Dec 04 2008
Left Or Right – Which Way Will The Dems Go?
It’s the old proverb again – watch what you ask for, you just might get it. The Dems will now attempt to lead a nation that is fed up with politics as usual, and the political extremes who always seem to battle to a stale mate so that nothing gets done. It has caused a lot of mixed signals coming out of the Democrat Party, with all sides fearing they will be ignored or trampled:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) moves since the November elections have shaken up some of her colleagues, with some looking over their shoulders and others worried about how the Speaker will lead her expanded majority in 2009.
…
But not all Democrats are celebrating. Liberals are worried about Pelosi’s vow to govern “from the middle†and centrists are concerned that the make-up of the House leadership team has shifted noticeably to the left.
ÂContrary to the jubilation of House Democrats after they regained control of the lower chamber after the 2006 elections, there is some unease among members heading into the 111th Congress.
“Everybody I talk to, everybody’s worried about something,†said a Democratic staffer.
I would expect they are worried about abject failure – like what we have seen from the Dem Congress since 2006. The country gave them a chance and they muffed it. Given the current economic crisis and all the handouts going to failed business managers I doubt the country has any patience left.Â
The signals coming from the coming Obama administration are interesting, to say the least. Where did all the Green energy policies go? What about soaking the rich – you know, businesses which drive the economy which create the jobs? Seems all that blather during the election was, as expected, just political BS for the gullible:
President-elect Barack Obama is not planning to implement a windfall profit tax on oil companies because prices have dropped below $80 a barrel, an aide said on Tuesday.
“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” an aide on Obama’s transition team said. “They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that.”
Oil prices have fallen from a record $147 a barrel in July to under $50 this week.
Obama, who signaled early in his campaign for the White House that he would take an active approach to oil markets as president, had planned to use the revenue from a windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate for low- and middle-income families struggling with high energy prices.
No ‘tax rebate’ for all those below the 50% income level who actually don’t pay federal income tax. Another promise broken. I expect to see an endless list of broken promises from a party who promised a magical transformation to the voters who now cannot make good on any of them.
That was a very interesting article – there are 81 moderate to conservative Dems who are really anxious since Waxman beat Dingell. Watch to see if Joe Crowley gets a leadership role if Becerra actually goes to USTR. Congress is the most interesting place to watch right now because 81 Dems is their majority in the House.
I am still intrigued over Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s refusal to take Obama’s call yesterday, claiming she thought it a hoax. Maybe, but the real untold story is WHY did Obama want to speak to her so much that he had Rahm, and then Howard Berman call.
Just read somewhere that Pelosi is going to push for SCHIP expansion & embryonic stem cell research early next Congress – to prove there is some change now that the Dems are in total charge.
I am beginning to wonder why almost every cabinet appointment is an elected official or academic. Like there is NO ONE from the private sector who knows how to manage a bureaucracy?
Most voters for O really just wanted a change from Bush43.
His base is much smaller than the media believes.
Chambliss thumping Martin is a wake-up call for the Dems.
I doubt they’ll ever send Ludacris to generate voter turnout again.
This is going to get VERY interesting.
For the moment, Obama is looking like a center-left politician. Which will enrage the Far Left.
The question is, does the Democratic Party have adequate control of their own rabid dogs?
The other question is, will Obama throw somebody under the bus to placate the Far Left?
Obama is not going to placate the far left. His economic plans went out the window with the recession.
Obama can placate the left and ruin the economy or ignore the left and try to fix the economy. That is why Obama named all those pro free market democrats to his economic team. Blaming GWB will only last so long. By January 2010, Obama will have to produce some results or the center will look for help somewhere else. Third party anyone? It may just be if the Republicans stay nativist (see next thread).
Anyway, Obama can read poll numbers better than anyone. He has to run his Admin. from the center-left because if he runs a far left Admin. his poll numbers will drop faster than the economy. The Chambliss reelection was due to low turnout (typical for a runoff) and a more balanced electorate. The big minority/youth Obamaniac turnout did not occur because BHO was not on the ballot. Look for the current 41-34-25 split to ease as the dems lose energy now that BHO won. If the REP play it right they can close the gap to 37-35-28 by 2010.
Well reality is smacking them in the kisser.
I remember when the Democrats ran for the Congress in 2006. They were promising to get oil and gas prices down. When they took control of Congress, oil was $58 a barrel and gas was $2.25 a gallon. In less than 2 years the price of oil was $147 a barrel and gas was about $4.00 a gallon. And exactly what had Pelosi done about it? Nothing, not a damn thing. In fact the Democrats fought anything that might help bring down prices. Domestic energy production was blocked, they fought everything from off shore drilling to nuclear power.
I think that is what really killed the economy. All that money going into energy made it hard for millions of people to pay their bills and their mortgages.
And the Democrats took advantage of that pain to win an election..but now they are stuck with this. They have to govern. Blaming Bush will only work for so long.
Obama will appoint 600 people under Gates at the Department of Defense, all of the Bush appointments will go (who supports Gates). It will be the same for every department. I think he has nominated figure heads to cover the center, but real policy will be carried out by those we don’t see. It will be a slow process as Obama intends to be reelected, it will be the second 4 years when all the movement to the left will happen. By then Iraq should be a non-issue and he is hoping the economy will have recovered enough to institute his socialists agenda. So far Obama has been all about making a big splash, flashy speeches, great crowds, making him look competent beyond belief. His biggest problem will be those happenings that he doesn’t know yet. All his plans could go right out the window with one terrorist attack.
One more thing….I wonder why democrats keep electing people who are full of bull, are happy to tell them what they want to hear with no intention of keeping their promise?
Which was the Dems go may not matter.
I’m just going to suggest a small possibility.
As you all know by now, there are several lawsuits that have
reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may choose
to force Obama to prove his eligibility to be President.
While there is possibility that the Court will dismiss the
present cases on “standing†issues, I noticed an essay by
Dr. Viera, the Constitutional expert who also has been writing
on this trouble, that there is still another and potentially more
powerful legal tactic in waiting.
Dr. Viera says that if Obama is sworn in as the President and
begins to pass laws, non-compliance with the new Obama laws,
either by an individual or a corporation, will create new criminals
who will then go to a criminal trial.
Dr. Viera further says that in a criminal trial the laws of subpoena are
more robustly construed in the defendant’s favor. The defendant
is likely to be successful in saying that he is not guilty because the
law he is accused of breaking is not actually a law because Obama
is not actually the President. The defendant has standing to
subpoena for the information he needs, and that can go right to the
Supreme Court if need be.
The defendant(s) could be directors of a corporation charged with
willfully disregarding some new environmental law. Whatever.
There will be many defendants all with expanded right of subpoena.
Dr. Viera concludes, “I cannot be the only lawyer who has thought
of thisâ€, Indeed.
I read the essay over at Pat Dollard’s site, which is directed to
issues of military men and women, and posters were debating
the looming disaster. Colorfully in the style of Pat Dollard!
I contributed my warning that a fake president,
if allowed to pass fake budgets for a couple of years before the
truth comes out, would precipitate a financial disaster that would
immediately bankrupt the US government, render all bonds and
gilts, even those held by other countries worthless, crash
the free world’s markets, and create such a panic driven run
on the banks that the entire financial system of the free world
would be likely to fail. I said “they haven’t though this throughâ€.
Another poster, Lone Wolf, said maybe they have precisely thought
this through and found the ultimate act of leveraged warfare,
in which one impostor president, without the use of violence,
destroys capitalism in a grand Saul Alinsky type deception.
It’s a thought, a scary one. Obama would need do nothing.
He could just carry on being nice, appointing reasonable people
to jobs in his administration, and just seem reasonable to
everybody. Folks would be interested in which way the Dems
would go, left, right, or center. Even debate immigration stuff.
Then when it is time, some accident reveals the truth.
His job is done.
Could just be tin-foil hat stuff. Could be.
This sounds a lot like the beginning of the end of Newt. Perhaps history will repeat itself.