Scheming Republicans
Why are congressional Republicans refusing en masse to support President Obama’s stimulus package? Are they sticking to their guns for conscientious reasons? Or are they just playing politics? If they latter they should kee
p in mind that 74% of the American public believe that President Obama is trying to compromise with the congressional Republicans while only 39% of Americans believe congressional Republicans are trying to compromise with the President. Some Republicans seem to think that compromise requires equality between two sides to a political dispute. If two individuals both want an apple pie, a compromise requires splitting the pie in two equal halves. According to this view of compromise, both the Republicans and Democrats should each have an equal share of the stimulus pie. After subtracting those issues upon which there is agreement, each Party should get an equal share of the remainder. In ordinary circumstances, such a conception of compromise might be plausible, but certainly not in politics. If this conception applied to political compromises, why have elections at all. If the will of the electorate was to give the Democrats control of Congress and the Presidency, then the lion’s share of the compromise should go to the Democrats. “Compromise” in a republican democracy means that the electoral winner should take the loser’s suggestions into account and implement some suggestions while rejecting others. During the Bush administration, Democrats were virtually shut out of policy making. Now, President Obama has met with all the congressional Republicans and he’s dropped some elements of the Democratic Congress’s version of the stimulus package the Republicans found unacceptable. But that’s not enough for congressional Republicans. Why? They seem to believe that should get an equal share of the pie. But that, in effect, would, betray the verdict in the last election. The Democrats won and are bound by that victory to favor their own programs, especially when up against intransigent Republicans. So what do Republicans want? Their obduracy is hurting the possibility of planting the seeds of an economic recovery. They care more about politics than they do about the nation. Congressional Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that their indifference to the plight of the American public can backfire on their political scheming.
politics. More accurately, it means washing away the Democratic Party’s abomination, Clintonism, the Republican Party’s favorite Democrats. It returns the Democratic Party to its roots–the oppressed–with one significant difference. That difference is a pragmatic commitment to progressive, deliberative democracy, to working out progressive solutions in a messy universe of conservatism, moderation, and liberalism. Progressive, deliberative democrats don’t insist on winning every battle. What they are dedicated to is exhaustive, respectful discourse involving each major perspective in political and social disputes. Consequently, with deliberative democracy the sky’s the limit. Progressivism, when you can get it; but inclusiveness and respectful interactions with one’s opponents always.
McCain. . . . However the election ultimately turns out, the Obama campaign has tapped into a constituency that holds powerful implications for the future of American politics. The youngest of these voters, those ranging in age from roughly the late teens to the early 30s, are part of the so-called millennial generation. . . . This is a generation that is in danger of being left out of the American dream — the first American generation to do less well economically than their parents. And that economic uncertainty appears to have played a big role in shaping their views of government and politics.” Continue reading 
Michigan delegations? Will she deploy this “secret weapon” defying Party loyalty and commonsense? Consider Thomas B. Edsall’s post at the Huffington Post: “Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month. . . . With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party’s 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee 
Democrats. Here’s the first couple of paragraphs: “In the wake of the series of profound failures that define the 2007 Democratic Congress, there is much debate over what accounts for this behavior. There are almost 300 ‘Congressional Democrats’ and they are not a monolithic group. Some of them are unrelenting defenders of their core liberal political values and some are committed to providing meaningful opposition to the radicalism and corruption of the Bush administration. But as the sorry record of the 2007 Congress conclusively proves, they are easily outnumbered in the House and Senate–especially the Senate–by Bush-enabling and Bush-supporting Democrats. . . . The standard excuse offered by many apologists for Bush-enabling Democrats–that they support the Bush agenda and capitulate to the right-wing noise machine due to political fear of being depicted as too liberal or ‘soft on terror’–is clearly inapplicable to many, if not most, of the enablers. California’s Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein provides a perfect case study for understanding why the Congress has done virtually nothing to oppose the most extreme Bush policies, while doing much actively to support it.” If ever there was a time for a new political party to replace the Democrats . . . that time is now.
Day. Edwards appeared in Pittsburgh, home of the Steelworkers’ international headquarters, for a Monday morning rally. “America was not built on Wall Street. America was built by steelworkers and mine workers,” Edwards said as he accepted their support. The former senator from North Carolina, who has worked hard to get labor endorsements, has also secured the backing of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The steelworker and mine worker endorsements mean that Edwards now has more labor endorsements than any of the other Democratic presidential candidates.” Now Edwards appears to be the most serious Democrat regarding labor and health issues both of which are related to the well-being of the American economy. If businesses cannot find a way to pay for the health insurance of their employees either the business or the economy will suffer. And if either or both suffer, American economic health will be compromised. Labor and health issues have been historically important issues for the Democratic Party. So consider this: How about an Edwards-Obama ticket? Edwards reflects where the Democrats have been and Obama reflects where the Democrats should be going, not in 2008, but in 2016.
The chance of the Democrat controlled Congress initiating impeachment hearings again the Bush administration is negligible. But why? What “crimes and misdemeanors” has he committed? How about the following for starters? (1) lying to the American people about the case for invading Iraq. of course, he wasn’t under oath, so maybe his lies were just “white lies” some prevarication one tells that has no serious consequences, (2) his grossly incompetent planning and execution of the his war in Iraq, (3) unconstitutionally arrogating to the executive branches power an authority that are inherent powers of the Presidency only if the United States Constitution creates a “soft” dictatorship, (4) using funds to carry out covert and illegal operations in the Middle East never appropriated for such purposes–that’s the reason billions of dollars intended for reconstruction of Iraqi society cannot be accounted for (5) in capable or unwilling t to responsibility respond to such natural catastrophe’s as Katrina. But now, Mr. Bush’s criminal negligence extends to the 
changing the Party in power through impeaching the President and vice-President absolutely forbidden? Liberals somehow believe that in cases where one party controls Congress but not the presidency, impeaching the Pres. and VP flies in the face of republican democracy. These same liberals decry the absence of a constitutionally authorized no-confidence procedure, but when it comes to using procedures constitutionally available, they freeze. But shouldn’t the 2006 congressional elections repudiating Mr. Bush’s war provide substantial evidence that the electorate is open to a power change of this sort? For some mysterious reasons Democrats bark and growl, but when it comes to acting, formalist rationalizations control. For Democrats to display fidelity to the results of the past election they must rethink their timidity for the sake of our troops, the nation, and the world.
