And So It Begins: Pelosi: We Must Govern From The Middle!

Liberal blogger digby is a bit upset by Pelosi's claim that Democrats must be responsible, not be overly ideological, and govern from the "middle." However,  don't believe it just yet. The Hill also points out that her actions thus far may not quite match the reassuring rhetoric. Is there room under the now Obama/Pelosi bus for all the liberal bloggers? Or will Democrats attempt to get away with running over the majority of voters who believe they've elected a moderate?

As the Democrats built their entire message and credibility on "blaming Bush" for years, what does it do now that there is no one else to blame and a country is looking to them for results?

A very good question, that!

by digby

Good God, I hope this is just rhetorical bullshit.

After saying the word "change" at least 175,000 times in the last year, the Democrats had better not start sounding too much like Republican grandpas or millions of people who voted for them might get the feeling they've just been taken for a bunch of chumps. I get that they are trying to calm the village and keep the restive Republicans from staging a hissy fit right out of the gate. And delivering on all this massive change was never going to be easy.

Democratic leaders are tamping down on expectations for rapid change and trying to signal they will place a calm hand on the nation’s tiller.

“The country must be governed from the middle,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Repeating themes from election night, she said she plans to emphasize “civility” and “fiscal responsibility.”

“The difference is we have the benefit of experience in seeing what happens when you gain control,” said a senior Democratic aide. “I do not envision a scenario where we’d go off on an ideological mission in an undisciplined way.”

And there are some indications that despite the rhetoric, Pelosi is tacking to the left. Many see her hand in the effort by liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to oust House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), an ally of the auto industry who generally takes a more pro-business approach to environmental regulation.

Stay tuned. We are watching.

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

The hilarious thing.....a week ago, IslamoLlama was touting the virtues and values of Philadelphia, which is regularly ranked as the most expensive city in which to do business due to their high taxes. According to IslamoLlama, though, high taxes always produce surpluses under Democrat control, so....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_re_us/philadelphia_budget_3;_ylt=AjvIzQMC7Nr0YvzSvAzZlipv24cA

Oops.

[Worst President Ever]

January 20th - start the countdown.

I doubt anyone will think "Worst President Ever" to refer to anyone but Shrub for a long, long time. But yeah, it may be time for a new handle - something kindler and gentler, bi-partisan, compassionate, yet conservative. Thanks for the offer but I think I'll let you hold onto that one.

For example, this is kinda funny, but certainly apropos, and it comes from a conservative:

"I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldn’t let the fool park his car in my driveway” - John Derbyshire.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODYwOTEyZTQyMzc2ZGMwYmEwMTRmN2VjN2I1YTE0M2E

[WAHOO WILLIE]

I agree a lot with Derbyshire on that one....except I never suspected the man of being conservative.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- LOL...of course, if that were the case, as IslamoLlama screams, Federal tax revenues per year during the Bush administration would have been lower at every time than during the Clinton administration. --"

It might help if you used a chart, NDT
http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges02.png

As you can see, between 2000 and 2004, there was a marked drop in tax revenue. The rate of increase eventually resumed, but there is no trending evidence to indicate that we would have had less revenue in 2008 under the Clinton policy than under the 2001 Bush Tax Cut.

So yes, in 2007 we had more revenue than in 2006. And in 2001 we had more revenue than in 2000. But over the course of the Bush Administration we have also seen the largest drop in tax revenue in the last 40 years. And - as you can see here -

http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges01.png

Our spending has not decreased to match our decrease in revenue. Hence the Clinton Surplus collapsing into the Bush Debt.

So no, the Bush Tax Cuts did not "pay for themselves" with Reagen's voodoo economics.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And again, IslamoLlama, your attempt to spin is buried by the fact that, by 2004, despite having come out of the collapse of the tech bubble, 9/11, the subsequent recession, AND after two tax cuts, we were right back at the same revenue -- and have exceeded the revenue amount that the Clinton era's higher taxes generated ever since.

According to you, tax cuts NEVER result in an increase in revenue; thus, the fact that Bush cut taxes would mean that we were ALWAYS below the Clinton era in tax revenue. They weren't, and your own chart shows that.

You simply cannot accept the fact that allowing people to keep more of their own money rather than the government taking it away is a good and productive thing. You are not capable of understanding that it is far simpler and more beneficial for the government to take less money and leave people with more than it is for the government to take more money and inefficiently "redistribute" it.

[Worst President Ever]

The flip side of your tax cuts is George Bush spent more money faster than anyone ever - he DOUBLED the frigging national debt. And wait until you see the numbers for this year - they're gonna swamp anything you've ever seen.

REAL Fiscal Conservatives PAY for what they Buy. They don't leave huge debts for their kids to pay off.

[templar knight]

And here I thought, Worst, that the Democratic Congress had control over the budget process the past two years. The President can propose any budget he/she wants to, it is up to the Congress to approve it, and the Congress can make any change it wants to, subject to a veto, no doubt, but the Democrats held the upper hand against a lame duck President. The Democrats in Congress are equally responsible for the deficits of the past two years. Not to take any credit away from Bush, either, I might add, as he had many chances to reduce spending, yet chose not to.

[Worst President Ever]

It's Bush that trumpeted being a fiscal conservative, then blew the budget out of the water.

And Dems would never have been able to override a Bush veto. So it's a fantasy that somehow Democrats, with a razor-thin majority in the Senate, were somehow going to force Bush into accepting their budget demands.