Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsDemocrats: Next Move?
Democrats Move - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 4th Jun, 2007 - 11:26am
Posts: 62 - Views: 6340
Preparations for the 2008 US Presidential ElectionsPost Date: 6th Jan, 2007 - 2:15am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Democrats: Next Move?
With New Congressional Majority, Should Democrats Focus on Domestic Agenda as Bush Escalates Iraq War?
On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years. The Democrats have outlined an ambitious domestic agenda for its first 100 hours in power, including raising the minimum wage and negotiating lower prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients. Peace activists are criticizing the Democrats for not focusing on Iraq amid the Bush administration's plans for a troop surge. We host a debate between peace mom Cindy Sheehan and Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future.
Ref. https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/05/1539243
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 8th Jan, 2007 - 7:01am / Post ID: #
Move Democrats
First and strongest move must be with the people, the reason they got elected. They must push for a plan to get the US out of this war. Polls show that it is wildly unpopular, the generals and soldiers on the ground are against it, and Iraqi people polls show by large majority, they don't want us there. The White House has ignored its own studies and thus, this needs to be the point in checks and balances when the democrats force the president to do what the people want.
However, some pressing domestic issues I would expect them to push are raising minimum wage and investigations into the presidents conduct as well as oversight committees regarding the domestic spy programs. If they don't focus on what got them elected, then they don't stand a chance in 2008.
Democrats: Next Move? History & Civil Business Politics
Strangely enough, my advice to the Dems would be to do nothing at all, except what got them elected. I know this will be impossible for them, but it is what they need to do. Keep focusing on the war's general disapproval with mainstream America. Basically, keep complaining. Put extra emphasis on the economy, which is doing well. If I were them, the only thing I would put forth is something on border security, which rang quite the bell with many republicans. I can see something there getting through, unless there was a presidential veto (which would all but kill any Republicans chance at the Whitehouse in 2008).
The one thing I see Pelosi saying right now that really seems correct and in the Dems best interst, is no impeachment. Turning their 2 years in control into a payback for Bill Clinton with endless investigations at the taxpayers expense, will not win the hearts of many. Especially, when it will lead to nothing in the end. The drug program and Medicare in general are good ideas that will win favor with a pretty influential voting block.
If they can get 1 soldier less over in Iraq by the time of the 2008 vote, that would be a really nice feather!
They really do not have a strong majority, so they really need to be focusing on 2008 and not pretend that they have this mandate from the people. If they can just let Bush continue to stab himself in the foot for the next 1.5 years, then they can have a real majority in 2008. However, I really don't think that the characters involved are capable of waiting.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 
86.3%
Post Date: 10th Jan, 2007 - 12:20am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Move Democrats
Study: Dems '100 Hours' Agenda Does Little to Address Economic Divide Between Whites and People of Color
House Democrats are set to begin their first "100 legislative hours" today. A new study has found their new agenda does little to address the economic divide between whites and people of color. We speak with the executive director of United for a Fair Economy.
Ref. https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/09/1454248
Move Democrats
What a lot of people don't realize is that the Democratic Majority is held by a very slim thread.
| QUOTE |
| Democratic Senator Johnson's Condition Upgraded to Fair By VOA News 09 January 2007 The office of U.S. Senator Tim Johnson says the South Dakota Democrat's condition has been upgraded from critical to fair, after he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage four weeks ago. Johnson's office said Tuesday that the senator may begin rehabilitation this week and that his recovery is expected to take several months. Johnson underwent emergency surgery in December for bleeding in his brain. Democrats, along with two independent senators expected to vote with them, currently hold a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate. If Johnson were unable to serve out his term, South Dakota's governor could appoint a fellow Republican to the position. This would result in a 50-50 split in the Senate, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting any tie-breaking votes, thereby tipping the balance of power over to Republicans. |
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Post Date: 16th Feb, 2007 - 11:35am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Democrats: Next Move?
DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE BUSH'S POWER TO WAGE WAR
Democrats are challenging President Bush's power to wage war, contending they've found a way to block a troop increase in Iraq and prevent any pre-emptive invasion of Iran.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html
Democrats Move
Here's the new Democratic Agenda: "The Slow Bleed"
| QUOTE |
| Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. "Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself. "The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable. "As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement - the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged. "Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than non-binding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration. "The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq. |
| QUOTE |
| The Democrat 'slow bleed' strategy for Iraq. Proposed by John Murtha, 'slow bleed' would do exactly what it sounds like: gradually take away the resources our men and women need to fight the terrorists in Iraq. It would limit reinforcements, and possibly even close the bases that offer support and shelter for our troops. The Democrats had hoped to keep the 'slow bleed' plan under the radar by adding it onto other bills, but now even the liberal press are reporting on the story. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motive for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet -- "We have analyzed this, and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be done," he told MoveCongress.org -- in order to make the continued prosecution of the war difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field. But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win. Of course, the Democrats believe the war cannot be won. But if that's the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off funds. They shouldn't micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it also makes the Democrats' "the war is lost" mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy. Murtha's ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: "I think that sends the wrong message to our troops." ... Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so. |
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Post Date: 4th Jun, 2007 - 11:26am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Democrats Move Politics Business Civil & History
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS SQUARE OFF IN DEBATE
U.S. Democratic presidential candidates clashed Sunday on Iraq and over the security of the country since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...candidates.html
TOPIC: Democrats: Next Move?