Dem's new 10-pt. agenda: Have you taken a good look???

[moggie12]

Harry Reid sent out a letter asking people to sign a "petition" supporting the Senate Democrat's new 10-point legislative plan. I posted a message about it in the "GD: Politics" forum, asking people to sign it. Link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1525891

I thought (and still think) that it's a great political document, one that will help WAKE UP brainwashed Bush voters. Several DUers had qualms about it, however, judging from some of the replies I got back.

If you haven't already seen and/or signed the petition, would you please take a look?? I think this is a critical juncture for the Democrats (and the country) and that the Dems* need all the support they can get.


* Even though only a few of them have the guts to vote against Condi

[DebJ]

1. I just wish it listed standing firm on Social Security as well

[DODI]

2. I was surprised not see that too. But I will sign the petitition.

[DebJ]

3. I already signed it. Thought it good they are coming to us.

[moggie12]

9. This is their agenda, killing SS is Bush's agenda!

It's two separate things: They're fighting Bush's stupid proposals while at the same time proposing their own ideas for America (all of which are way better than killing the best social program the country ever came up with).

[iamjoy]

4. Some Specific Criticisms...

1 - The Word
They shoudn't let it be called an agenda. The word has a negative connotation - no one will pay attention to the specifics. Actually, the specifics are kind of sparse.

2 - Islamic Terrorists
Why do they only mention Islamic fundamentalists as terrorists? Have they forgotten Oklahoma City? They should have just said all terrorists.

3 - Grammar Point
It is not a good paying job, it is a well paying job. Good is an adjective, well is an adverb. You don't use one adjective to modify another, you use an adverb.

4 - Another Grammar Point
"Democrats will ensure that all children and pregnant women will have health care and protect Medicaid." - pregnant women and children are going to have to protect medicaid? Pardon me Mr. Senator, I believe your participle is dangling. (Or is your infinitive split? Maybe I'm in a glass house on this one.)

5 - What About Civil Liberties
Maybe not a law, but some sort of resolution that dissent is patriotic. Call it something fancy, but basically trash the way the Patriot Act has often been used as well as anyone who calls a Left Winger a traitor. Then, if the Republicans vote against this resolution (which really has no legal bearing) the Democrats can say the Republcians are being unpatriotic.

[katinmn]

5. what about the war? n/t

[iamjoy]

10. Too Contentious

It seems the point of these resolutions, etc. is anyone who votes against them just doesn't care about everyday Americans and their concerns. How can you be against school buses for children? Even the abortion language is very carefully phrased - how can you be against a woman making decisions about her own health?

How do you make opposition to the war a no-brainer to hardworking, patriotic average Americans (I'm not talking about neo-cons bent on world domination)? The issue is too gray.

I have heard people criticize them for not doing enough. I think we may be missing the point of the promise. I think that's what they should call it, not an agenda, Promise to America...Pledge to Americans. Pledge allegiance to the flag, hey, how about you pledge allegiance to Americans!

[moggie12]

12. Very good points

You should rename yourself "iamwise"

[inslee08]

6. For some reason,

saying "well paying job" would just make us sound elitist. (God I hate that word). But I agree, it could've been written a bit clearer.

[iamjoy]

8. Laughing At Myself

I mean, here I complain about being elitist and I'm nitpicking grammar.
Good Point Inslee08!

[Been Fishing]

7. Yes, I looked and signed.

As well as forwarding to non-DU'ers.

But looking at S.11 and S.12 later, I would like more clarity.

S.11 should not support more troops to support the neocon wars overseas. How to you write that in the bill?

S.12 should not support more secret operations units like Rumsfeld's SSB. Don't support this without congressional oversight of the money and the operation.

IMO

[moggie12]

11. A lot of people don't like the troop proposal either

I think the Dems did it to help those poor National Guard guys who've been serving so long. Also, it exposes Bush's hypocrisy and incompetence.

The longer version of the troop proposal is fascinating. It actually accuses the Bush admin of under-reporting casualties!!! (I would think this would get media attention, but it hasn't as of yet, at least as far as I know.) Link to long version:

http://democrats.senate.gov/troops.html

[Deja Q]

13. Is it a 'Contract With America' as opposed to gop 'Contract For America'?

And unlike GOP's version, we will follow through on ours?

[moggie12]

14. That's the difference between us and them

Newt's "Contract" was a clever marketing tool designed to capitalize on America's cynicism about politicians -- then the Repubs became 10 times worse at what they had been complaining about!! (Tom DeLay winning the all-time biggest hypocrite award)

What the Dems are proposing are ten specific, concrete pieces of legislation that will actually better the lives of Americans (!!). (No wonder we've been losing, huh? Dems still think it's about doing good, while the Repubs are focused on finding more effective, craftier ways to manipulate American public opinion.)

Follow through isn't an issue with this. We don't have the votes to pass this stuff I think the idea is to back the Repubs into a corner and either force them to do them (in which case Dems take credit for proposing) or force them to block them (in which case we bludgeon them with it in '06 -- I can picture the commercials now).

Have you signed?? I am very much looking forward to the Republican-bludgeoning process in '06. The more support the Dems have on this, the better will be the bludgeoning.


Got any friends, relatives, aquaintances, passers-by-in-the-street you can get to sign??? Every signature helps!

[ultraist]

15. I'm not sure I like it...

I read it over quickly and will have to revisit it to make a final decision but my first impression is that it sounded very Repukelite.

Why the fuck do we need 40,000 more troops and why did they fail to mention they will protect a woman's right to choose? They ONLY mentioned implementing programs to prevent unintended pregnancies. Fine, that's the rare part, what about SAFE AND LEGAL? BS

Where is the part about lifting the tax burden off of the middle class and fairly taxing the wealthy?

NOT ONE MENTION of racism or poverty. BS Addressing these social ills IS the centerpiece of equal opportunity.

The more I think about it, the more pissed off I am. It does NOT cover our core values and panders to the right.

[moggie12]

17. I think it's a cleverly-crafted political WEAPON

1) We currently don't have the votes to pass ANYTHING right know, not even these ten things. I think the idea is to back the Repubs into a corner and either force them to do these ten things (in which case Dems take credit for proposing them) or force them to block them (in which case we bludgeon them with it in '06 -- I can picture the commercials now).

2) The agenda is an intensely political document designed to get "middle American" voters to start listening to the Democrats again (hence, the promise of new school buses in rural areas).

3) The Dems are proposing are ten specific, concrete pieces of legislation that will actually better the lives of Americans (!!).

4) It's intended to be like Newt's "Contract with America", a manageable, doable list of ten things that will appeal to a broad range of Americans. And that will get us back in power.

[ultraist]

19. While I agree to some extent...

I don't think it's necessary to backpeddle that much. I do however agree that Democrats need to reframe their positions and carefully craft statements on wedge issues, such as abortion.

Isn't Reid anti-choice?

Thanks for posting that, btw. It's is an important proposal.

[moggie12]

20. I don't see it as "backpeddling", just putting our best face forward

When everybody started talking about this plan being like Newt Gingivitis's Contract with America, I went and looked up what happened back then. Wikipedia had a good summary: It said Newt specifically avoided putting "controversial" issues in the CWA. He apparently had a 60% rule: Only putting issue in there that 60% of Americans would agree with. That's one of the reasons I like the Senate Dem agenda -- it's an important first step in breaking through the stereotype many middle-Americans have of Democrats. They'll see these proposals and say "hey, I'm in favor of that!"

I'm just really enthusiastic about this plan -- if the GOP opposes these proposals we can bang them over the head with it in the '06 election and take back Congress. Some DUers have been complaining that the plan is too timid, isn't bold enough, or doesn't talk about every issue. I get frustrated by this -- I can't see why they don't realize something smaller and targeted like this is necessary and good. I'm going to keep trying to convince people, even if I get flamed to death, becasue I think it's so important that the Dems get lots of public support on this.

By the way, have you signed it yet??? (I'm being pushy, I know.)

[accipiter]

16. I think it's a good start

Reid is doing a superb job so far.

[moggie12]

18. I'm a Reid fan. too

yes, it's a start, and that's a wonderful thing

Welcome to DU :hi:

[wicket]

21. checked it out and signed

Thanks!!!

:kick:

[kslib]

22. Signed and forwarded

thanks!

:kick: