Assuming the worst. What next?

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
The Democrats need to keep as many Senate seats as possible. If Rove delivers Bush a filibuster-proof Senate, it's all over.

This is what I personally forsee. In 2000 the Democrats had a pat hand, but had Bush and Rove draw the pair to go with their three of a kind and win the pot. In 2004 the deck is stacked against the Democrats in terms of likely Senate vacancies and vulnerable incumbents.

So assume that Rove delivers a filibuster proof Senate, and a 50 seat majority in the House, plus the White House. What will happen next and WHY?

J

 

[PresidentMike]

I would be surprised if they won a filibuster proof Senate. That's a lot of seats that they'd have to pick up.

 

[Ohwell]

If they DID, then the country would be well on its way to a one-party democracy, better known as fascism. But I highly doubt this would happen, there are too many opponents of the current admin to make it happen.

 

[Zarn]

If Bush gets a filibuster proof Senate and a 50 seat majority in the House, then I'm throwing a party and all of you are invited. Yeah, that should be the next event, unless rmsharpe throws a party first. *shrugs*

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Zarn
If Bush gets a filibuster proof Senate and a 50 seat majority in the House, then I'm throwing a party and all of you are invited. Yeah, that should be the next event, unless rmsharpe throws a party first. *shrugs*

What? No love for Nixon, the 1,000,000th poster?

Seriously, what is on the agenda that is not out front now? What is out front now, that willget the serious push? What do the Republicans, as apposed to the conservatives, want?

J

PS PM, its a debate topic. Assume and go from there. I did not say it was likely, but the disaster for the Democrats in 2000 wasnt likely either.

PPS

 

[JollyRoger]

Assuming elections are held in 2006 and 2008 (which might be an overly optimistic assumption in the posted scenario), Republican overreaching while having such power will inspire voters to take away the filibuster and narrow down the House edge. Tom DeLay was as giddy as a voucherless private schoolgirl in 2000 when they had the Oval Office, a Vice Presidential tiebreaker in the Senate and a narrow majority in the house. He thought the Republicans would be able to achieve their entire agenda with such a powerful mandate from the people. He thought wrong.

If you take away the threat of filibuster and give Delay enough of a margin not to have to resort to the Whip to get things done in the House, the Republicans will not even have to bluff about their hand. Unfortunately for them, they will be using Royal Flush poker strategies when the game has changed to solitaire. 52-card (or 52-seat) pick-up will be the new game in town come elections.

As for specific issues - well obviously no more wealth-based federal taxes (the dividend, capital gains, and estate taxes will all be cut to 0). Individual federal income tax will come almost entirely from wage-based rather than wealth-based endeavors. The Supreme Court will be packed with what they think are reliable Conservatives - but it needs to be realized that the majority of the current Supreme Court was appointed by Republican presidents. More soldiers dying in the Middle East as we continue to search for the shell that the WMD are hidden under. The President's nose will continue to grow in proportion with his warlust as Pinnochio'ed in each successive State of the Union address. A deficit that not even the next Clinton will be able to tame. The Wall Street Journal editiorial page will have nothing to criticize. All the cheerleading coming from that forum will make you think that they have moved from the sidelines on to postgame backseat action. The why in all of this is that there will be no effective opposition numbers-wise and these policies are the way of the Elephant.

 

[Titan2018]

Is'nt likely even in a worse case scenario for the 2004 election, as has been said that would take quite a few seats.

If the situation in mid-2004 is about the same as today (slupping economy, Iraq unresolved, largest budget deficets in history, etc) and at least a decent Democratic emerges (highly likely) then Bush's defeat is all but certain . There are simply too many policy decisions that he has messed up. I think that a major stike against him this time around is that he can't go with his "compasionate conservative" BS rutine. In the last election both Bush and Gore portrayed themselves as being much more centrist thean they really were. Bush will have real thouble with the all-important centrist vote in 2004 giving the Democrates a good chance. As for Congress, I don't know but any MAJOR political shifts between now and mid-2004 niether side is likely can a large majority.

In the worst case scenario (GOP landslide) I'd start considering overseas grad schools starting in fall 2005.

Zarn: Always remember that Jesus was a Die-Hard Liberal!

 

[metalhead]

For the first time, the Republican majority will demonstrate the dramatic success that a Republican government can deliver, and then blow it by letting their stupid religious moralizing get in the way.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by metalhead
For the first time, the Republican majority will demonstrate the dramatic success that a Republican government can deliver, and then blow it by letting their stupid religious moralizing get in the way.

Please

Religion isn't stupid. I agree that a Church based state is not good, but I think some 'religous' morals are needed in society. Society is going down the drain, IMHO.

 

[JollyRoger]

John Ashcroft will become the only person that you can legally share your bedroom with.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Zarn


Please

Religion isn't stupid. I agree that a Church based state is not good, but I think some 'religous' morals are needed in society. Society is going down the drain, IMHO.

I agree that religion is not stupid. It just has no place guiding the thoughts and actions of our leaders.

For example, right now in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, there is legislation pending, proposed by the Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, which would allow slot machines at racetracks, and expand gambling rights to allow casinos in a few places in the state.

Such a measure would raise billions in revenue for the Commonwealth that currently goes to New Jersey, West Virginia, and Delaware, among other states, and revive the racing industry in PA. But most Republicans in the state legislature, the so-called defenders of small government and individual freedom, oppose it for religiously moral reasons, i.e. their religion teaches that gambling is evil, so it should not be allowed.

Granted, there are other political motivations behind the opposition as well, but this is a clear case of personal moral beliefs guiding legislation that would be great for the people. Why should we be faced with ever-increasing property taxes, when the money could be raised other ways? Aren't Republicans supposed to be against raising taxes? Yet they oppose a measure which would greatly reduce the Commonwealth's reliance on tax revenue for religiously moral reasons, and it's this kind of crap that I'm talking about.

Republicans have a habit of putting religious morals ahead of everything else when legislating, and it's simply unacceptable. Your morals don't apply to me, no matter what your Bible says. Allow me to sin by gambling, and live your life as sin-free as possible, knowing you'll be safe in heaven whilst I burn in hell. Christianity got it all wrong when they came up with the idea of prostheltysing and mission work. It's not your job to save me from my sins - it's my job to look out for myself.

 

[Octavian X]

It's still 2003. Elections are a year away. The political world is very volitile - take my word for it, circumstances will change by the time election day rolls around. Considering the economy, battlefield Iraq, and the massive federal defeciet, things will change.

Then again, perhaps I'm being optimistic and we're headed for the world of Orwell's 1984. I dunno.

 

[Toasty]

Then I make a long-postponed migration to my true political homeland in Canada .

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Ohwell
If they DID, then the country would be well on its way to a one-party democracy, better known as fascism. But I highly doubt this would happen, there are too many opponents of the current admin to make it happen.

We've been through longer sustained periods of a single party in power, often with much greater majorities than Jayhawk has in mind, yet that result has never come close to materializing. There is no reason to expect it to now.

The divided government that has become the norm is actually quite a recent development in our political history. Usually it has been one party in firm control of all branches, and momentum would drag one in power over 15-20 years, then the other would regain the advantage as new issues emerged they would grab ahold of.

I think by election time there will be nowhere near enough vulnerable Democratic seats for Republicans to gain a majority. As with any party of coalition interests, once the 'enemy' (that is the Democrats) become marginalized infighting will begin as each want there backseat agenda to become the top priority.

Recall recently the 1992-4 Congressional/Presidential relationship; when Clinton came into office, the Congressional Democrats thought they finally have a Democrat president and can now run the show, but Clinton had his own agenda and they weren't at all in tune. A few very quiet (as they always are) party scuffles later and agenda pushing was drawn to a standstill.

 

[Stile]

@Metalhead: Good example, except that gambling is evil (not just by religious standards). Despite a tough economy the lottery revenues increased here in Georgia by 6% in the past 12 months to over $2.6 billion. Most of the lottery revenues go to education, but to Hope scholarships that are not means based. Face it, it is a tax on the poor (as they are the typical players).

How much freedom do you want when it comes to addictive vices such as gambling and drugs? Should the taxpayers be forced by the state to provide for the family of an addict because he lost or spent his rent or food money? Yeah, the state can tax the activity and make loads of money like they do with cigarettes, but it is still destructive to many people's lives. Not every gambler is irresponsible as not every smoker dies of cancer, but the price to regulate it and aid its victims is not worth it in my opinion. The next time you go to Atlantic city, walk a few blocks off the strip and you'll see the cost there.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by metalhead

Republicans have a habit of putting religious morals ahead of everything else when legislating, and it's simply unacceptable. Your morals don't apply to me, no matter what your Bible says. Allow me to sin by gambling, and live your life as sin-free as possible, knowing you'll be safe in heaven whilst I burn in hell. Christianity got it all wrong when they came up with the idea of prostheltysing and mission work. It's not your job to save me from my sins - it's my job to look out for myself.

Amen brother preach on!

I think the democrates still have a good chance in 2004. People are noticing the unemployment and the unresolved Iraq situation. If things stay the way they are now I believe 2004 will be a donkey victory.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Titan2018

Zarn: Always remember that Jesus was a Die-Hard Liberal!

Something so many christains forget.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by andrewgprv


Something so many christains forget.

Some of them forget a great many things about JC!

And how is the Democrats getting power, 'the worst'?

 

[Titan2018]

And how is the Democrats getting power, 'the worst'?

It's not. That would be the best out come of 2004. The worst would be a major gain for the Republicans.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by JollyRoger
As for specific issues - well obviously no more wealth-based federal taxes (the dividend, capital gains, and estate taxes will all be cut to 0). Individual federal income tax will come almost entirely from wage-based rather than wealth-based endeavors.

I am all for the 0% tax on estates and reduced taxes on dividend. Estate taxes are murder on farmers and small business owners, which IMO are the backbone of the country. Reducing dividends and capital gains might even increase tax revenue, because very little, as a %, revenue comes in this way anyway, and there would be more taxable transactions.

Originally posted by JollyRoger
The Supreme Court will be packed with what they think are reliable Conservatives - but it needs to be realized that the majority of the current Supreme Court was appointed by Republican presidents. More soldiers dying in the Middle East as we continue to search for the shell that the WMD are hidden under.

This is true 5-4 IIRC, although a couple justices expected to be conservative have not voted that way. WMD in Iraq is another thread. Regardless, conservative justices are LESS likely to change the law. That's what conservative means. In law the opposite of conservative is activist. I would guess that Bush will appoint at least one Justice, probably hispanic and posibly female. The hispanic part comes from the number of hispanic legal minds already included in his staff.

Originally posted by JollyRoger
The Wall Street Journal editiorial page will have nothing to criticize. All the cheerleading coming from that forum will make you think that they have moved from the sidelines on to postgame backseat action. The why in all of this is that there will be no effective opposition numbers-wise and these policies are the way of the Elephant.

You say that as if the WSJ was a conservative paper. Its not for the record. Many of their pro-business opinions sit better with the Republicans than the Democrats, but across the spectrum of politics, the WSJ is centrist, definitely left of Bush though not much. This is like saying Fox is right wing. It only looks that way from the left.

But what of specifics? What is the the AGENDA of the Right Wing? What do they want?

J