tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post968627746430041560..comments2023-10-28T06:41:07.069-07:00Comments on Ambition, Impatience and Sloth: Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-4178061893003889642008-10-25T17:30:00.000-07:002008-10-25T17:30:00.000-07:00I think 39 GOP Senators would have plenty of lever...I think 39 GOP Senators would have plenty of leverage for my taste. They'd have to pick their spots, but they could use the media and raise a ruckus at the right points, and draw off the most conservative Dems to stop things that were too profligate or too far left, whatever that might be.<BR/><BR/>I'm not all that worried about over-spending, apres Bush. Cheney may well be right - maybe deficits don't matter. Even if they do, I don't see this Dem caucus, with Tester, McCaskill, Webb, and others around being significantly more profligate than the GOP.<BR/><BR/>And for the record, I hope they get really profigate with things that matter: I'd like to see foreign aid and investment in renewable energy reseach and money for public jobs (in clean energy, ideally) increased ten-fold.<BR/><BR/>I can envision the Dems being profligate, it's true, but there are so few times when the country gets profligate with the poor and less fortunate - it's been over forty years since the Great Society and even those programs fell short of what Johnson's advisors thought would be necessary to do the job.<BR/><BR/>I like the idea of getting bipartisan cover for the necessary but unpopular steps that you rightly note will be necessary but, as I say, I'm deeply skeptical that the GOP will help out no matter how critical it is. The GOP will make the Dems be the party of spinach and liver - there's no way around it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-9205477714763508082008-10-25T10:47:00.000-07:002008-10-25T10:47:00.000-07:00Most of it is that I'm basically with Brian that I...Most of it is that I'm basically with Brian that I want some check on the worse (by which I guess I mean profligate) instincts of the Democrats. <BR/><BR/>Another part of it is that Congress is going to have to pass some unpleasant things--tax increases, service cuts, etc. Traditionally, those things only happen when everyone's neck is on the line. I mentioned the 103rd Congress ('93); the Clinton tax hikes passed, with only Democratic votes in the House, and probably saved the economy, teeing up the prosperity of the rest of the decade. But the Democrats got killed so badly a year and a half later that I can't imagine they'd be willing to be the party of spinach and liver again...Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-24348186550492321782008-10-25T06:42:00.000-07:002008-10-25T06:42:00.000-07:00The theory goes that if one party holds all the po...The theory goes that if one party holds all the power, they can do 'anything', and thus they'll do something bad. I disagree.<BR/><BR/>I do hope if the Democrats get 60 that the 'Blue Dogs' within the party ensure that the platform isn't too far left. First of all, I'm not a huge leftist like many of my Democratic brethren, and secondly, I don't think the public is going to be entirely receptive to some policies. They weren't receptive to many of the right-wing policies of Bush (and weren't of Reagan's even though history has been re-written on that subject).Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718746542807866675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-27654396524569653952008-10-24T19:53:00.000-07:002008-10-24T19:53:00.000-07:00Interesting - why would it be desirable for the De...Interesting - why would it be desirable for the Dems to fall short of 60? It's hard to say exactly what that would mean, since the 60th Dem might turn out to be more conservative than the 40the Repub, so we can't be sure exactly what 60 Dems would mean, but broadly speaking I assume it's a fair proxy for "assurance that the main Dem platform points would pass." Assuming you see it the same way, is there some Dem platform point you oppose? Or is it more of a process point - it's better if they need to modify things to entice a few GOP defectors? Or just generally 41 opposition votes is a hedge against corruption or something?<BR/><BR/>My view is affected by the GOP's behavior, especially with Clinton's budgets and health care reform: when actual change is in the air, the GOP closes ranks and opposes it uniformly; hence, real change requires 60 Dems. And I want very much for that to happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-10626337287844860592008-10-24T14:48:00.000-07:002008-10-24T14:48:00.000-07:00I'm somewhat inclined to agree, though I think the...I'm somewhat inclined to agree, though I think the case could be made that when things are going relatively well, the higher-standard facet of "gridlock" is more desirable and when things are going badly--like now--it might be better to have unified control for faster action. <BR/><BR/>That said, I'm finding myself hoping the Democrats don't get to 60 seats in the Senate... and were it the Republicans with a great prospect of unified control come January, I'd be terrified. So I can't claim total non-hack-ness here.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-32841875247815369052008-10-24T12:25:00.000-07:002008-10-24T12:25:00.000-07:00I often think that gridlock is best for the countr...I often think that gridlock is best for the country as it's usually only the really important things that will pass. Should be interesting to see if the Dems can keep their foot off the gas pedal and be frugal enough to truly emerge as the party that claims they are for the middle class.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17459119496648169466noreply@blogger.com