If it were not for the intense animosity Democratic congressional leaders (and prospective committee chairs) harbored for the President of the United States, I would not be so concerned about a Democratic takeover of Congress. While there have been signs of improvement in the Republican caucus in recent days, it still has not fully embraced the Reaganite agenda of The Contract with America, the series of policy proposals which helped the GOP win a majority in Congress in 1994.
Perhaps, a term in the minority might remind them of the limited government principles which animated the Gipper’s policies, still define much Republican rhetoric and inspired rank-and-file Republicans for over a quarter-century. But, given the Bush-hatred which animates the Democrats, it seems clear they would use their majority not to govern, but to obstruct.
Indeed, this past week has provided much evidence that if the Democrats took control of Congress this fall, they would have a hard time uniting around any legislative priorities. On Friday, House Democrats failed to unite in opposition to a resolution opposing setting a date for “withdrawal or redeployment” of our troops in Iraq. Today, Senate Democrats showed a similar division. While Democrats did present their “New Directions” agenda, even liberal Washington Post columnist David Broder found it to be “as meager as it was unimaginative“
While House Republicans in 1994 offered a comprehensive proposal with draft legislation, the Democrat’s “New Direction for America” is nothing more than a campaign flyer offering broad policy goals rather than specific means to accomplish those goals. A full half (one-page of a two-page document (available here)) is devoted to attacks on President Bush. That animosity seems to be what’s really animating congressional Democrats.
Unable to unite on a policy agenda, majority Democrats would likely turn their energy into unleashing endless investigations of the Chief Executive they revile. As the MSM would delight in such investigations, these investigations could make it increasingly difficult for the president to exercise his constitutional responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, which right now involves securing the nation against terrorist threats and completing the victory in Iraq.
Such extremism could expose the divisions in the Democratic caucus, particularly given that, in the unfortunate event that they win majorities this fall, most of the new members will be from marginal or GOP-leaning districts. Facing re-election in a presidential election year, these freshmen representatives would want to pursue a more moderate course.
As I’ve said before, twelve years ago, the impetus for reform came from a majority of the minority caucus in Congress. With the Democrats’ “unimaginative” agenda for 2006, we see that there is not much impetus for reform within the minority caucus today. The impetus for reform comes from an increasingly vocal minority within the majority caucus, putting forward proposals in the spirit of Ronald Reagan and The Contract with America. If only the House Republican leadership would listen.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
And that, dear readers, is why the GOP will retain both houses of Congress. You read it here first from me.
Regards,
Peter H.
this is the new contract for america and the democrats are campaigning against a similarly corrupt party. and polls of Iraqis, americans and even US troops show democrats are way ahead of the curve on the timetable issue. The animosity towards Bush is very appropriate, he’s the worst president in American history.
#2 – lester, get a clue. How can campaigning AGAINST a party ever help a party that was never FOR anything? You guys can’t even agree on an Iraq withdraw resolution!
That sucking sound you hear is lester, ian, raj, rightiswrong and all other moonbats gasping for air as their party is being deflated…
Regards,
Peter H.
While the Democrats are only-against issues, there’s one big problem; many of the moderates are pissed-off at the Republicans. Several otherwise Republian voters that I have talked to in the last few weeks are going to vote-against our incumbent Congressman, regardless that the Democratic candidate is a certified anti-war, socialist union-activist. The electorate here is just fed-up with the current Congressman and the Republicans in-general; and are willing to withstand one or two terms of left-wing nitwits just to get rid of the current crowd. They have rationalized that the Democrats can’t do “that much” damage if they are in for a few terms…especially after the profligate spending and the scandalous earmarks of this Congress.
They know that Pelosi et al are screaming moonbats, but they just want the incumbents OUT!
Get a load of my Democratic Party candidate; http://www.carolgayforcongress.com/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_14534§ion=more_14534
…And she just might get elected.
Psst, I think she’s a closeted-lesbian…
The Democrats actually HAVE an agenda? Naw… you are joshing me.
the contract with america republicans were largely anti-everything too. as it turns out all the things they DID believe in , “finishing the job” in Iraq, reforming social security, bringing honour back to the white house (lol ) they were totally incompetent at when given the chance to implement them. because they aren’t / weren’t good ideas.
Gryph, follow the links in the post above; it\’s not much of an agenda. Lester, go back and check the Contract with American, you\’ll see it\’s far more than an anti-everything agenda (as you allege).
I agree with #1 and I am a voting Democrat that will vote GOP in every race in my local!
& Yes #5, the Democrats have always had an agenda:
a. Raise Taxes
b. Impeach President Bush
c. I will use their words “REDEPLOY” forces in Iraq, wink, wink!
d. Mislead the Gay & Lesbian community to support them.
e. Open borders (course that’s Bush’s plan too, that hate him so much they can’t even admit they agree with him on it).
f. Apolgize to all the Muslims, especially the terrorists.
g. Advocate for MORE liberal Judges so they can ensure the at least control the judiciary.
h. etc. etc.
I WILL STAY A DEMOCRAT UNTIL AFTER THE 2008 RACE! THEN GOING INDEPENDENT BUT WILL ALWAYS BE CONSERVATIVE!
Actually GPW, I think that with the current “get out of Iraq” stunt the Democrats have so brilliantly carried off in the last week, that they have screwed any chance of the Democratic Party having any real voice in Government for at least the next 10 years.
However….
As you have pointed out, there are also some fractures in the GOP majority. Who knows how that will play out? I think that the social conservative card may be overplayed next election, if it has not been already. The rhetoric isn’t going to sound so inflaming when the American public hears it the second time around. Rove is becoming the child who cried wolf (or “EEK! The Homosexuals Are Coming to Get You!)” too many times. And he doesn’t seem to get that.
Really, if ever there were a time that either a third party or slate of independent candidates, or the Lieberman’s and McCain’s, could come in and wield some real power, it might after the next election. Probably not by winning a majority, but by winning enough clout to split the Congress three ways on some issues. Thats what is starting to happen now.
In my district of course, I have Rep. R-Buck McKeon, who’s primary claim to fames seems to be bringing back pork-filled Easter Eggs for Santa Clarita. So I’ll be voting for Martha Stewart as a write-in candidate. At least she will know how to decorate them better.
If you say it really fast…. it sounds like “Nude Erection for America.”
Of course then you picture Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd…. and you get all “Ewwwww!” 🙂
Gryph, I think you’re right; ifthere were a serious third party slate, it could do quite well this year.
Like Yetis, Sasquatch, and Nessie, the spectres of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha (un-indicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal) are useful figments to frighten small children into eating their oatmeal.
I think Peggy Noonan was spot on this morning in her column where she wrote:
“On the Democratic side, it is not just as bad but worse. They don’t only think they’re more sophisticated than their base, more informed and aware of the complexities. I believe they think their base is mad.
You can see their problem in their inability to get a slogan. Which, believe me, is how they think of it: a slogan. “Together for a Better Future.” “A Future With Better Togetherness.” Today for a better tomorrow, tomorrow for a better today.
A party has a hard time saying what it stands for only when it doesn’t know what it stands for. It has trouble getting a compelling slogan only when it has no idea what compels its base. Or when it fears what compels it.”
I find it difficult to worry about a party going over the cliff taking control of Congress.
Funny that you should mention my Athena, Christopher. As it was reading Peggy’s column earlier this afternoon (THurs) which inspired me to write this post! 🙂
democrats are slated to win and will win.
The prize for political party most indebted to moonbats? You bet.
One of these days, lester, you’re going to figure out that fawning at the feet of people like Cindy Sheehan, who blame the Jews for world problems and send money and aid to terrorists attacking US soldiers and interests, is not a good idea.
I used to think it would happen after the third election in a row you lost (2000, 2002, 2004). Now I’m beginning to think it may be 2010 before you finally get it right.
and “slated to” by whom? Kos who takes payola to hype candidates? LOL
#17 – NDXXX, it will take many years of libtards hitting themselves with the open door and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory before they even get a clue how out of touch they are with mainstream America.
So yeah, I’d guess maybe 2012 but don’t hold your breath.
Regards,
Peter H.