The last couple of months have been pretty puzzling in terms of what the Democrats are trying to achieve going into the election cycle. They seem to be doing things randomly and without a clue (much like the Republicans leading up to 2006 and 2008…)

First, the moratorium on offshore drilling was lifted, without any palpable reaction from folks who were up in arms a few short months ago as the Deepwater Horizon spewed oil uncontrolled into the Gulf. What’s the deal here?

Second, a judge struck down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” effectively ending the policy – a stated objective of the Obama Administration (and something that is so clearly needed that Republicans are challenging the Administration’s request of the judge to remove the injunction.)

Finally, the suspension or extension of the Bush Tax Fiasco as a no vote before the election is a clear miss. They should have forced the opposition to take a stance.

The thing that is puzzling, nay maddening, is that these items provide an opportunity to take a stand on things that the party allegedly stands for. To wit, “No, we will not lift the moratorium. We need to balance our needs for energy with protection of the environment. Therefore, we are going to keep the moratorium in place until we are satisfied that drilling operations will be handled safely and responsibly, not just in the Gulf of Mexico, but everywhere we have responsibility to protect.” That would be a stand, it would be clear and consistent.

On DADT, “We believe in equality for ALL citizens, regardless of race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. This is a core principle of democracy and it extends to all of the men and women who wish to serve in the military. DADT is a clear violation of this principle and it’s appalling that a judge has had to take this action to effectively end the policy, it should have been handled legislatively a decade ago. This is evidence that our balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is alive and well.”

Finally, on the tax cuts, take it one of two ways. First option, “We are concerned with the economy and one of the core problems is the deficit. We cannot in good conscience carry on a policy that we clearly cannot afford and as a consequence, we are electing to end the ill advised tax cuts uniformly and at the same time commit to reduce Federal expenditures by X% per year taking into account the following actions (to be enumerated.) The combination of these actions will have a net positive effect on the economy by addressing the structural problems in the Federal budget.”

Option 2, “We are concerned with the economy and one of the core problems is the deficit. Despite the fact that Bush Tax Fiasco coupled with profligate waste in two wars spanning nearly a decade and desperate actions to help stave off global depression have created this problem, we do not believe changing the tax structure at this time will have a strong enough positive impact on the budget to take the risk to change it at this time. Consequently, we will extend the Bush Tax Fiasco until 2013 and will pursue reduced expenditures by ending the two wars and reducing our spending as an outcome, step up our collection of TARP funds from financial firms that are now flourishing as a result of the public’s action, and examining closely the core expenditures in the Federal government to reduce spending by x%.”

If the Democrats had a brain between them, they would stand up and let their freak flag fly. 40% of the country wasn’t going to vote for them anyway, doesn’t matter what they say, it’s the 20% in the middle who don’t really align with either party they are fighting for. Being Not Bush was enough in 2008 (heck, even Republicans were sick of that act at that time) by it’s not enough now. Stand up, be proud, be consistent, be just, be smart. Have some courage, show some conviction, show some passion. For pete’s sake, you’re pitiful.

Right now, it’s pretty clear to me that neither party is competent. Either could fuck up a two car parade. And the so called Tea Party isn’t the answer either. Is it too much to ask for a modicum of consistency, common sense, and/or decency from our political leadership? The whole situation would be funny if it weren’t so serious.