Remember when everyone was upset that the majority party was sacrificing good, effective policy for the benefits of their special interests? Oh yeah, that was now.
Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Jason over at Intelligent Discontent is upset that Max is spending tax dollars to tell us things that the media has already told him. Made me think about how nice it must be to be a Democrat - where you don’t have to promote yourself because the media is doing it for you…
But he’s got a point - why is Mr. Money Bags appropriating himself tax dollars when he’s been bragging about how rich he is. Sort of like a millionaire taking welfare.
Or a rich kid on state funded health insurance.
Possibly the most brilliant analysis of the race I have seen so far. It is a wonderful job by the folks over at Snarky Bastards.
The Dune Theory of Democratic Politics
We were wrong; Barack Obama is the the Democratic Party’s Kwisatz Haderach. He is the shortening of the way, the one who shall give meaning to our lives and make our planet anew.
Like Paul Muad’Dib, his youth was shaped by the untimely loss of his father, who was not of this land. He has been rigorously trained, and recently endured a painful test at the hands of a Bene Gesserit Witch. He achieved a surprise victory in his first combat and it is said that his greatest power is his voice. By some reckonings, he has come before his time.
I leave you with an eerie quote from the collected wisdom of the Bene Gesserit:
“When religion and politics ride the same cart, when that cart is driven by a living holy man (baraka), nothing can stand in their way.”
Barack, may your campaign chip and shatter.
Democrats had a great time with the “Do Nothing Congress” label during the 109th Congress. Not to be outdone, the new majorities of the 110th Congress have been overwhelmed with partisan bickering and oversight campaigns aimed at the Bush Administration. “Do Nothing Congress” is rearing its rhetorical head once again.
But it turns out that “Do Nothing” isn’t exactly accurate. These Congresses are doing one thing predominantly: They are using parliamentary procedure to gain a political advantage in the next election cycle. Forcing the other side to take ugly votes - at the expense of accomplishing anything - for sensationalized headlines about children or the middle class or veterans or body armor or whatever.
Well hold onto your butts because we are in for a treat this year. If you thought the the vitriol was counterproductive to the process before, just wait until the ante is raised to the American Presidency. For the first time ever, the Presidential Election will be between two sitting United States Senators.
Largely because of its volatile political environment, The United States Senate is a very difficult platform from which to run for President. Unique to the Senate is the parity of power between the majority and minority and the ability of either to make life hell for the other. Consequently, only two sitting US Senators have ever won the Presidency - Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960. Eight others have lost (remember how that pesky voting record burned Kerry in 2004?).
As the Second Session of the 110th Congress plows ever-so-tentatively forward, it looks like the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House don’t expect to and won’t try to accomplish much until they have a friendly ear in the White House. The First Session - an off-election year - was disappointing for them, and this year is a much higher hurdle. The Second Session of the 110th Congress is going to be about political posturing, and with two of their own going head-to-head, the Senate is going to be a bloodbath of difficult votes. Ultimately, it is Congressional Leadership that will play the most important Role in the 2008 Election.
From the relative safety of the minority Reid and Pelosi were quite adept at this game - running circles around Frist and DeLay. The result contributed to the dramatic election of 2006. But both have proven ineffective as majority leaders and the new Republican leadership has adapted quickly. Even in the House, where the minority has virtually no standing, Boehner has stymied Pelosi at every turn. In the Senate, where the minority has a real power, a years worth of blunders by Majority Leader Reid have taken their toll.
So here’s the scenario. Two college football teams with decent records. No BCS Bowl this year, but each team has a Heisman favorite on the roster. With a National Championship out of the question, the goal of the program centers around winning that trophy. And the two teams are suiting up against each other in the final game before the Heisman ballots are cast.
Reid is a quarterback coming off a season of interceptions, fumbles and field goal attempts on drives that should have been touchdowns. Even so, he’s the quarterback and the Democrats are playing offense. Reid has structural power to determine the agenda - to call the plays and to run audibles. Reid will call his game to run right over the top of John McCain and he’ll get the ball into his nominee’s hands as often as he can.
On the other side of the ball, McConnell is fielding a technically proficient defense with a killer game plan. When they’re not intercepting the ball or forcing fumbles, they are driving the offense into long-yardage situations and forcing punts. McConnell and the Republicans have to play a reactive game, but they can sustain a filibuster and force votes on germane amendments. Used wisely - and in conjunction with the self-imposed PayGo rules that force Democrats to curb their spending addiction or support tax increases - amendments can steal the rhetorical thunder from a policy. McConnell is going to spy the Democrat nominee is while sending McCain wherever the action is to boost his stats.
2008 in the Senate won’t be about winning any games; there’s always next season for that. This year is about winning a Heisman. So now you’ll know what I’m talking about when I identify a “Heisman Vote”
Heisman Vote (n): a politically motivated vote forced upon the opposing party not intended to achieve implement of the policy. ex: The Democrats called a Heisman Vote on the SCHIP Veto Override.
In the same way that Conservatives fear the unchecked power of government, Liberals tend to hate the perceived unchecked power of the evil Corporation. For a Conservative, this vitriol toward a key byproduct of capitalism can be hard to pinpoint, but generally I think it’s the pursuit of profit that is the source of this mistrust. Profit is the cause and means for the rape of the environment, the exploitation of the working class and the failure of mankind to achieve their altruistic communal utopia. It’s simplistic but then so is the reflexive distrust of all things government from the right.
Sometimes the anti-corporate reflex sort of misses the big picture though. Liberals are set on suing the pants off major telecommunication companies for perceived violations of Constitutional Rights. They are so determined to give their trial lawyers a shot at evil multi-million corporate devils that they have allowed important intelligence modernizations expire putting all Americans at risk. Never mind that the Constitution restricts government action, not private. Never mind that the act of suing preemptively renders a guilty verdict by cost of defense, regardless of a court verdict. Never mind that the evil corporation is also the source of the payrolls and benefits of the very people the Liberals purport to defend.
What is ultimately baffling though is that the action the telecommunications companies are being raked over the coals for is precisely the sort of action that Liberals would like to encourage. It is action driven by motives other than profit. It is action driven by a deeper sense of community - of social consciousness. The telecoms didn’t stand to profit from helping the federal government spy on terrorists, but by doing so they did stand to make America safer.
The irony then is that the liberals are helping to create the single-minded profit-driven companies that they fear the most. If you want a company to abdicate social responsibility, the best way to accomplish that is to attack them when they are socially responsible.
From a great little Montana fluff-piece in the Economist, we get this gem:
“Ten years ago one of the endangered species in the West was the Democratic governor. Today we’re a solid blue bridge from Alberta to Mexico—Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Washington”, Mr Schweitzer says. Such facts have led to speculation that the future of the Democratic Party lies not in poaching the odd Southern state in presidential elections, but in building a reliable Democratic base amid the Rockies.
I’ve written about this before - and I still think that Montana’s soul is at stake over the next ten years. What scares me is that whenever anyone outside of Montana writes about Montana it sounds a lot like what the Economist said above. Montana is the future of the Democratic Party…
I have two takes on that, because for that to happen, either the Democratic Party or the Mountain West is going to have to change.
The better option is that Democrats move back toward their populist roots abandoning the Liberal ideals of the Californias and Massachusetts. The Liberal Left doesn’t really love the Mountain West, but they tolerate us because we help give them the majorities they need. For the Mountain West to establish itself as the heart of the new Democrat Party those liberals would have to be exorcized from their controlling role and new, more moderate leaders like Baucus and Schweitzer would have to take over. But the truth is, I don’t see that happening - we just don’t have enough electoral votes.
The more realistic option is that it will be the Mountain West and not the Democratic Party that changes. The liberal-wing has too much control in the Democrat party. My guess is that - over the next few decades - as all of the urban liberals retire and want to leave the social paradises they’ve constructed they will look for a good place to nest. Sort of like aliens looking for a new planet to colonize. And national stories like this one that portray Montana and the Mountain West as “the future of the Democratic Party,” will draw them here like an Arecibo message.
I hope I’m wrong, but that’s why I always get an ugly feeling in my gut when Montana gets national press. Those stories aren’t written for Montana. They are written for East Coast liberals who still swoon over western clichés like the ones Brian Schweitzer was oozing:
Mr Schweitzer revels in rural wit: in a previous interview he said he has “more guns than I need and fewer than I want.” Montana has six guns for every resident, he tells me, after asking me if I own one. “In Montana we think gun control is hittin’ what you’re shootin’ at…Out here in the West we Democratic governors are just as likely as Republican governors to be packing a pistol.”
When it comes to press, I prefer the kind that’s written in other states and printed in Montana’s papers for Montanans to read - not the other way around.
House Democrats, folding to one of their most important and powerful special interest groups, have allowed our intelligence gathering laws to revert back to the way they were before September 11, 2001 - you know, when the colossal failure of these laws cost nearly 3000 Americans their lives.
Why? Part pressure from their lawyer buddies, part political miscalculation, part inept leadership. Whatever the reason, the fact is that you are less safe today than you were two weeks ago.
