Is the cocky attitude normal? I'm fairly young to politics, so someone enlighten me. It seems to me that the Democratic leaders are really cocky right now with their control of the Senate, White House, and House of Representatives. I haven't followed politics long enough to see another time when a party has had total control, so is this normal? Obama telling the Republican's "I Won" Pelosi in regards to Republican opposition to the "Stimulus" bill: I know these are a couple of isolated comments, but it seems to be following a theme of "we've got the power, we don't care who doesn't like it." Is this the way it usually is when a party takes complete control?
Wow after 8 years of a Republican president and 6 years of the house and senate under GOP control you are calling Democrats cocky. lol thats a good laugh.
I don't believe it's restricted to one party or the other. Like anything, there are people more concerned with their self-interest or their party than the duties of their position. Some individuals are much more vocal about it which really doesn't do them any good. The last time "some" Democrats tried that approach they were slaughtered in the next election. The leaders for the Democrats need to understand that the people didn't give them power because they thought they were the answer. They placed them in power to send a message to the other party. The Democrats are not on solid ground and can easily lose positions if they don't make things happen. Thus far, Pelosi and Reid have not impressed many Americans and can jeopardize their control with partisan politics. That's why we have this process. You just keep cycling people through and hope a few of them do what's right. That's why the Republicans just got voted out.
I respect your posts, generally, but you apparently didn't read mine. I guess you didn't get past the title. I'm not meaning it (though I guess it sounds like it) as necessarily a tear down of the Democrats, I am LITERALLY asking, was it like this a few years ago when the Republicans controlled all branches? I'm trying to get some historical perspective, because this is the first time I've ever paid attention to it.
You are right and I wasnt directing it towards you, so I apologize. I was just making a point. Although, it doesnt matter because the real culprits are Pelosi and Reid imo right now. Their rhetoric will get the Dems in trouble. So my bad
Re: Is the cocky attitude normal? It's absolutely normal. When a party has the White House and the other has the Hill, as in Reagan's and Clinton's administrations, they are forced to work out compromises to get anything done and not surprisingly, they both accomplished a lot. But when a single party holds the Presidency and Congress, as in Carter and Bush 43, there is a tendency to try to have it their own way. The Carter administration was still during a time where some accommodations were paid to the inclusion of the other party in committee and chamber decisions. Of course, much of it had become lip service. But during the Bush 43 administration, the Rove philosophy was that a narrow margin of victory should be treated as a mandate and the other party could be marginalized and ignored. It was a poor policy because when all their plans crumbled, they were out there on their own and the democrats had no investment in the failed policies and profited by it in the 2006 and 2008 elections. People are fed up with partisan bickering and is rewarding the party that is leaning towards the center right now. It would be well for the democrats to not follow Rovian tendencies and do include some conservative issues in their policies so as to get the republicans on board to help make policy work, instead of outside throwing stones at it. I think Obama wants to do this, at least he has so written in his books. He got elected on this promise. Now Pelosi and Reid are not in elected positions, they are political creatures looking out for their party--that is their role, as was their predecessors. Some of the old guard are looking for some political payback now that the situation has turned on the republicans. But that ain't the change that Obama promises, so I think we will see the gradual marginalization of Pelosi and Reid as democratic policymakers if they buck Obama too badly. If he's going to go out there and fail, it's not going to be on Pelosi's and Reid's terms. Nor Teddy Kennedy's not the Clinton's. He's going to sink or swim on his own policy and I think the old-guard democrats are going to cave in to him and the republicans will, too. At least until he sinks . . .
Re: Is the cocky attitude normal? Thanks, that's just what I was looking for. Obama's comment that I posted above is pretty tame and was just a warning saying that "I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do, not because I have to," so that one wasn't too bad. It was really Pelosi's arrogance that's rubbing me the wrong way. Hopefully you're right about Obama reeling them in.
Re: Is the cocky attitude normal? I would agree with most of what you said in the entire post, but this was the part that jumped out at me. An observation and a question: I would submit that the Clinton Administration made the same mistake, leading in part to the GOP "Contract With America" victory in ''94. Even moreso than the "Rove" philosophy misconception, because with Clinton, there was the rarity of a 3rd party candidate diluting the vote distribution. Neither Clinton in '92 nor Bush in '00 even carried 50% of the popular vote, so neither was justified in thinking there was a mandate. (not finger-pointing at the Dems here; just saying there's even more evidence to support your point than you pointed out) Now the question....do you think Obama has learned from this, and that's why he's so insistent on having GOP support (totally unnecessary; he has all the votes he needs to win in his own party) for the stimulus plan? Is he, at some level, hedging his bet so that Republicans can't claim a political victory if the economy doesn't bounce back as a result of the plan?
Re: Is the cocky attitude normal? yes. duct tape on those two would serve the dem party well. i think its because for the country as a whole (and i mean support from across the political spectrum) to buy into a plan he needs it to have bi-partisan support. he also needs to be able to show he is trying to put the party differences aside for the good of the country. i think most people are sick and tired of partisanship. i think the pubs right now will take a huge risk if they dont try to find compromise in economic stimulus bills. one risk is that if a plan works without their backing, that will not look good for them in the next election cycle. it only makes them look obselete. or, if they fight, filibuster, and hold things up, that is not gonna look good because everyone knows that every day that goes by things just get worse. both sides have to look like they are trying to work together and willing to give now for the good of the country.
