Quote:
|
Originally Posted by purplefrog
You're right about being a Warriors fan. What came over me?
The thing is if Obama does win 350+ electoral votes (my prediction) and Congress goes the way we think it might then the Dems have every right to declare the mandate and bring about some sort of "change" the vast majority of Americans really want (I believe people want change in a general sense but don't really know specifically what they want). My concern is we don't really know what "change" will mean after the votes are counted. Once the Dems realize they've got a blank check they will become drunk with power (not because they are Democrats, because they are human beings). Combine that with Obama being a narcissist and we are likely to have a transforming of America that fits the ideology of the extreme left of the Democratic party. Imo, that's not reassuring. We need moderation, not extremism.
|
saw this a couple of days ago in the wsj, seems relevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats Vie to Shape an Obama Legislative Agenda
Advisers, House Caucuses Jockey for Input Should Senator Win the Presidency; Tensions Over How Fast to Move on Big IssuesBy JONATHAN WEISMANArticle
Democrats inside Sen. Barack Obama's circle of advisers and on Capitol Hill are jockeying even before Election Day to shape an Obama administration's legislative agenda and define "Obamanomics," a concept he himself has left vague over the campaign.
Sen. Obama has been able to win support by convincing voters he could simultaneously be a populist and a fiscal disciplinarian, that he could invest in education, energy and health care and adhere to rules that say additional spending must be more than offset by cuts or tax increases. He attacks greed and excess in Wall Street, yet reaches out to assure financial leaders he understands markets' needs.
But if Sen. Obama wins on Tuesday and Democrats expand their congressional majority, the party in power will quickly have to reconcile these seeming contradictions into a legislative strategy.
Sen. John McCain and his camp are also looking toward the transition period and how he would govern with a hostile Congress. But with Sen. Obama ahead in polls and Democrats virtually assured control of the Capitol, likely with expanded majorities, the action is most intense on that side of the aisle.
"It's better to let things evolve than to revolve. Revolutions are dangerous," cautioned Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Majority Whip, who advises a pragmatic approach to governance that would begin with items that have proven bipartisan support before tackling ambitious elements such as universal health care.
"He's a national leader, Clyburn," House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York snapped back, embodying the views of liberals who want to move fast on the most ambitious version of Obamanomics possible. "I'm thinking of his constituents, and he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about."
More than a month ago, House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer said he called Sen. Obama's congressional liaison, Phil Schiliro, to begin plotting strategy and laying out an agenda. Since then, he said, there have been "a number of conversations," between Sen. Obama and Democratic leaders and between Obama aides and key committee and leadership staff.
"It would be irresponsible not to plan as if you were going to win," said Rep. Hoyer, of Maryland.
Democratic governors have been pushing for input as well, taking advantage of their positions atop regional vote-delivery machines. "I'm a swing-state governor. I've talked to this guy probably more than my own parents," quipped Colorado's Bill Ritter, who got Sen. Obama to adopt his "new energy economy" mantra verbatim.
Democratic leaders, aides and Obama advisers say such conversations remain friendly. But some tension exists in an eclectic circle that includes Wall Streeters, labor leaders and liberal think-tank denizens.
Sen. Obama's economic brain trust dialed in two weeks ago to a conference call with the candidate to discuss how the Wall Street bailout was working when a split emerged over how hard the government should lean on the banks. Some advisers said it would be politically and economically disastrous if the billions of taxpayer dollars injected into ailing financial institutions just sat in vaults. Robert Rubin, who served as President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary between stints on Wall Street, pushed back. Leaving the money in the banks would help stabilize them and prevent further turmoil in the credit markets, even if the money wasn't loaned out, the Citigroup Inc. executive said.
On Capitol Hill, three main factions are emerging with very different advice.
The first group, led by "old bull" liberals, wants to move fast on big-ticket issues such as universal health care and weaning the nation off Middle Eastern oil and on regulatory and labor issues, such as allowing unions to organize by getting would-be members to sign cards backing collective bargaining instead of submitting to secret ballots.
Rep. Rangel argues that a President Obama would face a narrow window after the election to move on those big items, as well as his tax plan. That would raise the top two income-tax rates, raise capital-gains and dividend tax rates on upper-income families, and cut taxes on the middle class. Democrats need to have faith that a strong showing in the election indicates broad political backing, Rep. Rangel said. They should be emboldened by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson secured. And he doesn't want to hear talk of containing the deficit.
"For God's sake," he said, "don't ask me where the money will come from. I'm going to the same place Paulson went."
A second faction of more-conservative Democrats is focusing on fiscal discipline. With this fiscal year's deficit potentially approaching $1 trillion, these Democrats say the money for Sen. Obama's ambitious agenda simply isn't there. One of the first acts of the next Congress should be approving a bipartisan commission to tackle the deficit and the growth of entitlements, such as Medicare and Medicaid, argue the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who say they will have the numbers to make the demands.
"We've got 49 Blue Dogs, maybe 61 after the election," said Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. "We don't need much persuasion. We've got the votes."
Earlier this month, Sen. Obama called three prominent Blue Dogs, including Rep. Ross, to reassure them of his commitment to pay-as-you-go rules, which hold that any spending increases or tax cuts must be offset by equivalent spending cuts or tax increases. He also pledged to meet with the Blue Dog leadership shortly after the election.
"We know we have to do the energy plan. We have to deal with health care," said Rep. Allen Boyd, a conservative Democrat from the Florida panhandle who spoke with the candidate. "We can't do any of that until we lay out a plan to bring the fiscal, financial side in order."
The third group of Democrats could be labeled the middle-ground pragmatists. They embrace the activist agenda but are wary about going too far too fast. This camp, which includes the party's top congressional leadership, argues that Sen. Obama should move quickly on a few items with proven bipartisan support -- an economic-stimulus package, an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program funded with a tobacco-tax increase, and funding for federal stem-cell research. They would then regroup and build bipartisan support for the new president's bigger-ticket items -- health care, energy, education and regulatory changes.
Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, the head of Sen. Obama's transition team, is studying the missteps of Bill Clinton's first years in office to avoid a repetition of the hubris that swept Democrats from power for 12 years starting in 1994.
"We moved fast in the 103rd [Congress], and what did it get us?" Rep. Clyburn said.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, head of the House Democratic Caucus, who has discussed this pragmatic approach with the candidate, says Sen. Obama remains firmly behind his full agenda -- but is flexible on timing and pacing. "He is more than willing to have a discussion on different policies but not on whether or not we do health care and energy. That's not what he's flexible on."
Senior Obama advisers say the senator has given no commitments to any of the camps. Without a chief of staff, without a formal policy apparatus to make such decisions, he can only take in the different arguments and await Election Day, they say.
After that, however, he won't have the luxury to put off decisions: If elected, his budget plan will be due by early February.