Posted on 10/08/2006 10:27:09 AM PDT by AntiGuv
It is time to take seriously the possibility that the Democrats will assume control of the House of Representatives in the elections next month. The breaking of the Mark Foley scandal on the last day of the congressional session-Who held on to the incriminating instant messages until this strategic delivery date?-put the Republican leadership on the defensive and changed the political landscape. Speaker Dennis Hastert was right just to warn Foley off communicating with former pages when informed in 2005 of the "over friendly" E-mails that the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald independently concluded were so innocuous as to be unworthy of publication. But he erred in not bringing the Democratic member of the committee on pages into the process. The House ethics committee, which seems to be taking a bipartisan approach, will draw its own conclusions. In any case, polls taken since Foley's resignation suggest Republicans have taken a hit. And the traders at intrade.com, which publishes the odds on political contests, switched from putting their money on Republicans holding the House to Republicans losing control.
It seems unlikely that Democrats will win more seats than Republicans now have, which means that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would face the tough challenge of holding enough of her caucus together to produce the 218 votes needed for a majority on seriously contested legislation. She and other Democrats have not had much practice at this, but neither did Republicans back in 1994. Pelosi's task will be complicated by bad blood among the leadership (as Gingrich's was); she is on bad terms with the current minority whip, Steny Hoyer, and she seems to have encouraged her ally John Murtha to declare he'd challenge Hoyer for the majority leadership. Also, there are more moderates in the Democratic caucus (and likely to be more if they win the 15 seats they need for control) than in Republican ranks today. Consider the fact that 34 House Democrats, most from districts carried by Bush in 2004, voted for the terrorist interrogation bill supported by George W. Bush and John McCain.
That means that a narrowly Democratic House is unlikely to act on presumptive Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel's suggestion that it defund the military campaign in Iraq, as a 2-to-1 Democratic House voted to refuse funds for bailing out South Vietnam in 1975. There were no U.S. troops in Vietnam then, but there are in Iraq now, and the Armed Services Committee, with moderate Democrat Ike Skelton as chairman, is not going to pull the rug out from under them. But there will be pressure to draw down troop levels, and Iraqi leaders would be well advised to heed pressure, coming already from Republican war supporters like Christopher Shays, to get their Army and police force operating more effectively.
No new tax cuts.
On domestic policy, a Democratic House will be able to obstruct but not to impose its own will. Rangel will surely see to it that no extensions of Bush tax cuts come out of Ways and Means, which means tax increases in out years. Budget levels will be subject to fierce negotiations, as they were in the Clinton-Gingrich years. John Dingell as chairman of Energy and Commerce will deploy his considerable skills on regulatory issues, but these do not always split on party lines. The smart and canny Henry Waxman, as chairman of Government Oversight, will undoubtedly launch a series of newsworthy investigations moments after being sworn in on January 3.
John Conyers, slated to be chairman of Judiciary, has been muting his earlier calls for the impeachment of Bush, but he can be expected to move in that direction when he takes the gavel. There are few moderate Democrats on Judiciary, and Conyers could conceivably mobilize a majority to bring an impeachment resolution to the floor. Yet a Democratic Judiciary Committee is likely to be on Bush's side on immigration, and could produce a guest-worker and legalization bill.
Of course, it's not certain that there will be a Democratic House next year. Republicans will frame the election as a referendum on who can keep the nation safe, and they'll point out that most House Democrats voted against the terrorist interrogation and National Security Agency surveillance bills. And Republicans have a superior turnout drive. Stay tuned.
"Republicans will frame the election as a referendum on who can keep the nation safe, and they'll point out that most House Democrats voted against the terrorist interrogation and National Security Agency surveillance bills. And Republicans have a superior turnout drive."
We win!
"It is time to take seriously the possibility that the Democrats will assume control of the House of Representatives in the elections next month." Too scary to EVEN think about!
And maybe before calling the election over the pollsters at Newsweak can be asked to give us their internal data on their sample? A standard polling practise they magically forgot to do on this latest push poll. Why can't we see the Internal data Newsweak?
And with President Bush talking amnesty again, it almost seems as if the Republicans are trying to lose.
bttt for "a superior turnout" by the ones who are trying to prevent the RATS from getting enough power to actually be able to enact their Terrorist Bill of Rights.
I'm sorry, I don't see the Democrats gaining either House of Congress.
These words are just pipe dreams.
My, My, My, aren't we jumping into conclusions!! Sheesh, the election isn't EVEN here yet and those damn PRESStitutes are already wetting themselves over the headship...MY, MY, MY, we are gonna see crocodile tears come Nov night! I AM salivating with anticipation to watch the bastardly whores gloomy faces!! BROKEN GLASS, BROKEN GLASS and throw in some spikes for measure as well!!
The GOP is fortunate in one aspect. There is enough time between now and the election for other issues to overtake the Foley Scandal in the minds of most Americans. But if the GOP does lose control of the House, it will be based on the unforgiving outrage of enough social conservatives deciding to vent their anger at Republicans and staying home on election day.
Time to work even harder.
We will see tears no matter who wins or loses. This happens after every election.
Amen. These are the real conservatives; the ones how put their country ahead of themselves.
Yeah, talk about a cuffing nightmare.
One sure thing on the agenda - articles of impeachment will be prepared against President Bush.
Depend on it, if Nancy Pelosi assumes the position of Speaker of the House.
Repeal of ALL tax cuts enacted in the past five years is a certainty. No extensions of current cuts that are due to lapse will even be considered.
A call for the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, and defunding the military operation both there and in Afghanistan.
"Getting even" with no perspective for future events that will surely ensue after these draconian steps have been taken.
And the page system will be more cruelly exploited than ever before.
Whatever the case, I'm voting for every Republican on the ballot.
It's simple really, Al Gore killed manbearpig and now everyone is super stoked on the Democrats but they don't know it yet. /nonsense off
I predict that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (soon formally to replace the disgraced Hastert) will take the Presidency before summer after the Democratic House impeaches and the Liberal Senate convicts Vice President Cheney and President Bush of high crimes and misdemeanors such as "using military force to defeat the enemies of the United States." The Government then surrenders to the terrorists, increases taxes drastically, causes enormous fuel shortages, generally sews misery, and receives heaping praise from the media who trump the rebounding economy and renewed respect for America among the psychologically diseased liberal Euro-weenies. The terrorists again attack America repeatedly, killing thousands or more, but President Pelosi and Vice President Hillary Clinton decide against any serious military response.
The questions then before us: does Pelosi cruise to re-election in 2008? 2012? Can any Republican ever regain the trust of the American people? Could we ever restore faith in our words to the ordinary people of the world, especially in Iraq? Would we ever win another war militarily and come home victorious instead of surrendering to the defeated? Would America ever again embody the virtues of bravery?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.