What effect will the good news have?
Don Quixote on Sep 25 2006 at 6:33 pm | Filed under: America, Economics, Government
If Bookworm were here (she’s on a much needed mini-vacation and will be back tomorrow) she would surely mention that oil prices have dipped below $60 a barrel and are at a 6-month low. Also, the fed declined to raise interest rates for a change. Assuming the good news continues (always a dangerous assumption) what effect with it have on the November elections? While we’re at it, who will win the House this fall and what effect will it have if the Democrats take over?
My guesses are that the Democrats will take over and it will lead to legislative gridlock, which is almost always a good thing. For one thing, the deficit will go down. For another, the government won’t stick its nose in our private business quite so much.
What are your guesses?
Email This Post To A Friend
16 Responses to “What effect will the good news have?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My guess is that, once again, the Democrats will misunderestimate the Bush machine and self-destruct.
That’s not good, mind you: we really need two legitimate parties.
Good comment, Danny. I wonder if the Democrats feel that way? Why don’t they want to solve problems, national security being the most important?
The deficit will go up, because Republicans will have to make pork barrel deals to get the moderate votes on their side, and the Democrats will make more pork barrel deals to get enough votes to counter them.
It is only when nobody is for sale that the deficit goes down. In war time, everyone is for sale, in one thing or another. Stakes are too high to let an enemy win, even a political enemy.
I wonder if the Democrats feel that way? Why don’t they want to solve problems, national security being the most important?
Because first they have to get rid of people like Danny, Reagan, Truman, JFK, and that Jewish kid vs lamont first. Then they can start solving problems once they get rid of those in the way. But first they have to get rid of those in way, mostly Republicans but some other peeps too.
(reposted for clarity. sorry.)
Good comment, Danny. I wonder if the Democrats feel that way (about the need for 2 legitimate parties)? Why can’t they be one?
Why don’t they want to solve problems, national security being the most important?
One is bad, two is unstable, three is stable. Monarchy, Duo Consulships, and Triumverates. In relation to why can’t there be only one party.
Republicans will retain control of the Senate and House. They’ll take some hits but retain control. If the Democrats were to gain majority, the result would not be gridlock, which I don’t regard as a good thing, DQ, not under present circumstances. Why on earth would you desire legislative gridlock when troops are overseas in harm’s way, and when border security and illegal immigration are such pressing problems? Also, I’ve no doubt Democrats in charge will result in a concerted effort to harass and immobilize the executive branch until 2008, including an effort towards impeachment.
What effect will the good news have?
Democrats would never let good news deter them from fearing the worst. Dems will vote Democrat, Cons will vote Conservative, the borders will stay open and nothing will really change.
…
The deficit has been plummeting because of increased revenues and further tax cuts will keep those revenues going up. That’ll stop if Dems are in control because the first thing they’ll do is increase taxes which will result in lower revenues. I don’t think even a media blitz can convince many voters that liberals will keep down spending. The idea is risible.
Also, how can Reid, Pelosi, Kerry el al. make our country and the world a safe place. In the eight years Clinton was in charge, terrorism expanded and became organized. Get the libs back in power and we’ll put the U.N. back in charge of our foreign policy of appeasement. Don’t think so? Check out Clinton’s CYA performance over the weekend and then think again. Neither he nor his followers understand that the WoT isn’t a public relations campaign. Clinton’s legacy isn’t what matters. What matters if the safety of our kids. Yes, it really is for the children, especially my six grandchildren.
If the different factions on the right come out of their communal snit and get to the polls, I think the GOP will gain in both houses and in the governorships. The left will be left with only voter fraud and other shenanigans like another switcheroo Democratic senatorial candidate in New Jersey. Will Jersey voters ever get tired of voting for the scoundrels with the letter “D” next to their names on the ballot. Perhaps we’ll find out this year.
I’m astonished that anyone can support the current crop of liberals even if one truly believes socialism is the better way of organizing society, shouldn’t they be putting up people with some semblance of honesty and integrity for voters’ approval.
h/t Drudge
From The Hill:
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.
“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”
I agree with Jonah Goldberg’s analysis http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2006/09/18/bring_on_the_democrats (posted by Bookworm–I agree with his point, but I love his writing even more) that loosing the House could prove to be beneficial in the long run.
A Democrat take-over in Congress is something to worry about. Imagine unending battles to stop tax increases, illegal alien anmesty, runaway spending, etc etc etc.
Yes, we’re having a problem getting the Republicans to move on sealing the borders. But the Democrats actively want to leave it wide open and invite illegals in.
Which is better?
Impeachement isn’t all that of a danger, in my view, simply because it would get the Democrats out in a position, a limb if you will, from which they will be unable to extricate themselves in the eyes of the military and the civilian spheres of America.
All they’ll get is Cheney if they get rid of Bush, and Bush can’t get re-elected, so this would be Cheney’s only chance of doing damage.
I saw gas for $1.99/gallon in Cleveland, Tennessee over the weekend….anyone beat that?
mamapajamas-
A takeover in the Senate would be disastrous since there are still a couple of the liberal justices that are well over the average life expectancy (not to be a vulture or anything.) The Republicans still need the ability to confirm Bush’s judicial nominations so the Senate is imperative. The House, on the other hand, would be forced into making some hard decisions which Jonah Goldberg pointed out in his article. Basically, a couple of years of Pelosi as Speaker (having to appease the extreme left element or risk their alienation) would light a fire under the Republicans and drive the centrists away from the Democratic party in droves; ‘08 would be a banner year.
If the Democrats take over, they will corrupt the system to ensure that no Republican administration will ever get reelected. They came very close in 2000 and 2004 (does anyone remember the “motor voter” act, Al Gore’s rapid-approval of citizenship rights for millions of illegals, including fellons, in critical swing cities so that they could vote, the hanging chads?). Fundamentally, the Democrat/Left is a totalitarian Utopian movement. Let’s stop kidding ourselves.
Yes but don’t they still need the Senate to pass any legislation? And if they actually manage to get that, they still have to muster a veto-proof majority.