ELECTION 2008, THE DAY AFTER: CONGRESS:

What Dems’ tone tells us about how they will govern

Thursday, Nov. 6, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Election Day in Las Vegas

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Obama speaks as president-elect

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Get the results of Tuesday's races

Washington — President Bush emerged from his 2004 reelection and famously said that he had amassed quite a bit of political capital in winning a second term — and he intended to spend it.

Voters consolidated the power of Democrats in Washington on Tuesday in ways unseen in years, but party leaders have been reluctant to do such a victory dance.

These are different times.

President-elect Barack Obama spoke about the long road ahead.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi celebrated her party’s widened majority in the House by saying “the country needs to be governed from the center.”

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who faces particular challenges leading his chamber as he begins his own reelection campaign, said, “People are going to see us working together.”

“I’m going to lead very carefully,” Reid said by phone early Wednesday morning as most revelers were headed home from the Democrats’ victory party, “and do as much as I can in a bipartisan basis.”

To be sure, elections often bring promises of newfound cooperation, which crumble as soon as the first difficult decision leaves both sides digging in and unwilling to compromise. But in the Senate, compromise will be essential if the nation is to move forward on legislation.

As the new Congress convenes next year, the Senate becomes legislative last stop between what some believe could be the potentially liberal bookends of Pelosi’s House and Obama’s White House as Democrats fulfill campaign promises.

Because Senate rules require coalitions to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to pass many bills – unlike the House, where a simple majority rules — Reid has a great ability to shape a final bill before it is sent for Obama’s signature.

Bills on economic stimulus, health care or energy policy – all cornerstones of Obama’s agenda and campaign speeches by congressional candidates this fall – cannot be done by Democrats alone.

Despite picking up five Senate seats on Tuesday and with several races still undecided, Democrats do not seem poised to reach the magic 60. Achieving that number of seats would have given Reid greater power to pass bills over Republican obstruction by filibusters – which grew to record levels in the current Congress.

Democrats hold 51 seats currently. With 56 seats under Democratic control, Reid should have an easier time avoiding filibusters. He told National Public Radio on Wednesday morning that after the results of the election, he doubts the filibuster will remain such a preferred obstruction tool. “That power is long since gone.”

But Reid still needs to find Republicans willing to come to his side, which could be easier in some cases and more difficult in others.

Here are a few examples of bills that could emerge in the new Congress.

• Economic stimulus: Late this fall, as unemployment shot up, Democrats sought to pass a $61 billion package of public works spending, expanded jobless benefits and other aid to stimulate the economy away from recession.

The bill quickly passed the House, but burned out in the Senate on a vote of 52-42. Five Republican senators joined Democrats to vote for the bill, but Reid lost two of his Democrats to the opposition.

Getting to 60 now could be easier with a worsened economy and five more Democrats in the Senate, though one of the Republican supporters, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, was defeated Tuesday.

• Union card check: Legislation to allow unions to organize without a secret ballot, one of the top priorities of the labor movement, failed in the Senate last year on a vote of 51-48. All Democrats present voted yes, and one Republican crossed over. Reid presumably would have a shorter reach across the aisle now, with his own ranks bolstered with potential supporters.

Republicans argued in the campaign that Democrats would push an intensely liberal agenda. Pelosi scoffed Tuesday when she was asked if the new House was going to tilt left.

She said the country must govern from the middle, as Democrats have done this session. She said the Democratic Congress had pursued an agenda that was also important to Republicans, passing bills to raise the minimum wage, expand college funding and require automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars.

Republicans say those measures passed only after they were able to make changes, such as amending the minimum wage bill in the Senate to add a tax break for small businesses that may suffer financially paying workers higher wages.

One Republican aide said Wednesday that despite Democratic talk of bipartisanship, one of their first post-election moves will likely be to reintroduce the economic stimulus bill Republicans rejected.

“They said the same thing last year — then came at us with 30 Iraq votes,” the aide said, referring to the House’s repeated attempts to withdraw troops from the Iraq war, virtually all of which were defeated in the Senate.

Still, others say the historic election has brought an opportunity for a new era of cooperation in Washington.

“We have a lot of trust right now,” said J.P. Fielding, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which poured millions of dollars into Republican Senate races in hopes of stopping Democratic ascension. “We certainly welcome the idea of a leader who would bring together a diversity of ideas.”

Reid will be negotiating this terrain as he is expected to begin his own campaign for reelection in 2010 and Republicans nationally target him for defeat.

When Reid took the stage Tuesday night at the Democratic victory party in Washington, he said the mandate that delivered Obama to the presidency and expanded Democratic control over the House and Senate was “not a mandate for an ideology or a party.”

He said the election was “a mandate for hope. A mandate to stop fighting over the things that divide us and start working for the things that can get done.”

Discussion: 30 comments so far…

By KDR81

11/6/08 at 7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

So let me get this straight, Democrats want to spend $60 billion on "work programs" that amount to nothing more than digging holes and filling them in again and allow Unions to intimidate workers into joining?

Sounds like they're governing from the center all right.
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

"She said the country must govern from the middle" and passing the anti-Democracy Union card check are about about as close as the earth is to Pluto in terms of in political philosophy of liberal to middle center.

Also, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff would be like Bush appointing Tom Delay as his chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel is an extreme partisan who never worked across the aisle and is in constant "seek and destory" mode of Republicans.

That is not exactly working from the middle.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

You mean like appointing Karl Rove?

Yeah, THAT was working from the middle.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why is it that when Dems have power the cry from the right is "BI-PARTISAN! WORK TOGETHER! CENTER/MIDDLE!" but when Reps have power it's "WE HAVE A MANDATE! WE HAVE A MANDATE! WE HAVE A MANDATE!"?

Interesting phenomenon.
By texexnv

11/6/08 at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

I can see the whining from the edge of the flat earth starting already. I guess they just don't get it yet.

The country has completely rejected the results of the last eight years and the failed doctrines that go with it.

They can either stop the whining and come up with some ideas to undo what they have done or seem even more House and Senate seats disappear in 2010.

The course they take is completely up to them but the country is going to move in another direction - with or without them.

Plain enough?
By redferret

11/6/08 at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

In any case, the pendulum always swings back and corrects itself. This is just the aftermath of Bush. If the dems fail to deliver on promises or get cocky, then the pendulum will swing back to the republicans.
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Karl Rove was appointed as a political advisor which is his expertise and "political advisor" is suppose to be a political partisan person.

Obama can appoint whoever he wants to. But saying "We will govern from the middle" and then appoint extreme "Tom Delay" type people to key "operations" positions are in direct conflict with each other.

If he wants to governor from the left then Obama should say "We will govern from the left".

I would accept that. He is President. It will just prove that his campagin was a sham.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

He actually was appointed as Deputy Chief of Staff; and I was off on the date; sorry about that. Here's the link (and it's to the White House's very own web site):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...

Sorry but Rove is in a class by himself when it comes to partisanship. And that is NOT a badge of honor.

I also seem to remember GWB running on a platform of "unity" and "compassion", neither of which we've seen in close to eight years.

Why do you hold Ds to different standards than you seem to hold Rs?
By thebs

11/6/08 at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Emanuel's appointment tells me one thing: Obama's fulfilling his pledge.

Obama made several statements during the campaign that he wants advisors and staff around him that don't necessarily agree with him and aren't afraid to tell him so. He began by selecting Biden, and continued with selecting Emanuel.

He's made only two appointments, yet Nance is already declaring Obama as a "sham." Way to jump the gun, kiddo!
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Emanuel is just like Tom Delay except they are on opposite ends of the political specturm.

The chief of staff is usually the most important position in the White House.

Obama is making a statement that Republicans can go hell because he will not work across the aisle with them on anything.

Emanuel will not even give the time of day to any Republican.

I guess Obama is kissing that "middle-center working across the aisle" thingy good-bye.
By thebs

11/6/08 at 12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

"I guess Obama is kissing that "middle-center working across the aisle" thingy good-bye."

A blanket statement based on one appointment. You never quite learn your lesson, do you?
By ksand99

11/6/08 at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Did you see that Warren Buffet is going to be a part of Barack Obama's economic transition team?

That puts jfnance32's insanity into perspective, doesn't it?

He just completely misses the big picture. Obama will need to control Pelosi and the Congress in order to be successful. The last thing he wants is for the Democrats in Congress to buck his direction. Putting someone like Emanuel in as Chief of Staff will give him great leverage over the Congress, to keep them in line.

I would have thought someone like jfnance32 would be applauding that kind of a choice. I guess his "Obama is awful!" blinders are still on.
By thebs

11/6/08 at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yeah, when you get statements like, "Obama is making a statement that Republicans can go hell because he will not work across the aisle with them on anything."

Now Nance is a mind-reader.

What a joke.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

So Karl Rove was OK with you, Jim?

And Bush strutting around about his "mandate" (who, apparently, was not Jeff Gannon) and never once "reaching across the aisle" was OK with you, too?

You haven't responded to either of those. Color me curious.
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yes, Karl Rove is very good as the political advisor to the President. I do not expect Obama's political advisor to be bi-partisan. The political advisor is suppose to be partisan.

I do not mind if Obama wants every key person to be like a "Tom Delay" extreme partisan. It is his right to pick whoever he wants to be in those key positions.

Just to blow smoke and say, "I am going to a center-middle of road President and reach across the aisle" and go and appoint an extreme partisan like Emanuel who could be Tom Delay's twin brother, except a Democratic version.
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Obama's 1st key appointment....so bi-partisan middle of the road appointment....LOL

AP Story: "Emanuel is known as a foul-mouthed practitioner of brass-knuckled politics who relishes both conflict and publicity. He once mailed a dead fish to a political foe."

Book on him called The legend of Rahm: "Emanuel was also zealously partisan. He had once owned a consulting business devoted to finding skeletons in Republican closets."

"At a Clinton victory dinner in Little Rock in 1992, Emanuel celebrated by reciting a hoped-for necrology of Democrats who had "f*cked" the president-elect. After every name, he stabbed a steak knife into a table and screamed, "Dead man!"

The Jewish LBJ: "Political scientist Larry Sabato calls him, not only for his ambition but also for his reputation as an amoral political animal focused only on power. "

Like I said......Emanuel could be Tom Delay's twin brother.
By thebs

11/6/08 at 4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Listen to this uber-liberal partisan:

"This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama.

"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff.

"I worked closely with him during the presidential debate negotiations which were completed in record time. When we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward. I consider Rahm to be a friend and colleague. He's tough but fair. Honest, direct, and candid. These qualities will serve President-elect Obama well.

"Rahm understands the challenges facing our nation and will, consistent with the agenda set by President-elect Obama, work to find common ground where it exists. I look forward to working with him in his new position and will continue to do everything I can to help find a pathway forward on the difficult problems facing our nation."

Who said that?

Lindsey Graham, Republican.

Kinda hard to work together, Nance, when you seem to be dead-set on creating divisions and screaming, "that's not fair!"
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

He has to kiss Rahm's butt if he wants to be able to get pass the gate keeper to talk to Obama.

I do not expect many active Senators or Congressmen to say anything bad about Rahm.

He is going to be one of the most powerful man in DC and everybody knows that he is a mean person who will destroy anybody that stands in his way.
By johnevegas

11/6/08 at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Karl Rove was OK with you..."

Karl Rove is okay with me at certain times and places. For example, on the moon when an asteroid is about to hit it. I would like him there and then for sure. Nice show too I'll bet.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jim, you didn't really answer the questions now did you? Karl Rove was appointed as Bush's ***DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF IN 2005*** (please read the link I provided).

YOU were the one bemoaning partisan Chiefs of Staff. So I asked you if Karl Rove IN HIS ROLE AS DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO GEORGE W. BUSH was OK with you.

And in 2000 Bush campaigned on "unity" and "compassion", NEITHER OF WHICH we've seen since he took office. You bemoaned (in advance, BTW) Obama not living up to his "unity" promise. I asked you if Bush not living up to HIS promises was OK with you.

Still waiting on those answers.

John: Yes, that would work just fine re Rove.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Any chance you have actual citations for anything in your anti-Emmanuel screed, Jim?

And didn't ANYONE get my Jeff Gannon joke? Sigh :(
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 5:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

I cited AP, a book on Rahm and The Jewish LBJ.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jim, you cited ONE blog entry coming out of (apparently) The Houston Chronicle that CITED a book written by someone about Emmanuel (and the title is, "The Thumping") in which someone else calls him "the Jewish LBJ".

And I found all of that with one google search in one blog post. Here if anyone is in doubt ... http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11...
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

CORRECTION: Book title is "The Thumpin'" and the author is Naftali Bendavid.
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

The book: The legend of Rahm

By Edward McClelland

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/...

In the book, it quotes Saboto as saying Rham as "The Jewish LBJ, not only for his ambition but also for his reputation as an amoral political animal focused only on power. "
By johnevegas

11/6/08 at 6:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

My Rove admission -

Sigh...I hate Karl Rove. He is so damn good at what he does. Just an absolute political God in my eyes. Honestly!

But he's on the wrong side. The really wrong side! The waaaay right NEOCON side. So I hate him for effectively imposing that ideology on me for so long.

But I respect the SOB. He actually defines that phrase in a very accurate way.
By thebs

11/6/08 at 6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Patricia, the Gannon/man date joke was awesome, it didn't escape everyone's attention. :)

But it's kinda funny to watch Nance crucify Obama for picking Rahm, but then run away from your question about Rove being Bush's choice for D. Chief of Staff.

It's a big stinkin' double-standard, someone's just too much of a coward to admit it.
By mikegino

11/6/08 at 7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Emanuel with his Irgun lineage is "ok" with me. He is a true myrmidon who will effectively stymie Pelosi's agenda.
By PatriciaLV

11/6/08 at 7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oooo ... that's kind of where we part ways, john; I have zero respect for Rove. Don't like the tactics, the win-at-all-costs mentality (literally).

He can be really good at what he does (and he is), but I don't have to respect it. Though I do understand what you're saying. Sigh is right LOL.

Thank you, thebs. I was worried there for a minute ;)

Jim, that's the title of the article. The book is the one I noted. Look at the link you provided.

My, my, mikegino; $20 words. I am impressed :) Don't be too sure the loyal one will stymie Pelosi. They may just be on the same page.
By jfnance32

11/6/08 at 8:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rahm was one of the main forces behind getting NAFTA approved for Clinton. He twisted a lot of Democratic arms to get them to vote for it.

Rahm is a big plus for pro-Israel people.

This helps with Jewish Democrats who still have some question marks about Obama.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question