WHEN Republicans explain their strategy for the upcoming election, the two phrases they always use are "referendum election" and "choice election" -- and the latter is how they want to frame this year's vote.

A referendum election is one in which voters make their decision on the basis of whether the party in power deserves to stay there. From the Republicans' point of view, that's very bad because almost everybody believes they have failed miserably.

A choice election, on the other hand, is one in which voters weigh the two parties against each other. That kind of election gives the Republicans a fighting chance. The subtext of a choice election is: We may have screwed everything up, but the other party is worse. That's how President Bush won reelection.

In principle, the Republicans are right about this. Democracy is a process of compromises and imperfect choices. Asking the voters to compare the two sides is the right thing to do. The trouble is, that isn't really what the Republicans want to do at all.

How do I know this? Because the Democrats running for the House of Representatives actually have an agenda. Republicans aren't saying why the Democratic agenda is wrong, or why their own is better. They're just ignoring it.

If you're like most people, you probably have no idea what that agenda is. Let me list it:

•  Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation.

•  Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

•  Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

•  Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half.

•  Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

•  Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.

•  Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax hikes.

Republicans disagree with all these items. Indeed, the reason these items are on the Democratic agenda is that Republicans in Congress have blocked them from coming up for a vote.

(2):
Real Security Act of 2006

geez, let's be real here guy, with republicans shooting themselves in the foot daily, why would the dems need to do anything, really, other than point and laugh?

in the past couple of weeks, i've gotten maybe 3 or 4 political calls, which i've either not answered (thank goodness for caller id!) or hung up on shortly after realizing what they were. i've not a clue which party/candidate they were from, and don't care.

30. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?

Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of "telemarketing." Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry. However, if a third-party telemarketer is calling on behalf of a charity, a consumer may ask not to receive any more calls from, or on behalf of, that specific charity. If a third-party telemarketer calls again on behalf of that charity, the telemarketer may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.

I guess I'm missing the part about how it's possibly illegal.  

Yesterday I received two calls about 20 minutes apart from the Demo Senate race.

i didn't think political or charitable calls were covered by the TSR, which is why i continue to be bombarded by the red cross.

jim has a satellite dish, with the NFL package, so he can stay in that cave and watch all the games, simutaneously, from the bank of tv's he's surrounded by.

I have said that at one time I lived in Denver area.