Joel asked a very good question in response to my earlier post, "Playing Political Games":
I would like to see more discussion of actual policy. The conservatives are right: our disgust of George Bush does dominate our political talk these days.This is a partial response - basically a quick list off the top of my head of the kinds of things I'd expect to see if a Democrat were to be elected. I'm working from a "generic" Democrat and not any particular candidate at this point, and this isn't a complete list by any means. But it's a start.And this progressive asks "So, if the Democrats come into power, what's going to change?" No dumb monkey stares. I've been getting enough of that from the conservatives and you folks claim to be better.
I'd also like to hear what other readers think they might see from a Democrat President. Please take a minute and post your own lists - or, as Rayne has done, a link to a post in your own blog on this topic. I think Joel's question is a good one, and am curious what others think as well.
Posted by thorswitch at May 18, 2003 06:10 PM | TrackBackSeveral points:
One of the biggest government expenses is entitlements, including Social Security. The Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform (see http://www.dolf.com/homestead/entitlement/report.htm, run by a conservative guy who at least wants people to see what is going on) reveals that the biggest reason for the cost itself (versus the *rate* of increase, which is driven by longer life-spans) is the lack of means-testing (you don't get them if you already have plenty of money) of the benefits. Republicans, George Will, Rush "Loombowel " et al, have always resisted reforming this aspect. R's also don't fight Corporate Welfare enough, but only pick on that earmarked for the poor.
Another: Bush's administration is highly secretive, blocking attempts to know what went on at meetings, after 911, etc (like the reports of the Congressional Committe), etc. They also continue the efforts of DEA to block medical use of marijuana, etc. - something I was very disappointed to see Clinton doing. (I also mistrusted him for NAFTA, and other globalization sell-outs, as Nader et al complained.)
Finally: Nader caused harm, despite having some good critiques, by drawing votes from Gore. Realistically, one of the two major candidates is going to win, and you can only pick the best one.
Neil
Joel - I would like to expect more, but with as often as our government changes, it's hard to ever get much accomplished. I want to be an idealist, but the cynacism has sunk in very deep.
Neil - excellent point about the secrecy - I would very much like to see a great deal less of it. I have to admit, I haven't thought a lot about means testing for Social Security, but it's not necessarily a bad idea, though I'll have to do more research.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
|
Guardian correction posted 1 of 2 kriselda jarnsaxa said: Well, I've been trying to find that... More on the Guardian story 1 of 1 Kevin Murphy said: The Guardian has retracted the stor... Bush Credibility? 1 of 1 Christina said: i am doin a debate on on oragan don... Warblogging.com: Anger 1 of 1 Christopher Key said: Like hell it will work! Bush can m... Wolfowitz: It was the oil 1 of 2 kriselda jarnsaxa said: Thanks for the info - I followed th... |
| E-mail: | ![]() |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
| My Bloginality: | INTP |
| My Blogger Code: | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
| My current mood: |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
| |
| << | domain-ated | >> | |
| <·· PWA ··> | |
| < ? blogs by women # > | |
|
| |
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | |
| « # blogshares ? » | |
| « # Scorpio ? » | |
| < # Blogrollers ? > | |
| [ << ? Verbosity # >> ] | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| )O( |

| Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |






|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I have higher aspirations when I choose candidates. :)
You know, to tell the truth, I don't see Clinton as being the "great president" that many Dems insist that he was. Better than Bush, it is true (but is that hard), but policy-wise, his administration set us up for much of the hell that we're going through together. Likewise Democratic Congresses -- which didn't have the nerve to give the likes of Scalia and Thomas the "unacceptable" stamp bear much of the blame.
I want a candidate who is going to be thinking about the future and thinking of our people as our nation's most important resource. Your comments sound like more of the same "Well, we'll be better than Bush, but don't expect too much." That's been the Democrat line for years and, frankly, I want a better one.