October 07, 2006

An Actual Democratic Plan (And a Self-Inflicted Heimlich Manuever)

Via Crooks and Lians, an actual Pelosi-endorsed plan for when the Democrats take back the House of Representatives:

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats - in her fondest wish - win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

These are all fairly reasonable positions. You can certainly debate their usefullness, but at least the Republicans shouldn't be able to claim that the Democrats don't have a plan. I'll note that the entire list is domestic, expect for implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations (which is mostly domestic, but refers to terrorism, which is international).

[Cough. Hack.] Sorry, must have something stuck in my throat. [Hack. Cough. Cough.]

WHAT ABOUT IRAQ? YOU KNOW, THE DAMN COUNTRY WHERE 130,000+ AMERICAN SOLDERS ARE LIVING, AND DON'T SEEM TO EITHER BE WINNING OR COMING HOME. HOW CAN YOU PUT OUT A SET OF POLICY POSITIONS AND NOT ADDRESS THE SINGLE LARGEST FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE THAT FACES THIS COUNTRY. ARE YOU MORONS? THIS IS WHY, IN THE FACE OF MASSIVE REPUBLICAN IDIOCY AND CORRUPTION, THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE TO GAIN VOTES. WAKE UP YOU ASSHOLES, OR YOU WILL LOSE THIS ELECTION.

Damn. No wonder I was choking. Sorry about that.

[Mutters under breath, to self] Fucking Democrats couldn't win an election if they were the only ones running.

Posted by baltar at October 7, 2006 10:09 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Iraq | Politics


Comments

I Cite has a good post about this.

The Democrats either ignore national security and foreign policy issues or try to out-hawk the Republicans. Neither of those approaches will work for obvious reasons. Try to out-hawk the likes of Mark Steyn and the rest of the National Review folks and you're liable to get spread-eagled.

They're like the 90-pound wimp who gets sand kicked in his face in the Charles Atlas ads. But even that guy bulked up and impressed the girl by showing the bully who was really boss.

You're right, this is extremely pathetic.

Posted by: Adam Elkus at October 8, 2006 02:20 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, well, given the context of this list, what exactly about Iraq should be on here? Everything here is largely non-controversial and LONG considered. I think to say that the Democrats could solve Iraq in the first hundred hours ... well, I think they'd get laughed out of DC if they claimed they could. And you could easily play the partisan danger to society card against 'em too - b/c who know just what kind of catastrophe will be going on there in the first 100 hours ...

Plus of course we aren't electing a president at the moment, we are electing a Congress, and that branch has considerably less power over setting foreign policy, and ...

and this could be the most important part ...

Where exactly will this possible Democratic majority come from? Purple, and in many cases Red America. Do you want to, BEFORE the election, potentially undermine your appeal in those areas with a new policy that could be tagged official-San-Francisco-approved "cut and run" (and I don't care if the plan was to level Baghdad and Basra, regardless of what the Democrats propose Rove and Co. will say that it REALLY shows to be unpatriotic beatniks).

Again, what the Democrats want is already pretty clear. It's Levin-Reed. But I don's see any point in pushing that before the elections if doing so might net you 213 seats instead of 222. And you can be quite sure what is and is not on this list has been polled to death in the places that matter on Nov. 7 (the Philly, Denver and Chicago suburbs, rural Indiana and Kentucky, Eastern Iowa, etc.)

Posted by: Armand at October 8, 2006 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

We have a fundamental difference of opinion on this. You seem to think that ignoring Iraq (which really is an issue that is very divisive among Democrats) will allow the party to avoid offending potential Independents and Republican voters in order to get their vote (as well as avoiding a public fight within the party about what the Iraqi policy should be). I accept that those are good reasons.

However, ignoring Iraq allows the Republicans to paint the Democrats as weak ("if you don't choose a position, one will be provided for you"). The Republicans have clubbed the Democrats into submission in 2002 and 2004 solely on the basis of national security. Silence will allow the same thing to happen again.

You don't think Pelosi can or should solve Iraq within the first hundred days? I agree. But ignoring it isn't going to help either.

How about Pelosi adds this to the list: "Within the first hundred hours a Democratic House of Representatives will force Secretary Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld to sit next to each other in the same room in front of the House International Relations Committee to explain, clearly and truthfully, what America's goals are in Iraq, the metrics we are using to determine success and failure for those goals, and the specific strategies we are presently following to achieve those goals." (or some such)

How would this be a bad thing?

Posted by: baltar at October 8, 2006 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

That's fine - but I think it will move few if any votes. And I think at the moment it makes more sense to hit every issue the Democrats can that won't imperil their ability to win seats.

And I just, quite frankly, think nothing the Democrats do or don't do will have the slightest effect on on how the Republicans or the media portray them. There's been vote after vote and issue paper after issue paper for years now that show that the Democrats are for "stronger" defense than the Democrats - whether it's increasing the size of the army or throwing more money at port security, putting anti-missile protection on airliners and locking up potential "loose nukes" in Russia. Again and again the Democrats have taken the more hawkish position. But it hasn't done a damn bit of good to change the media's coverage of 'em - and it certainly won't affect what the Republicans say about them.

Posted by: Armand at October 8, 2006 03:18 PM | PERMALINK

And I just, quite frankly, think nothing the Democrats do or don't do will have the slightest effect on on how the Republicans or the media portray them.

That's very true. The media traded their scruples for access a long time ago. But I think that Woodward's book is a sign that the establishment media is eyeing the USS Bush's lifeboats. For them its more a matter of self-interest: the President's mess has gotten too large for them to sweep up. I think that as things get worse the Democrats will find a small opening. How to navigate through that opening is the million-dollar question.

Posted by: Adam Elkus at October 8, 2006 06:00 PM | PERMALINK

And I continue to believe you can't cede the Iraq issue to the Republicans. If you truely believe there is nothing the Democrats can do to get media attention, you are fooling yourself. The media cover events-not policy debates. That has been the case for administrations of both parties. If the Dems take back one branch of Congress, they'll have the ability to put on events (hearings, legislative initatives, etc.). Then, the Dems can get media attention on their issues.

They cannot be a major party, and avoid Iraq. Moreover, if the Republicans outflank the Democrats (by having an actual policy change on Iraq), that'll will kill their ability to show they are strong on national security.

Avoiding the issue will not make it go away.

Posted by: baltar at October 8, 2006 07:57 PM | PERMALINK

Well I still say Levin-Reed resembles a policy - and that neither "the Democrats" nor "the Congress" need write up policy papers that neither group has the slightest ability to carry out. I mean it's great if they have a policy - but George Bush is going to be president for almost 32 more months, and he's shown no interest whatsoever in what the Democrats have to say about Iraq - and he's the one with power to direct foreign policy.

Btw, Kevin Drum tonight - "You can't criticize Democrats for being unable to solve a problem that's no longer solvable."

Posted by: Armand at October 8, 2006 09:46 PM | PERMALINK

And actually, to hit that first point again - what is it about Levin-Reed that you don't count as a policy?

Posted by: Armand at October 8, 2006 09:50 PM | PERMALINK

Btw, Kevin Drum tonight - "You can't criticize Democrats for being unable to solve a problem that's no longer solvable."

Kevin Drum is right. Iraq is past the point of no return.

I wrote something about the political implications of this basic truth.

Essentially, we should be trying to limit the fallout from Iraq instead of fighting to forestall the inevitable.

Posted by: Adam Elkus at October 9, 2006 01:24 AM | PERMALINK

and we (or i) end up back where i was a few days ago, half-convinced that the dems are better off losing (narrowly) and leaving the GOP in control for two more years. i think our policy, or lack thereof, as to iraq is going to come to a very ugly head in the next two years; we're going to have to spend and sacrifice more or leave with our tail between our legs. if dems control the house that just means they get to share the blame.

armand, i think you're right about perception vs. reality w/r/t the dems and foreign policy, but wouldn't it be wise to hammer on that regardless of how it's portrayed.

we proposed $X for port security; the white house said no. we proposed these other anti-terrorism measures; the white house said no. our ports are vulnerable; we remain at substantial risk of a terrorist threat that would be preventable but for the primacy of other republican priorities, iraq in particular. while iraq has become the most expensive and deadly self-fulfilling prophecy in united states history (i.e., it's finally become the hotbed of terrorism it wasn't when we claimed it was), other measures more squarely aimed at protecting americans have languished. you simply are not safer with GOP leadership than you would be with democratic leadership, end of story

in any case, it's worth noting that pelosi's was a 100-hour agenda, not a 100-day agenda. if the dems start hammering hard on iraq on the fifth day, after passing, and forcing the GOP to vote against, the measures listed, i think the dems will have gotten off to a rip-roaring start. because i think that's what has to happen if the dems take the house and hope to hold it in 2008 -- they need to set a legislative agenda, get their ducks in a row, and pass a bunch of shit that the GOP really doesn't want to be forced to vote against, but will vote against when they can't avoid it. that'll provide tons of fodder for '08.

Posted by: moon at October 10, 2006 09:17 AM | PERMALINK

Obama (don't you just love him?) had a great line that was quoted on NPR this morning (about North Korea I guess, I didn't hear the context) - something along the lines of: We need a policy that's tough and smart, we've had a policy that's tough and dumb.

Posted by: Armand at October 10, 2006 09:44 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?