This is not intended to be a well constructed analysis of the Democratic party's initiatives while in power. Quite frankly, I'm of the mindset that most Americans don't really do 'analysis' when it comes to politics - at least not of the 'let's get all the facts on the table' type of analysis.
Nope, this post is really simple: Why do the Democrats continually say that they're for legislation, but refuse to actually bring it to the floor for debate and vote?
A stronger jobs act? Tax cuts for the middle class and tax raises for the rich? Don't Ask-Don't Tell repeal? A better mortgage act?
The list of 'don't dare to try' initiatives is rather quite long. Time and time again, Dems talk wistfully about what they'd like to do...then shiver and wail at the threat of a filibuster. It is a political party as a tragedy.
No wonder this party will lose in November...talk but don't act is rarely a winning strategy for anything in life.
So goodbye Democratic Governance...we hardly knew ye...and what we knew of ye wasn't so different than before (and yes, that's why you're gone).
Here's a scenario...
Let America watch the GOP read recipes to stop a new Mortgage Act while the networks do a live side-by-side shot of an eviction.
Put up a website showing the number of recipes the GOP read in that day, while also showing the number of evictions that took place.
How long do you think the GOP poll numbers would stay high? Me thinks that they would cave...quickly.
Of course...if you don't really think that we should have a new Mortgage Act then you don't do the above.
See what America is saying...a simple analysis really does reveal the truth.
Update: Regarding the actuality of a filibuster.
A modern day filibuster takes place only in the AM - as in the Senate can actually do other things in the afternoon. That's the way it's been since the 1970's. So of course some will argue that a filibuster doesn't make for high drama. As if the above 'yackfest to stop evication help' scenario would not indeed be high drama.
The same concept of high drama applies to the idea that Republicans could simply leave the Senate floor empty in a 'virtual filibuster' scenario - as suggested by Harry Reid in his defense of sniveling. Sure we wouldn't have the visual of a GOP recipe recital, but we would have the visual of the Republicans simply not showing up for work!
Perhaps the GOP would only have to keep one Senator in the building to say "I suggest the absence of a quorum". To which the Dems could say: "Well, then we suggest that the Republicans not be absent for their work of helping the middle class". It would make for even better political theater if the GOP didn't get to talk at all...and when they showed up for TV interviews, maybe they could be asked why they won't do their talking on the Senate floor.
Of course, wasting only 'half the day' is not really the point (though a dual filibuster would be cool as well). Rather the thought that Republicans rather not talk about the 1/3 of Americans that are upside down on their mortgage would not be a nice visual. Ditto for financial reform, the tax cuts, and all the other issues on which Democrats actually poll higher than Republicans!
The Dems could charge ahead and force the Republicans to talk about the issues on which Democrats have broad support - and even try legislating on the same issue - so the puzzle is 'Why don't they?'
Update 2: Virtual or Real, filibusters are still obstructionism
Whether 'virtual filibuster' or 'recipe yackfest', America would quickly get the point that the GOP is trying to stop things that are aimed at helping middle class America.
And to those who defend not pursing a filibuster: To suggest that the majority is powerless to stop the will of the minority being imposed on the majority is absolute defeatism. Unless it conceals something else.
Americans don't like defeatists...they sniff it out pretty quickly. And they also sniff out other things that smell too.
I'll stop before I start applying the aluminum foil to the cranium...of course, that can't stop the 'they already got the real votes so why should we try get out the common vote' thoughts inside my head!
P.S. Re the 'communication' void, is Bill Clinton the only Democrat that can articulate what a Democrat actually is and how they try serve the 'average joe'?