This week brought some new lows in Presidential candidates, in my opinion.
I learned, for instance, that Connecticut's own Senator Chris Dodd has declared himself a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Is he insane?
Running for President takes a very large amount of money, and at least some notional amount of novel ideas for solving problems. Dodd has, in my estimation, neither.
Of course, the Democrats seem to be running a sort of 'seniors' Presidential race for 2008. Anyone who has run and lost, or won, in the past 14 years is welcome- Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards. Perhaps even Bill Clinton, along with Hilary.
Is Dukakis eligible?
Then you have the totally inexperienced Senator, and I use the term loosely, from my home state of Illinois- Barack Obama. This is someone who has done nothing of import to justfiy running for our nation's highest office. At least Abe Lincoln was a U.S. Representative, and failed Senatorial candidate, on a national stage and issue, before winning the Presidency.
With a field this large and varied, it's going to get ugly, fast. And expensive.
Personally, I'm salivating over the prospect of watching Hilary Clinton and Obama tear each other to pieces in the primaries, while Bill Richardson attempts to slip by both of them, on the basis of his experience, current gubernatorial post, and all-round aura of competence.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Monday, January 8, 2007
True Colors....Primary Colors
San Francisco Nan, alias Nancy Pelosi, unveiled her true, tax-levying colors today.
Yep. It's taken just four days for the new Speaker of the House of Representatives to give voice to plans for higher taxes. In the midst of a strong economy and rising governmental revenues, the Democrats want more income to spend on future elections, via transfer payments.
Thus, the plans to 'tax the rich.' It will be interesting to see what Charlie Rangel thinks of these plans. I'm sure the Republicans can hardly believe their good fortune.
Of course, as I wrote in my initial post, the Democrats do not hold a veto-proof majority in either house of Congress. So, look for the beginning of a string of vetoes by President Bush.
In the longer term, I think this has the potential to lead, ultimately, to my informal forecast of a 5-seat Republican majority in the House, come January, 2009. If Americans have begun to send a message to both parties to avoid extremism, and govern from the center, across the party aisles, then Pelosi's opening tax cannonade should spell a fairly rapid reversal of the already-thin Democratic control of the lower chamber, come next election cycle.
Personally, I think this is great. As I've written in comments on another blog, Speakers are a creature of the House, not the people. That is, they are elected by fellow politicians to the position. Their district merely sends them up to the House. Look on the list of modern Speakers- Rayburn, McCormack, Albert, O'Neill, Rostenkowski, Wright, Gingrich, Hastert. How many of them have seen their Speakership, or their party's majority, end due to some scandal, either their own, or another party member's? Pelosi is, merely on statistics, likely to be no different.
With this session-opening tax talk, she is helping to put her new position at risk from the get-go, on three bases. First, the traditional risk of presiding during someone's malfeasance, e.g., Jefferson's frozen cash troubles. Second, her own district's expectations of liberalism that is far outside the bounds of what most of the country, even its Democrats, will countenance. Third, damaging a robust economy with tax hikes, more wasteful spending, and regulation.
I'm looking forward to the next few months, as the rifts begin to from among the House Democrats. Or, perhaps more dangerously, they march lockstep in the direction of a return to the minority.
Yep. It's taken just four days for the new Speaker of the House of Representatives to give voice to plans for higher taxes. In the midst of a strong economy and rising governmental revenues, the Democrats want more income to spend on future elections, via transfer payments.
Thus, the plans to 'tax the rich.' It will be interesting to see what Charlie Rangel thinks of these plans. I'm sure the Republicans can hardly believe their good fortune.
Of course, as I wrote in my initial post, the Democrats do not hold a veto-proof majority in either house of Congress. So, look for the beginning of a string of vetoes by President Bush.
In the longer term, I think this has the potential to lead, ultimately, to my informal forecast of a 5-seat Republican majority in the House, come January, 2009. If Americans have begun to send a message to both parties to avoid extremism, and govern from the center, across the party aisles, then Pelosi's opening tax cannonade should spell a fairly rapid reversal of the already-thin Democratic control of the lower chamber, come next election cycle.
Personally, I think this is great. As I've written in comments on another blog, Speakers are a creature of the House, not the people. That is, they are elected by fellow politicians to the position. Their district merely sends them up to the House. Look on the list of modern Speakers- Rayburn, McCormack, Albert, O'Neill, Rostenkowski, Wright, Gingrich, Hastert. How many of them have seen their Speakership, or their party's majority, end due to some scandal, either their own, or another party member's? Pelosi is, merely on statistics, likely to be no different.
With this session-opening tax talk, she is helping to put her new position at risk from the get-go, on three bases. First, the traditional risk of presiding during someone's malfeasance, e.g., Jefferson's frozen cash troubles. Second, her own district's expectations of liberalism that is far outside the bounds of what most of the country, even its Democrats, will countenance. Third, damaging a robust economy with tax hikes, more wasteful spending, and regulation.
I'm looking forward to the next few months, as the rifts begin to from among the House Democrats. Or, perhaps more dangerously, they march lockstep in the direction of a return to the minority.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Congressional Majorities: Now Mooted?
As a way of kicking off the New Year, I decided to create this blog, in order to record some of my evolving political observations, insights, and discussions with friends.
Top of mind currently is the relative powerlessness with which Nancy "San Francisco Nan" Pelosi holds the Speakership of the US House of Representatives.
As my friend Merritt and I agreed this morning, it takes a 290 seat position by either party to have a veto-proof majority. This means that a Speaker with less than that majority, or a 145 seat plurality, cannot wield real "power." S/he is essentially the chamber's legislative calendar manager. Add to this that many of the freshman Democratic Representatives were recruited, and elected, precisely because of their 'middle of the road' positions, and the liberal Speaker from the Bay Area has a serious leadership and credibility 'challenge.'
Further, Merritt and I agreed that, from today's, 31-seat plurality, 233-202, neither party is likely to gain the veto-proof majority for many years, absent some calamity of Depression-era magnitude. The Senate is even moreso stuck in neutral.
These are new times for US Congressional politics. Only 15 seats, or so, need change hands to change Speakers in 2008. And the Democrats still are saddled with the Louisiana Representative, William Jefferson, who is almost sure to be indicted for whatever led to the piles of cash found in his office freezer. Figure that's good for a 10 seat loss.
Add another 10-15 for Nan's futile attempts to enact her San Francisco liberal agenda, and you have a 5-seat Republican plurality in 2008. That is to say, with only 16 Democrats needed to leave for the Speakership to flip once more, that's not a stretch in two years' time.
The bottom line, I think, is that neither the Senate, nor the House, is likely to see anything resembling the gigantic Democratic majorities and pluralities of the mid-1960s. Rather, I suspect that the American electorate has intuitively figured out how to place both parties in a position of coalescing their centrist members to forge pragmatic policy, while both party's extremists will now be seen as the liabilities they can be, when power is so near to the grasp of both the Republicans and Democrats.
It's a good thing, really. Nan, in spite of her desires, will be forced to either alienate herself from her party in the House, or repudiate her own prior stands on many issues, to get legislation passed.
Should be an interesting two years ahead.
Top of mind currently is the relative powerlessness with which Nancy "San Francisco Nan" Pelosi holds the Speakership of the US House of Representatives.
As my friend Merritt and I agreed this morning, it takes a 290 seat position by either party to have a veto-proof majority. This means that a Speaker with less than that majority, or a 145 seat plurality, cannot wield real "power." S/he is essentially the chamber's legislative calendar manager. Add to this that many of the freshman Democratic Representatives were recruited, and elected, precisely because of their 'middle of the road' positions, and the liberal Speaker from the Bay Area has a serious leadership and credibility 'challenge.'
Further, Merritt and I agreed that, from today's, 31-seat plurality, 233-202, neither party is likely to gain the veto-proof majority for many years, absent some calamity of Depression-era magnitude. The Senate is even moreso stuck in neutral.
These are new times for US Congressional politics. Only 15 seats, or so, need change hands to change Speakers in 2008. And the Democrats still are saddled with the Louisiana Representative, William Jefferson, who is almost sure to be indicted for whatever led to the piles of cash found in his office freezer. Figure that's good for a 10 seat loss.
Add another 10-15 for Nan's futile attempts to enact her San Francisco liberal agenda, and you have a 5-seat Republican plurality in 2008. That is to say, with only 16 Democrats needed to leave for the Speakership to flip once more, that's not a stretch in two years' time.
The bottom line, I think, is that neither the Senate, nor the House, is likely to see anything resembling the gigantic Democratic majorities and pluralities of the mid-1960s. Rather, I suspect that the American electorate has intuitively figured out how to place both parties in a position of coalescing their centrist members to forge pragmatic policy, while both party's extremists will now be seen as the liabilities they can be, when power is so near to the grasp of both the Republicans and Democrats.
It's a good thing, really. Nan, in spite of her desires, will be forced to either alienate herself from her party in the House, or repudiate her own prior stands on many issues, to get legislation passed.
Should be an interesting two years ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
