Thoughts on the Election

Well, I'm back - after a haitus.

It looks like, according to conventional wisdom, the good guys will lose the House. And might lose the Senate, too. The Speaker will be someone who represents a bunch of degenerates, and will lead as a degenerate leads.

As yet, however, W and Rove think the Republicans will retain the House. Either they are both very good seers, or very delusional.

In any case, we win. As Harold Ford is running for Senate in Tennessee, there is no chance that Republicans can line up with some moderate Democrats and elect a normal person as Speaker. So a kook will be running things. And as my best unbiased ability, Pelosi is no Gingrich.

For one thing, Gingrich had a vision of what he wanted to do. His famous contract. And he got it passed - in 100 days! This contract actually had some fresh ideas.

So what does Pelosi promote? Old, worn, Democrat ideas. Like tax the rich. Like that is going to end the Iraqi occupation. In any case, W will be using his veto pen a lot, finally. That is, if this stuff gets thru the Senate.

It would not bother me to have the Democrats run the House, in a divided government, but for two things. First, a minor thing. Richard Pombo has a House committee that is holding up the "Big Sky Wilderness" near where I live. I do not like such a thing - it places far, far too many unreasonable restrictions on forest land usage. In fact, it is these very restrictions on wilderness areas that is turning Minnesota away from the Democrats. He himself is working hard to prevent this. However, not only will he lose his committee chair if the Democrats gain the House, there is a good chance he could lose reelection, too.

Then, there is impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee will be run by John Conyers. Who will be running all kinds of investigations into the Iraq war. So he can impeach W. Well, at least make W look so bad as to make America sweep in Democrats in 2008. So that is what I suppose.

Actually, Iraq was liberated because of stuff found in Afghanistan indicating that Saddam was giving WMD's to terrorists. He did, and he used them. We all know that. The big question is where they went. As this is a war on terror, liberating Iraq made perfect sense, as Saddam could have sent these WMDs into America.

That is the only key item of impeachment that will stick with Americans. All that other stuff - the Patriot Act, Gitmo, Halliburton - America, frankly, does not give a rat's ass about. The left thinks so, but then again, ideologues are so blinded they lead their own destruction.

Which is why Slick Willy got impeached over a blow job. The Clinton's managed to pull all kind of manuevers over a four year time period to corner the Republicans into getting Slick Willy impeached over stuff that is quite disgusting, if you can visualize it. Ken Starr could not find any real evidence over Whitewater, or Vince Foster's murder, or, what I was hoping for, all that stuff that allegedly went on in Mena airfield in the 1980's.

But at that time, I was somewhat ideologically blinded. Then again, that can be forgiven for a 20 something. I only half-heartedly supported impeachment. But in the long run, impeachment prevented Clinton from enacting his agenda - and it meant that Algore would not win in 2000 (that does not mean he won't win in 2008). And it meant that my right to own a gun was safe, too. Well, partially, I am in eternal gratitude to a Michigan Democrat, John Dingell, from putting in the item that killed the gun show bill. So he will remain a good guy in my book, despite his refusal to denounce Islamofascists.

This ideological blindness, which is obvious when I oeverhear extreme Democrat partisans, will of course force Democrats to focus entirely on impeachment. And to investigate, investigate, investigate. Well, they have about a year to do so, not four. And, W could learn a lesson or two from Clinton in terms of delay. That will make the Democrats look bad.

By focusing so much attention on impeachment, and not having a real agenda when getting into office, W and Rove can also look to another past Democrat, too. Harry Truman. And there are similarites between the two. The Democrat's slogan this season is "Had Enough?" That was the exact same slogan that the Republicans used in 1946! And the Democrats had such a bum rap that year, that the Republicans got swept into power. But Truman was so good at politics, he won re-election in 1948, and essentially got Democrat control of the House, with two breaks (1946 one of them), until 1994.

Truman's focus in 1948 was the "do-nothing" Congress. Rove should start preparing this label now. Yet, the 1946 Congress probably did more than a Democrat majority will do. Indeed, so much energy will be focused on impeaching a lame duck, that not much more will be accomplished. And impeachment may not even be accomplished. Remember what happened in the year 1998? And one can really pin the label on Congress, and blame it for wasting the American people's time by focusing on impeachment (which will not dredge up too much if delay tactics are used). Which is easy to do, considering Congress always has a lower approval rating than the President.

Remember, too, that even though the Republicans had an agenda in 1994, they still lost the 1996 election. And I remember at the beginning of the year, my professor of American history, a leftist by the name of Richard White (a prominent name in academia), was even talking like Clinton was a one termer. That is how low Clinton's image was. And W can bounce back.

Putting this all together, the Republicans will have a good shot at winning the White House in 2008. Guiliani is now taking actual Republican positions on issues - today, he just announced he longer supports an "assualt weapon" ban. Which, although I wonder how much he means it, is good enough for me. As a Republican in the White House, he will be in no position to impose any gun controls, since that is the litmus test issue for the Republican party. And he is America's mayor, and could take New York State - a Democrat state with enough votes to swing the election. He also has plenty of positive gravitas as "America's Mayor", that if he takes Republican positions on key issues, I will support him for the nomination (that is, if he is a serious contender).

In the meantime, despite all the bad stuff about W, the Democrats only have two candidates who can really win the White House - Hillary, and Algore. Hillary can easily get the Democrat nomination by splitting the anti-war vote in the party. However, there too many centrists in the Democrat party who have too huge egos to step aside and let her have the nomination, despite the fact she is a good Democrat. So she could easily lose it.

And there is Algore. All those games he played in Florida in 2000, in front of America, are forgotten. Due to the fact that some young immigrants flew a few planes into a few buildings. Algore is not only the leading anti-war candidate, but he has a good environmental record, too (I writing as a Democrat would think - this is not how I think). And he almost won in 2000 - had it not been for the fact that a. Clinton's impeachment lost gravitas for the Democrats, b. The Democrats focus on grabbing our guns lost Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia (and hence the election), and c. Some young illegal immigrant in Florida cost him more than enough votes to prevent him from winning that state (Elian, you young commie [reports indicate he is a good communist], it was you who lead to Iraq's liberation!!! How proud you must be!!!).

In any case, W should have been blown out of the water in both elections. But the Democrats screwed up in 2000 by those above-mentioned issues. And they screwed up in 2004 by nominating a traitor. Howard Dean easily could have defeated W. And if Kerry gets the nomination again, Thomas Dewey will loose the election again. Oops, I mean John Kerry, who not only is an asshole like Dewey was, but is as shifty and opportunistic as Dewey was (which ultimately loses elections).

All this ties together. As Rush indicated, if the Democrats control Congress, the lunatics will run the asylum. Which is what Hillary fears, since the extremist brush can be used to paint Democrats much more successfully than it was for leftists to paint Republicans. Which makes it that much harder to win the election, which I think she can win.

However, I still hope the Republicans can control Congress. I am thinking of giving some money to Dave Reichard, who is running in Bellevue (I can't vote for him). His opponent is Darcee Burner, a Pelosi clone who does not represent the values of Bellevue. And by clone, I mean clone - she is as ugly as Pelosi, only younger. The only thing that prevents me from giving is I seem to have the reverse Midas touch - almost every campaign I have been associated with, loses. Everything I touch politically turns to shit. So I am hesistate to give - I will have to think quickly.

A few more points, before I go.

The Republicans are hoping to nab an open Senate seat in - Maryland! A very Democrat state. They are pouring in tons of resources there. Why they think they can win there is way, way beyond me. Not that Michael Steele is a bad guy - I would love to have him in the Senate. But putting so much effort in a Democrat state, in a Democrat year, boggles the mind.

Also, for some reason, Mike McGavick is gaining momentum against Maria. He is in my state. I find this puzzling, too, as this is a Democrat state, and this is a Democrat year, but he has the majority of the votes outside of Seattle (which is extremely whacky). Which indicates the public might not have such a jaundiced view of "Republicans"as it appears.

OPEC has now decided to cut production. So as to raise prices. I suspect that this might be a ploy to influence to the election - after all, everyone in OPEC hates Republicans. The main question now is whether three weeks will give enough time to richet through the energy sector so as to influence votes on election day.