So I was pretty confident when the democrats took the house and senate. I thought we would see a hand of reason over bush. Of course when I saw the Dems buckle under pressure in regards to the iraq war bill I got worried. Then I saw an article about the proposed US Embassy costing 1.3 Billion dollars! I was irate…oh but not to worry, congress “only” approved 592 million of that for the embassy. So it seems we arent going to get any relief from the democrats and the republicans are turning this country into their own personal business. Will there be an end? Who’s going to put a stop to all of this. These aren’t rhetorical questions, I really want to know because frankly, I’m really really worried. Can someone put me at ease?
Well, a significant part of the reason that the Democrats can’t get anything done is that they don’t really have the Senate securely; there are only 49 Democrats in the Senate, plus two Independents, at least one of whom is pro-war. There’s a good chance of that changing in 2008, when 22 of the 33 Senators up for re-election are Republicans. That puts the Democrats on the offensive for most races. If the Democrats took the house with a solid majority (57 or so seats) they might really be able to get something done and have a real shot at overriding vetoes. What happens in the House is anyone’s guess.
Well that doesn’t make me feel to much better. I guess the problem I’m having is that there doesn’t seem to be any signs of relief from either side (dem/rep). Have we come to the point where, because of the publics lack of political involvement, we have a government filled with people who don’t have our best interests in mind? From what I can see we have the republicans, democrats, and media all vying for positions of power. I’m not getting the feeling that the people “we” have put into positions of government are representing America or Americans.
Screwed all together? Nah. We’re still pretty separated on a lot of issues.
Of course! I suggest you step back and look at the country as a whole instead of peoples personal issues. Its this attitude that has gotten us to where we are now.
I watched a forum on C-SPAN or some such with a top GOP and Dem strategist. They basically agreed that the Dems’ hold on Congress is slim, and best option at this point is to avoid extremism and going hard core left. They do not want to be seen as obstructionists or as doing anything that could be perceived as harming the troops (e.g., stripping funding).
Dems won much of their new seats by running moderates in contested districts. The moderates will dictate the outcome of the 2008 Presidential race. Therefore, both sides are trying to reach to the center (while trying not to alienate their bases).
For the Dems, that means “governing the country” from now until 2008 on issues such as No Child Left Behind, gas prices, ethics reform, health care, etc. to try to build up a good moderate resume going into 2008.
That means, for now, no hard line on the war, no cutting war funding, no impeachment talk, no big investigations to tie up the government, etc. Play it safe, win the Presidency and more Congressional seats in 2008, then start pushing a more leftward agenda.
It’s true; I identify with the Democrats only because I want to vote in their primaries. I still mostly think they’re all a bunch of crooks.
My pet idea is term limits on Congresscritters. It seems to me that it’s rarely the first or second-term Congressman who’s illegally involved with lobbyists, it’s the one who’s been there for twenty or thirty years. Trouble is, there’s no way that states will all enact this sort of legislation individually (seniority is a huge factor in determining who gets to be on which committee and who’s the chair) and there’s no way in hell that Congress will enact this voluntarily.
Whoosh.
I suspect tomndebb meant to address the title which probably should have read - “Are we just screwed altogether?”
Fair enough… Tomndebb “meant” to address the title and I meant to say “Are we just screwed altogether?”
I was hoping to get more focus on the body of the post…oh well.
So you put a political discussion in MPSIMS?
The serious point had been made by the time I got here: The Democrats have no overwhelming majority; they are never as united as the Republicans*, so there will always be some Democrat legislators voting on the “Republican” side of an issue; even if all Democrats and Independents voted as an unswerving bloc, they do not have the votes to override a veto, so compromise is essential to accomplish anything.
- Whether this is because the Republicans are Borg-like or because the Democrats are not an organized political party** I will leave to another discussion.
** Thank you, Will Rogers.
Congressional term limits would take a consitutional amendment. And it actually theoretically possible for the Constitution to be amended with Congress bypassed. To do at least 2/3rds of the state legislatures (at least 34 states) to pass resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention (just like the one that wrote our current constitution). And changes that convention makes (including writting an entirely new constitution) would need to be approved by 3/4ths of the states (38 states). Congress would have no say in the matter.
From a Canadian Point of View here…
I think the Dems played it very well.
They managed to voice their dissent to the war
They “allowed” Bush and Co to “push through” their funding
When or If the Iraq situation’s reality becomes too harsh to bear, Bush will not likely be in power. If the Dems’ had managed to actually halt or hinder the funding and related proposals, The Republicans would always have the “Yes… but IF the funding had been in place…”
As it is, when/if it all goes sour, the Dems will be able to say "We ll, we backed your plan under duress and protest… Don’t even think of blaming “us” for teh mess…
Its not unlikely a Dem will be Prez by then, either, so I think they played that nicely…
Am I just being cynical, naive or both?
Regards
FML
Here’s how I see in. The Democrats :
-
Alienated their base ( I know people who’ve quit the party over this )
-
Alienated the middle which is mostly anti-war now.
-
Increased the number of people who simply won’t bother to vote, because “it makes no difference”.
-
Made themselves look weak, which Americans despise.
-
Undercut their ability to make future campaign promises, by making it clear thet they won’t do what the people who elected them want - but will do what the Republicans want. They can say next election “vote for us, and we’ll change what’s going on !”, and few will believe them, because they’ll just shown that they WON’T.
So they’ve driven people away from them, attracted no one, and accomplished nothing. Except to hurt themselves. I expect a swing towards the Republicans, and another Republican President because of the Democrats caving in like they did.
That is basically how I feel about the whole thing. Its like I have to come to terms with the fact that neither party has our best interests at heart. Problem is I don’t see any other party getting enough votes. So what then? I support one of the parties and hope for the best? Is this what its come down to for everyone?
Should I have put this in general questions? Seemed kind of mundane since it was a personal problem. Either way I like the responses.
Well, then, let me ask you this: What would you expect the Democrats to do, in a situation where they do not have the White House, and have only a tenuous grip on the Senate? Pass a bill requiring all US forces to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2007? We know what will happen to that bill: the President would veto it, return to sender - and the Democrats don’t have the votes to over-ride the veto.
Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, the Democrats aren’t in a position to dictate the war policy, even though it looks like getting out of Iraq is their long-time goal. So they have to play the margins - they have to do what they can to attract support on the war issue, and on other domestic issues, to increase their chances at winning the White House and a stronger position in Congress next year.
That’s ultimately why they didn’t try to push harder on the funding bill. They took a major step in enacting it, with the goal of forcing the Republicans to continue to defend a war that increasingly, Americans seem to be against. At the same time, the Democrats haven’t pushed so hard that the Republicans can paint them as not supporting the troops by starving them for funds and equipment. They have to be concerned that if they push too hard, without having the votes to back it up, that ultimately the Republicans may be able to garner strength.
The US system is intentionally a system a checks and balances, divided government. To effect major change in public policy, you have to make major changes in the composition of Congress and the White House. That’s not happened yet, but it looks too me like the Democrats (for once) are actually taking the long view and working steadily to achieve their goals. The fact that they are working within the rules of the system doesn’t mean that they don’t care about the fate of the nation (and nor does the fact that the Republicans are, within the system, working to oppose them, mean that the Republicans don’t care, either. Each group has a different take on what is best for the nation.)
Again, given the current composition of the White House and the Senate, what actions would you have expected the Democrats to take? I’m really curious.
^^^^ Well that makes sense. I don’t know what the dems could have or should have done differently. I think I just needed someone to explain to me that we may be heading in the right directions. It just appeared to me that we weren’t and after seeing the cost of that Embassy I really flew off the handle. I don’t think I’m the only one who didn’t see what was behind the democrats decisions. I came to straight dope to get some answers and thats what I got.
As a follow-up to my previous post, and to illustrate what I meant about the Dems playing the margins and pushing the Republicans on the war issue, it looks like that strategy is paying off for the Dems. Some Republican Senators are shifting cautiously away from the President on the war: A GOP Discord on Bush’s War Strategy.
As a follow-up to my previous post, and to illustrate what I meant about the Dems playing the margins and pushing the Republicans on the war issue, it looks like that strategy is paying off for the Dems. Some Republican Senators are shifting cautiously away from the President on the war: A GOP Discord on Bush’s War Strategy.