As the Bush Administration's term in office winds down we get to see who is interested in doing what is right for the Country versus who is interested in doing what is right for their party on display. President Bush, by all accounts, has been extremely gracious and helpful to the incoming Obama administration. On the other hand, we see actions that indicate Speaker Pelosi will consolidate her control of the House of Representative so that all dissenting opinions will be pushed down. The Country has not benefitted from the extreme partisanship of the Democrats during the last two years of the Bush Administration and the country will not benefit if the Democrats continue this behavior during the Obama Administration.
During the post-election period, President Bush has allowed President-elect Obama to move to center stage on economic issues. A political commentator described it as the U.S. having two Presidents -- one on domestic policy (Obama) and one on foreign policy (Bush). President Bush agreed to implement the auto company bailout supported by President-elect Obama against his better judgment saying he did not want Obama to enter office facing the bankruptcy of the auto industry. By all accounts President Bush's administration has been extremely forthcoming to the incoming Obama administration.
Contrast that behavior to that of some Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took office two years ago promising to be bi-partisan. Can anyone seriously say they have lived up to that? Not only have they not been bi-partisan, they have not even been civil. Speaker Pelosi even refused to allow the Democrat Majority to pass the $700 Billion bailout bill last fall, at a time when passing this bill was supposed to be crucial. The reason she withheld votes? She insisted that the Republicans offer up votes too.
Speaker Pelosi is now pushing for new rules in the House of Representatives that will do away with term limits on chairmanships. So the long time liberal Democrats like Barney Frank will get their Chairmanships and will keep them for as long as they are in office. Younger Democrats, who tend to be more moderate or even conservative -- the ones who helped Speaker Pelosi get into the majority and widen that majority -- won't get a sniff of power for decades.
As someone interested in politics, I can say that the next few years will be interesting. As a Republican, I think that this creates an opportunity for my party to regain some power. We saw the same thing in 1994. President Clinton was elected in 1992 as a moderate, with a mandate to bring about change. He immediately started following a liberal agenda (remember the Gays in the Military controversy?). In 1994, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 50 years.
As someone concerned for my Country, I think this situation only bodes ill for us all. I fear what will happen in the next few years with a Democrat in the White House, coupled with rabid partisan, liberal Democrats in control of the House and Senate, and an economic situation that opens the door to massive spending and growth of government regulation. The situation invites too much mischief.
During the post-election period, President Bush has allowed President-elect Obama to move to center stage on economic issues. A political commentator described it as the U.S. having two Presidents -- one on domestic policy (Obama) and one on foreign policy (Bush). President Bush agreed to implement the auto company bailout supported by President-elect Obama against his better judgment saying he did not want Obama to enter office facing the bankruptcy of the auto industry. By all accounts President Bush's administration has been extremely forthcoming to the incoming Obama administration.
Contrast that behavior to that of some Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took office two years ago promising to be bi-partisan. Can anyone seriously say they have lived up to that? Not only have they not been bi-partisan, they have not even been civil. Speaker Pelosi even refused to allow the Democrat Majority to pass the $700 Billion bailout bill last fall, at a time when passing this bill was supposed to be crucial. The reason she withheld votes? She insisted that the Republicans offer up votes too.
Speaker Pelosi is now pushing for new rules in the House of Representatives that will do away with term limits on chairmanships. So the long time liberal Democrats like Barney Frank will get their Chairmanships and will keep them for as long as they are in office. Younger Democrats, who tend to be more moderate or even conservative -- the ones who helped Speaker Pelosi get into the majority and widen that majority -- won't get a sniff of power for decades.
As someone interested in politics, I can say that the next few years will be interesting. As a Republican, I think that this creates an opportunity for my party to regain some power. We saw the same thing in 1994. President Clinton was elected in 1992 as a moderate, with a mandate to bring about change. He immediately started following a liberal agenda (remember the Gays in the Military controversy?). In 1994, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 50 years.
As someone concerned for my Country, I think this situation only bodes ill for us all. I fear what will happen in the next few years with a Democrat in the White House, coupled with rabid partisan, liberal Democrats in control of the House and Senate, and an economic situation that opens the door to massive spending and growth of government regulation. The situation invites too much mischief.
Comments