17/01: Democrats Impressive Start
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Let's give credit where credit is due.
The Democrats in the House are off to a good start. Nancy Pelosi is taking advantage of friendly media to soft-sell herself as a sensitive and efficient Speaker of the House.
The 100 Hours Agenda is being implemented:
Tuesday, January 9: Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Wednesday, January 10: Increase the Minimum Wage
Thursday, January 11: Expand Stem Cell Research
Friday, January 12: Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Wednesday, January 17: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
Thursday, January 18: End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
Here is the "Countdown Clock." If you are interested in checking the progress of the program, they are right on schedule.
These bills are passing, by the way, with large Republican votes in support. They are generally innocuous but ring with common sense and populist appeal.
Defying many of the predictions of wild-eyed Jacobins tearing down the fabric of the republic, the new majority has not moved to impeach the President, initiate a draft, defund the war, dismantle domestic surveillance of suspected terrorist supporters or even push through an agenda of San Francisco-style social revolution. Perhaps those things are in the offing, but, for now, the Democrats appear mild-mannered, competent stewards of the people's interest.
Despite some harsh rhetoric, they have opted for caution in dealing with the war and the President's plan to add troops in Iraq. They are allowing the Senate to take the lead in opposing the President, where some high-profile Republican Senators are set to abandon the President and give cover to the expected collapse of support among House Republicans. Instead of dusting off the War Powers Act, or moving to cut off money to troops in the field, the Democratic leadership is quietly setting the stage for a grassroots revolt against the President's authority to conduct the war.
The bad news for the GOP is that this leadership team is likely here for an extended period of time. It is unlikely that the electorate will eject this newly elected majority in 2008. Why would they?
An aside: In the Senate the prognosis is even worse in the near term. Eighteen incumbent Republicans senators are up for re-election in 2008. Those will be tough races. Why are conservative Republicans running for cover? George Allen, Jim Talent and Rick Santorum. Why are moderately conservative Republicans in swing states running for cover? Mike DeWine. This explains why the Republicans in the Senate are in full retreat.
The good news is that the Senate, in the long view, looks good for the Republicans. Since 1980, control of the Senate has changed hands repeatedly; that trend will likely continue. Barring complete disaster, we can expect the GOP to contest for the Senate as early as 2010.
When can we expect a GOP majority to return in the lower house? Perhaps if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, the traditional difficulties for the majority party affiliated with the sitting president will help the Republicans to fight their way back in 2010. But don't count on it. We may be talking about Speaker Pelosi in 2012 and 2014 and 2016.
The Democrats in the House are off to a good start. Nancy Pelosi is taking advantage of friendly media to soft-sell herself as a sensitive and efficient Speaker of the House.
The 100 Hours Agenda is being implemented:
Tuesday, January 9: Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Wednesday, January 10: Increase the Minimum Wage
Thursday, January 11: Expand Stem Cell Research
Friday, January 12: Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Wednesday, January 17: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
Thursday, January 18: End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
Here is the "Countdown Clock." If you are interested in checking the progress of the program, they are right on schedule.
These bills are passing, by the way, with large Republican votes in support. They are generally innocuous but ring with common sense and populist appeal.
Defying many of the predictions of wild-eyed Jacobins tearing down the fabric of the republic, the new majority has not moved to impeach the President, initiate a draft, defund the war, dismantle domestic surveillance of suspected terrorist supporters or even push through an agenda of San Francisco-style social revolution. Perhaps those things are in the offing, but, for now, the Democrats appear mild-mannered, competent stewards of the people's interest.
Despite some harsh rhetoric, they have opted for caution in dealing with the war and the President's plan to add troops in Iraq. They are allowing the Senate to take the lead in opposing the President, where some high-profile Republican Senators are set to abandon the President and give cover to the expected collapse of support among House Republicans. Instead of dusting off the War Powers Act, or moving to cut off money to troops in the field, the Democratic leadership is quietly setting the stage for a grassroots revolt against the President's authority to conduct the war.
The bad news for the GOP is that this leadership team is likely here for an extended period of time. It is unlikely that the electorate will eject this newly elected majority in 2008. Why would they?
An aside: In the Senate the prognosis is even worse in the near term. Eighteen incumbent Republicans senators are up for re-election in 2008. Those will be tough races. Why are conservative Republicans running for cover? George Allen, Jim Talent and Rick Santorum. Why are moderately conservative Republicans in swing states running for cover? Mike DeWine. This explains why the Republicans in the Senate are in full retreat.
The good news is that the Senate, in the long view, looks good for the Republicans. Since 1980, control of the Senate has changed hands repeatedly; that trend will likely continue. Barring complete disaster, we can expect the GOP to contest for the Senate as early as 2010.
When can we expect a GOP majority to return in the lower house? Perhaps if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, the traditional difficulties for the majority party affiliated with the sitting president will help the Republicans to fight their way back in 2010. But don't count on it. We may be talking about Speaker Pelosi in 2012 and 2014 and 2016.
Cavalier829 wrote:
The country is exhausted and, I think, confused. They wanted this war to be as simple and straightforward as the President seems incapable of seeing otherwise, but it was not to be.
Democratic control of Congress will, if nothing else, give the American people a breather from the total inertia of the nation's current Iraq policy. Now that GOP politicians no longer find Mr. Bush such a threat they can actually represent their constituents instead of carrying the Administration's water all the time.
Additionally, the reversal of the "ambitious" all-Wednesday workweek schedule to a four day schedule is more than I would have expected. I also expect that Ms. Pelosi, while effectively in charge of the House operation could be smart enough to allow her chairman to do the heavy lifting restoring much of the regular legislative process. **could**
I think the Democrats know the limits of their power without the White House and despite Tony Blankley's recent tirade taunting the Democrats to try the Gingrich approach to running Congress, are willing to let the President's tin-ear drown the GOP in 2008.
Regardless of who wins the Presidency in 2008 the structural issues you cite in both Houses are solid impediments to the GOP returning to power in that short a timespan.
A note of caution, however. The GOP's problems go a little further than suffering Democratic victory. Assertions of Liberal-Libertarian alliance not-withstanding, the current political climate leaves a huge opening for a 3rd party candidacy. Only one Democrat has won a majority of the Presidential popular vote in 40 years. How long can the Dems retain Congress in the face of not doing so in the near future?