Hey, Harry Reid
Tweet
You know how I wrote last week about how I don’t understand why Democrats don’t just introduce a bunch of bills for a vote that make a clear delineation between where we stand (for progress) and where they stand (for stagnation)? Peep this from conservative Fred Barnes about the GOPs plan to whip up the rube vote (aka promise them the world, forget them after election day):
This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues.
House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion.
Now for all their moral vacuousness, the Republicans know how to do one thing well in recent history – win elections. It’s far past time for us to get them on the record as the regressives that they are. There’s no good reason not to do it, except for a lack of will to win on the Democratic side.
In short, it’s time for “Puppies: yes or no?”
28 Responses to “Hey, Harry Reid”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Republicans have been successful because they understand the
limbic, lizard brain which focuses on survival of the organism
as the greatest good.
They ‘rabble rouse’ with the best of the lynch mobs of
19th century western america.
Pandering to the ‘lowest common denominator’ is their
best strategy for saving their worthless carcasses.
Republican 2006 Strategy Will Be To Define Foes And “Change The Subject”
Independent voters, those who believe elections are job performance reviews, and those who want to see the quality of political debate elevated in this c…
Yeah, those conservative Christians really spill a lot of blood over issues of morality.
Very telling agenda on the part of the Republicans: all about dividing the “moral” and the “immoral” and whipping those convinced of their own moral superiority into a bloody frenzy against the rest of us.
Nothing about addressing real problems in the economy, in security, in education, infrastructure and public welfare. Nothing about bringing Americans together.
Real opportunities there for the Democrats, if they’ve got the balls to take them.
What about cute kittens?
JWG, take a look down the list of issues they wish to address this term. Does a single one of them do a damn thing for anybody? Banning gay marriage? More public expression of religion? Meanwhile, in the reality-based community, we’re trying to look for real solutions to America’s problems. A failure to address these problems means that people die and people get hurt. You may not wish to hold James Dobson and his cabal responsible, but they certainly have taken the focus off the issues that affect us as a nation.
z: Assuming by “we” you mean “good liberals / Democrats”, as in we re trying to look for real solutions to America s problems.
Perhaps the real problems are these three:
1) It has not been ‘determined’ by the majority of the American people, exactly what these problems are, and which ones fall within the Federal Government’s bailiwick;
2) It has not been ‘determined’ by the majority of the American people, exactly how to solve the problems that do exist, and do fall within the Federal Government’s bailiwick; and
3) It has not been ‘determined’ by the majority of the American people, that the ‘liberal / Democrat’ solution to a problem is best, let alone the only, way.
“Those with the vision of the anointed are seldom deterred by any question as to whether anyone has the knowledge required to do what they are attempting.” Thomas Sowell, 1995
There has been no spin from Bushco to label the war in Iraq as a “crusade” to show the “satanic” religion of Islam that “our God is bigger than theirs.” Nor have their media pundit lapdogs risked inflaming religious sentiment by saying we should “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” So JWG definitely has a point about “conservative” Christians, though some might wonder if he means “extreme fundamentalists.”
I mean really, if G.W. has been anything, he has been respectful of the separation of church and state.
Frank, you must reduce your adherence to these Hoover Institution hacks. They are basically paid to think the way they do, not to report good science or public policy.
The problem is that the politicians you support want America to look more like Iran than Sweden. I venture to say that a poll would probably find less support for bedroom policing than for a strong progressive agenda.
I choose neither.
OW…every other entry from you somehow relates to how the Democratic party is setting itself up for failure in 06, and 08 because they don’t take a stand on anything.
Instead of continually whining about the party, I sugggest you read Tip O’Neill’s book…”All Politics if Local.” What you’re doing isn’t helpfull.
JK
I meant “All Politics is Local.” And again, I just don’t think the daily tirades are particularly helpful 8 months out.
JK
JK: They’re not helpful? So I’m supposed to pretend they get it? Because they don’t. They’ve demonstrated a horrible lack of cluefulness.
z: and you must face reality a) That Sowell quote is 11 years old.
The rest of the comment is mine. Now, if you want to say bad things about Mr. Sowell, go ahead. I’m sure he won’t mind; I sure don’t.
But if you have nothing to say about what I wrote, stop pretending that it’s my fault.
Sabato on 2006
Frank, your three “it has not been determined by the majority…”‘s could also be said of the issues and the positions that the republicans are staking out. The Dems need to stake out their own issues and positions and in November the poeple will decide which is more important to them: trying to advance education, health care, security and infrastructure or preventing Adam and Steve from using the word “marriage” to describe their relationship.
on some issues, conservatives do stand for stagnation. And most of the country does as well. Admit this or not, many people in this country are content with the way things are, especially on a couple issues.
So go ahead and introduce these bills you speak of. See how well gay marriage and tax increases go over with the general public.
Not very well I’d say.
That being said, the Dems do have a good chance to make up some ground in ’06. Not because of their ideas, but because of the Reps. and some of their screwups. (Iraq, ports, scandals)
It would be surprising if Dems don’t edge closer in 2006 (Bush fatigue is real), but I doubt if they gain a majority in either house. Voting patterns have changed and attitudes have hardened right and left. And gerrymandering has tended to soldiify voting bases, making htem less susceptible to turnover.
Hey, the only real issue between now and 2008 is if Hillary can continue to talk moderate to the mainstream while wink-wink-nudge-nudging the left core that she is some kind of radical. And then will the big money leftists buy her straddling act or buy another candidate? If she can pull it off, she’s probably President.
Dugger
Dugger;
Serious question.
Do you think the hunkering down by dems is a strategy that works?
Running away from the Murtha plan, Feingold censure is all they have
to do to win seats? What advantage is there in not having a majority
in either House before the ’08? What COULD they do now to take the
majority in Nov?
Election Strategery
The Moderate Voice writes about a Fred Barnes piece in The Weekly Standard outlining what the GOP mid-term election strategy will be. It’s basically red meat for the conservative base of the party:House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek
No to hunkering down, but I don’t think Nov is doable this year for Dems. Read Sabato. Too many districts are locked in. 2008 is another story. I think the Dems can go over the top if they stake out an anti-terrorism position (they can stay where they are domestically) that is/ is perceived as strong by middle America and if their pres candidate has some coattails. For the latter, I just don’t think Al Gore, while popular with the activist core, can do it. There is Bush fatigue, but probably also a few bad memories of the whole 2000 campaign that folks would like to avoid and will associate with Gore too. Mark Warner, maybe General Clark (who could certainly stake out a more authoritative anti-terrorism alternative position to the Repubs – better say than say Hillary) may have mainstream coattails.
Questions: what happens if another major T attack on America. Will it harm Rs who were on duty? Or will it remind/reinforce public of doubts about Democrats positons on T? What if the economy stays strong and no T attacks. Public may not want to risk a major change from Rs (in which case a moderate mark Warner still could go over well). Probably with Warner maybe tepid core support. Same with Hills if she moderates. She has a problem. If she goes left, the public is poised to catch it and and make a big deal out of it. If she goes right, the core left is looking hard and will catch it and react negatively. Could let Clark slip in under the radar. She has to tight rope.
Dugger
Clark can take Hillary. I don’t think Hillary will be as much as a player as the MSM is trying to make her into, but I think the MSM is sure gonna try and make her a player.
In fact, I predict that there will be much hype and to-do about a chosen anti-hillary, and then about a week before primaries start, all the hype will be about how hillary is the “most electable”, and then Hillary will win the nomination, and then lose to some joke from the right because, frankly, hillary is a pretty big joke.
Just like Kerry in 2004.
Frank, your three it has not been determined by the majority& s could also be said of the issues and the positions that the republicans are staking out.
Wilbur, I never said it didn’t.
Take this as you will, seeing as it comes from a (politically inactive except for voting) Republican, but: What would happen if Senate Dems filibustered Every. Single. Measure. introduced by Republicans that did not meaningfully address a real and serious national problem?
They could even say, “We’ll allow a vote on gay marriage/flag burning/man-on-dog relationships as soon as this Congress does something serious about unemployment/Iraq/port security/whatever.” And they could say that secure in the knowledge that the odds they’d ever have to follow through approach zero.
I’m just askin’.
quickie,
MY BS.
I think Hillary’s fate is all intra-party. If she can keep a party core and survive, she’lll be tough. And she will get ‘electability’ points as you say. And if she makes the general election, she can go all the way. As an aside, she has plenty of negatives but she also has invisible positives. Reagan did too. I always wondered where all his votes came from. Not that many conservatives. Not that many republicans. Some people put aside ideology because they liked the individual. Hillary will get some non liberal ‘middle ground’ votes.
OTOH, personally I don’t Clark has a huge amount of ‘personal’ cross-over appeal. And he has to relax and become a little more down to earth – more human. Warner I think could win.
On my side Frist is like Clark. Too stiff (unelectable). Allen too conservative, maybe too paleocon. Rudy G, if he can get on the radar screen, maybe. Not sure about McCain. Age, volatility (what happens when he has to deal with a seemingly unfair, critical media – instead of one that inordinately respects him as the anti-Bush).
Dugger
OW, sorry for being so blunt.
My point is that people generally vote on local issues. Sure, the war is first and foremost on everyone’s mind, however, I’m pretty sure that 90% of the Democratic party would not agree with my “extreme” position that we get our troops the hell out or Iraq tomorrow. I believe the war has already been lost. If we polled the people in this forum, I suspect the vast majority would disagree with me.
Democrats don’t have a unified strategy on the war for many reasons. I’m not sure the GOP does either, these days.
For one thing, once you take a position, you end up having to defend it. (Witness the battering Murtha took.). Regardless of *not having* a strategy for troop withdrawal, for example, recent polls show that Americans, when asked, trust Democrats on National Security more than Republicans!
I agree with 95% of what you say on this blog. However, offering an intelligent alternative to the failures of the Bush administration and this current Congress may be enough to win back the House and Senate in 06. (More realisticaly, the House.)
The time for party platform will be 08.
JK
Dugger;
The public sphincter will seize up and deny access to any changes.
Fear is a powerful emotion and rarely includes rational decision-
making. My fear is that there will be another attack prior to
’08 and all kinds of wild speculation enters my head should
that occur. The public would sit still for martial law and
grant any powerful leader who promises they will be safe, any
constitutional pass he/she wishes.
The electoral process might be irrelevent should an attack occur
prior to.
Democrats don t have a unified strategy on the war for many reasons.
I disagree. It’s cowardice and risk aversion.
Witness the battering Murtha took.
Rep. Murtha looks pretty hearty to me.
recent polls show that Americans, when asked, trust Democrats on National Security more than Republicans
We have two parties. When one party loses esteem, the other gets credit. I’d rather my side have a real solution that keeps people in our camp rather than being the “default”.
The time for Dems standing up for Dem values is now. Not 2008 and beyond. If we don’t build up now, we’re dead meat in 2008 again. See 2002-04 for details.