Sounds like I know most of them but Marc.

I will look forward to it.

Eric

You have met some of them before. Rick Barber joined us, of course, and you know Jim Epperson. JD hopefully transacted some business with Marc Charise, who is editor of the Hanover Evening Sun. I think you also know Zack Waltz, as he has been with me before at the GDG.

Gettysburg in November is still like grand central station for tours, however, compared to the western theater fields I am now used to:)

Dave

So I heard. I will try to work it into my schedule.

Anybody I know?

Eric

BTW, I mentioned Gettysburg – I took a group of friends around there last weekend. One highlight was meeting JD for dinner on Saturday, after he sold an acceptable number of books, of course:) The group had such fun that we decided we are going to finish the battle next year, same weekend. If you are in town that weekend, perhaps we can meet up? A long time out, I know, but the group really liked meeting JD.

Val:

I would not dispute that the Dems became arrogant during their tenure in power. I am very much an independent, and like to view the facts first. I do think that the degree of such arrogance matters, and as a fairly close student of politics over the years, I think your characterization is a bit distorted. Under most Dem Speakers, such excesses were the exception, not the rule. This is not true at all with the current speaker, Coach Hastert, where such things have become the standard, not the exception.

Besides, I have never liked the “nyah nyah, the other guys did it first!” defense. I, for one, am clear-headed enough to remember that the GOP oh so self-rightously told me in 1994 that they were going to be different.

It turns out they were going to be different – they were going to be much, much worse…

Dave Powell

I respectfully disagree.

Skippy Bush, aka the cokehead imbecile, only paid lip service to trying to take a bi-partisan approach. It was–and still is–quite clear that his only agenda is the hard right one, and knowing full well that the Dems wouldn’t embrace a hard right agenda, it was only going through the motions. If you need an example of what I mean, take a look at his judicial nominations. The vast majority of them are people chosen with full knowledge that the overwhelming majority of Democrats could not and would not support them. With the possible exception of Roberts–whose qualifications are impeccable and beyond reproach–Dim Bulb has gone out of his way to throw gasoline on the fire and not to put it out. That is nothing more than paying lip service, and you know it.

Reagan at least was sincere about it. That’s why I respect him.

Bush’s sole interest is the Religious Right. Anything else is simply not within the realm of his contemplation.

As for Zell Miller: the man was and is a traitor to his party. Did you REALLY think he’d get a warm and fuzzy reception? If so, I’d like to know what you’ve been smoking, because I’d like some.

As for Specter: the Senate works on seniority. Specter was and is the senior member of that committee, having been there for 26 years. That’s the reason why he got that chairmanship. There was no way to take it from him.

I have, by the way, long respected and admired Arlen Specter. To me, he represents what the Republican Party–the one I joined as a teenager–should be: fiscally conservative, conservative with respect to foreign policy and national defense, and socially very moderate. Forgive me, but as a Jew, I simply cannot relate to–or condone–the agenda of the Evangelical Right, meaning that it is my problem. The Republican Party abandoned me, so I crossed the street. As the party fell under the sway of the Karl Roves of the world–people who are one cut below Fascists on my scale–I had no choice but to take up the cudgel against them. If more of the leadership of the party reflected the philosophy of Specter, I could take it a lot easier than a party led by the likes of the lying, deserting moron in the White House.

Eric

What this country really needs is a viable third party. And then I say, a pox on both their houses.

Eric

When the Dems held the House for 40 odd years, they often held committee meetings without even bothering to INFORM the Republican members because, of course, they couldn’t influence the outcome ANYWAY, so why bother wasting the time having them come? Is that ‘bi-partisanship’?

Indeed, more Republicans line up with Democrats then the other way round, mainly because a Democrat who doesn’t ‘toe the Party line’ will lose financial support when next he or she runs and will soon find him or herself in ‘limbo’ while serving with no hopes of getting on a good committee (and thus bringing home the bacon to their consitutents) or advancing into the Party leadership. In that Party, it’s ‘my way or the highway’.

On the other hand, Congressional Republicans make a habit of running around cow-towing to those among them who are the MOST critical of their Party and its supporters. Hence, Arlen Specter – after being VERY ‘disloyal’ to the GOP base – was returned as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee against the wishes of the people who voted him and other members of the GOP into office. I challenge anyone to point to a DEMOCRAT who bolted the Party line and was embraced despite that fact. Conservatives like Zell Miller are consigned to political Siberia as has been the fate of every member of that Party who didn’t close ranks against those ‘wascally Wepublicans’.

Several Republican Presidents – including Reagan and George W. Bush – attempted a conciliatory approach with the Democrats; it didn’t work. Frankly, the Democrat definition of ‘bi-partisanship’ is doing it THEIR way. Anything else is a vast right-wing conspiracy.

I spent the weekend in Gettysburg, so I largely avoided TV and political ads.

I think, however, that to a certain extent the Repubs are reaping what they have sown. In the past decade, R strategists have chosen the demonization route as the most effective campaign strategy, a tactic that Lee Atwater, for example, reveled in. Rove has been no different – the McCain smear in SC, for example.

The electorate rewarded those tactics by voting Republican in large numbers.

The other party cannot win without adopting similar tactics, IMO. So they have. They also have a massive amount of very factual information to work with, thanks to the stunning level of corruption now found in so many Republican incumbents.

A close look at the Republican congress in the Bush years, however, reveals some major problems with the way they have governed, acting largely as a rubber stamp for cronyism, rather than the first branch of government.

they were in full session only about 65 days. Of that, they ate up significant time debating abstract things like a gay marraige amendment, instead of the immediate fiscal and legislative issues that need their attention. In the 90s, the Repub house had 140 plus hours of hearings on the potential political abuse of the Clinton Christmas list. They managed exactly 12 hours on Abu Ghraib.

for hundreds of bills, the Leadership waived the customary 72 hold period on new bills, useful in order to give members time to read the bills. These waivers came in the dead of night, usually 2 am, in a quick voice vote of the rules committee, so that the bills could be voted on the next morning. While bills have been so waived in the past, it was a rare and infrequent process used primarily for emergency budget issues. Now it has become the norm. 100s of bills get voted on within hours of being passed out of committee, giving members no time to actually read the bills.

And as for those committees, bi-partisan committee meetings are thing of the past. Most bills are also passed out by fiat, reconciled by the committee leadership, a white house rep, and advised by the affected special interest groups. Again, these “votes” often happen in the dead of night, without warning.

The facts are that the Republican-led House has surrendered its constitutional authority and long ago abandoned any pretense of bi-partisanship. It is extremely disingenuous to then accuse the Democrats of not seeking ‘bi-partisanship’ in the face of a legislative fiat process that hostile to responsible government.

It is also no wonder that the House now has a 16% approval rating. It is a rats nest, run by gangsters who only pay lip service to democracy.

Dave Powell

I’m with you.

Eric

Amen, sister.

The problem with modern American politics, of course, is that they’re directed to the least common denominator, and that assumes that we’re all a bunch of ignoramuses. Now, I’ll grant you, I’m no rocket scientist, but I’m likewise not an ignoramus, and the suggestion that I am offends me. It all ties into the whole concept of books that assume that all readers are either dumies or complete idiots.

Eric