Democrats In Congress Wary Of Overreaching

[DogPoundPup]

Source: CBS News

AP) President-elect Barack Obama is facing a Congress with bulked-up Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate to put much of his agenda into law.

Obama will inherit a Congress with Democratic House and Senate majorities comparable to those enjoyed by President Clinton when the party last controlled both Congress and the White House in 1992. While Democrats are eager to churn out the new president's legislative programs, they're also anxious to avoid the electoral wipeout that swept them from power in the 1994 congressional elections.

That's one reason top leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promise not to lurch to the left and give in to pent-up demands from party liberals.

"The country must be governed from the middle," Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday. "You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people."


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/politics/main4579885.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4579885

[glowing]

1. So, if Dems just call it center.. and go left anyway, low info people wouldn't even notice.

[Doctor_J]

12. OTOH, if they lurch to the right trying to molify "moderates", their

agenda will be called socialist and communist anyway, and low info people will believe the Big Media liars. So it's time to fix America and let the Limbeciles be pushed to the margin

[humbled_opinion]

42. I totally agree with this strategy.

If you swing right you will be told you are far left so they will advance the bar. Just stay Center and move left....FIX all the crap the Pukes broke.... that means we have to go Left because the country has gone too far Right ever since Raygun.

[w4rma]

52. Yup. That's the proper strategy. All *talk* should be moderate talk. (nt)

[Posteritatis]

31. Low info people would assume "Democrat" = "communist" anyway (nt)

[EconomicLiberal]

2. The last time Dems had large majorities in Congress along with a Dem president, they underreached.

Look at 1976-1978 and 1992-1994 for proof.

Maybe the Dems will get something accomplished this time with this much political capital?

[tledford]

47. You make a very good point. eom

[paulk]

67. maybe you could explain the '92-'94 "underreach"

Clinton tried for national healthcare, gays in the military, and rescinded Reagan's tax cuts without a single Republican vote.

The country rewarded him by giving control of Congress to the Republicans.

Maybe you could give the "proof" you cite.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. They are puppy mill puppies afraid to leave the crate

even when they see a large green meadow stretched in front of them.

Sad.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Perfect analogy.

[defendandprotect]

11. ...or they have other interests .. others who run them ...!!!

[elleng]

33. Been afraid of that for some time,

and now it may look as if they're being 'awarded' or congratulated for spinelessness.

[humbled_opinion]

43. So it is up to us....

to prod them and comfort them so they can run free in that meadow... then we and all the other puppies get to join them.

[customerserviceguy]

48. Powerful imagery there

To keep with the metaphor, they're afraid of getting their noses rubbed in the mess that was made by the previous mutts.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bitchkitty]

5. Governed from the middle?

She's obtuse. I would think that the numbers would tell her something.

[defendandprotect]

10. Nancy knows the numbers/message ... she simply takes it off the table + ignores it--!!!

Pelosi has her own interests to protect and they aren't the same as ours ...

Nancy seems to like this war -- and bailouts -- corporate interests --

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[wtbymark]

6. shud up Nancy, geez

now's the time NOT to be a pussy (damn)

[defendandprotect]

8. Bush stole electons -- and ruled like a dictator ...what is this nonsense?????

[crossroads]

62. I agree!

Republicans cut us NO slack on anything! Why should we attempt to appease those bastards?

CR:grr:

[defendandprotect]

9. Nancy is spewing DLC garbage ... again --

War and criminal capitalism are good for America --

Hey... Let's re-elect Repugs ... we must have misunderstood last 8 years ...!!!

[AsahinaKimi]

13. The same Nancy Pelosi..

who gave Bush a pass on impeachment?

[Hotler]

14. Nancy, don't you have some laundry to do?

[qwlauren35]

72. Warning from a feminazi...

That's a sexist comment.

I've tried to think of any non-sexist comment. The only one I can come up with is "Nancy, your mom is calling - time to go home for dinner."

However, that one is usually aimed at guys as a way of calling them sissies.

The only other safe one is "I think it's past your bedtime."

[bemildred]

15. "Democrats in Congress reluctant to govern."

Who exactly do they think they need permission from? Why are they elected, if not to govern?

[OwnedByFerrets]

16. GD'd repugs have NEVER been "wary" of overreaching....

stop being such wimps and do the fucking job we elected you for.

[Taverner]

17. Fuck you Nancy

[fascisthunter]

18. There ya Go!... Right on Schedule from a person who protected Bush

your "middle" is where the Republican party used to be 20 years ago lady. Boy, it doesn't take them long does it... like a bunch of vultures who come in after the kill.

[SpankMe]

19. The Republicans didn't govern from the middle...

...why should we? From the day Newt's Congress gained control until the Republicans lost it in 2006 they pursued a hard-over conservative agenda. Even when Bush got 500k fewer votes than Gore in '00 and won by only 3.5M out of 120M cast in '04, the other party claimed a "mandate" and went for broke.

Now, with overwhelming winnings like this - where we probably CAN claim a mandate - we're supposed to hold back so we don't offend those delicate Republican sensibilities? Maybe later when we're within a year of the next election. But now, we ought to go forth in "shock-and-awe" style and take care of some major issues important to the base, like gays in the military and family planning funding for international organizations. Also, education reform and adjustments in the tax code that favor the middle class.

We need to get the "liberal agenda" pushed through in-full early so it's a faded memory at a later time when we need to win the next election and appeal to independents.

[MadMaddie]

20. The country needs over correcting and verreaching

to fix the problems the Republicans have shoved down Americans throats for the last 35 years.

If Harry and Pelosi are going to be punk ass scared to move this country in the right direction then maybe they are part of the problem.

They played the patience game for the last two years....that is played out.

[santamargarita]

21. What happened to the "Change" thing...

Are we going to go through this shit again?

[Oak2004]

58. Yeah. Our work has just started

We've expelled the Republicans from power. Now we need to pressure the worms, slime mold, and other Congressional invertebrates to find themselves a spine, and work hard to make our dinos extinct.

There's some good work being done out there to find good primary challengers against the worst of them. Getting the good ones in in two years is one of our coming jobs.

Another is to insist that the slime mold support Obama's campaign agenda, no excuses. Because, lord knows, the excuses for why none of it can be done are flowing like beer at Oktoberfest right now.

[JJ]

22. No matter what they do

FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and every newspaper in the country will call it extreme liberalism, so they might as well go as far as they can as fast as they can because they'll be slammed no matter what.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. Yep. And when those left policies work, as they invariably do, they can stfu.

[unkachuck]

23. boy oh boy....

"...promise not to lurch to the left and give in to pent-up demands from party liberals."

....if we we're going to have a continuation of center-right policies and government why didn't we re-elect the repugs and have our fascism done right?....mcsame was center-right....

....two days after victory, a victory commenced by us and our dissatisfaction and resolution 4 years ago, the corporate Dems are all ready pissing in our face and kicking us in the balls....

....if the corporate Dems had no intention of feeding the base, why didn't they make that absolutely clear 6 months ago?....a year ago?....2 years ago?....why have they wasted our time and money?

....betrayed by Republicans, betrayed by Democrats, betrayed by our corporate system....

[Nihil]

39. Spot on!

> ....if we we're going to have a continuation of center-right policies
> and government why didn't we re-elect the repugs and have our fascism
> done right?....mcsame was center-right....

To think that the biggest reason why Obama was elected was for that
word used as a slogan: "Change".

Way to take the optimism out of the world Pelosi!

:cry:

[wordpix]

41. It's those party liberals, Nancy, who got Obama & a Dem Congress elected!

Sheesh, is she corporate-controlled or what? :shrug:

[AllyCat]

24. Getting rid of Pelosi would be a great first step in avoiding it

Their idea of "the middle" is slightly to the left of Attila the Hun

[curse of greyface]

25. Universal Health care is not overreaching. Reversing the Patriot act

is not overreaching. A more progressive tax policy is not overreaching...

I would avoid gun control measures however. :)

[AllyCat]

50. You are right. Those are fair things, not over reaches

Not sure about the gun control thing...was that mentioned somewhere? I've not heard gun control really even talked about this election except for the rightwing nutjobs on talk radio saying "Obama's gonna take away your guns!" just like they always say.

[corpseratemedia]

26. nancy you are to blame also

we didn't vote for you , we voted for change, which means YOU NEED TO GO, a real Democrat doesn't acquiesce to sociopaths

In fact, Nancy, like a good Democrat would, you should be taking the blame for all your horrible wimpy "decisions" and their very tragic consequences.

Oh yeah, and what "pent up demands," Nancy? Like fixing the disaster of privatizing Medicare Drug Coverage?

[MasonJar]

27. What is the point of getting elected if they never do anything?

[Nihil]

38. Their income and future prospects go up.

Seems like that's the only reason for some doesn't it?

[frylock]

28. two words: fuck that shit!

this GDI doesn't understand that we've lurched so far to the right that it's going to take a hard left just to find center.

[OnyxCollie]

29. They've spent so much time keeping the powder dry they've forgotten what it's used for. nt

[Owl]

30. WTF Pelosi, WTF? Get with it, or get out of the way.

[lonestarnot]

32. Are we going to get rid of her or keep listening to her shit?

[defendandprotect]

35. How-----------------------???

[AllyCat]

51. I'm not sure, but I feel another LTTE coming on

I've managed to get one against her published already. People need see her for the Repug she behaves like and start calling for more "CHANGE"!!!

[defendandprotect]

55. We need Dems to agree with us and act for change --

Meanwhile, where's our leverage ...???

What party are we going to from here --??? !!!

[lonestarnot]

64. I'm for putting her on notice.

[Bearware]

34. We are not done yet. Primaries come up in two years.

Nancy and more than a few others need a lesson on who is in charge and where the middle is in the form
of serious primary challenges from prepared progressive democrats. Those campaigns need to start getting
organized early in 2009 or before. They need money then too.

Nothing wakes you and your fellow DLCers as well as Blue Dogs like either near defeats or permanent political retirement.

If you want to see more progress, watch what happens when a few of these people who are in safe seats (from Repugs) get
made examples of by losing their primaries.

[Nihil]

37. Hey! Good idea!!

Let's wait two more years before *starting* to shift out of neutral!

:eyes:

[bemildred]

45. Yes, that is the only way to compel obedience.

Keep firing them until one comes along that is willing to do the peoples will.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Pelosi crushed her pro-impeachment primary opponent in June:

Shirley Golub 7,210 10.9 %
Nancy Pelosi 58,802 89.1 %

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/0859.htm

But that was in San Fransisco, and there must be a lot of districts which are a lot more liberal. ;)

[Demeter]

36. OVERREACHING!

:rofl:

Nancy, honey, you've been doing that for too long and in the wrong direction.

[Hugin]

40. I'm going to Telediagnose...

They're collectively suffering from "Beaten Spouse Syndrome" which is very similar to "PTSD".

They need to strike back and seek treatment.

[Liberalynn]

44. Here we go with the excuses all ready

to avoid changing anything, and to avoid voting like Real Democrats. The new Congress hasn't even been sworn in, :eyes:, and they are all ready running for the hills.

What a truly spineless bunch of cowards. Its like one of the talking heads said on CNN, the Thugs were good at getting elected but not at governing because there efforts were always focused on the next election, instead of actually achieving what they promised in the last one. Now here the Dems go doing the same thing.

I don't know how much clearer the American Public could have made it to you chuckle heads. If they had wanted Republican policies to continue, they would have voted Republican. They voted for change, now give it to them or resign.

If you don't get your heads out of your own butts and govern, we can sure as hell kiss the next election good bye, no matter how many Thug butts you kiss.:eyes:

[Vidar]

53. Pelosi is as much a traitor as Lieberman.

[yurbud]

54. because that's exactly what the GOP would do? how do they usually repay Dems for bipartisanship?

it usually involves a gag, a chainsaw, and disposing of body parts in various dumpsters.

Democrats need to offer Republicans a simple deal: join us in doing the right things or be irrelevant.

That's the kind of bipartisanship people expect when they vote for any party.

[Doremus]

56. So what are we going to do about it? Seriously.

As long as we piss and moan and do basically nothing else Pelosi et al know they can do whatever they want to do.

We need a coordinated effort from our labor leaders, anti-war leaders, bloggers, social group leaders and progressive leaders of all stripes to start planning general strikes and protests until Pelosi gets it.

Until then, we may as well stfu.

[Zorra]

57. Puke. I hereby nominate Dennis Kucinich to take over as Speaker of the House.

Nancy has been suspiciously ineffective in that position. The republicans took over Congress in a landslide in 1994 because congressional Democrats were stuck in the same corporate middle (right) that Nancy speaks of, and they didn't do jack shit. Democrats will be out of the majority in two years if they govern from the right,...er, I mean the "middle".

I thought the new administration was about real change. I'm sorry, I just don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's totally filthy rich, and I'm extremely suspicious that her governing philosophy is primarily based on protecting the interests of her own class.

We need someone like Dennis Kucinich as House Speaker. Someone with an actual spine, good judgment, intelligence, and solid ideas for real change as House Speaker.[/b

[Zhade]

63. HEAR, HEAR!

NT!

[pfitz59]

59. "Impeachment is off the table!"

Same old lame strategy. Stop already..go for it! Did Roosevelt worry about over-reach?

[mitchum]

60. What in the hell are they going to do with all that "dry powder"?

[Zhade]

61. And so the excuse-making for remaining conservative begins.

No, Pelosi. You can't make consensus with fundies and the proudly ignorant.

THEY DON'T WANT CONSENSUS!

And you're not in the middle - in Europe, you'd be rightly called a conservative.

[pat_k]

65. "It's like Deja vu all over again"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/24

[droidamus2]

66. As much as I would like...

the Democratic Congress to push for strong progressive measures I think the country as a whole would be more accepting of an incremental approach. Yes, ultimately we would get to where we want to be but it would give the right wingers fewer big targets to attack a la Hillary Clinton and health care. Under Republican rule there seemed to be the idea that if we passed something on let's say health care then we didn't need to think about health care anymore no matter how small the step was. Now that we are in charge and if we keep control for awhile those small victories can be seen as stepping stones to bigger gains. If we can show the electorate over time that our approaches are working (and keep them from tearing President Obama apart like they did Clinton) then as time goes by we will be able to implement the more progressive approaches we want without alienating the moderate voters that we need. Unfortunately the public seems to want change but massive change tends to scare them which feeds right into the Roveian scare tactics that the Republicans like to use.

[High Plains]

68. Goddamned wussies. n/t

[jpak]

69. So i guess this means impeachment is off the table

:evilgrin:

[okieinpain]

70. what does lurching to the left mean, if it's responsible government

what do we have to fear. government should try to fix everything just help fill the cracks.

[crickets]

71. Democrats In Congress Wary Of Alienating Their Corporate Masters

(aka the Money Train) is more like it. Does anyone still have a problem understanding why so many Dems want to see someone, anyone else but Nancy wielding that gavel in the next session of Congress?

[always_saturday]

73. I'm convinced she is a closet repug.