The Political Universe 07.11.06
Posted by Jason Easley on 07.11.2006
Condi for President in 2008...seriously? Plus, I give you a recap of the year that Congress has had so far, and be sure to vote on this week's poll question.
The Congress that can't pass anything
How bad have things gotten for the Republican majority in Congress? The House GOP tried to pass a bill before the 4th of July recess that would have protected the words "under GOD" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenges. This is the first item on the GOP's campaign platform for this November's election called the American Values Agenda. This should be a slam dunk, right?
Wrong, the bill could not even make it out of committee, and it was not the Democrats fault. Republican Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina voted no, and 7 other Republicans on the committee completely blew off the meeting. It has really gotten that bad. Since Tom DeLay left the power, and the President's popularity has fallen like a rock, Republicans in Congress have started to fragment and in fight. It turns out that without an iron fist like DeLay's to keep everyone in line, Republicans aren't much better than Democrats at agreeing with each other.
It is not unusual for a Congress to be very unproductive during an election year. Politicians, by nature, run away from any issue that could come back to bite them in November. What makes this Congress different from any other election year session is that they have passed virtually nothing of meaning this year. We are passed the 2/3 point in the year's legislative calendar and Congress has passed two major pieces of legislation. They renewed the Patriot Act, and passed $70 billion in tax cuts, most of which are aimed at investors.
The Congress had hoped to pass a plan to protect the private pensions of 44 million Americans, immigration reform, and an extension of the Voting Rights Act. The postponement of the extension of the Voting Rights Act was a particularly stinging defeat. The extension of the Act was supported by leaders of both parties and President Bush. Republicans had hoped to pass it a year before it expires in order to inoculate themselves against charges of racism.
The Act was derailed by Southern Republicans who objected to a requirement that the Justice Department continue to oversee voting practices in the South. Other Republicans complained about bilingual ballots being made available to places with large immigrant populations. Even with these objections, House leaders may still try to bring it up this week. Neither the House nor the Senate was able to agree on an ethics reform bill, so it too is dead.
The issue that stands out as the biggest example of Congress' inability to accomplish anything is immigration. As you may know the House passed it's version of immigration reform, and the Senate passed theirs. Both sides should go into conference committee and reconcile their differences on the two bills. In other words, they sit down and work out one common final bill that they both agree on. This is how the legislative process works. It is normal for each body to have some differences in their bills. What is not normal is that the House has refused to give up their enforcement heavy immigration bill.
They have gone to the extreme lengths of defying their President, who by the way supports the Senate version of the bill, and holding public hearings around the country trying to raise support for their bill. The House's big problem with the Senate and President's proposal is the inclusion of a guest worker program, and the ability for current illegal immigrants to someday become citizens. The House essentially wants to make illegal immigration a felony and build a giant fence along the nation's Southern border.
It is almost unprecedented for one party to control both bodies of Congress and the White House and be unable to agree on anything to this degree. Part of the problem is that President Bush has either ignored the Congress or treated them with contempt for his entire presidency. He seems to think that Congress can't be trusted with anything, so he constantly keeps secrets from them, and rarely does he listen to anything they have to say. He treats Congress like an inferior body and they resent it. This is why the Congress does not listen to the President. They ignored him on immigration, they ignored him on the Voting Rights Act, and they ignored him on cutting spending.
The Democrats are campaigning on the idea that they should be given control of Congress because they can do a better job. Honestly, it is hard to see how anyone could do a worse job. This Congress is only interested in keeping the war going and passing tax cuts. I believe that it might be better for everyone if Republicans lost control of Congress. President Bush would have someone to fight with and blame. The Democrats could bring some fresh ideas to the table, and maybe congressional Republicans would be shocked back into doing their jobs.
I don't understand how any member of Congress can go back to their districts or states and look voters in the eye and say that they deserve to be sent back to Washington. They have done nothing about the major issues of Iraq, the economy, and gas prices. If they were not passing a tax cut or spending more tax payer money on pork projects, then they were caught up in ethics scandals. If there was ever a time to clean house in both political parties, it is right now. Both parties are corrupt, flawed, and devoid of leadership. It would be a refreshing change to have a Congress that governed for all the people, not just themselves.
Condi for President
I'll admit right off the top that I don't get some people's infatuation with Condoleezza Rice. Yes, she is Secretary of State, and she is a black woman serving in a Republican administration, but does this alone make her a viable candidate? She is probably the only person in the Bush administration who could someday be a presidential candidate. Polls show that her approval rating is in the 60% range, while Bush and company are mired in the 30's.
Some Republicans have started a pro-Condi in '08 movement online. For her part, Rice has not ruled the idea of running for president someday out. There is only one problem with Rice. She can't win. The reason why her poll numbers are so high is because no one knows what she stands for. She has been able to play a supporting role in this administration without having to face scrutiny. Rice supports the Bush Doctrine, and the idea of regime change. She describes herself as "mildly pro-choice," but besides this very little is known about her positions on social issues.
Let me put this in a very easy to understand way, right now she is even less qualified to be President than Hillary Clinton. Rice has never run for or held elective office. She has no domestic policy experience, and it seems that she would be being put out there by the Republican Party because she is black and a woman. If she were a white man, she would be deemed unqualified by the majority of voters. Are Republicans really that desperate to stop Hillary that they would nominate their own unqualified woman to go against her?
Is the talk about Rice, more an expression of dissatisfaction with McCain? My opinion on Condi Rice is that she should, after her time as Secretary of State is up, go run for Congress or a governorship. If she wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, she has to get some experience. I read some speculation about her as a potential running mate for McCain in 2008. I don't see the value in having her on the ticket. She is a direct link to the wildly unpopular war in Iraq. She would give McCain credibility with Bush supporters, but connecting him the administration like this would be the quickest path to defeat for the GOP in 2008.
To me, all this Condi talk is just a sign of how weak the GOP field is for 2008. Except for McCain, all the heavyweights are on the Democratic side of the ticket. Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards all will have big campaign war chests and are already known to voters. I can't see Rice competing in this kind of environment on the biggest stage. The way it is shaping up right now, whoever wins the election will probably take the nation away from the far right policies of the Bush administration, and back towards the middle. Except for her race and gender, I can see no reason why Condi Rice should even be included in this discussion. This doesn't mean that I am counting her out forever, just that now isn't her time.
This week's poll question
This week's poll question asks you what will be the outcome of the 2006 elections. In case you have not voted, please do so. The voting right now is very close. If you have anything that you wish to talk about, or get off your mind, you should e-mail me.
Joe Rivett is back in the house, and he has brought the Rivett Report with him too.
Fact or Fiction Week 9 is a really good one. I mean really good, so good that if either of these guys wanted a column, I could finally fire Crow. (I wouldn't really fire him. I would reassign him to our new column, The Compassionate Conservative. Can you imagine the hours of fun that would be?)
Speaking of Crow, in answer to your question, you really are the the ugly American. In contrast, I am the pretty American. Radulich is the cranky American. Joe is the independent American. Josh is the gung-ho American. Justin is the young American. Ray is the displaced American. Brian is the angry American. Toby is the abducted American, and poor D.S. isn't even American.
Ray Church dives into the unseemly world of punditry. I would tell you to go read it, but I'll bet you already have.
We have once again reached the end of another column. But fear not, because I will be back with more political news on Friday. Until then, here are a few funny quotes:
"Well, I really think he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all." --Rep. Charlie Rangel, when asked what he thought about President Bush.
"Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot." --Jon Stewart, hosting the Peabody Awards
STAY CURRENT