Bipartisanship
So now that they have won, the question is will the Dems actually be able to step up to the plate. Will they be able to effect change for the better, or will it just be time for revenge, making the next two years pointless from a leadership perspective and assuring the republicans the white house in 08? (The living room in roger’s park has has a pretty good analysis of this and the local races that I pretty much agree with.)
President Bush gave a nice speech which looks like he might have really realized that “the people” (whoever that is) are asking for change. Then we get pushes on things the Dems don’t like. And for some reason the lead in to this CNN article tickles me pink:
This is probably not what President Bush had in mind when he stressed bipartisanship after the Democratic Party’s midterm elections sweep. A key Senate Republican has joined Democrats in opposing one of Bush’s initiatives for the lame-duck Congress: John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
It’s a new world, can they make it work?
Update: Nancy steps up to the plate, can she hit it out of the park? “Pelosi also has said that in the first 100 hours of her speakership she will push for action 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.” (I assume she meant days not hours.)
What’s important to realize is that ‘key’ Senate Republican is Chafee who continues to be cool and sticking it to Bush. I think the difference is Bush trying to get what he wants before he can’t do anything and Chafee who is continuing his trend of not following the party line and responding to what people want.
I take the time to comment because I think Chafee is great for doing this.
(Qualifier - I only know subsections of Chafee’s record but his record has a habit of not following the party line)
Hmm. She also apparantly said “push for,” which is so vague that she could send out an email to everyone and claim victory. Let’s assume she actually wants to accomplish something.
1. Implement all the 9/11 recommendations. Don’t know if this is a good thing, since I haven’t read them. But one rarely gets everything put forward in the opening request.
2. Raise the minimum wage to $7.25. I’m totally for this, but again, that number is going to look like a symbol of success, so the GOP (which is still very close to half) will want to whittle it down at least symbolically. I also wonder about the “other” minimum wages, for waiters/resses, and agricultural work. The real question is what else will get tied onto this one - immigration restrictions, for example, trying to make sure the $7.25 per hour isn’t paid to illegal immigrants.
3. Eliminate corporate subsidies for oil companies. That word “eliminate” is too big. We’re fighting the war in Iraq to protect certain people’s oil investment - are we going to somehow privatize that cost? How about all the roads and bridges we supply with public money to support the automotive and trucking industries, that use more oil than trains? Truly eliminating everything the oil industry is getting is just a bigger bite than anyone could chew.
4. Allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices. Maybe this is possible, with Delay finally gone?
5. Imposing new restrictions on lobbyists. Now, this is how you write a proposal. She has room to negotiate, because she wasn’t overly specific. But the thrust of the proposal is there. I’ll predict good success here.
6. Cutting interest rates on college loans. Here she didn’t name a specific number - a wise choice that allows her to succeed better than naming $7.25 for the minimum wage. Again, success.
7. Supporting embryonic stem cell research. Well, what does that mean? The real problem is that this has been attached to the abortion debate, and Tuesday, while a great thing, didn’t resolve abortion as an issue. I predict she’ll be able to claim success with some largely symbolic actions, but the real success will be simply in freezing the anti-abortion process that the GOP had going. Don’t expect big changes.
Actually, I think she did mean 100 hours.
This is an interesting analysis of her response. It also points out the problems I had with the referenda in the last election. They were worded in such a manner as to make it somewhat unclear what they were really asking. It is great wording to allow politicians to say that whatever happens is part of the referendum, but not so great when you are trying to say what you want to have happen.
Re: imposing restrictions on lobbyists… we will see. Don’t forget that was one of the big items with the old “Contract on^h^hwith America”. Once you get that power, it is hard to give that money up. Last night’s word on the Colbert Report (”Play Ball!”) was priceless.