  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Silent MajorityPosted on Oct 2, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—Voters put Democrats in control of both houses of Congress last fall and, for this act of civic determination, they face an infuriating conundrum. Republicans are still running things. The same folks who brought you the Iraq war, the refusal to act on the health insurance crisis, the fiscal meltdown that leaves crucial government functions underfunded while managing to drive up the national debt are still bringing you: the Iraq war, the refusal to act on health insurance and a looming showdown over spending priorities that leaves the fiscal meltdown unaddressed. After the “thumpin’ ” President Bush says his party suffered in the midterm elections, a few things were supposed to happen. The White House was supposed to adapt to the new political terrain, negotiating with the opposition on most matters—especially rudimentary legislation such as annual spending bills—and only draw strategic lines-in-the-sand with selective vetoes that involve a president’s core principles. This is what most contemporary presidents who confront a Congress dominated by the opposition party have done. Bush hasn’t. Republicans in Congress—especially in the House—were supposed to learn from their mistakes and stop backing themselves into ideological corners that are way outside of mainstream thinking. They didn’t. Instead, Bush and a solid core of Republican lawmakers (albeit a shrinking one) are managing to get their way on serious issues of the day, whether it be the conduct of the Iraq war or health insurance for low-income kids who currently do without it. The veto fight over the terms for renewing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program—a wildly popular program that has had bipartisan support since its inception a decade ago—is to be played out this week. Democrats in the House lack the votes to override Bush’s expected veto, though the Senate passed the measure with plenty of votes to spare. None of this can be understood unless you look in the right place for the answers. That’s not in a civics book. It’s in the all-too-familiar television graphic we see during election coverage, the one that colors Democratic regions blue and Republican strongholds red. The Democratic gains in the 2006 congressional elections means there are fewer Republican moderates—they were thrown out of office, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, making those regions bluer. This makes it nearly impossible to cobble together a bloc of swing Republican moderates needed, say, to override a presidential veto of an enormously popular bill to provide health care to kids. Looked at another way, about half of the 159 votes in the House against the popular children’s health measure came from lawmakers in the South—the reddest of red states. They’re with the president when he says this program—run by the states, with care administered through private managed-care insurance companies and delivered by private doctors and nurses—is really socialized medicine. The few Republicans who joined Democrats in passing the House legislation are in the dwindling handful of districts that could swing either way. Case in point: Vern Buchanan, the Florida Republican who won Katherine Harris’ seat by 369 votes—and with a contested result because of machine malfunctions that appear to have lost about 18,000 votes—cast his vote with the Democrats. So did Virginia lawmakers Tom Davis and Frank Wolf, who broke with most of their delegation because they represent districts in suburban Washington that are growing ethnically diverse, and voting more Democratic. Davis, meanwhile, intends to run for Senate next year—and Virginia in statewide elections has lately been a killing ground for Republican candidates. So even as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hammers at the kids insurance issue with radio advertisements and robo calls, there’s not much chance of turning around enough Republican votes to override Bush’s health-insurance veto. There are only about two dozen Republicans on the group’s target list, and they are in regions such as the Southwest and Midwest, where the Democrats are tilling ground for the 2008 elections. “We’d prefer to get these kids the health care they need,” says Jennifer Crider, a DCCC spokeswoman.
With that more noble goal out of reach, the only other option is what voters find distasteful—turning a common-sense issue, such as getting health insurance to poor kids, into a political cudgel.
Previous item: Affirmative Dissatisfaction Next item: Beating the Odds Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Dieter Heymann, October 4, 2007 at 1:13 pm # It is imperative that a Constitutional Convention is established soon to: 1. do away with the Electoral College and elect Presidents by the majority of a national popular vote and 2. do away with the Senate. Both institutions were adopted to control the “rabble” , which the Founding Fathers feared and distrusted. They still exist because politicians fear today’s “rabble”.
By PACRAT, October 4, 2007 at 10:56 am # Democrats are willing to permit more military deaths just so that they have a campaign issue for 2008! Why else are they derelict in their duty to get our troops started out of Iraq? YES, IT IS THEIR DUTY! So is impeachment! Impeachment is not an act of retaliation, it is the duty of Congress to protect the Constitution and our country. Did these wimps ever read the constitution or remember their oaths?
By John Borowski, October 4, 2007 at 4:04 am # It amuses me to hear comments that propose the use of weapons such as voting, impeachment, and investigation. In a dictatorship these weapons are as useless as a Democrat majority. I believe we have a covert dictatorship in this country right now. We will have an overt dictatorship when the next 9/11 happens. The only difference in the next 9/11 is it will be a hundred times worst than the first one. I personally believe it will not be perpetrated by the killem for god, although they will be blamed.
By Jonas South, October 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm # Frustration with the Democrats in Congress is widespread among progressive and independent voters. But this article shows that voting Democratic is not enough: we must nominate the right candidate for every race, starting with the presidency, and the seats of the leaders in the House (Pelosi) and the Senate (Reid).
By John Borowski, October 3, 2007 at 10:23 am # Before the year 1980, we had Republicans (Aka Conservative right wingers) that represented the average Americans’ interests 10 percent of the time. They represented the obscene riches’ interest ninety percent of the time. There is an inverse relationship between the average American and the obscene rich. If the benefits favor the average American, it is to the detriment of the obscene rich or vice versa. I know the average J.Q Public can’t give Einstein a run for his money, but it is hard for me to believe that forty-nine percent of the average American group would vote for the Republicans (Aka Conservative right-wingers). The only way Republicans (Aka Conservative right-wingers) could get forty-nine percent of the average Americans’ votes would be to rig the elections. In the period between 1980 and 2000, the extreme right kicked out the decent Republicans using fear, intimidation, and money. As a consequence, this is not the Republican Party your father and grandfather voted for. This is an extreme Fascist group that under the smoke screen of saving your ass from the killem for god folks, they are killing your Constitution, Bill of Rights, Quality of life, and living standards. Even if I was a member of the obscene rich (I haven’t won the lottery yet) I would vote Democratic because the Republicans (Aka Conservative right-wingers) are leading us down the road to nihilism and they tell me you can’t take it with you.
By GW=MCHammered, October 3, 2007 at 8:34 am # DEMS and GOP are the same party. They’re joined at the lobbyist-pocket. Our government is beyond narcissistic, in love with itself. Our government is DRUNK in love with itself. Vote out the GOP now and vote in another party. If that doesn’t motivate the DEMS to do the peoples’ work then they can go too. Save American Democracy by practicing Democracy. End this wholesale slaughter of our principles and economy that only empowers communist and other abusive governments. Because THAT is NOT Democracy.
By Conservative Yankee, October 3, 2007 at 4:38 am # 104225 by driving bear on 10/02 at 8:06 pm “Webb in VA won by only 0.3%” NO, he won by . 4% running against Incumbent George Allen. Campaigns against incumbents have always been an uphill battles, and rarely successful. BUT the Webb win is nothing for non-partisans to crow about. Webb was a Reagan Republican who changed parties for political expediency, NOT ideology. “In MT the dem candidate won by only 0.6 %” No, it was actually .9% and it was against an incumbent, with far more money, and greater name recognition (obviously) Tester is a “conservative” farmer, and a workingman rather than a career politician. He was also a school teacher, and a music major which makes him a target, hard to hit. My personal belief is he is one of the best things that has happened to politics in years… I’ll be watching him closely. “Also after the 06 election a poll found that 85 % of American were satisfied with the GOP performance on other issues.” This is an out and out falsehood. Congress (both D & R have the worst approval rating in US history of polling. Their numbers (sometimes reported in single digits) are lower than those of Bush. Republicans, polled on the approval ratings of their OWN party were able to muster just a slim majority. (53%) I’ve got some news for you DB, 85% of U.S. citizens are not satisfied with the handling of any political issues. This regardless of party.
By Trigger finger, October 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm # It was a HUGE mistake voting democrats into power. Minnesota’s kobuchar is really a republican at heart and votes with the republicans on major issues. She is a huge disappointment and her career will be 1 term short, I hope. The only thing any of them care about is their own ass and the hell with the United States of America. Shame on them all.
By Conservative Yankee, October 2, 2007 at 11:41 am # WASHINGTON—Voters put Democrats in control of both houses of Congress last fall and, for this act of civic determination, they face an infuriating conundrum. Republicans are still running things. Voters did NOT put Democrats in control of both houses. Currently, there are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans. Joe Lieberman (I Conn.) votes with the Democratic party when the issue is not connected to the Iraq war. He ran for Senate in Connecticut on a PRO-war stance, and he won! Bernie Sanders is the other independent (from Vermont) he generally votes with the Dems. That puts any vote on Iraq at 50/50. The Vice President breaks a tie. The argument has been made that Republicans do not vote as a block anymore. I’ll wait and see, BUT even if they do not, that’s not Never has been, Democratic control. Does anyone deal in reality anymore?
By Hank, October 2, 2007 at 11:40 am # The Democrats have had plenty of opportunities to fight the conservatives in the Congress, but they caved in every time. Just because they cannot get enough votes to overide a Bush veto does not mean they have to pass legislation they do not like. They do not have to fund the war. They do not have to fund other programs they do not like.
By Gerard, October 2, 2007 at 10:56 am # I understand the Dems don’t have the votes to actually de-fund the war or call for troop removal. There’s one way I think they can “end the war” wihtout looking like they don’t “support the troops”. It’s a simple fact that the military alone can not handle the task of keeping peace in Iraq, the use of contractors for logistical positions is wide-spread and well known. What is also at least somewhat known is the obscene amount of money these contractors earn for doing these logistical tasks. The Dems should create a bill that places a hard limit on the amount of money a contractor can charge for performing a task in a war/combat zone. I’d suggest that the number be relative to the pay of the soldiers who would otherwise be doing this job. To pull numbers out of thin air, lets say a military water purification specialist is paid $2000 per month, a contractor should not be allowed to charge more than $4000 per month for doing this job. My understanding is that we are currently paying contractors tens of thousands of dollars per month to do this sort of thing. The bill should also prohibit the artificial inflation of military pay grades, requiring that if a pay grade is being used as a basis for scaling, then at leat 75% of the personnel performing that job just be military. To explain that last point more, it could otherwise be possible to abuse the system by increasing the pay grade of a military water purification specialist to some obscene number like $9000 per month, then paying the contractor twice that. This clause will state that unless a super majority of soldiers are performing this job at that pay grade, then contractors can not get their 2x of this pay grade. This bill has several selling points: it prohibits the “cost plus” contracts that are so obscenely wasteful, it ends the cronyism that is rampant in the current scenario, it severely limits the desire of people to run in to a war zone to do a job for lots of money that the weren’t willing to do for patriotism or humanitarian reasons. The end effect I think will be that the contractors will pull us stakes and move on when they can’t make as much money. With the contractors out of the picture the military will be required to fulfill the positions again. Of course, they can’t. The strain will cause the military leaders to re-evaluate the situation and decide one of severl things: It also says the if the military is going to go to war, the MILITARY needs to go to war, not private companies.
By sharon ash, October 2, 2007 at 10:22 am # We have major problems in our country because the overwhelming majority of Americans have been unwilling to be involved in knowing what goes on in our government and speaking up. And that shoe, I suspect, fits many currently griping, here on this site. While most Americans slept, the greedy have been having a feast and accumulating vast treasures of wealth. This feast will not be easy to stop. Both parties have their greed monsters, however, the Republican Party pretty much dominates. Romney was recently in my city at an invitation only meeting with our local Republican Mafia and it looked like a Klux Klan meeting as those attending were trying to duck cameras in the hallways leading to the meeting. The biggest battle we face is not the terrorists, but some of our own citizens who either purposefully or unwittingly have abandonded the concept of democracy for a dictatorship form of government.
By david, October 2, 2007 at 6:45 am # Bush will do exactly as he pleases. The Dems can’t stop him, the Repubs can’t stop him. He is in control of a nuclear army and won’t be satisfied until he nukes Iran. Face it folks, we now live in a facist dictatorship and there’s no going back. The USA is gone, replaced by The United Christian Homeland of America. Bow peasants!!!
By Tom Semioli, October 2, 2007 at 6:18 am # When are ya’ll gonna realize that there is no difference between the Dems and Republicans?
By GW=MCHammered, October 2, 2007 at 6:08 am # Republicans are still running things because K-street said so. After all, they are the shared pocket of our two-party rule. I want to see on the ‘08 ballot a representation of true Democracy. I want to see a ballot for We The People to choose ‘Other Government Rule’. How about an option for Norway-like governing, rated the most peaceful country in the world with the highest quality of life among other firsts. Or Luxembourg-like order where the GDP runs 1.5 times the US. Maybe even Canada’s system where they are rated the most educated in the world with the ninth highest life expectancy. Or we can stay with government that produces the second highest prison population rate, just behind Russia. Breeds a society that is the largest importer of illegal drugs. Ranks the highest by far in obesity rates. And produces graduates that, as director Ken Burns recently stated, more than half think we fought the Russians in WWII alongside Nazi Germany. Just seems we could do better. Add Your Comment |
|
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article