Comments on: Missing In Action: The Democratic Mandate

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:53:49 +0000

Thanks, Polimom.

By: Polimom

Polimom — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:58 +0000

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:11:36 +0000

One thing I was very surprised about— why in the world would Nancy Pelosi allow Rep Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security Committee? If Justice has proof that he took a $90K bribe they should indict him already.

I heard something about the GOP trying to unseat him????Anyone know??

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:09:45 +0000

Whatever the Democratic “mandate” was, could not be accomplished with a narrow majority in the House, and almost a virtual tie in the Senate. The Dems only hope to curb Bush on the war, was getting bipartisan support. When it became apparent that the GOP was under too much pressure from McConnell and the WH to join the Democrats, they imploded. To be fair, I do think the GOP has outmaneuvered them politically, and made them look weak and splintered, instead of the other way around.

By: Polimom Says » The Mythical Missing Mandate

Polimom Says » The Mythical Missing Mandate — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:22:54 +0000

[...] My friend Shaun Mullen has a post this morning (at TMV) titled “Missing in Action: The Democratic Mandate“, in which he writes: Was it really only four months ago that an emergent Democratic majority in Congress prepared to march boldly into the future and deal decisively with all of those vexing problems facing the republic, most especially the Mess in Mesopotamia? [...]

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:03:59 +0000

Blue,
If that is the case, then why are the Dems so opposed to the surge plan?? Seems to me that you’re rather talking in circles here. Take credit for forcing Bush to change policy but then fight him tooth and nail on the actual policy, without proposing a coherent alternative. I’m missing the part where this is a good thing.

By: Blue Neponset

Blue Neponset — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:54:49 +0000

C. Stanley,

I do think the Dems bear a great deal of responsibility for the Surge plan. If the Repubs had held onto the Senate or the House I think Bush would have taken that as a sign that his Iraq policy was OK with the public and he wouldn’t have changed it in any way.

Shaun,

I thought the main idea espoused by most moderates was the belief that results are more important than rhetoric. If that is the case, what is the point of rhetorically poking the Dems in the eye for its own sake?

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:48:42 +0000

You may have heard that Bush deployed an additional 21,000 + troops in Iraq recently. Do you think he would have done that if the Repubs were still in charge of the Senate and the House?

Huh? So the Dems are responsible for the surge plan?

mikkel,
Fair enough dig at me for fears of democratic unity LOL. That obviously hasn’t materialized on the Iraq issue, but honestly I fear that more on domestic policy; and even there, I think that Pelosi is a smart enough politician not to push too far during the next two years, but I do still have concerns about ’08 and beyond if the Dems keep the majority in Congress and especially if they also gain the Whitehouse.

By: Shaun Mullen

Shaun Mullen — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:39:18 +0000

BlueNeponset:

Do not read more into my post than what’s there. I had no expectations. I just couldn’t resist sticking it to them.

By: Blue Neponset

Blue Neponset — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:24:26 +0000

Shaun,

What did you expect the Dems to accomplish regarding Iraq?

The reason the Dems were so vague about Iraq before the election is because there aren’t any good options anymore. The best thing the Dems can do is to keep the pressure on Bush and they have done that. You may have heard that Bush deployed an additional 21,000 + troops in Iraq recently. Do you think he would have done that if the Repubs were still in charge of the Senate and the House?

By: mikkel

mikkel — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:50:56 +0000

CS I can’t resist an “I told you so” myself (oddly I was going to write that before seeing your comment where you said one yourself). Your fears that the Democrats would take a page from the Republican playbook and order their members into line through force were completely unfounded.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:41:40 +0000

What mandate? The Democrats never defined what they stood for, only what they stood against. Now we’re seeing the results of that. I’ve been saying this since before the election and I hate to say I told you so, but I wonder if anyone now wonders if it wasn’t such a good idea for the Democratic platform to have been so vague about what they would actually do about Iraq?