Democrats taking over... so what's next?

[Filo]

sirsaxa said:

I don't know where you guys are getting this information that the Democrats are starting with extreme positions. So Nancy represents SF. So what? Actually, that gives her far more flexibility because she knows she'll be re-elected no matter what she does. SF is not going to send a Republican to the House.

And what has she said that is so extreme? Raising the minimum wage? promising the most open and ethical House we have ever seen?

OK, I will admit that I don't know what Nancy is going to do or how effective she will be. But neither do the critics on this board who are accusing her of extremism.

She has been talking about Bi-partisanship and civility. is that just talk? we'll see. We sure know the Republicans didn't believe in those things.

Finally, I get a big kick out of these rough, tough, war on terror, gun toting, boaShut upl Republicans, swaggering all over the world, making (empty) threats against IRAQ and KOREA and Bin Laden, and now they are terrified of a little, Italian grandmother from San Francisco?

One thing we do know about Nancy, she is a helluva politician to get to be the first woman leader of the House. Quite remarkable. Maybe we should sit back and give her a chance instead of accusing her of being an extremist. It is one thing to represent a district, it is another to be the Speaker of the House -- representing all of America -- and being the third in line to the Presidency. I think she knows the difference. I mean really, do we think she will be worse for the country than Tom DeLay?

Sirsaxa - you are right, I hate labels and I should not have use the term "extreme," since it is so loaded and gives people the opportunity to jump up and down and turn what I think is a pretty obvious point into something more sinister than it was meant to be. My point stands -- she is to the left of the Democratic Party's center and not representative of the Democratic mainstream. I base that not on her what she said she WILL DO but what she HAS DONE (check out her House voting record).

Hey, I am more than willing to give her a chance (I have no choice now). I hope my pessimism is misplaced.

[AustinHoya03]

sirsaxa said:

I don't know where you guys are getting this information that the Democrats are starting with extreme positions. So Nancy represents SF. So what? Actually, that gives her far more flexibility because she knows she'll be re-elected no matter what she does. SF is not going to send a Republican to the House.

I don't know what section of San Francisco Pelosi represents, but based on Bay-Area voter trends over the last few years, is it totally unreasonable to expect she might be booted in favor of a more liberal Democrat or a Green Party candidate if she is seen as too willing to work with Republicans or too willing to cater to moderates in her own party?

I mean, I doubt it, but it seems to me there's a much larger chance of Pelosi being challenged from the left than from the right.

Also, if Pelosi is as smart as you give her credit for, this Congress will do its best to work with the President to get things done. If the Democrats fail to propose meaningful legislation, it's lights out in '08. Taking a "San-Francisco liberal" (and I agree the label doesn't work) tack, which would bring the political process to a screeching halt, won't help her political career or the party at all.

[kchoya]

hilltopper2000 said:

Because there was no example of race-baiting in either state, unlike Tennessee. In fact, the lowest tactics along those lines were taken by Steele in PG County where homeless people from Pennsylvania were bused in to hand out flyier identifying Steele and Ehrlich as Democrats.

Yeah, nothing untoward went on in Maryland :


Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

[hilltopper2000]

Kc -- I follow that race pretty closely and can't say I've heard of any such incident. Can you post some articles? That is indeed disgusting, although qualitatively distinguishable from implying miscegenation in a state like Tennessee.

[CAHoya07]

sirsaxa said:

I don't know where you guys are getting this information that the Democrats are starting with extreme positions. So Nancy represents SF. So what? Actually, that gives her far more flexibility because she knows she'll be re-elected no matter what she does. SF is not going to send a Republican to the House.

And what has she said that is so extreme? Raising the minimum wage? promising the most open and ethical House we have ever seen?

OK, I will admit that I don't know what Nancy is going to do or how effective she will be. But neither do the critics on this board who are accusing her of extremism.

She has been talking about Bi-partisanship and civility. is that just talk? we'll see. We sure know the Republicans didn't believe in those things.

Finally, I get a big kick out of these rough, tough, war on terror, gun toting, boaShut upl Republicans, swaggering all over the world, making (empty) threats against IRAQ and KOREA and Bin Laden, and now they are terrified of a little, Italian grandmother from San Francisco?

One thing we do know about Nancy, she is a helluva politician to get to be the first woman leader of the House. Quite remarkable. Maybe we should sit back and give her a chance instead of accusing her of being an extremist. It is one thing to represent a district, it is another to be the Speaker of the House -- representing all of America -- and being the third in line to the Presidency. I think she knows the difference. I mean really, do we think she will be worse for the country than Tom DeLay?

(Stands and applauds)

Honestly, I don't see why people are so scared of Pelosi. Sure, she is a liberal, but don't people think she can adapt her strategy now that she has an added responsibility to the Democratic Party and to the nation as a whole? I mean, she is a politican, after all. She and Bush disagree on a lot of things, but I have faith in both of them to find enough common ground to do what is right for the country, instead of engaging in partisan bickering that gets us nowhere.

This is another reason why I hate terms like "Massachusetts liberal" or "San Francisco liberal." How does geography play into any of this? It's just dumb partisan name-calling playing on stereotypes that is not in the least bit productive. I may be a Democrat, but more than anything, I am an American, and I want for my representatives to do what's best for this country, regardless of party affiliation. Or where I live.

So, the Democrats now have the power, and an amazing opportunity to do some great things for this country. I hope that they now use it in the right way; otherwise, they could be just as bad as the Republicans.

[kchoya]

hilltopper2000 said:

Kc -- I follow that race pretty closely and can't say I've heard of any such incident. Can you post some articles? That is indeed disgusting, although qualitatively distinguishable from implying miscegenation in a state like Tennessee.

That was from a Wash Times article last November.

I wasn't following the TN race with any detail, but I was surprised Ford lost. I thought he was well liked - maybe just in his own district? I don't think the inter-racial dating issue translated to a 3 point/50,000 vote difference.

[Boz]

hilltopper2000 said:

Kc -- I follow that race pretty closely and can't say I've heard of any such incident. Can you post some articles? That is indeed disgusting, although qualitatively distinguishable from implying miscegenation in a state like Tennessee.

I believe the Oreo incident was during his campaign for Lt. Governor, not this campaign. There were some pretty low tactics used this time around too, just nothing that bad.

Including Steny Hoyer's comment about Steele's "slavish devotion to the Republican party," but apparently that was another example of a "botched joke." ;D

No, really, I think it was intended as a joke - not a very good one - and Hoyer apologized for it

[nychoya3]

Yeah, and the details of the "Oreo Incident" are very much in dispute. Check his wikipedia entry for more. But, regardless, it definitely didn't happen this time around. The Hoyer thing was just a poor choice of words, unless you're of the ilk inclined to believe it was a Freudian slip revealing the truth of the Democratic party's feelings on this matter.

[AustinHoya03]

hilltopper2000 said:

That is indeed disgusting, although qualitatively distinguishable from implying miscegenation in a state like Tennessee.

What do you mean by the phrase "in a state like Tennessee?"

[EasyEd]

I'd like to note that "a state like Tennessee" gave Ford 48% of the vote while a state like Maryland gave Steele only 44% and a state like Pennsylvania gave Swann only 40% (for governor). Would one draw the conclusion that Pennsylvania and Maryland are more racist than Tennessee? I doubt it. So why try to paint "a state like Tennessee" as a racist state?

[tgo]

nychoya3 said:

Check his wikipedia entry for more.

i wouldnt base an opinion, argument or any statements of fact on something posted on wikipedia.

[nychoya3]

tgo said:

nychoya3 said:

Check his wikipedia entry for more.

i wouldnt base an opinion, argument or any statements of fact on something posted on wikipedia.

Ummm...Thanks for sharing. Did you read the entry and find a problem with it? Wikipedia is very useful for a lot of things, and if you read the recent New Yorker article on the subject, you'd learn that a review of its entries found they weren't more likely to contain factual errors than Britannica or other "real" encyclopedias. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

[heartofahoya]

some food for thought regarding the now officially split government...

i'm happy with, but not surprised, at the level of civility between the executive and legislative branches in the past two days. i hope it's here to say, but i agree with whomever stated earlier that these happy relations will almost surely deteriorate as bush's presidency comes to a close and the race for the white house in 2008 heats up. BUT i think it's also possible that some really good things will come from president bush and the 110th congress-- the dems have an incentive to cooperative with bush (their majority in the house is small, and their majority in the senate provides them with little more than control of the committee system-- i will elaborate on that in a moment) and as stubborn (democratic adjective) or steadfast (republican adjective) as president bush is, he also has an incentive to cooperate. does he really want his legacy to be an as of yet unsuccessful war in iraq and being pretty much the single cause of the republican's lose of both houses of congress? i see some compromises on immigration, education and bush maybe even conceding on the tax issues for the top 1 or 2% to reduce the deficit by the time he leaves office. and maaaaaybe, just maaaaaaybe, to help mccain out (or whomever has the balls to step up and challenge mccain in the repub primary), there will be a timeline for withdrawing troops from iraq. but don't count on it, knowing GW. i dont see anything on stem cell research because of the delicate situation in the senate.

however, there are several reasons why i dont see the dems moving on anything else major until 2008. first: the senate. their majority is not a "working majority." majority leader reid will be hard pressed to get 60 votes for any controversial legisation for two reasons: (1) many of the dems' "go to republican guys" were voted out of office on tuesday (off the top of my head... dewine, chafee) and (2) several of the freshmen dems are extremely moderate and might side with repubs.

ONE more thing to think about in the senate... of the 33 senators in the 2008 class, 21 are republicans. which means the dems have an even greater chance of picking up seats in 2008, when have to take the defensive in only 12 instances. which means the senate might hold off on anything controversial until the NEXT congress.

in many committees, the transition to dem leadership will be pretty seamless... take for example, the senate finance committee: chuck grassley (r) and max baucus (d), who will switch between committee chairman and ranking minorit member in the 110th, share an office on the hill... and their staffers often distribute business cards listing both members' staffers. cool stuff there...

and speaking of grassley/baucus (both from states with big rural constituencies)... many of the new democratic leaders have strong rural roots (dorgan, akaka, pryor, harkin), so maybe the oh-so-controversial telecom bill will garner some steam in the 110th??? hopefully commerce committee chairman ted stevens will provide the likes of jon stewart and stephen colbert with much more comedic gold by elaborating on his idea of the internet as a "series of tubes" in which dumptrucks drop massive amounts of information...

anyway, there are my two cents.

[jerseyhoya34]

I have a slightly different take on these changes, I think. My take on it is that this honeymoon period will last for only a short while with lip service on both sides that they will work together. Hell, President Bush talked today about how Congress needs to railroad surveillance bills and the like through before the new year. That does not exactly show an interest in bipartisanship given how these bills are red hot on the left.

A lack of cooperation by the Democrats is fine by me. Congressional Republicans had exactly 12 years to "work together," and how did they do? President Bush had 6 years to "work together," and how did he do? Well, just recently, he claimed that a victory by Democrats in the election would align with what the terrorists want. When Democrats "worked with" the Republicans during this time, we were able to see the fruits in the Iraq War. So, call me a little bitter, but I don't think it is necessarily in the best interests of the Democrats or, more importantly, the country to "work together." And, I don't think Americans have necessarily asked the Democrats to work together. I think Tuesday's vote is more of a request to bring about meaningful change in our Iraq policy.

I also don't expect too much cooperation from the Democrats. Seniority has ruled when it comes to committee rank for Democrats. That will mean that Conyers has the gavel in Judiciary, Rangel in Ways and Means, Barney Frank in Financial Services, and Obey in Appropriations. Zell Miller these guys are not.

Iraq and such major issues aside, I am looking at Pelosi and Reid to provide leadership on precisely the issues that Republicans have refused to support/take up in a serious way. Chief among these are embryonic stem cell research and Darfur. Last time the Senate took up stem cell, it came within 3 votes of overriding Bush's veto. Since that time, Senate Republicans have lost the following senators who voted against the bill: Allen, Santorum, and Talent. More importantly, I think Democrats now have more of a platform from which to discuss the issue and to unblur the false and cynical blurring of embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. So, when I ask for a serious debate of the issue, let's leave those who want to talk about how we conduct research on stem cells already out of the serious parts of the discussion.

All of this said, I think Congress did lose a few good Republicans on Tuesday. Names like Richard Pombo, J.D. Hayworth, and George Allen don't get a mention in that category. A name like Jim Leach does. He has consistently provided an independent mind and approach to the issues that is probably needed now more than ever. For some of the same reasons, I think Chafee should get a mention. Another name deserving of mention is Anne Northrup.

As for 2008, I think a lot can happen in a few years. I hope the Republicans nominate McCain, but they had a chance in 2000. Why will 2008 be different?

For the Democrats, I hope members take a look at candidates in a way that evaluates who has been successful from the point of view of advocating good/sound/successful policy and approaches. Who has been "right" on Iraq from day 1, etc.

[SirSaxa]

dfw said:

sirsaxa said:

She has been talking about Bi-partisanship and civility. is that just talk? we'll see. We sure know the Republicans didn't believe in those things.

Your comments read as very angry at Republicans. People aren't the enemy in this--this is coming from someone who didn't get utterly consumed in government at Georgetown, despite my minor in the subject. Frankly, there are more important things in life than partisan politics.

As I was trying to state above (and yes, I know of New York electoral politics), people are less likely to throw stones if they understand the other side and exhibit some civility. If Democrats do nothing more than follow the same incendiary tactics of their predecessors, their stay in the leadership will be a short one.

DFW, I appreciate your comments. Open communication and undertanding are always positive. If I sound a little angry at Republicans, well I guess that makes me like most people in this country who just threw those guys out, and for darn good reason.

You are right that if the Dems "do nothing more than follow the same" they'll be out, but why is that your starting point? To me that sounds like George Bush yesterday, lecturing Democrats on the virtues of Bi-Partisanship. If he really wants to talk about it, he should be talking to his own team.


On the other side of the ledger, perhaps you missed my positive comments about the wisdom of bringing in proven veterans like James Baker and Bob Gates to try to clean up the mess caused by the ideologues Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Rove/Wolfowitz etc. Too bad they didn't hire those guys in the first place six years ago, instead of the Right Wing ideologues. It is quite obvious that Bush I was a far better president than Bush II.

When the Republican party starts acting like what Republicans say they are (small govt., balanced budgets, limited intrusions around the world or in people's personal lives, and ethical behavior) then we can take them seriously again.

Until then, they should be more concerned about cleaning up their own house. There will be plenty of time later to attack Nancy Pelosi -- if and when she does something to deserve it.


And CAHoya07 -- thanks for the compliments.

[Deleted]

The Dems taking over better mean one thing and one thing only:

More weed for my "glaucoma."

[TBird41]

jerseyhoya34 said:

As for 2008, I think a lot can happen in a few years. I hope the Republicans nominate McCain, but they had a chance in 2000. Why will 2008 be different?

Why was 1980 different then 1976? 1968 different then 1960?

[EasyEd]

Seems to me the House has more chance for success since Nancy's father and her children all attended Georgetown while her next-in-line, Steny HOYA, was GU Law. Meanwhile, Harry Reid is GW Law grad. Trouble ahead for the D's.