Thursday, November 09, 2006

A Chance for Compromise

A lot of people are worried. I hear the same gloom and doom from hard core Republicans about losing the majorities in the Senate and House in this week's elections that I heard from Democrats when Republicans swept into office six years ago. I don't understand why, though, because this situation is totally different. First, this was not as much a democratic sweep, where the needle shifted far left, as it really was a minor perturbation. The balance has shifted left of center, but just barely. Second, the Republicans still have George Bush and a more conservative Supreme Court than six years ago.

In reality, I see this as a good thing. Here's why...

If we forget about the fact that a good portion of the Democrats that were just elected are fiscal and social conservatives, and just go with the fact that the Democrats now have the majority, then OK, they can pass darn near any bill they wish, and propose any tax increase they want. But George Bush still has his veto power and isn't afraid to use it. Further, the Democrat's majority is no where near enough to override the vetoes. So, what that really means is that for the next two years no piece of legislation is likely to be enacted unless both sides of the aisle agree to it.

True compromise, at last. Both sides are looking out for their party's interests, are involved in the decisions and neither side gets to whine about the results. That will be nice for a change!

To the winners: Congratulations - you got the job now serve us well.

To the losers: Better luck next time.

To the whiners, detractors and critics from around the world, hear this:

I am tired of terms like "Regime Change," "Taking Control," "Losing Power" or "Seizing Power." This country is a republic with a representational democracy and our government has had continuity for over 200 years. The overlaps we have between the term lengths of the different branches of government are what gives us that continuity. What you have just seen is not a coup. It's the way we transition responsibility in the United States and we are proud of it. Let's get some things straight: We don't kill or exile our leaders when they leave office; We don't redesign our government every time political majorities change; We don't rewrite our constitution just because it suits us, or you. We are Americans and we are, on the whole, a bit more politically mature than that. Like us or not, we have the oldest and most stable constitutional republic/democracy on the planet and that says something.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Why I Voted For Joe Lieberman

Tonight I voted for Joe Lieberman for Senator. Why? I'll tell you.

It wasn't for his staunch conservatism. Being a hawkish democrat doesn't make him a conservative.

It wasn't for his charisma or eloquence. His public speaking skills and droning voice are only slightly less likely to make me cringe (or sleep) than are President Bush's - and I voted for Bush - twice!.

It wasn't his voting record - either the liberal votes he cast or how few he actually showed up to cast compared to other Senators.

It wasn't his loyalty. Let's face it, his third term as Senator was a consolation prize for him not being elected Vice-President. We weren't his first choice. (Accordingly, he wasn't mine, either.)

It wasn't his ability to keep a promise."18 years only"

No, it was none of those reasons. It was simply this: Joe Lieberman is a known quantity. Be he good or bad, we know how to deal with him. Schlesinger, for all his good ideas or positions is, sadly, unelectable. Lamont, the man against everything and for nothing, was to me an unacceptable choice.

I hate it when my I find myself using my vote as a preventative measure rather than a step forward. But, in politics as in chess, sometimes you get to advance, and sometimes all you can do is block. So, I realized the only way to keep "little Neddy" out of office was to keep "ol' Joe" in. Joe's no prize but thankfully, in my opinion, he's no Lamont, either.

Keeping my fingers crossed...