Conventional wisdom has it that the Republicans will lose both the U.S. House and the Senate. There are even Republicans who have opined that this might be a good time to teach the Party a lesson and further that it will make it easier to keep the White House in 2008. This, then, is the time to see in black and white what could be facing the country.
Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map and other writings on military strategy and tactics has been making presentations on these subjects for 15 years to DOD and other government personnel. In one session he apologized to part of his audience but stated that if “you were born before 1960” your perceptions are in the wrong century and you don’t get it. For one thing, the enemy we are facing operates to a great degree in cyberspace. Granted, Barnett is talking about military matters, and being older does not mean learning and adapting stops. Many of you reading this may take umbrage, but if there is evidence that neither learning nor adapting has taken place in people who could have government power we have a problem. It is, therefore, important to consider who will be in charge if the worst happens.
In the House: Way and Means, Charlie Rangel, born 1930, a member since 1971-Mr. Rangel has stated that none of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts should be continued. Energy and Commerce, John Dingell, born 1929, a member since 1955. Judiciary, John Conyers, born 1929, member since 1965-Mr. Conyers has his impeachment plans on the web. Appropriations, Dave Obey, born 1938, a member since 1969. Intelligence, Alcee Hastings who lost his job as a judge after taking bribes. In the Senate: Appropriations, Robert Byrd born 1917 member since 1953. Mr. Byrd is affectionately known as the “king of pork.” Armed Services, Carl Levin born 1934, member since 1979. Mr. Levin thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately. Judiciary, Patrick Leahy born 1940, member since 1974. Mr. Leahy was booted off the Intelligence Committee in the 80’s for leaking classified material. The real point is that these are the same men , saying the same things, in the same positions of authority in the U.S. Congress who were voted out in 1994. The question is: do we go back a century or do we go forward?
British journalists for "The Economist" John Micklethwaith and Adrian Wooldridge wrote The Right Nation to explain Americans to Europeans, and the attitudes of Europeans to Americans. Begnning on page 277 they compare the congressional districts of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Hastert to illustrate the differences between liberal and conservative in America. Mr. Hastert’s constituents are family oriented, rally for causes, do not obsess about politics because their system is efficient and responsive, have positive attitudes, are solidly middle class, are opening churches, and are pro-growth. 70% plus own their own homes. Mrs. Pelosi's constituents protest, are political obsessives with dysfunctional government, have an aristocratic sensibility, are closing churches and are anti-growth. Less than 35% own their homes. The hub in San Francisco is beautiful but stagnating because it is losing population. The question is: what kind of an America do you want?
The ironies in today's Democrat Party and with its candidates abound. Nancy Pelosi says she is for tax cuts, but has voted against every one proposed in the last 11 years. The repeal of President Bush's tax cuts will include everyone now in the 10% bracket that was newly established. Their rate will go back to 15%. In additioon, the child credit will go down, and the marriage penalty break will be abolished. The only people hurt by these measures will be those in the middle class as the rich can afford the hit and the poor do not pay federal taxes. So much for Pelosi's middle class tax cuts.
The only rationale for impeaching the Commander in Chief during a war is to believe that there is no war. This belief that any problems we may have with radicals who fly airplanes into buildings can be taken care of by the FBI after the fact does not promote national security. At the least it leaves out the concept of "security." This attitude perfectly coincides with the Clinton administration's policies in the 90's that believed the whole thing is a law enforcement issue. Some Democrats say it is morally right to vote to send troops to battle and later say "never mind." Other candidates say we should have invaded Iran instead or bombed North Korea. Bob Casey, Democrat Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, perfectly recites Howard Dean's talking points on Iran, but when asked if he knows the name of that country's leader, had no idea. This proves that any dolt can memorize material, but having some idea of what you are talking about, particularly when it means committing troops, is a good thing.
Ohio Republican incumbent Senator, Mike Dewine, described his very liberal opponent, Congressman Sharrod Brown, as being all rhetoric and no results. Apparently, Mr. Brown has been in the House 12 years and only has his name on four bills (one renames a building and the other three deal with Taiwan). We should apply that yardstick to the Democrat Party as a whole. No other issue typifies the all rhetoric no results posture than prescription drugs for seniors. Democrats campaigned on this one issue for at least 30 of the 60 years they controlled the Congress, but never got it done. (Ya think it was just the issue they wanted?) Now that there is a program that after less than a year has nearly 90% of seniors paticipating and has an 85% approval rating among those seniors, the Democrats want to, in the words of Mrs. Pelosi, "blow it up." Who loses here-certainly not Mrs. Pelosi. The question then is do you vote for empty rhetoric, or proven results?
Go forward-go backward. Secure and prosperous America, of not. Rhetoric or results. Don't forget to vote!