LA Times Reporters Warn of Dems’ Seeking Action
Posted November 13, 2006 on 12:24 pm | In the category Politics, Press | by JeffWell, on the 12th of November the dust had settled and it was time to begin warning of the impending disaster of the Democrats believing they had actually won the election. In a piece of journalism designed to bring the great press critic A.J. Liebling back from dead, the LA Times warns: “…Some of the very activists who helped propel the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding what they consider their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism….”
We just went through a period of Republican rule that has given us an untenable, counterproductive war, tax breaks for the very very wealthy, a prescription drug program that is a gift to big Pharma, a deficit that mortgages the country to China, faith-based initiatives aimed at eliminating the division between church and state, the demise of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens, use of torture to get questionable information, a refusal to use diplomacy to attack serious challenges abroad, the loss of allies’ trust and faith in the U.S. – the list goes on.
And what do we have from the LA Times? Omigod, the people who won the election actually believe they won the election! They might actually try to use that fact to change the direction of the country. The Times article warns of attempts to reduce health costs, to force the executive to follow constitutional law and to find a way out of Iraq.
The Democrats won the election and it is their turn. And while they certainly have the capacity to screw it up it is very difficult to imagine a more incompetent, venal Congress that the one that is currently embarking on a lame duck flurry of unpleasant and unwanted actions.
We can expect more of this kind of thinking (sic) in the press; the view that the Democrats must be careful and not fulfill the promise of their victory. We need a more competent press and it is papers like the LA Times that need to serve that role.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Jeff’s point about the LA Times article is of course right and the NY Times has a related piece worth reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/politics/12class.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
The thing is that there wasn’t one voter who changed the control of Congress. There were lots of different voters with lots of different rationales and expectations. This article gives me heart that maybe the most elemental issue might be addressed: does the body want consensus on governing or is it hungry for something else? If ideology is replaced by ideology there isn\\’t really a change. If intolerance gives way to compromise then I think we could be on our way to regaining our national soul. This article seems to say that the newbees think the machine is broken and that is where change has to come first. I think that myself. For going on 16 years now the driver of the national debate has been partisan dogma. It kills thought, civility, debate, and people. Bi-partisan collaboration– or better the near non-partisanship of the 70’s and 80’s–is the change I hope we achieved. It is the only way to recapture an element of governance and drive out the gamesmanship. If Congressional democrats don’t aspire to be better statesmen than their GOP predecessors, then we’ll see a plague on both our houses.
Comment by Kiwi — November 13, 2006 #
“We” is an elusive term as you say. I know what
I want: - affordable, universal health care, tax relief for the middle class (i.e. ME), a return to constitutional law, and a sensible foreign policy. The last in that list will have to wait for a new president - the others are workable goals and
movement can occur - although I know I will not get all or even most of what I want. But if there is movement - sensible movement - then that is progress. Of course middle class tax relief inplies upper class increases. Good luck on that I guess.
Maybe the best thing to come out of the election is the sense that a significant number of Americans got sick and tired of the bullshit and
got a little smarter about the demagogues. And perhaps learned the lesson of the dangers of narrow ideologies. We shall see.
Comment by Jeff — November 13, 2006 #
Wow, who would believe it, but I’ve got to agree with Kiwi.
The Democratics should rule Congress in a more compromising, moderate fashion. Not only do I believe it is the right course, at this given time in our political climate, but I believe it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party. The American people, mostly, went to the polls in order to vote their dis-satisfaction with the Washington establishment, as a whole.
If they can succeed in uniting the country, they will be able to build on success, after success. Most of the country proved to be purple, sitting just left, or just right, of center. We proved to be nowhere near as divided as the Republicans would like us to believe. The Democrats, by really not doing much (or more accurately, not being able to do much under the oppressive majority), appealed more to the moderate voter, because the Republicans were seen as running from their base to the fanatical wings of their party. This may, or may not be true, but that is the perception, so it is the political reality. Call me naive, but I do believe we are stronger when we are able to stand together, united behind the common themes that make our country great. The Emporer (Rove, not Bush), has no clothes, and even with all the weight he has lost, it aint pretty.
It is in fact true that many of the in coming Freshman Congressmen lean a little more to the right, than the Progressives of old - But, granted, still left of the Republicans they ran against. The new Majority Party will need to come to a consensus, so they more drift more to the center, based on neccessity.
How insulting to the minority party was the Bush proclamation of a “political mandate” after 2004? The party of Bush has had 6 full years to unite the country, with the added benefit of 9/11 to build loyalty and consensus. Instead, the country was Roved - purposely divided, on any number of splinter issues, that we all know too well at this point to repeat. Many of the special interest groups that the Republicans courted, most notably the Christian Right, tried to sabotage the national agenda - And the Neocons actually succeded in gobbling up any conservative agenda. By over-promising with a wink, wink, the Republicans may have ended up, at the most, alienating some their Christian Right, or at the very least, causing them to stay home last week. Let’s face it, the Bush Administration has not really delivered for that part of their base. Or really any part for that matter.
As appealing as it may be to seek pay back for the Minority treatment the Democrats received over the past 6 years, it is not the right thing to do. Maybe when Hillary wins in 08, we can see how pleased the Republican’s are with the expanded powers they have created for the Presidency, but until then, I vote we be happy with samll steps towards a new national agenda, that really will leave no child (or adult) behind.
Comment by Jr. — November 14, 2006 #