When a president's approval ratings are in the 30s, and it's the last two years of his presidency, there will inevitably be criticism and opposition to his policies. Opponents of the president's agenda can score easy political points because they assume the vast majority of the public will be against the unpopular president.

This scenario is what faces our current president when, last week, freshman Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., gave the Democrats' response to the State of the Union Address. Naturally, he disagreed and criticized the president throughout his speech, singling out Bush's handling of the economy and the war in Iraq.

Webb ended his speech saying the Democrats "will be showing [Bush] the way." I couldn't help thinking, which way is it?

The problem is that the Democrats are by no means unified on how best to "improve" the economy or solve the problems caused by the Iraq war. Although the Democrats' leadership in Congress claims a mandate for change because of the last election, there seems to be a great divide between the established liberal leadership and the moderate-to-conservative Democrats who were elected to tip the balance of power.

One of the main criticisms of the economy under President Bush is the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas. I doubt any politician, regardless of party, would like anything better than to keep these jobs here in the United States. After all, the image of the American worker going to a factory with his lunch pail and time card is a powerful one that no one wants to see disappear. The problem is the Democrats have yet to outline or articulate a plan to keep those jobs here.

Still, despite the loss of manufacturing jobs, the unemployment rate is only 4.5 percent — a full percentage point below the roaring economy of the Clinton years. Not only that, according to Department of Labor statistics, the average hourly salary for American workers has increased $2.76 to more than $17 an hour since President Bush took office. That's not exactly below a living wage.

So, what exactly is the Democrats' plan to "fix" the economy? What is it that they would fix to begin with? How do they plan to bring back those manufacturing jobs to the United States? No one knows for sure because we are still waiting for the answer.

When the issue becomes Iraq, the Democrats' positions only get stranger.

Rather than offer specifics, the far left — led by our own Sen. Feingold — wants all the troops out now. Other, more "moderate" members of the party want all troops home in six months or a year. Some even talk of de-funding the troops to force the president to withdraw them. While still others, albeit a very small minority, still support the current policies.

But it is not just that the Democrats are advocating a withdrawal of all troops in such short order, it is that they are also insistent that the withdrawal be conducted in a way that leaves a stable Iraq.

This begs the question: How? As of right now, the situation in Iraq is indeed horrible. The sectarian violence is crippling Baghdad and the al-Maliki government, but were we to leave now, how would the situation improve? Even with our military strength there on the ground, the situation is chaotic, but without our troops acting as buffers between the Sunni and Shiite militias, how are the Iraqis supposed to reign in the insurgency by themselves?

The Senate is going to approve a non-binding and therefore pointless resolution condemning the troop surge in Baghdad, yet at the same time they confirmed Gen. Petraeus, the man who is largely responsible for developing the new plan.

If the surge were such a mistake, why would anyone confirm the architect of the plan? In fact, the same committee that approved the resolution confirmed Petraeus unanimously.

There are anywhere between six and 10 Democrats running for the presidency in 2008, yet not a single one of them has had anything to say about the surge other than it is a mistake and we should "redeploy" our troops out of Iraq. Does any Democrat, especially the leaders of the party, have a strategy that does not involve running away and hoping that the Iraqis somehow fend for themselves?

The Democrats promised leadership, and they promised change. They have a chance to offer real solutions to the loss of manufacturing jobs and the war in Iraq, but mere opposition to the president's policies is not enough. For years, the Democrats have demanded details and specifics from President Bush on the war, so shouldn't we expect the same from them?

Mike Hahn ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.