| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democrats fall on the ball |
| 2005-03-09 |
| h/t to Dreadnought via Lucianne Partisan politics in Washington this season are getting interesting, as a few Democrats are cautiously beginning to challenge their leadership's strategy of total opposition to major Bush initiatives. It is dawning on some Democrats that their all-defense strategy may not pair up well with President Bush's all offense strategy. President Bush plays politics the way my friends and I used to play pick-up football when I was a kid. In the huddle, the quarterback would tell everyone else to go out long. On the snap the quarterback would dance around in the backfield until one of us five or six receivers got open, at which point he would complete the pass. With both sides going long all the time, we often ended up with basketball scores. The Democrats, on the other hand, when on offense, merely receive the snap and fall on the ball. When on defense, they put all their men on the line, trying for a quick sack of the quarterback. If the quarterback is too agile for them, they are vulnerable to be scored upon, given their lack of a pass defense. When two such teams meet, the best score the all-defense Democrats can hope for is a 0-0 tie. The best score the all-offense Republicans can expect is at least a 56-0 win. So far, since 2001 the score is about 42-0, the president having completed passes on tax cuts and the economy, the Afghan war, the Iraq war, the Middle East democracy project, prescription drugs and class-action lawsuits, among the major items. In the next couple of months and years the president is going to throw long on Social Security, bankruptcy reform, asbestos litigation reform, judicial appointments, Medicaid reform, Medicare reform and tax simplification. If he completes all those passes the final score would be 91- 0, and "Daily Show" star Jon Stewart's self-admitted worst fear will be realized — his daughter will be going to George W. Bush High School in downtown Manhattan. Of course, the analogy to football isn't perfect. In politics, some touchdowns are worth more points than others. If Mr. Bush can pass Social Security reform, that touchdown would be worth about 200 points all by itself. And, unlike football, in politics some wins later are re-scored as losses, such as the temporary win by slave-holders in the Dred Scott decision. They won the Supreme Court decision in 1857, but lost the war in 1865. Currently the big fight is Social Security reform. The official congressional Democratic leadership position is that there is no problem that a modest soak-the-rich tax increase couldn't fix. Well, as the current unfunded liability of Social Security is $3.7 trillion, we know with precision the minimum level of tax increase needed to fill that void — $3.7 trillion. That would be the largest tax increase since ... well since tax increases were invented by the Pharaohs at the dawn of civilization. And we wouldn't even have a bunch of pointy buildings to show for it, because such a tax increase would slam the breaks on a growing economy, including the construction industry. But because the Democratic leadership is intent on denying Mr. Bush a "victory" on Social Security, they are whipping their members to not negotiate with the president or congressional Republicans. Thus, a few weeks ago Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced that his fellow Democratic senators were completely united in refusing to deal on the issue. Even when he said it, it wasn't true. Between a half-dozen and a dozen Democratic senators have been meeting and talking seriously about Social Security legislation in three more or less separate, but related, conversations with Republican Sens. Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel for several weeks. Keep in mind, Republicans only have to pick up five Democrats to pass Social Security over a filibuster effort in the Senate. Finally, last weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman, long reputed to be one of the Democratic participants in those discussions, put himself on the record on CNN : "So, at some point we've got to stop criticizing each other and sit at the table and work out this problem ... Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem [it] costs our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren $600 billion more." The next morning the New York Times, which on Social Security seems to be the house organ for Mr. Reid's maximum obstruction operation, ran a long article about Mr. Lieberman on the theme of "the difficulty of trying to be a centrist in an increasingly polarized political climate." After using most of the article as a poster board for named and unnamed left-wing cranks to say rude things about poor old Joe, the article did admit in one sentence that: "Polls show that more than two-thirds of Connecticut Democrats approve of his performance, and so do more than two-thirds of Connecticut Republicans." Apparently it is not that difficult to be a centrist Democrat. I rather hope that not too many more Democratic senators come to their senses and work for genuine reform. No point in re-electing more Democrats than is necessary. So to the 36 obstructing Democrats: Keep it up, and have a nice post-Senate life. I was once on the right side of a 49-0 thrashing... in baseball. I think that before the dust settles, probably right after the 2006 mid-term election cycle, the Pubs will deliver a similar Ass Whooping to the Dhimmis. The President's agenda is chock-full of truly important initiatives, but the judicial cleanup is especially long overdue and essential. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #10 I think not. It's not just the organizations, and State is a small one. It's going out and attacking the other guy and his party in the election and then sitting down with them and working out legislation while keeping an eye on the next election. If you can do all that well, you can probably be effective. No guarantee, see Carter. But the alternative of being in a debating society or any appointive position simply does not showcase as many skills. That is not to say that they are necessarily absent, see Eisenhower. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-09 4:20:45 PM |
| #9 Does being Secretary of State count for some level of organizational responsibility, Mrs D.? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-09 3:28:08 PM |
| #8 Good looking folks. Let's look at the Presidents from 1900. McKinley T Roosevelt Taft Wilson Coolidge F Roosevelt Carter Reagan Clinton GW Bush Harding Hoover Truman Eisenhower Kennedy Johnson Nixon Ford GHW Bush What's the first group got in common? They had served as governor of a state or commonwealth (Taft in the Philippines). The second had not. Being SACEUR does count for some level of organizational responsibility, to be sure. So which group is the better set of presidents? If Condi and Hilly want to be good Presidents, I'd suggest they go to Sacramento and Albany first and prove they're ready. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-09 3:20:41 PM |
| #7 Dishman : I read his bio when he was runnkng for Gov and lost 52-48... He is also Roman Catholic and not Hindu, which puts him in the mainstream and contrasts with Dr. Rice being a Baptist. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-09 3:15:04 PM |
| #6 Run up the score, baby! |
| Posted by: Barry Switzer 2005-03-09 3:08:27 PM |
| #5 One of my ex-roommates works at a coffee shop in Nawlins. He described Jindal as being "a genuinely nice guy" without knowing who he was. Wasn't he the one behind the SOTU purple fingers? Beautiful Lousiana style political theatre that. I had to check... he was born in Baton Rouge. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-03-09 3:02:42 PM |
| #4 You ain't seen nothing yet - There is a scenario which though a longshot, is thouroughly possible, and will be a result of all the domestic wranglings over PC, sex, race and ethnicity... 2008 will be interesting. Loser goes first (Convention)... Dems nominate Hillary and then the fun starts with a scenario that has none of the major party tickets with a White European Male!!!!  Newly electied Congressman and near-miss Governor Jindal gets added for geographic balance... I admit Jindal is the least likely of this scenario...but it makes one think of the most outlandish possibility... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-09 2:30:26 PM |
| #3 As I've suggested before, once the Senate democrats have been whipped down so much that they are convinced they are the minority party, and start behaving like one, then the first step in their recovery will be "DINOs", or "moderate" democrats, who will vote with the republicans on condition that they get *something* they want added on. By dint of this power, they will ascend to the top of their party, while the radicals become marginalized. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-03-09 12:30:12 PM |
| #2 They now fall in the ball and then they will fall on their swords |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-03-09 11:23:57 AM |
| #1 This football analogy reminds me of an old football joke: Two football teams play more than 3 and a half quarters of a game with one team just absolutely whupping the other 77-0. Suddenly from a distance a train whistle can be heard, and the winning team, thinking the game is over, walks off the field. Three plays later the losing team scores. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-03-09 4:12:40 AM |