NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262.html?hpid=topnews

As the by-line in the article states, the Iraq War debate is stiffling the Democrats Domestic Agenda.

Some snippets from the article:

In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.

The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.

"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.

Kyl was not so sanguine. If accomplishments are not in the books by this fall, he said, the Democrats will find their achievements eclipsed by the 2008 presidential race. Panetta agreed.

"This leadership, these Democrats have shown that they can fight," he said. "Now they have to show they can govern."

This is a dangerous time for Democrats. What they need to do is stop focusing on Iraq and concentrate on their domestic Agenda. Once they get things accomplished there, then move on to Iraq. Election season is right around the cornor (and some say it is here now) and if Leon Panetta is right, they need to start accomplishing it now.

As to the poll, that does not surprise me in the least. The numbers will go back up when meaningful legislation is actually passed and signed into law. Passing laws that do not make it through all the steps is worthless.

It's hard to pass an agenda when someone vetoes every bill he doesn't like.

Well, the Democrat's Unstoppable Force hit an immovable object in the form of Bush's massively enlarged ego.

It's hard to pass an agenda when someone vetoes every bill he doesn't like.

Bush has vetoed 2 bills throughout his presidency.

Hardly every bill he doesn't like.

Heh. for 3/4 of his presidency he had a majority who were like minded. And the two bill was this spending bill and the stem cell reasearch bill, so yeah, every bill he didn't like.

Bush has vetoed 2 bills throughout his presidency.

Hardly every bill he doesn't like.

Iraq spending bill.

It's hard to pass an agenda when someone vetoes every bill he doesn't like.
That is why he's there, is it not? Veto legislation he doesn't like, request legislation he does like, invade foriegn countries he doesn't like, sell cheap arms to the one he does like.

Iraq spending bill.
There's a lot more issues for US politicians to worry about than just the war (even though you wouldn't think it sometimes, looking at media coverage).

Congress actually does have some reforming and lawmaking to do, and its members would do well to keep that in the back of their minds. Immigration reform really needs to be tackled properly, healthcare needs reforming too and then there's the whole global warming thing. Plus probably a million other little issues.

There's a lot more issues for US politicians to worry about than just the war (even though you wouldn't think it sometimes, looking at media coverage).

Congress actually does have some reforming and lawmaking to do, and its members would do well to keep that in the back of their minds. Immigration reform really needs to be tackled properly, healthcare needs reforming too and then there's the whole global warming thing. Plus probably a million other little issues.

Well, what keeps them in power? That's what drives them.

And I pointed out the war bill as one of two bills (both Democratic bills) that Bush has vetoed.

Well, what keeps them in power? That's what drives them.
But if you end up putting everything into just one issue, if that issue were to fall away, people end up seeing just how little you really achieved. The war is gonna be over at some point, and I don't think it would be particularly smart for the Dems to then have people realise that domestically, Congress just sat on its hands for two years.

And I pointed out the war bill as one of two bills (both Democratic bills) that Bush has vetoed.
Just as long as you don't imply that Bush is stopping Congress from starting some of the aforementioned important domestic reforms.

The worst case scenario is if the Dems were to deliberately not get the ball rolling on those and wait until a Democrat President gets into office so they can take all the credit. But I don't think voters are gonna be impressed by that much cynicism.

Well, keep in mind Bush issued many signing statements, some of which might as well have vetoed the bill.


But Congress can't overturn a signing statement.

If the pretzle-nit would just step aside and let the will of the American people rule, and end this fucked up war, the Democrats could move on.

In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted
These two statements confuse me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262.html?hpid=topnews

As the by-line in the article states, the Iraq War debate is stiffling the Democrats Domestic Agenda.

Some snippets from the article:









This is a dangerous time for Democrats. What they need to do is stop focusing on Iraq and concentrate on their domestic Agenda. Once they get things accomplished there, then move on to Iraq. Election season is right around the cornor (and some say it is here now) and if Leon Panetta is right, they need to start accomplishing it now.

As to the poll, that does not surprise me in the least. The numbers will go back up when meaningful legislation is actually passed and signed into law. Passing laws that do not make it through all the steps is worthless.

You realize of course, that ignoring Iraq means they can't provide any money to pay for it, thus ending the war by attrition.

I have to wonder how long Bush would keep the troops in Iraq knowing that he wasn't going to have the money to keep them there or, eventually, to get them back.

Well, keep in mind Bush issued many signing statements, some of which might as well have vetoed the bill.


But Congress can't overturn a signing statement.

Of course, a signing statement isn't law.

That is why he's there, is it not? Veto legislation he doesn't like, request legislation he does like, invade foriegn countries he doesn't like, sell cheap arms to the one he does like.

No. He is there to enforce legislation that gets passed, whether he likes it or not. True, the veto power helps him keep legislation he doesn't like from getting passed, but his whole "signing statement" bullshit is basically him promising not to do his job when ever he doesn't feel like it.

That is why he's there, is it not? Veto legislation he doesn't like, request legislation he does like, invade foriegn countries he doesn't like, sell cheap arms to the one he does like.

But what is he doing to help me and my bank account? Nothing. The man should be taken around back and shot.

There's a lot more issues for US politicians to worry about than just the war (even though you wouldn't think it sometimes, looking at media coverage).

Congress actually does have some reforming and lawmaking to do, and its members would do well to keep that in the back of their minds. Immigration reform really needs to be tackled properly, healthcare needs reforming too and then there's the whole global warming thing. Plus probably a million other little issues.

And Congress needs to begin acting on them. That three point drop should worry them because if they continue on the course they are on now, that drop will get bigger and the 2008 election will be very interesting at the Congressional level as well.

If the pretzle-nit would just step aside and let the will of the American people rule, and end this fucked up war, the Democrats could move on.

They can move on now while still doing things to end the war. The fact that they have not done so yet is troublesome.

This is a dangerous time for Democrats. What they need to do is stop focusing on Iraq and concentrate on their domestic Agenda. Once they get things accomplished there, then move on to Iraq. Election season is right around the cornor (and some say it is here now) and if Leon Panetta is right, they need to start accomplishing it now.

As to the poll, that does not surprise me in the least. The numbers will go back up when meaningful legislation is actually passed and signed into law. Passing laws that do not make it through all the steps is worthless.
That's where you're wrong. Passing laws that force a Presidential veto or force your congressional opponents to make uncomfortable votes have great value--they make great campaign fodder in this, the era of the perpetual campaign season. If I were the Democratic Party, I'd be running ads right now in every Republican district and state where a Senator is up for re-election on how they're obstructing the minimum wage in favor of the Paris Hilton Estate Preservation tax break. I'd be talking about how Republican congresspeople decided it was more important to stick with President 28% than it was to put a timeline on withdrawing troops from Iraq. The narrative would be the same--we want to do things for the voters, but we can't because Republicans are standing up for the rich and powerful, and the only way we can help you is if you pressure them or if you vote them out and replace them with Democrats who can get things done. It's a matter of losing the battle but winning the war.

Republicans did the same thing to a lesser extent under Clinton. It's just easier to do when the President is at 28% approval.

They can move on now while still doing things to end the war. The fact that they have not done so yet is troublesome.

No it isn't. They're investigating the hell out of the corrupt Executive Branch and fighting the President in Iraq. The only thing they could do better is just tell the President that no funding is coming, and turn to other issues. Still, they've completed all of their primary goals.

No it isn't. They're investigating the hell out of the corrupt Executive Branch and fighting the President in Iraq. The only thing they could do better is just tell the President that no funding is coming, and turn to other issues. Still, they've completed all of their primary goals.

The problem with letting this go is that our troops will not be funded. There is just one thing that Americans hate more than this war is the troops not being funded.

As the by-line in the article states, the Iraq War debate is stiffling the Democrats Domestic Agenda.

Actually, the byline says
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
;)

"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."
Is this quote from the Clinton administration? Because if not, it's complete bull. There wasn't "gridlock" 2004-2006 for people to be sick of, Bush didn't exactly veto many bills from the Republican congress.

Is this quote from the Clinton administration? Because if not, it's complete bull. There wasn't "gridlock" 2004-2006 for people to be sick of, Bush didn't exactly veto many bills from the Republican congress.

On top of any opposition in the legislature being steamrolled over. But looking at the article it seems that the Democratic congress has done exactly what it set out to do and the hold up is the Republicans. Why them not getting a demonstrably uncooperative group to cooperate is a reflection on them and not the people having a snit in the corner is beyond my understanding.

So is this the strategy, to stand in the road and then blame the truck for having to stop for them? Are they really going to sandbag and then blame the Democrats? That's what it looks like, and even sadder it seems to be working.

It's hard to pass an agenda when someone vetoes every bill he doesn't like.

How many is that again, exactly? I can't seem to remember...

How many is that again, exactly? I can't seem to remember...

Well, it seems he's gotten two bills that he didn't like, and he vetoed both of them. Only one of them came from the Democratic Congress, though. The press hasn't made much of a deal about anything else they've sent him that he's signed.

Is this quote from the Clinton administration? Because if not, it's complete bull. There wasn't "gridlock" 2004-2006 for people to be sick of, Bush didn't exactly veto many bills from the Republican congress.

Not much to veto when everyone is an ass-kisser and consulting you first.


So is this the strategy, to stand in the road and then blame the truck for having to stop for them? Are they really going to sandbag and then blame the Democrats? That's what it looks like, and even sadder it seems to be working.
A sucker is born every minute. Almost every single one is American.

A sucker is born every minute. Almost every single one is American.

Nah, most of them are black or Arab.

Nah, most of them are black or Arab.

Please don't be a bigot. We're all human; we're all the same. It doesn't matter if you're Irani or American, black or white, male or female.
We are all human--we are not all the same. We are all deserving of the same rights and treatment, but we are not all the same. We are not all of the same intelligence, or physical stature, or athletic ability, or socio-economic class.

Nah, most of them are black or Arab.
Now you just look like a racist bigot for editing it.

Now you just look like a racist bigot for editing it.

And you look like a plump, fat, corpulent, obese, hefty man. Actually, I was only underlining your own discriminatory mindset; I didn't believe that any further explanation was necessary to show you for the racist you are. I, on the other hand, have nothing against other humans based on their skin color or country of residence.

The problem with letting this go is that our troops will not be funded. There is just one thing that Americans hate more than this war is the troops not being funded.

As I recall the funding bill was passed by the congress if you want to be technical. The person who vetoed the bill sits in the Oval Office so he is the one who denied funding technically. You can twist and turn it any way that makes you feel more comfortable, but these are the facts of the case, and the facts are irrefutable.
I agree the troops should always be supported and funded, as I am a military man from a long line of military men and women. I agree that domestic agendas need to be met in order to ensure the increased Democratic majority in the 2008 election cycle. If the Democrats can manage to have their cake and eat it too there just may be a veto-proof majority to deal with if a Republican wins the White House. Just so you don't start think of me as a liberal conspirator I support Rudy and McCain and will vote for either one of them in the primaries in NJ. I also support Wesley Clark because a man is more important than the letter that follows his name on TV. When I lived at the Jersey Shore I supported Chris Smith-R 8th because of my personal relationship working with him to save USNAWC Lakehurst and his continued support for our fighting men and women. I wish more people would look at the merit of the candidate rather than their party, but some people are jackholes :D

Nah, most of them are black or Arab.

AND Racism and bigotry are still alive and well I see

And you look like a plump, fat, corpulent, obese, hefty man.

You aren't going to last long on NSG, are you?

And you look like a plump, fat, corpulent, obese, hefty man. Actually, I was only underlining your own discriminatory mindset; I didn't believe that any further explanation was necessary to show you for the racist you are. I, on the other hand, have nothing against other humans based on their skin color or country of residence.

Wow. You know five whole words for fat. :eek:

And you look like a plump, fat, corpulent, obese, hefty man. Actually, I was only underlining your own discriminatory mindset; I didn't believe that any further explanation was necessary to show you for the racist you are. I, on the other hand, have nothing against other humans based on their skin color or country of residence.

American is a race?

Wow. You know five whole words for fat. :eek:

My point was that calling someone a "racist bigot" is redundant, just like calling someone, say, a "fat obese" man is redundant. Use of such language is unnecessary and is employed only as a propaganda technique, not as an actual weapon in one's debate arsenal.

My point was that calling someone a "racist bigot" is redundant, just like calling someone, say, a "fat obese" man is redundant. Use of such language is unnecessary and is employed only as a propaganda technique, not as an actual weapon in one's debate arsenal.

Uhhh, not necessarily. Racist just covers well, race, while bigot covers religion, sexual orientation, political views, etc. So, calling someone a "racist bigot" would be a way of saying their primary from of ignorance is racism, but it isn't exclusive to that field. Calling someone a "fat obese man" would be somewhat odd because obese is just an extreme form of fat. However, I think it would be fine to call someone a "fat obese man" if you were trying to underline the bigness or what have you. Redundancy can be useful sometimes.

Also, your post do seem to be of the racist bigot variety.

And you look like a plump, fat, corpulent, obese, hefty man. Actually, I was only underlining your own discriminatory mindset; I didn't believe that any further explanation was necessary to show you for the racist you are. I, on the other hand, have nothing against other humans based on their skin color or country of residence.

If that's the case, then why did you edit the post, even though I'd quoted the whited out part?

If that's the case, then why did you edit the post, even though I'd quoted the whited out part?

Because there's nothing FAG can do that is not contradictory.