Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democrats Seek Harmony

There are two stories in the news today. Prominent conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, are having meetings and appearing in the media to announce that they will stick to their conservative guns even if it leads to further polarization. Prominent Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, the House-speaker-to-be, are appearing everwhere in the media and talking about working together with the president and Republican leaders.

Evidently, Republicans cannot live without polarization. Movement conservatives have gone so far as to attack President Bush for not being conservative enough. Grover Norquist, the uber-conservative leader of Americans for Tax Reform, had a pow-wow of conservatives. As the L.A. Times tells us:

On a day that President Bush and many analysts said the voters appeared to be demanding an end to the hard-line politics of division, these conservative insiders insisted they could return to power as soon as 2008 by hewing closer to their traditional course.

The same article notifies us:

A Republican National Committee memo laying out talking points for conservative pundits, bloggers and other supporters — which was obtained by The Times — underscored that message, calling for the party to "refocus conservative principles of less government, lower taxes, less regulation, strong national defense, judicial restraint and fiscal conservatism."

All of the principles mentioned, with the exception of "fiscal conservatism" that everybody is theoretically for, favor business and the rich:

  • Less Government - so business can prevail
  • Lower Taxes - so rich may become richer
  • Less Regulation - so business can do as it pleases
  • Strong National Defense - so defense business can thrive (this is why we have an ABM project, which has nothing to do with terrorism)
  • Judicial Restraint - so the poor cannot prevail over the rich
Conservatives believe that if you take care of business and the rich, everybody else will eventually benefit. Since very little lucre has "trickled down," they have been trying to force the rest of us to follow their approach. The average American, who works for a living, has been fooled for a few years. But he is finally catching on. The recent election demonstrates this.

The typical American has decided to give Democrats a chance. He is thoroughly disgusted with the Republican twin approaches of favoring business and polarization. It's time to work for all Americans, not merely the rich, for workers as well as businesses, for the average guy as well as for the elite.

Nancy Pelosi, as the new leader of the House will do just that. She wants all Americans to partake in the American feast. She is not throwing out thorns but bouquets to Republicans. She wants to work with Republicans to solve problems.

Especially the Iraq problem. She has said that the security of our country should not be a political issue. The one thing we must do to win a war is to get all Americans working together. Let's stop this stupid and dangerous polarization.

President Bush himself was in favor of a unity government - for Iraq. Why not a unity government where Republicans and Democrats work together to extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq?

Democrats are ready. Democrats seek harmony at home.

Posted by Paul Siegel at November 9, 2006 7:41 PM
Comments
Comment #194338
Prominent conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, are having meetings and appearing in the media to announce that they will stick to their conservative guns even if it leads to further polarization.

Let me get this straight: conservatives “sticking to their guns” equals “polarization.” And polarization is bad, therefore conservatives ought to just roll over and give in to the agenda of Nancy Pelosi?

Sorry, but not a chance in hell. This kind of “harmony” is the same as surrender.

How about this: Nancy Pelosi should put an end to polarization by becoming a conservative. Sorry, Paul, but that’s not how this works.

I don’t remember Democrats surrendering and seeking harmony on the Republican’s terms over the past 6 years, and the Republicans sure aren’t about to do so now.

Especially not when we still have the excecutive branch and when the vast majority of new Democratic congressmen are WAY more conservative than Nancy Pelosi and those of her ilk.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 9, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #194344

Paul,

As usual you make perfectly good sense.

I’m just dumb-struck though about this “fear and loathing” of a tiny mid-60ish Italian-American lady from California.

Would someone please tell me why the Republican’s are sooooooo damn scared of this lady?

Posted by: KansasDem at November 9, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #194345
Democrats Seek Harmony
Right Paul. That’s agood one!

Let me get this straight. After an election ‘mandate’ such as this the side that lost should concede to the philosophy of the side that won? Do I have that right Paul?

Posted by: eric simonson at November 9, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #194349

I havent heard anybobody asking that the repubs capitulate on anything. The american people have voted for change. Its not a mandate, only the truely foolish would say something like that in public right?
Isnt it obvious the Iraq “plan” currently utilized is lacking? Bush has even figured it out and is making changes.
Isnt it obvious that we need to address issues more important than a flag burning amendment, and a hilton tax repeal. It is to the American people, thats why the political landsccape has changed. Stick to your ways, get your comeuppence next election cycle.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 9, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #194352

KansasDem, that’s a pretty silly way to look at it.

Who was afraid of a chubby bespectacled 64 year old grandfather from Illinois (Dennis Hastert)?

Pelosi will soon replace Hastert as Speaker of the House, and hence will become a lightening-rod for all kinds of criticism.

It comes with the job, and anybody who tries to demand an exception for Pelosi because of her age or gender and accuses Republicans of picking on an elderly grandmother is just going to look ridiculous.

If Pelosi doesn’t like the rough and tumble of politics, perhaps she should take up shuffleboard or knitting booties for her grandbabies instead? I have not, however, seen her show any such inclination—she’s not as feeble and helpless as you seem to think.

I will say, however, that she’s something of a dream come true for Republicans. Pelosi puts an almost stereotypical face on the Democratic Party.

She’s a liberal from the most liberal part of the country, and is very easy to peg with the whole moony, Bay Area, far-left label. Any Democratic moderate s(especially those from the South or those recently elected running as conservatives) are going to suffer enormously by having Nancy Pelosi as their public face.

In 08, there are going to be THOUSANDS of ads run up and down this country that prominently feature Nancy Pelosi. I mean, she even LOOKS the part of with those strange stare and buggy eyes.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 9, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #194353

Neo-con
You miss the point. Your party just had their asses kicked by a nation of voters who no longer are in favor of a hard righf or hard left stance on the issues. The voters mandate is dictating that we put our personal biases aside and come to some common ground. We are sick of all this senseless tit for tat bull that is the result of childish anger derived from hatred and jealousy. The only way that any accomplishments will ever come of this government is thru compromise and sensible negotiation.

The voters have spoken in clear terms, this is what they want and expect of their congress. Ms. Pelosi is attempting from the start to make a peace and put this government to work in the interest of all americans. Your party had sole control of the whole works for the last six years. You have no body to blame for your problems but yourselves. Hopefully people of YOUR ILK are no longer the majority of your party. If so the coming years are going to be a long winless road for you. I do not believe the voters of this country are going to tolerate such arrogant obstinace any longer. We have showed that we are not scared to vote a party out if they do not live up to expected principles and actually exhibit some productivity in the interest of the people.

Posted by: ILdem at November 9, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #194354

Paul,

Also, the point of your article is contradicted by the fact that Democrats could not have won if they had campaigned as liberals advancing the kind of liberal agenda you support.

The Democratic margin of victory is due entirely to the triumph of conservative democratic candidates in Republican (conservative) districts.

Posted by: eric simonson at November 9, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #194355

Paul

I suspect that most of the new Dems are significantly to your right and probably to the right of most of the blog Dems.

Now that they are actaully in power, I bet we hear a lot less about pulling out of Iraq. The talk of raising taxes will become more circumspect. I didn’t hear many Dems call for more regulation before the election. And are you really saying that Dems advocate a weak national defense?

You must remember that what the Dems have today, the Republicans had last year. You can expect the same sort of respect you gave back then.

I am not happy the Dems won, but I am pragmatic. I suspect the ideological lefties are going to be even less happy than I am.

Posted by: Jack at November 9, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #194357

A few comments. Democrats do not have an agenda when it comes to the big issues. They held a meeting to create a “contract with America” and walked away in complete division.

Democrats won who were calling themselves “cristian”, Anti Abortion, Pro Boarder fence, pro war on terror, etc etc.

So I’m not seeing a plan or even an agreement on what the issues are on the democratic side no matter how unified the radical left wing of the democratic party may be.

What is the democratic party plan to balance the budget? Will they enter congress, scrap the existing budget and pass a new budget? Will they hold meeting’s right away and come up with a new budget? or is there no plan?

What is the democratic plan to fix Social security? From what I can tell, they have none, it’s not on their list. The national DNC web site indicated it isn’t in trouble and the would “protect” it. Apparently “code” for protecting it from actually being fixed. Once we reach two payers per user the fix is going to be very very painful.

What is the democratic party plan to fix the massive medicare issue? Again, I see none. Is it on the 100 hour or 100 day list? Apparently not. Not the actual FIX. Maybe a drug negotiation deal but that’s not a fix.

What is the democratic plan to stop ear-marks?

What is the democratic party plan to wage war on terrorists? Should we wage war on terrorists? Do they believe terrorists are at war with us?

Will democrats continue with the boarder fence or do they support a wide open boarder and will shut down the fence quietly by killing funding in the future when more dollars are needed? Lots of disagreement in their party over there with the lib view of keep the boarder wide open.

And how can you defend the US if you keep the boarders wide open to illegal aliens?

I have to tell you guys, I expect the democratic party to fail massively on the big issues. And I don’t see unity that has created a PLAN to fix the big issues.

Posted by: Stephen at November 9, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #194359

Stephen:

What were the Republican plans for those things that they couldn’t accomplish in the last 6 years? I still don’t know.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 9, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #194361

IlDem, the Democrats were defeated nationally in election after election, and now, only now, that they win for once it’s finally time to “put aside our personal biases” and the “senseless tit for tat” and “childish anger?”

It’s like saying that if a football team comes from behind and takes the lead in the third quarter, the game should end right there. After all, it would be unseemly for the other team to spoil the glorious comeback by scoring another touchdown before the end of the game.

Did the Democrats stop fighting back when they lost midterm elections in the nineties? Did theywhen they lost twice to Bush? Did they say that the voters had spoken and it was time to just roll over and give the majority everthing they asked for? Hardly.

And the Republicans are not going to either. They are going to continue representing those who elected THEM. They’re going to fight the liberal Democrats tooth and nail, and with control of the executive branch and with new Democratic officials—who, sadly for the liberals—are actually quite conservative, they are going to derail quite easily the Brave New World of liberalism that the Nancy Pelosis of Congress want to force upon the American public.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 9, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #194362

Paul

I read the times article. It appears that the hard right still does not get it. They are living in denial of the fact that the american people are just plain sick and tired of polarizing single party politics. Sounds to me like they are planning to make a stand and no matter what they are going to do everything they can to limit progress in government for the next two years. I have to believe that such a strategy will doom them again, in lieu of the current degree of voter awareness. Not to mention the voters apparent disdain for such unproductive practices.

Posted by: ILdem at November 9, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #194365

ILDem, it seems that you are the one who doesn’t get it and are totally misinterpreting the results of the election.

There was no mandate whatsoever for “progress” as defined by the left wing of the Democratic party.

In fact, despite the number of seats lost by Republicans this year, the margins of victory were tiny. Republicans lost control of Congress by only 50,000 votes across the nation, and the opinions of that 50,000 are not suddenly going to trump the views of millions of Americans who are still Republicans and who elected their leaders precisely because they don’t want any part of what the Democratic party stands for.

If American people are “sick of single party politics” then they can take that up—and I suspect they will—with the single party that now runs Congress and is dreaming of shoving an unpopular agenda down the throats of average Americans.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 9, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #194368

Neo-Con

You still are missing the point. Nobody is asking or demanding that anyone roll over and play dead because there is a new boss in town.

What we are saying is that when you get right down to it our differences are not so totally foriegn that we can not find some sensible compromise on issues that will stand to serve the needs of the american people. The key words being “needs of the american people”. Not just the specific needs of one party or the other.

Using the analogy of a football game to make a comparison of how our government should work is in my opinion juvenile. Our government was not designed in order that we can hold a superbowl of politics every four years so the winner can gloat and celebrate their supremacy. It was designed as a method of providing its citizens with a form of fair and hopefully honest government working for the best interests of all citizens.

It seems pretty obvious that this is what the american people are asking for. They have given our politicians a mandate to clean up their act or hit the road. If our parties have to meet in the middle to get something done for this country then so be it. We can call it the unity party or the harmony party or whatever. The label does not really matter. What matters now to the voters are results.

Posted by: ILdem at November 9, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #194372

Here’s a good example of Democratic ‘Harmony’:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi plans to sideline colleagues who are hawkish on national security in the Democratic leadership in the House.

Democratic Party sources said as House Speaker, Ms. Pelosi plans to block moves that would place hawks into important chairmanships. The sources said a key casualty would be Rep. Jane Harman, a six-term member of Congress who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

“Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline,” a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. “If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you’re not going to be given an important chair in the next session.”


You know, I think it was Stalin who said, “[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.”

Peace and harmony at last.

Posted by: eric simonson at November 9, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #194374

eric simonson,

Do you mind giving up your source on that gem?

Posted by: KansasDem at November 9, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #194377

Kansas: Great night tuesday,wasn’t it? Also pretty amusing reading our rightwind contributers whistle past the graveyard.I hear tell the Dems actually picked up some seats in Kansas. Good job.

Posted by: BillS at November 9, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #194380

Eric, I’ve seen articles about that too, and it’s a perfect rejoinder.

Nancy Pelosi, in fine Stalinist fashion, has already showed her true colors and is fixing to “disappear” into obscurity members of her own party who don’t maintain discipline under the new regime.

But it isn’t going to work—she just doesn’t hold enough cards and is living in a haze of San Francisco liberal delusion. There’s no other explanation for her interpretation of the victories of moderate-conservative Democrats as a mandate for a “harmonious world” beneath the socialist boot.

I suggest to all my conservative friends that you buy a bottle of something very nice now and cellar it in preparation for November of 08.

Until then, it’s gonna be a fine and often very amusing political show. Pass the popcorn. They’ve sent in the clowns!

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 10, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #194381

Neo-Con: That a boy,keep your chin up. Inthe meantime why do keep dissing S.F. It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. It has fine parks and museums,an icredibly diverse population living in harmony,clean streets and clean cops,and a thriving high wage economy. It is not perfect of course,housing is way too pricy and big city traffic , but we are working on it.

Posted by: BillS at November 10, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #194387

Democrats are no more Stalinists than Repugnicans are Fascists.

Posted by: liberal curmudgeon at November 10, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #194391

What a pleasure it was to see a true gentleman and statesman concede an election. Despite the fact that only 7,000 votes seperated the 2 canditates he took the high road instead of going the whining and court route.

We have not heard the last of George Allen. This country needs more people like him in government.

Posted by: Keith at November 10, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #194393

Paul wrote: “Prominent conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, are having meetings and appearing in the media to announce that they will stick to their conservative guns even if it leads to further polarization.”

I suddenly have this vision of the Libertarian Party growing by leaps and bounds over the next 3 election cycles.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #194394

“Movement conservatives have gone so far as to attack President Bush for not being conservative enough. “

he’s not at all conservative. he’s neocon; in practice, if not profession.

“All of the principles mentioned, with the exception of ‘fiscal conservatism’ that everybody is theoretically for, favor business and the rich”

only if implemented in such a manner as to favor the rich…

———————-

Less Government - so as to relieve the tax burden of the middle class, first and foremost.

Lower Taxes - for the middle class only.

Less Regulation - for small business (excluding the regulations against employment of illegals, in particular.)

Strong National Defense - so as to secure the american people from terrorist attacks, ***while simultanesouly protecting our individual freedoms*** a.k.a. secure the ports and borders. retract the ‘patriot’ act.

Judicial Restraint - so we may finally stop attempting to legislate morality. you want gay marriage? we want our children to have our permission to obtain abortions. let’s agree to disagree.

———

i do not claim that these were the republicans intentions, only that this is what they should have been.


Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #194397

Keith, grace in loss is easy when the potential of altering the numbers in one’s favor simply does not exist. He waited until all hope of a recount favoring his win, were dashed.

Yes, it was a gracious exit. But, grace had little to do with it. Hard cold numbers did.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #194414

I am somewhere to the left of Nancy P. and I am thrilled about the election results, however, as James Carvile stated the other night, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq was the reason for the wins. (at least most of the Dem wins) For me the issues was the crooked bastards in Wash, but the people were saying Iraq. Let us hope the Dems are able to govern on issues other than the war. By the way when Busco won in 00 & 04 by slim margins, the posting were, “he won, get over it” well the the neo-fools “Get over it” We will see ya in two years and really give ya a “Thumping” as your man says.

Posted by: Michael M at November 10, 2006 7:32 AM
Comment #194415
Neo-Con: That a boy,keep your chin up. Inthe meantime why do keep dissing S.F. It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. It has fine parks and museums,an icredibly diverse population living in harmony,clean streets and clean cops,and a thriving high wage economy.

I know SF quite well, and I suggest you leave take a walk through the tenderloin district some morning. That’s where heroin addicts (of all races—there is your racial harmony) are lying around in their own waste. The worst part of the situation is that the San Francisco socialism funds their addiction with handouts. San Francisco has one of the worst homeless problems in the country, and its economy isn’t anything like it was even ten years ago and is getting worse.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 10, 2006 7:33 AM
Comment #194416

I am a liberal and currently a democrat. I have been very displeased with the Republicans in general too much to the right for me. I am also taking a wait and see with the Democrats. I have not been happy with them (us) in the past either. Although I would love to see a more liberal left wing government,I realize that this is not going to happen as most people tend to be in the middle. Digging in one’s heels and refusing to yield on issues only does damage to the United States. We can’t all have our way and it is important to meet in the middle to resolve issues. The best plans, ideas, and policies are those where everyone is heard, everyone gives up something, and a middle ground solution is found.

Posted by: Carolina at November 10, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #194417

womanmarine,

You Said: “What were the Republican plans for those things that they couldn’t accomplish in the last 6 years? I still don’t know.”

I would submit to you, the list of things that need to be done is exactly why the Republicans were ran out of office. Do you think that it was the power of hate and smearing that ran the Republcians out? Had the Republicans balanced the budget, fixed social security, fixed medicare, secured the boarders, developed a workable national health care plan, fought the war on terrorism well, killed the corruption filled ear-mark system…. THEY WOULD STILL BE IN POWER!

I get the feeling that you don’t hold Democrats responsible for these, the large issues. Your going to let them sweep into power, increase spending and declare victory? I expect more from anyone going forward. I want the issues I and tens of millions of other voters care about fixed.

These are the things I’m going to hold ANY PARTY IN POWER responsible for now. The democrats are being handed many of the same problems they handed the Republican. It’s right back at them.

We need to impress upon the leadership that these are the issues they need to resolve. Issues that no single party can resolve. They have to be willing to sit down and compromise and actually make hard and unpopular decisions to resolve them.

No, womanmarine, the Republicans did not resolve these issues. Will the democrats even try? It doesn’t seem like it. “Harmony” which is the key word in the title of this article by Paul does not mean that major issues will be addressed. If I want Harmony I’ll go out and make nice with my neighbors. What I want from Congress is for them to balance the budget, fix the social net, secure my boarders, end the ear mark corruption, fight terrorism, and look out for America interests abroad. We need to push these issues on our leadership.

Is it going to take another Republican Newt Gingrich and another Republican contract with America, and another Republican sweep of congress to balance the budget? Or can the harmonious democrats do something they have never accomplished and deliver a balanced budget on their watch?

Don’t give me Harmony, give me meaningful results. Stop stacking the courts with activists judges seeking to rewrite the constitution, democrats should get out of that mode and get into the mode of working on this nations major problems. And calling “stem cells”, a major national issue or “harmony” a major issue is nothing more than slight of hand.

I’ll be here, I’ll be keeping track of whether or not the democratic party tackles the big issues that need to be resolved.

Posted by: Stephen at November 10, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #194421

We have not heard the last of George Allen. This country needs more people like him in government.

More what? Politicians who use racial slurs? People who deny their ethnic heritage? Public figures who cannot empathize with the legacy of slavery in the US?

Posted by: bobo at November 10, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #194424

Allen conceded an election that he lost by less than 1%. Dems would have demanded a recount andd started to complain that they were cheated. Instead of tying the whole thing up for months, Allen did the right thing, the thing Dems should have done in many other races.

Republicans do not have as much recent experience with losing as Dems do, but maybe the Dems can learn what it looks like when an honorable man loses.

Posted by: Jack at November 10, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #194427

Stephen

You just voiced the word results. You are right it is exactly what the american people expect. Nothing more nothing less. Surely most americans are intelligent enough to realize that any one party will never have an america which fully represents the hard values of any one party. Hell there is not any one party that can fully and exactly agree on what those issues and values are or should be. There are groups within those parties that share much the same views. But one group does not a democracy make.

I too will be watching the democrats just the same as I watched the republicans. And I will hold them accountable in 08. Of course there is never going to be perfect harmony, love and peace between the two parties or between all individuals within the seperate parties. We would hope that our representatives are intelligent and forward looking enough to realize this and accept that progress can only be accomplished thru sensible clear headed negotiation between the parties in the interest of what is best for the nation as a whole.

I am not concerned with bragging rights. What concerns me is that this nation actually make some progress in a positive direction by way of an honest legislature working with integrity and credibility for the good of us all. Be that republican or democratic values or a combination of both. I am willing to accept less if it means more for all. Are you?

Posted by: ILdem at November 10, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #194429

Jack

George Allen is a biggot plain and simple. In todays diverse world that word is a sin. He stepped down because he has further aspirations in politics and did not want the stigma of a hanging chad issue hanging over his head. Also the longer the recount takes the longer the macaca issue will be in the limelight. It was for political reasons only. The sooner you give an issue up, the sooner it will be forgotten.

Posted by: ILdem at November 10, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #194434

Allen conceded an election that he lost by less than 1%. Dems would have demanded a recount and started to complain that they were cheated.

What are you basing this on? Florida 2000? The results in Florida 2000 were significantly tighter than Virginia 2006. Here are some numbers (rounded for simplicity):

Votes cast:
Florida 2000: 5.9 million
Virginia 2006: 2.3 million

Margin of victory - votes:
Florida 2000: 537
Virginia 2006: 6,800

Margin of victory - percent:
Florida 2000: 0.0085%
Virginia 2006: 0.3%
(in both cases that’s zero point something)

Both were CLOSE elections. But Florida 2000 was closer than Virginia by a factor of THIRTY FIVE. Another way to look at it is, for Virginia 2006 to be as close as Florida 2000, Webb’s margin of victory would have to have been about 200 votes.


Posted by: bobo at November 10, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #194436

bobo,

You are forgetting to mention the orders of magnitude difference in the level of voting irregularities between ‘04 and ‘06.

ILdem,

If Allen goes national we’ll be seeing his maccacca caacaa caament over and over and over again. He’s done.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #194441

Dave,

Even dismissing any and all “irregularities” — a subjective term however measured — Webb’s victory in VA is decisive compared to Florida.

Posted by: bobo at November 10, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #194442

Jack,

The Macca man is anything but honorable. I would have had no problem with him demanding a recount under such close circumstances. What is wrong with a recount? Of course, thanks to the Repubs half of the machines probably have no verifiable paper trails… He should have demanded a recount if he thought that there was any chance that he had actually won. The fact that he concluded that he lost and chose not to fight a lost cause does not make him honorable - only smart.

Jack, Neo-Con Pilsner,

No one is suggesting that the Repubs lay down, roll over, and play dead. Nancy Pelosi is liberal, but she is calling the Repubs to the center, so I think those more conservative Dems will be very pleased with her leadership. Of course nothing will stop the Republican mud slinging machine. I do think that the country needs for us all to move toward the center and govern. On the other hand if you plan on staying in the ditch on the right side of the road, and picking us off one by one, we may be driven back into the ditch on the left side. There are already movements on the left side calling for us to attack and impeach. While our leaders do want to exercise some bi-partisan oversight and fact finding, they are - in a statesman like manner - resisting the impulse to attack and impeach, but if guys really want to deal em down and dirty and go “there” - we will uncover the dirt, filth and perversion that you have been hiding for all of these years. In the end, you will lose, we will lose, the country will lose. So it is up to you. do you want win - win - win or lose - lose - lose…

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 10, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #194464

Congressman Ralph Hall has represented my district in Texas for more years than I can remember. My district is overwhelming Republican but continued to vote for Ralph for his conservative stance rather than his political party affiliation. The recent election has reinforced the feelings of a majority of voting Americans…they are conservative. Nancy and her ilk will have a tough time running over some of the conservatives in the Democrat party. The Reagan conservative philosophy still rings true for many Americans.

Posted by: Jim at November 10, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #194468

Italian-American lady from California.,Posted by: KansasDem at November 9, 2006 09:12 PM

I think she might actually be from Maryland, since her father was a former mayor of Baltimore.
She seems to be setting a very professional tone, a pretty stark contrast with the opposition.

The media here is complaining about the loss of Hastert as speaker, since they claim he brought a lot of pork home.

I am definitely in favor of Allen as the Rpblcn nominee for 2008, he is just their type of guy.

Posted by: orhealy at November 10, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #194473

bobo,

I was agreeing with you. (Perhaps I should have said ‘00 and ‘04)

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #194480

Allen, I’m guessing, will probably run for the Senate again in 08 when Warner retires. Despite his inability to defeat Webb—an acknowledged war hero, former member of the Reagan administration and pretty conservative guy—he lost by the narrowest of margins and is still a pretty popular figure with a lot of Virginians. Unless the Democrats find somebody else like Webb (very unlikely), Allen stands a very good shot of winning that seat. I don’t think there’s any appetite on the part of Republicans to see Allen running for president.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 10, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #194483

Dave 1

I have to agree that he is done at the national level. However I do believe he will attempt to return at the state level. There seems to be a misaligned feeling with some of the republican party that somehow this election vote was just a warning via a simple slap on the hand from the republican voting constituency. And that they will all return home next election no questions asked. I think the american people are smarter than that.

Posted by: ILdem at November 10, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #194486

Ray

I am sure there are many people who want to see an impeachment process. And actually if the fact finding invesstigations, which probably are comeing bare it out, there probably should be one.

But to be honest I do not think impeachment would be the most prudent avenue to travel at this time. There are much more important issues to tackle. And it would only serve to further distance the two parties. At some point the parties just have to drop their petty hatreds and get on with the business of government. For me Bush’s and this administrations legacy will be punishment enough. They will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Posted by: ILdem at November 10, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #194487

Over the last 6 years, most current Republicans have proven they care only about serving the corporate agenda of the wealthy, not America. It’s always noble to seek “harmony” in solving our problems, but remember the Republicans are the ones who created these probems in the first place.

If the GOP is truly interested in meaningful change and cooperation, fine, but if not, don’t waste time seeking harmony from those who don’t want it. Putting through the needed agenda to help America must take priority over “reaching across the aisle.”

Posted by: mar at November 10, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #194529

Paul:
“Prominent conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, are having meetings and appearing in the media to announce that they will stick to their conservative guns even if it leads to further polarization.”

I wonder what would happen if Democrats began a more in-depth investigation into Abramoff and Co.? Because, you know it seems that along with Ralph Reed, Norquist might be a lot more involved than the GOP has been desiring to look — so it’d be interesting to see that loathesome creature end up in jail, rather than trying to be some sort of a public figure who feels free to make defiant pronouncements on behalf of the Neocons.
We all know how much Grover likes bathtubs (for the drowning of government) but I can’t help but wonder how much he’d like to take a shower with a bunch of fellow criminals in the slammer?

Posted by: Adrienne at November 10, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #194532

I found Webb to be the most disturbing of all democratic candidates. People kept asking him if he was really a democrat, and I thought he was probably the next Shelby. We will soon see what happens with the democratic leadership. 49 to 49 is no big victory. Lieberman might hold a grudge against colleagues who repudiated him, and I know exactly nothing about the new senator from Vermont.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 10, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #194535

I talk about civil discussions between parties and Republicans reply with polarizing stuff. Can’t Republicans and Democrats be nice even for a short time? I’m sure Republicans will have much to criticize when Democrats actually do something. Can’t you wait?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 10, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #194551

—Paul Segel— I am with you on that scenario Paul, although there are a few people who disagree just to create chaos no matter what direction a debate may be going. I guess we need
to all just refuse the challenge towards negativity.

Posted by: DAVID at November 10, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #195112

Paul Siegel,

Don’t think that Republicans hold the corner on polarizing and criticism. If you listened to the Democratic campaigns, this is what most of the entries into their diaries would have looked like November 7th after election results.

Dear Democratic Diary, Nov. 7th, 2006

Thank goodness we beat that lying scoundrel George W. Bush who stole the last two elections from us! It’s about time we whooped those Republicans. Now, we have to start the impeachment, er, oversight hearings as soon as possible, so we can make sure they never get the chance to steal anything away from us again. The people have spoken, and they want change!
Change is exactly what they are going to get, too. No more Mr. Nice Guy on the Federal Court nominees. If he dares to appoint any more conservatives to the courts, we’ll turn around and offer them jobs as Congressional pages. That’s what we’ll do!
We’ve got to push Embryonic Stem Cell Research bills, too! If the President tries to veto them, we’ll just tell the people “Curious George” vetoed it because they took away all of his brain stem cells when he was an embryo. It’s worked for us, so far.
We’ve got to do something really big to celebrate in January when we take over the House and Senate. Nancy Pelosi can call some of her friends from San Francisco, and we can throw a big parade in Washington like they do every year down there on Gay Day. Then, we can introduce our Gay Rights and Marriage Act of 2007.
Oh, and I almost forgot Iraq. We’ll get those boys out of there whether King George likes it or not! Iraq is nothing but a big quagmire. We’ll pull our troops out and let the Iraqis fight it out with the Iranian and Syrian backed insurgents themselves. Who cares if the Iraqis don’t have an Army yet? Their Democracy is not our problem! We shouldn’t have gone in the first place; and we don’t need their oil anyway. We can go back to having “real peace” like we had on September 10, 2001… er… I mean…

JD

Posted by: JD at November 15, 2006 12:44 AM
Post a comment