Winning through defeat
Friday October 27, 2006
Peggy Noonan today:A year ago I wrote a column called "A Separate Peace," in which I said America's leaders in all areas--government, business, journalism--were in some deep way checking out. They saw bad things coming in the world and for...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Peggy Noonan's Friday columns are, most of the time, priceless. I don't know if she's capable of banality or predictability.>
Having read this and the other entries over the last few days I'm surprised at the number of supposed conservatives so willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Let's get rid of all the Republicans, that'll show 'em. Of course that means allowing Pelosi and Reid to set the agenda for the next two years but so what, right. The Republicans "deserve to lose".
Of course that means that there will be no change in Iraq. The last thing the Dems want is an improvement in the Iraq situation before '08. If we are out of Iraq or the situation is stabalized it's good bye issue number 1. The only thing the Dems want to do is hold non stop hearings, the only pupose of which is to keep the political heat on Bush and the Republicans. This will not be oversight, it will be political grandstanding.
You can also forget any improvement in the judiciary as any candidate with the temerity to imply that Roe v Wade isn't holy writ will be sent packing. Judicial restraint will become an oxymoron.
Sorry but I don't see any up side to this protest vote. You want gridlock and probable impeachment be my guest. I'll continue to hope that Pelosi is minority leader come January.>
Actually, after several years of complete Republican control, I'm praying for a little gridlock...>
Be careful of what you hope for, you might get it.>
David, I seriously think gridlock wouldn't be a bad thing, if by "gridlock" we mean that the GOP Congress won't rubber-stamp Bush's spending, and vice versa, and if Democratic intransigence forces Bush to change course from the ongoing disaster in Iraq.>
I seriously think gridlock wouldn't be a bad thing, if by "gridlock" we mean that the GOP Congress won't rubber-stamp Bush's spending, and vice versa,
Rod, do you seriously believe the Democrats would slow down Federal spending?!? Think they're going to trim the fat from the No Child Ever Below Average Act? Or get rid of the prescription drug boondoggle?
Here's how it worked with Republicans in the White House and Democrats controlling Congress from 1981 through 1992: Democrats acquiesce in the defense spending proposed by the Administration in exchange for the President's acceptance of massive increases in domestic spending, particularly in entitlement programs.
On domestic programs, George W. Bush spends like a Democrat. I fail to see how that tendency would be curbed by surrounding him with liberal Democrats in Congress.>
I don't think the Democrats will force Bush to change course on Iraq for a couple of reasons. First, I don't think they can agree on an alternative course. It seems clear to me that the Dems, as a party (as opposed to individual democrats) don't have a plan for Iraq so there's no way they can lead or force a differnt approach. Second, as I said earlier, I don't think they want to do anything about Iraq before 08. If the dems win this time around it will be because of dissatisfaction with Bush, primarily because of the war and not because people suddenly believe that they have a better idea. If Iraq isn't an issue in 08 then the dems will have to run on their merits instead of the Presidents lack thereof.
I think the dems will use their control of the legislature to try to embarass Bush and the repubs rather than to pass their own agenda. They will propose legislation knowing, or at least hoping, that it will be defeated or vetoed so they can use it as a political weapon next time around. And they will refuse to pass anything that comes from the Whitehouse. As a result, we'll spend the next two years spinning our wheels while Iraq get worse rather than better, while homeland security is weakened, while illegal immigration is unchecked, and judicial appointments simply ignored. There's, unfortuntely, no way the Dems will work with Bush or the republicans on any of these issues.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.