Let's work to bring back those who used to vote Democratic, but are now living poor & voting rich. - Let's not pass up an opportunity of a decade.
The Senate historically has been known for ideological moderation and bipartisanship (the reason is explained at the 01-10-5 post entitled "Polarizing the U.S. Senate. - Why the Senate historically is ideologically more moderate & bipartisan. Is this on the wane?").
In keeping with this traditional, de facto role, the Senate in recent years has tempered the conservatism of the House on taxes, spending and social issues. (see but a discussion of the role changing in 11-14-04 post entitled "Losing Its Middlemen, U.S. Senate Shifts to Right. Many centrists bow out, leaving fewer lawmakers willing to cross party lines and make deals."
While the above posts and the collective political thinking has been that -- after Nov. 2 -- House Republicans would find more allies in the U.S. Senate in their campaigns affecting social issues, etc., a development in the U.S. Senate yesterday seems to indicate at least a possibility that this more deliberative institution may want to slow things down a bit, a move that will no doubt upset the GOP's conservative wing.
Could such a move be from counting heads in the U.S. Senate or the GOP giving the appearance of moving to the middle even as some in the Democratic Party want their party to move to the middle?
_______________
I might be reading too much significance into what has come out of the Senate on Monday of this week, but at least the prospect of a GOP change is worth examing in the following context:
Part of our party says stay the course, regardless of what happened on Nov. 2. Although the DNC ignored the South and Midwest, if Just For Kerry had gotten 60,000 more votes in the battleground state of Ohio, Bush would have lost.
Sure we might have at one time been the Big Tent Party, but now we don't have room for those who have moral or religious reservations about abortion and other social issues. And frankly, it does not bother me that Democrats are perceived as being contemptuous of the faith of many Americans. After all, you know what they say about church and state.
By God, you're with us or you're agin us, and we do not tolerate those who do not meet our litmus tests. Maybe in the old days when we really were the Big Tent Party we operated by tolerating opinions and positions divergent from perhaps a majority of the party, but no more.
And then there are the rest of us who say, hey, I sort of enjoyed those days of winning.
Let's work to bring those who used to vote Democratic, but are now living poor and voting rich. You know who I mean, farmers, factory workers, waitresses and just plain ole regular good people in Georgia and across our country who on Nov. 2 ended up voting -- utterly against their own interest -- for Republican candidates.
Let's not antagonize them on collateral issues so that they lose sight that improving the lives of working-class Americans has always been a primary tenet of the Democratic Party.
Let's raise those flaps on our Big Tent. The GOP doesn't own God or have the market cornered on values, nor are we ashamed of going to church on Sunday and professing not only to trust but also believe in God. And don't take my guns -- 2 shotguns, a rifle, and a Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum -- away from me.
We think the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland. Call it whatever you want (including trying to be Republican light since you think this gets those who think everything we doing is just fine all riled up), but if this involves veering to the middle and a little moderation on social issues, that is fine.
_______________
Senate Republican leaders outlined their 10 top legislative priorities yesterday, focusing mainly on cutting taxes and restructuring Social Security. But two notable omissions -- changes to immigration laws and a ban on same-sex marriage -- underscored tensions with their conservative wing.
The Senate Republicans' top 10 list calls for adding private accounts to Social Security, extending President Bush's tax cuts, limiting personal-injury lawsuits and expanding domestic oil exploration. But GOP Senate leaders moved cautiously on more contentious issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration.
House [members] are preparing to offer anti-terrorism legislation that includes broad crackdowns on illegal immigration.
(The Washington Post, 01-25-05.)
_______________
It is difficult for me to assess whether the U.S. Senate's agenda has more to do more with what the leadership feels it can pass rather than an attempt to avoid the appearance of political overreaching, or maybe an attempt to outmaneuver the Democrats and even beat us in the race to the middle of the political spectrum (where I assume we are headed based on all of the candidates for chairman of the DNC indicating the South must be brought back into the Democratic fold).
If it represents an agenda that the GOP Senate leadership feels it can pass, then this shows that the leadership does not want to be embarrassed offering up legislation doomed to fail. And this shows that already the Senate recognizes that it is dealing with a second term president whose interest may not aline with the Senate.
For while the Senate left getting a constitutional ban to same-sex marriages off of its top 10 list, Karl Rove, Inc. is pushing for it hard this, primarily because he wants to maneuver things so as to force Democrats to defend gay rights and as well as unfettered access to abortion, traps I have cautioned we must avoid.
And have no doubt, it is Karl and not W who is calling the shots. As noted on the 01-16-05 post:
"For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups.
"While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture.
"Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate.
"[After the interview hit the press, Bush's handlers immediately began backtracking on his comments, saying, in effect, Bush didn't mean what he said. That is, that Bush would push and lobby for passage of the ban. I saw it Sunday morning. My take --if you don't believe Bush will at least obstensibly lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, you too believe in the tooth fairy.]"
For "Bush's handlers." you should read Karl Rove.
With regard to both the House and the Senate, Democrats' greatest hope should be that Bush and congressional Republicans overplay their hand so that the Democrats will have a better chance of making a comeback in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
We must stress that Republicans are stressing an ideological rather than a middle-of-the-road approach to governing.
Such, along with the GOP's overly aggressive efforts to push a conservative agenda will leave Bush and his allies vulnerable to charges of political overreaching, and ultimately cause a voter backlash in both 2006 and 2008.
As noted in a 01-21-05 post on Bush hubris:
"[T]he mood in Washington this inauguration week reminded him a bit of the second Nixon administration. There is a smugness and insularity among senior officials -- a feeling that because the president has won reelection, his aides don't have to explain themselves or their policies to the nation."
And like father, like son, like Washington, like Georgia. Thus we see the same behavior and attitude discussed in the 01-11-05 post:
"When you have complete control, there is a certain arrogance and sense of entitlement that can develop. Besides the idea of hawks being stupid -- give me a better word for it and I will use it -- it represents political overreaching, arrogance and entitlement."
Our challenge is to be patient, avoid falling into the Karl Rove trap, and to let the various members and wings of the GOP both on the national and state level fight things out among ourselves, while we safely enjoy observing things from a distance.
And there won't be any disagreement among the GOP in Georgia you say.
Maybe what you mean is that the new GOP-sponsored state House rules do not allow any public disclosure of disagreement, but disagreement will come, just watch.
The urban, suburban, exurban and rural interests are not always aligned. (And yes, as we are coming to learn, this is probably what the Hawks are really for rather than preying on a minority without the votes to effect legislation and control committee votes in the first place.)
______________
I have not forgotten that this post posed the question of whether the GOP Senate leaders' moving cautiously on the contentious issues of abortion and same-sex marriage could represent the GOP giving the appearance of moving to the middle.
Does it? I don't have a clue, but this I do know. If it does -- even in a minute way -- represent such and Democrats remain way in left field, we have passed up an opportunity of a decade.
For regardless of what the the U.S. Senate is signaling, Bush has already signaled as much.
As noted in my 11-27-04 post entitled " When the Dean speaks, the Democratic Party better listen, Part II. Sid's response to the Dean concerning the issues the Dean raised:"
"Howard Dean . . . [recently said] 'I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats.'
"And [in saying this Dean] is taking the lead from Bush, who even as he supported an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, emphasized tolerance, breaking with his most conservative Christian supporters to repeatedly say he favored allowing states to recognize same-sex couples in other ways, like civil unions."
In keeping with this traditional, de facto role, the Senate in recent years has tempered the conservatism of the House on taxes, spending and social issues. (see but a discussion of the role changing in 11-14-04 post entitled "Losing Its Middlemen, U.S. Senate Shifts to Right. Many centrists bow out, leaving fewer lawmakers willing to cross party lines and make deals."
While the above posts and the collective political thinking has been that -- after Nov. 2 -- House Republicans would find more allies in the U.S. Senate in their campaigns affecting social issues, etc., a development in the U.S. Senate yesterday seems to indicate at least a possibility that this more deliberative institution may want to slow things down a bit, a move that will no doubt upset the GOP's conservative wing.
Could such a move be from counting heads in the U.S. Senate or the GOP giving the appearance of moving to the middle even as some in the Democratic Party want their party to move to the middle?
_______________
I might be reading too much significance into what has come out of the Senate on Monday of this week, but at least the prospect of a GOP change is worth examing in the following context:
Part of our party says stay the course, regardless of what happened on Nov. 2. Although the DNC ignored the South and Midwest, if Just For Kerry had gotten 60,000 more votes in the battleground state of Ohio, Bush would have lost.
Sure we might have at one time been the Big Tent Party, but now we don't have room for those who have moral or religious reservations about abortion and other social issues. And frankly, it does not bother me that Democrats are perceived as being contemptuous of the faith of many Americans. After all, you know what they say about church and state.
By God, you're with us or you're agin us, and we do not tolerate those who do not meet our litmus tests. Maybe in the old days when we really were the Big Tent Party we operated by tolerating opinions and positions divergent from perhaps a majority of the party, but no more.
And then there are the rest of us who say, hey, I sort of enjoyed those days of winning.
Let's work to bring those who used to vote Democratic, but are now living poor and voting rich. You know who I mean, farmers, factory workers, waitresses and just plain ole regular good people in Georgia and across our country who on Nov. 2 ended up voting -- utterly against their own interest -- for Republican candidates.
Let's not antagonize them on collateral issues so that they lose sight that improving the lives of working-class Americans has always been a primary tenet of the Democratic Party.
Let's raise those flaps on our Big Tent. The GOP doesn't own God or have the market cornered on values, nor are we ashamed of going to church on Sunday and professing not only to trust but also believe in God. And don't take my guns -- 2 shotguns, a rifle, and a Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum -- away from me.
We think the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland. Call it whatever you want (including trying to be Republican light since you think this gets those who think everything we doing is just fine all riled up), but if this involves veering to the middle and a little moderation on social issues, that is fine.
_______________
Senate Republican leaders outlined their 10 top legislative priorities yesterday, focusing mainly on cutting taxes and restructuring Social Security. But two notable omissions -- changes to immigration laws and a ban on same-sex marriage -- underscored tensions with their conservative wing.
The Senate Republicans' top 10 list calls for adding private accounts to Social Security, extending President Bush's tax cuts, limiting personal-injury lawsuits and expanding domestic oil exploration. But GOP Senate leaders moved cautiously on more contentious issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration.
House [members] are preparing to offer anti-terrorism legislation that includes broad crackdowns on illegal immigration.
(The Washington Post, 01-25-05.)
_______________
It is difficult for me to assess whether the U.S. Senate's agenda has more to do more with what the leadership feels it can pass rather than an attempt to avoid the appearance of political overreaching, or maybe an attempt to outmaneuver the Democrats and even beat us in the race to the middle of the political spectrum (where I assume we are headed based on all of the candidates for chairman of the DNC indicating the South must be brought back into the Democratic fold).
If it represents an agenda that the GOP Senate leadership feels it can pass, then this shows that the leadership does not want to be embarrassed offering up legislation doomed to fail. And this shows that already the Senate recognizes that it is dealing with a second term president whose interest may not aline with the Senate.
For while the Senate left getting a constitutional ban to same-sex marriages off of its top 10 list, Karl Rove, Inc. is pushing for it hard this, primarily because he wants to maneuver things so as to force Democrats to defend gay rights and as well as unfettered access to abortion, traps I have cautioned we must avoid.
And have no doubt, it is Karl and not W who is calling the shots. As noted on the 01-16-05 post:
"For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups.
"While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture.
"Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate.
"[After the interview hit the press, Bush's handlers immediately began backtracking on his comments, saying, in effect, Bush didn't mean what he said. That is, that Bush would push and lobby for passage of the ban. I saw it Sunday morning. My take --if you don't believe Bush will at least obstensibly lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, you too believe in the tooth fairy.]"
For "Bush's handlers." you should read Karl Rove.
With regard to both the House and the Senate, Democrats' greatest hope should be that Bush and congressional Republicans overplay their hand so that the Democrats will have a better chance of making a comeback in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
We must stress that Republicans are stressing an ideological rather than a middle-of-the-road approach to governing.
Such, along with the GOP's overly aggressive efforts to push a conservative agenda will leave Bush and his allies vulnerable to charges of political overreaching, and ultimately cause a voter backlash in both 2006 and 2008.
As noted in a 01-21-05 post on Bush hubris:
"[T]he mood in Washington this inauguration week reminded him a bit of the second Nixon administration. There is a smugness and insularity among senior officials -- a feeling that because the president has won reelection, his aides don't have to explain themselves or their policies to the nation."
And like father, like son, like Washington, like Georgia. Thus we see the same behavior and attitude discussed in the 01-11-05 post:
"When you have complete control, there is a certain arrogance and sense of entitlement that can develop. Besides the idea of hawks being stupid -- give me a better word for it and I will use it -- it represents political overreaching, arrogance and entitlement."
Our challenge is to be patient, avoid falling into the Karl Rove trap, and to let the various members and wings of the GOP both on the national and state level fight things out among ourselves, while we safely enjoy observing things from a distance.
And there won't be any disagreement among the GOP in Georgia you say.
Maybe what you mean is that the new GOP-sponsored state House rules do not allow any public disclosure of disagreement, but disagreement will come, just watch.
The urban, suburban, exurban and rural interests are not always aligned. (And yes, as we are coming to learn, this is probably what the Hawks are really for rather than preying on a minority without the votes to effect legislation and control committee votes in the first place.)
______________
I have not forgotten that this post posed the question of whether the GOP Senate leaders' moving cautiously on the contentious issues of abortion and same-sex marriage could represent the GOP giving the appearance of moving to the middle.
Does it? I don't have a clue, but this I do know. If it does -- even in a minute way -- represent such and Democrats remain way in left field, we have passed up an opportunity of a decade.
For regardless of what the the U.S. Senate is signaling, Bush has already signaled as much.
As noted in my 11-27-04 post entitled " When the Dean speaks, the Democratic Party better listen, Part II. Sid's response to the Dean concerning the issues the Dean raised:"
"Howard Dean . . . [recently said] 'I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats.'
"And [in saying this Dean] is taking the lead from Bush, who even as he supported an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, emphasized tolerance, breaking with his most conservative Christian supporters to repeatedly say he favored allowing states to recognize same-sex couples in other ways, like civil unions."
posted by Sid Cottingham | 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home