1) After last election cycle why didn't the Democrats do more to get the troops out of Iraq (like simply declare peace)?

2) After the last election cycle why didn't the Democrats even try to scare Bush/Chenney with at least the talk of impeachment on any number of the alleged criminal acts?

Come on people. These are so easy.

1) The Congressional Democrats are cowards.

2) The Congressional Democrats are cowards.

Obama 08!

Yeah.

But it is the basis of a successful Republican argument in this presidential election - that Democrats must agree with Republican policies or else they would have done something, anything, to thwart Republicans either domestically or abroad.

With the same intelligence Democrats do nothing right now, today, in regards to the war. With the same economic data the Democrats do nothing in regards to the economy. Even failure by veto would be leadership, to say otherwise is to Pelosify the truth.

McCain should take that and pummel the Democrats with it. Buy yourself some copy writers and you could have a field day at the Democrats expense.

The Congressional Democrats are cowards.

OK, I've stipulated that. But John McCain isn't running against Congress. And it would be really weird if he tried. To run against Congress would be to run against the policies of George W. Bush.

McCain is running against Barack Obama. And McCain is running on a third term of Bush policies. I really don't see how that is going to work for McCain.

Of course, McCain's image makers are now hard at work on his extreme makeover. He's now brimming over with new ideas. Gas tax holiday. Check. Climate change. Check. Question period. Check.

Now this is really very amusing. McCain is the human Transformer. "Watch him change into something completely different before your very eyes!" I await with bated breath his next transformation.

Obama 08!

Re: pwoxby point.

The Congressional Democrats are cowards. That includes Obama, who made one anti-war speech before becoming a Senator and then never showed any leadership to followup on his speech. He even admitted that he would not know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution, if he were in the Senate when voting took place. Did he read the NIE reports on Iraq? Obama is just like any other politician. He is the chairman of the Nato subcommitte and never convened a single meeting, because he did not have time (running for president).

spiker:

1) After last election cycle why didn't the Democrats do more to get the troops out of Iraq (like simply declare peace)?

What do you mean by "declare peace?" There was never a declaration of war..

One problem you have here goes by the name of Joe Lieberman. His decision to continue to caucus with the dems is the only reason they got to be Senate majority. On Iraq and the war on terror he is an ardent Bush supporter.

In order to "fail by veto", they need 60% of the senate. They have done a great deal of putting up motions and legislation to change things, but they have not been able to vote on any of it, because they don't have the super-majority needed for cloture (sp).

The honest answer here is that they are actually trying to do a few half-assed measures that are watered-down enough that a few republicans would let the measures come to the floor... But that is literally all that can be accomplished in this current government. They should get at least 4 senate seats and a few more congress seats and the white house... which gives them a lot more pressure to lean on the republicans with... but if they can't get 60 senate seats then everything they do in 2009-2010 will be pretty watered down as well.

Welcome to the American government.

I'm sorry I think you have it wrong. A simple majority puts a bill on the president's for veto.

The Democrats haven't forced Bush to veto anything much that I can think of that would put a burr in his side. That is complicity.

If Lieberman is not with you he is against you. Force his constituents to see him for what he is.

Otherwise, Democrats are complicit with the Republicans.

They can't force his constituents to do anything. Don't forget, Lieberman actually lost the Democratic primary 2 years ago and had to run as an independent. His actions are his own responsibility, not the responsibility of the rest of the party.

I agree with you that the Democrats could have done more in the last couple of years, though how much more is debatable.

You force Lieberman to stand with you or against you. You force Lieberman's constituents to choose between him and the party. That is if the Democratic agenda is the one that resonates with the American people.

But there are only two viable parties, so I think that leaves us with a few options:

> don't vote

> vote for the lesser of two evils

> vote for the greater of two evils

Nope.

You can split your vote.

Republican president and Democratic congress (or vice-versa).

In the current stream of political analysis it seems going with a Democratic congress option is the more doable option. But the fskcers need to grow a pair to keep the president in check like they are supposed to.

spiker:

You force Lieberman to stand with you or against you. You force Lieberman's constituents to choose between him and the party. That is if the Democratic agenda is the one that resonates with the American people.

And how exactly do they force them to do something?

You force him to cast a vote (or not) by honestly working your agenda.