Do the Dems want to get something done, or just wage war on the president?

Question

The Democrats' Choice
Do they want to get something done, or just wage war on the president?

Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Next week the Democrats will mark their 100th day running Congress, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared herself "enormously proud" of their record.

We think it's too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish: Do they want to get something done, which will require the signature of a Republican President who still has 21 months in office? Or is their goal to delegitimize the Bush Presidency with a purely partisan goal of regaining the White House in 2008?

If their plan is to govern, Democrats have several opportunities to work with President Bush to achieve goals they claim to share. Trade deals on Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea await a Congressional vote, and their defeat would harm those nations and the U.S. national interest. On immigration reform, Mr. Bush is closer to most Democrats than to many in his own party. The No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (a k a Mandatory Maximum Tax) needs another patch to avoid hitting 15 million more taxpayers this year.

We have nothing against partisanship, and Democrats have every right to reward their supporters and pursue their policy goals. Some of these are part of the "Six for '06" bills that House Democrats passed easily in their first days, though they still have to run the gantlet of the Senate. But our guess is that Democrats would help themselves more, and have a better chance of gaining seats in 2008, if they show they are open to compromise and can point to priorities that became law.

The alternative is to frame a largely partisan agenda that may pass the House but will either die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. These include the largely political payoff to unions of abolishing secret organizing ballots, or cutting off funds for the Iraq war. These are crowd pleasers on the left, which has overinterpreted last year's victory as a mandate for their policies rather than a rejection of GOP failure.

But this is a risky strategy that would give the lie to the claim that House Democrats made last year that they could govern better than the Tom DeLay Republicans. Their freshmen from swing districts would have few accomplishments to tout. And neither Mr. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be on the ballot again--a reality that Democrats will sooner or later have to acknowledge, hard as it will be to give up the anger.

If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.

Answer 1

The Dems know that their only chance to win in 08 is if the US loses the war in Iraq. If the presidents new plan in Iraq is successful, the Dems are doomed. They will do want ever it takes to make sure Bush fails in Iraq, including trying to impeach him. In the process they will accomplish nothing.

Answer 2

Democrats are spending more money and time on being against Reps rather than worrying about more important stuff.
i.e. Global warming, it's been recently proved that less than 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere is created by mankind. Thus, no matter what people do, we won't be able to change the environment. (It's not the same human caused Global Warming and Pollution which is what many people think as a same thing). Instead, they should be worrying about more important stuff such as the war with Iraq and look for a way of winning this war, instead of putting more obstacles to the President and the American forces.

Answer 3

YOUR question "it fairly is a fact that terrorists are in Iraq(who do ya think of is shooting at us over there and putting off motor vehicle bombs?)" AND the respond: there have been no terrorists in Iraq till u . s . a . grew to become up. The civilian inhabitants have been shooting at you - they do no longer prefer you there. Resistant Iraqis supported by potential of al Qaeda shifting in have been planting bombs, kidnapping interior the fairway Zone and removing u . s . a . patrols. there have been no WMD's . that's rather glaring there have been none. Saddam introduced a brilliant checklist To UN confirming the useage and the destruction of his WMDS (offered by potential of Europe and US) in 1970's and eighty's. u . s . a . would have actually monitored the flow of any WMDs by potential of satellite tv for pc for the reason that earlier the invasion. they could have familiar precisely the place to look. you're making no experience. Clinton did no longer deliver any troops into Iraq - he had 8 years to realize this - yet he did no longer. no longer something replaced in Iraq from 2000 to 2003. All that replaced replaced into the PoTUS - so your good judgment is unsuitable and illogical.

Answer 4

Democrats not only want to attack the President but also raise your taxes, destroy small businesses, kill your babies, let criminals that deserve to die to live, and lower the population. Oh, lets not forget raise the central government to total control into a communist regime.