There's one good reason why they wont do what is called for in this article. Those who have not already lost their jobs will lose it next election. The electorate is fed up and clearly stated that the last two elections. Dems misread the sentiment two years ago thinking they had a mandate. Now they know they don't and I doubt repubs will make the same mistake for a few more years.

Next election will see Obama re-elected, Dem house gains, and Dem senate losses.

I see someone stumbled over here from NWrepublican.com redstate.com townhall.com or wherever.

Darrin when a party wins elections they tend to interpret it as a mandate. What should a party do? Win an election then do nothing?

Hell one can argue the Ds did that watering down health care, the stimulus and financial reform to get GOP votes. How'd that work out?

And when isn't the electorate "fed up"? This has been an overarching theme for 40 years.

Fact is if the UE rate was 5.6% instead of 9.6%, the dems losses would have been far less. Yes some dems in red areas would have lost but most people vote their wallets, always have.

The history of congress is pretty much a story of stalemate.

The big issue these days is when they do finally act, they act against the citizens.

When was the last time a decent law was passed for the little guy?

Michael Moore?

The results of the election were in a direct response to the actions of the current congress. The last thing the electorate wants to see is a bunch of almost-fired congress critters hammering through the remainder of the rejected agenda on the way out the door.

Doing so would really piss the independent vote off - the same guys who swung to the right on the ballots two weeks ago.

the same guys who swung to the right on the ballots two weeks ago

There's really no such thing as a large, sustained independent vote that is swapping votes from election to election. Voters are remarkably consistent over their voting lifetimes.

As this was a mid-term election, those folks who swept Obama to victory (the young, minorities, etc) showed up far less than the more conservative always-vote crowd (older, white).

In 2 years, when Obama is again on the ballot, his voters will again turn out, and will help down-ballot Democrats, too. That said, Senate Dems will lose seats simply as a function of which Dems are up for election (rural, conservative state Dems such as Jon Tester).

I actually used to like both Michael Moore AND Arianna Huffington, before their egotism morphed to megalomania. Further, that laundry list of ideas is like the worst of the 70s on steroids, and authoritarian (excuse the irony) to boot.

And lastly, if it wasn't clear in the term "megalomania" which I didn't use just to be cute, I don't believe either of them cares a whit about politics, social policy or the country.

Is there any real dispute that Democrats just took a beating precisely because they attempted too much of the far left Michael Moore agenda?

He's so far left the counter extreme on the right would have to be a list that included criminalizing homosexuality and mandatory prayer and guns in all public schools.

I know many Democrats and the idea that pushing harder to the far left is the right reaction to the last election is laughable even to many of them.

But with so many examples of loony lefties running things right here in Oregon why do many of my Democrat friends seem to want to extend the lunacy to the entire country?

Yes Jack, the electorate is just clamoring for the "Dream Act". That is all we need.....more people to add to the ever growing number of social programs and government handouts/promises. No wonder the dems got a butt-kickin' last month.

It is really funny to see how the Right is jumping up and down singing the mandate song. Of course when the Dems win they whistle another tune. Spin is a wonderful thing, it helps out everyone regardless of party.

The fact is the party in power almost always loses seats in the midterms. Why, the president is not running and the party out of power is more motivated to change that state of affairs. With 10% unemployment and two wars it is a wonder they did not lose more. To consider that a rejection of the President and a vindication of the failed policies of 2000-2008 is to really indulge in wishful thinking.

Lets hope they DO NOT pass S.3804 (Internet blacklist.)

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

One thing I do like about Moore: he is willing and able to give back to the Right a little of their own medicine. Having to listen to Rush, Palin and Beck et al non stop it is nice to have some push back from someone who isn't afraid of the Big Right Bogeyman.

Since when does someone "have to listen to Rush, Palin and Beck et al"? I don't ever listen to them - no problem at all. I don't ever listen to Albert Gore or Michael Moore either. None of them offer anything of educational value and just serve to irritate me.

And I think that most people don't see the problem in the stark terms that shills for both parties want us to believe. I don't want to go back to most of GWB's policies from his two terms. I don't accept most of Obama's current policies. In the end, Congress will not act in our best interests no matter who is in charge. That means that gridlock is the best alternative.

But gridlock only buys us additional time, as eventually our spending habits will doom the country. Since neither party has shown the willingness to do whatever is necessary to address this issue (witness the immediate negative reaction from both sides to the proposal from the President's fiscal commission), and single party control only exacerbates the problem, our country is doomed. And short of a constitutional convention to change how we govern in this country or the complete financial collapse of the country, nothing is going to change it.

I can't believe that my kids are going to lead a much more difficult life than I have, and there's nothing I (or they)can do about it. Thanks alot baby boomers.

Having to listen to Rush, Palin and Beck et al non stop
JK: Important technological breakthrough:

Since the early 1900s, radios have been able to change stations.

Try it some time.

Thanks
JK

Isn't Michael More the guy that hates corporations while owning millions in corporate stocks?

That he wants to pass cap-and-tax shows his complete disgust for the financial plight of ordinary people and his own lack of economic and scientific knowledge.

Thanks

Is there any real dispute that Democrats just took a beating precisely because they attempted too much of the far left Michael Moore agenda?

Such as....?

If you look at the policy agenda (Health reform, DADT, Afghanistan, taxes, etc.) "debated" or passed by the Democrats, the majority has ended up more moderate than what Obama advocated during the 2008 campaign - the campaign where he won a historic number of votes.

As Jack implies in his original post, the Democrats probably would not have fared so poorly in the election if they'd shown some more guts and fought harder for their core principles.

Ben,
The loony lefties you refer to around here have even given shivers to some D's. They may be a different breed than left or progressive ones elsewhere. Firedoglake, a nationally well known progressive blog was very upset about the mandate to buy insurance from corporate health entities. They also had several threads on our Earl Blumenauer and called him out on hypocrisy. There are some D's who will not say a disparaging word about any D's even if the Party is no longer acting for the public interest.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/16/tell-earl-blumenauer-to-keep-his-pledge-or-give-the-money-back/

Moveon tried to reach Blumenauer’s base here, but as as we all know,he is still in.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/27/moveon-pressures-blumenauer-in-his-own-backyard/
But even with a popular, common-sense way to strengthen Social Security available that Rep. Blumenauer himself supports, he refuses to take benefit cuts off the table. The plan he supports calls anyone making over $25,000 “wealthy,” and starts cutting into their benefits. That’s not progressive, and by supporting these cuts, Rep. Blumenauer is undermining the work of everyone who’s fighting to save Social Security.
He needs to change his position and say that all benefit cuts should be off the table. Please call his office in Portland now to tell him you’re disappointed in him.

And then a more recent thread:
http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/is-earl-blumenauer-stalking-horse-for.html
. .Action opportunity — If you live in Oregon, you can contact Blumenauer's office (503-231-2300 or 202-225-4811) and ask his representatives if he supports using part of the safety net to buy Jaime Dimon's next Lamborghini. By that I mean, ask him if he supports No Benefit Cuts, in any form, including raising the retirement age. You can say that raising the FICA ceiling makes a fine next choice, if you're so inclined. . . .
So far, Blumenauer sails past both primaries and general elections with ease. But a crack in his bow-tie cred might make him think twice about sinking his constituents' safety net in a fit of New Dem fever. . .

I believe that we are all left floundering here over what is D and R anymore and fighting with each other over what is what or who anymore. In my opinion what we have has been reduced down to corporations versus the public interests. We can go on and on pointing fingers at lefties and righties, just what they want us to do. Look at the top and who gets or takes the money! Who wants to control the conversation?

SamTheClam,
Do the ever growing number of social programs and government handouts/promises include the banksters and wall street who get cream of the crop bailouts?

I'd really like to understand what there is about Obama's policy initiatives that commenters here find troublingly socialist. Health care reform? It's the model originally proposed by republicans, led by Bob Dole, and implemented in Massachusetts by republican Gov. Mitt Romney. Wall St bailout? That was Bush, remember? Fiscal stimulus? Standard fiscal theory practiced by both parties, applied too cautiously in this instance but nevertheless the thing that so far has kept us out of a '30's style depression. Financial reform? It's a little too early to tell but it seems to be no real impediment to business as usual in the banking and financial industries.
Maybe some republican voters are (understandably) misled by the united opposition to these initiatives of elected republican congresspersons. They are not opposed to these things because of what they are. They are opposed to them because of who the president is.

Two things I like to hear from a Democrat. It's Bush's fault and republican voters don't understand. I just hope you keep it up until the next election.

clinamen, answer is yes. Obama is more connected to Wall Street than any Pres. ever.

Allan L., I assume your post is tongue in cheek...??? Obama is clearly a Marxist in his core beliefs and has surrounded himself with socialists. Anyone remember Van Jones? Anita Dunn (or is she a Maoist?) Ron Blum? Cass Sunstien?

Come on!

I have to vehemently disagree with Michael Moore on this one. Reason being, if Democrats do this now, then Republicans will do it in every similar situation on down the road when they have lost a majority, have a lame duck before the incoming Democratic majority, and then slink back into the minority.

Tradition and respecting the incoming majority by not doing an end run during the lame duck is the proper and respectable thing to do. What precedents each party sets now will come back to them in the future when they are inevitably in the minority at a later session of Congress.

Same reason why the "nuclear" option in the US Senate has never been invoked to override a filibuster with the vote of the Vice President calling a point to order in order to pass a non-US budget piece of legislation.

You think US politics is nasty now? Just consider how ruthless it would be if Democrats went through with every one of Moore's recent delusional rants because the Republicans have won the most seats since 1948. Dems or Reps in the minority would have absolutely no say in at all.

I don't believe in not giving the minority party in US Congress no leverage or power. Believing like Michael Moore is basic tyranny of the majority.

The people who go off about Obama and the Ds lost beacause the oversteped the mandates from 2008 are nonobservant or disingenuous.

They ignore the fact that Obama was pretty accurate in 2008 about his goals. He was clear he planned on killing the Bush tax cuts for those making $250K+ ( lower than the tax rate they paid during most of Reagan's time) and that he would implement some form of universal coverage for health care.

Every democratic president over the last 70 yrs has tried to broaden access to coverage. The financial reform bill was no surpeise; after 2007-08 everyone knew something needed to be done.

Yeah, Mike, but Obama is a Marxist or a Maoist or a Muslim or a Keynsian. Q.E.D.

"They are opposed to them because of who the president is."
===

That is so true!

And has been for years.

Like the previous 2 years. (D)

And the previous 8 years before that. (R)

And the previous 8 years before that. (D)

And the previous 4 years before that. (R)

And the previous 8 years before that. (R)

Maybe it might be political in nature.

Politics?? Nah, not from our statesmen.

You sure have a short memory Ryan.