The party of 'no'?

The whole notion that Democrats don't stand for anything except in opposition to the president has infested our national political discourse, and it's an idea that is flat wrong. Somehow the Democratic party, completely out of power in D.C., is expected to seize some imaginary megaphone and talk over the noise from the White House about an alternative vision for the country. Now, if you want to claim Kerry didn't do that effectively enough when he had a chance as presidential nominee, fine. But there is simply no platform for the Democrats to broadcast a national message at least until the midterms next year.

The fact is, Democrats in the Senate and House have a variety of plans that simply are not allowed up for a vote. Reid's threat is that if Republicans pass a rules change on judicial filibusters, he will react by forcing Democratic proposals on to the floor. Republicans have said this would effectively "shutdown" the Senate, and are unwilling to consider the Democrats' legislation. So, maybe D.C. political reporters should start asking why it is the Republicans' won't allow the opposition to at least express their voice. As a majority, the GOP are free to defeat the legislation if they want, but to deny Democrats a chance to even bring it to the floor and then claim (along with their friends in the media) that the Democrats' don't have a real alternative vision for the country, is a farce that should be obvious to every political bobblehead reporter/pundit.