Nathan Newman wrote:
>Basically, the GOP had national security as the main issue that allowed
>them
>to trump public support for the Dems on most domestic issues. Subtract
>that
>and the GOP is in free fall. The national Dem leadership is admittedly a
>bit pathetic in capitalizing on this, but grassroots progressives in the
>states are going to be the ones mounting many of the challenges to
>incumbents and open seats that will decide the elections.
-But the polling data, which can change, shows the public holds the -Dems in pretty low regard, in large part for having no positive -agenda. This will make it easy for the GOP to dismiss them the party -of "No!" because it'll be kind of true.
I actually agree that the national Dems are pretty weak on getting out the message, but to say they stand for "no" is only because House rules now prohibit the minority party from proposing any of their own legislation. That's a deliberate policy by the GOP to paint the Dems as the party of No, and it's moderately effective, but don't completely parrot the rightwing.
The House Dems have this site with their agenda: http://democrats.house.gov/
Which includes everything from raising the minimum wage, allowing those age 55 and over to buy into Medicare, requiring all insurance companies to cover those with mental illness on the same parity as other medical conditions, roughly doubling college financial age, protecting labor and the environment in trade agreements, and a host of other issues.
They could obviously convey them more expertly in the media, but given a pretty extensive website laying out lots of policy differences with the GOP, whether you think they aren't radical enough or not, it's pretty lazy intellectually just to say the Dems are just saying "no."
Nathan Newman