Shortly after I posted in another thread that the dems seem more intent on tearing Bush down than offering an alternative themselves I came across this articleby Andrew Sullivan.

He asks the same question as he talks about Dean's chances.

So, let's talk about this. Are the dems more intent on venting than governing? Are they tossing aside any chance at all for the latter by concentrating on the former?

Venting.

They complain about Iraq & Bush and they complain about the Economy & Bush but when it's time to walk the walk, they fall on their butts

It's nice you guys are so comfortable believing this. Meanwhile Bush's popularity is continuing to drop and Dean's face is being plastered all over every major news outlet. There are many of us agitated by President Bush who are NOT "dems."

The neo-cons are ruining the GOP and instead of addressing that, some members would rather continue to blindly follow wherever their leaders take them. In 2004 most Americans will think they have to chose between someone who will grossly overspend on the military or one who will grossly overspend on domestic issues. The GOP does not represent a small-government party anymore. When we are losing our jobs and our nest eggs in high numbers, who will the lesser evil be?

I'm still trying to decide if I should find your parroting of Sullivan's term "venting" as silly or suppressing. How can a desire by Americans to seek debate on issues be coined "venting"? Maybe we should just shut down this forum - afterall, we're just venting, aren't we? Nothing useful comes of this.

My goodness, how dare someone speak out against the status quo.

If a democrat says to himself I hate Bush what do I believe? That's wrong. Most aren't doing that.
For one thing the democrats are out of power and their job is to provide an alternative to Bush. If what you mean by leading walking in lock-step with the administration no democrat should do that. Dean is giving a great message that republicans and independents should take a look at. A balanced budget, a new health care system, more focused foreign policy and fairness to the states in terms of unfunded mandates. If I think Bush is wrong saying what I think about his policies is essential to a democracy process. Nobody can blame democrats like myself for doing their civic duty by being informed and having opinions. When some people look at Bush they see a misleading slippery eel and they're not all wacko liberals like Wertz. Sorry for venting but I don't hold elective office so I can't lead.

The Democrats are more interested in leading, of course...but gee, they're not in power. Considering that they're not, what could they do that wouldn't be dismissed by you as venting?

I heard Dean this weekend talking about being "anti-Rush Limbaugh and the right wing that is controlling politics". Saying you are against Rush Limbaugh is great in theory, but it tells nothing about what you are FOR, which really should be the emphasis of a campaign.

I heard Hillary Clinton last week again bring up the "right wing conspiracy", this time its a conspiracy that wants to appoint judges. Again, no specifics, just some feeling about what we should be afraid of. Pure scare mongering.

Dean was opposed to the war in Iraq, but his solution to the current problems there is : send more troops. Even though the guy has no clue as to how many are there, how they are being deployed, or even what the total size of the US military is.

A quote from the Andrew Sullivan article:

If you cannot at least come out and say that Saddam's downfall was a positive, what the hell DO you stand for?

Amlord, this is not a thread about Dean. Also, I'd like to see the context for that sentance. Maybe he said more after it?




You can't take a sentance and claim that it's evidence of someone not saying something. I don't know about you, but I've read up on Dean and he takes stands on pretty much every issue. Taking one sentance that's just rhetoric and claiming that it's evidence that an entire party does nothing except criticize the President without offering alternatives isn't just bad debating, it's silly.




Again, see above. Besides, doesn't Bush spend a lot of time talking about abstract concepts like "terrorism," terrorists," "Saddam's regime," and "democracy?" That's not policy, either. How can you have political views without having some level of rhetoric?

Also, FYI, Hillary Clinton has put her name on more pieces of legislation this term than any other Senator.



Andrew Sullivan is a right-wing mouthpiece who get paid to jabber on for hours about how terrible liberals and democrats and anyone who isn't a crazy neocon imperialist are. Don't take him too seriously. He's not there to inform and edify, he's there to entertain.

I have not liked the Democratic party since the 60's. The extreme left has been too vocal and it appears that they have taken over the party which offends conservative democrats. The big names in the party feel that they have to kiss up to the many factions who claim to have a large voting block.
The Democratic party looks like a 3 ring circus with no ring master, and the clowns are in charge.
I see a similar thing happening in the Republican party now, and it seems to have shifted too far right for me.
It is too easy to say the other side is doing wrong, not so easy to come up with a better idea or 2. More cooperation and less partisanship is what we need.
Good example is when Nixon tried to get his family assistance plan passed. It passed the house twice, but the senate shut it down. Conservatives thought it too generous to the poor, liberals thought it not generous enough. So the liberals shot down a program that would have helped the poor mainly because they didn't initiate it. Getting it passed first, then adjusting it later would have made sense.
Next election will be interesting, if what I sense is true. It seems to me that there are more people getting involved lately.

Yup, I agree with you Jaime. I'm a Republican and I can't stand Bush. It's funny that when the Republicans were 'venting' regarding Clinton's activities, they didn't have a problem with it at all. At least what Clinton was doing had nothing to do with his performance as President. Bush can't claim that and his popularity ratings, as you point out, are plummeting so long as he isn't playing cowboy and wasting taxpayer money on worthless wars.

I hear you Cephus, and I'm glad it was you who mentioned the Republican smearing of Clinton less than eight years ago. Bottom line, the Democratic candidates should criticize what Bush is doing wrong, and they do all have their own plans for how to lead if they are elected. Go to any Dem's website and you can read about where they stand on each issue, and honestly, almost all of their policies seem better than what Bush is up to.

What each Dem needs to do is change is their campaign strategy. Like I said, they all have positions and plans, but for some reason they aren't speaking about them, and instead spending too much time "venting." Which leads people to believe that they don't have a plan, they just want to complain about Bush.

This was exactly the point I was making. Absent agreeing they actually do have any viable plans of course.

Lumping all the demos together into a Dean mold is a fallacy of generalization. The start of this thread directly implied criticism of Dean, and he is becoming known as the venting candidate.

I think the Dems do have viable alternatives to many of the Bush policies. For example, healthcare can be made more available in this country without spending too much--it's a matter of consolidation and management. I'm surprised the Repub side isn't pushing this rather fundamental business principle. But they aren't and so that's something the Dems can rally around.

The secrecy in government, such as the closed energy policy meetings, is another issue for the Dems to be against and offer a viable alternative: open government. Simple.

Being against the Iraqi war is moot. The aftermath of the war is a problem the next president will inherit. The Dems can challenge Bush to present a coherent exit plan--then propose their own. It worked for Nixon.

Homeland security is another issue. If we stop spending so dang much on giving Iraq what we don't have (universal health coverage, democracy [tongue in cheek]), maybe the feds can help the states with homeland security.

And finally, job growth. Where is it? Jobs are heading overseas! The Dems can propose checks/controls on this increasingly vexing US problem.

Now whether any of this becomes official Demo party platform planks is yet to be seen. The fact that Dean's "venting" is ringing bells is significant, though.

The only democrat candidate who is not venting is Joe Liberman.

He is telling the others to stop bashing Bush and get on the stick start getting a platform or they will be kicked out in the New Hampshire primaries.

Goamerica, I don't believe that was the topic. One-liners are not constructive.

Beg to differ, but his post was on topic, more than a 'one-liner', and has the added benefit of being true. (more than can be said for your retort)

Lieberman is the only dem who's not trying to make a name for himself by bashing Bush. He apparently agrees with much of Bush's policies and doesn't care to be hypocritical just to pander to the left. I say that's what leadership is about. And leadership is needed for good governance.

It's kinda funny though, how a stand-up guy like him is so villified by the left. They can't seem to grasp the idea of a principled politician. Of course when you yourself do nothing but pander to special interests, it must seem unnatural.