Three Themes
My father used to say, "You heard it here first." I always found this annoying, regardless of the topic. But like father, like son: There were three themes to the election you heard here months ago: Iraq, corruption and the safety net. At least the first and second proved to be determinative and I'd argue the third contributed. None of these was part of the D gameplan until the last 90 days. Now it's critical that the D's not forget them.
But the country cannot be governed from Congress. We have a C in C and that's where the plan for Iraq has to come from. D's need to be respectful, inquisitive, and thoughtful in their response to the plan. Expect it within a month. Yes, confirm Gates right away. And try to ignore the in-your-face rudeness of the White House floating the idea of confirming Mr. Bolton. This helps us.
As to corruption, the D's have to show America they really prefer honesty and integrity in the people's house. There are a host of necessary reforms. Many of the members of both parties won't like them; they are absolutely necessary.
The election wouldn't have even been a thumping; it would have been a massive landslide locking in a D majority for many years if it weren't for gerrymandering, voter suppression, voting fraud (including misuse of telephone networks), and many other 'dirty tricks' that should not be overlooked, forgiven, or let go unreformed. The D's should take the lead in fixing all the terribly broken aspects of the voting process dating to the uncount of the year 2000. This area the Congress can take the lead in fixing.
As to the safety net, the Administration has to come forward with a plan to fix health care, not social security. Under current course and speed the polar ice caps will have melted and the middle class will have disappeared long before social security's payments are under serious threat. It's not the case that the D's have to bite the hard political bullets left lying around by this Administration. Don't fall for that!
I'm in China right now. I've seen the future and it's working hard. Much to do in this area, since the United States actually could use a trade policy, among other things, that deals with the reality of rising Asia.
About redistricting, on another thread I wrote:
"Democrats got 55% of the Congressional vote in Michigan this election (not counting third party candidates). But they won only 40% of the House seats, 6 out of 15, same as last election. That might seem unfair, but it is because of redistricting. In 2001 the Republicans monopolized the redistricting and made sure all of the Democrat voters were squeezed into as few districts as possible. Before that, the Democrats had held nine out of 16 seats, 56%."
This is obviously an enormous issue and needs more light and attention. Those four Dem pick-up House seats in PA will surely revert to the GOP in 2008, because those districts are DESIGNED to be Republican districts. I honestly think the Democrats have been less pushy in redistricting when they have had the advantage.
So what to do? Either copy the GOP and push through the maximum Democratic seats where we have the advantage? Or attempt to prevent politically motivated redistricting?
I prefer a law (or a Constitutional amendment) to prevent politically motivated redistricting. 95% safe seats are obviously bad for Democracy. Someone should write a book.
November 9, 2006 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your looking at something in the area of what I'd like to think of as an area of war. The only thing you should worry about is what there is comming back and only if there are things comming back you should be able to give your opinion. Having something on the front forward for the year can give you that lead but having something unlocked or unposted can not only drop you, but just ruin the whole track.
If your dead in the water the only thing in the way of your work, and in the way of your progress of work, can not only leave you behind but sell you out.
November 9, 2006 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to not forgetting or forgiving the fake robo-calls, voter suppression, and racism in this campaign. I do not live in USA though I am a citizen so my political act was giving money to campaigns. At least 5 that I gave to turned out to be narrow losses, several as yet undecided. Fake robo-calls went into several of those districts. Vote suppression in any form should be a federal crime that carries severe penalties -- both long prison terms to the firms and their employees as well as anyone that authorized the funds that paid for them and eviction from office of those whose success may have depended on such methods.
Wulsin, Kissell and Duckworth among others probably deserve a re-run.
global citizen
November 10, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the country cannot be governed from Congress. We have a C in C and that's where the plan for Iraq has to come from. D's need to be respectful, inquisitive, and thoughtful in their response to the plan. Expect it within a month. Yes, confirm Gates right away. And try to ignore the in-your-face rudeness of the White House floating the idea of confirming Mr. Bolton. This helps us.
Of course it can be governed by Congress! The Congress is at least one third of the government, and in fact the chief branch, given pride of place in Article I of the Constitution. With the executive so severely weakened, now is the time for the Congress to move decisively to reclaim Congressional power and establish itself as the nation's main policy-making branch.
I'm afraid voters are expecting a more aggressive approach from the Congress than you propose. In effect, they have decided Bush and the Republicans are not up to the job, and have voted in a new government to the extent that can be done under the American system with its fixed terms. They are looking for assertive leadership in a new direction, not "respectful, inquisitive, and thoughtful" feference to Presidential leadership.
Now is not the time for duck and cover. Several years out of power have given the Democrats timid and passive habits, and a tendency to prefer reaction to administration action. But it is time to turn the tables: Congress must sieze the initiative and act. Let the President be the one to react for a change.
November 10, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding folks that Congress is supreme. Not only is the first Article about Congress, it is the longest, it lists many specific Powers, and it discusses the power to remove authority, through impeachment. It also has considerable authority over the election process, leaving some aspects to the states, but reserving all other questions to itself.
When one branch has control of both the money and the authority, it is the most important branch, ipso facto.
November 10, 2006 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing every citizen the right to vote and to have that vote counted?
How about another one making gross negligence, incompetence and inattention to duty impeachable offences?
November 11, 2006 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not proportional representation?
November 12, 2006 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding folks that Congress is supreme.
I'm sorely afraid Abraham Lincoln and the Radical Republicans with a little help from FDR et als. put the quietus to that notion several years ago.
November 12, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who runs things is one measure--who can put a stop to it is another.
All executive power grabs are with the acceptance of Congress. If Congress impeaches and convicts, that power evaporates. Precedent is not law.
That Congress rarely exercises its power does not mean it is powerless.
November 13, 2006 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink