How The Democrats Would Rule
It looks ugly:
I think this is important for Republican voters to keep in mind:
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.
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.
