I blogged last night about the Dems continued failure to find a unified message on Iraq. To the news junkie who follows politics very closely, it has been obvious that it’s not just the Iraq issue that the Dems have failed to find a unifying position on. It’s just about everything. The Washington Post writes about that today:
News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats’ hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own.
Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto by November 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals. But some Democrats protested that the release date was too early, so they put it off until January. The new date slipped twice again, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) says the document will be unveiled in “a matter of weeks.”
Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party in trying to seize control of the House and Senate after more than a decade of almost unbroken minority status. Lawmakers and strategists have complained about erratic or uncertain leadership and repeated delays in resolving important issues.
The conflict goes well beyond Capitol Hill. The failure of congressional leaders to deliver a clear message has left some Democratic governors deeply frustrated and at odds with Washington Democrats over strategy.
Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and the Republicans, by jumping on debacles such as the administration’s handling of the Dubai port deal — or stress their own priorities and values.
There is no agreement on whether to try to nationalize the congressional campaign with a blueprint or “contract” with voters, as the Republicans did successfully in 1994, or to keep the races more local in tone. And the party is still divided over the war in Iraq: Some Democrats, including Pelosi, call for a phased withdrawal; many others back a longer-term military and economic commitment.
Read the whole thing.
The issue of Dems being unable to find unifying positions on any number of issues in an election year (the third such since the President was elected) is emblematic of their strategy - or lack thereof - over the course of the five years so far spent in battle with the Bush administration: ‘oppose the President at every turn, without offering any viable solutions of our own.’ Obviously, that hasn’t been a winning strategy so far and it remains to be seen as to whether or not the DNC can get their act together in time to take advantage of the various ’scandals’ which have plagued the admin over the last two years.
We know the RNC will be locked and loaded (metaphorically speaking, of course) and ready to roll: will you be, DNC?
More: Scott Ott reports on the upcoming unveiling of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s “Contract on America” 
Hat tip: California Conservative
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Dems still trying to find unified message on Iraq
- The DNC is unhappy with Howard Dean again
- Dem party leaders feel as though they are in weak position
- Dems to Dean: where’s the money?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- House Dems and Pelosi: trouble in paradise?
- Pelosi hails Democrats’ ‘diverse’ Iraq stances
- Dems once again fail to find unified message on Iraq
- Dems and media determined to ignore Iraq progress
- The undermining of this war
- Democrats won’t want to hear this but…
- Dem House Representative calls for immediate troop withdrawal
- The Kerry Tone
This country is in the throws of fundamental change. The Democrats are as much a part of the problems requiring change as are the Republicans. The Democrats, except the 10% of hawks, are united in their disgust for the war in Iraq. Anybody who pushed the Iraq debacle as part of a viable foreign policy is in for a very rough ride. That is the only issue the Democrats need because all of the remaining corruption flows from it. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/7/2006 - 10:22 am
Steve, please have all donkeycrats run on a “Cut and Run” immediately platform. It will kill the Democrat party once and for all. Then maybe we can have a sane and intelligent political discussion in the public square.
Comment by PCD @ 3/7/2006 - 10:48 am
Peace is the illusion created when social order emerges from violence. Conquerors declare peace as the vanquished submit to the terms of surrender. The United Nations discusses peace in chambers, as member states practice genocide, slavery and other violence to impose order on subordinate populations. Peace prizes are awarded for handshakes as organized violence continues to fester.
Violence is the norm in nature - floods, fire, famine, and plagues, yield the survival of the fittest. Man is, by nature, accustomed to violence as the strong survive and the weak perish. Man adapts to violence, creating tools to build shelters, hunt, and harvest. Tools can be turned into weapons, allowing the powerful to take from the powerless.
The growth of nations required conquerors to impose order. In ancient times Ramses established order in Egypt, Sargon the Great conquered Mesopotamia, and Alexander the Great extended the rule of the Greeks. The Roman republic used legions to establish order and, in 72 B.C., six thousand crucified bodies along the Appian Way marked the end of a revolt of slaves under Spartacus. The republic turned to an Empire and Roman peace extended through Europe as the legions advanced.
The Roman Empire was too large to govern and split into an east and west in 385 A.D. The western half collapsed in 476 as Visigoths and Saxons replaced Roman rule and later, in 711, the Moors overran the Visigoths in Spain. Alfred the Great in 871 mobilized citizens to defend his turf from raids by the Vikings. William the Bastard was renamed William the Conqueror when he established order in Britain after the Battle of Hastings in 1066. In 1148 a fanatical Islamic sect, the Almohads, required the population of Cordoba, Spain, to submit to Islam or leave. In 1212 the combined armies of Leon, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, and Portugal defeated the Almohads in Spain as part of a re-conquest.
The Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantine, imposed order until 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, under Sultan Mehmed II. Conflict between the Ottoman Empire and European monarchs continued to World War I. Machiavelli’s “Prince” acknowledged the ends justified the means as the powerful maintained order. In 1700, Peter the Great entered into the Russo-Turkish Peace of Constantinople to focus on expanding Russia to the Eastern shores of the Baltic Sea. In 1723 Peter invaded Persian Territory and was rewarded with the western and southern shores of the Caspian Sea. In 1756, the Seven Years War in Europe placed colonial rivals France, (with Austria, Russia, Saxony, and Sweden) in conflict with Great Britain, (allied with Prussia and Hanover) in a struggle for supremacy. Under the rule of Catherine II, Russia expanded southward and westward by some 200,000 square miles. At the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, Napoleon marched his Grand Army across Europe until turned back at Moscow.
Some people see ‘peace’ as a right enjoyed when violent people are ignored. Unfortunately, when good people do nothing, violence flourishes. Peace is a paradox: Peace can be established through violence and maintained through violence. The real issue concerning peace is who controls the violence. Those unwilling to use violence to defend peace will find others prepared to use violence to impose order.
Comment by omapian @ 3/7/2006 - 11:10 am
- Theres going to be a whole lot less peace and order around here this morning if I find out who ate the last KrispyKreme donut!
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/7/2006 - 11:27 am
Ummmmm…..doooonuts….
Comment by Severian @ 3/7/2006 - 11:30 am
Donuts? It’s lunch time.
Comment by Jim M @ 3/7/2006 - 12:01 pm
Sure, and if the dems were finding a unified message, the wingnuts would be complaining that the democrat totalitarians were excluding dissenting views from their party.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 12:09 pm
andrew, the donkeycrats do exclude dissenting views from their party. Real Pro-Lifers, not socialists demanding their cradle to grave utopia, are denied even a platform to rebut any of the wingnut pro-abortion rhetoric in the donkeycratp party.
Show me someone who understands the Social Security crisis and that it has to be fixed NOW in the donkeycrat party.
Comment by PCD @ 3/7/2006 - 12:15 pm
“Real Pro-Lifers”
Like Casey Jr., frontrunner Senate candidate. Excluded.
“Show me someone who understands the Social Security crisis and that it has to be fixed NOW in the donkeycrat party.”
Democrat inclusion rightfully doesn’t understand to including wrong ideas.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 12:21 pm
The dems will do what they always do, attempt to buy votes with proposals for more government “benefits.”
Bush has already one-upped them in science, education and medicare.
Comment by ttyler5 @ 3/7/2006 - 12:35 pm
andrew says, “Democrat inclusion rightfully doesn’t understand to including wrong ideas.”
It doesn’t hmm?
I will paint this one with a broad brush.
NO party, no human being is without the ability to make bad coices or have bad ideas.
Both parties have had thier share of good and BAD ideas.
Comment by sanity @ 3/7/2006 - 12:38 pm
PCD Social Security is simple 3 things are going to happen eith 1) the government going to raise the age you can start collecting 2)the amount of cash a citizen receives from the trust fund is going to decrease and 3)people will have to start paying more into the system. It’s really that simple. As of right now none of gross income over $100,000 is eligable to be taxed towards Social Security. The real trouble is no polictian wants granny picketing in front of their offices for obvious reasons
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 3/7/2006 - 12:39 pm
It will be interesting to see which party tries hardest to lose the 2006 mid-term elections…the Republicans, with a President who cannot seem to do anything right, or the Democrats, who can’t seem to come up with a semblance of an idea on any issue.
Both parties are an embarrassment, right now.
Comment by Cump @ 3/7/2006 - 12:43 pm
Hey Andrew what are you trying to say;
“Democrat inclusion rightfully doesn’t understand to including wrong ideas.”
If you are talking about Social Security you are right the Dimwitocrats have had the wrong ideas!
Comment by Jim M @ 3/7/2006 - 12:45 pm
and if those 3 things happen, you don’t think there will be picketing still?
Granny not being able to receive SS till she is 80 will not help her.
As this progresses, if they raise SS age requirements, each time its in trouble, then we are paying into something again, that we will never see unless we live to a ripe old age of 100.
What is the interest you receive on SS?
If i am not mistaken, a simple checking account makes more inetrest than SS does. Isn’t it like a little over 1% interest that SS makes?
I do not think SS is being handled very well.
I take other measures to insure I have somethig to retire on. Many employeers offer 401k plans which help. But then we still have to pay into SS, something we probably never will see.
I would rather take the amount of money I put in, and put it in a bond, or ROTH IRA, something that will make alot more than 1% interest, and something I know I will see when I retire.
Most people think of SS as retirement. Thinking that way, you will never retire, you will never have enough to live on when you finally get SS.
Comment by sanity @ 3/7/2006 - 12:49 pm
“If you are talking about Social Security you are right the Dimwitocrats have had the wrong ideas!”
I meant doesn’t ‘extend.’ But I agree that they don’t understand the wrong ideas either. The right wing bamboozle is quite confusing.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 12:52 pm
as is the Lefts andrew…
as is the Lefts.
Comment by sanity @ 3/7/2006 - 12:54 pm
Tommy for one thing why should these politicians decide say 10 or 5 years out from when a person turns 65 that they can not receive Social Security they should have to wait say 2 to 5 more years? When I started paying Social Security in 1971 I could start receiving benefits at age 65 period but now after taking my money all these years now I have to wait until I am 70? Could the investment firm where you have you 401 just come along and say hey Tommy you can not start receiving your money for another 2 to 5 years after you reach 65? “Right” Tommy get a clue there is no Trust Fund what ever the Federal Government takes in it spends that year. Also it’s 90,000 not 100,000 and why not Social Security has a max amount you can receive “OH” I forgot if you make over a certain amount you are just being greedy “The Evil Rich”.
Comment by Jim M @ 3/7/2006 - 1:11 pm
Well the system is going to be reformed one way or another eventually on that everybody left and right can agree. It’s like everything else it’ll get resolved and some people are going be p—-d no matter which way it is reformed that’s all.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 3/7/2006 - 1:17 pm
Sanity, try to find a politician from either party that even half way follows the Constitution?
Comment by Jim M @ 3/7/2006 - 1:35 pm
Tommy the Democrats don’t see a problem with Social Security and when there is a problem the Dems answer is to raise the age to receive benefits and raise taxes. I don’t know about you but between Federal, State, County and City taxes that’s about 50% of my income so how much more should I have to pay in taxes?
Comment by Jim M @ 3/7/2006 - 2:00 pm
Tommy, your understanding of the Social Security crisis is as shallow as Bill Clinton’s come on lines.
I’ve had Donkeycrats say no problem if you only receive 70% of what you were promised. How about the Democrats only having 70% of the seats they were elected to in the House and the Senate? Does that still sound fair? Or Tommy, you only get 70% of your take home that you got before. Still sound fair?
The Democrat party demogogued the problem. I hope they are hung for it.
Comment by PCD @ 3/7/2006 - 2:03 pm
PCD, a woman backed into my parked Vette Sunday with the closest car about 10 parking spaces away. Just preliminary estimates are $700.00 damage.
Comment by Jim M @ 3/7/2006 - 2:09 pm
“I’ve had Donkeycrats say no problem if you only receive 70% of what you were promised.”
Oh, the politician that does this will be punished. Specially as more and more people get social security.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 2:18 pm
Argh! Hanged, not hung. Pictures are hung, porn stars are hung, people are hanged!
Comment by Severian @ 3/7/2006 - 2:24 pm
Jim,
We’ll have to start posting this car talk over at Iowa Voice.
A new door for my T-Bird was $1400!
I’ll be surprised that the damage is only $700. I pray she wasn’t insured with Allstate.
Comment by PCD @ 3/7/2006 - 3:00 pm
Andrew, this is part of the Democrat mantra for doing nothing about Social Security. I forget which Rep it was said the same thing on National TV. I think it was Schumer or Pelosi.
Comment by PCD @ 3/7/2006 - 3:02 pm
Their unified message? Oppose Bush. That is offer nothing but opposition.
Comment by Baklava @ 3/7/2006 - 3:49 pm
The only problem with Social Security is funding. Take $225 billion out of the Defense budget and give it to Social Security. Problem solved. “Peace is an illusion”, so Christ was wrong and Peace is never possible? Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/7/2006 - 4:11 pm
There is more wrong with it than funding steve, or haven’t you been paying attention.
Comment by sanity @ 3/7/2006 - 5:05 pm
According to this chart Steve and Sanity we’ve done that solution AND MORE. This country has implemented Steve’s solution by far more than the $225 billion. 49% to 20% in federal expenditures would be a cut in more than 600 Billion with a large percentage of that cut going into both Social Security and Medicare according to the chart.
Comment by Baklava @ 3/7/2006 - 5:12 pm
“Andrew, this is part of the Democrat mantra for doing nothing about Social Security”
What do you mean do nothing? It took a lot of doing to stop the privatization boondoggle.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 6:07 pm
boondoggle?
How would that have hurt SS?
20 percent would have been privatized.
Politicians probably have dipped thier fingers in to more than that amount over the years easily.
Comment by sanity @ 3/7/2006 - 6:09 pm
“How would that have hurt SS?”
If there isa problem with SS is that it doesn’t have enough money. The bush plan was to make this worse by taking money away from it.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 6:12 pm
Privatization would have earned more than what it does now.
Government controlled everything like Communism does not do anything for growth, privatizing would.
Also, they were only talking about a small portion of it.
Also, since you said this: If there isa problem with SS is that it doesn’t have enough money. The bush plan was to make this worse by taking money away from it.
Does this mean you are breaking away from the mentality of the Democrats that are saying there is nothing wrong with SS then?
Comment by sanity @ 3/7/2006 - 6:16 pm
“Privatization would have earned more than what it does now.”
yes. money for nothing.
“Does this mean you are breaking away from the mentality of the Democrats that are saying there is nothing wrong with SS then?”
I said “if.” Do you understand what that word means?
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 6:22 pm
- So lets see if I get this right Andrew.
- If we do nothing in some amount of time, 10 to 32 years depending on who’s economists you want to listen too, SS payouts will have to be reduced to 70% of todays rates, not even including inflation which could take another 20% plus bite. But we’ll just stick with the 70% figure so it doesn’t look like the desaster it could esily become.
- The man comes to you and says. “Tell you what Sparky, if you want you can set aside 20% of your SS investment in a private “untouchable” acount. The average compounded rate of growth should be approximately 14% per year, assuming the entire United States doen’t go completely bankrupt, in which case we’ll all be screwed anyway.”
- He continues. “Now I can’t guarentee it, but the worst that can happen is you’ll end up with the same amout you would have anyway if you did nothing, assuming absolutely zero profitable value growth in your “set aside”. On the other hand if it grows even on the low side of the last 50 year average you could end up with TWICE the payout when you retire.”
- So if you do nothing your worst case is 70%, again forgetting inflation effects. If you do the set aside your worse case is still 70%, but your average possibility is +200%.
- Sounds like a no-brainer even for a Liberal andrew.
- You and I both know the core reasons the Left fights SS reform tooth and nail, and it has nothing to do with the good of Americans SS accounts or retirement. Nothing. Nada.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/7/2006 - 6:57 pm
The only thing wrong with Social Security is that the Capitalist warmongers want to use 50% of our tax dollars to build bombs to kill people with instead of properly funding the Social Security System and a Universal Health Care System. Republicans: the culture of Death. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/7/2006 - 8:00 pm
“If we do nothing in some amount of time, 10 to 32 years depending on who’s economists you want to listen too, SS payouts will have to be reduced to 70% of todays rates, not even including inflation which could take another 20% plus bite.”
There’s also the possibility that we’ll beat the expectations, like we always have, and won’t have to cut bennies.
” The average compounded rate of growth should be approximately 14% per year”
14% a year! says what? Why put in only 20%? Why not put in 100%? why not put in 200%, 300%, why not just borrow trillions of dollars and get that rate?
Oh because that rate is make believe.
““Now I can’t guarentee it, but the worst that can happen is you’ll end up with the same amout you would have anyway if you did nothing, assuming absolutely zero profitable value growth in your “set aside”.”
Why is the worst case 0 growth, why is the worst case not negative growth?
“Sounds like a no-brainer even for a Liberal andrew.”
It does take no brain to believe that money grows on trees.
Here’s my nobrainer: If we ever get to a point where there are a lot of people on SS, and that this is a strain on the system, then there will be quite the political advantage for the guy that delivers 100% benefits. And then the problem will be solved.
Comment by andrew @ 3/7/2006 - 9:37 pm
Steve, The only problem with your last comment is that it is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Steve represents the culture of submission to the enemy. Show us Steve where a “capitalist warmongerer” “wants” to use “50%” of tax dollars to “build bombs”… You can’t. You are therefore only a liar until and unless you apologize for lying.
Even more peace.
Comment by Baklava @ 3/7/2006 - 9:41 pm
- Andrew are you really that ignorant concerning investments. The set aside money is the same money that comes out of your paycheck every week.
- Never mind. If you’re willing to be that obtuse, or inexperienced, or whatever is the cause for that piece of drival you just posted, why bother.
- As I said. You and I both know the Liberal agenda behind blocking any meaningful corrections in the SS problems.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/7/2006 - 11:23 pm
Ever hear of a person too stupid to own a computer? peace.
Andrew, socialists like you will do anything to preserve a government program at the expense of the people it was supposed to help.
Privatization puts the benefits and the earnings directly into the hands of the person that earned the money to begin with. Not only that, the entire account is the earner’s money to pass on to their heirs.
Andrew, people like you are contemptable because you worship the government and government ownership of everything vs. the people.
Democrats aren’t about helping people. They are solely about keeping themselves in power with serfs beholding to them.
Comment by PCD @ 3/8/2006 - 8:29 am
As in “The Road to Serfdom”
A book Andrew should read.
Comment by Baklava @ 3/8/2006 - 8:47 am
Baklava,
If the book isn’t endorsed by Kerry or Kennedy on Daily Krap, andrew won’t even look at it.
Comment by PCD @ 3/8/2006 - 9:06 am
Comment by Baklava @ 3/8/2006 - 9:12 am
- Think maybe that sort of muddle-headed thinking is the reason the Dummycrats are struggling to find a unifying message?
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/8/2006 - 10:44 am
Unfortunately Democrats with no message may get a break if the Republicans can’t stop being stuck on stupid themselves.
I ran acros sthe following over at Big Lizards and was quite suprised.
Link
If the Republicans don’t get thier own act together it won’t matter if the Democrats have no platform and ideas.
Comment by sanity @ 3/8/2006 - 10:52 am
“The set aside money is the same money that comes out of your paycheck every week.”
And that’s the same money that’s used to pay for SS.
“As I said. You and I both know the Liberal agenda behind blocking any meaningful corrections in the SS problems.”
Yes, saving social security. Preventing it from being turned over to lobbyists like with medicare drug coverage. Preventing that disaster from wrecking a popular program.
Comment by andrew @ 3/8/2006 - 11:03 am
“Muddle- headed thinking”, have you ever had an original thought of your own? They “want” to use, as in “you want to be able to understand what you read, but you don’t yet”. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/8/2006 - 4:20 pm
- For a guy who gets all his talking points from the Marxist manifesto, trying to refer to others understanding of things is pointless nattering. Pretty much like everything else you post every day. To be laughed at maybe, but certainly not taken seriously.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/8/2006 - 6:17 pm
Bang it was talking to itself again, not to fuss. Head has a very different meaning for this unit.
Marxist ya say? Ya I know the place. Ya ya, I gotcha steve. The Marxist meeting is ———> over there. Head that way. Keep going. Follow the lemmings! Use the faaaarce O BE steve.
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/8/2006 - 8:36 pm
UNIFIED message? What about “A” message? A direction. A plan. Did I miss something again, while I slept?
Are they actually having like, some kind of ideas to choose from and creating a wormhole, due to the brilliant strategists spitting such an overwhelming number of reality based concepts out at the same time? 
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/8/2006 - 9:09 pm
Using the awesome power of mathmatics, I can formulate the Democrat’s position!
Dem Position = (Repub Position) x (-1)
I was never into political science. I’m more of a political math guy
Comment by blogagog @ 3/8/2006 - 9:49 pm
blogagog: Is that anything like human geography? Whatever that’s supposed to be….. No matter how you cook it, a snake will always taste like a snake and we’d call it a snake-not a human snake.
sincerely swearits krikulum,
Baldy Bennish
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/8/2006 - 10:42 pm
HAH! I looked up ‘krikulum’ before I realized what you were saying
. The only link is to a course on forestry! Too funny.
Comment by blogagog @ 3/9/2006 - 1:27 am
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/9/2006 - 3:35 am