Motivation For The Base
I’m well aware of discontent among Republicans; even some of my regulars are talking about sitting this one out. There is good reason, though, even amongst our disillusionment with the current crop of poor Republican congressional leaders, to make it out to the polls anyway. Pete du Pont lists a few of them:
If the Democrats do take the House, what changes might be made in America’s public policies?
First, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that election of a Democratic House would insure “a rollback of the [Bush] tax cuts.” Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who would be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would make sure no tax cut extension bill would ever get to the floor. He voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the bill that later extended the tax cuts until 2010 (as did all but seven of the 205 Democratic House members). In September Mr. Rangel said that he “cannot think of one” Bush tax cut he would agree to renew.
Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, “the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs.” But that progress doesn’t seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates. “Taxing the rich” will be the leading economic argument of a 2007 Democratic House, and a rollback tax bill of some kind will reach the floor.
Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for “preventing the privatization of social security” is in the Democratic National Committee’s “6-Point Plan for 2006.” Democrats don’t trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds–better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, “putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together.” And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren’t needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won’t allow to happen.
“Reducing dependence on foreign oil” is a good Democratic goal, and there are a number of ways to accomplish it. Building more nuclear power plants is one. Offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is another. Oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska could replace foreign oil imports for 25 years, and there is a known 19-year OCS supply of natural gas.
But liberal Democrats are opposed to all of these solutions. Hillary Clinton is opposed to the construction of nuclear plants and offshore drilling. Every Democratic senator on the Environment and Public Works Committee voted against allowing the building of new oil refineries on closed military bases. When the House voted 232-187 in June to allow and encourage OCS oil and natural-gas drilling, 155 of 195 Democrats voted to block it. The Democratic alternative is to eliminate the $18 billion the oil companies now get in various business tax deductions and thereby impose a higher income tax on them.
As for the war in Iraq, Mr. Rangel observed that “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?” In other words, end it by simply defunding it. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania calls for “immediate redeployment of U.S. troops” and intends to run for majority leader if the Democrats take control of the House. Ninety percent of House Democrats opposed the terrorist surveillance program, and 80% voted against the recent terrorist interrogation legislation.
Finally, when we see what the new leaders of a Democratic House are likely to do, their views are–well–very different from most Americans. Rep Henry Waxman of California would become the Government Reform Committee chairman, and believes domestic terrorist surveillance is “illegal.” He would use his subpoena power to launch investigations to try and limit the president’s anti-terrorism powers.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has talked about subpoenaing “Bush administration officials to answer questions and face the consequences for their abuses of power.” In other words, impeachment.
Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated she would like to put Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida in charge of the House Intelligence Committee. As a federal judge, he was impeached in the House by a 413-3 vote, and removed from the bench by the Senate for bribery, corruption, and perjury. Rep. Hastings would lead the oversight of America’s antiterrorism policies.
I voted yesterday in early voting, for the record…I bet you can guess which party got the majority of my votes…
Yawn. Nevermind that Congress is currently run by the most corrupt, incompetent, and generally childish bunch of clowns to control the levers of power in Washington a long, long time. What we should really be worried about is Charlie Rangel chairing a committee. Please. It’s hard to imagine a weaker argument in a favor of anything. The party of ideas, my a**.
It will be interesting watching the destruction of America if the dim’s take over the house. I doubt the left wingers will like the ‘draft’ that will come from necessity, since anyone with a brain will refuse to serve in the military under the dimwits.
I’m not a conservative voter sitting this one out. I did consider it briefly earlier this year, when William Jefferson’s office was raided and Dennis Hastert had the gall to claim that the FBI over-stepped its bounds. I’ll be voting because I don’t want to see Speaker Pelosi, but I’ve had more than enough of Speaker Hastert as well.
Gee, doesn’t sound too bad to me.
1) Re raising taxes: not to reprise another thread, but if we fail to raise taxes or reduce spending, we will continue to run a large budget deficit. Changing marginal tax rates to status quo ante is a reasonable way to reduce the deficit. If du Pont was intellectually honest, he would make the case why we should continue to borrow money from Asian central banks to finance government spending.
2) “that progress doesn’t seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates.” : Change the phrase “raise income tax rates” to “balance the budget” and you have the Democrats’ argument. Anybody can get applause by lowering taxes, but raising them takes political capital. Du Pont evidently is unhappy that the Democrats are willing to use political capital instead of pandering.
3) “Democrats don’t trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds–better to let a wise government do that.” Well, Social Security has worked pretty well for about seven decades, despite Republican efforts to reduce or eliminate it. I think it is wiser to invest the money in government paper than to trust the vicissitudes of the market. Also, it provides another buyer for government debt, so it doesn’t (almost) all get bought by foreign central banks. (As long as Social Security runs a surplus, anyway.)
4) Re oil drilling: I happen to agree with du Pont on this one and I think the Democratic position is wrong.
5) Du Pont states that the Democratic position is to redeploy troops, but he does not make the case for staying the course, as though it is an a priori truth that anyone who wants to bring the troops home must necessarily be wrong.
6) “Ninety percent of House Democrats opposed the terrorist surveillance program, and 80% voted against the recent terrorist interrogation legislation.” Well, yeah. They are gross violations of the Constitution and ought to be voted down. du Pont makes the assumption that any terrorist bill must automatically be a good one.
7) Re Waxman: I doubt he ever said that terrorist surveillance should be illegal. Doubtless he said that surveillance without warrants should be illegal (as, in fact, it is). Perhaps this distinction eludes du Pont.
9) “when we see what the new leaders of a Democratic House are likely to do, their views are–well–very different from most Americans.” Speaker it won’t happen. This is a bogeyman of du Pont’s creation. And while we’re This is a true statement: I believe that the views of most Americans are to the left of the Democratic party. I don’t have the time right now to dig up cites and surveys, but I would wager that on most issues – Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. – the consensus opinion is to the left of the Democratic platform and stated positions.
Too bad you voted — too late to change your mind, huh?
whoops, messed up point nine above. trying to multi-task but failed to uni-task.
alright Peter, you’ve convinced me, i won’t sit this one out. i’ll vote against Ted (but it won’t matter), for a GOP Governor, for grocery stores to have the ability (MA ballot iniative) to sell wine & beer, and for my local town to impose a lease law for dogs. now, if the Democrats would argue for spending cuts to balance the budget i might consider voting for them – but that ain’t never going to happen.
I agree — the Dems won’t argue for budget cuts. But they should.
I was a Massachusetts resident for four years (at one point I lived down the street from Senator Edward Brooke’s summer house in Oak Bluffs) and I remember the beer and wine blue laws. Buying beer and wine at a supermarket is a basic civil right, especially considering the superior quality of your breweries. I hope it passes.
Today’s news
“What if the Democrats win?”
The WSJ’s conclusion? They’ll roll back the tax cuts and hurt the economy.
“Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, “the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs.” But that progress doesn’t seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates.”
“most corrupt, incompetent, and generally childish bunch of clowns to control the levers of power in Washington a long, long time.”
yawn…’most’ as a universal.
if you are completely ignorant of democratic corruption and choose to remain so, I won’t bother making the argument. I trust lobbying is not a dirty game, as harry reid, barbara boxer, tom daschle are exempt from the appearance of corruption. (I don’t reserve judgment on Hastert, his son has cost him all legitimacy).
My contempt for the gop, which stems directly from irresponsible spending, and what has led me to sit this one out, does not allow me to ignore the fact that the dems are at best no better, but in reality far worse. At least the gop, pro-growth plan has worked-otherwise we would see an actual record deficit, other than the imaginary one being floated by intellectualy bankrupt libs.
I have yet to see a democratic plan which will grow the economy and not the govt.
Interesting article here: http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60420992.phtml
repealing the tax cut?
in theory, can’t bush veto the bill that would do so?
defunding of Iraq…I support bush, but I have never seen a group in the majority run from an issue like the gop in congress. The most articulate spokesmen have turned out to be the British pm, who is from labor, and a democratic senator from CT.
I do have a feeling that the dems(should they take the house) will equivalently avoid the issue. The irony is that even if the dems were to retake the house, they don’t have the votes to defund Iraq. Everytime they try, they’ll simply be making the argument to continue funding. Especially since the ‘front-runner’ for 08 is for continuation of our effort, and dreading the perception of being weak on foreign policy.
don’t get me wrong, the fear tactics will motivate the gop base, and they will hold both houses, but I personally doubt the dems ability to accomplish anything they promise, and lacking fear-will sit this one out.
They wouldn’t be able to repeal the tax cuts, per se, but they could just refuse to renew them. As of now, they will expire in 2010, so I’d assume if the GOP gets control of congress back in 2008, we shouldn’t have anything to worry about as far as tax cuts are concerned. That is a big “if” though.
let me throw the dems a strategic bone-
(instead of making the funding an issue) they should announce that the first plan they will take upon themselves is a ‘no confidence vote’ on Rummy.
It would put the gop reps in the position of either supporting or condemning a small, but integral piece of Iraq, rather than the whole enchillada. Judging by our host’s opinion of Rummy, it is the most significant wedge to exploit.
I personally want to watch a group of gop-ers in the position of supporting a war, while they refuse to support the leader of the war. It would serve them right to make em squirm.
(I couldn’t support a candidate who does not support Rummy, but I am in the minority on this.)
Well, I don’t hate Rumsfeld, I just think he made some well-intentioned blunders…I wish he would fall on his sword and get on with his more lucrative outside life and remove himself as an issue, but it’s not a priority for me when the alternative is Charlie Rangel heading Ways and Means (and Anonymous, I can’t imagine for the life of me why you think a conservative would find that yawn-inducing. It is, in fact, one of the most powerful posts in government)…
The gop ‘base’ has too big an advantage in the post 9/11 world. This will manifest itself, again, as it did in 02 and 04.
I personally know 5 people who have gone from varying degrees of being democrats, to being conservatives(and almost…gasp…neo-cons.)
I have yet to encounter an alternative case, where a conservative has converted to voting democrat based on foreign policy.
Zell Miller, Ed Koch, and David Zucker…a democratic senator, a democratic mayor of the largest lib bastion in the free world, and a hollywood producer-lifelong dems, who disagree on every conservative issue but one: foreign policy. How does Rudy keep his popularity when he has been vocally supportive of a war that almost 2/3 of the country dissapproves off?
These people are rational and converted, so let’s call them the ‘rational converts’. It’s at least 4pts in the gop’s pocket every time and it doesn’t appear in approval ratings or telephone polls. This will play out in OH, VA, TN, and PA where I can guarantee the gop choice will outperform the current polls, by 3-5 pts.
These ‘rational converts’, if they felt strongly enough to make the conversion, will also turnout is greater proportion than even the dem base.
gop will retain both houses.
Nancy Pelosi does not exist in a vacuum. If, after November 7th, Nancy Pelosi is not Speaker of the House – it means Denny Hastert is Speaker of the House.
That would be the same Denny Hastert, who does not even meet the ethical standards of one of the most corrupt Tammany Hall politicians at the turn of the century.
Even if you disagree with Nancy Pelosi politically, she is a much much better choice for Speaker of the House than Denny Hastert.
We have an opportunity to vote directly on who we would prefer for Speaker of the House and 3rd in line to the presidency on November 7.
Denny or Nancy? Choose wisely.
20% of the country knows who pelosi is.
between 37-39% of the eligible country will turn out to vote.
the 20% already knew how they were going to vote a year ago. the other 17-19% don’t have any idea who pelosi is. Evoking her name is for the base only, but this also applies to hastert. The corruption thing, likewise has never been in a vacuum, and usually when it comes down to it, it won’t crack the top 6 of voter concerns.
The argument of who is more corrupt is meaningless, but denny is no boss tweed. Libs and their flair for the dramatic…serial exagerators?
“…who does not even meet the ethical standards of one of the most corrupt Tammany Hall politicians at the turn of the century.”
He also is personally responsible for global warming, the crisis in Darfur, and the recent shooting of Amish children.
I nominate thee Retardo Montalban for the most inane comment yet on this subject to appear on this site. Congrats, you’ve earned it.
Chris, I just posted on that Dick Morris article…I have to take it with a HUGE grain of salt, because just yesterday, he was bemoaning ‘phony Republican confidence’ in the NY Sun…
I suspect that Mr. Hastert’s days are numbered, regardless of what happens on Nov. 7th.
I am not so sure. He has already announced that he will run for speaker again. Bush supports him as speaker. He won’t leave the speaker job until/unless the voters take him out, or the FBI takes him out in handcuffs. Both are possible.
“Bush administration officials to answer questions and face the consequences for their abuses of power.” In other words, impeachment.”
According to Newsweek, a majority of the American people want Bush impeached:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/
If so, you can’t be upset with Conyers: aren’t representatives supposed to follow the public will?
Hmmm, Peter, did you actually read that article? If so, a little more reading instruction may be useful.
Impeachment?
I went to the link and didn’t find the word, but in a democratic world, finding words that aren’t there is par for the course.
I personally would love the dems to launch into impeachment. I want nancy pelosi and her botux riddled face becoming the center piece of democratic policy.
The woman needs surgery to smile, pretty sad.
From the article:
“Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done.”
Last time I checked, 28 and 23 equal 51. Maybe a little more math instruction may be useful.
“According to Newsweek, a majority of the American people want Bush…”
Also according to Newsweek, our troops regularly flush the Koran down latrines, and also engage in torture 24/7.
Credible source, methinks not.
“He won’t leave the speaker job until/unless the voters take him out, or the FBI takes him out in handcuffs. Both are possible.”
He also won’t leave the speaker job until the Hubble Space telescope confirms the existence of Martians.
high priority and low prioty are the same thing?
You should have exclued the first part of your quote:
“Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support…”.
Peter, weren’t you arguing earlier that impeachment wouldn’t happen?
Actually, I hope that the Dems do move to impeach Bush if they take the House. Ask the Republicans how well that tactic worked for them against Clinton.
Anyway, as far as Pelosi vs. Hastert, I’ll take Hastert any day of the week and twice on Sunday. However, I don’t think the choices are exclusive. I hope that the Republicans maintain their majority AND Hastert is replaced. There have been some grumblings about him on the Hill, so I don’t think that’s out of the question.
Mark, I’ll comment about the Morris article in the appropriate place.
What would the charges for impeachment be? Plamegate?
And do the Dems want there to be a President Cheney that much?
You hit the nail on the head…President Cheney is the best reason to think impeachment won’t happen…
I don’t think impeachment will happen because the Congressional Democrats won’t push it — but (if the Newsweek poll is correct) half of Americans want it to happen — no contradiction there, as the Dems are not taking the consensus opinion here –
peter,
Read the whole poll: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
Impeachment is dead last on the priority list. It seems an aberration to say that “half of Americans want it to happen”.
Mark & Aaron,
Impeachment ralliers don’t care if it means that we’ll have a President Cheney. Their BDS doesn’t allow them to think that about that. All they can think about is hurting Bush and hurting the Republican Party. If Bush were actually impeached AND thrown out of office (of President of Fantasyland, apparently), this would be highly damaging to the Republicans in ’08. Similar to ’76 when no Republican Presidential candidate really stood a chance. On the flip side, if Bush is impeached and NOT thrown out of office, this is probably more damaging to the Democrats, because it makes them look like they’re playing politics with impeachment trials. Like I said before, ask the Republicans how well that gambit worked for them.
Thanks, Chris, very interesting. I agree that it seems aberrant that 51% would say that impeachment should be a priority, and that only 44% say Bush should not be impeached. Even where I live — in the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, Micheal Moore ticket stub-holding San Francisco Bay Area — nobody talks about impeachment and you don’t see “Impeach Bush” (or even “Buck Fush”) bumper stickers very often. I just don’t see any groundswell for it, and as noted above, I don’t think it’s gonna happen.
Re Bay Area bumper stickers: there is a guy I see with “STFU and drive” on his bumper. Bay Area vanity plates tend towards tech (CAR 2.0, NO DATA, DOW UP) although there is someone in the neighborhood with I LUV ZEP. Mine is 9IRON.
Now who can be the first to decipher the meaning of JPGANDR?
Why, that would be…drum roll, please…those 4 chaps from Liverpool, John, Paul, George, and Ringo…
ding ding … we have a winner …
Funds for You at the Right Time Fast Bridging Loans UK…
Buying any property in UK requires large investments. So before buying a property you should be very sure that the one you have chosen matches your preferences….