DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN: If Democrats bend a little, they'll gain a lot

[babylonsister]

Me: BEND A LITTLE? What exactly have they been doing? And this guy wears a lot of hats, n'est pas? Gee, can't we all just get along? And that Bill Clinton is a heckuva guy, isn't he? :eyes:


If Democrats bend a little, they'll gain a lot

BY DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN | Douglas E. Schoen is the author of the recently published "The Power of the Vote: Electing Presidents, Overthrowing Dictators, and Promoting Democracy Around the World." He was a founding partner of P (and it stops there:wtf:)
October 7, 2007


In Washington, both Democrats and Republicans are in a fighting mood, and even though Iraq is the main event, blows are being traded over much more.

But neither party can win. The Democrats don't control Congress by a large enough margin to advance an agenda, congressional Republicans are numerous enough to frustrate Democrats' ambitions, and President George W. Bush is a particularly obstinate lame duck.

The president's veto last week of a bill extending children's health insurance is an example of the legislative paralysis that we can expect. Divided government demands compromise, and bipartisan consensus is something no one in Washington appears willing to stomach.

Combined with the absence of a clearly articulated Democratic agenda, Congress' rigidity leaves Bush and his band of loyal - albeit decreasingly so - supporters still in control of setting federal policy. It's bizarre, given the Democrats' victory in the 2006 elections.

Recent history shows another path that the Democrats could take. During the 1994 congressional transfer, Republicans drove the agenda. To appear relevant, the unpopular-at-the-time President Bill Clinton co-opted the popular balanced-budget initiative at the center of the nascent congressional majority's agenda, while preserving key social programs that Democrats supported.

Rather than reflexively opposing all initiatives that the Republican congressional majority advocated, Clinton seized on ones where he stood a chance of achieving support within his own party. Such bipartisanship may appear anathema to Democrats now (as it was to Democrats in 1995), but Clinton was vindicated by his re-election and the growing unpopularity of House Republicans in the rest of his term.

more...

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opsch075404191oct07,0,7652706.story

[Fovea]

1. why dems bend?

Is it because the Republics are too wide stanced to bend?

[aquart]

8. Yah. I would like to see Republican bending.

Ain't no mention of that, is there?

[Selatius]

2. Sit and wait it out, would be my advice.

With 2/3rds of the seats up for re-election being Republican seats, the Repub log jam in the Senate stands a fair chance of being removed in favor of Democrats. Unfortunately, waiting means a lot more dead soldiers coming home between now and Jan. 2009.

[Faygo Kid]

3. Very thoughtful, and probably true. But we need to be ready.

You assume that the election will go forward without a hitch as scheduled. You underestimate the fascist tendencies of the Bush cabal. Otherwise, I agree - just stop them, for now.

[Vanje]

4. Bend over?

[aquart]

7. And cough.

I suggest standing straight up and looking like we have spinal columns.

[napi21]

5. I agree with this advise...sort of. I think the SCHIP bill could be the one

to get agreement on too. I don't remember all the real numbers, but if the Dems would give up maybe $1.5 billion in what they are asking for, I think they could get enough Pubs to override the veto! It would certainly be much better than the current program, and it would really shame Shrub...which I would LOVE to see!

[babylonsister]

6. It would also show the Dems conceding, again, to *'s wishes when he

is the one clearly in the wrong on this. Reid said there is no room for compromise; I hope he meant it.

[napi21]

9. I hear what you're saying, but what is the alternative?

I relate these arguments in the Senate to demands made by unions. Initially neither side will budge! But the end result of that kind of thinking is that everybody loses.

Part of the problem with this SCHIP bill is that none of the Dems have spoken out stating that Shrub is flat out WRONG when he said families making $83,000 a year could get in the program. Yes that was a request by NY, but it was rejected! The first time I heard anyone actually STATE THAT was this morning by John Corzine. Why have the Dems been so quiet about that?

I still think it would be much better to work out a deal NOW to get MORE kids insured and push for the new DEM President to get a universal hc program for everyone. If that gets done, this CHIP Program will not matter.

[babylonsister]

11. They have pretty much told him he's wrong; why do you think there's

even a whiff of compromise in the air? Here's a statement from Reid after the veto:

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284752&

Reid: President Bush Turns His Back On America's Children In Vetoing Health Care Reform

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement today after President Bush vetoed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007:

“Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people. By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America.

“Congress will fight hard to override President Bush’s heartless veto. Not only is this a critical program – one that will improve the lives of 6.6 million low-income children currently in CHIP and provide health insurance to 4 million more – but the vast majority of the American people know giving kids the care they need is the right thing to do. Bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and the governors of nearly every state, healthcare providers and patient advocates, rural and urban Americans, and citizens of all ages are united in strong support of our nation’s children. With today’s veto, President Bush has turned his back on America’s children and he stands alone.”

[Cha]

10. Maybe we don't control congress

by a large enough number NOW, dougie, but there's an election coming up in 2008 where we can get MORE SEATS if we don't pay any attention to the stupid advice of a dougie schoen or the like..say a dlcer and slicer.

Got one word for ya doug.."CORPORATEMEDIAWHORES" That's our main problem, dougster.

[Kagemusha]

12. Hypothesis: Only Presidents can properly triangulate. Congresses can't.

Because Congress does not have the power of the veto, so it can't negotiate in the same way and it can't place the same burden on the President that the President can place on Congress.