I am sooooooooo tired of the endless whining by Republicans that they were shut out of the writing of the Stimulus Package and that, if they had been able to participate, it would have passed with overwhelming support of both parties. Bull.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Harry Reid Explained
As I've said before, Harry Reid is quite possibly the weakest Majority Leader of either party in the last half century, at least.
Now I know why. He's not only a Conservative Democrat. He comes from a Republican state where his re-election is not guaranteed. In short, he has to be careful not to seem "too" Democratic if he wants to stay in office.
Fine. I can understand the instinct for self-preservation. But that does not explain why the Democratic Senate first elected him as Majority Leader and then re-elected him. Except, of course, that Senate Democrats (like the equally cowardly House Democrats) are so afraid of being labeled "partisan" or "liberal" by the media that they don't want a "real" Democrat in the position.
I, quite frankly, am not happy with a Democratic President who thinks that partisanship, action on behalf of a set of firm beliefs, is wrong. That both Pelosi* in the House and Reid in the Senate share this view does not bode well for Democrats like me who believe in traditional Democratic values.
*Pelosi's cowardice and weakness, even with a Democratic majority, has no similar excuse. She comes from a reliably liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the country.
Now I know why. He's not only a Conservative Democrat. He comes from a Republican state where his re-election is not guaranteed. In short, he has to be careful not to seem "too" Democratic if he wants to stay in office.
Fine. I can understand the instinct for self-preservation. But that does not explain why the Democratic Senate first elected him as Majority Leader and then re-elected him. Except, of course, that Senate Democrats (like the equally cowardly House Democrats) are so afraid of being labeled "partisan" or "liberal" by the media that they don't want a "real" Democrat in the position.
I, quite frankly, am not happy with a Democratic President who thinks that partisanship, action on behalf of a set of firm beliefs, is wrong. That both Pelosi* in the House and Reid in the Senate share this view does not bode well for Democrats like me who believe in traditional Democratic values.
*Pelosi's cowardice and weakness, even with a Democratic majority, has no similar excuse. She comes from a reliably liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the country.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Who does the DNC represent?
I'm really confused about these primaries which started in January and are scheduled to end in June.
Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi and the media and the Kossacks & family all insist that the campaign has to stop today for the good of the party.
Now, let's take the media first. They wanted it to be over after the Iowa caucuses. Why? What were they planning to talk about for the 8 months until the conventon? As I've posted before, the networks have practically stopped covering the conventions because they are just free advertising for the parties. This year, a convention might be worth paying attention to. But the media aren't interested. Weird.
But back to the DNC. So they made some rules about when primaries could be held, and the primary purpose of the rules, as far as I can tell, was to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the head of the pack. Florida and Michigan, primarily because of Republicans, moved their primaries up in defiance of "The Rules".
Ignoring the question about the rules and credentials, etc., what Florida and Michigan were trying to do was to be relevant because, as current DNC commentary goes, the states at the back end of the primary schedule are not supposed to count.
Democrats across the country (and Republicans, too, if McCain had not emerged as the leader) are thus in a no-win situation. If they move their primary dates up front, their votes won't be counted because of "The Rules". If they leave them at the back of the schedule, their votes won't count either: because the nominee will have already been chosen (McCain) or because the Party wants the winner to be selected before the primary season is halfway finished.
This is a classic Catch-22 of course. So it makes me wonder just whom the DNC represents, because it doesn't seem to represent or much care about the preferences of ordinary voting Democrats. Why then even bother with an expensive primary season? The DNC should simply get together in January of the election year and choose the candidate, just like back in those old smoke-filled room days. It is cruel and unusual punishment to, with one hand, give Democrats across the country the right to vote for the candidate of their choice and, with the other hand, take it away because it is divisive.
One last thought: if it were Obama vs. Edwards, would there be all this yak about how Edwards should get out for the good of the Party?
Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi and the media and the Kossacks & family all insist that the campaign has to stop today for the good of the party.
Now, let's take the media first. They wanted it to be over after the Iowa caucuses. Why? What were they planning to talk about for the 8 months until the conventon? As I've posted before, the networks have practically stopped covering the conventions because they are just free advertising for the parties. This year, a convention might be worth paying attention to. But the media aren't interested. Weird.
But back to the DNC. So they made some rules about when primaries could be held, and the primary purpose of the rules, as far as I can tell, was to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the head of the pack. Florida and Michigan, primarily because of Republicans, moved their primaries up in defiance of "The Rules".
Ignoring the question about the rules and credentials, etc., what Florida and Michigan were trying to do was to be relevant because, as current DNC commentary goes, the states at the back end of the primary schedule are not supposed to count.
Democrats across the country (and Republicans, too, if McCain had not emerged as the leader) are thus in a no-win situation. If they move their primary dates up front, their votes won't be counted because of "The Rules". If they leave them at the back of the schedule, their votes won't count either: because the nominee will have already been chosen (McCain) or because the Party wants the winner to be selected before the primary season is halfway finished.
This is a classic Catch-22 of course. So it makes me wonder just whom the DNC represents, because it doesn't seem to represent or much care about the preferences of ordinary voting Democrats. Why then even bother with an expensive primary season? The DNC should simply get together in January of the election year and choose the candidate, just like back in those old smoke-filled room days. It is cruel and unusual punishment to, with one hand, give Democrats across the country the right to vote for the candidate of their choice and, with the other hand, take it away because it is divisive.
One last thought: if it were Obama vs. Edwards, would there be all this yak about how Edwards should get out for the good of the Party?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Why does Pelosi support Obama?
No, I don't know Pelosi and I've never heard her directly endorse Obama, but anybody who has been following this campaign understands what she means when she makes a comment about the primaries.
I have been trying to understand Obama's enduring appeal. I can see being infatuated with him: the rhetorical skill, those high-flown sentiments. But the more one looks into his past, the less one finds. This is a man who got his legislative seat by using rules, yes "rules", to disqualify his opponents. The bills he passed in his last year in the Illinois legislature? Handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones. His election to the U.S. Senate? The Republican opponent had to bow out due to a sex scandal & was replaced by an out-of-stater. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats could have run and won with anybody who was breathing.
He does not appear to have any deep-seated convictions. A review of his career in the Illinois legislature & the U.S. Senate suggests a man who doesn't want to make anybody angry or require him to defend himself. Remember, many of those "present" votes were not orchestrated by Democrats. They were his choice. And he seems to have ducked votes in the Senate that might negatively impact his run for President.
As far as I can tell, he fulfills an unknown (to me) need on the part of Democrats for their own Ronald Reagan: you know, a guy who holds a few global principles, can deliver a good speech, but doesn't want to be bothered by the details.
How does this explain Pelosi's support and, I suspect, Harry Reid's as well? Simple. As a Bay Area resident, I hate to say this but Pelosi has proven herself to be a singularly ineffective Speaker. And Reid might as well be Minority Leader for all that he has accomplished, although he, at least, has the excuse of a 1-vote majority (Lieberman- who no doubt uses his position as an Independent to exert pressure).
The guiding principles of Pelosi and Reid seem to be:
1. Don't make waves.
2. Don't embarrass anybody, Republican or Democrat or the President, by making them go on the record by voting "no" or issuing a veto. Reid counts noses and if he can't get 60 votes (to avoid a fillibuster) or 2/3 to override a veto, he doesn't even bother to put legislation to a vote. After all, why make Republicans angry by actually forcing them to go through the discomfort of a fillibuster? Pelosi seems to rely on a similar strategy.
Their governing philosophy has much in common with Obama's "unity" trope - and his "present" votes. "Let's just all get along." I think Pelosi and Reid see in Obama a President who won't get in their way, a President who will set forth some Reagan-like exhortations and let them go about their business.
But they know that a President Hillary will demand results. She cares about the big picture, but she knows the details matter. She will make demands upon Pelosi and Reid; she will expect them to do everything possible to pass her agenda.
I rather suspect, therefore, that Pelosi and Reid don't really care whether or not Obama becomes President as long as Democrats retain control of the Congress. After all, with McCain in the White House, they can continue to blame their incompetence on a Republican President.
I have been trying to understand Obama's enduring appeal. I can see being infatuated with him: the rhetorical skill, those high-flown sentiments. But the more one looks into his past, the less one finds. This is a man who got his legislative seat by using rules, yes "rules", to disqualify his opponents. The bills he passed in his last year in the Illinois legislature? Handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones. His election to the U.S. Senate? The Republican opponent had to bow out due to a sex scandal & was replaced by an out-of-stater. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats could have run and won with anybody who was breathing.
He does not appear to have any deep-seated convictions. A review of his career in the Illinois legislature & the U.S. Senate suggests a man who doesn't want to make anybody angry or require him to defend himself. Remember, many of those "present" votes were not orchestrated by Democrats. They were his choice. And he seems to have ducked votes in the Senate that might negatively impact his run for President.
As far as I can tell, he fulfills an unknown (to me) need on the part of Democrats for their own Ronald Reagan: you know, a guy who holds a few global principles, can deliver a good speech, but doesn't want to be bothered by the details.
How does this explain Pelosi's support and, I suspect, Harry Reid's as well? Simple. As a Bay Area resident, I hate to say this but Pelosi has proven herself to be a singularly ineffective Speaker. And Reid might as well be Minority Leader for all that he has accomplished, although he, at least, has the excuse of a 1-vote majority (Lieberman- who no doubt uses his position as an Independent to exert pressure).
The guiding principles of Pelosi and Reid seem to be:
1. Don't make waves.
2. Don't embarrass anybody, Republican or Democrat or the President, by making them go on the record by voting "no" or issuing a veto. Reid counts noses and if he can't get 60 votes (to avoid a fillibuster) or 2/3 to override a veto, he doesn't even bother to put legislation to a vote. After all, why make Republicans angry by actually forcing them to go through the discomfort of a fillibuster? Pelosi seems to rely on a similar strategy.
Their governing philosophy has much in common with Obama's "unity" trope - and his "present" votes. "Let's just all get along." I think Pelosi and Reid see in Obama a President who won't get in their way, a President who will set forth some Reagan-like exhortations and let them go about their business.
But they know that a President Hillary will demand results. She cares about the big picture, but she knows the details matter. She will make demands upon Pelosi and Reid; she will expect them to do everything possible to pass her agenda.
I rather suspect, therefore, that Pelosi and Reid don't really care whether or not Obama becomes President as long as Democrats retain control of the Congress. After all, with McCain in the White House, they can continue to blame their incompetence on a Republican President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
