and critique where things are going wrong.

As for our opposing proposals...they are out there, but we are not able to control a media cycle like the President's Social Security national trip. Look at the Senate and House every day...every controversial issue has a Republican proposal and a Democratic alternative proposal.

 

[Bruzilla]

I would agree with you 100% rr, except for the 2004 election. If the Democrats have this suppossed Contract With America-like plan, 2004 dang sure would have been the year to mention it. Instead all we got were statements from the Democrates about how "Yes, we have a plan, and it's better than what Bush is doing", but no real details.

I think another key difference is that in 1994 no one was looking to the Republicans for solutions. The Democrats were just milling about doing what politicians had done for decades. Then along comes Newt and the contract, and wham!... the Dems were blindsided This time around the Republicans are repeatedly and publicly asking Dems for their plans for solutions to problems, and all that's coming from the Dems is a few soundbites mished inbetween attacks on Republicans and Bush.

I think there might also be a wild card in the 2006 elections that trumps everything else... and that's dependability. I work with a lot of Democrats now, and while they don't like Bush they do give him credit for doing what he says he's going to do. He's very predictable, and that's assuring to those who agree with him, and gives those in opposition a stable position to oppose him from. Compare that to Kerry, who voted against guns all his life, but then tries to portray himself as a shooter to get votes; or the Democrats who claimed all manner of evils would befall the US if certain judges were ever on the bench, and how they fight to the last breath to prevent it, and then sold out their constituents in an Arizona minute to benefit themselves; or how the Democrats are pushing to condemn the US for treating terrorists too harshly. One day you're against guns, then you're for them. You're for the war in Iraq, then you're against. You're against judges, then you're for them. You're calling for the heads of terrorists, then you're calling for the heads of the Americans who are being mean to terrorists.

I think that there's a growing sense of comfort with the Republicans because they haven't been suffering from position jell-o like the Democrats have. Even if you disagree with some of the things Republicans do, at least you know that where they stand on an issue today is likely where they'll be on an issue a year from now. Democrats, on the other hand, are becoming the party that would sell it's own mother to get a short-term success, and that's not very comforting or reassuring.

 

[sleuth]

Sleuth, look at the GOP playbook and see how successful the strategy is.

First convince people that the other side's agenda is wrong, then offer your own alternative. Democrats stand up for ideas, etc. We have them and we know them. We can only absolutely fight for them when we have a chance (and when you are a minority in an increasingly partisan Congress that is rare) of winning. Otherwise we are to function as the "loyal opposition" and critique where things are going wrong.

As for our opposing proposals...they are out there, but we are not able to control a media cycle like the President's Social Security national trip. Look at the Senate and House every day...every controversial issue has a Republican proposal and a Democratic alternative proposal.

You're missing my point... I just wish both sides would quit worrying so much about "getting elected" and focus on "getting things done". Both sides are guilty, it's just that because they're in the minority right now, the Dems are currently the most guilty.