What Will the Democrats Do IF They Retake Congress?
What will they do? There's rampant speculation on what they might do, and that speculation is well-founded. The party isn't acting like a party that wants power back to correct any perceived mistakes. They're acting like a group of people with an ax to grind, and they're going to use the last six years as the grindstone. From Drudge comes this report from Newsweek and MSNBC. And they're answering the question of what the Democrats will do IF they get their power back. I'm not going to post the whole thing (it's three pages long) but I will pull out the key excerpts of them, in their own words, stating what is on their agenda:
Dingell is careful to say he is not out to get George W. Bush, or the Republicans, and insists he will extend his hand to his GOP colleagues and conduct "oversight thoughtfully and responsibly." He says "there's no list" of things he wants to investigate. But in the next breath, he quickly ticks off a list of things he wants to investigate: The Bush administration's handling of port security and the threat of nuclear smuggling; computer privacy; climate change; concentration of media ownership; the new Medicare Part D program, which he calls a "massive scandal," and the secret meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. "This is a hardheaded administration," Dingell says. "So we'll probably have lots of hearings." ...
... All carry lists—if only in their heads—of issues and outrages they believe Republicans have failed to probe because such questions would be politically embarrassing to the president. Henry Waxman of California is another Democratic old-timer whose ire never dims. A tireless investigator, he's in line to head the Government Reform Committee, and plans to take aim at Halliburton and alleged rip-offs and contract abuse in Iraq. Then there's Charles Rangel, the New York congressman who's never met a cable show he didn't like. He is set to take over the Ways and Means Committee, and wants to take a hard look at the Bush tax cuts. John Conyers of Michigan has waited for years to head the Judiciary Committee. He's likely to convene hearings on the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping. In the past, he has suggested the possibility of impeachment hearings for President Bush. "When the Clinton administration was in office, there was no accusation too small for the Republicans to rush out the subpoenas," Waxman says. "When Bush became president, there wasn't a scandal big enough for them to ignore." ...
Let me just jump in here really quick before I continue. The "scandals" Rep. Waxman speaks of have yet to come to light. Why? Because there's nothing to the accusation. What scandals is he referring to? Under Clinton, there were a host of scandals that erupted, and each one of them were a threat to the presidency; espcially the criminal behavior. Presidents can be impeached (as Clinton was) for breaking the law. To date, the Democrats have offered nothing in the way of hard evidence to prove the president has committed a crime. So, I'm at a loss for the so-called scandals the Democrats claimed to have witnessed, or had knowledge of.
... There will be hearings, and plenty of them, but according to a top Democratic staff member familiar with Pelosi's plans—who, like all aides, wouldn't be named talking about strategy—the would-be speaker intends to keep tight control. The aide says Democratic leaders will have veto power over committee probes—something that in the past was the domain of the committee chairmen themselves. ...
... Pelosi's true focus for the next two years will be to position the Democrats for the 2008 presidential race. (She'll have help from rising star Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the hard-edged former Bill Clinton aide who now runs the House Democrats' campaign committee.) ...
... The idea is to bring popular bills that the GOP has opposed to the floor of the House—a minimum-wage hike, prescription-drug reform—and dare Republicans to vote against them. It's part of a larger package the Dems are billing as Six for '06, their version of the "Contract With America," which the GOP used to win in '94. Demo-crats plan to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations and screen all containers at U.S. ports, put more money into counterterror operations and increase benefits for veterans. At home, they say they'll vote for tax deductions for college tuition and cut student-loan rates while raising taxes on big oil companies and corporations that move overseas. They say they'll also put a popular stem-cell-research bill up for a vote. ...
... Democratic leaders are largely sticking with domestic issues in part because they have yet to come up with a coherent plan for the biggest problem of all: articulating a clear way out of Iraq. On the campaign trail, Democrats have been content to bash Republican failures and say they'd do better. The Democrats' official line is to promise a "new direction," and to urge, vaguely, "redeployment." If they win, they'll be forced to say what, if anything, that means. ...
... Pelosi began preparing for power early. Over the summer, when polls started tilting toward the Democrats, Pelosi made her first moves to get the control of the chairmen-in-waiting. She assigned 40 members the job of studying the Democratic House rules and let it be known that she might not always follow the tradition of awarding chairmanships based on seniority. It was a clear warning not to cross her. In July, when she noticed few members were bothering to show up for party caucus meetings, Pelosi quietly leaked another possible rule change: attendance at the meetings would be taken into account in her committee selections. The same went for fund-raising. Members who weren't writing checks to support Democratic candidates might hurt their chances of rising in the leadership. ...
Sounds to me like Nancy Pelosi is going to try to set herself as the "iron fist" of the House ina fashion reminiscent of when Lyndon Johnson was in the Senate. When Johnson was the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, if he had a party member who didn't play ball his way, that person found themselves in a world of hurt. She's making it crystal clear that she fully intends to be the leader of the party in the House, and control House business as Speaker. It also bolsters her image; if impeachments and removals proceed (which, according to this YouTube clip from 60 Minutes last night, impeachment is "off the table" according to Pelosi. When asked by Leslie Stahl if it were a "pledge," she answered int he affirmative that it was. We'll see), then she would be in line for the presidency. A "tougher" Pelosi, I'm betting, is designed to calm voter fears if this woman somehow, by some miracle, ascends to the presidency.
... But she wanted it understood that she was running the place. Pelosi was especially firm with Conyers. She told him she didn't want any "out-of-control investigations," a senior House aide says; not another word about impeachment, she warned. "The impeachment talk gave the other side exactly what they wanted, which was an opening to talk about 'those liberal Democrats'," says the senior House aide. "It couldn't keep happening. We were writing their campaign ads for them." ...
See, even an old dog is capable of learning from it's mistakes, and they can be taught new tricks. And they're learning quickly in this election cycle. What they haven't learned yet, and new poll numbers for the Senate show that. Over at The Corner on NRO Erica Stalnecker has posted the newest data for the big races.
NJ: Kean 39% / Menendez 48%
RI: Chefee 42% / Whitehouse 46%
MT: Burns 46% / Tester 49%
MD: Steele 43% / Cardin 51%
VA: Allen 50% / Webb 47%
PA: Santorum 44% / Casey 52%
OH: DeWine 45% / Brown 49%
TN: Corker 49% / Ford 42%
MO: Talent 50% / McCaskill 47%
Corker, Talent, and Allen are all enjoying new leads, and thanks in part to the attacks that have slimed them in recent weeks. Corker, we believe, got his bump after the unprofessional display by Ford when he decided to show up at a Corker press conference uninvited, then refused to leave until he had spoken with Bob Corker. Claire McCaskill's attack on Jim Talent over his VA record in the Senate was just plain dumb; had she done her research, she would have seen that his record is impeccable.
The Democrats are on the record now. They have laid out their domestic strategy, but as the article points out, they seem to have no cohesive plan for the war on terror, or the Iraqi theater of operations. That speaks volumes to a nation at war right now. And it should speak volumes to the Republicans out there still in a snit over the GOP's behavior. Join the frelling club, guys, but I'm not stupid. I'm not going to let my disappointment in the GOP color how I decide this election. I don't play poolitics with national security, and neither should anyone else. This election is about national security, and based on thirty-to-forty years of history, we can't trust the Democrats to handle it. Those that opt to stay home, and those that choose to "punish" the GOP by voting Democrat, all I have to say is "you reap what you sow."
This is an important election. If we don't want the House going to the Democrats, and allowing these nutters to implement a doomed domestic policy, then we need to go out and vote, and it needs to be for the Republicans. And their foreign policy doesn't have much to brag about, either.
My grandfather always used to tell me that "The worst Republican was better than the best Democrat." I took that to heart, and I believe it (except in the case of Lincoln Chafee), and that's why We'll be voting for the GOP this year. None of the Democrats have a plan for the most important issue of all: Winning the war. If we're under attack from our enemies here--via terrorists slipping through our borders, or the cells currently here, or even home-grown jihadists--am I really going to be concerned with Medicare type-D? Tax cuts? Whether or not the Mt. Soledad cross comes down our not? H*ll no; I'm going to be concerned with how do we kill the little buggers in the largest quantities possible.
Publius II
What will they do? There's rampant speculation on what they might do, and that speculation is well-founded. The party isn't acting like a party that wants power back to correct any perceived mistakes. They're acting like a group of people with an ax to grind, and they're going to use the last six years as the grindstone. From Drudge comes this report from Newsweek and MSNBC. And they're answering the question of what the Democrats will do IF they get their power back. I'm not going to post the whole thing (it's three pages long) but I will pull out the key excerpts of them, in their own words, stating what is on their agenda:
Dingell is careful to say he is not out to get George W. Bush, or the Republicans, and insists he will extend his hand to his GOP colleagues and conduct "oversight thoughtfully and responsibly." He says "there's no list" of things he wants to investigate. But in the next breath, he quickly ticks off a list of things he wants to investigate: The Bush administration's handling of port security and the threat of nuclear smuggling; computer privacy; climate change; concentration of media ownership; the new Medicare Part D program, which he calls a "massive scandal," and the secret meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. "This is a hardheaded administration," Dingell says. "So we'll probably have lots of hearings." ...
... All carry lists—if only in their heads—of issues and outrages they believe Republicans have failed to probe because such questions would be politically embarrassing to the president. Henry Waxman of California is another Democratic old-timer whose ire never dims. A tireless investigator, he's in line to head the Government Reform Committee, and plans to take aim at Halliburton and alleged rip-offs and contract abuse in Iraq. Then there's Charles Rangel, the New York congressman who's never met a cable show he didn't like. He is set to take over the Ways and Means Committee, and wants to take a hard look at the Bush tax cuts. John Conyers of Michigan has waited for years to head the Judiciary Committee. He's likely to convene hearings on the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping. In the past, he has suggested the possibility of impeachment hearings for President Bush. "When the Clinton administration was in office, there was no accusation too small for the Republicans to rush out the subpoenas," Waxman says. "When Bush became president, there wasn't a scandal big enough for them to ignore." ...
Let me just jump in here really quick before I continue. The "scandals" Rep. Waxman speaks of have yet to come to light. Why? Because there's nothing to the accusation. What scandals is he referring to? Under Clinton, there were a host of scandals that erupted, and each one of them were a threat to the presidency; espcially the criminal behavior. Presidents can be impeached (as Clinton was) for breaking the law. To date, the Democrats have offered nothing in the way of hard evidence to prove the president has committed a crime. So, I'm at a loss for the so-called scandals the Democrats claimed to have witnessed, or had knowledge of.
... There will be hearings, and plenty of them, but according to a top Democratic staff member familiar with Pelosi's plans—who, like all aides, wouldn't be named talking about strategy—the would-be speaker intends to keep tight control. The aide says Democratic leaders will have veto power over committee probes—something that in the past was the domain of the committee chairmen themselves. ...
... Pelosi's true focus for the next two years will be to position the Democrats for the 2008 presidential race. (She'll have help from rising star Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the hard-edged former Bill Clinton aide who now runs the House Democrats' campaign committee.) ...
... The idea is to bring popular bills that the GOP has opposed to the floor of the House—a minimum-wage hike, prescription-drug reform—and dare Republicans to vote against them. It's part of a larger package the Dems are billing as Six for '06, their version of the "Contract With America," which the GOP used to win in '94. Demo-crats plan to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations and screen all containers at U.S. ports, put more money into counterterror operations and increase benefits for veterans. At home, they say they'll vote for tax deductions for college tuition and cut student-loan rates while raising taxes on big oil companies and corporations that move overseas. They say they'll also put a popular stem-cell-research bill up for a vote. ...
... Democratic leaders are largely sticking with domestic issues in part because they have yet to come up with a coherent plan for the biggest problem of all: articulating a clear way out of Iraq. On the campaign trail, Democrats have been content to bash Republican failures and say they'd do better. The Democrats' official line is to promise a "new direction," and to urge, vaguely, "redeployment." If they win, they'll be forced to say what, if anything, that means. ...
... Pelosi began preparing for power early. Over the summer, when polls started tilting toward the Democrats, Pelosi made her first moves to get the control of the chairmen-in-waiting. She assigned 40 members the job of studying the Democratic House rules and let it be known that she might not always follow the tradition of awarding chairmanships based on seniority. It was a clear warning not to cross her. In July, when she noticed few members were bothering to show up for party caucus meetings, Pelosi quietly leaked another possible rule change: attendance at the meetings would be taken into account in her committee selections. The same went for fund-raising. Members who weren't writing checks to support Democratic candidates might hurt their chances of rising in the leadership. ...
Sounds to me like Nancy Pelosi is going to try to set herself as the "iron fist" of the House ina fashion reminiscent of when Lyndon Johnson was in the Senate. When Johnson was the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, if he had a party member who didn't play ball his way, that person found themselves in a world of hurt. She's making it crystal clear that she fully intends to be the leader of the party in the House, and control House business as Speaker. It also bolsters her image; if impeachments and removals proceed (which, according to this YouTube clip from 60 Minutes last night, impeachment is "off the table" according to Pelosi. When asked by Leslie Stahl if it were a "pledge," she answered int he affirmative that it was. We'll see), then she would be in line for the presidency. A "tougher" Pelosi, I'm betting, is designed to calm voter fears if this woman somehow, by some miracle, ascends to the presidency.
... But she wanted it understood that she was running the place. Pelosi was especially firm with Conyers. She told him she didn't want any "out-of-control investigations," a senior House aide says; not another word about impeachment, she warned. "The impeachment talk gave the other side exactly what they wanted, which was an opening to talk about 'those liberal Democrats'," says the senior House aide. "It couldn't keep happening. We were writing their campaign ads for them." ...
See, even an old dog is capable of learning from it's mistakes, and they can be taught new tricks. And they're learning quickly in this election cycle. What they haven't learned yet, and new poll numbers for the Senate show that. Over at The Corner on NRO Erica Stalnecker has posted the newest data for the big races.
NJ: Kean 39% / Menendez 48%
RI: Chefee 42% / Whitehouse 46%
MT: Burns 46% / Tester 49%
MD: Steele 43% / Cardin 51%
VA: Allen 50% / Webb 47%
PA: Santorum 44% / Casey 52%
OH: DeWine 45% / Brown 49%
TN: Corker 49% / Ford 42%
MO: Talent 50% / McCaskill 47%
Corker, Talent, and Allen are all enjoying new leads, and thanks in part to the attacks that have slimed them in recent weeks. Corker, we believe, got his bump after the unprofessional display by Ford when he decided to show up at a Corker press conference uninvited, then refused to leave until he had spoken with Bob Corker. Claire McCaskill's attack on Jim Talent over his VA record in the Senate was just plain dumb; had she done her research, she would have seen that his record is impeccable.
The Democrats are on the record now. They have laid out their domestic strategy, but as the article points out, they seem to have no cohesive plan for the war on terror, or the Iraqi theater of operations. That speaks volumes to a nation at war right now. And it should speak volumes to the Republicans out there still in a snit over the GOP's behavior. Join the frelling club, guys, but I'm not stupid. I'm not going to let my disappointment in the GOP color how I decide this election. I don't play poolitics with national security, and neither should anyone else. This election is about national security, and based on thirty-to-forty years of history, we can't trust the Democrats to handle it. Those that opt to stay home, and those that choose to "punish" the GOP by voting Democrat, all I have to say is "you reap what you sow."
This is an important election. If we don't want the House going to the Democrats, and allowing these nutters to implement a doomed domestic policy, then we need to go out and vote, and it needs to be for the Republicans. And their foreign policy doesn't have much to brag about, either.
My grandfather always used to tell me that "The worst Republican was better than the best Democrat." I took that to heart, and I believe it (except in the case of Lincoln Chafee), and that's why We'll be voting for the GOP this year. None of the Democrats have a plan for the most important issue of all: Winning the war. If we're under attack from our enemies here--via terrorists slipping through our borders, or the cells currently here, or even home-grown jihadists--am I really going to be concerned with Medicare type-D? Tax cuts? Whether or not the Mt. Soledad cross comes down our not? H*ll no; I'm going to be concerned with how do we kill the little buggers in the largest quantities possible.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:31 PM
1 Comments:
Good blog. As you know after Reagan was elected the Democrat Leadership Council was formed to guide the party. The only success to date is Clinton's election. This is the new democrats. They are hungry to push their progressive (socialism) agenda on us. I know the gamblers are betting that we keep the senate and lose the house. Betting on the election is illegal but I'm tempted to wager a few sheckles that we keep the house. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home