'No' is not an opposition strategy.

Some time between the 2nd and third years of life, a child comprehends the meaning of the word 'no'; in some children, using 'no' even becomes a game: "no, no,no no, no, etc.".

Many people here at DU said during the GE that "I'm not George Bush" was not a good reason for people to vote for John Kerry, and I submit that 'no' is just as lame a strategy for us to adopt as the opposition party. If we do adopt it, as many here would seem to prefer, then America may well view us as two year-olds, and who could blame them?

Would the adults present care to discuss an effective opposition strategy that isn't simply based on being saying 'no' to everything Bush* proposes? I'm all ears...

:)

:hi:

:hi:

C'mon, Paddy. The purpose of an opposition party is to oppose, especially in our time and with this administration.

There needs to be a positive alternative vision, surely, but I'm not sure how nuanced you want the response to Bush's agenda to be.

I always did think you were one of the brightest people here, uly!

:thumbsup:

;-) Still, there needs to be a strong "no" in our arsenal.

Glad to see you back in the saddle, my friend. :hi:

We just shouldn't fire it off every time Bush* proposes something/someone.

It's good to be back.

:hi:

since EVERYTHING this so-called adminitration tries to ram down the country's throat is done to reap money for themselves and their contributors, we are MORE than justified in saying no to it all. Everything they have done has failed miserably, and death, chaos and bankruptcy are all we have to show for their "leadership." Saying no is NECESSARY. Without it, I shudder to think where this country will end up. We appeased these tyrants for four years; are you happy with the result? I'm done playing nice.

Next, I'd like to see the poetry of public service returned to its rightful place in our party's history.

I acknowledge that we need to work very, very hard on electoral reform, but I'm not folding up the tent just because a pack of assholes from Diebold cheated in 2000 and 2004. There've been ballot box stuffings a long time before there were electronic voting machines.

:thumbsup:

-- and it's very fine that you are better and back among us.

limited supply of powder dry so you can get the most bang for your buck.

Make those 'no' votes count for something. The important thing to remember about the 'Charge of the Light Brigad'e is that they all died.

:thumbsup:

the Kamikaze Democrats. It's great if you're into explosions. :nuke:

to an ineffective 'debating society'. If they want to get something from Dems and progressives I suggest they begin by allowing them into committee hearing rooms...that's just for openers.

What do you get by 'negotiating' with Bush and Co. anyway ? Blame is the only thing I can think of. Republicans don't negotiate in 'good faith'. Until they do, NO and HELL NO are perfectly legitimate negotiating positions !

We can begin from a position of strength: Harry Reid's agenda
http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html

The Repugs can go along or not. The choice is theirs. They, not the Dems, will look badly by NOT going along with the Dems...

Already Rep Thomas from Bakersfield CA is calling the SS reforms a 'dead horse'. Let's be friendly and give Bush a riding crop as a gift !

"Can I put my hand over the fire?"

No, because you'll burn yourself.

"Can I play in the street?"

No, because there is too much traffic.

At times, "no" is indeed an appropriate response, when accompanied by the appropriate "because."

Thinking in terms of "no, because" is quite proper. Actually, it's quite an effective debate response, because (see, there's that word again) it formulates what could be construed as merely a negative attack into a well thought out response, predicated on the initial belief that the opposition position is incorrect, misguided, or just plain wrong (In *'s case, substitute evil).

Why do you feel "I object to Ms. Rice because she has proven time and again that she will will lie to the American people and their duly elected officials in order to promulgate the distorted world view of her employer" is not appropriate?

I kind of like it, myself. :)

Key words: 'at times'

And today was one of them. :)

I jus assume that Bush* would have nominated someone equally or more repugnant, if he didn't get Condi approved. Can you say 'Secretary Perle' or 'Secretary Wolfowitz'? As bad as she is, she's not as bad as THEY are!

:scared:

(sorry, very disturbing visual in that header line)

This is what scares me about your logic in this case. I can not go along with "the devil you know" here, because the results will be terrifying.

Wolfie and Perle have their spots picked out already - they wouldn't have gotten the nod. Rice, however, is the "pet" of this admin, so she lucked out. But let us look at the ramifications here. As previously stated, she is the face of the Iraq war to millions around the world, especially the Muslim communities in the Middle East. To have her represent the U.S. abroad in a diplomatic(!) role is literally telling the thousands of dead Iraq civilians "too bad, Big Bad George is ruling the roost now." The resulting increase in those who look to destroy the United States will be uncountable, both in Iraq and in other nations who are now (or soon will be) sympathetic to the jihad.

This is why today was so important, and why I feel we failed so miserably. I hope I can at least get that point across, and that I wasn't an ass in doing so.

(Off to dinner, lest Mrs. DB say bad stuff. But I shall return...)

It has to be "no", accompanied with either a negative consequence or alternative course of action. And plenty of communication as the child grows older. I kind of thought Paddy was talking about what to do beyond saying no.

Although saying no is a critical part of the process and I'm proud of the Senators who said no today, whether it be Rice or Gonzales. I wish all our Dems would have said no.

I'm advocating what you're saying.

So we're in agreement.

Right???? :) :)

No, because you'll get burned PLUS time out or a distraction or burning something so the kid gets the picture or a combination of all of it. Maybe I just had extra determined 2 year olds, but no you'll burn yourself was never very effective.

And of course the opposite, them screaming no no no when they were standing out in the street didn't mean I was going to consider their opinion either.

We have to draw lines, but it's much more important to be FOR something.

see all dems united and opposing everything bush, I understand that that really isn't a viable opposition. When dems do oppose bushco, I want to see some real results. Rice and Gonzales will be gone in 4 years, judges are there for life. So that is the area that I want dems in the Senate to mount a vigorous and effectivve opposition. I also expect them to pull out all stops when it comes to SS. Other vital issues include an all out effort against cuts in social programs. bush has proposed cutting block grants in half. This will be disasterous for many communities. Dems need to pick and choose their battles. If they don't they'll not only lose the battles, they'll lose the war in the form of the coming elections.

This was their chance to show they will battle, but instead they cowered.

The "pick your battles" analogy is flawed, because we don't do it.

Look at the state of this nation, and ask yourself when is the last fight we won?

Tax cuts, Iraq, stolen votes (boy, Conyers sure got a lot of support, didn't he?) - put the shoe on the other foot - Repubs would have been all over election irregularities like nobody's business. Hell, they're going into court to contest a hand recount(!) in Washington!

We do not fight back, and sadly, in this case past results ARE indicative of future performance.

www.lightupthedarkness.org

Seriously, we're working hard at promoting the good of the Democratic Party and how that good comes out of our values. Equitable Economic Policy, Reproductive Responsibility, Building Community, etc. Trying to listen, cut through the hype, and respond with new approaches that don't compromise on basic Democratic values.

outlined by Harry Reid the definition of opposition strategy? Showing the country what the party stands for in their own legislation?
http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html

And also the Democratic Committee on Oversight and Investigations spoken about in this Kos thread (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/25/141311/920)

I think both of these developments are pretty good for starters.

Who's advocating only adopting 'no' as an opposition strategy??

Read through the threads on pages one and two here and in GD, and you'll get a good idea of who.

:hi:

Gotcha.

;-)

I see a lot of folks advocating "no" for a reason, but none too many (discounting the obvious, ahem, "visitors") just saying no for the sake of it.

Care to enlighten me?? :)

we can't roll over on everything. The strategy of picking our battles is wise.

as well as the most dangerous, most ill-informed, most insular, most self-absorbed, and most impudent . . . "NO" is a damn good start . . .

Sen. Mark Dayton spoke against Rice. Last night his speech was the lead story on the local news, the one that non-political people watch. If even a few people were forced to think, then his gesture was worthwhile.