Now that the mid-term election has passed, I have a few observations I'd like to share with regard to the Democrats come 2011. This week current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she is throwing her hat in the ring to stay on as minority leader in the House. Personally, I don't like Nancy Pelosi, I never have, as some of you know. She is curt, gives the impression her shit smells sweeter than most, and has an air about her I simply can't put my finger on. I take nothing away from her leadership abilities, especially when it came to passing Health Care reform. However, she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), share the same problem, they are poor communicators. Nancy Pelosi walks the walk, but doesn't talk the talk. Now to be sure lining up your ducks to pass legislation is no easy task for the Democratic Party, but when you hold a 40 seat majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate (for most of the last 2 years) and the White House, it would seem much easier to do. She turned this electoral gift into a problem, and became just another major Democratic leader to loose control of the conversation, and allow Republicans to weave their fictions at will. Now I won't lay all the blame at Speaker Pelosi's feet, but her demeanor and leadership style allowed Republicans to do what they did, not just on Health Care, but any Democratic initiative. Therefore, I think it would be a bad idea to keep her as Minority Leader. She has also been so vilified across the country, to keep her would undermine her effectiveness, not to mention paint a picture to the nation that the Democrats still don't get it.
In the Senate, Harry Reid won a very hard fought race to retain his seat and his new Senate Minority Leader title. Personally, I don't like Harry Reid either, as many of you know. He is soft spoken, wishy-washy, has the charisma of a dish rag, and fails to command the presence of a leader in the majority or minority position. However we are stuck with him since he was re-elected. As glad as I am that he beat Sharon Angle, a part of me wishes he lost. We need a new face in the Senate as well, but we are stuck with Reid for the moment, so lets hope that spine donor comes in soon.
Now we come to the President who has been introspective of late on what he should have done better, where do I start. In the last 2 years it has become apparent to me that Barack Obama is not a great communicator. He sat back confident in the process, without taking into effect how politics makes the process work. He sat back and let others morph his ideas into something the public eventually lost understanding of. He sat back and let others guide "HIS" policies while he let the process drift aimlessly without his leadership or vision of how "HIS" policy should be. I think the President accomplished some great things in his first 2 years, it's a shame nobody knows what they are. There is no doubt in my mind the President has had a disconnect from the people and his policies. Now the Republicans have the House. This in itself is not a bad thing, if anything they will be forced to engage. Yet the major question remains, when you had total control you failed to capitalize on a great many advantages, now that power is shared what will you do?
I think in a nutshell this is what has to happen. President Obama is our leader, LEAD! Take back control of the conversation whatever it may be. Be bold, get off the sidelines, take a more active role in seeing your agenda put forward. Be equally bold by not letting Republicans always have their way. Start calling them out on some of the fictional talking points they preach ad-nauseum, and use the facts. The Republicans hate facts, that's why they don't like to use them. For Republicans facts are inconvenient truths that get in the way of their message of fear. The only person who can change all this is Barack Obama. If he steps up to the plate and stands behind his achievements moving forward he has an excellent chance in 2012, but if he continues to sit back and let others take the lead, he most likely will be a one term President.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Republicans Take The House... Now What Happens?
Well as we all know by now, the Republicans made sweeping gains in last weeks election. However, despite their cries that this is a mandate for their party, I wouldn't go that far. First, they needed 39 seats to take control of the House, 49 seats were held by Democrats swept in on Obama's coat tails in 2008, and took districts that were actually carried by John McCain. So given the political atmosphere Republican control was pretty much assured. My latest information has them taking 70 seats total, the minority of those were so called "Blue Dog" Democrats who ran from their party and their President, and lost anyway. To them I say a hearty "Goodbye" as they were Democrats in name only. In the Senate, it was to bad Mary Landrieu(D-LA) and Ben Nelson(D-NE) were not running, and while Blanche Lincoln(D-AR) got the ax, she was replaced by Joe Manchin(D-WV) who in my view is worse. However, that being said, what will the new congress look like? In the Senate 51(D), 45(R), and 3(I). When you factor who the Independents caucus with its 53(D) to 46(R).
When Congress has a 11% approval rating and dislike for Republicans and Democrats is equal at 53% I'm not sure how you interpret that as a mandate, but Republicans will do their best. The House now looks like this: 186(D) to 239(R) with 10 seats still undecided. Now of those 239 Republicans almost half, 113 affiliate themselves with the Tea Party. Which raises the question which of the Republicans two new faces will dominate policy. If I was a betting man, my money would go to the Tea Party faction. They are louder, unfazed by regular Republican attempts to rein them in, and almost have that "Mission from God" mentality that doesn't make much room for compromise on their core issues. However, lets not fool ourselves here, compromise has been a dirty word for Republicans the last 2 years, why should they change now? Especially with more radical elements now legitimately part of the political process.
What do they want now that they have "taken back" the government? Well they want to cut spending, but won't say where? Reform entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, but won't put them on the table? This is a good one, cut discretionary spending? This is a kind of all encompassing catch phrase which is meant to make you believe cuts to make government leaner across the board. Then they preface it with except for Defense, Entitlements, and the Bush tax cuts. So what's left? Education, Energy, Homeland Security is that where they want to cut spending?
The cruel reality is this, the biggest thing they are hitting at the moment is the repeal of Health Care Reform. They can pass all the bills about this in the House they want, but they will never see light on the floor of the U.S. Senate and they know it. It is an exercise in futility that will only waste time on meaningless legislation so they can appease their base and say "we tried". On the other hand, all these deficit reducing spending cutters have 2 big problems to confront, one in the not so distant future, and one right up front. Up front we have the Bush tax cuts slated to expire the end of this year. They have been asked a million times where the 700 billion dollars will come from to pay for these, but they have yet to give an answer? So do they add 700 billion dollars to the deficit as their first act in fiscal responsibility, or will they magically, finally, find a way to fund these cuts? I can't wait to see how this plays out. The second fiscal quandary is the raising of the Federal Government's debt ceiling, currently at 15.3 trillion dollars. Depending on the economy this little problem may be on the radar as early as February. Can Republicans cut spending that quickly as to avoid this problem? Not as chance. So do you let the Federal Government go into default on its loans causing a world wide crisis? or raise the debt ceiling, once again disappointing all those fiscal conservatives screaming for less government.
Republicans should be careful what they wish for? You can't just sit on your hands now and watch the Democrats implode, you have to get off your asses and get in the game. You have a leadership position now, and millions of conservative voters that went to the polls last week to appease, hey good luck with that.
When Congress has a 11% approval rating and dislike for Republicans and Democrats is equal at 53% I'm not sure how you interpret that as a mandate, but Republicans will do their best. The House now looks like this: 186(D) to 239(R) with 10 seats still undecided. Now of those 239 Republicans almost half, 113 affiliate themselves with the Tea Party. Which raises the question which of the Republicans two new faces will dominate policy. If I was a betting man, my money would go to the Tea Party faction. They are louder, unfazed by regular Republican attempts to rein them in, and almost have that "Mission from God" mentality that doesn't make much room for compromise on their core issues. However, lets not fool ourselves here, compromise has been a dirty word for Republicans the last 2 years, why should they change now? Especially with more radical elements now legitimately part of the political process.
What do they want now that they have "taken back" the government? Well they want to cut spending, but won't say where? Reform entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, but won't put them on the table? This is a good one, cut discretionary spending? This is a kind of all encompassing catch phrase which is meant to make you believe cuts to make government leaner across the board. Then they preface it with except for Defense, Entitlements, and the Bush tax cuts. So what's left? Education, Energy, Homeland Security is that where they want to cut spending?
The cruel reality is this, the biggest thing they are hitting at the moment is the repeal of Health Care Reform. They can pass all the bills about this in the House they want, but they will never see light on the floor of the U.S. Senate and they know it. It is an exercise in futility that will only waste time on meaningless legislation so they can appease their base and say "we tried". On the other hand, all these deficit reducing spending cutters have 2 big problems to confront, one in the not so distant future, and one right up front. Up front we have the Bush tax cuts slated to expire the end of this year. They have been asked a million times where the 700 billion dollars will come from to pay for these, but they have yet to give an answer? So do they add 700 billion dollars to the deficit as their first act in fiscal responsibility, or will they magically, finally, find a way to fund these cuts? I can't wait to see how this plays out. The second fiscal quandary is the raising of the Federal Government's debt ceiling, currently at 15.3 trillion dollars. Depending on the economy this little problem may be on the radar as early as February. Can Republicans cut spending that quickly as to avoid this problem? Not as chance. So do you let the Federal Government go into default on its loans causing a world wide crisis? or raise the debt ceiling, once again disappointing all those fiscal conservatives screaming for less government.
Republicans should be careful what they wish for? You can't just sit on your hands now and watch the Democrats implode, you have to get off your asses and get in the game. You have a leadership position now, and millions of conservative voters that went to the polls last week to appease, hey good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
