
The train's leaving the station — you better get on board, George. You too, Rahm.
So, as you've probably already read elsewhere, Oliver Willis reminds us this morning that about this time two years ago, Karl Rove was gloating about a semi-permanent Republican alignment that would "last for years, maybe decades." Ha, ha, ha… I guess it's safe to say that particular pooch isn't a virgin anymore, if you know what I mean.
But as we celebrate Tuesday's results, how can our side avoid making the same mistake? Already, I've noticed some normally cynical bloggers waxing effusively about a "mainstream, progressive Democratic majority." Is that true? Given the newly released Gallup analysis that says Democrats won the election through the support of a lot of groups who don't usually back them – largely due to their disgust with the Iraq war and congressional corruption – it seems to me more like a first date than a wedding.
Which raises the question of how we convince those folks to settle down for a long-term relationship. And how do we balance that against our desire to immediately jump in and undo the outrages and injustices of the past several years? As Christy says just below:
Whether we like it or not, governance is, in some measure for some things, about compromise. Advocacy is about standing on principle. We need to start being smarter about how we marry the two in order to get what we want.
There's a recommended dKos diary and a post at TPM Cafe by Greg Sargent on this subject that are both worth reading, but the lesson I would draw is that we need to "compromise" in the sense of choosing (and framing) our issues carefully, but not backing down once the battle has been joined on those issues.
Isn't that the lesson of the two great political victories Democrats have won since 2005 — first on Social Security, and then in nationalizing the midterm elections around Iraq? In both cases, progressives stood up knowing that despite the tut-tutting from DC elite opinionmakers, the broad majority of the public was on our side… and by standing our ground, we won (leaving the timid elitists to jump on the bandwagon afterward and claim it was their idea all along).
The important thing to focus on is picking the issues that will put the centrists on our side – and recognizing where we might have to wait on, or figure out a way of reframing, certain issues whose urgency or value isn't as immediately apparent. Here's something I said at Needlenose on Tuesday:
Democrats should position themselves as talking not simply on behalf of themselves but as ordinary Americans, with whom Republicans are out of sync… in other words, just how they've tried to paint us all these years.
Particularly with the divided government that (we hope!) is likely to result from today's election — with Democrats having their first real voice in national politics in years, but without the power to force legislation through on their own — it is vital that we don't get trapped in talking about a "Democratic agenda" versus a "Republican agenda." That will only enable the spineless triangulators and the compromise-for-compromise's-sake crowd. This election is about Republicans' failure to do the people's business, to fulfill an American agenda that we support and will not compromise on. Republicans will either have to come on board or force the American people to reject them more decisively in 2008.
So that's what it comes down to… understanding what issues the broad American public considers to be the most pressing business before the country, and presenting common-sense solutions to them. If we let ourselves get distracted from that, we're in danger of letting the Republicans re-take the political initiative.
But on issues where we know we're in sync with the center, we shouldn't let up just for the sake of seeming "bipartisan." As with Social Security and Iraq, we should let anyone who stands in our way know that the train is leaving the station, and it's up to them to get on board.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

FITZ!
Blogs!!
Collaboration!
Representative Smith!
EPU’d
From Americablog:
http://americablog.blogspot.co…..video.html
Swopa!
Peace on Earth.
L.G. Fucktard @ 4
Censorship!… DOH!!!
EPU’d just now below:
Mrs. K8 @ 220
[Lincoln Chafee not interested in “making nice” with George. Seems that if he has any anger over losing his seat, it’s not being expressed in revenge against the Democrats! Good for him for doing what’s best for the nation!]
REDDRUN
Oh and Dems– yoo hoo!
Stay away from K Street and I mean it!
Great post, Swopa.
I noted a comment from Pachacutec earlier on compromise and the text, Getting to Yes. This was a required textbook at the business school I attended, for a management class taught by a professional arbitrator who worked for GM.
What he taught me was that I had to have in place before I began negotiations a firm floor below which I knew I would not go. What is our floor? What are the non-negotiable matters that we will not compromise? If we cannot articulate what this floor is, we are already at a loss as we enter discussions; we can’t ask for more than our floor and get more than our floor if we don’t even know what it is.
This is the challenge we’ve faced as Democratic Party members, and the right-wing perceives it as a lack of an agenda or lack of solutions. We’ve simply never said, “These tenets are absolutely sacred to democratic/Democratic processes, and will be preserved at all costs. All else is negotiable.”
Where do we start?
Habeas corpus?
I absolutely agree. Part of why the Republicans lost was that they weren’t open to discussion much less common sense. So much for their diss on the reality-based community. People are tired of being asked to put out burning flags while the soldiers die from lack of armor. They want pragmatic action.
Or, perhaps in certain cases, jump in front of it
Dems have to show that we can Govern.
If we perform, the American public will stay with us.
This requires a long term view on expectations of the new congress.
I will also remind everyone that the military uses the Marines to take the beach, the army to secure the town and diplomats to establish run run the new government.
We have secured the beach and the villages. This is not the time for payback, it is the time for cool heads.
Vengeance is a dish best served COLD.
We need to view 08 as the real prize.
Republicans have pushed a meme that their fundamentalist supporters’ beliefs are the “mainstream”. This was never borne out by the issue polls, but they managed to get the MSM to buy into it. Not only that, the DLC bought it also and triangulated to a position far to the right of the public. It’s time for Dems to acknowledge that the truly centrist positions are much closer to those of progressives.
“Yesterday I heard the same old rhetorical garbage in the President’s press conference.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..33719.html
restore the War Crimes Act.
and habeas corpus.
NO TORTURE.
No wiretapping.
No more Unpatriot Act.
End the occupations.
Take great care of our country, her people and restore our tattered reputation in the world and our revered Constitution here at home.
Rayne @
11
The Constitution? That’s not particularly ‘progressive’ I suppose, but I think there’s a lot of work ahead to get back to there. And it’s pretty non-controversial. ;)
I want Repub and neo-con scalps!!!
Organic George @ 14
Vengeance can actually be omitted entirely. This is not about payback it’s about *sanitation*.
Great post, Swopa. I too noticed the NYT article where Rahm and Chuck were reinvented as a bunch of smelly hippie peacenicks. Very nice.
I know the impulse will be to try to woo these new voters (whites, rural voters, marrieds) by trying to turn into Republican lite, and talk the socially conservative talk that masters of the obvious think will woo them.
But social issues were not what drew them to vote Democratic in the first place, and it seems more likely that convincing them that Democrats do stand for the values they voted on — government oversight, job creation and protection, a strong economy — would be the better task.
Instead we get noise coming out of DC saying “we are all Heath Shuler.”
There just is not a lot of imagination in that bunch.
The Democrats should start small and work towards something bigger. The minimum wage is a great starting point, but the next thing on the agenda is to put forward lobbying reform that has some teeth and doesn’t contain holes big enough to drive a Humvee through. After that, break out the subpoenas and clean up what went before.
greenboy says…
In general, “Define Victory” is good question for any reactionary prick who blathers on about Victory, from the Arch-Assholes like Hannity down to your wise-ass reactionary neighbor.
http://www.needlenose.com/
I missed Christy’s post – my laptop crashed yesterday (burned hard drive – too much heat from FDL and elsewhere on election night?!). I agree (and don’t completely) with this post. I agree that maintaining control politically is about broadening the scope of our (Democratic) engagement in critical ways. Yet two things stand out about this election: the repeated concern on the Iraq war and a need for government to return to actually governing. Both issues in some circles (Dem included) have been framed as ‘fringe’ (loser liberal) issues. Yet these are what the country seems to be asking for – not just us.
We also saw that those candidates who seem to be carefully constructing their agenda to appeal to some ideal “moderates” were not so effective. What people were looking for is a sense of integrity (strength and commitment) about the issues – Tester, for example. Deval Patrick – a very candid candidate (and liberal) won moderates in Mass by speaking frankly about the problem with income taxes being lowered (property taxes and fees rise). He won overwhelmingly – across parties and political agendas. Both also (through that integrity) have the key component of charisma, the ability to inspire themselves (and us) to greatness, someone at the same time who is seen to be at one with us.
As we think about 2008, I believe we need to put aside as best we can the Lamont damage issue (the damn Dems who didn’t come to Conn) and look to how well they have been (and will be) able to articulate a vision of greatness, someone with whom the country as a whole envisions a sense of integrity, hope, and action. Some candidates at play now do this well; others do not (Clinton, Biden).
Rayne @ 11
habeas corpus, applying to everyone within the US border, regardless of citizenship or legality
no warrantless surveillance of any kind – they can get warrants from the FISA court without problems, so they can f**king well get warrants
signing statements shall not have any force in law, they’re just a statement of how the president understands the bill
congress and the president can’t tell the judges how to read the laws, or what laws they may read in order to decide a case, because that isn’t their job
the Fairness Doctrine, net neutrality, and campaign financing are high priority too
I, personally, want a law that says that no lobbyist can be on the floor of congress for any reason, even if they’re a former member
Justice and accountability. Not a millimeter less.
OT Georgie Felix about to eat crow on national teevee. (flanked by Warner and wife Susan)
mweeheehee! Oh happy day!
Oh and I want the money out of elections– it’s too corrupt and our forebears would be horrified, I am sure.
These millions could be spent for so much good.
Can we get out of Iraq now please?
Hey Karl,
So, can we have a look at those super-secret polls that assured you’d keep the House and the Senate? What’s that? They got shredded by Cheney?
Well, isn’t THAT special!
Jane Hamsher @ 21
They’ve been trained in a lot of bad habits that they can’t break.
But what the Social Security and Iraq fights prove is that if we know the public is behind us, the Rahm/DLC types and their buddies in the media become totally fucking irrelevant.
So let ‘em run to Adam Nagourney with their quotes. They’ll have as much effect in the long run as the mighty John-Kerry-insulted-the-troops controversy did on the election.
Allen is conceding!’
The Senate is BLUE!!!
I don’t hear or see Senator Clinton celebrating “her” party’s victory.
As a downpayment on America’s future, I want Murtha as our majority leader.
And a statement by all dem leaders and America does NOT believe in torture and will do everything they can to stop it from happening.
And they want to visit the Cuba prison.
George thanks his mom “who was involved in the campaign.”
really???
The 51 seats that we have in the Senate (Lieberman is actually considered a Democrat since he is registered as one, and I included Sanders from Vermont) represent 57% of the population compared to the 43% of the population that the Repug seats represent. I think that could be considered a mandate to lead!
The decisive majority in the House could also be considered a mandate to lead.
I just hope that we are mature enough and there is enough leadership skills in the party not to squander that mandate. I like what I am hearing from Pelosi so far.
My priority would be to restore democracy in this country.
George thanks God.
So do I.
HotFlash @ 28
And… can we stop our stooges in the Gaza?
Watching CNN…
Oh somebody please yell “MACACA”!
vaya neo-con dios, my darling.
.
.
I’m still disturbed by ANY pol who says, “My first job is to protect the American people.”
Although that is obviously important, all these folks swear an oath to the Constitution. Preserve, protect, defend. Remember?
Love that Tested debate quote to Burns’ accusation Tester would ‘weaken’ the Patriot Act:
“I don’t want to weaken it, I want to REPEAL it.”
Good on ya, Jon!
(Emphasis added).
I think you need to start by, rightfully, claiming the middle ground – the “mainstream” – for your issues rather than reflexively (or proprietarily) claiming your issues as “progressive” (i.e. liberal or leftist).
If you want to take a message out of the election it is that regardless of the failed wetdream of Rover’s you cite, or media reportage of elite opinions claiming otherwise, the country as a whole, the main stream, isn’t as “right” as they either hoped or thought, or hope and think. That whole myth creation and marketing thing.
I’ve never understood the idea of self-marginalization, and that is what you do if you begin by stating that your positions, as self identified, on the issues are progressive to begin with, rather than “mainstream” or “centrist,” or, my favorite “common sense.”
Why start with a disadvantage created from wholecloth by your opponents and wielded as a cudgel, quite effectively till yesterday, to their great advantage.
Why play by their rules, using their Orwellian vocabulary? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
THe Bible has instructions for conceding a political loss?
Huh, musta missed that passage.
(Oh, stop, I know he quoted Ecclesiastes but that was a sloppy throw to the Christianists.)
Karl Rove. The main brain.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 37
And close Gitmo, Abu Graib and all the rest of those places we don’t even know about?
Ah. He’s going to run again. For something. I don’t know what. Oh holy crap, does he think he can still run for president?
buh-bye, Macacawitz
obviously, i knew this was coming, but i just saw the words “Dems Control the Senate” on the front page of msnbc.com and have HUGE chills… this is really hitting.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 43
…drain.
oh no, now my posts are disappearing again.
Georgie tossed a football, thanked God and his wife Susan.
I think he might cry (as well he should.)
I also think he thinks he is still campaigning. Talking about how much he has done for VA.
My CBS station is now going back to Guiding Light.
Good, I’ve been wondering what happened to Reva.
shorter macaca – I could call for a recount and screw you guys but I won’t
Oklahoma kiddo @ 43
He’s gonna be in *BIG* trouble. He told George not to worry, it was a cakewalk.
Where’s Condi? Buying real estate in Paraguay?
skippy @ 39
and vaya con carne. Karl.
RagingGurrl @ 45
Allen? George Allen?
has ‘excellent’ monty BURNS conceded in MT yet???
he’s quoting a purpose driven life?
omg, he has the hubris intact and unchecked. (I am taking the high road, y’all. I am still drinking the kool aid.)
lot’s of references to God and prayers.
and football.
bye bye.
ok, Allen concession over
Oklahoma kiddo @ 53
OKiddo! Meant so comment on how chirpy you’ve been lately! Get some good news?
i heart jane @ 55
Yup! He is off to kill a deer now.
All right, that’s done then. We have the Senate, come January. Depending, of course, on RGJoe keeping his word.
I guess Rove can start selling used cars now.
bemused @ 50
Hahahahahaha!!!!!
angie @ 56
Yeah, you nailed it perfectly. I guess that’s about as statesmanlike as Allen gets; it wasn’t too bad.
RagingGurrl @ 45
dog catcher (oh wait, that’s Ricky’s goal)
angie @
10
And I’m with my girl here. **looking at Rahm**
AZ Matt @ 59
and soon to the BIG HOUSE!!!!
Senator Warner’s gracious introduction including Mrs. Allen shows why everybody here respects him across party lines.
I find myself a little sorry for Senator Allen. Yes he did bring this upon himself. But as a human moment, how awful for him, and he is giving a good speech even though it must feel like the end of the world.
It’s good not to have a recount. The state–and the nation–need not be put through protracted elections. Of course I support recounts where there might be a change in outcome, but that would not happen here.
To my surprise, I am crying, but not for him. I think it’s the difference between knowing in my mind that Webb won, and knowing in my gut.
When my sister Barbara got good test results about her thyroid cancer, we felt relieved. But then when the doctor personally affirmed these results, it was a moment of great release.
WE HAVE DONE IT. WE MADE IT HAPPEN.
Pass the kleenex please?
As a matter of tactics, I think Pelosi should use the first few months to wring as many concessions as she can from Bush on legislation, holding out an implicit promise to go easy on investigations.
Once she has enacted some laws which can stand as the Democratic agenda, then the hammer can fall.
There’s really no way to avoid some very unpleasant battles over checks and balances, but I really do think that passing some good legislation should be the first priority now.
Legislative control is fabulous for the Dems right now, but much work will have to go into convincing the electorate that if the Democrats control Congress – it’s ok if a Democrat controls the executive as well.
The Bush/House/Senate/Supreme Court triangulation has made alot of people fearful of one party government. If Dems win the WH and lose the Congress in 2008, it’ll be the Clinton impeachment redux. If Dems retain control of Congress but end up with John McCain in the WH, well that would just be 4 years of hard headed do nothingness.
I can see J. Murtha getting Majority Leader. He’s the guy to (force W to) get us out of Iraq, without the usual hobgolin smears sticking.
Wondering at all, anyone, why the Virginia and Montana Senate races both turned into cliffhangers, in defiance of the exit polls in those states?
Don’t give more credit to the Republicans than they’ve actually earned… (Especially because this will affect the way Democrats govern, in line with Swopa’s timely post.)
Using numbers provided by blogger TruthIsAll, and posted at DU, these are the exit polls (last valid, unadjusted-to-actual-results sample at 7 p.m.) taken for the Senate races, along with the final vote percentages from the electronic-vote-counting apparatus:
Virginia:
Exit Poll (based on the word of voters who had just cast their votes – and thus, historically, pretty darn accurate) gave Jim Webb (D) 53% and George Allen (R) 46%.
The electronic computerized tally begged to differ with that exit poll, and gave Jim Webb 50% to George Allen’s 49%.
Montana:
Exit Poll gave Jon Tester (D) 53% and Conrad Burns (R) 46%.
The electronic computerized tally (including some middle-of-the-night re-start of the count in GOP-heavy Yellowstone County) gave Jon Tester 49% to Conrad Burns’s 48%.
Summary: In Virginia, Jim Webb was leading George Allen by 7% according to actual voters reflected in the 7 p.m. exit polls on election day. Yet Webb allegedly ended up only leading George Allen by 1% after the electronic voting system finished tabulating.
And in Montana, Jon Tester was also leading Conrad Burns by 7% according to actual voters reflected in the 7 p.m. exit polls on election day. But Tester also allegedly ended up leading Conrad Burns by only 1% after the electronic voting system finished tabulating.
Do not discount the unverifiable manipulations of computerized tallies that may have transpired behind the scenes. It appears the advice to overwhelm the margin of fraud with massive turnout, given by Greg Palast and many others including here at FDL, may have just barely done the trick, with regard to these Senate races and thus control of the Senate. Their guess at the margin they needed to overcome was a little low, and so small wonder that neither Republican loser plans to object very strenuously to the Webb and Tester victories…
Unfortunately, we have no exit polls to use as a comparison in places like Mean Jean’s repeatedly-questionable district in SW Ohio… Who knows how many key House races had similar “help” from the wizardry of secret computer code in partisan hands.
And just to give the context here: In New Jersey and Tennessee, the 7 p.m. exit polls exactly matched the final vote count in those races (an 8% Menendez win in NJ and a 3% loss by Ford in TN). In Missouri the exit polls gave McCaskill a 2% lead, and she won with 3%. In Ohio, the exit polls gave Brown a 14% lead, and he won with 12%. In Pennsylvania, the exit polls gave Casey a 15% lead, and he won with 18%. Finally, in Rhode Island, the exit polls gave Whitehouse a 7% lead, and he won with 6%. [TIA didn’t include the CT race with the others.]
HotFlash @ 58
:)
From an ACLU e-mail just now:
Let’s be sure that Congress hears us. We are the spine.
Now that the “stupidest fucking Senator in Congress” (which is how I heard Allen described by some astute commenter) is GONE, the collective I.Q. of the Senate just rose appreciably.
Oklahoma kiddo @
19
If it’s any consolation, I just heard a snippet on CSPAN that mentioned with a democratic congress the republican congressional budget will be cut in half. Half of the GOP staffers will be looking for new job. K street most likely won’t be looking to hire gopers and I don’t think there are enough think tanks to absorb them all.
Mrs. K8 @ 74
I have heard that John Warner thinks the same despite his intro of the former senator Macaca.
HotFlash @ 54
Crazy, no? CNN reporters failed to note that a recount would be unproductive considering the margin of victory. Allen’s statement: “I’m takin’ the high road and not calling for a recount” is self serving. He gets to appear to be a resonable fellow when in reality, he lost, lost, OMG he lost.
beth meacham @ 60
With just two days of canvassing in CT I found that there were a lot of people who voted for Lieberman who really don’t like him. They just didn’t want a big change in the middle of dangerous times. I got the feeling that the people of CT really didn’t like change. But you get what you pay for and I hope that the people of CT don’t go into sticker shock when they find out the price of keeping RGJ.
Marky @ 68
Sorry, Marky, but I think that it would be a huge mistake to bargain away investigations for political gain. We would look as corrupt as the Rethugs. The way to get things through is to attach them to “must pass” funding bills.
Thank You, America
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-22.htm
Helpless Dancer @ 75
I’m sure they’ll find a few understaffed glory holes.
But as we celebrate Tuesday’s results, how can our side avoid making the same mistake?
Easy. Start locking up the republicans. And pass a law that makes offering or accepting a bribe to or on behalf of a public official a capital offense. Retroactively. And then start choppin’ heads.
FYI – C-Span has a wonderful collection of victory and consolation speeches.
http://www.campaignnetwork.org/
Helpless Dancer @ 75
I feel good!
angie @
76
Hahahaha! True, that. That’s because Warner, while lacking enough spine to remain true to his own sane convictions and constitutional principles (no matter what the pressure from the WH) is nonetheless NOT stupid.
Webb, Reid and Durbin coming up now on CNN!
wooHOO!
Dems got a lot of mileage out of the Dubai Ports scandal. We should attack war profiteering and free trade idealism.
…………
Vaya sans the door hitting your ass on the way out, macacca.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 41
WELL PUT!! EXACTLY RIGHT!!
Serious change on Iraq, sunlight on its LIES and some nut crushing/shredding on all the corruption is what the american people voted for ….if they don’t see it happening …the mandate will be lost…and deservedly so.
Larry
egregious @ 12:25 pm (#67)
Hadn’t been able to put my finger on what it was that Warner did to earn such respect, but I think that’s it. He’s also, on occasion, spoken out when he thought things were going wrong. My guess is that he does a lot more speaking behind the scenes.
I find myself a little sorry for Senator Allen. Yes he did bring this upon himself. But as a human moment, how awful for him, and he is giving a good speech even though it must feel like the end of the world.
His demise was of his own making, but arrogance and short-sightedness are things we’re all prone to. That’s worth remembering.
It seems unlikely in the extreme. I suspect Allen’s advisers made that clear. There was a lawyer on as a commentator on CNN election night (Toobins?). His specialty apparently was election law. He said that with the vote difference being what it was, it’s highly unlikely that the vote will change. In our governor’s race two years ago, the vote differential shifted less than 500 votes out of about 2 million cast after two recounts. The Webb-Allen differential is at least ten times that.
When my sister Barbara got good test results about her thyroid cancer, we felt relieved. But then when the doctor personally affirmed these results, it was a moment of great release.
WE HAVE DONE IT. WE MADE IT HAPPEN.
Pass the kleenex please?
Here ya go.
Not negotiable:
– Social Security as a government-managed safety net for senior citizens
– habeas corpus for all citizens and non-citizens not otherwise covered by Geneva Conventions.
– no earmarks
– ethics reform (must include removal of lobbyists from floor of House and Senate, must limit influence so that access is no greater than that of citizens, must make personal financial trading based on bills in Congress illegal — at a minimum)
– campaign finance reform (must happen within 2 years, must limit soft money equitably)
– broadcast media control (70-plus percent of voters polled favored the concept of the Fairness Doctrine, if memory serves)
What else is non-negotiable?
How are issues surrounding the above points negotiable? Like SS: how to fund is surely negotiable, but privatizing is not, yes?
Dear Democratic winners:
This stuff needs to be fixed/halted/reversed/amended.
(Its also a list of what not to do if you want to continue to govern.)
.
The incompetence and war profiteering with which the reconstruction of Iraq has proceeded.
Demagoguing the public into the Iraq war with fake WMD claims – the Downing Street memos.
The incompetence displayed in Katrina – Heckuva job Brownie.
Politicizing ’skills required’ federal agency appointments
Torture / abandoning the Geneva conventions.
Rendition and secret prisons, etc.
Warrantless wiretapping.
The K Street culture of corruption, Abramoff, Delay, etc.
The Military Commissions Act and elimination of habeus corpus.
The intervention into the life of terminal patients like Terry Schiavo.
Incorporating the views of the religious right into administration policy.
Changing legislation after it is voted on.
Presidential signing statements.
Outing a covert CIA agent for political advantage and politicizing intelligence in general.
Stuffing the federal judicary with life term right wing extremists.
Tax cuts for the have mores.
Deficit spending in times of prosperity and running up the national debt.
Ugly american foreign policy/cowboy diplomacy.
Ignoring science, global warming, intelligent design .
Politicing anti terrorist activities, staging arrests .
The Dubai takeover of the ports.
Incompetence in controlling the border.
Covering up behavior like that of Mark Foley.
Privatizing social security.
Karl Rove and the politicizing of virtually all policy.
Cheney Rumsfeld and the neocons.
Free speech zones
.
None of the foregoing represents what most of America stands for.
.
All of the foregoing represents what republicans stand for.
.
This election rejected what republicans stand for.
lisadawn82 @
78
Not to throw gas on the conspiracy-theory blaze, but whaddya think that Gates as SecDef is a ‘lesser of two evils’ foil for Lieberman as SecDef? The whispers start like this: “You better confirm Gates without mentioning Iran-Contra or OBL in Afghanistan, or else we’ll pull him, nominate Joe, and you can kiss your senate majority goodbye…”
sigh. Such a f*cking travesty that CT let him continue to shizzzat on all of us like this. Ned would have been much better for 1,001 reasons and, and this is the first concrete example.
Maydaze,
I’m just suggesting that Pelosi mislead Bush—not that she make some backroom deal.
If she goes in to meet him and says “These are the bills I want to work on. They will be the priority for the first 100 days.”, doesn’t that give the message that investigations aren’t on the front burner?
Bush is in NO position to bargain now. All I’m saying is that Pelosi can probably get Bush’s support on legislation now, then screw him later.
Why not?
Damn.
UpChuck is all over the place these days. Does he just look for cameras, then show up?
Ah, hell. Reid sounds like a ninny : we’re happy for the opportunity to prove to the American people that we can work with Republicans?? Huh?Wha?
Ack – Durbin kissing Scummies ass. Ah hell.
Allen knows the vote can’t change much — because there is NOTHING to count. All they could do was look at the final tally receipts yet another time.
For the very first time, even the nutcases over at Free Republic are saying, “What?!? There’s NO PAPER TRAIL?!?!? That’s not right!”
Now maybe we can get election reform measures legislated — to include a verifiable paper trail.
None of this is to say that there was anything wrong about the Virginia vote. But it’s great to hear the right-wingers screaming for reform of the process, too.
Excellent and timely post, Mr Swopa, and worth re-reading to stay on topic. It’s a big, hard topic (stop that!) but if we don’t frame it somebody else will, and we may not like it. So, here is what you said:
My feeling is that the big (still) ignored issue is the war. Until we stop pouring our $$, our children and our honor as a nation down that tube we will have nothing to do here and nothing to do it with. The enabling legislation — AUMF, Patriot Act, Warner Act (parts of), and the Military Commissions Act must be sanitized. It seems that if little line items in an omnibus bill can negate pre-existing legislation, that route can be used to cancel the abuses that were introduced that way.
The GWOT has been used to justify the destruction of so much — our economy, our freedom and most of all the lives of so many on both sides.
RaginGrrl,
Talking bipartisanship is fine. The key is to redefine it. Today bipartisan means Bush has to do what Pelosi wants, for the most part.
Restore the Constitution and protect it against the Unitary Idiot.
Drain the Swamp. Corruption topped the list of priorities during exit interviews. Let’s show we’re serious about cleaning up government and restoring ethics to Congress. Tough rules across the board. No openings to lead Congresspersons into temptation.
Investigate the corruption and incompetence of companies selected for Iraq contracts.
Iraq remains mostly in Bush’s court, at least until the Committee report comes in. We need to know our bottom line positions and how we will deal with Bush’s likely positions.
And I should add, don’t take away from the solid, and amazing, victories both Jon Tester and Jim Webb delivered in their so-called “Red States.” Likewise, don’t take away from the message the voters of those “Red States” actually sent to Washington, based on the 7% margins of victory for their Democratic Senators rather than the “official” 1% margins of victory.
THANK YOU MONTANA AND VIRGINIA VOTERS.
Senator Allen is not like some of the others in Congress who were just voted out because of scandal. He is tied to the extremely unpopular Bush and he made mistakes during the campaign.
George Allen will continue to be given positions within the Republican world. People like him. He speaks well. He has physical presence. He’s good with crowds.
He is not a very nice human being, but he is effective politically. This election was no landslide. He will continue to be involved in Republican politics. We do ourselves a disservice if we just decide he is going away forever. This is no Pombo.
I have been working for Webb since February, when I realized this could be the missing sixth seat. So take my remarks in that context. But let’s not fool ourselves that we have seen the last of George Allen.
Smiley @ 92 – I haven’t heard and credible report that Joe would resign for a chance at SecDef if Gates isn’t successfully confirmed. I wonder sometimes if that is just a disinformation campaign to get us to confirm someone we don’t want to.
smiley @ 82
One thing I think would be really valuable is a nice time-capsule DVD of exactly the kind of crap the Democrats shouldn’t pull – and yet shouldn’t forget. I mean the sneering triumphalism, the intentional humiliations (like the Conyers hearing forced into a basement room), the media pandering, all the nightmarish sewer-scum that is now the American political scene. This is stuff that is now fresh in our minds and our Tivos, like Rush’s odious mockery of Michael J. Fox. Some of it’s older, but well documented, like Fleischer’s “reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do” briefing.
I wish I’d been recording the worst of it – though I haven’t been able to stomach watching cable news since Desert Storm started all those years ago. I imagine Crooks & Liars has a bunch of good stuff.
“Before getting too carried away with anticipation, we should tether ourselves to the reality that the president remains perfectly capable of making bad decisions all by himself. And if he is tempted to correct some catastrophic mistakes, he still has the vice-president, Dick Cheney, to guide him down the wrong road. But with Rumsfeld gone, Cheney weakened and Bush presumably realising that some things must change, the way is open for the secretary of state to do the following.
The top priority is to make a serious effort to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The closest the Bush administration has come to this was a visit to the region by Rice’s predecessor, Colin Powell, whose authority and influence were undermined by stronger forces in Washington making clear that Bush had no intention of putting real pressure on Israel. It was a shameful episode, both in its disloyalty to Powell and in its long-term impact.
Think how different the world would look now if Colin Powell had been given the president’s genuine support in forcing Israel to take the roadmap seriously. Condoleezza Rice should get that document out, dust it down, and head for Tel Aviv and Ramallah.
The trouble is that this means persuading the man who is still president to ignore the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party, who want no concessions by Israel. Bush will do that only if he is more interested in his own legacy than in handing on a viable electoral alliance to the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.”
lisadawn82 @ 78
And it will be a high price indeed. The threat being, of course, pulling a reverse Jeffords and returning the Senate the the GOP.
Marky @ 97
Yes, yes, yes!!! Thanks for saying that, you saved me from trying to formulate this notion. I probably would’ve done it in an unnecessarily wordy way.
Absolutely agreed. This is smart talk to the public. Let the Republicans look like the “obstructionists.”
I don’t really understand this post. I don’t understand what the “compromise” is about.
The Dem’s proposed 100-hour domestic agenda:
Raise the minimum wage
Repeal the tax breaks for big oil
Negotiate drug prices
Lower interest rates for student loans
And two more I can’t remember.
Not particularly ambitious, but all worthwhile.
More important, there is a common theme that has not been articulated — hence we find almost no mention of some public interest or policy “mandate” coming out of this election. Dem’s didn’t win, we are told; Republicans lost. The fact this can be argued is the result of a huge oversight by those claiming credit for this “victory.”
What’s missing is not more proposals — those will come — but rather an overall view of the role of government that would frame where the rest of the proposals come from. I’d like the Dems to stand for using the power of government to
(1) promote economic security for all, whether through universal health care, guaranteed retirement security, financial support and broader access to higher education, protection/encouragement of organized labor, etc;
(2) a more equitable sharing of the national wealth created by economic growth — which means more progressive tax rates — such as by letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthier expire, keeping the inheritance tax, protecting unions, and so on;
(3) intervene against corporate abuse and monopoly power — which means more regulation of those practices that may benefit the few but directly harm the broader public, and using government regulation to prevent monopolization of the institutions of democracy, such as concentrated ownership of the media, net nuetrality; and
(4)strong protection for the institutions of democracy — with a focus on campaign finance reform, voting laws and methods to promote, rather than discourage voting and ensure its integrity.
There’s a lot more about equal opportunity, and individual rights vs the powers of government, etc, that can be articulated once you frame the governing philosophy.
The whole point is that government is there to promote the broader public interest, defined as the interests of the larger public, (or something like the middle/working class, with a caring approach to those less fortunate). Government’s role is not the protection of the interests of the privileged few at the expense of the many. If the Democrats can articulate that philosophy, then there are many proposal that can emerge and many ways to do it, involving lots of potential compromises about how best to achieve the individual pieces. But without this larger governing philosopy, I have no idea what compromising means.
The new Dems. can push a conservative meme..restore and conserve the Constitution and law and order…war criminals, war profiteers and the bribers and the bribed to prison.
Ackkkkkk I’m glad Durbin is there, but Schumer, bleah!
But the truth is the truth, and conSchumerism is so 2004. “We must never lose sight of them.” That statement says it all. Schumer is referring to the middle class and he sees us as “them.” We are not them. We are us, and Schumer isn’t one of us.
Pelosi. Kick some Bush butt!!! All the way down to his little hobby-horse ranchette. Back to the play-pen with Georgie.
Schumer rubs me raw.
Marky @ 93
So you’re saying mislead him publicly (”not a backroom deal”)? And then stab him in the back for all to see? Not exactly the behavior that most voters would approve.
Linda –
I wonder what, if anything, can be done to replace both Schumer & Rahm as heads of the DSCC & DCCC — between now and 2008.
They ought to be replaced with folks who will work hand-in-glove with Howard Dean at the DNC, not working at cross purposes.
Howard has the future in mind. He needs to work with congressional folk who will likewise seek forward-looking candidates.
Calling all senate procedural buffs – i’m confused – if we now have 48 dems, 49 reps and 2 independents in the senate — how does that translate to the dems winning control of the senate. why isn’t this considered a plurality where the republicans would still be the dominant party? Do the two independents elect to be considered as dems for purposes of determinig the party in charge?
We are us, LindaR.
Nicely said at 108!
Taking back our country and making it what we want it to be.
pooch @ 113
Yes to your last question. They caucus with the Democrats.
scarecrow @ 106
I agree with you. In just about all my posts here, there’s a lot of stuff that winds up on the WordPress floor… in this case, that included discussing the Democratic narrative (the one we need to provide to replace the GOP narrative, which voters shattered on Tuesday).
IMO, the 100-hour agenda is excellent. The nice thing about Rahm Emanuel is, he’s not running the show — Pelosi and Reid will be, and although they’re not perfect, they get it in ways that Rahm doesn’t.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 110
Your personal life is not our concern, thanks.
Maydaze,
I’m not suggesting at all that Pelosi make a public pledge not to investigate Bush. I just think he’s in a position to be manipulated because of his fear of investigations. Maybe I’m wrong.
Regardless, I think that passing good legislation is the first priority.
Once Congress has established some good will, then they can turn towards the tough battles over the Bush constitutional crisis.
I think the person picked by the caucus for majority leader will be a strong indication of where things are headed. If it is Murtha, then we are going to kick some ass.
Swopa’s right. We have to keep our eyes looking outward to the needs of the people, and not inward to the politics of the moment. Perhaps some slogan like.
It’s the commonwealth, stupid.
Jane Hamsher @ 21
Jane, you are voicing the views of my Republican best friend. He voted for Democrats on Tuesday because he is willing to form a temporary alliance with Democrats in the interest of taking back our country: exiting Iraq, restoring the Constitution, preserving Social Security, national health care. He would even like to see Bush impeached. He’ll never be with us on some of the social issues, but he views himself as an American first and a Republican second. Sadly, Nancy Pelosi really alienated him immediately by claiming that the vote on Tuesday was a huge victory for Democrats, never acknowledging the role that he and thousands others like him played in being willing to take a chance on the Democrats. His favorite Democrat is Russ Feingold. He wouldn’t even be able to hold his nose and vote for a Heath Schuler type. We need to truly understand the nature of our fragile coaltion here, and the Beltway types really don’t comprehend the issue which carried the Dems. The crossovers want to see accountability as much as we do.
MayDaze @ 111
Voters voted for, and are demanding strenuously, OVERSIGHT. No matter how a stubborn, recalcitrant, dictator-wannabe gets maneuvered into accepting oversight will be just FINE with the voters.
Schumer seems much worse than Rahm to me. After all, Schumer supports Bolton, and he was just on O’Reilly’s show, yukking it up with the nasty fascist.
Swopa @ 117
:)
Has anyone compiled a list of NON-NED-SUPPORTING Dems? Including PACs and orgs?
smiley @ 82
Campaign finance reform. If congresscritters are responsible to the voters, why should they be taking *any* dollars from *any* business or organization? We have seen that effective campaigns can be run on very few $ raised by individuals. In the old days it would have been difficult, but ActBlue and the Repub equivalent make it easy for regular folks to contribute to candidates and not just the ones in their district. If you give lots of bucks to campaigns you just get them back in the form of TV ads and robocalls, anyway ;)
Platform: restoring
The Constitution
Geneva Conventions
lisadawn82 @ 101
I’m not concern-tr0lling, at least not on purpose. It just seems all too plausible. A one-seat majority is a fragile thing.
You’re probably right- Joe will relish his new role as vice president too much to take a spot as secdef.
Scarecrow @ 106:
Good point – they need some kind of ‘big picture’ that they can point at to say who the Democrats are and what they’re for.
And please, please, get real leadership, not people who back down every time they’re challenged.
(I think that SocSec needs its contribution ceiling raised and indexed to something – inflation? CPI? – so that if real income goes up, it will too.)
any thoughts on going after national NARAL for their clueless suopport of RGJoe?
Take home quote from the NYT article:
Heckuva a job Rahm.
smiley @ 128
I’m hoping Harry and others are working on some of their Republican colleagues, trolling for at least one of them to switch party allegiance. Then we can kiss (ewww!) Joe good-bye if he’s off to brighter pastures.
Mrs. K8 @ 112
Mrs. K8, you make me think. I wonder if one answer would be that more progressives get involved in the infrastructure of the Democratic Party and get voting rights to affect and effect party policy?
One thing I think will be a naturally occurring force: the money. The old ways of raising campaign $$ aren’t dying — they’re dead. We progressives don’t just give lots of money any more. We give it consciously. In other words, how many of us gave to Blue America and Democracy Bonds and individual candidates at the same time we told the DCCC to basically fkoff?
The DCCC might find that if they want to remain relevant to the process (in other words, if they want an operating budget) they might want a figurehead who doesn’t actively repel people.
And about that money: I don’t think these kinds of dollars are fungible. Five thousand dollars donated to a PAC might represent as few as one vote. Five grand raised in small amounts represents as many votes plus the friends and family of the small donors.
In other words, the Schumers and the Rahm Emanuels of the world might be made redundant by the five dollar donation! What sweet justice is that? ha.
HotFlash @ 126
The best way to do this IMNSHO is to selectively revoke some of the privileges afforded by the legal fiction of corporate personhood. Why should corporations be able to contribute to politics at all?
I posted this on an earlier thread, but you might want to look over at the Christian Science Monitor for Jerome Armstrong’s piece: “A victory for people powered politics.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/…..-coop.html
In the email box just now:
I can’t wait either, Senator.
Smiley 134,
Agree completely.
Corporations wield far too much political power.
punaise @ 130
Thoughts? They’re on “the” list of recompense. NARAL has made me testy.
I think we should bring in:
Richard Clarke to put together an anti-terrorism plan
Bill Clinton to put together a plan for resolving the Israeli – Palestinian crises
Al Gore for a plan on resolving global warming and incenting pro-green business in America
Why has Dean disappeared from the talking heads ?
Yesterday it was all Terry McAuliffc.
WTF?
Mrs. K8 @ 115
Here is a “talking point” I think the Democrats should start pushing and repeating whenever some blockhead suggests that the Senate representation is “really almost tied” — Democratic senators represent a significantly higher number of Americans than the Republican Senators do.
grayslady @ 121
You know it is very easy to adhere to some personal litmus test whether it be abortion rights (or lack thereof), gun control, etc. I am personally QUITE PLEASED to have Heath Shuler instead of Charles Taylor. He is pro-environment and will probably vote with the DEMS most of the time. That’s the best I can do where I live.
So does FDL want to be SMALL TENT or BIG TENT?
I think it has to be decided by Jane – its her site.
Good thinking, Linda.
We can also encourage others to join the progressive intra-party caucuses, in place with good structures to overtake and kick out the DLC dinosaurs — WITHIN the county and state party structures.
Mr. K8 and I belong to PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), Arizona branch, and we hope to join our local DFA (Democracy for America) in short order. Both groups are highly active here, and managed to get the state party to vote for Howard.
I can’t recommend these groups enough. They’re highly motivated, organized grassroots structures to make the progressive insurgency a success. It’ll take time for sure to reform every state party, but it’s much, much better than each of us flailing around alone.
Pacifica,
have to disagree with you about Clinton and the ME.
He is too biased towards Israel. Remember his statement that he would take up a rifle to defend Israel?
He tried to force Arafat to take a bad deal in 2000, which I’m sure the Palestinians have not forgotten.
grayslady @
121
Yes, yes and yes. We all want America back. Get us out of that war and restore the Constitution. Hold Congress and the President to the law. Those were the terms of this alliance.
Linda –
Here’s another point in line with your $5 contribution theme –
We NEED to keep net neutrality. Beware of any Dem who wants to cross the aisle to support the gutting of the best of the toobz. That’ll be someone who despises the grassroots.
Swopa
I wish I understood better what narrative the voters accepted or rejected on Tuesday. A guess further analysis will come in time. The guess is that simplistic notions of “staying the course” in Iraq or “we’re winning with our current strategy” were rejected; but there doesn’t seem to have been a constructive counter narrative, such as “and that means we probably can’t succeed/win in any meaningful way and so it’s time to face what that means.” No Dem ran on that as far as I know. the most we got was that we need an honest assessment and a change of direction, whatever that means. Few/no Dems said, the entire notion of attacking other nations as a way to fight terrorism is suspect at best and probably counter productive, as well as immoral/unlawful, etc.
Another narrative may have been that the American people don’t like a government that is corrupt and incompetent — whether it’s katrina response or Iraq — and they may even see a connection between the two, or at least some link to what happens under one-party rule. The constructive counter-narrative would have been: the public is entitled to a more competent, honest, and transparent government, that understand the need for vigilant self oversight and checks/balances between the branches — and that includes protecting the ultimate checks against government abuse, which is the right to vote, a free and vigilant press, and the integrity of the electoral process. Some Dems said some things like this, but I didn’t hear if from the self-annointed authors of the Dem victory.
Mrs. K8 @ 146
yes, yes, yes, this is crucial!!
Mrs. k8, Who will keep the internet tubes clean without the guidance of the knowledgable Republican Senator from Alaska?
I’m worried I may not get my internets!
Marky @ 97
However by framing it as our challenge, it sets Dems up as failures if the two parties can not work together.
Pelosi seems to be better at measuring her words to keep her position strong. We’re strong, we need our leaders to be as well.
P J Evans @ 129
Here’s the 30-second platform according to Dr. Dean:
“One: American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence to generate those jobs.
Two: a strong national defense based on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies.
Three: Honesty and integrity to be restored to government.
Four: A health care system that works for everybody just like they have in 36 other countries.
Five: a strong public education system so we can optimism and opportunity back in America.”
Will that do?
here’s what most people miss;
progressive programs ARE bi partisan programs
we want EVERYONE to be able to contribute and earn
this is a Conservative point of view also, the only real difference is we don’t want to allow corporations to get away without contributing their share
if a laborer works a full week, he should be able to pay health insurance for his wife and kids, he should be able to put food on the table, he should be able to fix their teeth and he should be able to put them into college if they qualify for college
when a corporation pays so little that a person can’t afford the necessities of raising a family, then the family needs public aid
public aid is payed by the rest of us, so when a company pays so little a person needs public aid they are getting entitlement from the laborers
that’s a very important point for us to make
when we export jobs to countries that don’t have collective bargaining for their laborers, those companies are stealing from us also, those products have to be assigned a tariff
that’s the first thing
the most important thing that I think we can express is the need to keep big money from buying law.
there is only one way to do that;
public finance of campaigns…that’s the only way to prevent a corporation or anyone to buy law
there are other points we can get normaly republican constituents to go along with, but those are pretty simple
companies have to pay a wage that allows a person to support their family
HotFlash @
126
Unfortuately the state of the law nowdays considers corporations as persons. That and that the concept that money equals speech. The idea that a collection of capital and property has the same rights as I do is utterly perverse. If a truly representive democracy is to restored, this problem will have to be addressed. The sooner the better.
Marky @ 149
Why, didn’t you know? Democrats are formulating a policy of “self-cleaning” toobz. It was too much of a burden on poor Ted, you see. Wasn’t fair.
;-)
posted by Ralph Lopez at blog The War Room pls. circulate
Dump Pelosi, Jack Murtha for Speaker
What ran through my mind as I watched Republicans-Rummy coming apart at the seams was: what took so long? Sure, I feel great like everyone else but this doesn’t answer for the thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that are only the most visible damage of the rapidly closing Bush years. Americans finally came around. But wow, that stretch of bloodlust was a frightening spectacle. By now, at the very least, ten times the number of innocent people that died on 9/11 have died from us trying to set it right. Yes, now I am afraid of these people. I’ve seen what they can do.
They can take a ghost of a threat (a friend of mine says “they DID find some powder” to justify invading Iraq, and I like this person!) and watch bombs being dropped on civilian neighborhoods for Shock and Awe, and think well at least when we kill innocent babies it’s an accident, but they do it on purpose in terror attacks, as if the dead would say, no problem, I know it was an accident.
Howard Zinn says a better word than “accidental” is “inevitable.” If you know that civilian casualties happen 100 percent of the time when you bomb residential neighborhoods then it’s the same as doing it on purpose. You become the terrorist.
Did Americans come around soon enough to undo the damage of the Bush years? The country is bankrupt, global warming is closing in, the Constitution is in shreds since the Military Commissions Act, and there is still plenty of time for the Democrats to start the Bipartisanship Shuffle, which comes out anytime they don’t have the stomach for the fight they are getting paid good money to fight.
First step: dump Pelosi. Jack Murtha for Speaker. She should be disqualified on grounds that, when she ruled out impeachment on 60 Minutes, she had no right to speak for the entire institution. Did you hear me, congressman-in-my-district? I don’t give a damn what Nancy Pelosi said. You just worry about doing your own job.
Which brings me to the second step. What happened under the radar in this campaign was that a whole farm team of Democratic candidates was created, most notably with the veteran candidates of Fighting-dems.org. These are candidates who took their opposition to the Iraq War as their point of departure and then began softening up the Republicans, attacking them on Iraq from their vantage point of unassailable patriotism, and blasting the perception that being anti-Iraq War was the same as being anti-American.
It was a hastily assembled charge by political newbies but it worked, changing the political landscape so that Tuesday’s victory by the Democratic party was possible. They were cut down almost to a man except for Sestak, Murphy, Carney, Waltz, and Webb, who made it. Mission accomplished.
With Ned Lamont proving that a powerful incumbent like Lieberman can be knocked off in his own primary, the Pelosi faction should be careful about cutting and running behind “bipartisanship.” Partition Iraq, bolster Afghanistan, secure the ports and do the rest of the 9/11 commission recommendations. Do the First Hundred Minutes Agenda or whatever they are calling it. Then start the subpoenas flowing, get ready to start asking rude questions about Halliburton, the NSA, Jose Padilla, plans for secret detention centers for American citizens, bundles of hundred-dollar bills being tossed around like footballs in Iraq, Pat Tillman, no-bid contracts for Katrina, and whether George Bush REALLY did not know that there were different kinds of Muslims, like Sunni and Shiite.
The farm team, the new wave of citizen-candidates like Lamont and the Fighting Democrats, will be waiting if the new Democratic leadership does not deliver. We took the Hill but a lot of good men went down. The casualty rate was appalling. But the job got done, and in politics, you get to get up and play all over again.
posted by Polis @ 5:43 PM
The War Room
http://ralphlopezworld.com/
Mrs. K8 @ 154
President Gore will fix the toobz.
Not so sure about The Google, though.
Netroots!
This is not the time for conciliatory gestures aimed at Republicans. Perhaps when Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest are gone. But not now.
Gore and or Clark will work. The target now is McCain. That may change.
egregious @ 127
when we frame the discussion about the geneva convention we have to put it into selfish terms to be effective
we have to point out it is the MILITARY that wants the convention followed, that THEY are the ones that tell us it protects our soldiers and we have to point out that anyone that dissagrees is calling the heads of our armed foces liars
we also have to point out that it is the cia and the fbi that tell us we get LESS information through torture, not more
then we have to point out that the geneva is a treaty that we are signators
it’s not a “principle” it’s a treaty, we want other countries to follow the treaty and so long as we want other countries to follow the treaty we have to.
when we don’t care if our soldiers get tortured that’s when we are allowed to abandon the tenets of the treaty
it doesn’t natter that some of our soldiers are tortured even though we follow the treaty, our military tell us most soldiers are NOT tortured and that is becuase he adhere to the protections provided by the geneva convention
Calling all senate procedural buffs – i’m confused – if we now have 48 dems, 49 reps and 2 independents in the senate — how does that translate to the dems winning control of the senate. why isn’t this considered a plurality where the republicans would still be the dominant party? Do the two independents elect to be considered as dems for purposes of determinig the party in charge?
Yes to your last question. They caucus with the Democrats.
Here is a “talking point” I think the Democrats should start pushing and repeating whenever some blockhead suggests that the Senate representation is “really almost tied” — Democratic senators represent a significantly higher number of Americans than the Republican Senators do.
Linda – that wasn’t what i was suggesting. My question was strictly about procedure. I’m more than happy about the gains in both chambers, but wanted to know how there can be a majority party for purposes of determining leadership positions if technically we have a plurality.
Somewhere Ben Franklin is smiling: this is beginning to sound like 1787 again. Power to the people!
I read that since Lieberman is still registered as a Democrat, he is considered a Democratic Senator. Unlike Jeffords who is truly an Independent who chooses to caucus with the Democrats.
Democratic senators represent 57% of Americans compared to 43% for the Republicans.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 157
I agree, Kiddo. But I believe the conciliatory gestures are really aimed at the public. Bush, Cheney, and Rove won’t be getting free passes.
And I think there are career-level employees at DOJ who are just licking their chops and salivating right now. I’m certain they’ve been sick of being kept on a short leash. If Gonzo tries to squelch them too much, they now have a Congress to go to for assistance.
tfitznc@142
I understand what you’re saying, believe me: my rep is Melissa Bean (sort of the Heath Schuler of the North). And yes, I voted for her; was even a volunteer for her during her first election (although after her vote on habeas corpus I couldn’t bring myself to volunteer again). I’m merely suggesting that the crossover voters are those that have been willing to ignore the “values” issues in order to vote for representatives who eschew extreme agendas. That doesn’t mean that the crossovers will support every Dem candidate, no matter how big our tent.
LindaR @ 141
Linda – that wasn’t what i was suggesting. My question was strictly about procedure. I’m more than happy about the gains in both chambers, but wanted to know how there can be a majority party for purposes of determining leadership positions if technically we have a plurality.
Mrs. K8 @ 163
Yes.
Yes!
Yes!!
I really don’t understand all the Rahm bashing. It’s the Republicans’ turn for intramural destructive squabbling, not ours. Dean won, Rahm won, the netroots won, the Beltway Dems won, we all won.
Do I agree with Rahm on everything? No, but then I don’t agree with anyone on everything. That’s the nature of coalitions and of political parties. Rahm’s a partisan, streetfighting Democrat. Good enough for me.
I am falling more in love with Nancy Pelosi with each hour. [And I think one of her secret weapons for dealing with President Baby will be the fact that she is such a centered, intelligent woman possessed of calm inner strength. I think he has absolutely no defense to that.]
I think I trust her! and I’m quite tender in the trusting politicians department.
Beyond Pelosi, I also think I am in favor of Murtha for leader over Hoyer, though I’m not 100 percent sure.
Tester on with the Beard now.
this is such a great day!
Pooch – we just need 51 Senators to caucus with the Dems and vote for Reid, and we get the committee chairs. We’ve got em.
pooch @ 160
Yes to your last question. They caucus with the Democrats.
Here is a “talking point” I think the Democrats should start pushing and repeating whenever some blockhead suggests that the Senate representation is “really almost tied” — Democratic senators represent a significantly higher number of Americans than the Republican Senators do.
Linda – that wasn’t what i was suggesting. My question was strictly about procedure. I’m more than happy about the gains in both chambers, but wanted to know how there can be a majority party for purposes of determining leadership positions if technically we have a plurality.
Check your math. Its 49-49-2, with the 2 voting with the dems. That makes 51, a majority.
Mrsk8,
great point about the DOJ.
I wonder what are the mechanisms the Democratic controlled Congress can use to unleash the DOJ hounds.
BJ @ 170
Ah i see, thanks
BJ @ 167
Rahm being a fighting Dem is a good thing. Rahm doing everything possible to prevent the party from fielding PROGRESSIVE candidates is *not* a good thing. He’d better stand down on his dinosaur approach, or he’ll be run over *as DCCC chief*.
It’s not about agreeing with him on everything. It’s about him mucking up the works and getting in the way of reform.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 158
Went over to free republic last night for a schadefreunde tune-up. I was surprised to see that they don’t like Mccain much either.
There are many issues I want to see the Dem congress address, but without habeas corpus the United States is no better than a 3rd world dictatorship. I think it is the crucial issue of our time. It may not be the issue that will most interest and excite the masses, but it is central to our being who we are as a nation.
pooch — sorry, I didn’t mean you were suggesting that. It was just that your post made me think of that issue. Maybe I shouldn’t have quoted your post, but I thought it gave my comment context.
Reflecting upon the freshly done elections that have thrillingly thrust the Democrats into power in both chambers after a 12-year absence from the ability to boast, I am somehow reminded of the film “The Candidate” where Robert Redford’s character Bill McKay completes a grueling campaign for the U.S. Senate. The film highlights many criticisms of modern day American politics, such as the importance of money and the emphasis on the image of political candidates. In particular, the transformation during the campaign of McKay from an idealistic public-interest lawyer working for unpopular and then-little-known causes and strong opinions on all issues into a construct of his campaign, dominated by idiotic little slogans (most notably “Bill McKay: the better way”) as he becomes a road-weary nervous wreck.
At the end of the film McKay emerges as a victorious Senator-elect and is standing amongst a throng of adoring, elated followers in a crowded hall. He looks over the crowd at his campaign manager Marvin Lucas (played by Peter Boyle) and says, “What do we do now?”.
Well, the champagne bottles are empty and it is time to start talking about what we progressives do now. I can only say that in regard to this subject the plates are full. The long list includes; the minimum wage, medicare, voting reform, ethics reform, Iraq and probably a couple of hundred other issues I just cannot dredge up right now.
I was born in Houston, Texas and I have lived in Texas most of my life. I am one of those right of center yellowdog Dems that welcomes everyone to our raucous political table. I have been a progressive since the Ford-Carter campaign. I was ten years old, living in Ford’s home town of East Grand Rapids, Michigan and as best as I can recall I was the only Carter supporter in my entire middle school. My 5th grade caucus was lonely but that was just fine. Also, I found that it was a prudent decision not to gloat on November 8th when Jimmy Carter took the Presidency. It felt good and I was happy with the outcome.
As a dedicated blog lurker for the past three years I have made some observations about the progressive/liberal blogosphere and the blogs in general. First of all, contrary to how much the MSM may pontificate and tritely dismiss the blogs, I have a stong sense that the blogosphere is a transforming event like the invention of the telephone or the automobile. I am convinced that blogs are turning the old political mechanisms of the past on their ear and history will see 2006 as the year of the weblog.
I have taken note of the blogs power and ability to comment and/or critize the body politic in real time. As the talking points stream endlessly through corporate media outlets, blogs offer the masses a way to collectively roll their eyes and congregate in indignation. It is a truly beautiful thing. I am reminded of the ancient Greeks gathering at the forum to contemplate issues and placing their pottery shards into the pot. To me it is very apparent that political blogs are going to change our society in great ways. Possibly in ways we have not even realized yet.
Furthermore, I have a notion that the blogs are going to force candidates and leaders to move up the “honesty, character and morality index”. Blogs and streaming video are making it harder and harder for people to be idiots and/or thugs while simultaneously aspiring to political office, no matter how much money they might have at the bank. Simply put, the blogs are disallowing the smoke and mirrors of the old political guard and forcing the spotlight on genuine candidates of character.
To bring my conversation full circle, I started out by referencing Bill McKay’s question “What do we do now?” A lot of time and energy has been spent on scrutiny, commentary, accountability, rants, praise, analysis, support, organization and fund raising. It has really paid off in a big way. To watch the election and to watch how the blogs affected the outcome of the election was absolutely inspiring.
Bearing in mind that this is strictly an outsiders observation, I would propose that progressive blogs consider going positive for a period of time. We need to gain a consensus regarding what is most important and most beneficial to progressive goals and the nation as a whole. I know that some of our most pressing issues are obvious and seemingly overwhelming. With only 2 years to shine, blue blogs will need to influence the political agenda wisely or else run the risk of taking on everything and accomplishing nothing. I do not know what the priorities should be and I really do not know enough about the issues to gauge what could be accomplished in 2 years. But my instincts tell me where the progressive blogosphere should be focusing: Influence a viable progressive agenda that puts us all in the best light for 2008. I look forward to participating in this dialogue.
This will be my first post to FDL (or any blog for that matter) and I am very happy to have finally garnered the courage to move from frustrated lurker to active commentor. To me the progressive liberal blogs have served as a vehicle for vital personal support and I just wanted to say thanks. The blogs have made me feel a lot less alone over the last 3 years.
48 dems, 49 reps and 2 independents
Bad count: that’s 99. It’s 49 dems, 2 indies, and 49 reps. This is why Joe has to be tied to the Dems permanently, or we have to get at least one convert from the GOP to keep him honest.
sofistic @ 12:52 pm (#120)
I think that the guy who wrote What’s The Matter With Kansas has the right idea – the Democrats stopped being for working stiffs a long time ago. They let NAFTA and CAFTA go through without sufficient safeguards, they have left us to swing when it comes to getting health care, let the rich get away with trying to repeal the inheritence tax, and they’ve even been quiet about the minimum wage. One of the reasons middle America voted Republican was that they didn’t see much difference when it came to who was going to look out for their interests.
Note that these aren’t my priorities, but I think if the Dems want to appeal to some of their new constituents, they need to start looking out for them in the manner Democrats are supposed to.
Marky @ 172
Any sort of Congressional investigation should do it. Congress is also supposed to have oversight over the DOJ via the DOJ’s Inspector General, no? The thugs turned a deaf ear to any negative reports in the past (think of the report from the Civil Rights Division, for instance).
Lots of little DOJ birdies will be whispering in the ears of congressional staff, too.
scarecrow @ 147
I think a large inarative is that Americans rejected a Congress that was more concerned with keeping it’s job than doing it’s job.
Conservatives and moderates were betrayed by a do-nothing congress which could only rally around Terry Schiavo or issuing proclamation that terrorists are bad people.
Big money propped up hate driven campaigns which bought our Congress and Executive branch.
The reversal has begun, but real progress will depend on an agenda which stresses American values.
Equal opportunity.
Success through excellence not the ’sperm lottery’.
R3espect for individuals rights and privacy.
grayslady @ 164
Yes, agreed. I think, however, that it is very dangerous for those who view themselves as progressive to take an elitist or litmus-based stand that narrows the coalition of the moment. The right-wingers/Rove have learned to define us by our stands on social issues. Why have we been in the lgislative minority for so long?
Yes, we can internally ‘laugh’ and deride those who disagree on these important social issues, but we when we are publically desirive, we drive well-intentioned and (mostly) like-minded individuals to apathy or the Reebublicans or the Greens.
It is, IMO, very dangerous to be self-congratualtory or single-race focused.
Ron Chapman @ 178
Yay, Ron! You’ve stepped out of the shadows! Good for you. And welcome to the Lake. You’ll love it here, I think. We look forward to hear more of your thoughts. Discussion is good!
BJ @ 167
It’s because he is the ultimate beltway insider. It was all him and the plan he put in motion. Not even a nod towards the grass/netroots that made all of this possible. That is one mistake that the GOP never made and it allowed them to dominate for the last 25 years.
Welcome, Ron!
Ron Chapman @ 178
tfitznc
if you have problems supporting Bean, imagine my personal quandry supporting Rahm
^)^
Illinoisans dont have great leaders in the House,
but Dick Durbin’s stature elevates consistantly in a quiet sort of way.
I miss Paul Simon greatly.
P J Evans @ 179
Right, I see the math goof. But my question was on the allocation of power and determining leadership on committees when technically there is no party majority (which is the case even with 49-49-2.) BJ provided the answer which is that the senators caucus to elect the majority leader. Didn’t mean to cause a distraction — i just noticed the distinction b/c international media charts and graphs have the 49-49-2 whereas US media had the 51/49.
Ron Chapman @ 178
Unless you have lived in Western Michignan, it is difficult to conceive of how radical you were there
^)^
LindaR @ 168
Our new Speaker will do the heavy lifting. Everything okay in Placer Co.? Murtha? I like it…
tfitznc @ 142
Well, so far we are happy to be as blue as we are, and mostly content to go to Congress with the Democrats we have. Jane and Christy can certainly decide who to endorse/support (and who would dream of trying to stop them!), but the posters here come in every stripe and hue, including prints and checks, I do believe. There are some pretty red posters here, some regular. Never seen anyone thrown out for not toeing a party line, as long as they are interesting and reasonably polite or at least can make a good pun.
The BlueAmerica candidates all met certain Howie/Jane/Christie criteria, viz, support woman’s right to choose, support US out of Iraq, etc. But in the general elections they were all for supporting with vote and voice anybody who was listed in the Dem category, no matter how reactionary.
And I was sorry to see Lincoln Chaffee’s defeat, he struck me as an honest and principaled man, although I didn’t agree with him on all issues. He was another one of those mavericks like Ron Paul, and not on the take.
Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a team that works together like Karl and the K-Street Boyz, you have even if it means bypassing good individuals.
Someday maybe we won’t even have parties and platforms anymore, we’ll just do it all by bloggy consensus or wiki’s or such. We have ways of communicating now that were unimaginable to the people who invented our form of government.
The internets have us on the brink of a revolution in the way we organize and govern ourselves. It’s like Martin Luther giving the Church notice that people could read the Bible for themselves — things ain’t been the same since!
HotFlash @ 151
Not quite, because it misses why we have such a dysfunctional government today.
Since Goldwater/Reagan and through the Bush years, the public has been fed the line that government is the problem, not a mechanism by which people collectively solve problems. The current administration came in with the notion that government should first be starved through drastic tax cuts and systematically weakened until it could be “dragged into the bathtub and drowned.” That is a pernicious philosophy — and IMO we need to argue that the exact opposite is true.
In a global economy run by huge, impersonal corporations, some of which depend on war for profitability, we need a strong government to defend people and promote their collective and indvidual security interests. Even our friend Dean is shrinking from saying this, though I suspect he believes it.
In FDR’s time, government was seen as the institution of hope, compassion, fairness and relief from the ravages of the depression. Almost all of the economic security we have today came from the programs and philosophy of that era. Dems held strong majorities under that view. Yet the Republicans have worked hard to destroy that belief, and that’s how they came to power. And that’s why we have a “strong economy” but everyone is worried about their personal economic security.
We need to revive the belief in government and the willingness to use the power of government and nation’s wealth to implement it’s public goals. And it’s also necessary, because corporate power left unchecked will likely destoy the planet. Strong, competent and honest government will be needed to turn that around — and we should not hestitate to say that, since our economic survival depends on it.
Olympia Snowe would make an OK Dem, y’know
And she’d still be to the right of that Socialist
As fine a dissection of the pluperfect irrelevance of the DLC as it has ever been my privilege to witness. Keep on carving. Your diagnosis of Dem victories on Social Security and Iraq was exact. I think civil liberties (spying, torture, homeland insecurity) provide the next broad grounds for agreement. A crusty Texican conservative ex-Dem who fled the party over civil rights told me he was about to give money to the ACLU exactly because of the warrantless wiretap stuff. Looks like our next big winner to me.
Ron Chapman, stick around and write more.
You do it well & you are not alone– my s.o. thanked me last nite and said that he was sorry that he had doubted the power of the blogs until we won.
He’s a CIO.
It made me cry with relief.
Thank you Jane and Christy and TRex and Howie and Pach and everyone!
Mack @ 186
Mack, I’m with you on Paul Simon. He was the best — sort of a Wellstone precursor. Am a big fan of Durbin, however, so count myself lucky on the whole.
Helpless Dancer @ 153
If they’re persons, why can’t they vote?
HotFlash @ 151
Howard Dean speaks for me.
So are these people out of business?
Gang of
1412Republicans
John McCain, Arizona
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Warner, Virginia
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Susan Collins, Maine
Mike DeWine, OhioLincoln Chafee, Rhode IslandDemocrats
Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert Byrd, West Virginia
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado
O’kiddo, things are a little sad here. We came within fewer than 2100 votes of winning! Unfortunately, I don’t think we have any provisionals that need to be counted.
I know Murtha isn’t good on reproductive choice, but that won’t be an issue with Pelosi as Speaker. I like Murtha because he works well with Pelosi and because he is so great on teevee on Iraq. And I don’t like Hoyer because he will be stabbing Pelosi in the back every chance he gets.
Also, Murtha’s support of labor is huge for me.
scarecrow @ 192
Amen, scarecrow, amen!
I’ve known for quite some time that we need a revival — geared for the 21st century — of FDR’s philosophy and the New Deal.
And maybe, just maybe, we can get back there WITHOUT having to have endless bread lines and soup kitchens FIRST.
OTOH, what happens when more of those interest-only mortgages move into high interest-rate payment territory remains to be seen. There’s a lot of economic suffering to come, no matter how you slice it.
Mack @ 187
You and a couple million others. But Paul would be the first to tell you that there are more like him out there – we just have to find them and get behind them.
(He’d be too modest to tell you that you could work to become him yourself, but that modesty was part of his charm!)
Oklahoma kiddo @
190
In today’s photo op, she struck me as a big cat (leopard, jaguar, cheetah) who was calmly and deliberately evaluating how she plans to eviscerate a very uncomfortable chimp.
Mr. Chafee gets a personal pass from me, Cozumel.
He worked with us when few did.
The rest of that gang can just go and get gone the next time they are up for election.
The terrorists have won. They are measuring women for burkhas in DC.
“However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,” Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University (Oct 30th).
_
Ron Chapman @ 178
Hi Ron and welcome. I think you’re correct, we’re on the edge of something huge. I’m *so* looking forward to government by wiki! ;)
Senator Jim Webb is about to speak.
HotFlash @ 197
It’s not as if they are not trying. This is a long slow motion battle that has been going on under the radar since the rise of the railroad post civil war. They just haven’t gotten there yet. Check this site http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
BobbyG @ 1:37 pm (#204)
Garrr. I still need to buy more cellophane. I have enough duct tape, though.
Perhaps Lincoln Chafee can have a job of some sort in a Democratic administration after the 2008 election.
His willingness to soundly kick John Bolton to the curb, once and for all TODAY — even after he was soundly beaten on Tuesday — is proof that he puts the country first. I’m sure he understands how much Democrats need subpoena power right now.
I think I should go look and see if Lincoln held his press conference on Bolton earlier this afternoon already….
Omigod! Schneider on CNN is saying Republicans lost because they were too far right!
LindaR @ 200
I’m hearing what you’re telling us. And I like it. I’m sad too about the 2100. I followed it very closely. But…well…that’s okay. Sort of. We’ve got Congress, now. We’ll perhaps take refuge in that. At least.
Mrs. K8,
What do you think about sending Chaffee to the ME to help Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?
LindaR @ 1:40 pm (#210)
Oh, is he off his meds again?
WTF was Chuck Schumer doing on O’Reilly’s show last night? From the Crooks and Liars video I saw,he was yes,yes yessing Bill the whole time. Does he think we’re stupid?
Senator Webb on CNN now!
new thread
Pelosi has “plans”.
Marky @ 213
He cares a lot about that horrific situation.
I’ll give him my vote.
OT – made me laugh:
Pelosi Is In Teh Hizouse
Image:Fridgecat.jpg
Marky @ 213
Now, that’s an interesting thought. Sorry to say, I haven’t followed his career closely enough to see where his natural talents lie. But he’s certainly no bomb-thrower like the Walrus Bolton, whom he just smacked silly today. That speaks in his favor as a negotiator.
An Angry Old Broad @ 1:41 pm (#214)
Yes.
Schumer strikes me as someone with far too much contempt for his own constituency.
Jane Hamsher @ 21
I know you predicted all of this – but it is making me sick to my stomach.
Chuck & Rahm are almost as skillful at lying as BushCo – or they are just as deluded as Bush???
WTF???
You know damn well it was Schumer who promised Joe that he would definitely retain seniority. And Reid was too gutless to publically correct or clarify.
I know I have to hold my nose to collaborate and compromise with these two and the forces they represent – but it literally makes me sick to my stomach.
I love the fact that the progressive community worked its fingers to the bone to help the Dems win this victory – and our thanks is a shoe in the face and a kick down the stairs.
I want to know the best way to protect Howard Dean, the best way to marginalize people like Rahm, Chuck and Joe, and the best way to get more people like Ned involved in politics. (What like minded person would want to be treated like Ned was by the leadership of his own party?)
Peterr — I think the imagery of today’s meeting was wonderful. It’s not the President meeting with the Speaker of the House-to-be; no, it was a wise, strong, and thoughtful grandmother meeting with a foolish, immature and now publically chastized adolescent. Yesterday’s interviews with Pelosi, and Bush’s presser set that up. Round 1 to Grandma Pelosi, who, as the reporters noted yesterday, has publically called Bush incompetent and dishonest. Pelosi beat Bush in this election.
I gotta be honest here
The thing which keeps me from even considering politics is a less than perfect history.
The sad face is that you have to be without sin, or have aenough dollars to suppress it.
btw – I apologize to Northeasterners for blurring Maine and Vermont together.
They are, as any astute observer knows, distinct and seperate republics.
But I still think it’s kinda cool that Vermont elected a Socialist (even if they use I instead of S after his name).
LindaR @ 200
I’m sorry – I know how it hurts.
Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, because the laws a century or so back weren’t written with corporations in mind. ‘Personhood’ was how they worked the idea of a corporation (as opposed to ‘natural persons’, like you and me). It needs to be revised in the light of the last fifty or sixty years of conglomerates and multinationals. Maybe they’d have to be restricted more in some ways, like limiting their donating power to that of individuals. I don’t see giving corporations a vote would work, except as one corporation, one vote. But IANAL.
Mrs. K8 @ 210
And he can shoe horses.
twolf1 @ 1:43 pm (#219)
Thanks for the picture. My cat, who resembled that cat quite a bit, died last week from renal failure. He managed to make me laugh quite often, as well.
Slangwhanger-in-Chief @ 194
In response to this comment and several others above — I think this group of issues is a great example of how the Democrats should approach their agenda.
First, does the broad American public consider this a pressing issue on a par with Iraq and corruption… that is, do Democrats know they’ve got 55-60% of voters on our side already if they address it now? My sense is, no.
Now, if were a DLCer, I’d shrug my shoulders and say, “Oh, well, what’s a little torture and wiretapping… it’s not worth risking our majority over.” But fortunately, I’m not.
A smarter and more moral Democratic leadership would recognize that (1) something needs to be done on these issues, and (2) even if support isn’t at the 55-60% level yet, a large number of people — including Republicans and independents — feel very strongly about it.
The solution, then, is to raise the visibility of the issue, framing it as needed to make it more salient to people. Hearings on the 14,000 people in CIA secret prisons, for example, will make a lot of folks recoil and say, “America should NOT be doing that.” Have Jon Tester, who knows how to speak plainly on the subject and fits nobody’s stereotype of an effete Democrat, join Feingold in taking the lead on the subject.
After a few months of a conscious strategy to elevate and frame the issue, you’ll have your 55-60% support that puts it on the “American agenda.”
HotFlash @
227
Really? Seriously? I’m impressed. If communications lines break down, sounds like he can take on the Paul Revere role.
P J Evans @ 226
They are “legal persons”, that is they are treated as persons for the purpose of *contracts*. That was a legislated convenience to allow businesses larger than partnerships to make contracts without having every single member sign each time. It also permitted limited liability, which was a bonus for the directors and shareholders. Treating corporations as ‘persons’ in human and social contexts is an abuse of language and if the courts pretend to not know the difference then legislation will have to make it clear. Corporations have no business voting in the affairs of humans. They are immortal, feel no pain, and are fixated on the next quarterly report. Their *directors* vote. Their *shareholders* vote. No, no, no corporate sufferage. And you can put me down as being against corporate marriage, too. I’m such a bigot!
I know, it’s EPU’d but … What’s our message?
Freedom
Noting several comments above, I’m very much looking forward to seeing Dick Durbin at work in the majority leadership. He may not be flashy, but he has been a consistent and reliable voice in opposition to administration excesses.
I, too, miss Paul Simon. Wouldn’t it be nice to see more of his ilk emerge?
I do believe that this will be my first EPU-ing, having only recently slunk out of lurkerdom.
One thing to consider is the actual way American living has changed. The recent surveys indicate that Americans see political issues as national issues rather than local issues. So, all politics are not local anymore. And what has shifted that view is how people see American society as a whole. The Internet has had a lot to do with changing that view.
As for the difference between Rahm, et al, and the netroots, consider the Rahm camp from the old Industrial top-down model, where orders are issued from on high, as opposed to the net roots where, like the Internet itself, it is a “heterarchy” and depends on standard protocols, but not top down orders. I hope this makes sense, I am a little ill today and fuzzy.
Swopa @ 229
I agree with what you are saying. As I posted in a previous thread, I would posit that to marry strategic and tactical thinking on the political side with the principled and ethical on the other in making the first steps we need in the House is to get the ethics committee beefed up like nobody’s business… then clean OUR OWN HOUSE. Kick Jefferson LOUDLY and PUBLICLY to the curb FIRST THING.
This will help Waxman and Conyers greatly down the road as they dig into the investigations that need to occur. If we demonstrate we are open, transparent, consistent and ethical regardless of party ID, it will be not just the correct thing to do, but will lay the groundwork and arms us well when we start doing the correct thing to change course while holding the GOP and the Bush White House to account.
Corruption and the flood of scandels plagueing the GOP are a hot iron as evidenced by the exit polling as well, but striking it via our own dirty laundry will pay handsome dividends politically down the road and help ease the entry into the relationship of the centrist and “Reagan Democrats” as they are back home.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 32
Hill & Bill are two of the most selfish, self absorbed politicians of our era. Bill did very little to build a strong Dem party when he was in office. There was an article this week about how little Hill helped other candidates in New York state this election cycle.
I’ve defended them for years. But no more.
bemused @ 50
LMAO
HotFlash @
232
Nice to know!
dab from CT @ 223
dab, it makes me mad, too. I am not the type to try harder in a case like this, I just don’t have it in me to hang in for more abuse. Fortunately, we can do an end-run around them on the ‘Net, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of our Ladies of the Lake — goddess bless our watery tarts! — and Howie Klein, John Amato, Markos, and Firedogs everywhere. Not to mention Dr. Dean himself, Keith O and so many more.
Here’s another thought, you could call it a permanent Democratic base in the base. Rayne says it’s fraught with 501(???) considerations to set up, but it looks like a good way to *be*.
Making campaigns less expensive would be a good thing, too. At $15 million for a campaign, running for Congress can be a *very* expensive hobby. Candidates with Ned’s cojones *and* the necessary millions do not grow on trees. If the ante weren’t so high it would be easier to find good folks to run. There also would not be the pressure for ROI.
HotFlash @ 206
Bibliography: Wiki :) and wiki-esque…but in my defense I did say “referenced”.
pow wow @
71
Great work gathering those numbers. I’ve been wondering too how Allen could’ve been so blithe with his gaffes throughout the campaign and yet appear so confident of victory.
I also noticed that many of the close, as yet uncalled, races had Republican women in them. Were they getting a little help to keep up the facade that the Republican party is really ‘big tent’?
How much election fraud was there and how big was this Blue Tsunami really?
While I can appreciate the writers comments, I sincerely hope that the forthcoming foundation to be built by the Democrats will stand on solid ground rather than quicksand.
For many months, we have suffered ( many times with outrage )when first the Patriot Act was created and then the Patriot Act II. I seem to recall our being incensed that our own government felt the need to spy on us through various NSA programs. But the icing on the cake was the death of our constituional rights when the president penned into law the Military Commissions Act.
I’ve grown tired of seeing the high fives after the election and hearing how wonderful Ms. Pelosi will be when she steps into the limelight. I’m willing to wait before passing personal judgement on the democratoc agenda. But for those who have now inherited the matle of power along with their respective offices, least we not forget that we cannot survive unless those laws that have been put in place as well as their ramifications are addressed.
If what sets us apart from the rest of our ever shrinking world are the laws that we are governed by, then we must bring to mind the very blood that our founding fathers split in giving us this cherished gift we call the Untied States Of America.
I think the best way to secure a Democratic future and broaden the appeal of the party is to use this vital time after our amazing victory to not so much push forward our agenda for change, but instead to settle greivances, insure orthodoxy and, most importanty, demonize Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, the DLC, the DNCC, the DSCC and every other institution in the establishment Democratic party who done us wrong. All impure elements must be cleansed. Let’s not even get started on Steny Hoyer who only should be ignored since although he did not do much wrong, it’s only because he did nothing period.
Oops, that was sarcasm (except about Hoyer)because my belief is that this is the time for stepping on Republican necks (or Leiberdick’s), not Democratic ones.
Blast away on Leiberdick; he’s a traitor, an opportunist and an ass, and should be shipped off to Gitmo, waterboarded or whatever fate his treachery deserves. But that’s only cause he’s not a Democrat. In fact, if Reid asserts he should be given a committee chair I think a bold,strong Dem should say “Screw that Harry, you do that and I’m going to go independant and caucus with the Republicans myself. Why does that *sshole get to call his own shots? This ‘independant’ thing is his own bed, let him lie in it.”
Il’d like to see the look on Lieberdick’s puss if someone had the balls to do that. It would probably get all squished up and squirt like a schoolgirl at the unfairness of it all. “He/She took my ball away Harry! It was all mine! Waaaahhhh!!!!”
As soon as MSNBC announced that the Dems had taken control of the House, the first person interviewed was Rahm. He was praised for his ability to achieve victory.
It was Gov. Dean and his 50 state initiative, I believe who was responsible for me, a liberal Libertarian receiving e-mails and who inspired me to donate to the national cause of taking back the America I love.
Many people can take credit. I personally would obtain information I garnered from this and many other sites which informed me, on an ongoing basis, to the outrageous actions of this administration, especially the power grab identified as the “Unitary Executive”. I would pass this information on to others.
One person I passed it on to is a deacon in the Presbyterian Church. She could not quite trust what I was saying, but after I explained about “Signing Statements” and later, much later, the MSM reported that he had signed over 800 of the nasty buggers, she was anxious for me to share things I learned.
She is also very active in a number of other organizations and clubs. She would talk with those she knew about the things I would share with her.
She was appalled when her church made her stand up one Sunday, after the sermon, and read a statement to denounce homosexuality. Her brother whom she loves dearly is homosexual. She told me it made her very uncomfortable. She had always believed her church was one of inclusion not exclusion. One who preached love of all mankind.
She began speaking out and lately began referring to Bush as the Antichrist. She has been speaking out for almost two years now.
So I have to say, once and for all, millions of people through word of mouth, not just Rahm or Gov. Dean or any “one” person is responsible for this victory, it is everyone who took the time to become informed and went to the polls to say “No” to this administration and it’s policies and “No” to the corruption and hypocrisy.
I want to scream from the rooftops: No more lawbreakers elected to be lawmakers!