August 31, 2006
A Democratic 110th
I'm not going to excerpt. It's free, read it all. The Wall Street Journal highlights the luminaries that will likely chair committees in a Dem 110th.
Scared yet?
Politics
Posted by jk at August 31, 2006 10:30 AM
Via email. I disagree, but it is too good not to post:
Maybe the conversation should look like this next time our boys and girls are in the recumbent class cloakroom...
"Remember '06 when they tossed us out on our ass for spending too much and betraying the principles of the folks that elected us, and remember how hard it was to get our jobs back. Maybe we better vote no on this spending bill so that doesn't happen to us." This is like Iran, or raising kids... if there are no consequences for bad behavior, you are going to continue to get bad behavior. So if it takes Speaker Pelosi to remind Republicans what Republicans are supposed to do, then so be it.
Via email. I disagree, but it is too good not to post:
Maybe the conversation should look like this next time our boys and girls are in the recumbent class cloakroom...
"Remember '06 when they tossed us out on our ass for spending too much and betraying the principles of the folks that elected us, and remember how hard it was to get our jobs back. Maybe we better vote no on this spending bill so that doesn't happen to us." This is like Iran, or raising kids... if there are no consequences for bad behavior, you are going to continue to get bad behavior. So if it takes Speaker Pelosi to remind Republicans what Republicans are supposed to do, then so be it.
Posted by: jk at August 31, 2006 1:01 PMI usually leave the political wrangling around here to the experts and focus on philosophy but here goes anyway. I believe the, “government by gridlock,” argument holds some merit especially as neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are successfully representing the individual rights that are the cornerstone of our nation.
The last paragraph of the WSJ article goes like this:
The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington.
Posted by: dagny at August 31, 2006 4:11 PMBetter to let the socialists get control of the house now while serious damage can still be prevented by the means listed in the article then to maybe lose any hope of smaller government in 2008. Perhaps if voters are, “surprised at their return mail from Washington,” we can get a presidential candidate to really support in 2008.
Were we not at war, I might join you and my emailer. But Rep Alcee Hastings is in line to chair the Intelligence Committee. That would be one of six impeached Federal judges in our nation’s history.
W will likely face Impeachment from Conyers and Hastings. This will be deleterious to the war effort.
Posted by: jk at August 31, 2006 6:13 PMNot to mention that a Dem 110th would use the FCC to stifle any debate/dissent on talk radio under the "fairness" doctrine (I may have that wrong, feel free to correct me!)
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 1, 2006 10:11 AMIt's hard to enumerate the damage they could pursue. The FCC is an Executive function and, as the tough love crowd points out, legislative victories would be tough to come by with a slim majority in one chamber.
My concern is the mischief they could cause, procedurally, that would damage the war effort. I certainly hope JohnGalt is right on this one.
Posted by: jk at September 1, 2006 10:24 AM | What do you think? [5]