No Liberal Plans? Maybe the Moderates Are Winning

Hey folks,

Good Monday morning to you. Yeah, I know. Back to reality. I’m still feeling the effects of a great extended Holiday and all that Turkey. But must get back to life.

It seems that the infighting in the Democratic party may be "appearing" to slow down a bit. It seems that those that won on the Moderate ticket maybe getting through to the die hard LWL. Either that, or the LWL are starting to realize that their looney agenda really doesn’t fly with most Americans. I wonder how this will be received by those that drank the cool aid, and voted for them BECAUSE of all the things they were saying.

According to Reuters,

"Three Democratic congressmen who are about to take important leadership posts said on Sunday they plan to pass popular legislation blocked by Republicans but would refrain from pushing some of the most controversial elements on the liberal agenda.

The three, appearing on Fox News Sunday, are among the most liberal Democrats who will take over key committee chairmanships when Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives in January.

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who will take over the U.S. House of Representatives committee that covers banking and other financial institutions, mentioned raising the minimum wage, providing cheaper drug coverage for the elderly and providing more affordable housing and help with college tuition as the focus of Democratic legislation."

WAIT A SEC. What about "cut and run?" What about get the President? What about ending the "domestic" spy program?

"Our first efforts are going to be to do those things that I think the mainstream of America wants," Frank said. "Some things have become liberal because the right wingers who control the Republican party have abandoned them to us."

{Laughing} You mean that the mainstream Americans do NOT want a Liberal agenda?

"Asked about his opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gay service men and women, Frank, one of the few openly gay members of the House, said he would fight discrimination but that issue was "not what we're going to begin with.""

Translation time folks. "So forget what I say while running for office. I’ll do whatever it takes to stay there now and get a Democratic President in, in 2008." At least Rep. John Dingell was honest.

"Democrats like winning elections," said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the longest serving member of the House.

"We want to win elections and we're going to do our best to do so," he said. "This doesn't mean to get into any extreme positions on any matter. We'll do what makes good sense."

Again. "Forget all the craziness you heard before. We will do whatever it takes to win. Even lie cheat and steal, and now that we are here, we will do anything to stay." Then Rangel chimed in and said,

"Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who is about to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which handles tax matters, said, "We don't want really a fight with the president. What we want to do is to prove we can govern for the next two years.""

So what about the draft? He said it just isn’t possible. The President can just veto it so never mind.

Now while these Democrats were making their rounds, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was actually sounding more like them then they were. He said,

"There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq," Sen. Chuck Hagel wrote in Sunday's edition of The Washington Post.

Instead, he said, President Bush should use the upcoming report from a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker to begin laying the groundwork for a "phased withdrawal" of U.S. troops.

"If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead," Hagel wrote.

"To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months."

I agree more with "Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that phased withdrawal "sounds like we just want to leave without any plan to actually secure Iraq and allow the political processes to have any chance of working."

"It's not going to happen in the face of this kind of lawlessness. We're not talking about an open-ended commitment," said Cornyn, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We're talking about a temporary surge and get that basic security to allow the political institutions to work out their differences."

Cornyn said another 20,000 to 50,000 Americans should be sent to Iraq to help Iraqi leaders disarm sectarian militias."

But again, no matter who is saying it, I still say, if we are no longer in this to win it. Then we need to bring our troops home NOW. Forget about a "phased withdrawal." If we are going to cut and run, and leave them on their own, then let’s just get out.

So the LWL is curtailed, some Republicans are beginning to attempt to lean more to the Left, and nothing is really getting done. What does this mean? The 2008 elections are coming.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - "Democrats say no liberal plans in next Congress"
CNN-"Hagel: U.S. should pullout of 'mismanaged' Iraq"