The Republican Revolution By Trader_Jorge Last night’s Republican success has secured President George W. Bush’s place in history. In a completely unprecedented turn of events, a newly elected President has not relinquished seats in the House and Senate at the midterm elections. George Bush campaigned during these elections far more than any president in this country’s history. He put his presidency – and his reputation -- to the test, and passed with flying colors. In a dramatic display of the power of President Bush’s strong nation-wide support, and a convincing illustration of his powers of coalition building, the Republicans now have a commanding legislative position, a soon-to-be commanding judicial position, and a chief executive with an aggressive agenda and the spine to follow through on it. These election results are a turning point in modern-day politics. A strong-willed administration now has the full support of both houses of Congress. The Republicans finally have the ability to control the direction of this nation. Their stances and policies will now be implemented and will be graded. Lasting and permanent change will be enacted. What does this stunning Republican victory mean? It means increased support for the war on Iraq, increased support for homeland security measures, approval of President Bush’s judicial nominees, agenda setting powers in the House and Senate, a permanent tax cut, a likely bill proposing the elimination/reduction of capital gains taxes, favorable tax treatment of corporate dividends, heightened discussion of the creation of individual social security accounts, and a more aggressive energy policy. This is just the beginning of the sweeping Republican legislative acts that will follow in the near future. The Democratic party is in a state of crisis. They have no leadership, they are on the wrong side of the issues with voters, and they lack the candidates to win elections. The people have truly spoken with their votes. A mandate has been delivered for President Bush to pursue his policies with vigor. President Bush once again passes the test of leadership and the Republican party widens the gap between itself and the Democratic party. The nation has spoken tonight. Republicans now run this country.
We heard the same about Democrats in 1992 - which lasted all of two years. We also heard the same about Republicans in 1994 - which lasted all of two years. Certainly a lot of legislation will have the opportunity to move through Congress. People like the concept of change, but rarely like the details nearly as much (except on bi-partisan efforts such as Welfare Reform and the Balanced Budget). It will be interesting to see if people are thrilled with the GOP in two years. That could be the defining election - whether the GOP is perceived positively and wins dominant control of Congress, or if there's significant backlash.
Its not like he has anything else to do. Even Bush supporters acknowledge he does not formuate policy, so a nice vacation hardly disrupts day to day governing. It means the voters in the States are dumber than I thought. And I thought people here in the UK were ****ed up.... Question: how do these 'tax cuts/changes' differ from failed Reagan era cuts? And isn't it redundant to say 'increased support for the war on Iraq' and 'more aggressive energy policy?' Sure, now we can cut the Department of Education and the EPA all together. You couldn't be more correct. The Democratic party obviously needs some new faces and a new way to package their message to the voters. It seems crazy that the party that advanced Bob Dole in '96 has now put a moron in the White House, and control both houses of Congress. Let's not go overboard, Mr Haig.
HayesStreet- You sound like a very bitter, angry man. Calling Republicans dumb and our president a moron? Well obviously over half of the country is now Republican and W's approval ratings are quite high, so maybe you're the one who needs to reevaluate your thoughts.
I'm not sure it's possible to make that assessment based on yesterday's results. From an AP story today: Turnout in the 38 states that held statewide primaries for both parties this year was 17.1 percent of voting age population — the second lowest in the past 100 years. Obviously well over half the country is apathetic, but we'll never know where they stand politically.
There can be little debate as to President Bush's influence on this election. Call him stupid, moronic, whatever, but the results show that his stumping significantly impacted this race. President Bush took a colossal political gamble by doing this much campaigning in this race. The voters endorsed his administration with a resounding victory. President Bush, despite his detractors, has proven yet again that his coalition building powers are mighty and that the people support his leadership.
Uh, yeah. Actually TJ's diatribe was fairly well written, and I do know some intelligent Republicans. Unfortunately they are more concerned with lining their own pockets than helping the country as a whole. If there really is a new wave of Bush led legislation and executive action coming our way, I don't think we'll look back and be thankful for it. Not everyone who votes for a Republican is a Republican. Ratings schmatings. Survivor Thailand got a 17 % share on Thursday night. Does that make it an intelligent show?
The two largest economic expansions in our nation's history, the 60's and the 90's, were the result of tax cuts implemented by Kennedy and Reagan. These two Presidents both embraced supply side economic theory. The recovery that led to the roaring 1990's started during G.H.W. Bush's second year. On a personal note, I am sure glad that Debra Danberg lost her state Senate seat to Martha Wong. Danberg was a state representative for over 20 years, and exhibited the worst traits of a "career politician". She used personal attacks, push polls, and lies to try to beat Wong, and she won't be missed by me.
I think it was Pat Caddell, a former Democratic pollster, who chagrined that we might be seeing the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party-- to be replaced by some new and stronger second party. That's sticking your neck out!
That's pretty funny since GHW Bush reversed Reagan's course with the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in history. Strange how that preceded 'economic expansion in the 90s.' "In fact, even Reagan had to adjust his initial tax cuts with an immediate round of tax increases, rather than see the deficit explode..."
Which point would you like me to prove? That Bush is a moron? That GHW Bush raised taxes? That GHW Bush's tax increases preceded the expansion of the 90s? Here's a start... "How surprising, then, to learn that the choice is a false one, that spending money on social programs does not undermine economic efficiency, that channelling money into the hands of investors is not a reliable recipe for economic growth. Perhaps leaving people suffering at the side of the road serves no higher purpose after all. Certainly, there seems to be little evidence to support the argument -- repeated with such assurance by business leaders -- that tax cuts will spur investment and economic growth. Two recent surveys of the mainstream economic literature -- by Philip Gerson of the IMF and Willi Leibfritz of the OECD -- show a very weak link between the size of a country's overall tax burden and its economic performance. As OECD data show, the U.S. has a relatively low overall tax burden, but its economic growth throughout the 1990s was slower than that of notorious high-tax countries like Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. This point has often been made by the sort of economists who met at a recent pre-budget roundtable convened by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in Ottawa. But it's a little unusual to see it coming from inside the rigidly pro-market IMF. Yet here's what Mr. Gerson has to say in his IMF paper: "Studies suggest that well-targeted government expenditures on health, education and infrastructure should have a positive impact on growth. By contrast, the impact of taxation on the supplies of labour and capital, and on output growth, is more muted." A closer look at the United States provides more evidence. In the low-tax Reagan years of the '80s, investment in plant and equipment grew at a rate of less than 1%, notes Max Sawicky, an economist at the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. Under Bill Clinton, taxes have risen, including a hike in the top marginal rate, yet instead of investment dropping in the '90s, it's risen significantly, to a rate of 4.9%. The moral: Tax levels are not the crucial ingredient determining investment and growth." or this seems to dispute your theory... "Moreover, the new data do nothing to back up the most extreme supply-side claims from the early '80s, that the Reagan tax cuts would generate enough revenue to more than make back the money lost. There is also still no evidence that the tax cut of 1981 produced a surge of business investment, as was the intention. According to the updated numbers, real business investment rose at only a 3.3% rate from 1981 to 1989. By contrast, spending on structures, equipment, and software has soared at more than a 10% rate under Clinton."
I'm particularly excited about the judicial nominees that will get passed through. This is where Bush can really affect the future for a long time in a positive way (well positive in my views at least).
The Republican party can assert continued dominance in American politics... if they follow models for other parties that have done so. During non-crisis times, the way that this has been accomplished is consistent, powerful economic growth coupled with a non-confrontational, right-moderate agenda that throws bones to the other side while still pushing through the majority of popular rightist legislation. The LDP in Japan accomplished this with flying colors for about 40 years. Of course, if the Republicans decide to go nuts with the conservatism... they'll find themselves ousted quickly. Issue resonance is pretty even, overall (at least according to issue polls; partly why last night was so shocking; it's rare that election resolution based on the issues predicts one outcome so different from what actually happened). Americans don't like non-centrists (which is both good and bad). To be honest, I've never understood why American political parties tend to be so stupid when they come to power. It's like, having a monopoly on power bereaves them of their common sense. The Democrats, in 92, forgot that their party core consisted of only about 35% of the voting electorate. The Republicans will quickly learn that their solid electorate is about the same (only a miniscule bit less), if they decide to push an agenda that's decidedly right-of-center.
Do you have a problem with the phrase 'largest tax increase in history?' Or that Bush reversed Reagan's course and raised taxes in 1990? Let me know if the quotes provided above answer your query.
