Didn't I say, "if you’re smart, you’ll watch where the Democrats come down."

Hey Folks,

There is some heavy stuff in the "analysis" below. I have highlighted some of it in blue and commented in red.

- Uke Man


ANALYSIS
Democrats must choose between reform (remember what I said about "reform") and reversal
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Carl Hulse
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON — Democrats realized their political and legislative dream Thursday. Now they must face reality. In the first sentence it claims that the dream is impossible (not real).

As they take control of the House and Senate, members of the new majority must reconcile diverse ideological factions within their ranks and make a fundamental choice. (What's to be factious about? IF they are really Democrats and really care about the people?)

They can spend their energy trying to reverse what they see as the flaws of the Bush administration and a dozen years in which conservative philosophy dominated Congress (and screwed the people). Or they can accept the rightward tilt of that period and grudgingly concede that big tax cuts, deregulation, restrictions on abortion and other Republican-inspired changes have become a permanent part of the legislative framework. This is nonsense, and not a choice at all. If the people wanted to accept the "rightward tilt" of the Republicans, they wouldn't have elected Democrats !! The question is HOW FAST can they successfully dismantle the Republican legacy.

After all, the "rightward tilt" was an unabashed effort to dismantle the New Deal. Why should Democrats accept the Republican's Crooked Deal any more than they accepted the New Deal? If they accept it, Fuck the Democrats; it's time to hit the streets, Folks.

The competing drives were on display amid the constitutional hoopla Thursday and the emotion surrounding Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s election as speaker, a position filled until now by the likes of Sam Rayburn, Joseph Cannon and Nicholas Longworth — men whose names adorn nearby House office buildings. "We have broken the marble ceiling," Pelosi said after she was handed the gavel.

In a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus earlier in the day, Pelosi made her own allusions to the competing tugs on Democrats, noting the party was rooted in its traditions but not hostage to the past (note to Blacks??: don't expect much - ??). She vowed a new direction "for all the people, not just the privileged few," a reflection of the leadership’s political and policy calculation that Democrats need to champion the average guy. This is pretty ambiguous, but if the "analyst" is right about the "tugs," then alot depends on how the ambiguity sorts out. If the Dems are just being careful to move slowly toward serving all the people, that is prudent. But if they actually are considering accepting much of the R's Contract on America; that's a sellout, and it's time to hit the streets, Folks!!

"The agenda we have is about restoring economic security to a very vulnerable middle class," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus. "The real activity will be in those areas." Does he mean "for now" or "forever"? "Prudence" or "sellout"?

Yet many Democrats contend that President Bush and the Republican Congress that was his partner moved the dial too far to the right in many cases. And they believe it will be the work of Democrats to make a significant course correction. No shit, Dick Tracey! Where'd you get your first clue? That's sometimes called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. And you know how the party treated Howard Dean.

"I think there are a lot of things the people of America want changed," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a tough critic of some Bush policies. He and others made clear that the new direction has to begin with American policy in Iraq.

But their domestic legislative agenda suggests that they are picking selected fights rather than going for wholesale change. Again, is this prudence or sellout? On the economy, they will move swiftly to increase the minimum wage. On social policy, they will challenge Bush by calling for expanded stem-cell research. They will try to pass legislation increasing college aid for the middle class. All of those issues have the twin advantages of broad popular appeal tied to measurable impact on individuals. A good start or that's all folks? The analyst would have us believe it indicates surrender.

But Democrats are in no rush to engage in a fight with Bush over the ideological centerpiece of his domestic policy, his tax cuts. And they have showed no inclination to wade back into the abortion issue, despite its potency among many of their supporters. For now? or forever reluctant? Why should they try everything at once? Why shouldn't they be committed to rolling back the Republican reich as soon as it is possible? Why incorporate reactionary shit into the Brave New World of Chuck Schumer?

"We have to keep our eye on the average American family and sort of push aside the interest groups left, right and center," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "The world has changed, and it demands new solutions, not the old Democrat and Republican nostrums." Now THIS is scary!!!!!!! What is Schumer smoking? What exactly does he mean by "The world has changed"? Yeah, for the worse, and Bush has led the charge. And if the "new solutions" are accepting all the shit Republicans have pulled, it's time to hit the streets, Folks.

But there is no dispute that Bush’s legislative and executive record will get a microscopic examination via a renewed emphasis on oversight, a congressional function Democrats say was all but abandoned in recent years. And the results of those inquiries could determine what policies Democrats try to unravel if they uncover a strong case against them (IF ?????????).

"The Bush administration has passed an entire architecture of laws that are going to be reviewed," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Cleveland, one of the most liberal members of the House. And you know the Democrats listen to Dennis even more than they listened to Howard.

Republicans are waiting to see what develops, uncertain if Democrats sincerely want to join hands and produce some consensus on public policy. Or, as one senior Republican asked, will Democrats hostile to the Bush administration be more like the scorpion in the fable with the frog, unable to resist the urge to sting even if they hurt themselves? The task is to sting WITHOUT hurting themselves - not to Lieberman-ize themselves.

Democrats acknowledge that with their minuscule majority in the Senate and one in the House that is not much larger, they lack the political muscle to go too far in reversing Bush policy even if that was their chief goal.(Oh, is the implication that reversing Bush policy is relatively unimportant to Dems?) And they already have their hands full with delivering on their own ambitious legislative agenda, following through on their pledges of bipartisanship (does anybody think that makes sense??) and ethics reform and avoiding anything that costs the party its chance at the White House in 2008. Yes, but that doesn't require accepting the oppressive Republican policy because "The world has changed." And playing around the edges with goodies for the "Average family" - whatever the hell the "Average family" is - doesn't cut it.

Leading Democrats say their best direction is forward, concentrating on establishing a new party legacy rather than obsessing with the perceived (perceived???) failings of Republican rule. The test for the party’s newly empowered leadership and the congressional membership will be whether they can stick to that path. If they "stick to it," then it's time to hit the streets, Folks.

My feeling is that "Leading Democrats" can't be trusted. Just what exactly does it mean to "push aside the interest groups left, right and center" ? Who the fuck remains? People on the left, right, and center who AREN'T interested.

Watch the Democrats, Folks, and what they do will show you whether they care about you and the nation, or whether they care more about going along to get along.

- Uke Man