Great. Now don’t you dare blow it!
Last night’s elections were a victory for the Democrats to be sure, but more importantly, they were a victory for America. In my opinion, balanced government is better government. And oversight is a very good thing. Perhaps, just perhaps, we will now have a chance to right some of the wrongs that have occurred in recent years.
The Democratic Party has an opportunity here. And damnit, you’d better not blow it. Cause if you guys screw up, you won’t have to worry about the Republicans holding your feet to the flames. You need to worry about people like me.
When the do-nothing, goose-stepping Republican Congress was taking a dump on the American people, I was shouting from the rooftops. If the Democrats follow suit, I’m gonna shout even louder. And so are countless Americans just like me.
I think the American people demonstrated yesterday that they are sick and fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, as well as in statehouses all over this country. We sent a message that it’s high time that our elected representatives start actually representing OUR interests, rather than their own, or those of their party.
So Democrats, celebrate your victory, but don’t gloat. Republicans, learn the lessons of this midterm election, so that you can right your ship and clean your house. But come January, the time for kissing and crying is over. It’ll be time to get back to work. THE PEOPLE’S WORK.
posted by Marlipern @ 11:50 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Congratulations are in order.
The Democrats, it appears, have succeeded in taking back the Congress. Now that you will have that responsibility, what exactly is the plan? You threaten your party with retribution, sure and swift, if “OUR interests” and “THE PEOPLE’S WORK” are not addressed but what, exactly, does that mean?
I hope you will post something about what the Democrats’ legislative vision/agenda should be for the next two years.
Gentlemen, gentlemen. I would have expected more than the standard talking point, "the Democrats don't have a plan". It's like I'm always pointing out... just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true. Bush has said this, Frist has said this, Rove has said this, Cheney has said this, etc. etc. And of course, Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, and others in the Democratic party have offered up ideas and vision for what they'd like to see accomplished; and just like clockwork, the Republicans immediately issue the soundbite, "the Democrats don't have a plan". Again, just because you repeat it doesn't make it true.
As for what I think the legislative agenda should be, I believe I covered that in a previous post. Please see "Let's talk ideas". I don't think I have to re-hash it here.
Pelosi has put forth the items she wants to see immediately acted upon... implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations on national security, raising the minimum wage to $7.25, eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies, allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, imposing new restrictions on lobbyists, cutting interest rates on college loans and supporting embryonic stem-cell research.
We'll wait and see if the Dems can do any better in actually accomplishing their agenda.
And Squire, my point wasn't to threaten retribution, it was to remind people that WE have the power to send a very clear message to our elected officials, as we did so last Tuesday. When it comes to the old adage, "vote the bums out!", I'm more than happy to apply that to Democrats as well as Republicans if the need arises.
As for my comment about doing “THE PEOPLE’S WORK”, I think it's self-explanatory, but I'll elaborate.
We live in a representative democracy where ideally, the majority rules the day. Of course that only works for the "majority" that shows up & lets their voice be heard. This election, I think we got a better look at what the middle class wants to see in our government.
Our elected representatives have not (in my opinion) been addressing many of the issues that are truly important to the "average" American. They have been catering to corporate, financial, and special interests. Often times at the expense of the middle class. I think the voters said on the 7th, "enough is enough".
Time will tell if our elected representatives got the message, and if the "average American" will remain engaged, or go back to being fat, dumb and happy.
Bigdog,
For the sake of civil discourse, I'll indulge you. But something tells me you haven't gone out of your way to do your own homework on what the Democrats have to say.
Regurgitating the con talking points doesn't qualify as doing your homework.
On the links below, you'll have to copy and paste to your browser. Links don't seem to work as well in the comments section of the blog.
This was shortly after the election:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11
/08/pelosi.speaker/index.html
This was in late July:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07
/27/campaign.2006/index.html
Related:
http://www.democraticleader.house.g
ov/pdf/NewDirection.pdf
An "Innovation Agenda" way back in February:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topst
ories/2006/20060214b.asp
There's plenty more out there, but as I said, do your own homework. If you paid attention, you wouldn't say you "havent heard a damn thing for 6 years".
I often don't agree with what is said from the right side of the political spectrum, and I sometimes don't agree with what is coming from the left. But I always make it a point to pay attention to what is being said from BOTH sides, so I can form my own educated opinion.
Marlipern,
Have you ever noticed that your comments directed at the Republicans often involve a vast right-wing conspiracy carrying out Karl Rove’s every wish? If that were true, they would have won the last election, don’t you think? Instead of setting up and knocking down the straw man why don’t you just answer the question? And please don’t tell me any Democrat candidate actually ran on “A New Direction For America”.
The war against radical Islam is the single most important issue facing this country; not raising the minimum wage or eliminating corporate subsidies. The Democrats do not have a plan for victory and by the way, redeploying to Okinawa does not count. Just because you say they have a plan does not make it so.
As for THE PEOPLE’S WORK being “self-explanatory”, surely you jest! We agree on very little so why would THE PEOPLE’S WORK be an exception?
A few observations:
First of all, and this may explain a great deal, we live in a constitutional republic not “a representative democracy where ideally, the majority rules the day”. “In a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. The United States of America is the oldest constitutional republic in the world and the first comprehensive experiment in this conceived form of government.” The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution do not contain the word “democracy”.
Second, the margin of victory in most of the races that gave Democrats control of Congress does not a mandate for vast change make. 23 races were decided by 2 percentage points or less.
Third, why is it always an economic zero sum game with the Left? Some poor person has to get screwed by the horrible corporations so they can make an evil profit? The stock market is in record territory and according to two finance industry trade groups, the Securities Industry Association and the Investment Company Institute in their joint survey, “Equity Ownership In America 2005” half of all U.S. households own stocks, either directly or in a mutual fund or retirement plan. Now I call that a “win-win”.
And finally, why is it that the “average American” is “engaged” as long as he votes with the Democrats and reverts to “being fat, dumb and happy” when he sides with the Republicans?
I think you’re tripping over your talking points!
Squire,
I did answer the question. Twice. But it will continue to be asked, because that is the talking point du jour.
"The war against radical Islam is the single most important issue facing this country". Interesting choice of words. A year or two ago, you would have used the term "global war on terror", or perhaps "the war on islamofascism". A rose by any other name, right? But why keep changing the name? And why does it seem that once the phraseology is changed by the administration, everyone on the right needs to follow suit?
I think it speaks to something that Austin Bramwell refers to in his article referenced in my next post, "conservatism is concerned less with truth than with distinguishing insiders from outsiders. Conservatives identify themselves in part by repeating slogans (“we are at war!”) that, like “ignorance is strength,” are less important for what (if anything) they say than for what saying them says about the speaker." This, coming from a conservative.
We can argue over the semantics, but you know what I meant when I used the term "representative democracy". We elect our representatives, who do the "people's work" in D.C., presumably representing our interests. Sorry if I didn't use the textbook terminology... civics class is a distant memory.
And you're right about mobocracy, as Jefferson pointed out: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
23 races? Out of 468 House and Senate races? You might want to use a more impressive statistic than that next time.
"why is it always an economic zero sum game with the Left? Some poor person has to get screwed by the horrible corporations so they can make an evil profit" I'm all for profit, for my company, for your company, and for the many companies that make up the American economy. But let me ask you... why is it that the Republicans seem to always be opposed to doing anything more to help those less fortunate in our country?
I've heard the argument, "Well, that's not the job of our governemt." Oh really? What happened to "promote the general welfare"? I know, it's a "quaint" idea, but I still subscribe to it.
As far as average Americans being engaged this election... you saw the same polls prior to the election that I did. It wasn't about Repub. vs. Dem., it was about the issues. I can't help it the Republicans were on the wrong side of the issues.
I asked about the Democrat’s plan to fight the war and I get “talking points” blah, blah, blah…. “why keep changing the name” of the war? blah, blah, blah…. Yet I do not get an answer. Set the straw man up and knock him down.
You can call Austin Bramwell a conservative but let’s at least agree he’s a terribly disaffected one. If I had been fired by WFB I suppose I would have a few axes to grind too. As I said, it’s much ado about nothing. I am certain that there is not a single decenting voice coming from inside the Left about the Left.
Semantics? Semantics? Yes, I knew exactly what you meant when you said representative democracy and then you proceeded to define it - “where, ideally, the majority rules the day”. I agree – that is a representative democracy but as I said that is not the form of government we live under. Please don’t dismiss my point by saying “civics class is a distant memory”. Your concept of what our government is and what it really is are fundamentally different. And as I said “this may explain a great deal”.
As for my lack of impressive numbers – I stand by my comment that the congressional change from Republican to Democrat was not of “mandate” proportions.
You have swerved away from your initial economic comment and are now on another path all together. And it pleases me to know that you are all for people making a profit. What worries me is that you seem equally eager to take it away to “promote the general welfare”. In previous comments you have said that the liberals are “idealists” and that the conservatives are “realists”. Using that as a basis, let me ask you to define doing “more to help the less fortunate in our country”. And then I’m going to ask you where it stops.
And finally, you completely missed my point about your “fat, dumb and happy” comment or chose not to answer it. Your comment was very dismissive of the very people that put the Democrats in charge of the Congress.
As I said, I did answer the question, twice. I was talking about the legislative agenda (as you and Bigdog had asked), and then you injected the war into the thread, which I was not talking about. That deserves a post all to itself, and I will be writing that post sometime soon. But the short answer is, I don't know the solution to the debacle in Iraq, and neither do you, and neither does Bigdog, and neither do the Democrats, and neither do the Republicans. It's a complicated issue, and it's going to take some top-notch political, military, and diplomatic minds to come up with that solution.
"You can call Austin Bramwell a conservative". Yes, I do. And so would anyone who gave the subject some serious thought. But that's beside the point. I was referring to his comments about the tendency within conservative circles to regurgitate the same talking points, word for word, over and over again. I'm seriously thinking of starting a new non-profit, "The United Conservative Thesaurus Fund". Perhaps then we can get some fresh thoughts from the right, or at least some fresh words.
Sure there's dissent within the left, as there should be. We don't march in lockstep. We also don't have our own comparing our inner workings with the totalitarian society in Orwell's "1984".
Fine, if it makes you happy, I will henceforth refer to our form of government as a "constitutional republic". I thought you understood what I meant, but you apparently didn't. I DO get how the system works. Believe it or not, I have read the Constitution, many, many times, and I do get it. When I said that "ideally, the majority rules the day" the key word was "ideally", and I was referring to citizen's participation in the electoral process.
And that speaks to the last point about being engaged or being "fat dumb, and happy". Too many people have been indifferent about participating in the political process for entirely too long. We, as a nation have been complacent, and we have gotten, as Franklin put it, the government "we deserve". But leading up to this election, there was a boiling, previously silent, majority who were sick and fed up with the war, with corruption, and with business as usual in D.C. And they participated!!! Voting turnout around the country was at levels typical of a Presidential election year, not a midterm. Could it be better? Sure. But I'm glad to see an improvement. The point I was making was about participation.
And quite frankly, next time around, if people show up in droves and vote Republican, more power to them. I won't complain about the results, though I may disagree with the majority. In the end, I still feel it's about "We The People". If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm more than a bit of a populist. And as always, decisions are made by those that show up.
Oh, and BTW, I "swerved" because you keep throwing branches on the road. :-)
Yes, I agree, there needs to be a limit to the level of taxpayer support provided to the less fortunate in the country. I don't advocate a "free ride" for anyone. But I certainly don't think we're there yet.
As for defining "more to help the less fortunate in our country”, how 'bout we start with things like what I've already tossed out there...
Raise the minimum wage.
Make college more affordable, or at least tax deductible.
Negotiating Medicare drug prices.
Over and above that, how about real health care reform in our country? It's a crime that 45 million Americans don't have health care coverage. And it's an outrage that a good portion of those are children. It's a travesty to see people going hungry in the wealthiest nation in the world.
But, as with so many other things, these issues deserve their own post.
More to come...
Hey Marlipern,
Did it ever occur to you that the reason college is so expensive is because of all the gov. programs? These institutions are hooked on gov. money. If they truly had to compete for the student dollar, things would change. Also who pays min. wage any more? MacDonalds pays more than that and so do most other entry level jobs. I think you know the min. wage talk is a tired ploy of the left wing to run up some votes. Why don't you think before you engage your mouth. ---- Valdez
Not talking about the war when I asked about the Democrats plans for the next two years in the Congress is tantamount to not discussing the 800 pound elephant (or donkey, if you like) in the room. It does deserve it’s own post as do many of these issues and since it is of primary importance, I hope we will see your article soon. I am heartened to see that you believe it will take “some top-notch political, military, and diplomatic minds to come up with that solution” and I can assure you they are already at work!
Please make up your mind Marli. And I quote from your previous post “"The war against radical Islam is the single most important issue facing this country". Interesting choice of words. A year or two ago, you would have used the term "global war on terror", or perhaps "the war on islamofascism". A rose by any other name, right? But why keep changing the name? And why does it seem that once the phraseology is changed by the administration, everyone on the right needs to follow suit? And now I get “Perhaps then we can get some fresh thoughts from the right, or at least some fresh words.” You don’t like it when the terms change but then you’d like some fresh words – typical.
OK – congratulations. You found some ex-conservative with an axe to grind whose opinion happens to coincide with yours for the moment. Bravo! And may I also remind you that just because you quote him does not make him right nor his comments gospel.
Not only will it make me happy that you “will henceforth refer to our form of government as a "constitutional republic" but you will also appear to be better informed and, by golly, I’ll bet people might even begin to like you too.
Marli, words mean things – especially when we’re talking about the founding principles of this nation. As I mentioned before, I understood exactly what you said. I’m not trying to score points on a technicality and I did not imply that you had never read the Constitution. But unfortunately for the Republic, civics class is an all too distant or non-existent memory for many of the voting public. They are too easily swayed by popular usage concepts like “democracy” and “majority rules” and often fail to appreciate the true brilliance of the people that started this little experiment. I believe we have another candidate for a separate post, perhaps titled “American Exceptionalism”?
Anonymous, I mean Valdez,
So the price of college tuition is so high because of all the money colleges get from the government? Yep, makes perfect sense.
And since all these benevolent companies are already paying entry-level employees such a high wage, why don't we just make it official by raising the minimum wage? Sounds good to me.
And BTW, I will "engage my mouth" whenever, wherever, and however I see fit. It's a free country, and this is MY blog.
If you don't like it, there are plenty of other blogs to troll around on.
Marlipern,
I thought you find this article posted yesterday by John Hinderacker at Powerline to be of interest in regards to your future post about government helping the less fortunate. I think it illustrates one of the main philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives on this issue.
Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks has written a book called Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. His conclusions echo all of the other research I've seen:
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
[L]iberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
Liberals tend to specialize in giving away other peoples' money.
Squire,
I'm sad to say that you are probably right on this one, as far as the numbers are concerned. But I would contend that among the American populace, most all of us have our hearts in the right place, liberal and conservative alike.
And the disparity may also have something to do with levels of disposable income. Traditionally, the vast majority of affluent households fall on the right side of the political spectrum.
I think something should also be said about WHERE the charitable dollars are going. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that much of the charitible money from the right side of the aisle is going to church-based (specifically Christian) organizations. And the question becomes how is it determined where that money gets spent.
So you see, if we all just become good little God-fearin', gun-totin', government-hatin' conservatives, we can solve all the worlds problems. (Gays, artists, free thinkers, non-Christians, and women who claim ownership of their own bodies need not apply)
I've got an even better idea... let's put the department of "Faith Based Initiatives" in charge of all charitible work within our country. The only prerequisite for getting assistance... Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. (again, Gays, artists, free thinkers, non-Christians, and women who claim ownership of their own bodies need not apply)
I know I'm exaggerating here, but I'm trying to make a point. Generosity is a good thing. Charity is a good thing. But the benefits of our nation's goodwill should not be limited by our religious, or political beliefs. EVERY American deserves a little help when they are in need, not just the ones who think like you do, believe as you do, and vote like you do.
Enough on this one. Time to move on to a new thread.
<< Home