Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, November 13, 2006
Post-thumpin' politics
By Michael Barone
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


The "thumpin'" that the Republican Party received last week will make profound changes in policymaking in Washington and in presidential politics. On the policy side, we have already seen something in the nature of parliamentary government: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lacked the confidence of the new congressional majority and promptly resigned. George W. Bush and Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi both expressed a hitherto indiscernible desire to work together, either out of conviction or out of calculation that it was in their interest to do so.

Democrats, having won a small majority in the House and a paper-thin one in the Senate, now visibly share the responsibility for governance, and we can expect for a time less of the scathing rhetoric they routinely deployed. Bush clearly hopes to yoke the Democrats in support of a common changed approach to Iraq.

On domestic policy, there will be constant negotiations between congressional leaders and Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman, complete with veto threats -- much like those between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. One can foresee areas of agreement. Bush will concede a fig-leaved minimum wage. On immigration, House Democrats and a solid Senate majority favor the Bush approach blocked by House Republicans. Advancing alternative fuels is another possibility. Some Democrats want tax-free savings vehicles for lower-paid workers -- which sounds a lot like the individual investment accounts Bush proposed for Social Security. On some issues, there will be no agreement -- tax reform, probably. But big issues have been addressed in the past by divided governments.

In the process, Bush is decoupling himself from the Republican Party. House Republicans, with little chance to affect outcomes, will be mostly ignored, as House Democrats were under Clinton.

Senate Republicans, with the leverage of filibuster threats, will be brought into the loop. But congressional Republicans will be on their own in setting a course for 2008.

As for presidential politics, we are still in an era of roughly even division between the parties. In the five House elections from 1996 to 2004, both parties received between 46 percent and 51 percent of the popular vote; final 2006 results are not in, but if they're outside this narrow range, it won't be by much.

Bill Clinton tried to create a natural majority for his party but fell short. George W. Bush attempted the same for his party but has also missed the mark. The 2002 and '04 Republican majorities were too small to withstand the winds of 2006.

For a dozen years, our politics has been bitterly polarized, dominated by two baby boomer presidents who happen to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe. Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2000 both made genuine efforts to run as unifiers, but once in office proved to be dividers.

The 2008 cycle will bring a different cast of characters. The leaders in the polls -- Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton -- all are, to varying degrees, in tension with their parties' bases. That suggests that they have the capacity, to varying degrees, to appeal across the cultural divide and pull their parties above the 51 percent ceilings they've been under for the past 10 years. Other potential candidates -- Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama -- may have similar potential. The culturally conservative Republican base and the vitriolically antiwar Democratic base don't seem to have strong candidates, unless you count Al Gore and John Edwards.

For the next two years, political governance and presidential politics seem likely to proceed on two separate tracks, with little relation between them. House and Senate Democratic leaders may want to avoid confrontation on issues that will put their presidential candidates on the defensive. Bush seems less likely to worry about the effect of his decisions on possible Republican nominees.

That leaves the initiative on setting a post-Bush agenda to the presidential candidates of both parties. They start off closely matched. Pollster Scott Rasmussen, whose final Senate numbers were spot on, shows Hillary Clinton trailing John McCain 48 percent to 43 percent and tied 46 percent to 46 percent with Rudolph Giuliani. Democrats may have thumped Republicans last week, but the political future is very much up for grabs.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Barone is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation's Future.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Michael Barone's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: New day, new forums to conquer...
But for Salt... Finally you have made your point in a way that I completely agree. I thought we were talking across each other instead of to each other. Where you are saying we need government action to get government out of the way, the confusion for everybody is that most of us equal government action with government becoming more obtrusive. By all means lets eliminate obstructive regulations and disincentives for charities that want to help and individuals that would otherwise be willing to work. While I would support the fair tax plan, I do still have some issue with reallocating federal funds to private institutions vs just eliminating the funding all together, but that is really a detail. I'm not sure it will be any more popular to eliminate restrictive regulations than to cut spending, but who knows. It was an enjoyable discussion, but your last examples if presented earlier would have avoided much of the argument. Thank you.

and for Scooter... Abortion is a single issue and I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I work to discourage abortion with persuasion. I don't have the audience or bully pulpit that somebody like Oprah or a president has. I will not break one law (e.g. assault or murder) to prevent what I believe is moral crime. But I will not condone it, participate in it, and do not want to fund it with my taxes, though either. Some forms of action are easier than others. For example, I stopped donating to United Way years ago when they abandoned the Boy Scouts and continued to support Planned Parenthood. I give as much in charity as ever, but I direct it myself. It is more work for me, but it is a matter of principle. I suppose if I was completely principled, I would withhold a percentage of my tax obligation that corresponds to government spending on things that are against my faith and principles, but I have not taken that step yet. But when discussing abortion, I am open to considering different possibilities. One I have run across that works well for me is to create a parallel between murder and abortion. When there is no intent, then we charge the perp with manslaughter and an accidental abortion such as an assault on a pregnant woman that results in the death of the child could be the parallel. We also have 1st degree and 2nd degree murder that differentiate between crimes with premeditation and those that have other considerations like the particularly heinous murders or ones involving mentally incompetent and such. I would call partial birth abortions, what they are, namely first degree murder. Abortions for reasons of incest, rape, or possibly even severe defect might receive a lesser degree. But I remind you of at least two examples of people who were/are glad to be alive in spite of serious defect. Think of Helen Keller and Steven Hawking when you ever get the notion to consider abortion or euthanasia and ask if they would support it or if we as a society would be better off if they had simply been aborted or euthanized. The usual argument is that they are 1 in a million, but who is to say which other defective will be the next one in a million. The other thing I would do is charge the mother, not with murder, but with soliciting murder. Again, there could be degrees and extenuating circumstances, but the parallel is with somebody who hires a killer. I am opposed to the day after drug and similar post conception birth control techniques, because life is life and it is blessed. But here is where I could be open to persuasion. While life clearly begins at conception, there is a period of time when it really isn't human. Does a fertilized egg have a soul? I don't know and neither does anybody else. But I do know that pretty quickly the embryo does become a human life as cells begin to differentiate. I do know that at this point in my life I am not willing to play God and would prefer to err on the side of caution and simply outlaw abortion all together. Still the bottom line for me is that there has been something missing in a mother's life if she is willing to kill a life growing inside of her and before that if she was willing to get herself fertilized with no concern for the consequences and no intention or desire to have a child. This isn't the Dark Ages, after all. As an adoptive and foster parent, I have run into people over the years who have yearned to adopt all kinds of children that some liberal elite would consider simply a waste of tissue. No child need be aborted under any circumstance and no woman needs to get pregnant if she prefers not.

God this is a tired argument
"Median household income tells the same tale of woe. Median incomes have declined every year Bush has been in office and are now 3.8% ($1740) below the 1999 level (4). Quite an accomplishment for a president who thinks tax cuts for the wealthy will make us rich."

Lets see how that stupid comment works out: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%. So when cuts are made to taxes -- who else but the rich benefit? They are also the ones who create jobs, and provide products and services. Oh and they are the ones paying for the overwhelming majority of the "entitlement" programs the Dems and Libs love so much. So by your thinking only the poor who have no money deserve tax breaks. They aren't paying taxes any way! Brilliant comment!

The bottom line is that the wealthy are being robbed of their rightfully earned money at the point of a gun, by the Robin Hood Government. Steal from the rich and give to the poor is the Dem/Lib mantra. Since the govenrment has to power to take by force, the rich are forced to pay a greater percentage of their earnings than other tax payers. This is immoral and should be illegal!
The rich have absolutely no greater MORAL obligation to pay one dime more in taxes than anyone else!

Another stupid Dem/Lib statement is that wealthy individuals and corporations should "give back" to the society. Give back what? They took nothing from society, they provided goods and services needed and/or desired by society and provided employment as well. They took NOTHING from society and have already given much to society.

I am tired of the get "Wal-Mart" group mentality. Wal-Mart has killed the mom and pop stores - those awful bandits have closed down all competition! What garbage! So lets see, Henry Ford killed the buggy whip manufacurers busisness so he should have been opposed at every stage of his business. He killed the horse shoeing business as well, that evil man. Aviation killed the Rail Road business which in turn had killed the Canal Boat business. That da*n steam engine should have never been alowed to be built! All of these industries took from society and they OWE society the majority of their profits - they are the thieves after all. Society realised no benfits from all of this either! Lets get those rascals and make them pay. We were better off before they came along.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: