once Franken is finally allowed to take his seat, and the Democrats have 60 in the Senate,

[leftofthedial]

what will be the excuse for not enacting the Democratic agenda that was promised to us in campaigns since 2006?

(That is, real withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care, restoration of civil liberty protections in the Constitution, pro-worker legislation, pro-environmental legislation, etc.)

Or will this now start a flood of real Democratic legislation?


We've heard "we don't have 60 in the Senate" as the excuse for everything from failure to end the Iraq debacle to the death of the EFCA. Are those days over? If not, what will be the new excuse?

[WI_DEM]

1. Will we have 60 with Franken? Remember some of those people like Lieberman, Nelson of FL, Nelson of

NE, Lincoln & Pryor of Arkansas, Landreau of LA aren't necessarily progressives.

[Aristus]

15. I've been saying since the election that President Obama's closest allies will be the

moderate Republicans, and his biggest worry will be the conservative Democrats. Anybody here think that is an incorrect assessment?

[villager]

2. Gosh, what *will* Harry "Balls and Guts" Reid do then!?

n/t

[billyoc]

3. "We have to protect Dems in conservative states/districts".

That's my guess.

[pnwmom]

7. And that is true. Blue Dogs will be the key vote. n/t

[leftofthedial]

11. yup.

we have to represent *all* the people of America (a euphemism for the corporate capitalist lobbyists who make us wealthy and allow us to remain part of the elite).

[napi21]

4. We all have to remember that the Dems are NOT like the Pubs!

They don't all vote in lock step! Quite a few of our new Dems are from traditionally Pub States & vote as their constituents wish. That means sometimes we can't rely on ALL Dems to vote for something that is controversial.

As much as I b*tch to my own Senators (both Pubs) for the way they vote all the damn time, I have to accept the fact that Ga. is still a Pub dominated State, and until we can change the people of Ga and the way they think, it's probably going to stay that way.

[MisterP]

5. well, THEN they'll admit the total worthlessness of the conservadems--and say that we need 20 more

Senators and 50 Reps, and that means patience, gag rules, more of our money, votes, footwork, and unquestioning faith/loyalty, and less of our criticism
then in 2012, when "we" face Palin, we can't appear too radical, so we'll bring Wayne LaPierre, Ken Ham (pending pardon), and Cheney into our big tent
in 2013 you scum can have some of your pinko, anti-American policies--but the Treasury will've been emptied into the banks!

[pnwmom]

8. I disagree. The Rethugs are showing what happens when the purists dominate

a party: they end up being a powerless minority. We're better off being the party with the big tent.

[Political Heretic]

20. No. They are showing what happens when batshit nutcases dominate a party.

There's nothing wrong with having a party PLATFORM and expecting members of that party to reflect that PLATFORM in their vote.

[pnwmom]

23. There is if the platform specifics aren't supported by your CONSTITUENTS.

Just because constituents vote for a Democrat doesn't mean they support every item in the Democratic platform, which is crafted by the most partisan segment of the party.

[Political Heretic]

24. Then they can vote for someone else.

[pnwmom]

27. Voters vote for the candidate they hope will represent them the BEST,

not for the perfect candidate. And their representatives are supposed to be representing THEM. They aren't expected to sign a loyalty oath to follow the party platform on every issue.

[Political Heretic]

28. As I said, they can vote for someone else then.

IF a majority of voters in a state what a gay hating, woman hating, pro-war candidate that doesn't mean the Democratic Party should welcome a gay hating, woman hating, pro-war candidate into the party.

The majority of voters are wrong, and they can be free to vote for someone else from some party that welcomes such fucked up ideas.

[pnwmom]

29. The candidate you describe is highly unlikely to become a Democrat.

The more likely situation is that a Democrat is anti-war, but pro-life. Or pro-choice, but voted for the DOMA. Or pro-business but pro-choice and anti-war.

Democrats aren't expected to hue to every item on the platform, but to the overall philosophy and the majority of points on the platform. Otherwise, we'd be doomed to be as small a minority as the Rethugs are on the way to becoming.

[Political Heretic]

30. Ideally, I would prefer a system where we had more smaller parties than only two huge ones.

That's part of the frustration I feel. It's not that I don't want centrists to be elected to represent constituents or even have a voice in government. But I do feel that when one party tries to organize around being everything to everyone it weakens it greatly for everyone involved.

All we are talking about here is simply where they line should be drawn. You want it drawn slightly further out than I do, but yet I don't want it drawn as tightly as I think you guess that I do.

You don't think its likely that the candidate I describe would become a Democrat. That's probably true, but the extreme example was to illustrate the point that what we're really talking about is, at what point to you draw and line and say sorry but you're positions and ideals are really outside the range of even our fairly large tent...

[pnwmom]

32. I understand. Neither of us want a George Wallace, for example,

to be welcomed in the party. I really don't think the party will ever go back to those days.

Specter isn't a George Wallace. It will be interesting to see as time goes on what happens to his voting record as he is no longer facing pressure to conform to the Rethug party line, but instead faces pressure to vote with the Dems. I'm hoping it will bring out a better man in him . . . .

[Political Heretic]

36. Nice talking with you. Nice exchange.

This was a nice exchange. :)

[pnwmom]

45. And with you, too, Political Heretic.

Things can so easily get overheated around here, even though we're all basically on the same side. But I was struck by your willingness to explain your point of view rather than attacking mine. Thanks!

[Political Heretic]

31. Also one addendum to my above post:

I also have to say, where you describe a big flexible party that represents a plurality of views (the big tent idea) I see something differently.

The party doesn't necessarily "expand" to be inclusive of moderate-conservative viewpoints. Instead it shifts to include such viewpoints and in doing so, leaves some of its previous party members and constitutions left out in the cold, feeling unrepresented and voiceless.

[pnwmom]

34. I'm not sure about the shifting part. If you look over the long term

perspective, the party's been a big tent more often than not. It's only been since the 80's that the two parties have divided more and more along strictly ideological lines. We used to have liberal Republicans (John Lindsey, Nelson Rockefeller) and conservative Democrats (the Dixiecrats), and voting blocks were much more fluid than they are today. We still have some Blue Dogs, but by and large the parties are much more divided by ideology than before. I'm not sure we're better off in this situation.

[Political Heretic]

37. Interesting, relevant historical perspective.

Thanks.

I need to get some sleep now, but this was a good sub thread :)

[Fire1]

6. 60 seats doesn't mean a thing with so many blue dogs. n/t

[pnwmom]

10. The thing about Blue Dogs is

they vote with us much of the time, but they don't all the time. I'm happy that they vote with us much of the time -- as opposed to the Rethugs, who do nothing but obstruct.

[Political Heretic]

25. They don't on anything that matters.

Where "matters" is defined as: where their votes would make the difference or on issues for more fundamental change.

[Fire1]

33. Exactly. To be a 'good' democrat on only ONE issue means

NOTHING!!!

[pnwmom]

38. Every seat of a Blue Dog rather than a Rethug is a vote for the Democratic majority

which means that we appoint Committee chairmen and control which legislation even gets to the floor.

The importance of this cannot be overstated.

[Political Heretic]

40. Yeah, that's true.

Now that I've had some hours to absorb this, I think I'd describe my position like this:

I'm able to understand that potential positives that come from this, and there are little to no negatives. However, I can't share in some of the most extreme celebration that is acting like this solves all our problems, because it most certainly doesn't. It's moderate good news, but I don't see it as more than that, and we're still back at the reality of not being able to pass EFCA and having some tough fights ahead on other issues as well (where we may not be able to count on Specter any more than we could when he had an (R) after his name.

[Occam Bandage]

9. The stimulus bill was the most liberal thing to pass Congress in decades.

We still have many battles left to win, but we've had a fantastic first hundred days.

[leftofthedial]

12. part of it was.

most of it was more repuke tax cut bullshit.

[Occam Bandage]

13. A minority of it was.

Tax credits for green jobs aren't "repuke." Neither are tax cuts for the poor.

[leftofthedial]

16. If tax cuts are implemented in place of increased services

and actual job creation, it is bullshit.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Not all tax cuts are created equal. Cap-and-trade is a system of tax credits, after all.

I don't think Dems should be as phobic of the phrase "tax cut" as Republicans are of "tax increase."

[leftofthedial]

21. tax credits are not the same as tax cuts.

[Political Heretic]

26. Even I don't agree with that.

The tax cuts went to the middle class, and that is not by any stretch, a "Repuke" thing.

We can argue about whether those tax cuts were effective stimulus (I suggest they were not) - but they're not "repuke" in any way.

[leftofthedial]

35. replacing job creation and government services

with tax cuts is a profoundly repuke thing.

And that's what happened, if you recall.

[Political Heretic]

39. mmm.... I see what your saying, but I'm not sure I agree with the characterization

Yes, I think I would agree that direct spending would have been preferable in place of middle class tax cuts in terms of effective stimulus if we were forced to choose, however I'm not ready to concede that somehow all tax cut plans are republican simply by fact of being a tax cut.

Poor and middle class tax cuts during a recessionary period is a good thing - the only real question is whether or not we should have also spent more (I say yes))

Either way... it just doesn't seem quite right to label them Repuke. Republicans have never introduced nor supported a middle class tax cut in their lives.

[leftofthedial]

41. to cut to the chase, most of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill

were put there specifically to persuade repukes to vote for it (which they didn't do anyway).

[Political Heretic]

42. They didn't, largely because the tax cuts weren't "repuke" tax cuts

I agree it was partially an attempt to warm conservatives to the package - but they saw right through it going, "Hey wait a minute! These are tax cuts to the wealthy! What kind of fast one are you trying to pull?" And they voted against it.

Tax cuts for the working class during a period of financial hardship isn't a bad thing. Not at all. The question is whether or not it functions as good stimulus, and I believe the answer is that, no, spending should have been about twice as big and the tax cuts should have been a separate, additional, bill.

[leftofthedial]

44. I think we are in violent agreement on your last point.

although I would have said four or five times as big.

[Individualist]

14. Not to worry

The apologists will come up with another equally lame excuse.

[KG]

18. 'keeping that powder dry!'

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. For Someone Who So Closely Follows Politics,

you certainly appear to be incredibly naive about them.

[alarimer]

22. No, Specter and the Blue Dogs are not real Democrats.

So they will vote against all that stuff.

[BlooInBloo]

43. No, you still don't get your magic pony. There will still be plenty of hurdles to jump.