Oppositional party or just opposition?

Democrats Can’t Win When ‘No!’ Is Party’s Dominant Message:
From Roll Call -

Democrats can bask, if they wish, in President Bush’s gloomy poll ratings. But it’s hard to see how they will win the next election without a positive program. So far, from Social Security to energy to judicial nominations to House ethics, the Democratic position on the leading issues of the day is: “No!”

Agreed. To a certain extent, we are the party of opposition. We have oppositional views on many of the issues of the day, of the current agenda. However, in addition to opposing whatever the agenda item of the day may be from the White House, we also need to, at least at times, present options of our own. The problem with this in the past four years is that anything we've presented or worked on with the Republicans has either been turned down out of hand by the majority, or has been co-opted and maladjusted (NCLB) towards a total net result of failure for society. Why present our own options as the party in minority when it's going to result in harming us?

To answer that last question, one must look at the overall attitude of Democrats, or progressives. We as a people are working towards progress, and of getting things down. The status quo is a Republican, or conservative tenet. While Republicans are happy with where we are at, and what we've done, progressives are interested in moving forward, realizing that while what we've done may be good, there is always room for improvement. So while we may not get what we want out of the proposals, it is by our nature to suggest ideas and try to move public policy and not retain the status quo. I find it humorous anytime President Bush or the Republican members of Congress suggest that Democrats need to come to the table because they don't see a crisis (or problem) with Social Security - and that President Bush wants to make Social Security an issue of the Republican Party, taking it away from FDR and the Democrats (co-opting one of the Democratic Party's best governmental programs in our history). We, the Democratic Party, have a responsibility, and a desire to fix Social Security just as much, if not much moreso, than the Republican Party. We seek to deliver as comfortable a safety net for the poor, hope to increase the middle class, and help those trying to move up in society. Bush's suggested plan this past Thursday is both laughable and insulting. He wants to have it both ways, and his transparency is increasingly evident. Now he suggests that we should cut middle class benefits by up to 40% and retain benefits for the lowest class. While admirable that he suddenly is as compassionate towards those living in poverty, our middle class making an average salary depends on Social Security benefits and should not be cut. He will never accede to a reduction in his tax cuts, because that would be framed as a tax increase, and increasing the payroll wage limit (if eligible Social Security levels were increased by 40k$ to 130k$ from 90k$, Social Security would remain solvent with many billions of increased operating funds) would harm the Billionaires for Bush constituency our President has worked so hard to keep happy.