Centerfield

he's not so far off target, but I think he could use more positive phrasing and avoid sounding like the Dem raison d'etre is to say no to Bush, thus defining themselves in terms of Bush, as anti-Bush, and not as strongly in favor of some specific ideals related to each specific issue.

In other words, if you want to avoid sounding like an obstructionist and a whiner, say how eager you are to work with Bush in a genuine bipartisan effort, and state what specific goals you have in mind as reasonable things to achieve. For example, instead of insulting Bush's SS plan and saying there is no problem, say what the important priorities are, who you want to protect, and suggest that Bush should share these obvious priorities.

But if you said that, bk, you would never be quoted in a newspaper.

I think it matters because Bush will need moderate Republicans and/or Democrats more than he would. A "just say no to everything," mobilized Democratic Party IMHO means Bush will have to govern closer to the middle of the spectrum. The first evidence of this is the Intelligence reform compromise. Brian is right, if the Democrats try to please Carla and the rest of their base by simply saying no, and not offering alternatives of their own and at least trying to look bi-partisan, then they are going to lose this fight.

Menendez is right, but technically Bush has got room to push through his agenda. It is called majority rule and the Republicans have more of it now than they did before the election. To me, Menendez is simply whining about being in the minority as opposed to doing anything constructive about it.

Bush will talk the big talk, but like he did on Medicare, Homeland Security, Corporate tax cuts, the Farm Bill, "No Child Left Behind," and now intelligence reform, he will come around and appease moderates on a variety of issues in order to ensure that his legislation gets through Congress. The strategy has worked for him so far, why would it not work now?

Who needs to come to grips with the situation the most are the centrists. IMO they failed during the Medicare debate because they didn't properly gauge the administration's willingness to negotiate in order to get a bill passed through Congress. The result was bad public policy and a Medicare spending problem that will take years to even come close to fixing. If I where a moderate in Congress my vote on Social Security would be dependant on a whole list of demands because quite frankly it isn't going to happen without my support.

I'm not sure publicizing the strategy of pure opposition to Bush is a good one. But it seems the Democratic Caucus has been trying to send the message ever since the elections.
Is it possible they're trying to make the other side of the aisle a little wary of bringing hardcore partisan bills to the floor in the first place, no matter the consequence in the public eye?
Maybe they feel this is the only way to keep some power as a minority party. Maybe it's preemptive defense.

It is called majority rule and the Republicans have more of it now than they did before the election.

Yes but in the case of SS, the Republican moderates sense the air around them. USA Today had a poll yesterday that showed the 18-29 year old group were in favor of private accounts whereas the others were against it. The older the group, the more against it. Unless the Republicans can count on the 18-29 age group to win in 2006, they better watch their step. SS is still a lightning rod (particularly for seniors).

Who needs to come to grips with the situation the most are the centrists. IMO they failed during the Medicare debate because they didn't properly gauge the administration's willingness to negotiate in order to get a bill passed through Congress. The result was bad public policy and a Medicare spending problem that will take years to even come close to fixing.

Matthew;
I agree the Medicare debate and the prescription drug benefit is a disaster (we don't have the money) but was that a centrist failure or a party failure (read Republican). Could centrists have stopped that?

Chris,

In the Senate it was a handful of centrist Democrats that put it over the edge, the
moderate Republicans mostly voted "no." In the House the vote was like a five vote difference with most Moderate Republicans voting for it. So, the answer to your question IMO is yes, they could have done something about it. I think they feared that if they didn't get a drug benefit now, they would never get it. I am not opposed to the benefit, I am opposed to the benefit in the way that it was done. What should have happened was an overhaul of the system replacing it with something similiar to what the Federal Government offers it's employeees, along with some serious means testing... This is an idea endorsed by think tanks as conservative as Heritage and as liberal as Brookings. I don't think Republicans wanted to reform Medicare too much, because it would then be harder to push for privatization in the future. These are all theoreticaly statements, admittedly.

EG,

My point exactly... Moderates are already skeptical because they think their are bigger fish to fry... Which is exactly why Bush is going to have to pander to centrists in order to get any type of reform passed through Congress. If Democrats are united against any Social Security Bill, than Bush will have to go the moderate Republicans, IMO.

Bush legislation is very different than judicial nominees.

Bush got ONLY 52% of the Catholic vote, when the Pope is pretty clear that protection of the unborn is just about the single greatest moral imperitive for Catholics. The Reps could get 80% of church going Catholics if the Dems continue to apply a pro-abortion litmus test to judicial nominations.

Personal accounts are long overdue for SS, and maybe most other gov't benefits.

Yeah, but Tom, he got 52% of the Catholic vote running against a Catholic.

The first evidence of this is the Intelligence reform compromise. Brian is right, if the Democrats try to please Carla and the rest of their base by simply saying no, and not offering alternatives of their own and at least trying to look bi-partisan, then they are going to lose this fight.

The Democrats have been offering alternative plans. And incidentally...they tried to look bipartisan during most of Bush's first term..and we can see where that got them.

they tried to look bipartisan during most of Bush's first term..and we can see where that got them.

Huh? Please elaborate.

Bush deserves credit as a political beast--he alone has effected a meltdown among the Democratic party. Of course, I personally think it's a good thing for the Democrats, since they need to come to grips why their message, or lack thereof, is not resonating among the public. Hopefully the Dem "message-makers" in Washington will take it this way.

and that it will cause these "message-makers" to think ideas instead of message.

I agree, it's not the way the message is presented, sometimes it seems like there isn't a coherent message present besides opposition.

they tried to look bipartisan during most of Bush's first term..and we can see where that got them.

Please, don't confuse being bipartisan with being scared to disagree on issues like the Iraq war or The Patriot Act because it might make them look "Un-American."