“This is a mandate to get along, to get something done in a bipartisan way. This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology.” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), when asked if tuesday's election results gave his party a mandate.
"…as we unify the American people. And I pledge again, as I did last night, that we will do so in a strong bipartisan way, with civility in our debate" – Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in a post-election press conference.
Here we have two of the most partisan members in Congress, calling, like Rodney King, for us all to just get along. This is literally the first time I can ever recall Harry Reid speaking in a manner other than the politics of the divisive partisan attack. Pelosi hasn't been much different. In Pelosi's newsconference, she used the words "unity" or "unifying" over and over again.
So what gives ? Why all the calls for unity and bipartisanship ? Have these two former attack dogs suddenly seen the light of brotherhood after all these years ? Not hardly. The answer is much simpler. It's because now, with the incoming Obama presidency, it's the Democratic agenda that Reid and Pelosi will be pushing through, and they want the congressional Republicans to go along with them. The Democrats didn't reach a filibuster-proof majority in tuesday's elections. They also know the Republicans WON'T go along with all the Dem plans, so they are setting the stage to call the GOP obstructionist when any Democratic measures fail to pass.
Reid/Pelosi aren't really calling for unity, they are calling for submission. They want the loyal opposition NOT to oppose them. That is an impossibility. There will be no unity, and there shouldn't be. The GOP can no more check their beliefs at the door than the Democrats did during the Bush presidency. What will exist is the same bitter partisan battles, but with a shift in the balance of power toward the Democrats. Unity is an utter illusion. The only way we could achieve unity is if we only had ONE political party, and I believe the word for that wouldn't be "unity", it would be "totalitarianism."
So spare me the faux Kumbayah stuff.
Here's a definition of "totalitarianism" from Wikipedia.
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. The term was applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. A perfect example of a present-day Totalitarian state is North Korea.
I ask you, which political party most closely resembles the totalitarian model ? Which party thinks the state should regulate so many aspects of public and private life ? Which party is so skeptical of free markets ? Which party advocates more state control of mass media ? Which party desires more control over the economy ? The Democratic party, that's who. Run away from Democratic so-called "unity" as fast as you can, folks. Run toward liberty instead. That's the American way.
Speaking of controlling mass media, regulating private life, and controlling the economy, here's what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on FoxNews about the Fairness Doctrine (which would shut up all those Conservative talk radio voices), and the Employee Free Choice Act (which would eliminate the secret ballot in union voting):
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
WTF ? Talk radio is the same as pornography now ? Like hell it is. Far scarier is the notion promoted by Schumer that the government should regulate EVERYTHING, that the government should intervene in ALL COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES. Like I said, run as fast as you can away from people like Chuck Schumer. Also note that the Fairness Doctrine would be applied only to radio, where the Right has an advantage. It wouldn't be applied to any mass media that favors the Left. What a coincidence, eh ? Totalitarians on the march.
On the Employee Free Choice Act, Schumer says we need it because only 6% of businesses are unionized. Say what ? Here, Schumer is saying we should take away the right of the secret ballot because American workers are choosing not to unionize. More freedom-killing from Schumer, this time because unions are a big-time Democratic special interest. I have nothing against unions, but I have a lot against removing essential rights, such as the secret ballot, in order to promote the paid-for Democratic political agenda.
Message for president-elect Barack Obama: If you really want to show the people you are the president for all Americans, as you said in your acceptance speech, you can start by killing the unamerican Fairness Doctrine and the Employee Free Choice Act. Otherwise, your words of inclusivity will be meaningless.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
The basic belief system has been in place for years and I'm afraid all the Dems needed to close the deal was an old fashioned personality cult.
First.
Elections have consequences.
Second.
If you think the American people put Democrats in charge because they wanted conservative policies implemented and progressive policies stymied…..then you thought wrong.
Third.
Republicans set a record in the last Congress for number of filibusters. They ARE obstructionistic. Pelosi and Reid are giving Republicans notice that they are willing to govern reasonably, like adults, seeking to do the will of the people who elected them. There are now even fewer moderate and reality based Republicans in Congress willing to work with Democrats. The Democratic leaders are announcing that they are willing to work in good faith….but Republicans must also understand that the voters have rejected their policy ideas and they aren't going to get their way.
And larry: I can count on you to supply the humor as we move forward. Never in the history of America have we had such authoritarian leaders as the guys leaving in January. The Cult of the Codpiece and The Dick has, thankfully , come to an end. To exhibit such a blatant form of projectionism so early after the election…..is a good sign you'll be supplying more amusing commentary during the new administration.
I will circle my calendar the day the "emplyee free choice act "( I love the names they give things) is passed. It will be the day freedom dies in America.
I would feel better Reverend if someone could point me to a previous presidential candidate with the same kind of cultish following Obama has nurtured, with the same kind of propensity toward lavish stage sets and iconology he favors, and the same kind of neo-socialist realism posters I've been seeing these last several months. The only other places I've seen those sorts of things is in authoritarian regimes.
Red said: ***The Democratic leaders are announcing that they are willing to work in good faith***
What major change has Pelosi and Reid made in their makeiup other than the fact that they extended their majorities in each House. They have been in the majority for two years and weren't willing to work in good faith. I hardly think they will change overnight because their majorities became larger. No, I think they will continue on doing just as King says, in inviting all the "sucker" Republicans who are willing to give them a try, to go along with them.
Red, remember the way Pelosi allowed the House to vote on drilling for oil before going home for the campaign season? Did that show a willingness to work together? Nothing has changed.
It's Rev, roy, not Red. I'm tickled pink about the election, no doubt, but red?….methinks your GOP rose-colored glasses need color-tweaked.
Haven't Pelosi and Obama said they are willing to consider more drilling? That's a demonstration of good faith. The nation is, at best, moderate….and the Democrats are willing to work with moderate GOP'ers to do the people's business.
larry: I witnessed what you describe with Ronald Reagan and dare I bring up the authoritarian, Mr Codpiece program of Mission Accomplished? I think you are confusing authoritarianism with enthusiastic democracy. Republicans have taken the position in this campaign, and the last election, that American voters are stupid and helpless sheep. They're not.
I don't recall any such propaganda before those two were elected, though I was fairly young when Reagan first ran. Surely I would have seen pictures of him campaigning in front of fake columns, with a fake seal, etc., etc. in these last 28 years though, if that's how he did things.
The props are just more technologically advanced now as compared to circa 1980.
Why would columns and seals be a big deal, anyway?
Obama, surely you must admit, is a very strong political candidate. And be honest, larry…..you want him to succeed, don't you?
I want him to be a good president. As far as wanting him to 'succeed,' I'd have to have a better idea of what he envisions as success.
Fair enough.
Red, you have been Red to me for years and right now you sound a lot more like the far left Democrat members that I heard discussed and mentioned on talks this morning than 4 or 5 years ago. I have referred to you as Rev Red on this comment section from its very beginning, and won't likely be able to change.
I have to agree with larry about success and being a good President. i want him to be successful as far as the nation is concerned and I don't think he is going to lean far enough left for you to be satisfied so maybe I am wanting success for him. He isn't stupid enough to drive us left as far as you want and if he is he will make the best one term president we have ever had.
I think that Obama will fight the Reid – Pelosi desires to establish far left programs that he just can't support. King mentioned two of them in the Fairness Doctrine and the Employee Free Choice which will neither ever get through the Senate without the help of Snowe, Specter and some other RINOs.
Let me say that I think you will be disappointed in Obama when he fails to do some to the things you are so sure he will do, as I think he may well be intelligent enough to realize that he must govern as a president of all the people instead of pushing far left ideology. He has my support as a member of the loyal opposition but it is a tenuous thing in that as is needed from that group if he slips then my support lessens a bunch. He can't hope to have the support of the 46% who voted against him if he slides too far left. Hide and watch. I intend to do just that.
Rev,
Your comment was pretty disappointing. You seem fine with totalitarian, unamerican tactics as long as they are coming from YOUR side. Sorry, Charlie, that doesn't fly.
And thanks for the laugh by calling the GOP obstructionist. Again, when it's YOUR side blocking GOP legislation, you don't think it's obstruction at all. I think you are the one who needs to take off the rose-colored glasses. You missed the entire point of my post.
Well…King…it just seems odd that after a Rubber Stamp Republican regime the first thing you say is that Obama should not carry out the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. Of course, the Democrats should work with Republicans. Problem is….Republicans don't want to work with Democrats….they only want to stop progressive policies.
Go over and read what Matt Farley is saying at Weapons of Mass Discussion….nothing but harsh resistance and a total unwillingness to answer the call of the voters.
roy: The Fairness Doctrine thing is outmoded and nothing can be done there.
But the Employee Free Choice thing is different. Adding card check as an option to secret ballots is not doing any damage to anyone except those who want unions destroyed completely. Americans want card check and I expect it will be passed under Obama.
You should challenge Farley to a fight, if he's not too young or big, Reverend.
The broadcast industry absolutely loves regulation when it comes to every one else. They depend on the FCC and local authorities to be their enforcement arm should someone attempt to assert a first amendment claim to build a transmitter on their frequency. Suddenly, the government's role as a regulator is a holy grail.
Talk radio the same as pornography? You're mixing a metaphor here. Regulating content because its pornography is regulating content no matter how you slice it. If you don't want content regulated, then pornography is a problem. And if you don't want radio regulated, then interference is a problem.
What the radio industry has sought is regulation for the other guy, but none for itself.
larry: I'm a lover, not a fighter. And besides, my old, sore ass body couldn't take it anymore.
I have no animosity towards Farley. I simply don't think a blogger who names his blog, Weapons of Mass Discussion, and who boycotts commenters wishing to, you know, discuss, stuff….should be taken seriously.
PBCLiberal has it right.
Rev,
I couldn't find where I said Democrats shouldn't carry out the will of the people (FYI – The Fairness Doctrine and Employee Free Choice are NOT the will of the people, not to mention that they are both unamerican).
What I said was, the GOP should still fight for their beliefs, as they will.
Then you say, "Problem is….Republicans don't want to work with Democrats….they only want to stop progressive policies."
Yes, just as the Dems have tried to stop Republican policies. Exactly why do you think we have TWO major parties, anyway ? It's because they have different beliefs. You are making a non-point. Like Pelosi and Reid, you are calling for GOP submission. You might as well forget that, it ain't gonna happen. Obama should still be able to pass most of his economy-killing agenda though, so don't worry.
Nothing wrong with this, at all, people should get it more.