Psst, Peter.
They left the cage door open. You don't have to run the maze any more.
By Moe Lane Posted in Democrats — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So, the Democrats won. They have Congress, and now have the chance to actually show the American people their plan of action. And what does Peter Beinart want them to do?
Why, he wants them to do nothing except obstruct Bush, of course.
Now that they have taken the House (and probably the Senate), Democrats should start acting like Republicans. I don't mean the Republicans of today; I mean the Republicans of the late 1990s. In its behavior during Bill Clinton's final years in office, the GOP offers a template for how Democrats should approach the final years of George W. Bush's presidency.
In Clinton's concluding years, the GOP played a brilliant game of good cop-bad cop. In Congress, the Gingrich revolutionaries waged an all-out effort to emasculate the Clinton presidency. After initially dwelling on Clinton's Whitewater land deal, the White House Travel Office, and other political minutiae, the GOP in 1998 tried to use Clinton's lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky to remove him altogether.
It was kamikaze politics. The public loathed the partisan warfare and, in the 1998 midterm elections, punished Republicans at the polls. But the GOP didn't give up. In 1999 and 2000, it blocked virtually all of Clinton's initiatives--from a prescription-drug benefit to a minimum-wage hike to a post-Columbine push for gun control. Even on foreign policy, where presidents usually gravitate late in their administrations, the Republican Congress kept Clinton on a tight leash. The Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And, with U.S. planes in the sky over Kosovo, it defeated a resolution supporting the war effort and tried to block funding for the peacekeeping that followed. GOP Senator Mitch McConnell even admitted that, when it came to Clinton's agenda, the Republicans pursued a "strategy of not letting any critical mass develop before the election."
After you stop laughing, read on.
Beinart goes on to dismissively shrug off the damage all of the above did to the GOP in the late 90s, not to mention the likely implications to the Democrats in general and the Democratic leadership in particular (not that Beinart would shed many tears if Rep. Pelosi fell down an elevator shaft); between that and tossing the usual red meat to a largely uninterested base this is almost obscured:
Democrats shouldn't fool themselves. The American people haven't given them a mandate to govern; they have given them a mandate to stop Bush from governing. For the next two years, the job of the Democratic Congress will be to block--and to hope that, in 2008, the party hands the ball to someone who can really run.
Two points on this. First, Beinart is - not uncommonly for the Left - confusing Bush for the GOP, and vice versa. Right at this moment, the GOP is facing a severe loss of power in the legislative branch, and not so much at the executive branch. This can be changed, but two years is not enough time to have Bush nibbled to death by ducks. And thank God for that, might I add. So, sorry, Peter, but if you want the Democrats to look like leaders they need to lead. Which leads me to my next point: the New Republic apparently thinks - mere days after a big win for its team - that the best way for the Democratic Party to take the Presidency in '08 is to play a holding action and hope for a miracle.
I seem to remember somebody saying once that hope is not a plan.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | A Simple Question For The Netroots — Comments (27) »
Psst, Peter. 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
No, really. Tears are streaming down my face as I rub my face and limbs with ash. A dirge is playing in the background, murmuring counterpoint to the last breaths of a dying angel...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Complete gridlock for two years, with nothing getting done, is sounding better and better.
I recall that when Republicans held the majority it has constantly been said by the right that Democrats are obstructing the will of the majority who elected them. Now you wish to do the same?
...who is counseling the soon-to-be majority party to do precisely what you're objecting to, I suggest that you might want to bring that up with The New Republic.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I actually want both sides to stop constant hate and partisnaship.
Basically while I do not think Mr. Bush has good ideas on government, I have seen good ideas come from reasonable conservatives.
Last 6 years, IMHO has been been really mostly "its my way or the highway". If Bush continues to do the same, there is little chance of change. Bolton is the perfect example. It has been made painfully clear that the Democrats do not think he does a good job.
We had Bush speak on working together and then he renominates Bolton that same day. I see no sign of change from him with that act.
Sorry, neighbor, but you're talking to the soon to be out-of-power folks: the poor level of discourse is now your side's problem to fix, and I'm sure that you'll have oodles of fun doing it.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Being a minority party does not mean you can not help to govern.
Its that same "my way or the highway". Either you drive or they drive. Or vice versa.
I do not mind reasonable people with good ideas. Will all ideas be put through. Probably no. But a compromise and consideration is good.
You folks have the baraka now. You don't need us to create your legislative agenda.
So get cracking, already. January 3rd rapidly approaches.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I was not talking about need. I was talking about how its tiresome that the split between two sides is so bad that both sides stop seeing people on the other side and only see color (blue/red...whatever).
In my opinion its best to actually have both sides to work togather (and I do not mean that, minority rubberstamping majority). But actually sit at the table and work on solutions together.
Does it have to be one way or the other way? Or can agreements be reached to build new paths of actions.
but foolish, nonetheless. It is part of the superstition - and I use this word deliberately - that good people can just sit down and reach some compromise that is in the interests of the people, and not just their party.
The problem is, virtually everyone in politics is advocating their views because they think those are in the best interests of the people. That is why they are not trial lawyers or CEOs on much higher salaries. Even the ones you think are self-evidently wrong, really believe 90% of what they are saying.
It is far better for ideas to face each other in open competition than try to hammer out a compromise. Better to fight for what you believe, and only get some it, than negotiate it all away. Most of all, it is better to give the electorate a choice between two different ideas than for both parties to sign up to a mushy consensus.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Tell your troubles to Peter Beinart, because it ain't our problem any more.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Three months ago the liberals were talking about "Give Em Hell Harry" in the Senate and impeachment of Bush in the House. Plus the "comic" movies simulating a Bush assassination, Cindy Sheehan sitting on Bush's lawn, Michael Moore, etc. There was no comment on that in the media, or discussion of bipartisanship.
But now that Democrats have majorities, all of a sudden there is talk of bipartisanship all over. It really means that the Democrats don't want to get back in the face what they dished out. They want the Republicans to be obedient little scared puppies that accept their minority status and don't cause any problems for their liberal masters.
I hope my party is not that weak. We need to give back double what we got.
I remember when the Cincinnati Bengals lost Superbowl XXIII. I was there and was crushed to say the least. My brother, who was with me, said not to worry. We would win it next year.....
There are no guarantees unless we learn the right lessons from this defeat, and make the needed changes and corrections.
I agree with both sayings about the super bowl. Emotions like worry are worthless. What matters are actions by the people who can change things, which was the Bengals then and all republicans now.
The danger is if only do one thing, because we need both parts. It isn't enough to just stop worrying about losing. That's only step 1. Then we need to use every ounce of our strength to take congress back and to keep the presidency in 2008. Otherwise we'll be the minority forever, like in the 40 years before 1994.
I forgot to give the sports example. There is a tradition in Chicago that every year after the Cubs lose, they say "Wait until next year". That's the first step, stop worrying. Well, the Cubs haven't worn a world series since 1908, so it has been nearly 100 "wait until next years". That shows the danger of not doing step #2, make sure we don't lose again.
the one that was happy and content to be the perpetual minority party in congress.
I for one have no intention of seeing my party go that way again.
The democrats have won, now it is time for them to actually create and try to put in an agenda.
And frankly, while the idea of not doing anything might appeal, I don't think the American people are in the mood to see the newly installed democratic congress do nothing legislatively while they play the investigation game.
You have sizable Majorities in both houses of Congress. You have the MANDATE. You are the Chosen Ones. You speak with the Voice of the People, and if unified, cannot be denied.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Wait...the democrats spent the last six years obstructing every single piece of conservative legislature that came through. The only bills they didn't fight were the spending bills, they enjoyed those. Oh wait, no...they fought spending bills if the money was supposed to help the War on Terror, but other than THAT they didn't fight any spending bills. They fought every single significant nomination that Bush put up, from Bolton to all the judges. If Bush did anything remotely conservative, they fought it, as if we didn't elect him to be a conservative president. And now that you've won, you blame US and say we are the ones who are going to obstruct government?
I don't have any authority on this site, but your intellectual dishonesty should get you kicked. What you call compromise is for all conservatives to just lay down and let the liberals run government completely unimpeded. Personally, I say screw that. I'm still a conservative and I say we should fight for our ideals. If you don't like it, too bad.
-Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid.-
John Wayne
as to what particular aspects of Mr. Bolton's performance they find objectionable, and in particular, in what respects they differ with Senator Voinovich on his reassessment of the man.
that said only Democrats could win the war on terror (because unless they were in power they were going to whine and obstruct and lie?) I guess not much has changed. This is why you don't spoil the child, America.
...but as I haven't been in a coma for a couple of decades and saw what the Dems did to the last two years of the Reagan and Bush41 administrations I'm not.
Beinart is a twit. Pure and simple. What the Republicans did after 1994 was just payback for Reagan and Bush. And I fully expect, the mealy-mouthed pledges of cooperation notwithstanding, that the Dems will set about to prevent any accomplishment by Bush in the remaining two years of his presidency.
In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't.
This is the last thing I expected from Beinart, but it's quite revealing. It shows that his entire effort to fashion a bipartisan, Trumanesque foreign policy was a complete and utter scam.
I say, LET the Democrats listen to him. Let RNC chair Mike Steele respond to the Angry Democrats.
Americans want both parties to work together. Beinart is so wrong he cannot help himself.
Conservatives need to understand this, however. Bush in the WH, and Pence and Shaddegg on the Hill must speak to the Country of the politics of Goldwater and Reagan, while Beinart leads Pelosi, Reid and Clinton off the cliff.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
That's a good example of being a "poor winner."
That said, there's a (small) grain of truth here: the dems didn't put up a grand overarching strategy and yet they won handily. I think that the election really was a referendum on the implementation led by the republicans in the legistlative and executive branches.
It would be a mistake for either party to make darker (or clearer) weather of it than it was, however: people don't like corruption and they don't like leaders who appear completely out of touch with reality. In my view, that's about the long and short of it.
the white doves of ethical purity. After all they have elected and re elected numerous times men who were caught up in scandals just as bad.
In the end I don't think the voters are in the mood for a do nothing congress. While the democrats may not have articulated plans, they sure enough ran around screaming that they could do better. Now they have to actually prove it, and if they don't, well the voter will only have so much patience.
Before the they even called MO, MI, VA Huffinton was on Larry King screaching how the Dems must now get US out of Iraq NOW OR ELSE. Go to her site I did yesterday and Murtha was front center calling strategic Deployment NOW. McGovern yes 60's failed preace pres McGovern is giving a speech to 60 Dems in Congress and his own words "If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters Thursday before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln" his plan is all boots out by JUNE!
The Dems having it both ways is over they have both houses and non-action is not going to work someone is going to get it raw dog sooner rather than later.
The Congress/Senate cannot force Bush to withdrawl the forces he is still the president in charge of the executive branch. The current military budget for this 07' is already done so all they really could do is try to cut off all money to the troops (with them in the field) in 08' months before a ELECTION bahahaha RIIIgghhtttt. Talk about Political Suicide and for a power first Dems aint going to happen.
This show is going to be funny becuase the Dems can't just sit in the middle and cry complain playing both sides no more they have both houses in the Congresstional branch, now the Dems are forced to f*ck someone, is it going to be the LLL radical base or will it be the American people.
Some will say it will be the american people but I would say remember most of these Dems voted for the war before they changed thier mind and most of thier new reps are rather "conservative" who many outright ran on a NO cut and run stradegy. My opinion the Dems are not idealogical they are power first at any cost people. They wont screw their political future on principles "they don't have any".
We should sit back and let the Dems make the next move.
I believe that Bush's big government programs, his incompetence, his amnesty for illegals, does extreme disservice to the conservative movement.
I, for one, hope the dems block Bush's agenda. The past six years have proven that it is Bush who is the enemy of conservatives. Other than appointing Alito and Roberts, what's he done?
The Democrats will block Bush's proposal to reform social security, but they will wholeheartedly support Bush's amnesty for illegal immigrants plan.
If Bush proposes something conservative, the Democrats will block it. If Bush proposes something liberal, the Democrats will pass it in a nanosecond.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
that's what the Dems will vote for in a New York minute. I expect them to rush through an immigration amnesty bill, another bill "fixing" the prescription drug benefit, and a minimum wage hike, to act all cuddly and bi-partisan for a month or so. Then they'll come out swinging after the State of the Union, with ankle-biting crap like enshrining the "fairness doctrine" in law to try to shut down conservative talk radio, targeted tax increases on the "rich", attaching riders to the defense appropriations bills to micromanage Iraq and so forth. It's 2007 where we have to worry, because the Dems. will figure the public's not paying very much attention.
Maybe the SOTU speech will feature the line, "the era of Big Government is baaaaack...."
Do you see anything wrong with that as a political process?
Do you think that maybe some steps should be taken to change that?
Everything you mention is a change from something you completely support.
There actually valid concerns about many of the things you mention.
And that some changes outght to be made. I was talking more about both sides being part of the process of working with the problems and issues.
That the approach, this is only good if done OUR way, is hurting this country more then many other things.
I was talking more about both sides being part of the process of working with the problems and issues.
That the approach, this is only good if done OUR way, is hurting this country more then many other things.
Did you ever consider that there is disagreement over what the "problems" are and what should be done about them? And that maybe that this is why so much energy is spent demonizing the other party?
I appreciate the fact that you would like Republicans and Democrats to join hands and just get along. But there are fundamnental disagreements among 300 million Americans as to how this country should be run. Many of these 300 million Americans really do think that running the country the way "the other guy" wants to is either immoral, stupid, dangerous or all of the above.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
Many of you people apperently think that congress is actually going to get something done in the next two years.
I have a clue for you...minimum wage will pass. That's about it. Perscription drug overhall..no way. Even AARP is against that. Oh and Amnesty for Illegals...I don't think so. The dems that won actually PROMISED not to vote for that. Semantics you say? Do you think they want to get elected again?
YES. That bill will have to be COMPLETELY reworked if it has a chance of being passed. And then many republicans may support it.
SLOW DOWN..time will tell. Even so I don't think the Dems are that stupid. We will win back the house in 2010.
That's my prediction. No matter who wins the presidency.
...between not doing anything at all (which will tick off their base) and doing things to appease their base (which will generally tick off everyone else). End result; lots of running around, screaming and shouting.
(Extending tray) Canape?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
There are
quite a few things that Democrats could do which are very popular with their base and generally resonate with the public. It would be nice to imagine that the only things Democrats believe in was getting out of Iraq, mandating “same sex marriage” from the bench, and putting American servicemen before the ICC for war crimes but there is a lot of economic populism (which is bad policy wise) that sells well and I’m not sure that Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to stop it.
Me, I’m just ticked off that we’ve wasted another two years on not doing anything about entitlement reform and a lot of good people who were on the right side of that issue went down in flames Tuesday.
. . . but I disagree with you about the rest:
I have a clue for you...minimum wage will pass. That's about it. Perscription drug overhall..no way. Even AARP is against that. Oh and Amnesty for Illegals...I don't think so. The dems that won actually PROMISED not to vote for that. Semantics you say? Do you think they want to get elected again?
YES. That bill will have to be COMPLETELY reworked if it has a chance of being passed. And then many republicans may support it.
With regards to prescription drugs, Democrats have long criticized the Medicare Part D program for not allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for discounts like the VA does. The reason for this is because of a very different worldview on what will ultimately have to be done with Medicare (which is in worse shape than Social Security) and health care in general. Democrats criticized the Medicare Part D for being “too complicated” for senior citizens (and the MSM gladly obliged them by running stories of seniors being confused by all of the choices even though the overall reaction to the program was positive) and wanted a system where there were fewer options and more government control (like the VA), in which case it would make sense to negotiate lower prices particularly when you’re limiting what drugs can be purchased.
Republicans wanted to introduce competition and more consumer choice to the system (just as they do for health care in general) and instead opted to create a set of regions and have companies compete by offering different plans with different benefits at difference prices. The effect of this competition did in fact help to control costs but before those savings were realized, Democrats spent months demagoguing Medicare Part D as a “giveaway to the big drug companies.” Don’t be surprised if they push for “negotiating” lower drugs costs (Amy Klobucher was just elected to the Senate by campaigning on that very idea which Mark Kennedy did a poor job of refuting) and for more government control in general (which promising to let you pick your own doctor). Also don’t be surprised when Bush gets a bill on his desk to insist that we import Canadian price controls on pharmaceuticals (forget the fact that their price controls are the reason why they don’t make many new drugs in Canada and also why they pay more for generics than we do).
With regards to immigration, Bush is already on record as wanting a guest worker program which many on this and other forums have called “amnesty.” This will enable Democrats to build up their base among Latino voters (who aren’t necessarily pro-illegal immigration but are turned off by some of the nativist rhetoric that is attributed to the political Right whenever immigration is discussed). I fully expect to see a repeat of 1996 with a Democratic Senate and a Republican President reforming immigration but unlike welfare reform, it will be the sort of reform that appeals more to the Left than the Right. So long as they don’t call it “amnesty” (and they won’t because there will be some meaningless provision about paying back taxes and a promise for enforcement), they’ll get away with it just as Reagan got away with a program that was an actual amnesty bill but is still touted as a mythical conservative folk hero.
This interesting article exposes Conyers as an agent of islamic groups who may be a threat to the US.
www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=artic...
Personally, I think the Democrats' problem is that they realize that their agenda is sufficiently unpopular that they don't want to risk their electoral gains by actually putting much of it in play.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill