Odd Plan
Sensing trouble in 2010, Nancy Pelosi has announced "I'm in campaign mode."
What does this mean? The linked article has an idea:
Pelosi began telling members privately last week that she would not bring controversial bills — such as immigration reform and “card-check” — to the floor unless they’ve already passed the Senate, an early indication that her legislative plan for 2010 will be far less ambitious than the one she just completed.
So being in "campaign mode" means no longer supporting things you believe in? And then if the Dems do well in 2010, start supporting them again? So you only pass laws opposed by the people who voted for you on off years?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:28 AM
4 Comments:
You confuse me, LAGuy. I thought you understood this perfectly well. What's abnormal about it?
Actually, it's not that normal. I'm not saying most things politicians support are unpopular. I'm not saying they don't try to be all things to all people (or to a majority of people) when they run for office. And I'm certainly not saying politicians shouldn't do thing that are unpopular.
However, the way it usually works, in general, is politicians promise certain things and get elected because they promised these things, and once in office, try to do things. Right now, however, it seems the Dems got in office, and plan to remain in office, by hiding their main agenda from the public.
The point being that Democrats did not win the '06 and '08 elections so much as Republicans lost them. Republicans were, deservedly I think, punished for scandal, lack of attention to core principles, and failure (mainly in Iraq and eventually in the economy).
In fact, the Democrats will be free to pursue their agenda only when they reverse these failures of the Repuiblicans. If the economy returns to robust health, if the war effort goes well, and if they avoid major scandal, then they can pass major health care reform, environmental legislation and immigration amnesty plans - because most of America will not be looking so closely, being content with the things that primarily matter to them (economy and security).
I sort of agree with Denver Guy. Certainly the public was very unhappy in the last two election cycles, and they punished the party they thought was in charge. (Polls showed Obama supporters believed Republicans ran the Congress in 2008.)
I would usually says scandals don't really matter, but in some cases, like George Allen and Ted Stevens, they did. But "lack of attention to core principle" was not a major factor, if it was a factor at all. This is a lie that both sides tell themselves--if only we'd been more conservative or liberal, we'd have done better. I'd like to know in what cases any particular Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough in the last two elections.
Also, while the economy is dragging down the Dems more than anything else (even though the public still blames Bush and Republicans for the trouble), it's not as if the Dems' unpopular programs--which is the subject of this post--would suddenly be popular if it weren't. (As for the war effort, Bush turned Iraq around, so that is going well, and the public doesn't care that much about Afghanistan right now--the Left may, but they support the programs Pelosi will spend the year hiding.)
In other words, if things were going great economically, it would still be tough to pass health care, cap and trade, card check and comprehensive immigration reform. The most popular of these is health care reform, and look how tough that's been.
That said, I'm still astonished, considering the Dems' huge numbers in Congress, at the trouble they're having doing these things. And now Pelosi is signaling they may put this agenda on the backburner.
Post a Comment
<< Home