Democrats don't agree on key issues

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

Lack of plans on Iraq and warrantless wiretapping will hurt leaders when Congress reconvenes today.

By Charles Babington
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Divided by their liberal and moderate wings, congressional Democrats return from a monthlong recess without consensus on how to tackle several pressing issues, including Iraq and warrantless wiretaps.
Democrats control both chambers, but lack the numbers to override President Bush's vetoes of bids to mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq. They also have failed to significantly rewrite the administration's electronic-surveillance programs.

That leaves party leaders squeezed between two camps when the House and Senate reconvene today.

Antiwar lawmakers say any Iraq-related legislation that falls short of triggering troop withdrawals is pointless and gives voters the impression there is no sharp division between the two parties.

More moderate Democrats want to pursue proposals to require the administration to rest troops more often and draw up redeployment plans, even if such efforts strike some as more symbolic than substantive.

Democratic leaders tried to narrow the gap with conference calls during the recess, including one Aug. 23 that drew more than 100 House Democrats. Participants said no detailed plan emerged, in part because many lawmakers wanted to wait for September reports on Iraq from the Government Accountability Office and the Bush administration.




Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20070904_Democrats_dont_agree_on_key_issues.html

They seldom have a majority on key issues. They have been this way ever since the Democrat party was organized and I use the word organized loosely.

I am unfamiliar...

I'd say we're more united this time around than the Republicans. I mean, they're so fractured that they're trying to pluck candidates out of Law & Order reruns.

Participants said no detailed plan emerged, in part because many lawmakers wanted to wait for September reports on Iraq from the Government Accountability Office and the Bush administration.

What difference would the reports make? If it was going good they would what? Decide to stay and continue the occupation? If it was going bad they would...... decide to stay and make things better?

C'mon congress!

make up their minds.Are they going to support Bush Policy
and GOP or do they have any policy as Democrats????

It is this indecision which makes the Dems come off as weak,
This is keeping their approval ratings in the cellar.

If that's their idea of a plan for governing, I don't think much of it.

Fuck them for not holding criminals accountable and ending an illegal war!

help set up the Iraqi's with a just environment, that DEMS DO NOT PLAN ON STAYING FOREVER!!!!

It is clear the Repugs, although they don't broadcast it, have every intention of occupying Iraq without end.

See McConnell's opinions here:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXgP4xO9Vq2r55gtlrCG7qj0FNVg

Where he is basically saying if you don't let us camp in Iraq, it will be in Iran.

How does the U.S. in the Middle East address Al Qaeda problems? Al Qaeda is in Asia. Maybe Mitch means he feels safer with the U.S. standing between Al Qaeda and all that oil. Ehhh then again it is probably just the oil.

'Twas ever thus. Sheesh. Move along, folks, nothing to see.

Psst. I hear the sun is hot. Pass it on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601955.html

As far back as January, Babington got his marching orders: "Portray the Democrats as divided ..."

My memory is not so good.


"The pathetic failure of Democrats in the Senate to stick together and block the appointment of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court -- a man committed to the idea of a president with unchecked, dictatatorial powers, and who favors corporations and the state over the individual -- shows that it won't just do to have Democrats take over Congress in November."..
http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff01312006.html

winning elections but could NOT govern. Don't let us be a
party that was handed an election but also could not govern.
Our countries ability to survive in this world is at stake.
We blindly followed the French in Indo-China and have now
followed the British in Iraq into civil wars that had absolutely
no purpose nor served our interests in any way. The Democratic
leadership in Congress must lead the way and convince this nation
our party has the capacity to govern. Get us the hell out of Iraq,
address the health care crisis, etc. Let the people know you are
there to serve the peoples interests alone. Stop the stupidity of
political consultants that exist only in their self perpetuation of
fund raising and ear bending. Get out and talk to some real human
beings for a change, the people you purport to represent. Let them
know their interests are primary and address their problems. Do that
and you will convince the electorate that the Democratic party truly
can govern and is deserving of election.

> ... have now followed the British in Iraq into civil wars that had
> absolutely no purpose nor served our interests in any way.

???

:wtf:

what planet do you think T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
inhabited?

there is nothing moderate about funding an occupation of a foreign "sovereign" country and giving dictatorial powers to a president.

now I don't know where to turn. Nothing has changed. More are dead.

In other words- those who enable and legitimize far right extremists.

That's basically what a so called "moderate" is.

Those inside the beltway want to play footsie with Bush.

That's not moderate vs. liberal, its inside the beltway vs. outside.

I'm not letting those enabling criminality - like those who won't impeach, won't try to end the war and won't support actions to hold the administration accountable for its many crimes - off the hook.

EVER.

I will remember until my dying day just who betrayed justice and who has fought for it. Sadly, far too many elected Dems fall on the former side.

I'm with you.

Some things never change.