Now that the Dems have control of the House and are ready to flex their political muscle, which ‘I’ words do you think they will confront and pursue?
Islamo-fascism? Islamists?
Take a guess.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Winds of War: Which ‘I’ Words Will the Democrats Now Pursue?
From The Gathering Storm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I tend to think the Dems won't go the whole hog and impeach George Bush, but I do believe we will be seeing a lot of movement in that direction.
A commenter at LGF pointed out that, if the Dems actually impeach Bush, then he will have to mount a defense (something he has strangely refrained from doing thus far) which would include such facts as
1) we really did find WMD in Iraq
2) there really is hard evidence that Saddam worked with terrorist organizations
Pastorius is right. The Democrats can't get too crazy, because quite a few of their newly elected Reps are moderate, reasonable people. If the junkyard Democrats push them too hard, Bush will find it easy to get their votes for a more moderate agenda. The big problems I see is that some of the Democratic made-up "scandals" could be bad for the United States and amnesty for criminal immigrants to the United States seems likely.
Anyway, the Democrats will either lose control of the House in 2008 or lose effective control of the House in 2008--assuming that they have it now. The Democrats simply can't hold some of the seats they won. Meanwhile the Senate will most likely go strongly Democrat for 2008 and 2010, since the Republicans have many more seats at risk in the next two elections. Since I desire a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, the future looks excellent for my preferences.
Overall, I think we should be happy with this outcome, because it puts some reasonable people in influence in the Democratic Party--which is something to build on. The other possibility is that Dems alienate their moderates and fall apart. Either way will be good for anti-Jihad cause.
Interesting analysis, Demosthenes. I hope you're right.
Will the democrats confirm Bolton at the UN? How much influence will the UN then have regarding gun control in the US? Remember, the US was the sole dissenting vote last week.
Anon,
Bolton has zero chance of being confirmed, unless Lieberman makes it his personal crusade and it would make more sense for him to spend his political capital on other projects. I'm not sure what you mean about the UN and gun control, but I'd love the UN to make laws that contradict the US Constitution. The sooner they do and the more obnoxious they are the better. Americans need to learn to hold the UN in contempt. Sadly, it would be inadvisable for us to pull out, as the institution as it stands now has power. Instead, we have to weaken it. First, by not feeding it any money. People who value the institution should pay. We should be explicit that we don't value the institution. In my fantasy life, the next step would be vetoing everything the institution does to bring the UN to a halt. In the real world, we need to proceed effectively along that path by a set of passive aggressive demands. It's called diplomacy.
Demosthenes, here is the link to the story I mentioned:
US lone gun in vote against UN arms control vote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1933480,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
quote:
The UN general assembly first committee approved the resolution last night by 139 votes in favour, 24 abstentions and one vote - the US - against.
The Control Arms campaign, which is run by Oxfam, the International Action Network on Small Arms and Amnesty International, has lobbied for an arms control treaty for three years.
The campaign says that lack of controls in the international arms trade fuels conflict, poverty and human rights abuses, and it has called on governments to control their arms trade. It says world military spending this year will be $1,059bn (£558bn).
Kate Gilmore, Amnesty International's executive deputy secretary general, said in a statement: "This massive vote to develop a global arms trade treaty is an historic opportunity for governments to tackle the scourge of irresponsible and immoral arms transfers.
"Any credible treaty must outlaw those transfers, which fuel the systematic murder, rape, torture and expulsion of thousands of people."
end quote
So Amnesty International wants to eliminate our guns?
Post a Comment