Murtha's plan fits neatly within the boundaries of UNSCR 1546 (June '04) [.pdf]. The administration negotiated the terms of that document within the Security Council, one of which is paragraph 12:
12. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq;
Polls in Iraq indicate the people are ready for us to leave, the Pentagon is constantly bragging about the capabilities of the new Iraqi forces, they are getting help with their debt, and the Iraqis themselves are fighting the terrorists.
I don't see a problem here. The administration is in a box of their own design, the kind without a door. What's the problem?
Only in comparison to dem/progressive solutions, and only when asked. For all those who believe the Democratic leadership in the Senate & House haven't been putting their bills where their principles are, go look through thomas. Senate package was submitted at the beginning of the session, as were bills in the House meeting the test of "progressive" legislation.
If you want to attack the GOP on the drug bill, you might want to find out - or spell out - a rational, comprehensive health care plan. At least then you'd have an answer for the first question asked: if you're attacking their plan, what's your alternative?
Find the solution, present the plan. Way past time to get ahead of the curve instead of playing pavlovian games with Rove.
Their Senators and Representatives can't get a damn hearing room . . .
Suggest you take a look at the QRS site, read their description of the media available @ the DNC, then say again "they can't get the word out". Dean, et. al. are doing a good job of outreach under pressure. But I'd feel better if they spent the money for a few good tech experts to teach them how to use their new toys.
I agree that any politician biting into "marriage" as a legal definition is walking into that rotor. But the plain fact is that any two people walking into a City Clerk are issued a certificate by the State recognizing a civil union, granting the couple to jointly enter into the full range of legal rights and responsibilities otherwise denied.
Reversing the "Roveisms" means denying a couple the right to have children, a common medical plan, savings and/or bank account, to buy a house, and (laughably) pay joint taxes.
Messages: Hopefully he's conversant with the local and national issues affecting the district, but still better to ask - don't tell. A very fat group - sufficient to turn an election - lives in the middle of the electorate, and is made up of disaffected Republicans, and/or independents, as well as Democrats.
None of them need to be preached to, or be subjected to "blue-sky" promises. Keep it simple sam.
Iraq: I don't know how to word the question, but it seems like you're asking about two fairly defined "exit strategies". Murtha's call for redeployment (staging out of theater), with a gradual, though specific timeline; and Bush's nebulous "when the Iraqis are ready". To get to the answers I think you need to reverse the order, and put #s 3 & 4 first (current), followed by 1 & 2 (past).
#1 might be more direct: do you believe the President has the authority to order wiretaps on Americans? (Follow-on w/2a & b)
#3 add new #3: do you believe the American people were told the truth about our reasons for going to war in Iraq? (Follow-on by renumbering #s 3 - 5).
I agree with you about trying to get a read on how people view the Democrats (and/or Congress in general). Open-ended questions are better than boxed-in.