Now that Democrats have the majority in Congress and the Senate, the caveats matter less than the expectations. Yet the realistic expectations are not for rampant spending (how could it get any more rampant, anyway?), or a hard left tack on social issues, or immediate withdrawal from Iraq. A middle course will be steered. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Democratic Congress and President Bush do - if anything - to slash federal spending, pass comprehensive immigration reform, and further boost Iraq's stability while allowing for a gradual U.S. departure. If two years of D.C. gridlock are to come, that would cut in favor of Democrats and their presidential nominee only, in my view, if the party has clearly advanced thoughtful and fair solutions stymied by Republicans. It's all got to be rather exciting and frightening for Congressional Democrats. Meanwhile, explains Brian Miller in Seattle Weekly, happy-to-be-miserable Seattle "progressives" have had their world turned upside down.
Only last Monday, you could comfortably enter a Wallingford pub...and safely commiserate about Bush with fellow lockstep liberals....There was a nobility to being on the outs...how fortunate we were to live in our insular enclave of good sense, public radio, and Toyota Priuses. Now, after Nov. 7, the smug certainty is over.For six years, wimpy liberals have taken solace in irony, snark, and condescension--the only power they had, really--particularly in Seattle....Now we have to work with these people we once despised and considered so foreign. Clinging to those moss-covered Kerry-Edwards yard signs and bumper stickers for the next two years won't do anybody any good....the Democrats have to co-pilot our country out of Iraq, debt, and nuclear showdowns with Iran and North Korea.
Yeah. This is going to be good. I'm all ears.
Statewide ballot measures around the nation showed that even as voters swept Republicans out of office, they also continue to reject gay marriage. I'm all for letting states decide this one, and the ongoing trend should serve as a warning to the Far Left and strident gay activists that even people who vote for Democrats aren't comfortable with re-defining marriage. At the same time, it'll be quite interesting to see whether hard line social conservatives, still wedded to outlawing abortion or deporting all illegal aliens, will engage around divided government and compromise, or retreat to the margins in the same way many liberals have during the last six years.
Disaffected negativists of any stripe are pitiful.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 09, 2006 01:30 PM | Email ThisMatt, I have heard that Bush and the Democrats are going to go with an all-out amnesty program, rather than a 'work your way into citizenship' type of program the good Pubbies want. If that turns out to be correct, I am not sure I want Bush on my side. These last two years are for legacy building.
Posted by: swatter on November 9, 2006 01:30 PMThe issue where they might be able to pass some legislation that would really put the Republicans in a bind is the middle class tax cuts. If they can pass legislation to make the tax cuts permanent for middle and low income earners, Bush would need to sign it or else Republicans could face a backlash in '08. Republican congressional opposition to this would also be unpopular.
Posted by: Palouse on November 9, 2006 01:39 PMTo dismiss Minimum Wage as an issue is to keep making the same Stupid Party mistake.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on November 9, 2006 01:51 PMAnd Cato Institute Lite, Bolton has been getting high marks for his work in the UN. But, Chuckie and Dirty Harry don't want him; neither does Joe Biteme, so you may be right.
Too bad they don't go on job performance. How about Mad Madeline, Cato Lite?
Posted by: swatter on November 9, 2006 02:23 PMAs for issues, I think Net Neutrality is a good issue for the Dem's. Who knows they might actually appoint a committee chair who actually knows how to use the Internet.
2008.
Vote for us because of Net Neutrality. Dem
What? Average voter
Why not tout your plans to deal with the Verisign/ICANN agreement? What about tiered rates for .org and .info? Yeah. Net Neutrality. That'll sell.
You'd stand a better chance repealing the Internet gambling ban. Whoops. You guys already voted for it, huh. And like your buddies in the Tribes (and other bricks and mortar gambling interests) would allow a repeal anyway.
No. I'm not interested in what the Dem's plans are for Net Neutrality. I want to know what you're going to do with Iran. And North Korea. And illegal immigration. And the budget. You know, all those things you've been complaining about?
Posted by: jimg on November 9, 2006 02:46 PMThe sentiment appears to be, LET'S REBUILD!
pre-election the republicans could not run on their legislative accomplishments ('do nothing' congress) and had to resort to partisan histrionics (pelosi is marx, etc.). further, the accusation was leveled that the dems had no plan.
this should be interesting. crow will be served a plenty, and both parties will likely have a big helping....
Posted by: dinesh on November 9, 2006 03:46 PM....and congressional republicans failed to pressure the president to do anything about.
you guys have the worst double-standard. what did the congressional republicans do about any of those issues you list for the last 6 years. right, that's why they got fired by the voters.
I thought having a split legislative branch and executive were supposed to be good for the economy. There are already fears of overregulation, etc.
Boy, dinesh, someone sure sold a lot of people a bill of goods there. I didn't buy but a bunch bought that argument.
Posted by: swatter on November 9, 2006 03:55 PMMake up your mind. Can't be both.
Personally, I'd rather have a do-nothing Congress than one that believes - along with its supporters - that government needs to be solving all of our problems.
I'll ask again, Dinesh.
What are the Ds going to do about Iran?
North Korea?
Illegal immigration? (and yes, blame for this is across the board. A major reason, imo, that the Rs got their heads handed to them. Not because they didn't grant amnesty, but because they didn't take a hard line stopping the flow of illegals.)
The budget? Surely the party that screams at the first sign of a reduction in a spending increase will step forward and reduce the ways of the over-spending Rs, right? (another reason the GOP got tossed. Trying to outspend the Ds)
Are you going to repeal the Patriot Act?
Outlaw surveillance of terrorist communications?
Stop me when you find something you weren't complaining about.
Well. We're waiting.
Judge Smails
The "I" campfire near Lieberman gets bigger- no place better than the fence while the pigs try to line up at the trough.
Bar none- every pundit knows that revenge won't earn them the whitehouse and it's put up or shut up on Iraq.
Fortunately we won't have Darcy there to implement her plan to "ask a lot of questions about the war"
Posted by: Andy on November 9, 2006 04:07 PMYay Pelosi.
Posted by: Andy on November 9, 2006 04:10 PMActually, a majority in Arizona voted to reject a ban on gay marriage. Said ban also would also have outlawed any civil unions. Unless you want to argue that Arizona is a raving liberal state, we can safely conclude that conservatives oppose gay-bashing. Massachusetts, home to legal gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. (The Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rate.) South Dakota and two other states rejected restrictions on abortion. Anyone tied to the Religious Wrong will go down with them, sooner or later. I hope the Party of Lincoln learns that soon, because I'd like to vote for them again.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on November 9, 2006 09:31 PMI see in the news today that they have already begun rejoicing. When Nancy Pelosi says that her target will be minimum wage and affordable prescriptions when we are in a battle for our lives, that sends a message to the enemy that we are indeed weak and have our heads in the sand.
Posted by: Walt on November 10, 2006 09:14 AMMy point about the Arizona ban was that it did ban gay marriage-- and any legal recognition of any same-sex relationship. It went far beyond just preventing gays from marrying legally. It was an extremist, hateful act of bashing gays just to bash them, and the Arizonans rejected it.
Both of these state laws represented the absolute extremes, and both lost. Their appearance on their ballots shows just how far from reality their sponsors-- who, in the South Dakota case, were local leaders of the Republican Party-- have gone. We the people rejected that extremism this week, and we will continue doing so. Politicians who fail to understand this will continue to lose their jobs.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on November 10, 2006 08:19 PM