The Discerning Texan

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, August 31, 2006

What a Democrat Congress would look like...Nightmarish

If this isn't enough to make you pour yourself a strong one, then you have already had one too many (from today's OpinionJournal):

Consider the man likely to run the Judiciary Committee, Michigan's John Conyers, from the Congressional class of 1964. He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverup in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." The report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.

If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.

Ways and Means, the chief economic policy panel, would go to New York's Charlie Rangel (1970), who opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough. Over at Financial Services, the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Energy and Commerce would return to the untender mercies of John Dingell, the longest-serving Member first elected in 1955, who was a selective scourge of business when he ran the committee before 1994. The Michigan Congressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford. But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form of Net neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a real possibility.

Remember organized labor? Their champion would be George Miller (1974), who as the man in line to run the education and labor committee is the chief sponsor of the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would make it much easier for unions to organize by largely banning secret elections. Instead, union operatives would be allowed to publicly hound workers into signing "cards" that are counted as votes toward unionization. The Californian also wants to raise the minimum wage and fulfill the National Education Association wish to spend more federal dollars on local school construction.

We also can't forget California's Henry Waxman (1974), among the most partisan liberals and who at Government Reform would compete with Mr. Conyers to see who could issue the most subpoenas to the Bush Administration. And then there's Alcee Hastings, who, should Ms. Pelosi succeed in pushing aside current ranking Member Jane Harman, would take over the House Intelligence Committee. Before he won his Florida seat in 1992, Mr. Hastings had been a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democratic Congress for lying to beat a bribery rap. He would handle America's most vital national secrets.

If that isn't terrifying, what is? And of course the quoted text above does not even mention the hyper-partisan ultra-leftist from the Bay Area, Nancy Pelosi--who would be Speaker of the House, and third in line for the (gulp) Presidency. Newt Gingrich reflects on this horrific scenario:

Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that the thought of California Rep. Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and being third in line to the presidency is frightening.

"The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country," the outspoken Republican said.

Gingrich said keeping power out of the hands of Pelosi, the House minority leader, and other Democrats is one of the reasons he was in South Carolina this week raising money for the GOP.

[....]

The former Georgia congressman said he wakes up every day worried about national security and the potential loss of U.S. cities to nuclear attacks.

"If you think, as I do, that we're in the early stages of an emerging third world war, the world is truly dangerous on a scale that I think, in a worst case, could lead to losing several American cities to nuclear weapons in our lifetime," he said.

Gingrich, who says his decision on seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 will wait until late next year, says there are plenty of reasons to worry about nuclear bombs destroying U.S. cities.

"Start with the North Korean drive to get nuclear weapons and ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles), then go to the Iranian drive to get nuclear weapons, then go to the fact that Pakistan has probably between 50 and 100 nuclear weapons with an unstable dictatorship," he said. Then, look at al-Qaida's willingness to "kill as many Americans as they can find" and Iran's recruitment of suicide bombers, he said.

"If you have active, overt enemies who are religiously different and who believe that killing you would be a good thing in their religious terms and they're willing to die in order to kill you," Gingrich said, "how hard is it to imagine a suicide bomber willing to walk in with a nuclear weapon?"

To deal with the threat, he said, "we want to replace the North Korean regime. We want to replace the Iranian regime and the Syrian regime. We would like to replace them without using military force if we can."

The only bright spot is that--according to Robert Novak--all is not lost yet:

To date, we have discussed this election in terms of what the final outcome will look like in November. We have also mentioned Republican fears that, as one House committee chairman has said privately, Republicans will lose 25 seats -- or as we were told that national internal polls suggested, they could lose as many as 26 seats.

From here in, now that primary season has approached its end, we will resist such broad prognostication, particularly since we have not yet seen evidence that such huge losses are imminent when looking at the races as we always have in past cycles -- on a district-by-district basis. As we noted last week, "it is still at least challenging to construct a scenario of a 15-seat Democratic gain without positing some improbable upsets."

Still, if you read the scenario at the top--and you truly understand its implications--you will not let rain, sleet, snow, earthquake, or terror attack stop you from showing up at the polls in November and doing everything in your power to prevent this unmitigated disaster from befalling us all. Novak's current count has the Republicans holding the House--by just 1 seat. That is way too close for comfort. I know it is difficult, particularly because the drive-by media has been so negative 24x7. But the future of your country may depend on your rising above complacency and preventing a Pelosi-Conyers-Frank-Waxman-Hastings nightmare.

DiscerningTexan, 8/31/2006 07:24:00 PM |