The Bright Side of Being in the Minority
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm in DC tonight and all my conversations of the day have been off the record, but I can relay this tidbit.
A Democratic Congressman with whom I have very good relations (no, not the Mark Foley kind) was drowning his sorrows tonight at the thought of going into the majority now. His point was that if the Dems lose again this year, they can blame Pelosi and replace her and will inevitably take control in 2008.
But, because of Republican incompetence (to get an accurate account of what he said, insert the "F" word after every second word in this post and after every reference to either party), the Democrats are going to take the majority this year, will have to make Pelosi the Speaker or look really bad, and then she will screw up everything for the Democrats and destroy their majority for the next 25 years. He assures me that this is a widespread sentiment, particularly among Southern and Midwestern members of the Democratic delegation who would rather see Speaker Hoyer or Speaker Anybody but Pelosi.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Another Lie, by Bob Woodward — Comments (4) »
The Bright Side of Being in the Minority 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Thousands may perish if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker and the Administration becomes distracted by Hearings and Kangaroo Courts, if we are forced from Iraq by feckless Democrats.
Thousands are dying now. You surmise - and let's face it, Republican guesswork over the past 6 years has rarely proven accurate, that more will die if the Democrats take over. But is that guesswork really more compelling than the actual deaths that are going on now?
Is it possible, just maybe, that your guesses about what will happen if Pelosi become speaker, and our troops come home are wrong? That what Democrats (and apparently Colin Powell, and a growing number of independent conservatives) believe is, maybe, right - while what Republicans believe is wrong?
Duty first. Politics second.
Good
But..
We have to return a Republican majority, despite the pigheadedness of some of our members, precisely because of the fact that we have troops in the field.
But, if duty means the same thing as politics, then why bother prioritizing them?
I would say nice try, but that would indicate something you stated was intellectually significant.
Some unavoidable facts:
- We have been safer since 3,000 citizens died on 9/11
- Democrats have opposed every piece of useful legislation designed to keep us safe
(Perish the thought of them controlling the agenda)
- Supporting and establishing democracy in Iraq shows the greater Middle East there are alternatives to Islamic fascism. That keeps us safe by providing tangible proof that tyranny and terrorist hegemony can be defeated. If you actually read history this fact would be ominously evident, but I digress.
- Presence in Iraq and Afghanistan forces terrorists to fight our armed forces, not fly hijacked planes into innocent people.
If you can not separate duty from politics, perhaps this first post should be your last
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Alas, not one of the items you listed as "fact" is indeed a fact. They're all opinions. While there may be some justification for holding those opinions, there is no quantifiable evidence showing any of them to be facts. Specifically (in *my* opinion):
- Safer? Maybe. Maybe not. Personally, I seriously doubt it.
- Democrats opposing *every* piece of "useful legislation designed to keep us safe"? They've opposed many. Not all. And both "useful legislation" and "designed to keep us safe" are debatable opinions.
- Supporting democracy in Iraq: An experiment which has yet to be concluded. The jury is out as to whether it will be successful, whether it will have any positive impact on the greater Middle East, and whether it will do anything whatsoever to keep us safe. I have hopes, but they remain just that: hopes.
- Forcing terrorists to fight our armed forces: It took less than 50 people to pull off the 9/11 attacks. There are indeed many terrorists fighting our armed forces, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there are also still plenty of terrorists elsewhere to spare to fly planes, and they don't need very many.
(IMHO, We've been spared quite a lot of grief by the terrorists' desire to make a big statement through a coordinated attack. God help us all if they ever realize just how much terror they can truly spread, say, with just two people, a car with a hidden gunport, and a sniper rifle. But I digress.)
All that said, I still expect the GOP to maintain a slight majority in the House, and would not, myself, be particularly thrilled with the idea of Speaker Pelosi, who, in my opinion, is seriously out of touch with reality.
Quite a few words. None of which adequately refute the facts.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
"intellectually significant"? I was only shooting for the regular kind. ;-)
No - like Steve said, those "facts" are really an admixture of opinion & guesswork. It's those which I hoped you might reconsider dogmatic adherence to.
Democracy? Well, the ideal world is one where every person has their fair share of political power - and one shorthand for that is "democracy". And yes, I support it. In Iraq, in Pakistan, and in China. Doesn't mean I support 2 more wars to go with the ongoing one. Doesn't mean I think we should "stay the course" in the current one either. Honestly, I don't think it is realistic to believe that the U.S. and the coalition of the willing can create democracies in these places under the current circumstances. An alliance of Turkey and Palestine might, someday in the future be able to create a situation where Iraq could gain a democracy. China... maybe with time and U.S., Russian (will have to make it to that point themselves, first), Korean, and European cooperation, and the right approach. Pakistan... maybe... eventually...
Supporting the war is not necessarily the same as supporting democracy. Support for the war indicates a certain opinion about the likelihood of success in creating democracy through that means, and a willingness to accept the risks and tradeoffs that go with creating war in hopes of it. You're entitled to the opinion - but as we have seen by the development of the war, the side that is skeptical of this approach is equally or better entitled to their own opinion.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
That's the redeployment of our embassy out of Saigon after the Democratic party radicals took over the Congress.
And guess who still runs the Democrats today...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I haven't written off a slim majority just yet. Nonetheless, the prospect of Democrats fiddling while the nation burns isn't a pleasant visual.
There is no bright side to the minority. If that were to occur, we would have two years of non-stop investigations and impeachment proceedings. Worse than that, the MSM will trumphet the Democrat push to restore oversight to the Congress. If you think we've seen coordination so far, wait until the Democrats take Congress.
Having said that, Erick do you agree with your friend that a loss is a guarantee? Are your sources saying that Rove's changed his opinion. With five weeks to go, I think it's much too early to say that. As strange as this may seem, Robert Novak's Congressional update showed a two seat improvement for Republicans. A 12 seat loss is much better than 14 seats.
I am still not convinced the GOP loses the house, they might, but what I am not sure is how fair minded people who intended to vote for the GOP candidate find that person responsible for what Foley did, unless they are actually named (ie Hastert, Shimkus etc).
I think what this scandal may do is creat even more the stay at home vote, the person who thinks they are all bums and one vote is as bad/good as another.
Look, you always play to win. No doubt.
But the fractures in the Democratic party (and those are very deep fractures and getting deeper) have been spackled over for a very long time now.
This is because Democrats have not had to take responsibity for governance but have had merely to demonstrate fidelity to a single overriding principle: resistance to Bush.
What if they did gain a two or three member majority in the House? Think about it. Their far-left internet faction would rave, snarl, and tear them limb from limb if they don't hound Bush with impeachment proceedings and countless investigations.
All measures which are sure to prove higly impalatable to the majority of Americans. A majority of Americans might not support the war right now, but they know it exists. If they didn't like going after Clinton, they're not going to like attempts to topple our president in the middle of the war, popular or not, by a pack of hounds who who were for it themselves before they were against it.
I honestly believe that a slim Democratic majority would absolutely destroy the Democratic party. Leave them bleeding and helpless going into 08.
And, what, honestly, are the Republicans going to do if they managed to hold on by the skin of their teeth to a substantially diminished majority?
It would prove MUCH easier for all Republicans in 2008 up and down the ticket to run against Nancy Pelosi instead of on the record of an ineffectual and substantially decreased Republican majority during the final two years of Bush, when there is no realistic chance of any major policy initiatives making it through anyway. Just my thoughts: fire away.
Sure, winning may damage the Democratic party - but if they can't win now, how much will that damage them?
If the Democrats can’t take the Hill now, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.
That's right, he said the "W" word.
"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank
To look at things from the glass half full perspective:
You can hardly imagine a worse time for the GOP than they are right now, and the Dems are barely within reach of gaining a very slim majority in the House. At best, their majority will be of 4-6 seats. Not only can they not govern effectively with that, but they likely can't hold onto that majority in 2008 because (a) many of their take-overs will be in conservative districts (TX-22 and FL-16, for example) which are likely to switch right back in two years and (b) they will have to run on their record, and they won't have much of one with the slim majority that they have.
In addition, many of the new members that they have are more conservative than the average Democrate who are currently in the House. Part of the Dems strategy this election has been to nominate GOP-like candidates who say GOP-like things, and the fact that they have to do so tells you just how complete the conservative victory has been in our nation during the past 20 years. They may win the majority, but they may have trouble recognizing it when they get there.
Some things that are pretty hard to dispute: if the Dems win in 2006, they are going to have a tough time getting anything done; (2) if the GOP holds on to the majority, it will be slim and we will have a very tough time holding onto it in 2008; and (3) the political terrain still favors the GOP long term.
If we win the House now, it will be by a tiny nail-biting margin and we'll be back in the same position of trying to barely hold on to it in 08.
If we lose the House in 08, the far left Democratic activists will have also lost the focus of their irrational rage (Bush) and will not be demanding with ever increasing hysteria that House Democrats sacrifice their careers on the sacred altar of Bush-Hatred. Were the loss of the House to occur in 08, we risk a long uphill slog back to the majority that could take god knows how long.
On the other hand, I could see us picking up 30-40 seats running against Pelosi in 08, something which would hold the added benefit of completely despiriting the Democrats, leading to even more destruction and retribution in their ranks.
has become a bit en vogue inside the Betlway. Both sides are allegedly saying, behind closed doors, that they want to lose next month. Not by a lot. But by a enough to say they are the minority.
I don't really buy it. Barring a massive upset by the Democrats the House and Senate will essentially be even split. Most Americans will still view our government as being run by the Republicans even if the Democrats hold a slim lead in the House and/or Senate. Both parties know this already.
So the Democrats want to either win big or keep the status quo. Their only real defeat would be if the Republicans GAINED seats, which is moderately unlikely. The Republicans only real defeat would be a major shift in Congress. By major shift I'm talking about a 10 seat swing in the Senate and at least a 15 seat advantage in the House. That is even less likely than the Republicans gaining seats.
So at the end of the day we will have a Republican controlled White House with a perceived Republican controlled Congress.
Having said all that I think the best thing that could happen for the country is a major shift in Congress with the Democrats gaining significant control of the Senate but the Republicans retaining a tight lead in the House. This would prevent the Democrats lessor demons from taking control and trying something stupid like an Impeachment. Although I think it would be VERY unlikely for that to happen I do think it is a small possibility and it would be disastrous for the country.
However, by having the Democrats regain control of the Senate we could return to government that operates best. A government of contentious compromise.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
A slim majority gives John Conyers the power of subpoena! The Kos Kiddies will go to work. Every conspiracy moonbat that has been gestating in your party for six years will be given birth. I promise you, they have been waiting for this to happen: "People's Court".
Which will do nothing except mobilize Republicans and make us angry.
When given a majority, however slim, the Democrats cannot be expected to excercise responsibility. Harry Truman is dead. Peter Beinart cannot bring him back to life.
Other than that, your post appears to be a shifting of the goalposts. "In case we don't win a supermajority, then even though it's 'Speaker Pelosi', you can't blame us when John Conyers goes nuts, because the Republicans are still in power. Really." Please try selling that elsewhere.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
First of all where did I say anything about blaming anyone?
Obviously you ignored what I said would be the ideal situation so I won't talk about that.
While I realize that a lot of the posters here at RedState think that the Democrats in the House of Representatives are the same people that write diaries at DKos, that simply isn't the case. Certainly the Dkos crowd would go crazy and want to see the Democrats enact a scorched Earth policy. But it isn't going to happen. Even if we assume that the DKos gang could influence the Liberal wing of the Democrats, the House has a LOT of Conservative Democrats who hold no truk with the Dkos/MoveON gang. No chance that they could achieve enough of a caucus to do what some of you guys think would happen.
Whether you want to believe it or not the House Democrats are not idiots. They saw the hit the Republicans took after the Clinton impeachment mess and that was VASTLY more clearcut than this. An attempt to Impeach Bush would achieve absolutely nothing good for the Democrats. However it would likely infuriate the entire middle and lead to an absolute bloodbath in 2008 for the Democrats.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
John Conyers
(There are a lot of other delusional moonbats in senior positions but one is enough for the argument)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
You're trying to do three things with your post. I didn't accuse you in particular of blaming anyone. However, in your post, you were trying to:
1. Pull back from previous Democratic projections (albeit, perhaps not yours) of an overwhelming Democratic victory and frame the result in a way that a slim Pelosi Majority is still a Republican House. That won't wash.
2. Peddle the notion that John Conyers at Judiciary and Alcee Hastings at Intelligence is "reasonable".
3. Understate the influence of the Left in the Democratic Party. There is a reason that the Clintons don't want a governing majority now. They know what will happen. They understand the hatreds that have built up within their activist base. They have tolerated it because it is a vast source of fundraising. The Left really believes that Bush and Cheney must be impeached and removed, and Pelosi made President. You may not believe that, flyerhawk, but you are probably in a minority among your party's activists.
You think we don't read DKos and DU? You think there wasn't a reason Mark Warner showed up in Las Vegas at Markos' Torchlight Parade? This is where the activists talk with each other, flyerhawk. This is where Donks talk to each other when Rethuglicans aren't around. What you see at DKos is tomorrow's Democratic Party! You can't just gloss that over. You can't pretend that this vast community of activists has no influence.
Dems and Republicans have been gerrymandered into safe districts. The incentive for Democrats to be moderate simply isn't there. Conservative Democrats left the Party years ago, for the most part. As I said earlier, Harry Truman is dead, Peter Beinart is no Jesus Christ.
Still and all, this is not something I want to risk with troops in the field. I simply don't trust the "redeploy to Okinawa and pretend it's victory" crowd with the levers of power. For all of their mistakes, Bush and the Republicans are like Grant. They fight.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
They fight.
And until that changes, nothing else in American politics will.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
That a Redstater supports being in the minority. It makes some feel better. That way, they can blame whatever group they want (moderates, RINOs, Mexicans, National Review, whomever) or some arcane piece of legislation (HR 1234567 passed! Oh $%#^&! I'm sitting out now!) to make them feel better. Meanwhile, the Dems get their chance to literally destroy the world and let the terrorists win.
You win nothing having Speaker Pelosi. I don't care about the veto pen or trying to win in 2008 or 2010. Too much damage to this country can be done in the interim. But I guess actually wanting to win is too much for some. Besides, incumbents usually win at 96% rate, so how many "weak" winners in 2006 will be beatable in 2008?
This is reminiscent of the stupid "meet my maker" argument too many in the "sit this one out" crowd always use, ignoring that sitting out hurts more people than actually voting *gasp* for someone who is only 97% inline with you.
After this post, if we lose the House, it will once again prove that the paleocons are the ones at fault. Bravo Paleocons! You can fulfill that martyr wish you have by sitting out.
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
So if the Democrats gain control of Congress LITERALLY the end of the world is nigh and the terrorists will have won?
Just curious but how exactly would the Democrats LITERALLY destroy the world? Some sort of doomsday device? Spread a pestalence across the world? Give Richard Simmons a primetime TV slot? Just curious?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
A slim majority in one or even both houses for two years will not be the end of civilization. Also, here is something that I continue to point out that no one seems to get.
YOU CANNOT STOP the democrats from one day (sooner than later) gaining power again. All politics in the USA is cyclical with the electorate seeming to prefer divided government. You might not like that but its still true.
And, you want to know why the electorate prefers divided government? Just look to our own party in the last five years and you will see the answer.
Look, I am going to reluctantly vote for my party this time around. But I would almost rather a small gain by Dems now than a big boomerang realignment in 2008 because of extreme Republican fatigue.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
However, if they do, I can think of worse fates than having to run against Speaker Pelosi in 2008. Though -- and I have to be honest -- the thought of that woman being two heartbeats away from the presidency would keep me up nights.
I'm not at all convinced that we are relegated to minority status. Giving up like this is just not on. Polls have generally let us down, so let's not give up.
Enough of this Pollyanna it'll be okay if we lose business.
We.Must.Win.It.All.
See Karl Rove tomorrow and tell him to get off his behind and get to work.
I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan
We might lose, but by God we should FIGHT!
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
It will be the end to them. Yeah, I understand the get rid of Pelosi stuff and Dean, but if they lose there are going to be a group of the older Reps who throw in the towel prior to 2008 and that will give the GOP some more opportunities.
The flip side is that I think the same thing happens to the GOP if they lose.
they can choose a better leader than Pelosi? Who among the present House Democrats would be any better? It's that bad. I really don't believe more reasonable Democrats would have the votes to make it.
You cannot win by losing. It's axiomatic.
Two years of Democrats being able to stifle our national defense, or horsetrading it for some more of their socialist initiatives, is two years too long.
Spit out that defeatist taste, and work harder to win.
I could get fired up to help local House candidates that are relatvely good guys. Jeb Hensarling and Pete Sessions. Republican Study Committee members. Unfortunately, neither has much influence over House leadership and neither needs help to get reelected. The combination of the damn seniority system and reelection rate for incumbents means House leaders are almost to the walker, depends, and oxygen tank end of life state before they can influence anything. The class of 94 came, shook things up for a few years, and honored their voluntary term limits or went native. We're stuck with the power hungry leftovers who saw more power if their name had an "R" after it.
To pull out of the current downward spiral, I think both House and Senate leaders all need to resign from leadership positions before the election and make a bold pledge to voters: If Republicans retain the majority, all leadership positions are open to younger members. The voters get to choose between new Republican leaders or old Democrat liberals.
Don't throw good Republican candidates under the bus to punish the fossils at the top of the party. Lets support Republicans AND demand massive change when we just barely keep control.
Pelosi seems to be equally hated by Dems and Reps. At the same time she has little name recognition and lots of experience. Bush will still be president and get most blame for bad news, the Dems will be able to publicly investigate. I can't see how any of this is positive for Reps.
"She will screw up everything for the Democrats and destroy their majority for the next 25 years."
Sounds like propaganda. Look at how many changes there have been in the last 25, then tell me anything political lasts 25 years.
Hoping to lose my rear end.
We fight to win this thing.
We fight to overcome the Soros funded slime machine pumping lies and misrepresentations out right now.
First they lied to get us to stop trusting W. They did that by their lies about Plame and deliberately confusing 'bad intel' with 'lying'. Then they stacked the 911 commission with slimeballs like Gorelick and had Berger steal documents to confuse the record.
Now they are having us think that it is OK for clinton to perjure himself over sex in his friggin'office, while firing a guy who acted like a perv is a total party meltdown.
Then the dhimmicrats want to pretend the NSA and the Patriot Act are somehow cuppressing political freedom in this country, even as they move to censor free speech.
Wake the heck up!
We are winning this war. We are holding the areas we liberated with low casualties. The governments we helped the liberated people form are fighting like crazy against terrorists.
The DNC condemnation of this country is exactly the same as the Al Qaeda condemnation, nearly word for word. And we are listening to the dhimmicrats? Have we lost our minds?
We have the strongest economy ever. Unemployment is at its lowest in years if not ever.
Plame was a total fraud, and the dhimmis knew it.
The Foley scandal stinks like the put up job it is.
The dhimmis are ahving fun controlling the way we look at this, and if we are stupid enough to talk ourselves into thinking losing is OK, we will let a seditious, lying, 'false but true', tax raising, defeatist, bunch of posers take over for no good reason at all.
Wake up!
Losing is losing.
Winning is everything.
If the Democrats take the House, then there is at least a decent chance they'll pass the awful McCain/Kennedy immigration bill, and Bush would almost certainly sign it into law. It would then prove almost impossible to reverse even if the GOP did take back the House, because a reversal could not pass the Senate, and neither President Bush or the front-runners of either party for 2008 would sign a reversal.
Anyone interested in preventing a disastrous political-demographic shift should not hold this 'its better to lose the House view', unless they are confident that a closely divided House could not pass the McKennedy bill.
but it's too late, really. The shift is happening already. It's a question of twenty years from now, with McAmnesty, vs. thirty or forty without it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
I admit that I am often quite the pessimist. I can't even begin to understand how fellow conservatives actually believe that Republicans/conservatives can win, break even, or even come close consistently, with an unending large-scale influx of immigrants. I agree with you that the pro-Democrat demographic shift would inevitably continue even if we ended all immigration into the US today.
But you never know what will happen. Demographic trends are often reported by the press as irresistible, unstoppable, inevitable forces -- and I'm convinced they do this intentionally as a means to browbeat the public into thinking there is nothing they can do about it -- but they are not necessarily so. Reducing immigration now would have an effect, not only in lessening the number of future Democrats, but also by creating an environment that would make it easier to assimilate, and thus win over to the conservative cause, the immigrants already here and that we would admit in the future. At a minimum, it would give the GOP a chance to compete in the future w/o becoming a pandering copycat to the Democrats. And who knows, maybe something truly miraculous would happen, and Mexico might actually develop an economy capable of supporting its own people. No, I don't think that will happen, but again, you never know.
So in many ways I share your belief that its too late, but to me I still like to believe that its not a choice between defeat in 20 years versus 30 years, but instead is a choice between certain defeat versus a fighting chance.
Whatever the case, it certainly isn't going to get easier, and that is why I am so concerned about the upcoming elections, and the next few cycles. I think it is very much now or never for the conservative cause. As I said earlier, holding the House is the only way to stop making a bad situation worse by passing the awful McCain/Kennedy bill. Holding the Senate (with a sufficient majority that is) is the only way to finally right the Supreme Court. Holding both chambers is also the only way to try and make tax cuts permanent, and to have sufficient measures to fight terrorism, and a whole host of other things. I am afraid that losing now means losing it all, because I'm not convinced that it would be easy to regain power once its lost.
So even if you are right that its too late -- and again, I fear that you are -- then at least it would be better to go into the future with conservative policies firmly entrenched in as many areas as possible. That will at least make it harder to ever get rid of them.
Despite the stupidity of our majority, the Republican rank and file remember that we are at war. We can't afford to think the way your friend thinks. Thousands may perish if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker and the Administration becomes distracted by Hearings and Kangaroo Courts, if we are forced from Iraq by feckless Democrats.
There IS NO BRIGHT SIDE.
Duty first. Politics second. That's why we're conservative Republicans. That's why we're the Party of Ronald Reagan. We have to return a Republican majority, despite the pigheadedness of some of our members, precisely because of the fact that we have troops in the field.
Oh, and there would be the side benefit of watching Andrew Sullivan explode in hysteria.
Once, when they were the party of Harry Truman, they put duty first. That Democratic Party has passed into history.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill