Posted on 02/08/2003 11:53:15 AM PST by John Jorsett
On November 4, 1952, the Republican Party elected a President and captured both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This period of united Republican government lasted only until 1954, when the GOP lost both the House and Senate.
Those were the last years the GOP had extended control of our national government —until the November 2002 election. This time, however, the Republicans have gained control of the House and Senate not for two years, but for at least a decade.
Over the next ten years, all of Congress is likely to remain in GOP hands. In fact, both houses will become more Republican and more conservative. Five separate factors will push in that direction.
First, the most recent round of redistricting solidifies Republicans. We now know the shape, size, and political complexion of most of the 435 House districts, and they will remain unchanged until the 2012 lection. Most Congressional seats are redistricted to protect incumbents; competitive races rarely take place. In 2002, only seven incumbents lost elections. Fully 360 House members won 55 percent of the vote or more—a walkaway. In races where the winner merely eked out a victory, Republicans won 11 times and Democrats 18.
The remaining changes in Congressional districts promise additional benefit to the GOP. There are three states that had districts imposed on them by a court (because the parties could not agree on boundaries) which now have one-party control of the governor’s mansion and state legislature. As a result, Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma will now be redistricted to partisan advantage. The latter two are Democrat-controlled. But Texas, now all-GOP, is vastly more populous.
Texas has 32 House seats—currently 15 Republicans and 17 Democrats. After the map is redrawn the Lone Star state may end up with 20 Republicans and 12 Democrats. New Mexico, which has three seats, and Oklahoma, which has five, will try to shift in the other direction, but they will be able to squeeze out two or three new Democratic seats only if the state governments want to tangle with Republican senators.
The second factor favoring Republicans is that, unlike in 1952 or 1980, the 280 Republican members of the House and Senate weren’t ushered in as part of some unusual partisan landslide. Following on GOP landslides in 1954, 1982, and 1994, weak members that won simply by riding on their party’s coattails were culled from the herd in subsequent elections. There are no remaining weak Republicans.
Third, as senior Democrats retire from Congress over the coming years, many of their districts will flip to a Republican, regardless of who runs. The GOP stands to gain seven seats this way. Their counterparts, Republicans hanging on to Democratic seats, have been winnowed down over the years to the point where Jim Leach of Iowa is now the only Republican holding down a seat in an obvious Democratic district.
Fourth, the Republican majority promises to become more conservative, as previous-generation Republicans who vote more to the left gradually retire and are replaced by younger GOP members more in keeping with their conservative districts. New York’s Sherwood Boehlert, Michigan’s Fred Upton, and Maryland’s Wayne Gilchrist, for example, would actually do better in elections if they voted more conservatively. Their eventual replacements will. Most “moderate” Democratic members of Congress are liberals who live in conservative districts. Most “moderate” Republicans, on the other hand, cast votes based on their own worldview—not their district’s.
Fifth, the very nature of the Senate will help the GOP in the years ahead. In the very close Bush/Gore race of 2000, George W. Bush carried 30 states and Al Gore carried 20. Over time, therefore, one would expect the Senate to have roughly 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats. It’s an anomaly that, today, four Democrats represent Republican majority North and South Dakota. Republicans hold the governor’s mansion and legislature in Florida, but the state still sends two Democrats to the Senate. How long can Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina continue to send Democratic senators to Washington?
With Republican control of Congress assured, and President Bush likely to run the executive branch for another six years, many of the fiercest political battles in the years ahead will be fought over something different altogether: over control of the federal judiciary—our least democratic branch of government.
His real job is going to be Foreign Policy!
I think I will put this on the reading list!
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Maybe, but what I'd expect after a time is that political Darwinism would kick in, and the Democrats would move to the right in order to start winning some elections. That assumes, of course, that they jettison the grabbag of Socialist loons who keep trying to tug them further to the left (admittedly an iffy assumption).
Ah yes the comment from the Buchanan "wing" of the Republican party.
Oh that's right Buchanan left almost four years ago to consummate the marriage with Lenora Fulani of the Reform party and now is kissing Bill Press's butt on MSNBC, never mind.
Take a look at this political cartoon,
Pat is the poodle.
Don't hold your breath.
All that was present before the Republicans took the majority.
What else ya got?
Even larger deficits? Even bigger government? Even more federal intrusion into our kids lives (as in don't leave other people's kids behind)? Even faster growing federal spending? Even more money spent on all kinds of foreign initiatives? Less personal freedom? More of our jobs fleeing to China? More trade deficits resulting in a larger chunk of our country being owned by foreigners? Less effort in stopping illegal immigration? More efforts to 'legalize' these uninvited intruders? More 'bilingualism', 'multiculturalism'?
Boy, I'm so happy the GOPs are going to be in control. Come to think of it, the Demos would be even worse.
What else ya got?
No, before the GOPs replaced the traitor Demos as the 'majority', there were budget surpluses instead of deficits, the government was spending less, many jobs now in China were in the country, many illegals now in the country were still in Mexico or Haiti, the feds were spending less on education and we were all freer.
Don't worry, I'm not blaming the GOPs for doing what the Demos wouldn't. It's just that it's now their turn to doing it.
And I don't worry that you are and always be a malcontent.
But what the hey you gotta instinctively blame someone, or you don't have a life.
Huh, just like Pat Buchanan.
OW! (Hehehehe)
5.56mm
--back in the days of the Gingrich revolution we still heard of the elimination of the Departments of Energy, Education and Transportation as possibilities, for example--no more--
Do you care to point to the GOP's achievments?
That's blasphemous.
God wouldn't have anything to do with somebody as mercenary as Norquist.
They will be stopped by the same things that have stopped them before. These are, in rough order of likelyhood:
A. Revolt of the Base. This got Bush 1 out of office when conservatives felt there was nothing in it for them. While Bush2 is unlikely to make the same mistake other R's very well may. Souter, the broken tax pledge, the assault weapons import ban .. all of these were Bush1 issues that led to his demise. Let's put up some litmus tests for Bush2 and the Rs on issues that resonate with the base.
Continue and increase tax cuts.
Reduce the size of FedGov by elimination of depts.
Sunseting of gun laws, no new gun laws, repeal of gun laws.
Appoint conservative judges
End affirmative action as a federal program
Prosectue Illegal Immigration
Reduce legal immigration
B. Out of Control Spending .. remember this was the issue that got Clinton into office. Democrats will continue to claim to be "the party of fiscal responsibility". They are, at least, willing to tax us to pay for their redistributionist schemes. The R's lack the balls to actually cut and gut programs, but are required to oppose tax increases, thus resulting in deficits.
C. Third party insurgencey (probably trumped up by leftists) splits the Conservative Base.
Remember it was Ross Perot who gave Clinton his first term plurality win. The failure of "Rs" to addresss items in "A" opens the door. The IMMIGRATION ISSUE is the biggest disconnect between the more Globalist R party of D.C. and the base, and could provide all the room needed for a Conservative third party to split the vote.
D. Lack of attractive candidates. Bob Dole may be gone buy "Liddy" is back, now with a Senate seat. Who's on deck for '08. Certainly another Bush or Dole is not going to cut it. Elections are won in part on this sick criteria of personality as imagined via TV. Typically Dems are better at this. Like it or not Hillary appeals to a lot of women, who are 50+% of the electorate.
E. War weariness. People may get tired of being constantly under "Orange Alert" and vote for a candidate offering a less muscular foreign policy, much as they did with Jimmy Carter in 1976. This candidate is unlikely to be a Republican.
F. Scandal. Cost Nixon, Ford and Gore the election. Hurt badly both Carter and Bush1 (Reagan's Iran Contra). Obviously the opposition is trying hard to find, invent, create, or trap those in power into a scandal. This effects entire parties, not just the Pres. vis: Cliton and Dems post 1994.
G. Death Has not effected the Presidency since Kennedy, but historically has changed the course of history rather more than since 1965.
Those are some of the reasons I can think of why I would not consider two years of Bush a predetermined forerunner to 20 years of Republican rule.
And....?
The 'Rats are not a viable alternative,
but Juanterm's economic, trade & immigration policies seem destined to mess that up anyway.
Additionally, given the proper match-ups these Democrat seats are "in play":
North Dakota - Dorgan; Bush had huge margin in State in 2000 and will repeat. Coattails?
New York - Schumer; will go down if Guiliani runs
North Dakota - Edwards; if he runs for President
Florida - Graham; if he is on the national ticket or health problems
Arkansas - Blanche Lincoln; ever heard of her? Do nothing senator
Washington - Patty bin Murry has been making a name for herself ... a bad, bad name in a state with a bad, bad, economy
South Dakota - Daschle is vulnerable; that's why he ditched the presidential race
On the Republican side, Fitzgerald of Illinois is the most vulnerable (except of that idiot Mosley-Braun is nominated). Bunning won a close on four years ago, but is in a better position now. In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski might be vulnerable if popular ex-Gov Tony Knowles runs. he's the only Democrat to win top statewide office in several year.
Yep Tom Daschle not spewing off nonsense day after day and being lapped up by the American liberal press corrollary German Shepherd portrayed in reply #9.
That is half the battle but Pat seems to be happy to be the poodle, IMHO.
Impossible. The entrenched liberals are now firmly entrench in leadership roles in Congress. Starting with Nancy Pelosi and the all those in the Progressive Caucus. The socialists will NOT move to the right. Doing so would cause them to be thrown out of their gerrymandered urban districts.
|
Sat Feb 8, 7:22 AM ET
|
|
By Pierre Belec
NEW YORK (Reuters) - More than a year after the recession supposedly ended, a lot of things are still going wrong, leaving weary stock investors unwilling to take a stand and wary of President Bush (news - web sites)'s domestic and foreign policies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wall Street's long slide is scaring off investors who have typically taken a solid long-term view about the market. Faced with false rallies since the wealth destruction began in early 2000, most people don't believe that the message they walked away with after the 1987 crash -- that the period was a great buying (news - external web site) opportunity -- will apply this time around.
Four weeks after Bush unveiled an economic stimulus package that would end the tax on stock dividends, the major market indexes are in negative territory, having given back the strong gains scored in early January.
The White House claimed that making dividends tax-free would lift the stock market by about 7 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average is off more than 4 percent so far this year. The proposal still must pass through the horse-trading approval process in Congress, but apparently markets do not expect it to get off the ground or do not believe it will work.
All three key market gauges racked up their fourth straight week of declines, with the Dow down 2.4 percent and the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq both down about 3 percent for the week, pushing them ever closer to multiyear lows hit in early October.
The blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average (^DJI - news) fell 65.07 points, or 0.82 percent, to 7,864.23, while the broad Standard & Poor's 500 Index (^SPX - news) lost 8.46 points, or 1.01 percent, to 829.69. Both indexes closed at their lowest levels since Oct. 10. The technology-loaded Nasdaq Composite Index (^IXIC - news) fell 19.27 points, or 1.48 percent, to 1,282.46, its worst finish since Oct. 17.
CORPORATE STALL
Corporate earnings continue to disappoint. At best, the companies' results are just squeaking by analysts' expectations, which had already been tamped down.
Business spending has stalled because of uncertainty about the economy. Historically, corporate America has been slow to start investing after recessions. The companies' biggest fear at this stage of the down cycle is that they could see even weaker earnings if the economy slips back into recession.
It has always been tough for chief executive officers to identify business turnarounds. Right now, the CEOs have been dealt an especially tough hand: a spike in crude oil prices on the risk of war with Iraq.
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Businesses are sitting tight, delaying spending until the fog clears. Worth remembering is that since 1970, recessions have been fostered by run-ups in oil prices.
Fears of war and concerns over joblessness have helped push consumer confidence to the lowest level in nearly a decade.
RUN TO THE BOMB SHELTER OF GOLD
Gold, a safe haven in times of uncertainty, hovers near 6-1/2-year highs, underscoring the depth of the jitters about the economy, a falling dollar and the nasty geopolitical script. The next safe haven may be Spam canned meat.
"It is very apparent that investors are battle weary," says Don Hays, president of Hays Advisory Group. "They have been worn out by this very long period with no sustainable success. Each time the market throws a bone of hope, it delays the action and fails to follow through."
Investors have been rattled for the past year. Panic set in on July 23, 2002, when the market made new lows. Then people developed a serious case of dread when stocks slid again to new multiyear lows in early October.
The market is now revisiting the fourth-quarter bottom, and investors no longer believe that nothing else can go wrong. Many have thrown in the towel because they fear the market can only go in one direction.
"People are more weary and ready to go to sleep and forget it all," Hays says.
If history repeats, investors should brace for a longer period of wicked market declines in the run-up to war, the sort of bear crawl seen before the Gulf War (news - web sites) in 1991. However, after that war started, the market bounced back.
Back then, the economic numbers were similar to those of 2003 with the nation struggling to pull out of recession. George Bush, George W.'s dad, was president. "Now the president has the same last name and his advisers are the same," Hays says. The "enemy" is also the same, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
But will the results be the same?
SELLING THE WAR
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) made a case at the United Nations (news - web sites) for a war against Iraq but the speech did little to inspire investors. The nervousness is not expected to dissipate until the first shot is fired, because investors can no longer accept more risk after three straight years of massive losses.
Bush's tough talk against Iraq and his vow to take action even without an international consensus have chilled relations with key allies.
The smart money's worst fear is that the dispute with France, Germany, Russia, China and Canada -- who have urged that U.N. weapons inspectors be given more time in Iraq -- may spill over into trade issues.
The constant beating of the war drums is not exactly the stuff that inspires people to invest in the future. It creates anxiety and doubts going forward.
Then there is the important question of who foots the bill if the United States goes in alone and is left to stitch Iraq back together in the post-conflict reconstruction phase.
During the 1991 Gulf War, Washington paid 20 percent of the $80 billion price tag and U.S. allies covered the rest.
A hugely expensive war or one that goes badly could stun the economy. Bush this week sent to Congress a $2.2 trillion budget for fiscal 2004. The blueprint projects a record deficit of $307 billion, eclipsing a 1992 record of $290 billion.
The projected deficit doesn't include the cost of a possible war, which could add, by conservative estimates, at least $61 billion to this year's projected shortfall. Some numbers on the cost of war range up to $200 billion.
Even a brain-dead hockey player can figure it out: the longer fears of an impending war in Iraq hang over Wall Street, the greater the damage to the economy and to the stock market. (Editing by Gary Hill)
(Pierre Belec is a freelance writer. Any opinions in the Stocks-Week column are solely those of Mr. Belec.)
Huh? You mean that Tom Dashcle not being able to gum up the works like he did for the last 17 months, is a defeat to you.
Oh that's right you want change now and have a tantrum if it doesn't happen now.
No wonder your hero Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC "against" Bill Press. One die hard liberal and one die hard malcontent, which basically equals bashing President Bush.
Why am I not surprised that Pat is in the cellar of ratings.
That's the key right there.
After the 2002 elections, Terry McAuliff should have been run out of the party on a rail. The Republican stratigists are still scratching their heads over that one. The Clintons did more harm than good, yet they continue to be the biggest and most sought-after fundraisers the dems have.
Instead of trying to run as Bush Lite, Gephardt (the only marginally sane dem in the Presidential sweepstakes) is listing left.
All the while, the dem propaganda machine of the mainstream media is losing share, and they think it's because they aren't getting their message out to the American public. LOL!
The American public got the message, all right. But the dems are too stupid to see that.
This deficit spending panic is a contrivance of the Democrats.
Because the economy is so much larger than the 1980s, today's deficits are a much smaller percentage of the GDP and will have little negative effect on the economy.
Ronald Reagan's bold economic moves in the 80s set the groundwork for the expansion of the 1990S' economy which led to a surplus.
We will see exactly the same thing happen by 2007 and beyond as the economy really begins to grow again in the next 3 years.
As Reagan remarked from time to time.........
You aint seen nothin yet!!
H. Becoming More Moderate In spite of what Norquist thinks, today's GOP has grown more squishy soft than ever. Old conservative lions like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm are gone. Who knows how long Dick Cheney will still be in the loop? The conservatives are being phased out for the likes of Liddy Dole, Lindsey Graham and Norm Coleman. Squish, squish, squish, ooh, let's not offend anybody....
Frankly, we need some guys that are willing to get in the faces of the liberals and the media. Outside of Rumsfeld, who's doing that now?
I. The Stupid Party The track record of Republicans is that their best intentions wither to a weak final solution or they just table the whole idea. Note the watering down or elimination of the tax cut, environmental bills, ANWR, etc. Democrats fight like hell to get what they want even when they are dead wrong. Republicans don't. Until they act like leaders, they'll never get beyond what the most moderate RINO will sign off to.
J. Our Changing Electorate Maybe you haven't noticed but our cities and towns are getting darker and darker skinned and it has nothing to do with tanning salons. Right now, the vast majority of these (other than Asians and Cubans) track Democrat. Until this trend changes significantly, and particularly while they try so hard to pander to it, the GOP will always be in peril.
K. Vote Fraud We all know why Tim Johnson got re-elected. Norquist notes the four Democrat senators from North and South Dakota, even though they vote GOP in presidential races. Why do you think that is, Grover? Could it possibly be that the Democrats have enough fraud going on to win the close elections, particularly with incumbancy? We got plenty of lessons in this decade alone with the Gore/Florida fiasco, the Torricelli gambit, the Wellstone Funerally, the Gray Davis miracle and the Siegleman standoff to know Democrats will do whatever it takes to win elections. The GOP better not aim for a 51% victory. They'd lose every time.
Dane seems to have a problem with Pat Buchanan--none of the rest of us seem to feel he is worthy of mention--
Other than the above,you've made a good list. It was exactly the opposite that ushered Carter in. The pivotal moment was Ford's gaffe in the debates that Poland was not a Communist dominated country. Carter took that statement to the cleaners and every former Confederate state except Virginia to the presidency. To this day, Liberals try to blame that close election on Ford's decision to dump Rockerfeller and insert Dole on the ticket. Nothing could be further from the truth. He allowed Carter to pass him on the right.
The Chicago-based Daley Family Vote Manufacturers, Inc, has been in business for generations. They've established outposts all over the US.
In Florida 2000, they had no compunction in counting, then recounting, in full view of the TV camers, until they had the votes to win. Thank God the USSC saw through this sham.
Notice that in Democratic strongholds, votes come in late night in used Chicago pizza boxes that far outnumber the registered voters in those districts.
A. Revolt of the Base....
low interest fiscal environment adds huge increase to home ownership. Homeowners hate taxes.Adds to the base!
B. Out of Control Spending
deficits are much smaller in percentage of GDP than in the 1980s. Stimulative to the economy.
C. Third party insurgencey
wacko Greens will expand to draw down Democrat base.
D. Lack of attractive candidates.
(least of your worries)Re 2002 elections......the best candidates will be recruited and hand-picked by Bush and friends
E. War weariness.
Constant reminder of Democrats' weak stand on defense!
F. Scandal.
Clintons and Kennedys still on the scene
G. Death
Democrat dinosaurs.....Hollings,Byrd,Kennedy do not look like Methusalas
(mine)H. Retirements
Faced with minority status in both houses of Congress for a long time, many Democrats will retire.
Opportunities for pickups.
Zell Miller is just the first.
I am very optimistic for my country and my future~~
I am not that small-minded to allow one issue to keep me from voting.
I am personally against abortion, but I live with it because it is the law.
I believe that both Israel and Switzerland have laws to mandate possession of assault weapons by all males 25-55 or something like that.
I have a large sharp sword for home defense.
That is all that need be said about this absurd piece of drivel.
--Boris
Actually, the more Republican I became, the less my liberal pals liked me. So they just faded off into the sunset, and we don't speak very often.
Now, as for my family . . .
Vacations get louder every year, but I think I'm making my point.
That is all that need be said about this absurd piece of drivel.
You're right.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,/ The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned;/ The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.
We may as well kill ourselves right now.
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.
