We have to push populist bills we know bush will veto.

[Skip Intro]

Get all the repukes on record for min. wage increase, protecting Social Security and Medicare, health care/ insurance for ALL, etc.

That is our ticket to 08. Our only ticket, that I can see.

Force them out. Smoke them out. Expose them.

[bluestateguy]

1. I agree. We need to win one more election before we can actually change policies

The next two years should be about drawing ocntrasts: this is what we stand for, this is what they stand for. Then let the voters sort it all out. Bipartisanship is for sissies.

[Arkana]

32. Yep. We got our foot in the door in 2006, no doubt about it.

But we've got to force Dumbass to veto bills that would help the people he lies to and charms into voting for him.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Yup. We need to highlight the deficiencies of conservatism.

Very insightful, Skip. We should keep this top-of-mind here at DU.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

21. .

[ClassWarrior]

26. .

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Yes!

Then the Dems can campaign on, "We would have given you a minimum wage increase and the Republicans vetoed it. We would have given you health care for all, and the Republicans vetoed it."

Even if they can't get these measures passed they should put them on the table.

[EST]

4. I think one of the most wonderful moves the new congressional

leaders have pledged to make is to effect change by enacting a series of single purpose bills.

One bill, with few or no amendments, per issue, simple, direct, and no earmarks.
The beautiful aspect of this practice is that it gets members on record with no weasel wording. There is no reason to vote against a bill because it contains "poison pill" legislation. A vote against minimum wage, for a stark example, is exactly that and there is no ethically obtuse hiding place.

The most stunning example, in my opinion, of this approach is the ethics rules changes. Each change is to be one bill--to be written, brought to the floor, argued and voted on, rather than a compound omnibus bill containing all the revisions.

This remarkably powerful approach, credit Nancy and many other highly ethical house members, is sure to garner enormous public support and approbation.

[ClassWarrior]

27. That's excellent.

Transparent and accountable. Do you know where I could learn more about this pledge?

NGU.

[EST]

28. Here's part of it.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/22/MNGJAMHNT61.DTL

Democratic leaders signaled this week they will break up their package of ethics reforms to allow separate debates and votes on proposals -- including a ban on gifts, meals and travel paid for by lobbyists -- and earmark reforms to require lawmakers to own up to federal money they secure for pet projects. They also will push "pay-as-you-go" budget rules requiring that any new spending be offset by cuts in other spending cuts or tax increases.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Excellent. Thanks. I'll pass that on to a few folks.

B-):thumbsup:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

31. .

[ClassWarrior]

33. .

[noamnety]

5. You're HOPING

people have to live without a minimum wage increase or health care, etc. for the next two years, in order to score political points?

I hope anyone asking why some people don't seem appropriately euphoric about the midterms are taking this in.

Some good bills might be vetoed. It happens. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't submit a good bill just because it might not be passed. But that shouldn't be "the goal" - people living right now on minimum wage don't need to be used as pawns, just like our soldiers don't need to be used as pawns. People are suffering NOW and need help NOW. The politicians who lose sight of that shouldn't be surprised if the voters feel alienated.

I'd much rather see political BS games scrapped in favor of something more like model the blue tiger dems are using, where the focus is on making real differences in real lives, by working at the community level. Local action is always better than centralized inaction.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Where, pray tell, did the OP say he's "hoping" anything of the sort?

What I took away from his post is that our elected Dems need to put forth populist bills - without fear that they'll be defeated. Not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because it will draw contrasts between the good guys and the bad guys.

Are you sure you were reading the same post?

NGU.

[noamnety]

11. The way it was worded bothered me

and maybe that wasn't the intent.

If it had said We have to push populist bills even if we think bush will veto them, it wouldn't have rubbed me the wrong way. The wording of "We have to push populist bills we know bush will veto" - as if the goal is to get a bill vetoed, bothers me, especially when combined with the goal of getting them "on record" and "smoking them out."

"That is our ticket to 08" made it sound like they were advocating focusing on strategies that they knew weren't going to result in actual changes of the law - in the hopes that it would result in bad publicity for the republicans so that the democrats can win the white house in 2008.

I'm guessing the person who wrote that is middle class or above. I don't know anyone trying to survive on a minimum wage job without health insurance that would sit around rubbing their hands together at the thought of introducing a minimum wage increase so that we can get those who oppose it on record, for a political advantage two years from now. And I'm suggesting that those who think that way are a little disconnected, emotionally, from the very real people they are trying to help. It's one thing to logically believe that's a long term goal because of your values. It's a whole other thing to feel a sense of urgency at getting it passed, because you or your friends are dying here.

That's why I wrote about community engagement - because I think the sense of urgency becomes real, and the needs are felt more in the gut. I guarantee anyone in New Orleans feels more emotionally invested in their recovery - even the relief workers, not just the residents - than anyone who's been on the other side of the country and just says "oh, that's an outrage, the government needs to address that" without REALLY getting it. It's like the difference between being homeless and working for a homeless shelter, or being a person who maybe votes to fund a homeless shelter because it's the right thing to do. If the vote fails, the latter person can afford to shrug it off and abstractly say even if they lost, it was a good thing it was on the ballot - at least it put the issue in front of the voters, and long term, that might help garner support in future years if we can get it on the ballot again.

The homeless person - or someone who works with them closely, will look at the failed vote as an arrow through their heart, and not understand how they are going to survive the winter unless they can force the issue through in some way. They can't afford to drop the issue til 2008, because they will literally die if they do that.

I think voters would be more emotionally vested in the party if the party - as a whole - acted like it was more emotionally vested in them. This is a complaint I have about politicians when they are interviewed on tv as well, and it's the same complaint I have about the candidate worshippers. When I listen to pundits talk on tv, the vast majority of the time they seem to be speculating on strategy for 2008. Our politicians need to stop feeding into that, need to stop cooperating with those questions. Every time that shit is asked, they need to redirect to the actual issues as if it's their own mother who doesn't have health insurance, as if it's their own daughter stuck in Iraq and has been raped by a commander but they refuse to report it.

I hope I said that in a way that you can see where I'm coming from here.

[ClassWarrior]

12. I do appreciate your thoughtful reply.

However, I think you missed an unspoken assumption in the OP, that these proposals that we put forth should advance our values and promote our causes. I doubt that any real Progressive would suggest we just throw things out there that we know will get vetoed, regardless of their consequences. And by the same token, I doubt any real Progressive would suggest that we only push proposals that we know will be vetoed in order to score political points.

That's the beauty of this approach. It's a win/win situation for us - and that includes "anyone trying to survive on a minimum wage job without health insurance," to use your example. Either Bush** has to let our proposals pass, or he risks undermining the Rape-Publican Party by exposing its elitist tendencies. And while the latter possibility doesn't provide immediate relief to those surviving on minimum wage, they can at least finally have some hope, since this will help create conditions favorable to removing the barrier.

What bothers me is your stereotype that the OP must be "middle class or above" because you perceive that he holds a different position than yours on minimum wage. There is nothing to suggest that someone who isn't poor can't understand poverty - witness the existence of very wealthy individuals like John Edwards who hold a keen understanding of poverty.

But that aside, our side needs to learn to take advantage of situations over which we have little control and turn them to our benefit in a practical, strategic way. Yes, political gamesmanship may be distasteful, but it's a reality, and unless we learn to play the game, we're destined to lose it - which does no one any good except the elites.

NGU.

[Skip Intro]

13. thank you.

Maybe I did a poor job in describing a big picture. You got what I was saying precisely. Don't just suggest things we know will be vetoed, work to affect change whenever possible, while at the same time putting the repukes on record as standing for their corporate masters, shoving the average American under the bus.

We must take every advantage we can in our new majorities to highlight to the average joe just who the other side stands for, and against.

And no, I am not middle-class or higher. I struggle to make ends meet every month.

Very eloquent and perceptive post. thanks.

[ClassWarrior]

15. You're welcome.

You did a fine job in describing your idea. But sometimes passion can prevent a person from seeing the big picture. Of course, that's not meant to slam anyone - one of the things I love best about DUers is their passion.

NGU.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. You miss the implied possibility that enough Reps may chicken out and override the veto.

Or that W may chicken out himself.

[ClassWarrior]

38. .

[ClassWarrior]

39. .

[ClassWarrior]

41. .

[Leftist78]

6. agreed

It's extremely important to show the American people what the Republican party really stands for.

[dmosh42]

7. Bush may surprise on this

I have the feeling that Bush may sign many of these bills in the populist sentiment he knows is behind it. He's stubborn on Iraq because of his greedy family and friends, but this is a guy utterly devoid of principles. He becomes very conservative when it's time to manipulate the religious voters, but that's over now!

[tkmorris]

8. You are EXACTLY right

Pass the most popular bills we can find. Force the president to veto them. Than loudly complain about the obstructionism coming out of the oval office.

Do that until the 08 primaries. Then force the Republican candidates to answer for the vetos. "Would you veto these ideas?" The American people want it, we voted to provide it, all we need is a president that will allow passage.

We can not only win the white house this way, we can win several races down ticket from the presidency. 2008 looks to be a VERY good year for us, at least in the Senate, just looking at the races to be decided. Virtually all of the seats in play are Republican, there to be won.

I think you have the formula, Skip Intro. We, the Dems, need to be on the attack not the defensive. We need to take it to them, and win this thing.

[kentuck]

9. I agree...

Make the take a stand. Let the people see the true Republicans and the true Democrats.

[meganmonkey]

14. How about we push populist bills

because they will help people who are struggling right now? :shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

18. Judging by most of the responses on this thread...

...I think most people understood that that was the unspoken assumption.

The point is that we shouldn't limit ourselves to just the bills we think will succeed; that there is also tremendous value in pushing bills that are likely to fail. Value that will translate to more electoral victories, which will mean that more of our bills will succeed the next time around.

Got it? :shrug:

NGU.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Exactly.

Now is not the time for timidity and compromise, it is the time to finally expose the underbelly of greed and corruption and of ideological meanspiritedness that is at the heart of the Republican Party. The minimum wage bill is a prime example. For six years this legislation has been kept off the floor as a bill on its own and instead packaged up with one poison pill or another. Now is the time to make them vote up or down on it, and make the president sign it or veto it. Whatever they do: we win.

[ClassWarrior]

20. Well said.

NGU.

[sutz12]

16. We have to push populist bills even if bush will veto them.

I think the Dems are moving in the right direction. The ethics rules strategy is very informative. Proposing and voting on them individually allows each member to go on record for a specific position.

I agree with the poster who said this is a strong policy for all legislation. Minimize ALL earmarks and amendments and make people go on record as up or down on specific issues. This has been anathema to politicians for years, but it is time to do this. These kinds of actions would go a long way toward providing more openness and transparency in our government.

[Pushed To The Left]

17. Excellent idea!

Use Bush's veto to expose him and the right wing! On November 7th, minimum wage increase ballot measures did really well in very red states. If the people in these states see that the right wing is against workers being paid more and for things like outsourcing, they will be more inclined to vote for a President and a Congress that will give them what they truly want.

[salin]

22. bush will sign them, not veto... then attach a "presidential signing statement"

saying that due to his responsibilities as COC during time of war... he claims to implement the law as HE sees fit according to HIS view of the Constitution (iow - ignore the law).

He has done that throughout his presidency.

THEN the real challenge begins - through the courts - and in the public eye - demonstrate how illegally the admin -- previously supported by the GOP congress -- has behaved on issue after issue after issue. Would so diminish the GOP that it would be a very, very long time before they return to power.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Yes. Starting in 2008.

In the first year, there's stuff we can do.

[ClassWarrior]

24. We can do both...

...just by doing the right thing, regardless of potential for success.

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

25. Get them talked about! So much of what's happened has been

done in late night, closed door sessions with no one aware of them until it was too late.

We KNOW that America is with us on the minimum wage, health care, Social Security, stem cell research, and education funding.

Spot on, Skip. We must be completely pro-active--and pro-America!

[Kelly Rupert]

34. We have to make sure NOTHING IS DONE.

And waste our time on COMPLETE GRIDLOCK. Maybe even throw in an IMPEACHMENT to make sure we can go to the people in 2008 and say, "See? The 110th Congress did even less than the 109th!"

[ClassWarrior]

35. Why would you want to do THAT?

:shrug:

I think it's more important to take constructive steps like the one the OP is advocating.

NGU.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. I think what the OP is suggesting would be

exactly what I posted, which is clearly a bad idea.

We don't need moral victories now that we're in the majority. We need real policy.

[ClassWarrior]

37. Then you didn't read through the thread...

...especially the sub-thread that starts at #5. Please do. I think this would be EXTREMELY constructive as a part of a larger strategy.

NGU.

[Robeson]

40. I'm sure that's part of the plan...

...for positioning ourselves in 2008.