Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Add to this a Democratic majority, and you then negate much of the need for signing statements and executive orders. Maybe Democrats will do a much better job, maybe they won't but when offered up so much power and influence, it is hard to see how this wouldn't lead to a propensity to use said powers to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
I totally agree. You can add me to the list of people who don't want to see the democrats achieve "the magic 60." 59 is fine, IMO--but I'd like to have a need to convince at least one person every time something comes up.
I totally agree. You can add me to the list of people who don't want to see the democrats achieve "the magic 60." 59 is fine, IMO--but I'd like to have a need to convince at least one person every time something comes up.
My magic number was 3. If Democrats couldn't convince three Republicans that something was a good idea, then chances are it is either a very partisan thing or simply a bad idea. There are still enough moderate and sensible Republicans out there that I'd be comfortable with their decisions. Such as the likes of Olympia Snow of Maine for instance.
Just for kicks, I took a stroll over to the Democratic Underground and to the Daily Kos this morning and couldn't help but notice how incensed the far left coastal liberal types were at Obama's choices thus far. In part due to his picks of past Clintonista's and in part because he has so far moved to a very centrist position in several of his cabinet choices and the direction (or appearance of) his governing style.
If Obama continues to move towards the middle, then the ability to pick up moderate Republicans will greatly increase and hopefully enough so that Lieberman becomes little more than an inflamed Appendix.
And this is a good deal of what the article discussed. I'm sure that I am not the only one who noted that the two issues Obama focused on were fiscal responsibility and our foreign policy (notably Iraq and Afghanistan) which are traditionally areas were liberals have gotten trounced. He took it to the contemporary Republican Party and won.
As I said in a another post and based on nothing more than a hunch, that a year from now, moderate Republicans will be more happier than big L coastal liberals with Obama. I am going to hold Obama to the line in his speech where he said, "To those who's vote I did not get, I will still be your President". We shall see.
I've read many posting from folks who were stating that his appointments appear to be validating the point of view that Obama will be a centrist. My view on this is that the appointments aren't all that relevant, Obama and Pelosi will clearly be in the front and center setting the national agenda and priorities.
Two specific examples of this emerged this past week. The successful challenge by Waxman to oust Dingell as the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with back room support of this overthrow by Pelosi and Obama:
Rep. Henry Waxman, a liberal ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has wrested the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee from veteran Rep. John Dingell when the new Congress convenes in January.
Waxman, a California liberal and avid environmentalist and booster of health care programs, toppled Dingell Thursday on a vote of 137-122 in the Democratic Party caucus, capping a bitter fight within party ranks.
Dingell has been the top Democrat on the panel for 28 years and is an old-school supporter of the auto industry. Waxman has complained that the committee has been too slow to address environmental issues like global warming.
This is a clear and specific hard left turn on a powerful committee:
Waxman also had strong backing from his interest-group allies, especially consumers and environmentalists, who have long clashed with Dingell. "In recent years, Mr. Dingell supported legislation preempting state food safety and labeling laws that exceeded federal standards; Mr. Waxman did not," said Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who added that Waxman's priorities are more in line with those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Obama.
In addition, Obama has proposed an immediate and extensive economic stimulus package:
President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years.
That amount, more than the nation has spent over the past six years in Iraq, would rival the sum Congress committed last month to rescuing the country's financial system. It would also be one of the biggest public spending programs aimed at jolting the economy since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
I think these two items clearly demonstrate that Obama will not end up being a disappointment whatsoever to the far left element of his Democratic supporters.
I've read many posting from folks who were stating that his appointments appear to be validating the point of view that Obama will be a centrist. My view on this is that the appointments aren't all that relevant, Obama and Pelosi will clearly be in the front and center setting the national agenda and priorities.
Two specific examples of this emerged this past week. The successful challenge by Waxman to oust Dingell as the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with back room support of this overthrow by Pelosi and Obama:
Rep. Henry Waxman, a liberal ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has wrested the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee from veteran Rep. John Dingell when the new Congress convenes in January.
Waxman, a California liberal and avid environmentalist and booster of health care programs, toppled Dingell Thursday on a vote of 137-122 in the Democratic Party caucus, capping a bitter fight within party ranks.
Dingell has been the top Democrat on the panel for 28 years and is an old-school supporter of the auto industry. Waxman has complained that the committee has been too slow to address environmental issues like global warming.
This is a clear and specific hard left turn on a powerful committee:
Waxman also had strong backing from his interest-group allies, especially consumers and environmentalists, who have long clashed with Dingell. "In recent years, Mr. Dingell supported legislation preempting state food safety and labeling laws that exceeded federal standards; Mr. Waxman did not," said Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who added that Waxman's priorities are more in line with those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Obama.
In addition, Obama has proposed an immediate and extensive economic stimulus package:
President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years.
That amount, more than the nation has spent over the past six years in Iraq, would rival the sum Congress committed last month to rescuing the country's financial system. It would also be one of the biggest public spending programs aimed at jolting the economy since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
I think these two items clearly demonstrate that Obama will not end up being a disappointment whatsoever to the far left element of his Democratic supporters.
To specifically address the bolded and underlined portions above.
Waxman is considered a liberal by most standards, yet the article is asserting that Dingell is just a "Democrat" and not exactly a liberal, or this is at least what is implied in the article you posted. However, I don't see this as a "hard turn to the left" as much as I see it as a political power struggle among several people on the left. Dingell's support for consumer safety laws is very much a liberal position and if Waxman is railing against this, then Waxman is either more 'Republican' on this particular issue or he is just using this as a reason to rail against a political opponent. I suspect the latter.
Many will point out Pelosi as the uber liberal from hell, personally, I think this woman is little more than a political goblin that is in office because she is a ruthless self serving political hack without a single moral fiber in her body. While she certainly favors the more expansionist and progressive approach that we would all look at as liberal, she at the same time has capitulated to the Executive Branch at nearly every turn of the road. If she were a truly liberal person fighting the liberal cause, she would have progressed the most important concerns of liberals who elected her, namely the occupation of Iraq. This is one thing she might as well just read the White House talking points issued each morning. Hence, I think she is a self serving hack that makes me want to hurl my lunch whenever I hear her speak.
Obama in all likelyhood owes a few political favors to a good number of powerful Democrats, but there are few powerful democrats who are truly liberal anymore. Most Democrats today are only mildly different from their contemporary Republican counterparts and again, I merely have to point to one of the single biggest issues, the war on terror and our occupations in the Middle East (general foreign policy) to see this.
While I haven't posted here much, I have been catching up on my reading, and one thing I have noticed across not just the blogosphere but in mainstream commercial media is that big L liberals are frothing at the mouth fuming mad at a number of Obama's picks, as they are far more centrist and almost hawkish. While his appointments by themselves mean little as to how he will govern, I do believe it gives greater insight to how he will govern in a general fashion. Today's "centrist" is far far to the right of liberals from merely 20 years ago. Look around... The biggest argument from the right that I am hearing is that Obama is picking so many Clintonistas.
I suspect that if Obama were not faced with economic catastrophe, two Middle East occupations and Russia rattling their saber's as though they were suddenly globally relevant again, then we would see a more liberal agenda. I'm only saying that circumstances are forcing him to take a far more centrist and when compared to even W Bush, a more conservative approach.
My magic number was 3. If Democrats couldn't convince three Republicans that something was a good idea, then chances are it is either a very partisan thing or simply a bad idea. There are still enough moderate and sensible Republicans out there that I'd be comfortable with their decisions. Such as the likes of Olympia Snow of Maine for instance.
Just for kicks, I took a stroll over to the Democratic Underground and to the Daily Kos this morning and couldn't help but notice how incensed the far left coastal liberal types were at Obama's choices thus far. In part due to his picks of past Clintonista's and in part because he has so far moved to a very centrist position in several of his cabinet choices and the direction (or appearance of) his governing style.
If Obama continues to move towards the middle, then the ability to pick up moderate Republicans will greatly increase and hopefully enough so that Lieberman becomes little more than an inflamed Appendix.
With Franken and Burris, Democrats have 57, imagine that.
Well after a few months it is already starting to look like more and more Liberals getting their noses wrinkled with a variety of choices and positions Obama has made thus far. As expected, the remnant of the "hit man" style GOP lingers on as they continue to torch the most conservative liberal to ever become President elect in modern times.
We haven't sworn the guy in and its been noting but that famous oft repeated quote, "May you live in interesting times".
Well that would have been funny in a very Sarah Palin kind of way but Reagan uttered those lines while giving testimony before a federal grand jury! Truth is always stranger than fiction
Iran-Contra
Here is something stranger...
In portions of Bill Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times.
THE CLINTON LEGACY (http://www.prorev.com/legacy - broken link)
When testifying in court or before Congress the following said they "didn't remember," "didn't know" or something similar:
Hillary Clinton------- 250 times
Bill Kennedy-------- 116 times
Harold Ickes-------- 148 times
John Podesta------- 264 times
Bruce Lindsey------- 161 times
For the first time, I read all the way through this thread. Somehow, I missed it before. No personal attacks. Just thoughts, opinion, and insight. How refreshing it has been to read intelligent posts without personal attacks. I wish all threads progressed in this manner. It would certainly help my blood pressure!
In portions of Bill Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times.
THE CLINTON LEGACY (http://www.prorev.com/legacy - broken link)
When testifying in court or before Congress the following said they "didn't remember," "didn't know" or something similar:
Hillary Clinton------- 250 times
Bill Kennedy-------- 116 times
Harold Ickes-------- 148 times
John Podesta------- 264 times
Bruce Lindsey------- 161 times
Doesn't surprise me in the least bit, then again, I was no fan of Clinton. Of course at least when Reagan did it, he was probably telling the truth, he didn't actually remember. Sadly, I don't think he recalled much of his last 18 months in office which is great if you are shopping for one of those Manchurian types.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Jarrett
Obama is not even conservative by Illinois/California/Vermont standards, let alone conservative by the bible belt standards.
Obama isn't a conservative but compared to G W. Bush, Dennis Kucinich was almost conservative in comparison. Which is the reason for the "?" and the suggestion that he is more conservative than... If anything, I would say Obama is proving to be a moderate so far, and if he is as liberal as many claim, then I suspect that we won't see this until the latter portion of his term, as has already been discussed in detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesAbilene
For the first time, I read all the way through this thread. Somehow, I missed it before. No personal attacks. Just thoughts, opinion, and insight. How refreshing it has been to read intelligent posts without personal attacks. I wish all threads progressed in this manner. It would certainly help my blood pressure!
Like going to a fight and having a hockey game break out huh. Believe it or not, it happens once in a while and I wish it happened more often.
Well for those folks out there who carried on about how Obama was the most Liberal Democrat to grace our politics in a long time, I have to say... HA.. BS.
So, Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan and may very likely end up intervening in Pakistan. He isn't going to reduce the troops by the numbers he claimed during the election as "things have changed" in Iraq, then again, I pointed out that this would be the case long before the election.
Obama has taken a conservative and non-interventionist stance thus far with Israel and their desire for American cover and support for a military strike on Iran. Obama has shown great reluctance to investigate the source of his already publicly stated opinion, that waterboarding IS torture.
More and more each day, Obama is becoming far far more centrist than liberal as so many claimed. Maybe the GOP could invite him to join their party since they have so much in common these days. <~ /humor
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
