Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Thursday, August 31, 2006

How The Democrats Would Rule

It looks ugly:

With a little more than two months to go before midterm elections, the polls show Democrats well positioned to win the House after 12 years out of power. So it's not too soon to consider who these Democrats are and how they would govern.

All the more so because we've seen most of these faces and their agenda before. While Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi would be a new Speaker of the House, the 19 primary committee chairmen who would dominate hearings, issue subpoenas and write legislation are agents of change only in the sense of going back to the future. They represent the same liberal priorities that bedeviled Bill Clinton's attempt to govern as a New Democrat from 1993-94, and before that Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. To pick one example, 13 of the 19 voted against the welfare reform that Mr. Clinton signed in 1996 and hailed this month as a triumph of "bipartisanship."

[...]

Consider the man likely to run the Judiciary Committee, Michigan's John Conyers, from the Congressional class of 1964. He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverup in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." The report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.

If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.

Ways and Means, the chief economic policy panel, would go to New York's Charlie Rangel (1970), who opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough. Over at Financial Services, the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.


I think this is important for Republican voters to keep in mind:

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.


As I said during my interview with Blog Talk Radio last night, I think the only thing that has me supporting the Republican party in general these days is the idea of the war on terror being run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Just thinking of that makes me want to hide under my bed and cry.

While Republicans haven't exactly been true to their conservative base of late, we should all consider what the consequences are of a Democrat majority in Congress.

Comments

Avatar for Puzzlefeet

Here comes the scary democrats meme.  Wow, Rob,did you get your new RNC talking points today?  Seems you’re right in line with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/ all out assault on the citizens scaring them that if they don’t vote republican in November the world will come to an end as we know.

Get ready for the ride, the silly season is starting four days early.

Puzzlefeet on August 31, 2006 at 06:51 am
Avatar for Don Myers

First of all, the Democrats would not “rule.” They would govern. The only people who want a ruler are you and the others who support the Bush regime’s “Imperial Presidency.”

Secondly, a Democratic Congress would work towards actually fighting al Qaeda. Remember them? A lot of GOPers don’t since they’re fighting a for-profit war in Iraq that has nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Finally, a Democratic Congress would finally start drawing up the Articles of Impeachment that Dubya so richly deserves.

(That is---IF the Democrats grow a spine. I’m not holding my breath on that one)

Don Myers on August 31, 2006 at 06:52 am
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

scaring them that if they don’t vote republican in November the world will come to an end as we know.

I don’t think the world would come to an end (let’s not be silly) but the fact that Democrats don’t take national security or the war on terror seriously is scary.

Maybe that should tell you something.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on August 31, 2006 at 06:56 am
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

Yeah, right Rob, I’m sure we’ll see the ads with the wolves circling around.  Now who’s scaring whom? 

only you righties believe that the Dems don’t care about our security.  We just don’t think the way the Rs handled our security has kept up secure and quite frankly the majority of americans agree.

So now all you have is “scaring” the public.

Puzzlefeet on August 31, 2006 at 07:10 am
Avatar for Awakened Warrior

Here’s how one Democrat ruled:

Judge Rosemary Barkett was nominated by Bill Clinton when she was chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court. She was described by one of her colleagues on the Florida court as believing murderers were basically good people except for their tendency to kill people. One such killer was Jacob Dougan, leader of what he called the “Black Liberation Army,” the goal of which was to “indiscriminately kill white people and thus start a revolution and a race war.”

Dougan killed an eighteen-year-old white hitchhiker, Stephen Anthony Orlando, and then made a tape describing Orlando’s murder in gruesome detail, which he mailed to the victim’s Mother and to the media.

“I loved watching the blood gush from his eyes.”

Nearly twenty years after Dougan’s conviction, Barkett voted to overturn the killer’s death sentence. According to Barkett, Dougan’s case was “not simply a homicide case,” it was also a “social awareness case.” Her opinion is worth quoting at length:

This killing was effectuated to focus attention on a chronic and pervasive illness of racial discrimination and of hurt, sorrow, and rejection. Throughout Dougan’s life his resentment to bias and prejudice festered. His impatience for change, for understanding, for reconciliation matured to taking the illogical and drastic action of murder. His frustration, his anger, and his obsession of injustice overcame reason. This victim was a symbolic representation of the class causing the perceived injustices.

To some extent, Dougan’s emotions were parallel to that of a spouse disenchanted with marriage, full of discord and disharmony which, because of frustration or rejection, culminated in homicide. We seldom uphold a death penalty involving husbands and wives or lovers, yet the emotions of that hate-ove circumstance are somewhat akin to those which existed in this case.

Such a sentence reduction should aid in an understanding and at least a partial reconciliation of the wounds arising from discordant racial relations that have permeated our society.

To a large extent, it was this disease of racial bias and discrimination that infect an otherwise honorable person and contribute to the perpetration of the most horrible of crimes.

An approval of the death penalty would exacerbate rather than heal those wounds still affecting a large segment of our society.

Awakened Warrior on August 31, 2006 at 07:16 am
Avatar for shel

George W. Bush:
“See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

shel on August 31, 2006 at 07:20 am
Avatar for Brandon

To care, Democrats would have to truly comprehend the threat, which they haven’t.

Brandon on August 31, 2006 at 07:23 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

“See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

I’m sure the President’s aids all cringe when he gets near a mic. The fact that he’s not very smart does not discredit conservative thought nor does it support the pretended veracity of democratic deceitfulness.

In fact the following Joseph Goebbels quote seems much more applicable to John kerry and Howard Dean.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Bezu Fache on August 31, 2006 at 07:30 am
Avatar for The non-mulletted

Ahh, yeah, I’m sure if the democrats were in power, they’d let Bin Laden roam around free for another five years- right? Right???

I mean, the fact that world hasn’t had another Islamic terror attack (other than in London, Madrid, Israel, Russia, Indonesia, Iraq, India, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc.) just proves that Republican’ts have security all figured out, right? Right???

The non-mulletted on August 31, 2006 at 08:12 am
Avatar for Bat One

No doubt about it.  The very first thing we should need to do to really fight a war against Islamist fascism is to move the US Marines back to Okinawa (where they most definitely not wanted to begin with!).

Good thing we’ve got such smart Democrat warriors to tell us how to do things.

Bat One on August 31, 2006 at 08:28 am
Avatar for Mickey

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Isn’t the last six years of the Democrat Mantra based on lies repeated over and over and over?

I would fall out of my chair if one Democrat actually told the truth, once.

Mickey on August 31, 2006 at 08:29 am

non: “Ahh, yeah, I’m sure if the democrats were in power, they’d let Bin Laden roam around free for another five years- right?  Right???”

Bin Laden(if he is still alive) isn’t exactly “running around free”, is he?  He is living in a cave somewhere in the wilderness, communicating by messenger on foot or on a donkey, at best.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on August 31, 2006 at 08:33 am
Avatar for LoneStar

I mean, the fact that world hasn’t had another Islamic terror attack (other than in London, Madrid, Israel, Russia, Indonesia, Iraq, India, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc.) just proves that Republican’ts have security all figured out, right?

But not on the US, right? Wasn’t that the point? Seems the Republicans do have something figured out.

LS

LoneStar on August 31, 2006 at 11:20 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

Don Myers said, First of all, the Democrats would not “rule.” They would govern. The only people who want a ruler are you and the others who support the Bush regime’s “Imperial Presidency.”

Puzzlefeet - here’s your “silly season”. And he doesn’t shut up. It’s all year long for Don’s “silly season”.

Secondly, a Democratic Congress would work towards actually fighting al Qaeda. Remember them? A lot of GOPers don’t since they’re fighting a for-profit war in Iraq that has nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Can I please, please, please have a day-pass to your upside-down world? Pretty please?

Puzzlefeet said, only you righties believe that the Dems don’t care about our security.

“There is no terrorist threat.” Remember who said that one? Hint: he sat next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 DNC Convention.

So what were you saying again?

We just don’t think the way the Rs handled our security has kept up secure and quite frankly the majority of americans agree.

Proof?

So now all you have is “scaring” the public.

Democrats in power should scare the public. You guys don’t know your ass from your elbow.

likwidshoe on August 31, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Avatar for LoneStar

I have seen the pictures of the mass graves in Iraq. Very reminicent of Babi Yar and the thousands of other sites created by the Einsatzgruppen in eastern Europe in 1941-42. If that were the only reason for going into Iraq, I would be happy with it. After all, isn’t that the only reason we attacked the Serbs? Ethnic cleansing and mass graves? Actually, the Serbs mostly killed men of military age, whereas, like Hitler, Saddam killed women and children as well. We attacked a sovereign nation (unprovoked) for the purpose of interfering with it’s internal affairs, and most Dems were cheerleading it. Where were the cries of illegal war and imperialism then? Seems to me the Iraq war concerns our security much more than Kosovo, which concerned us not at all.

At least for now, Iraq is the perfect place to fight the terrorists, since we are already there and the terrorists are coming in from all over. If the Democrats would actually fight Al Qaeda, where would they go? We can’t just sit over here all nice and safe and cozy and hope we can talk them out of existence. That would only make them bigger and stronger and allow them to expand into more countries (i.e. Hezbolla). They must be hunted down and destroyed, or they will eventually destroy us, and the mass graves will come here.

So where would the Dems go? What country would they invade? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Morrocco?

LS

LoneStar on September 1, 2006 at 11:32 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.