posted
The biggest thing you'll see from Democrats is hearings on the war, and in general, a lot more closely scrutinizing oversight of the entire war efforts. They won't just pass all of Bush's requests without stopping to see what they are funding, and who knows really, what they will do.
But Republicans can't really stop them at this point. The only way Bush can get in their way, is to lock up documents under executive privilege, and I can't really imagine what would make him do that, other than his having something to hide.
The right says that all we see on the news is bad stuff on Iraq, and the left says that the right is lying about Iraq, and it really is that bad. One of them could be right, it could be something in the middle, but whilst fighting this war, and searching for an end, I'd be perfectly okay with the Democrats calling anyone and everyone into a hearing room to find out what is REALLY going on, and then release all the results to the public, a la the 9/11 Comission Report. The Baker Report will be coming out soon, with recommendations on how to fix Iraq, I look forward to careful scrutiny of those plans.
Democrats aren't going to have us out of there before the end of 2007, but setting benchmarks and timetables is perfectly fine with me. Mostly because not setting them means we're almost planning on staying there FOREVER, which isn't viable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, I wish you were right about the situation being salvagable. It really isn't, though and the longer we stay there, the more unsalvagble it is. Do not look for "a victory for the American and Iraqi people". The administration has perpetuated this myth that all we have to do to win is wait. That is just not true. The longer we wait, the more armed and trained and deadly the civil war is going to be. The best we can do is to minimize the damage we do from now on.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I note it says nothing about his participation in Iran-Contra: ie the guns for drugs for US military technology trade between the CIA, LatinAmerican death squads, and the Iranians.
posted
aspectre, it specifically mentions him withdrawing a nomination for CIA director based on his involvement in Iran-Contra.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let us bear in mind that a number of the new Democrat seats taken in Congeress are by Democrats who are conservative. So the Democrat stronghold on Congress may not be as effectively total as some may suppose. People like Senator Joseph Lieberman still pretty much support the president's policies in Iraq. Democrats certainly do not have a large enough majority to stop any Republican fillibusters.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Historically, there has been a far far higher percentage of Democrats likely to vote with the Republicans on any given issue than Republicans likely to vote with the Democrats. Which is why WillRogers noted: I don't belong to any organized political party... I'm a Democrat. Those who expect major changes in US policies are due to be greatly disappointed. Other than on the issues of a minor increase in minimum wage (one absurdly less than the purchasing power lost due to inflation over the last decade-plus), better oversight to prevent looting of government contracts, a decrease in "pork barrel"ing, and possibly a change in the free drugs program to allow Medicare to negotiate with manufacturors on drug prices and to eliminate the "donut hole", President Bush will have a lot more leverage with the Democrats in modifying Congressional legislation than he ever did with the Republicans in control.
posted
Given his links to the Iran-Contra scandal, I wonder if they will try to push through Gates confirmation during the lame duck session while the Republicans still hold the majority in the Senate.
Doing that would be very sleezy politically, but predictable.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that the main opponent to confirmation as CIA head has already stated his approval, I doubt that such partisan manuevering will be necessary.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, I hope the Senate pushes through the judicial nominations for all those who have cleared committee.
It seems responsible to restart the committee process for those who have not been reported out. Delaying nominees who have already had hearings does not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Let us bear in mind that a number of the new Democrat seats taken in Congeress are by Democrats who are conservative. So the Democrat stronghold on Congress may not be as effectively total as some may suppose. People like Senator Joseph Lieberman still pretty much support the president's policies in Iraq. Democrats certainly do not have a large enough majority to stop any Republican fillibusters.
Who cares? Sorry but, Dems got what they wanted. Whether or not the 20 or 30 newbies in the Congress are centrist or not doesn't matter. Having control of the House is immensely important and powerful. Democrats can effectively stifle ALL Republican legislation from reaching the floor now, just like the GOP did to them over the last 12 years.
And I doubt people will miss the irony of Republican fillibusters to halt Democratic legislation after a few years of Republicans chastizing Democrats six ways from Sunday over their efforts. I guess Republicans just want to get in the way and gum up the works, and don't care about America. That's the charge Republicans made agaisnt Democrats when they tried to stop what they saw as damaging legislation. It must be true of Republicans too.
aspectre -
I wouldn't call a two dollar raise in the minimum wage "minor." What would you consider a fair increase to be? Two dollars is what, a 40% increase? That's nothing to shake a stick at, and it's more than most of the states that have an individually increased minimum wage.
I'm going to call it right now, I think there WILL be a shift in Iraq policy in the next two years. Democrats are going to call hearing, and they will scrutinize every move made on Iraq. Sure we aren't leaving tomorrow, but I bet we're on our way out by the time the next election rolls around. Bush is going to get pressure from both sides of the aisle now to change our strategy there, and between us saying we want out, and Iraq's government telling us to get out, Bush is going to be hardpressed to be the only man in the world saying we need to stay.
You're also going to see a change in immigration policy. Bush and the Democrats will get a guest worker program pushed through.
You'll see tax cuts for middle class families, no renewals of any tax cuts that are set to expire in the next couple years. And you might also see some tax hikes and increased regulation on Big Oil. Republicans can't afford to be tagged as Big Oil's buddies, it only serves to further Democratic claims of corruption.
We've already seen Rumsfeld fired, and Bush talking about being open to new ideas. Change is in the wind.
But the biggest efforts will be made on a domestic front. Democrats WON'T roll out what you might think of as a Liberal wishlist, but you will see a dozen major pieces of legislation rolled out and you'll see a stifling of the type of legislation along the lines of the Patriot Act. For better or for worse, Democrats have been trying to grow a spine in the last year, and I think this is the final push needed to finish that off. They're emboldened, and they feel this is their chance, and I think they'll hit the ground running.
Even if they lose half the battles they fight, due to Republican fillibusters or Bush vetoes, they'll do it anyway. It gives them canon fodder in two years if the Republicans kill popular measures, and it may hurt them in 08.
Also look for healthcare reform. There will be a push to cover ALL children, regardless of their financial situation. And there will be a big push to negotiate prices of prescription drugs with pharmaceuticals. Pharmas will lose some income, but they still make well more than enough of the billions necessary to R&D and still turn a profit. You'll also see a push for more, cheaper generics.
You're also going to see some MAJOR pushes for renewable energies, clean coal (bleh!) and nuclear power. Democrats are going to make energy independence one of the centerpieces of their "comeback." Green reform is already a pretty popular in business, do to the savings it can afford. That will turn to a major push for actual power generation.
Finally, look for a revisiting of education in this country. Democrats will push for a new, bigger tax credit to replace the HOPE and the other two (whose names I forget) for College education, look for ways to make it more affordable in general, and you'll see a hard, hard look at No Child Left Behind. Bush's plan for public schools didn't work, and it isn't going to be rubber stamped for renewal.
Just my guesses anyway, I look forward to seeing how many of them hold true in the next year or two.
Edit to add: Forgot to add, you'll probably also see a big, big push for an increase in fuel efficiency. Quite frankly, this isn't as anti-car company as you might think. The rest of the world's car consumers almost all live in nations that have much higher fuel economy standards than we do, even China. Forcing US producers to live up to higher standards makes them more competitive abroad, and if we can even push ours above those of other nations, while making sure domestics can keep up, gives them a major edge in domestic markets, while cutting our dependence on oil, cutting emissions, and in general is better for the country.
posted
Gimmee a break. The Republicans will start filibustering the instant they cease holding the majority.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Given his links to the Iran-Contra scandal, I wonder if they will try to push through Gates confirmation during the lame duck session while the Republicans still hold the majority in the Senate.
Doing that would be very sleezy politically, but predictable.
His confirmation hearing has already been set for early December. Democrats could delay it if they wanted, most likely, until after the new Congress convenes, but we'll see. Either way, I think it's December 4th, you're going to see it start.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Gimmee a break. The Republicans will start filibustering the instant they cease holding the majority.
Yeah, and that REALLY made the Democrats popular when they weren't in power didn't it?
If Republicans fillibuster EVERY reform the Democrats try and put forth, it's going to KILL them in two years. They know that. They know they have to choose their battles.
Besides, Republicans can't fillibuster ANYTHING in the House, House rules don't allow it (I believe).
And if they try it in the Senate too much, Democrats will threaten to do exactly what Republicans threatened to do, eliminate fillibusters entirely, and then they are REALLY in trouble.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Party lines will be crossed, not for any agenda that is left or right, just common sense.
No Christian Morality will be legislated. No Aethistic Secular Assaults on Religion will be legislated.
People will be free to live as Godly and religious a life as they desire. No laws to encourage or discourage.
They will work to fight cronyism as hard as they will work to fight communism. Neither one works. More oversight to fight back room deals, non-bid spending, as well as pork and giveaways.
They won't cut social security, but they won't add benefits to buy votes.
They won't run from Iraq, but they won't blindly "Stay the course".
Why? Because things are too close for one side or the other to bully enough votes through for either a conservative or liberal coup.
Liberals will be upset. Conservatives will be upset. Most of us, however, will be pleased.
Look what Arnie did in Cali--he went from confrontational Conservative with no standing in the polls to benificent bipartisan, to win.
Finally, the Gates confirmation will be over and done with quickly. Dems may want to question all the Presidents men, but the campaigned on getting rid of Rumsfeld. They want him gone, and won't embarrass themselves slowing it down.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, what was bad about the Democrat obstructionism is that they were obstructing the president's court nominations by not allowing them to be voted upon, which many saw as an unconstitutional failure on the part of Democrats to do their duty under the law. They have the right to vote against the president's court noiminees, but they do not have the legal right not to vote on presidential court nominees. Use of the fillibuster is illegal here. The constitution requires them to vote on presidential court nominees. Either they obey the constitution, or they have violated their oaths of office.
Since for the next two years the executive branch is still in Republican hands, this issue will not come up for Republicans in Congress. Democrats would have to try to delay voting on presidential nominees for over two more years yet, which would make them look pretty ridiculous, and expose them to nationwide contempt. Plus guarantee that they can expect the same treatment the next time there is a Democrat in the White House.
At some point cooler heads must prevail, and hot-headed partisanship put aside, and Democrats are going to have to perform their constitutionally required duty.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BQT, I wish you were right about the situation being salvagable. It really isn't, though and the longer we stay there, the more unsalvagble it is. Do not look for "a victory for the American and Iraqi people". The administration has perpetuated this myth that all we have to do to win is wait. That is just not true. The longer we wait, the more armed and trained and deadly the civil war is going to be. The best we can do is to minimize the damage we do from now on.
Well, a guy can't hope can't he?
There are too many political threads, I can't recall which ones I've posted which thoughts in. Basically I don't see a Democrat hasty withdrawl or a Republican wait and see policy as minimizing damage. I think an aggressive benchmark process and an attempt to garner more international involvement would do a lot to improve things. The only problem is that I think such a benchmark process is fundamentally a military operation and releasing it to the general public (which would include insurgents) could be counter-productive.
One problem with achieving such benchmarks is that it would probably take more soldiers over there than we currently have. Democrats would have a hard time pressuring for more troops over there now after riding in on campaign promises to bring the troops home. I believe that such a move would bring more troops home faster in the long run, while allowing us to execute our responsibilities to the Iraqi citizens.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mass evacuation under the cover of nuclear bomb induced blankets of flame, wouldn't that be the quickest way to, "cut and run?"
Seriously speaking though,
I think I agree that we actually probably need more troops, and obviously better methodology if we are going to bring our troops home without to use a faulty analogy, "Sewing up the patient whilst leaving all the surgical tools inside and still having not finished the bypass surgery."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, what was bad about the Democrat obstructionism is that they were obstructing the president's court nominations by not allowing them to be voted upon, which many saw as an unconstitutional failure on the part of Democrats to do their duty under the law. They have the right to vote against the president's court noiminees, but they do not have the legal right not to vote on presidential court nominees. Use of the fillibuster is illegal here. The constitution requires them to vote on presidential court nominees. Either they obey the constitution, or they have violated their oaths of office.
I'm curious. Where exactly does the constitution require the Senate to vote on a court nominee? If it does, why didn't this apply to the Republicans when they held Clinton's court nominee's in committee in order to avoid a floor vote. At one point Orrin Hatch refused to move any of Clinton's nominees through committee unless Clinton nominated Hatch friend for a court position. Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, I don't know. How many lives are going to be lost due to unfounded hope.
Blackblade, the analogy would be more along the lines of a surgeon using a chain saw to do the surgury. It is the wrong tool and will just do more damage the longer we try to use it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I gotta call foul on the "unconstitutional" nonesense as relates to not voting on judicial nominees.
The Senate sets its own rules. That's right there in the Constitution. Nor is the Senate required to vote on such nominees. In cases where action is required, the Constitution is pretty specific about. For example, it spells out the consequences in full detail if the President does not either veto or sign a law. Had they intended to make such a vote mandatory, the framers were smart enough to have added such a requirment.
Further, the majority always retained the power to override the filibuster by a simple majority if they chose to do so, which makes the Republicans just as culpable in any delay.
quote:Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
For the record, no (of course), and I did complain about it. Not that you asked me, but it means I get to complain about the slow pace here, too, without being inconsistent.
The constitution provides a remedy for a Senate that refuses to confirm appointments: recess appointments. Unless they stay in session permanently, the President has the power to make appointments as needed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Given his links to the Iran-Contra scandal, I wonder if they will try to push through Gates confirmation during the lame duck session while the Republicans still hold the majority in the Senate.
Doing that would be very sleazy politically, but predictable.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Considering that the main opponent to confirmation as CIA head has already stated his approval, I doubt that such partisan manuevering will be necessary.
Looks like Bush will try to get Gates confirmed in the lame duck session, as well as Bolton. I hope the Bolton nomination fails again.
quote: Bush to Ask Lame Duck Congress to Confirm Gates By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — The White House said today that it would seek Senate confirmation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s successor in the lame duck Congress that is about to reconvene, and that it would seek confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John R. Bolton as well.
posted
Democrats will stifle it, at least until the new Congress convenes, when they'll kill it outright.
I forgot about the Bolton thing. Dems are pretty pissy that Bush is trying to ram it all home before the new Congress.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
Look I'm sorry my state is uber conservative, and though they mean well MOST people do not really pay attention to what senator Hatch even does.
I am also sorry that like the rest of the state senators there is a 80% chance the incumbent senator will be reelected. I do not know why Utah is not different in this regard, Why does Massachusetts keep reelecting Ted Kennedy?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why does Massachusetts keep reelecting Ted Kennedy?
Well, before the Red Sox won the World Series a couple years ago, I'd have answered that question as:
People in Massachusetts don't have much else to look at for entertainment.
Either that, or MA feels some sort of responsibility to keep a Kennedy in government after America claimed the lives of the two greatest sons of the family.
quote: Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
Look I'm sorry my state is uber conservative, and though they mean well MOST people do not really pay attention to what senator Hatch even does.
I am also sorry that like the rest of the state senators there is a 80% chance the incumbent senator will be reelected. I do not know why Utah is not different in this regard, Why does Massachusetts keep reelecting Ted Kennedy?
BB, Utah is also my state but that's not why I brought up Hatch. I wasn't living in Utah under the Clinton administration and Hatch was making national news for blocking Clinton's court nominations. He was at the time the chair of the judiciary committee used that position to stall the and often block the process. Then when democrats tried the same game under Bush, he feined this moral indignation. My point was never to specifically complain about Orrin Hatch, although g-d knows there is plenty to complain about.
My point was that if the democrats were doing something which was unethical in opposing Bush's judicial nominees, they were doing nothing fundamentally different than Republicans like Orrin Hatch had done under Clinton.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
