Tho I voted for Dems I hope they don't get a filibuster proof Senate

Several Senate races are yet to be decided. I guess it remains possible that the Dems could get a 60 person/filibuster proof Senate. I hope not.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

During the first 6 years of this administration the working methodology between Bush and the Congress led to excesses that didn't work for the nation. Almost all would agree that spending went out of control.



There were no controls. The GOP rolled over Dems and dominated legislation without any controls. Pork was out of control, but that wasn't the worst. The drug legislation was a pure give away to GOP industry buddies and ended up costing and will cost dramatically more than was debated.

During the last 2 years, I found the Dems, especially in the Senate totally bottled up by the GOP. The slim Dem majority proved worthless to pass Dem oriented legislation and then was blocked or potentially blocked by the White House. At the very least effective blocks keep legislation from getting too politically skewed.

Going forward the Dems have big majorities. The govt. has enormous challenges with a morbid US economy in conjunction with or having caused a morbid world wide economy. Every industry under the sun is going to ask for bailouts.

In any case I have no problems with effective efforts to stem or alter legislation to try and achieve some balance that reflects a wide variety of opinions and is subject to wide ranging political commentary.

We will see what happens going forward.

 

It seems that with failed "Republican Revolution" following Clinton's terms, and the current sweep of Dems in rejecting Bushco, politics are becoming more polarized.

I suspect that by the time Obama is done, folks will be fed up with Dems and there will be another large move to the right (assuming the neocons aren't still calling the shots in the GOP).

 

Unless..... Barack stays true to his word and unites the parties. And with the political clout he has after this win and his own personal celebrity, I think he can.

We are now living in 2008 A.B.

 

Let's hope the dems are as incompetent as the republicans were when they had the chance to do something LOL. i doubt this though. they call themselves "progressive" for a reason. there will be no compromises, they will take no prisoners.

 

You want a check on spending and ridiculous legislation? Repeal the 17th amendment.

 

I'm scared of spending, although I don't know if there's anymore reason to be scared of the dems when it comes to this anymore, and I'm especially scared of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Support_for_reinstitution_of_the_Fairness_Doctrine

When did "liberals" abandon liberalism?

 

The Democrats fell short of a filibuster-proof majority. However, moderates Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania may cut deals with the dems.

The last time the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority was when Jimmy Carter was President.

 

Over the long haul of history the nation veers left and right. Some suggest that mostly after 8 years of one party in power the population is tired of them and want a change. Another reason could be after 8 years one party has simply veered to much to the left or right and made mistakes.

Bogart: Yes there are some more moderate members of the GOP senate as you referenced. They are potential deal makers w/ the Dems.

On the other side of the coin, it will be interesting to watch the hard Right reps in the Congress. They are the ones that voted against the bailout bill twice. They will probably be the loudest voice in DC for Rightist Repub issues. They are in a minority now,....but time always tells.

In any case a Senate that cannot break a filibuster inevitably allows for a variety of opinions.

On a second level the Dem leadership in the House and Senate has nowhere's near the power and ability to deliver all votes as did Delay specifically in the House, while he was in a leadership position. He absolutely drove unanimity in a way that has hardly ever been seen in history.

I don't think we will see anything like that for a while.

 

The US is a center-right nation. The House of Representatives will be hesitant to go to far to the left so that they do not face the same backlash as the during the Clinton years.

 

As to the House, it has strong components of the GOP Study Group which includes many to the Right, and included many who voted against the Bailout both times.

The House also includes a fair amount of Blue Dog Dems, (who Emanuel helped get elected). They also oppose a far left agenda.

I know there will be pushes from the far left for their agenda. I expect some of it to be passed. I simply hope enuff of it is blocked to not tilt the ideological movement and governance too far in the left direction.

 

Harry Reid has is thinking about removing Libermann as charmain of the homeland security committe. The Republicans have invited Libermann to join them.

 

Saw that. Another interesting development. Should Liebermann join the GOP he would be of the left side of the party. He does have a lot of years left in the Senate, though, so whereever he ends up could have impact 2 and 4 years down the line.

 

I've heard a lot of people speculate that Obama will lead from the middle. I hope so. I'm not questioning his intentions to do what he thinks is right. I have questions about whether what he thinks is right is right for America. If he can lead from the middle, he'll be a good President. Only time will tell if he's capable of doing so.

 

I hope so too. I know the hard evidence is difficult to pin down. On the other hand, McCain's long history, clearly suggested that he was not a hard devotee of the Right.

Obama's legislative history was thin. How can one tell? The suggestions that he might move from the middle, to me, came from his choice of Mark Warner as keynote speaker at the Dem convention, and relationship with Tim Kaine. Both of those guys are from Virginia. Kaine is the current gov and Warner, the former gov, was just elected Senator. Both act in a middle of the road way. I think Virginia voters recognized that. They just overwhelmingly elected Warner Senator in a race against another recent former governor, Gilmore, who was hard to the Right.


Right or middle, who knows for sure? The other deteminant is that the nation is in the midst of a miserable financial crisis. He may just govern from a position of trying to deal with the problems, right, left, middle, green, white or black? who knows?

 

Any consideration is what the left wing of the party like Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, Kennedy and Co. will do.

Obama may find that he is the tail wagging the dog.

 

If President O follows his campaign rhetoric he'll be on the right of Pelosi and crew. If he follows his track record he'll be about even with them. He's not gonna have a perfectly fillibusterproof legislative side... but it wont take but a handful of left-leaning Republicans to make it darn close to being one... and there are several that come to mind.

If he tries to lead from the middle he'll have more trouble with the Dems than the GOP... as he'll have to deal with the element that will want to use the hammer while its there... push thru as much of the far left agenda as possible during the window available. Hard majorities tend to be shortlived.

Be interesting to see where he positions himself.

 

After the election Pawlenty made interesting comments about where the GOP needs to go. I'm sure there will be an enormous amount of infighting in that regard.

Regardless he brought up specific issues which the GOP doesn't do a good job of addressing. In a different but overlapping manner, Gingrich is a major proponent of "ideas" and might be searching for ways to attack some issues that impact today's population, that address the issues and solve problems for voters, but do it in ways that cover GOP concerns.

What I might consider far right, some of you guys might consider as GOP middle of the road and vice versa. Some of the pols you guys reference are dealing with issues that grab voters' concerns, its just that the GOP is seriously not dealing with the issues in any way that addresses problem solving. Come up with viable ideas.

The dems will be combustible. Dems don't coalesce like the GOP.

 

I don't know... Bush led from the middle and even dabbled in socialistic behaviors (bailout anyone?)

Fiscal liberal. Now we have another fiscal liberal.

 

I read some stuff yesterday and today speaking about big policies offered by Presidents and about the evolution of the filibuster.

In tracking over time, since Kennedy and Johnson, Presidents, both dems and repubs have progressively offered fewer and fewer big programs. It referenced how more recent Presidents have had to offer programs that adjust and tinker w/ existing programs rather than offer big programs. Were Obama to push a big Health Program that would be big, no doubt.

Meanwhile it appears Lieberman is considering meeting with GOP rather than dems. That is an ongoing story. I guess only he knows.

Finally, I read that the filibuster was generally not used much at all until 1992, instituted by Dole as a block against big Dem majorities, that only lasted 2 years. Since then both parties bring it up.

If it hadn't been significantly used till then, I'd suggest that it is a reflection of today's (the last 16 years) method of partisan politics.

Should Obama aggressively consider and consult with the GOP moving forward starting in Jan/Feb, it might relegate the filibuster to a scarcely used technique again.

 

Filibuster has a long and glorious (actually, boring, since they generally are) history prior to 1992.

Lieberman was in the process of getting censured or kicked outta the DNCs caucus last I heard... or at least it was under consideration as a thanks for his efforts on McCain's behalf. I dont recall the details but he was pretty much off all the Christmas gift lists.