November 11, 2005

Sobering Reminder - UPDATE (twice!) and bump

Hatched by Dafydd

UPDATE: See below.

Just a few days ago, in a stunning victory, the Senate voted to approve drilling in a microscopic sliver of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Today, we have this news:

Arctic drilling dropped from House bill
It could still return when, if Senate and House negotiate budget

House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

"But wait!" you cry, "we have the majority! How could the Democrats block drilling in the House, where there is no filibustering?"

Oh, that's easy:

The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill. The offshore drilling provision was also viewed as too contentious and a threat to the bill, especially in the Senate.

This is the point that I think a lot of conservatives miss when they savagely swarm-attack George W. Bush for not ramming through more conservative legislation: the fact is that while Bush has had a Republican majority in both houses since 2003, he has not had a conservative majority in either house of Congress for his entire administration. Given that serious limitation, he has done staggeringly well; and that also explains why he must often compromise or bargain -- such as with his immigration proposal and the MediCare prescription-drug benefit --rather than maintaining absolute purity on all ideological issues (were he even inclined to do so).

It also explains why George Bush is the president and not someone like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

There is still a good shot at getting drilling in ANWR; since the Senate voted for it, if Sen. Frist (R-TN) has picked senators for the joint conference who insist upon it, and if Hastert picks representatives who support it or don't care, they may reinsert it... and once it's been approved by the joint committee, it's much harder for the fourteen Republican defectors in the House to prevent its passage.

Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said that Domenici considers the ANWR provision, which the Senate approved, “one of the most critical components” in the budget package. “He is committed to coming back to the Senate from the conference with ANWR intact,” she said.

But please bear this in mind for the next three plus years: unless more conservatives are elected to Congress in 2006, it will be impossible to get a "conservative agenda" through... not because Bush isn't a good leader or isn't trying hard enough, but because leading Congress is like herding cats: you can only take them wherever they planned to go anyway.

UPDATE: And now, the House has canceled the vote on the budget bill entirely! It seems that even after getting their way on ANWR drilling, those same House "moderate" Republicans demanded that budget reductions stay away from Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other entitlement programs.

I have no idea where they imagine significant cuts can come from if both entitlement programs and necessary military spending are off the table... so the only two possibilities are that these "moderates" want Bush to slash money meant to pay for anti-terrorism and nation-rebuilding operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else we're engaged in the world -- or else they want him to balance the budget by some huge tax hike on "the rich," which (if the usual definition is used) typically means any family making more than $35,000 per year.

What did I tell you?

They hope to reschedule the vote for sometime next week, after the holiday weekend (God forbid the congressional darlings have to work on a Saturday)... but nobody is holding his breath.

UPDATE II: John at Power Line has an interesting alternative take on what all these shenanigans tell us.

But I still like mine better.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 11, 2005, at the time of 12:26 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/202

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Bullington

There is one and only one way to prevent this sort of outrage in the future--and it isn't by electing more conservatives to Congress. We've been electing conservatives to Congress. They aren't listening.

If any significant minority of voters who usually donate to the GOP or to Republican candidates choose instead to donate to the Democrat opponents of these "moderates," in the next election cycle, the "moderates" will all lose their seats.

This will only have to be done once. Even GOP leaders are smart enough to get this message.

Brett Bullington

The above hissed in response by: Bullington [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2005 6:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Bullington:

If any significant minority of voters who usually donate to the GOP or to Republican candidates choose instead to donate to the Democrat opponents of these "moderates," in the next election cycle, the "moderates" will all lose their seats.

This will only have to be done once. Even GOP leaders are smart enough to get this message.

Yup, "the "moderates" will all lose their seats"...to Democrats!

Yeah, that'll help bring about a conservative agenda: more Democrats in Congress.

Care to explain how this is good for conservatives? To replace moderate Republicans, who sometimes vote with the conservatives and always caucus with the Republicans, maintaining control of the crucial committees with moderate or liberal Democrats who never vote with the conservatives and who caucus with the Democrats... doesn't seem at first blush to be optimal strategy.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2005 8:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

This had sure better be part of a strategy to get it in the final form of the bill.
The nation is being damaged by the extremists preventing reasonable development of our national resources. We are paying higher prices and are more vulberable due directly to actions by the people who intimidated the House into doing this irresponsible action.
We must keep the real enemy in sight: the ones doing the log rolling.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2005 8:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Sad, but oh so true, Dafydd.

Our congresscritters, for the most part, care not for solutions that work. They care for 'solutions' that give them opportunities to grandstand and enact policies that prolong misery.

D or R doesn't seem to make a difference...a socialist is a socialist. Not only do we need to elect conservatives/libertarians, we need term limits and session limits, backed by eliminating congressional salaries. Congresscritters must continue their previous jobs and only get 14 days to pass a budget and any truly necessary legislation (generally, this will be none at all). In an emergency, the President could call them back into a maximum of 5 day special session.

I know, that'll never happen; but one can dream, can't one :).

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2005 11:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: dude1394

It's kind of shocking to see the republican leadership playing this "game" the way the democrats want it. By targeting specific budget items the representative sees nothing but a lose-lose proposition.

1. His constituents figure he's not bringing home the bacon, and no matter WHAT we say we want our congressmen to bring home the bacon.
2. By naming the particular budget cut, it gives the MSM and the Democrats(redundant, I know) a campaign issue to spin. Starving the children, making homeless our seniors, etc.,etc..

The only way to play this game is with across-the-board budget cuts, it's the only way. Just pass a 1% across-the-board cut. What is the MSMDems going to say about it? Too big, not enough, etc.etc. It gives the congressmen cover in their own district and allows them to say (honestly) that they are reigning in spending. It's like the base closing, you have to get individual congressment out of the process.

The above hissed in response by: dude1394 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 8:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bullington

Dafydd,

"Yup, "the "moderates" will all lose their seats"...to Democrats!"

Precisely. Positively ruthless, isn't it?

"Care to explain how this is good for conservatives?"

Certainly. We now have a Republican caucus ignoring the Conservative voters who placed them in power. They are not listening to us. They will not begin to listen to us so long as they are able to maintain their positions of power by caving to the RINO minority in the caucus.

The only way to get the attention of these jerks is to very selectively throw the rascals out.

Seeing their erstwhile "moderate" compadres working for a living like the rest of us will have a salutory effect on the Republicans who remain in office. They will know beyond any doubt that they can retain power only by advancing Conservative policies--as they promised us they would.

If you believe, as I do, that a principled Conservatism can actually gain the support of the majority of voters, then surely you would agree that ousting these stinking RINO's would be of great benefit to Conservatism in the longer term.

Brett Bullington


The above hissed in response by: Bullington [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 4:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: ShoreMark

"...ousting these stinking RINO's would be of great benefit to Conservatism in the longer term."


I see your point exactly Bullington and reached the same conclusion myself earlier today. Better to throw a scare into them and get the votes, in the 2-6 year interim, from their Dem replacements that they themselves would have cast anyway.

The above hissed in response by: ShoreMark [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 5:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: ShoreMark

P.S. Bullington,

Of course, the preferable first choice is to support a solid Republican against the incumbents to get them out that way, but failing that, the Dem/Indy option would have to be invoked.

The above hissed in response by: ShoreMark [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 5:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

But I still like mine better.

You egotistical maniac!!! Grin

The Environmental Lobby is quite strong, and is often underestimated. They don’t allow wood (even dead) or lumber (even dead) to be taken from forests, and yet allow forests to burn each year from an excess of dead wood. That is power!!!

The Environmental Lobby is stronger than that. With the whole world (especially Americans) complaining about the price of oil, the Congress dragged the Oil Companies before them this week. The Congress did not understand basic math, laid out clearly by the Oil Company reps, and the Congress is smarter than their electoral base. The Congress seems to understand votes only when it comes to math, and the electoral base seems to have problems adding ‘1 + 1’. ANWR is just the tip of the iceberg of an infinite *ICEBERG* of Oil that America owns, yet the Environmental Lobby can stop Americans from accessing their own Oil, and force dependency for Oil to foreign sources. That is power. Far too many Americans are left screaming and crying about the price of oil, and yet they continue to allow the Environmental Lobby to lead them around by the noses whilst they continue to support the Environmental Lobby.

Would you spend your money to build a Nuclear Power Plant in America??? Would you spend your money to build a new oil refinery in America??? i would not spend a dime here in America under such ridiculous rules. Fact is, Americans are lucky that the Oil Companies still import oil into America...i would not import a drop of oil into America, unless i was paid $100 for a gallon of gasoline!!!

American politicians ain’t the problem...nor is the Environmental Lobby...nor are the Oil Companies. American voters are the problem. Humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me might be new to Politics, but i am not new at spotting the source of problems or even the weaknesses that stem from problems.

Before closing...“Raise Taxes”. Raising Taxes means raising them on the “Rich”. Dafydd mentioned a “huge tax hike”. Dig this:

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003.

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

If there needs to be a Tax increase, then that increase needs to be placed upon the 50% who are only paying like 3.46% of the Tax burden.

Dafydd also mentions that one possibility might be “to slash money meant to pay for anti-terrorism and nation-rebuilding operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else we're engaged in the world”. Clinton already tried that one, as in cutting the payroll to Intel and the Military, and the Terrorists destroyed the WTC. America needs to be pruned...down to say, say 25% of its population...so to speak. Even whilst engaged in a War, the Democrat Party continues to support the Enemy whilst playing Political Games. The Republican Party caves in at each step whilst fearing the screams and crying of their supporters. Yes, trimmed down to 25% or less sounds fair.

KårmiÇømmünîs†


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 6:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Bullington:

If you believe, as I do, that a principled Conservatism can actually gain the support of the majority of voters, then surely you would agree that ousting these stinking RINO's would be of great benefit to Conservatism in the longer term.

Yes. If I did, then I would.

In fact -- you too, ShoreMark -- what really happens whenever this scheme is tried is that the state shifts leftward, the voters get more comfortable with the Left, and a bluish state becomes bright, shiny Magritte Blue.

We tried that plan on a national scale in 1992: conservatives sat home and didn't vote, because GHWB didn't keep his word about taxes. And we got eight years of Clinton, national security was wiped out, the CIA was crippled, we got 9/11, corporate scandals, and a recession.

So of course, the people must, under your scenario, have turned hard right... right?

The election in 2000 was as dead even as it's possible to get; and the 2004 election, with an incumbent, was pretty much even Steven as well. Republicans picked up a few seats in the Senate, but that's because Republican power rests in a bunch of small states, instead of a few big states, so the Senate is set up perfectly for the GOP. In the House, the Republicans have a significantly smaller majority than they did after the 1994 election: Democrats gained in 1996, 1998, and 2000; Republicans made slight gains in 2002 and 2004.

You know -- that doesn't very much resemble your fantasy scenario, where a few years of Democratic rule turn the people into "principled Conservatives," does it? They look as divided today as they did during the president's father's administration, before Bill Clinton.

Seems to me we paid the heavy price -- eight years of Clinton -- to purchase no significant rightward movement at all.

So thanks, but no thanks, for your kind offer to do it again.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 7:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: ShoreMark

Dafydd ab Hugh said:

In fact -- you too, ShoreMark -- what really happens whenever this scheme is tried is that the state shifts leftward, the voters get more comfortable with the Left, and a bluish state becomes bright, shiny Magritte Blue.
I agree, and wholeheartedly so, that it is not an ideal tactic, but if those that claim to be Reps vote like Dems, aren't we already effectively there anyway? i.e. Absent backlash, in words threatening action if necessary, they'll continue to think they can get away with pretending to be Reps with impunity.

I don't really want them gone either, rather, I want them to act like they're in the majority, something they seem wont to avoid at all costs. If they continue in that vein, then it should cost them, even it costs us (in illusion only) in the short-term.

The above hissed in response by: ShoreMark [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 9:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: ShoreMark

P.S. Dafydd ab Hugh,

I also don't share your fear of more Magritte Blue states as a result of holding the elected accountable. When you examine the county maps of the existing Magritte Blue states, it turns out that its only cities, not entire states that fall into that category; with the Red pushing distinctively up to the city limits.

Our, collective, refusal to support those that aren't fulfilling their mandate, should not, and I think will not, translate into a return to the cataclysmic result you fear.

The above hissed in response by: ShoreMark [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2005 10:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

1992 did give us a solid GOP opposition to tax hikes ever since; the increasing majorities built around the success of the Contract with America, and opposition to health care among other headon challenges to Clintonian liberalism, shows that conservatism is not a dead duck.

Furthermore we are not proposing an exact repeat of 1992, where we nominated a turncoat for the general election and went down in flames. We're proposing we jettison lousy incumbents in the primaries--where their defeat still means a Republican contender on the ballot.

Put labels like "conservative" and "moderate" aside...you have a policy--ANWR exploitation-- you want to see enacted. Incumbent Republicans are blocking it. You can either renounce the policy goal, re-elect the same opponents and expect them to reverse themselves, or support Republican challengers who will enact your policy. Which do you prefer?

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 2:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

ShoreMark:

I agree, and wholeheartedly so, that it is not an ideal tactic, but if those that claim to be Reps vote like Dems, aren't we already effectively there anyway? i.e. Absent backlash, in words threatening action if necessary, they'll continue to think they can get away with pretending to be Reps with impunity.

"Lightswitch" reasoning.

They sometimes vote like Dems; but they sometimes vote like Republicans, too. And in particular, they caucus with the GOP and vote GOP in the organizing votes -- which is what determines who chairs the committee, who gets elected Majority Leader or Speaker of the House, and so forth.

If they're replaced by actual Democrats, then you get people who always vote against us and who vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader and Nancy Pelolsi as Speaker. That is nearly always worse.

The only time when the party must turn on a member and work to defeat him is if he starts voting against the party on "party votes." Party votes are those very few in which the leadership states up front that the membership has no choice: these include (for the Republicans) critical national-security votes, bedrock domestic or foreign votes (these are very, very rare) -- and of course any and all organizational votes.

That is, if Lincoln Chafee were to vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader, then the party must work to defeat him, even if it means we get a Democrat there instead... party members cannot be allowed to flout party votes.

But if he just votes against the GOP position on half the issues, but not on party votes, then it's better to keep him than replace him with a Democrat.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 10:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

1992 did give us a solid GOP opposition to tax hikes ever since; the increasing majorities built around the success of the Contract with America, and opposition to health care among other headon challenges to Clintonian liberalism, shows that conservatism is not a dead duck.

Yeah? Who was the next GOP nominee after Bush I fell?

Yell, you cannot make every vote a party vote. This isn't a parliamentary democracy. If you do, the very concept of "party vote" loses meaning, and the liberal members cease feeling bound to vote with the party on party votes.

It would be a disaster to turn on members whenever they oppose the policy of the main branch of the party. Only when the violation is so egregious as to pass all bounds of decency.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 10:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

I remember a conservative political cartoon from the Orange County Register in 1996. It showed a Dole/Kemp button, with "dole" in 8pt type and KEMP in 32pt boldface.
Dole was not seen as the conservative champion...

So are you giving up on drilling in ANWR, or just hoping the same people vote differently next time? How will you pressure them to change--by letting them know you sympathize and would never abandon them over something like ANWR, or by letting them know that ANWR drilling is one reason you supported them before, and would affect your support in 2006?

It's not just ANWR that burns me.
A growing number of Republican voters are starting to notice that our agenda shrinks right after we win a bigger majority. It's not just the election, either; the agenda didn't shrink when we kept securing minority status. Only when we win more decisive advantages do we give up on stated goals without a fight...

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2005 1:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

So are you giving up on drilling in ANWR, or just hoping the same people vote differently next time? How will you pressure them to change--by letting them know you sympathize and would never abandon them over something like ANWR, or by letting them know that ANWR drilling is one reason you supported them before, and would affect your support in 2006?

1. The same people may well vote differently: once the bill goes to the joint Senate-House conference committee, the Senate side will likely reinsert drilling in ANWR, along with dropping the federal ban on drilling in the Gulf and the Pacific (those are very big items among the Republican senators). When it returns to the House, the pressure will be enormous to vote out the whole bill, since the only alternative is to reject the budget entirely.

It's very, very rare that the bill back from the joint committee is rejected, even if items are inserted that were rejected by one or another of the houses. We don't need all the "moderate" Republicans... just a few. It will likely be restored -- but it's not a guarantee.

2. You pressure just like you do in any negotiation: they have lots of things they want; you find something that's more important to them than ANWR, and if it's less important to you than ANWR, you play Monty Hall.

That's how Congress has always worked, like it or lump it.

3. If worse comes to worst, you can try to bump them off in the primary; but remember your Machiavelli: if you strike at the king, you must slay him.

To attempt to defeat a sitting congressman or senator of your own party either in the primary or the general, and to fail to do so, is far, far worse than not trying at all: you will have made an enemy for life. He may well turn his coat, and you lose a seat without even being able to fight for it. And worse than a normal Democrat, with whom the GOP can by and large deal, even today, you would have a Democrat who would see you in hell before he would compromise or make a deal on anything at all.

Them's the breaks, Yell; this is the political reality we live in. But the Democrats swim in the same ocean, and they manage much better at maintaining the party line.

What Man has done, Man can aspire to do; if they can show some party discipline, Republicans can learn to do so, too. There is nothing dishonorable about it; and it actually benefits the minority viewpoint within the caucus, because you need other members to enact your own agenda items.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2005 2:14 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved