Rights and responsibilities
Some brief reflections after yesterday's elections, structured as rights/responsibilities for both parties, which I obviously do not mean in any legal sense but use in a political context.
Democrats have the right to advance a progressive agenda in Congress. Expect the top margin Bush tax cuts to expire, expect negotiations on health care reform to start with Obama's proposal, expect to see increased spending on alternative energy, expect to see a gradual disengagement in Iraq. With a persuasive President on board, Democrats should be able to get a lot accomplished.
Democrats have the responsibility to move on. No backward looking investigations or payback for perceived wrongs. If a law needs to be strengthened or fixed to prevent abuses in the future, do so, but the nation right now cannot afford unproductive partisan squabbling.
Republicans have the right to obstruct bills in the Senate. The 60 votes threshold is arguably not the intended bar to pass legislation, but Democrats can either deal with the way the Senate operates or else try to peel off Republican support. If no Republican Senators will support a bill then maybe it needs improvement; at the same time, if Republicans are viewed as being unnecessarily obstructionist then they will lose more seats in 2010, resolving the issue.
Republicans have the responsibility to work with Obama in good faith. Either support or reject his proposals, but don't demonize or undermine them. Enough with the "socialist" or "defeatist" labels -- Americans know that both parties want to strengthen our nation, the debate should be about methods not motives.
Obama has the right to make mistakes. He has and he will, despite his excellent team and despite his typically thoughtful analysis of issues; there has never been a presidency free of error. We -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- have the responsibility to work at a local level to bring about the changes we want to see, and we can and should seek to correct mistakes made at higher levels or to push beyond what elected politicians are willing to back.
What would you add to this list? Anything you'd disagree with, or would put differently?
Comments :
Objection
1) People don't think that way. Democrats will not be rewarded with more seats in 2010 if the Republicans filibuster every bill to come down the pike. People will see a "do-nothing" Senate and a "do-nothing" House, but won't make the connection. This leads me to...
2) The Republicans are going to filibuster every last bill they can in order to push the "do-nothing" meme. "The Democrats control both houses of Congress and they still can't get anything done!" will be the rallying cry for the Republicans in 2010.
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I've yet to be proven wrong on my cynicism.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Democrats didn't get much done this session,
but Republicans lost seats. Granted it was a tough climate to run in for the GOP, but at the very least this seems to suggest that voters aren't judging solely on results but do also take into account what was politically possible.
(Also granted that there's a question as to how much of the Democrats failure to get much done was due to Republican threats of filibusters or veto, and how much was just due to their lack of interest in proposing or attempting to pass legislation many liberal voters wanted to see.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'll agree there
How many times did I hear that X was off the table because it wouldn't pass. If the bill doesn't pass, you've at least got the opposition on record as officially opposing it.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
This is true ...
but that isn't necessarily a virtue if a significant part of the opposition is in your own party.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This time the republicans will be forced to actually filibuster.
Sure, they'll be able to talk 20 to 40 hours but they'll eventually have to sit down & then the show is on.
The filibuster lite that Reid allowed previously won't work now.
You'd have to convince me
Why not? There were a few bills/amendments where Reid didn't even try to fight the filibusters. He came to an "agreement" with McConnell that those bills/amendments needed 60 votes to pass.
As I said when the war funding bills were up, the Republicans should have been glad I wasn't majority leader. I'd have kept the Senate in session until I was removed as leader or the filibuster was broken. 24/7/365. I'd have made sure the Sergeant-at-Arms was busy compelling the attendance of absent senators as well.
I argue that filibusters should only be reserved for when the Senator(s) filibustering believe the underlying bill or amendment is unconstitutional. Using them as a standard parliamentary tactic is abuse. And the only way to deal with such abuse is to put the full weight of other parliamentary tactics on those abusers.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I don't think this is an invenetion of Reid ...
It is just standard practice in the Senate anymore so that filibusters don't hold up progress on other items.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nuclear Option!
Just kidding, but I remember how many times it was raised and justified when the shoe was on the other foot. It seemed Democrats did not use the filibuster option much during the first six years of office (remember how quickly Alito and Roberts went through) because the Democratic consensus was that the voice of the people should be respected and that there are certain privileges in addition to the rights and responsibilities that come with the presidency also.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Oh how selective our memories become ...
So much for your "the Democratic consensus was that the voice of the people should be respected and that there are certain privileges in addition to the rights and responsibilities that come with the presidency also" theory. The mere existence of a group called the "Gang of 14" contradicts your premise, since the only reason the group existed was due to Democrats abusing the filibuster on judicial nominees.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4?
I think you need to read the article you cite. There were calls for a filibuster, but it never was acted on. That was what the Gang of 14 was all about: an agreement to avoid filibuster and vote for cloture.
Here is the full text of the section from your 'attempted a filibuster' link
above:
(Emphasis is mine.) How is it abused when it is not even used?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I vote for Brendan for POTUS!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Heh, thanks, but I don't think
you'd like my policies =)
I'm still trying to figure out what happened with the Senate and House races that Dems were leading in the polls but lost (or likely will lose). Maybe ticket splitting indicating a desire for divided government. Not sure until I can check the margins for Obama relative to those races, but offhand I'd say it looks like Republicans actually performed slightly better than expectations, and even McCain lost by less than expected with the appearance of a big win being due to slim victories in a few large states by Obama.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Less than expected?
The popular vote seems to be right in line with what the polls were saying going in. At least according to CNN's #s, Obama won by 6% - not much different from Pollster's average. I guess some of the individual states were a bit off from the polls, but they were off in both directions. Those big states that Obama won by slim margins were expected to be close, according to the polls. Overall, I think the polling this year was remarkably accurate.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sorry, you're correct, I had last night's numbers in mind
for the popular vote aspect when I wrote my comment -- I seem to recall it appearing closer in terms of national numbers, more like 4% than the current margin.
Edit: maybe that was pre-CA returns or something. My bad, I should have checked, thanks for the correction.
Anyway, I think it's fair to say that Republicans in general did perform better than expected, even if McCain didn't.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It's my hope that both Democrats & Republicans work together
in the next term. I think we share more than we differ, but it's those who've been trying to get their party a head who've made the most out of pointing out the differences. Examples that we all saw this last election season were differences that in may cases were plainly not true. But that didn't stop the marketing mavens from pulling statements out of their asses.
I want investigations!
I partly disagree. In situations where the Adminstration may have broken the law, we need to figure out what happened, and the people responsible need to be outed.
I'd have no problem with offering legal immunity to the people involved, but we do need to learn what happened.
With any luck, administration insiders will be more willing to talk to the press now the Republicans establishment has lost power. In that case, Congress/Obama will only need to get involved if incriminating evidence is being hidden behind "secret" classification.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
C'mon, you know better. On Jan 18th, dubya will be handing
out get out of Jail free cards like candy at halloween to every stinking one of them. And he won't be bashful or ashamed. Mark my words.
The one I want is Cheney, but he'll end up hoarding two or three Presidential Pardons...you'll see.
He won't need them.
Since he has done nothing wrong.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4