Showing posts with label Election 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2006. Show all posts

03 August 2007

Once Again, House Democrats Making Me Look Prescient.

In the aftermath of the '06 election I had this to say:

Trying to think of the right analogy for what seems likely to happen over the next two years, one thing comes to mind over and over.

King Pyrrhus and his triumphs over the Romans at Heraclea.

Because of Plutarch, his 'victories' have become part of our language.

Judging from the early scuttlebutt regarding committee and leadership battles within the Democratic party, and also the legislative agenda they seem intent on pushing, the phrase Phyrric Victory may soon be replaced by a phrase such as Getting Pelosi'd.

The Democrats won this battle, and won decisively, but the fundamental problems within the Democratic Party that have caused a permanent shift in the American political landscape are unchanged, and by the looks of things, are likely to get even worse.

Republicans were defeated in this election, but not Conservatism. Democrats were victorious, but not Liberalism. Nobody in the Democratic leadership in DC seem aware of this, however.

Too many Republicans got too lazy and corrupt due to a belief that Democratic incompetence would save them from themselves. It nearly did, a split Congress was close to a reality despite the advantages the Democrats enjoyed this go round.


The mess (hat tip Instapundit) in the House last night would seem to reinforce the idea that the Dems are turning their '06 victory into an '08 defeat. Those moderates who gained seats for the Dems in closely matched districts will most likely have to defend their association with the Pelosi wing of their own party, and if the GOP is smart, they'll run moderates against them in those districts, giving voters a chance to keep a moderate path while punishing the party in power. That's what worked in '06 for the Dems, and it could work again in '08 for the GOP.

16 November 2006

I'm Happy to Be Wrong

The Democrats chose less unwisely than they could have when picking their number two in the House.

It's good for them and good for America, but bad for Speaker to be Grandma Nancy Pelosi.

It's been a topsy-turvy world of late, next thing you know, cats will lay down with dogs (in the most biblical sense of the phrase) . . . . . .

(oh wait)

(via Drudge)

14 November 2006

Woohoo!

Folks voted for reform, and looks like they're getting ABSCAM.

Way to go Democratic leadership.

It warms the heart of this committed Pachyderm.

Corrupt, clueless, and a defeatist on Iraq.

Wonderful.

Luckily, the damage he can do is mitigated by that whole checks and balances thing the founders devised. They might have known what they were doing.

The big negative to all this is the huge smiles across the lips of Zayman Al-Zawahiri and Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I leave out Osama Bin Laden, cause the dead don't smile).

(and don't even get me started on the latest book from the WORST EX-PRESIDENT EVER!!!, I'm trying to keep this blog mostly expletive free, so there's nothing else to say)

All I can say to all this is, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY!!!!!!

13 November 2006

Will Election 2006 Change Our Language?

Trying to think of the right analogy for what seems likely to happen over the next two years, one thing comes to mind over and over.

King Pyrrhus and his triumphs over the Romans at Heraclea.

Because of Plutarch, his 'victories' have become part of our language.

Judging from the early scuttlebutt regarding committee and leadership battles within the Democratic party, and also the legislative agenda they seem intent on pushing, the phrase Phyrric Victory may soon be replaced by a phrase such as Getting Pelosi'd.

The Democrats won this battle, and won decisively, but the fundamental problems within the Democratic Party that have caused a permanent shift in the American political landscape are unchanged, and by the looks of things, are likely to get even worse.

Republicans were defeated in this election, but not Conservatism. Democrats were victorious, but not Liberalism. Nobody in the Democratic leadership in DC seem aware of this, however.

Too many Republicans got too lazy and corrupt due to a belief that Democratic incompetence would save them from themselves. It nearly did, a split Congress was close to a reality despite the advantages the Democrats enjoyed this go round.

These weeks before the new Congress takes office are crucial for shaping the next two years. The Democrats seem intent on serving a bunch of populist flavored pablum, forcing a balance of powers stalemate between the legislative and executive branches. Given that government inaction is often preferable to government action, this won't be the disaster for the Republicans that the Democratic leadership assumes.

The Democrats will have to balance appeasing their activist base, and trying to reach out to the swing voters they attracted in this election. Problem for them is that these positions are irreconcilable.

If any message was sent by the American folks to both parties, it would seem to have been, "moderate yourselves". The question remains, will either party listen?

My hunch is, the GOP will get it, and we'll see a lot of Rudy and Arnold as the face of a different kind of Republican. Evangelicals will continue to have more influence for the GOP than they probably should, but they won't be the deciding factor in policy and candidate selection they have been for this past decade or so.

The Republicans are set to re-embrace Reaganite small government, vocal opposition to tyranny, and most importantly, well articulated optimism about this ongoing and continually changing project called America.

The Democrats seem poised to believe their press and follow a liberal/populist path of promising everything to everyone while presenting a weak image abroad. They seem determined to combine all the worst qualities of Pres. Carter's four years with the corrosive influences of identity politics.

All this is another way of saying, 2008 is going to be fun, and hopefully, the Executive branch will be able to hold things together and continue to prevent a major domestic terror attack despite losing allies in the Legislative branch. I have faith in the professionals in charge of securing our nation, they ought to be able to still get their jobs done, even as the more political folks in DC tie themselves up in knots.

06 November 2006

I Know There's Something I'm Meaning to Do Tomorrow . . .

. . . Let's see, Tuesday November 7th, what is it I was going to do? ? ?

Checked Outlook, and nothing pops up.

Hmmmm.

That's right, TimeWarner Cable introduces a bunch of new services in our area and is shuffling the channel line-up, time to upgrade, also . . .

And then there's, that.

As so happens, my local polling place is right on my block, so no excuses for me not to vote.

May do some video or audio interviews if other folks are amenable and the rules allow.

Or not.

I'm deep inside the People's Republic, so any interviews could get dodgy, especially if they ask me questions in return (I love the shocked looks on folks faces when they don't get the usual liberal twaddle in response).

And just because, the long version of the video for Election Day by Arcadia (the other Duran Duran side project during the 80s)



(not sure if this should have been submitted as a best or worst in the Andrew Sullivan competition, I've been thoroughly unimpressed with the selections he's chosen to highlight)

19 October 2006

Informing California Voters . . .

. . . in SONG! (mp3 at link)

Really?

Really.

(Lyrics and chords here)

Despite this little ditty, Calvoter.org is a good resource and deserves public support.

Given that our state prefers to legislate through initiative rather than through ummmm, the legislature, a resource to pull together the information regarding those propositions is highly desireable. Calvoter.org does a good, non-partisan job of making that happen.

Since the song focuses on the props only, I'll go ahead and issue my recommendations, since I know the blogosphere has been holding their collective breath in anticipation of how I would come down on each of these propositions.

My recommendations as follows, 1A-1E, hell no. Bonds, bonds and more bonds. The state has infrastructure needs, but it also has tremendous revenues due to a roaring economy, cut spending, don't issue more bonds in a state already swimming in debt.

Prop 83 No.
It's the Jessica's Law proposition. Sex offenders are vile, worthless human beings who are an ongoing danger to society, but the measures already in place are pretty draconian to begin with, and to add more layers to the enforcement and surveillance cake, isn't going to protect children any better. Creeps will do what creeps do. Longer sentences, ankle devices and databases won't stop all of them, good parenting, good police work, and the realization that the stranger-predator is a rarity, not the rule. Every case like the one in Florida involving the Jessica who spurred the current round of legislative resolve is a horrible tragedy. The nationalization and sensationalization of the media makes it seem as if these creeps are around every corner. They aren't. But every case gets national attention and distorts the scope of the problem in the people's imagination. This proposed law is a reaction to the image created, not the reality.

Prop 84 No.
Clean Water bond. I'm against clean water? Yes, I am when it is just another bond measure to give nebulous authorization to massively increase statewide budgets to solve problems that are more often under local supervision, jurisdiction and control. Clean water is a priority, but cutting the budget elsewhere can fund the infrastructure needs, not adding another bond. Plus there already is a water bond on the 1A-1E legislature approved measures, I'm against both, but if you are going to support one, support the more focused 1E and not this hodge-podge grab bag, certain to become pork laden mess.

Prop 85 Yes.
Parental notification on abortions for minors. This measure is reasonable, allows for judicial relief, and doesn't ban the procedure outright, just recognizes that a pregnant minor is still a minor.

Prop 86 No.
The anti-smoking forces have been emboldened by past successes statewide and now are going at it again. Enough is enough. Smoking is a filthy habit, but its an increasingly marginalized and dying habit. If they want to actually ban smoking outright, then just do it already, don't keep on taxing it until legal tobacco products are more expensive than illicit wacky tobaccy products. This prop is greedy, cigarette packs are already around $5.00 I think (don't smoke, don't know) and to add another $2.60 per pack tax will make smuggled smokes lucrative. Also the anti-trust exemptions and education bureaucracies written into the bill are equally absurd.

Prop 87 Hell No with a Cherry on Top!
Commercials are running with both Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton telling me that the Earth hangs in the balance regarding the passage of this bill. If they are for it, then I know enough to be against it. This is another sin tax provision, but instead of sinful smokers being the target, it's sinful gas guzzlers. Innovations are needed, but funding those innovations through excessive taxation is a bad idea. Also, given the need, any viable solution will be created using private funding as a true solution to gas dependency will be a huge financial windfall. Be suspicious of government funding for programs that should be readily profitable if useful in the first place.

Prop 88 No.
Yet another, our schools are so poorly funded, let's screw somebody who makes up a minority of voters, measure. Send this one to defeat like all the others. Schools are underperforming, but they are not underfunded. Also, the biggest argument against this is that there are no state property taxes in California. That's a can of worms that should not be opened. If the funding is needed, find it elsewhere, don't create a whole new tax requiring a whole new bureaucracy to administer. This is idiotic in the extreme.

Prop 89 No.
Backed by a large public sector union, this measure tries to tilt the playing field more in favor of public sector unions and away from businesses, a bad idea in my opinion. It's disguised as a 'fair campaign' bill that raises the amount of public money available to candidates, but the devil is in the details, and the details are slimy, messy, and undemocratic. Campaign finance reform almost always ends up being incumbent protection measures, this one isn't any different.

Prop 90 Yes.
This is an anti-Kelo measure on steroids. Normally I'd be against this sort of thing. It encourages too much litigation, might have a huge impact on the state's ability to get things done, and will please lawyers more than regular folk. But, eminent domain has been abused in this state, should be strongly discouraged, and if a measure that overreaches slightly is the only way to make that happen, then a less than enthusiastic affirmative vote on this measure would seem to be in order. Everybody on both sides of the political map are lined up against this, and the only supporters are the grassroots folks who circulated the petition in the first place. Sometimes a victory by the grassroots is needed to shake things up. Likely to be overturned in court, but the message will have been sent.

Now, to all you politicians, you don't need to send any more crap my way, my mind is made up.

(and if you want, you can try to set all the above to music, It would have to be a long song, so maybe go with this one)

11 October 2006

Bulletin Board Material


It's a cliche in the sports world, bulletin board material. I guess it can happen in politics, too.

Will it effect the election?

Unlikely.

But . . . . . .