Are the Democratic leaders of our nation actually as inneffective as they currently appear?

Question

What is the problem that the Dems are facing right now? Why haven't they ended the war or even passed any kind of timetable or anything at all?

I believe if they were serious about ending the war they wouldn't just, go for the gusto right off the bat and just keep, chipping away at it, make compromise, thats politics. Keep chipping away and don't be foolish and go for broke.

Answer 1

Because your leader, "the decider" keeps vetoing everything.

Answer 2

Because they need 60% of the vote to enact legislation (actually 67% because Bush will veto anything that helps to end the war) and they don't have the votes to do it.

The Dems have actually done well in Congress. They passed a minimum wage bill, passed a health care bill that covers children, curbed the power of lobbyists,passed funding for stem cell research (but Bush vetoed it), and passed a war bill with a timetable (another Bush veto).

Most importantly, they put a stop to the "rubber stamp" of illegal activities that the previous neocon controlled Congrass gave Bush and are holding him to some oversight (as well as investigating Gonzales and other "Bushies" that had a blank check previously).

We just need more Dems in there in 2008 so that we can end this nonsense.

Answer 3

No. Those who understand the way the way the US government works know that Bush has the veto and the Repubicans can block anything they want in the Senate. They passed a bill with a timetable, Bush vetoed.

Answer 4

The Democratic leaders are doing everything they possibly can under the circumstances. You know, it's not easy trying to get things done when the President vetoes everything.

And as far as ending the war, all I can say is that we've tried. Four bills!!! Two vetoed, one filibustered, and one passed. But you watch; they'll deauthorize Bush's authority in September. Iraq is a big bucket of ugly, and it's about to get uglier.

Answer 5

Even though the Democrats are the majority, they can't change very much unless more Republicans get on board, which I don't see happening soon--they simply don't want to disappoint Mr. Bush.....forget about the right thing to do. It's called politics.

Answer 6

It seems that way. But, who are the leaders? Reid and Murtha? I would say they are too old and on the way out. Pelosi? I'd call her inexperienced, and not cut out for the job she holds now. President Clinton should be leading by example, but seems far more interested in his celebrity. Carter? Please, don't make me laugh. That leaves Hilary, who, if she said what was really on her mind, could not win a spot on the city council, but it would be interesting and refreshing to hear what she really thinks. She is really smart, and was the kind of student, your parents asked, why you couldn't be more like. So, in conclusion, folks, we have a Hoover size vacuum of leadership out there, and this country has a problem!

Answer 7

They need 67 votes in the Senate to override a veto. How could they be effective if that big dumb dullard keeps vetoing everything?
However, once we have the presidency AND congress, you will see some very effective leadership. It won't be squandered like the former majority.

Answer 8

I'm actually kind of glad they got in last election. That gives them two years on the national stage before the electorate, displayed as the whiny little wimps that they truly are.

Answer 9

As all the middle of the road people and most the conservatives said before the election - they're a lost lot.

Guess not much has changed.

Answer 10

14% of America thinks they are effective. That says it all.
3% think they are handling the Iraq war properly.


Source: Zogby Poll