The moment we abandon our core beliefs just to gain power we become corrupted by that power. Sort of like what is going on with the Republicans today. I'd rather lose while remaining honest and keeping my integrity than win because I abandoned my beliefs and the beliefs of most Democrats.

 Spirituality exists without religion, but religion cannot exist without spirituality

Brian Glennon    brian@takebackamerica.us

We have no control in DC? It doesn't matter what we 'give' on. The republicans are going to do as they damned well please.

I'm remembering the rumors of a deal struck behind closed doors just after Debacle 2000, in which Senate democrats agreed not to stand with the Black Caucus to challenge Florida's Electoral Dysfunction. IIRC, it was a 'power sharing' deal.

Um...did that work out? No?

The Democrats may very well allow themselves to be snookered again, but the GOP will never give up their monopoly on voter software.

While we're here discussing whether or not we should 'make deals' with republicans, they're working overtime to totally shut Democratic leadership (and every American these people are supposed to represent) out of the process. We're not playing tether ball, here.

If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. ~John Leland, July 5, 1802.

Lets put gay marriage on the ballot in ALL of the remaining states in 2006 so that we cannot easily get clobbered by it again in 2008. Although the constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, Bush's HUGE 51% majority clearly means he can trample whatever he wants. I personally feel that if marriage is a religious institution, civil unions are a perfectly acceptable middle ground for fairly rational people to agree upon. And to all the closeted gay people out there, come out of the closet. The reason people are friendly to gay right issues is because they have friend, relatives, or co-workers who are openly gay. It is a lot harder to vote against someone you know, than some abstract concept that affects only strangers.

Okay, if the repukes aren't going to actually move on gay marriage/abortion but continue to hide behind them, how can we expose this fraud? I have written letters to all my local papers but don't think that is very effective.

"I love God, but his fan club is freekin meshuggeneh!."

I totally agree with Bob on this one. Gay marriage and abortion simply aren't that important. With issues like Nuclear proliferation, terrorism, global warming and the immediate need to alternative sources for energy, gay marriage and abortion simply aren't that important. From a Democratic perspective, they are not worth losing elections over.

Unfortunately the far left-wing of the Democratic party and the far right wing of the Republican party keep these issues front and center. To the vase majority of Americans these two issues just aren't on the radar screen. It would do the Democratic party a lot of good to separate itselft from single-advocacy groups like NOW and NARAL.

Politics is a series of compromises and I have always beleived that the a good way of knowing that a good compromise has been struck is when both sides get some of what they but walk away unhappy. Take Gay Marriage, most Americans are against gay marriage but would favor civil unions. This seems simple to me, just allow civil unions and ban gay marriage. Civil unions will give the gay advocacy groups the rights they want, it's just not called marriage. Then there is abortion. Most Americans favor some types of abortion, but the majority is against government funding of abortion and are against abortion on demand. Why not allow abortion on demand for the first trimester and ban it from that point on with the exception of cases where the mother's health is in jeapordy? Both of these suggestions would give each side some of what they want, allow each side to declare victory and the government would enact laws that are the will of the majority. The last time I checked this was still a Democracy where the majority rules. If the Democrats made such proposals, it would take these wedge issues off of the table and allow this country to face the major issues we are being confronted with in the 21st century.

How long will this thread dominate the discussion? Not long.

If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. ~John Leland, July 5, 1802.

I believe the majority of Americans feel the way I do, which is I never in my life have cast a vote based on whether a candidate is pro or anti abortion of for or against gay marriage. I couldn't care less. I feel that there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed.

Sticky doesn't work, so I can't keep these stupid little exercises in circular argument at the bottom of the list - so - I'm just going to allow you school children who don't seem to understand the rules here to play in your sandbox. I could make it read only again, but what's the point? I'd rather be going more worthwhile things, like scrubbing the toilet.

Sheesh...and it wasn't that long ago that members were upset that there was no moderation. I hope you guys figure out whether or not it's worthwhile to protect the Constitutional rights of women soon.

Until then, please don't come at me complaining that the trolls are unmanageable or that there is no one moderating these boards...I don't want to hear it. There now...slobber all over each other.

Oh, look - spam.  I hope someone else takes care of it. 

If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. ~John Leland, July 5, 1802.

Looking at the issue as being only about the Constitutional Rights of Women is a bit simplistic. Just like people who look at it as just being about the rights of the unborn are being simplistic too. It has to do with both and anyone who feels that the other side doesn't have a valid arguement is trying to make it black and white instead of shades of gray. IMO

Can't have that...can we? Gosh, I sure hope someone does something about that spam. It makes it hard for sensible people to talk about stuff we don't know shit about - doesn't it?

If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. ~John Leland, July 5, 1802.

When you give the American people a choice between a Republican and a Republican; they pick the Republican every time.

November 27th, 2004 6:37 pm
Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

By Charles Babington / Washington Post

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.

That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."

Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."

Price, a former Duke University political scientist and the author of "The Congressional Experience," acknowledged that past congressional leaders, including Democrats, had sometimes scuttled measures opposed by most of their party's colleagues. But he said the practice should not apply to far-reaching, high-stakes legislation such as NAFTA and the intelligence package, which were backed by the White House and most of Congress's 535 members.

Other House Democrats agree. Republicans "like to talk about bipartisanship," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "But when the opportunity came to pass a truly bipartisan bill -- one that would have passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly and would have made the American people safer -- they failed to do it."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a White House aide when NAFTA passed, said this week, "What is more comforting to the terrorists around the world: the failure to pass the 9/11 legislation because we lacked 'a majority of the majority,' or putting aside partisan politics to enact tough new legislation with America's security foremost in mind?"

Some scholars say Hastert's decision should not come as a surprise. In a little-noticed speech in the Capitol a year ago, Hastert said one of his principles as speaker is "to please the majority of the majority."

"On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority," he continued. "Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. The job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority."

Hastert put his principle into practice one week ago today. In a closed meeting in the Capitol basement, he urged his GOP colleagues to back the intelligence bill that had emerged from long House-Senate negotiations and had President Bush's support. When a surprising number refused, Hastert elected to keep it from reaching a vote, even though his aides said it could have passed with a minority of GOP members and strong support from the chamber's 206 Democrats.

Hastert spokesman John Feehery defended the decision in a recent interview. "He wants to pass bills with his majority," Feehery said. "That's the hallmark of this [Republican] majority. . . . If you pass major bills without the majority of the majority, then you tend not to be a long-term speaker. . . . I think he was prudent to listen to his members."

Some congressional scholars say Hastert is emphasizing one element of his job to the detriment of another. As speaker, said Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, "you are the party leader, but you are ratified by the whole House. You are a constitutional officer," in line for the presidency after the vice president. At crucial times, he said, a speaker must put the House ahead of his party.

If Congress eventually enacted an intelligence bill similar to the one rejected last Saturday, Ornstein said, "then it would be unfair to rip Hastert to shreds. But if this either kills the bill or turns it from what would have been" a measure with considerable bipartisan support, he said, "then I think he should be condemned roundly."

Some groups representing families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are already criticizing Hastert. "The failure in leadership of the speaker to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote is particularly troubling because we believe the bill would have passed by a wide majority in the House," the Family Steering Committee said.

In the new Congress that convenes in January, Hastert's strategy may prove sufficient for GOP victories on issues that sharply divide the two parties, such as tax cuts, several analysts said. But on trade issues and other matters that are more divisive within the parties -- and thus require bipartisan coalitions to pass -- he could face serious problems.

Hastert's "majority of the majority" maxim, Ornstein said, "is a disastrous recipe for tackling domestic issues such as entitlement programs, the deficit and things like that."

The fiscal conservatives are going NUTS... We will never get the cultural conservatives to vote for us but these guys??? We have serious crediblity on the budjet. Our last president balencd it for the first time in almost 50 years. Our very talented tresury secrtary work with the fed to help create one of the best business climates in our history.

To give up on our defence of personal liberty to try to win over blue coller southern votes is seriously wrong headed. Those people are lost and gone forever. It is time to make fiscal responseablity a catch phrase democratic party. If we want to colonize a section of the GOP it the money guys we should go after.

On last thing: There is a very strong chance that Inflation will be a real problem in the next four years. We should be working NOW to make shure that the comming trouble for the dollar and interest rates etc... get blamed on the polocies of the Bush White House.

In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion the largest deficit in American history. In January 1993, the CBO projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. In fact, the unified budget had a surplus of $237 billion in FY 2000!

In 4 years the shrubs took a $237 billion surplus and turned it into a 450 billion dollar deficit! If this was not enough evidence of poor fiscal responsibility by the Bush administration to sway the "fiscal conservatives I doubt that they will be swayed by a little inflation.

As far as winning over the blue collar southern votes being seriously wrong headed, don't forget that they were once Democrats. They were won over by the repubs.
I am however very grateful that this topic has stimulated some discussion other than the 'A' word, I think necco was about to give me the hook!

"I love God, but his fan club is freekin meshuggeneh!."

I say democrats should not back down one bit in protecting a women's right to choose. Why can't we make it our policy to things which actually reduce the number of abortions - like reducing poverty, reducing rape, providing national health coverage and providing free family planning services. I do not think we should conpromise the freedom of women one bit.

Neither do I think we should throw gay people out of the boat. I am not gay but I know that the fascists like to divide and conquer. If we don't stand up for fairness and decency for gay people then who will be next? If we compromise and give away women's rights and the right of gay people to civil unions then what will the fascists want next? Do you really think that would satisy them?

I'll tell you what would satisy the extreme far right - if they had total power, if they ruled the world and everyone who was not a fascist was dead or being tortured in a prison somewhere.