It’s Offical: Democrats Are Toast In November

Unfortunately, Erick Erickson stole the title I was going to use for this post- he must have read my mind and knew it was a great headline- so I had to modify mine above. However, the point is still the same. Namely, when The New York Times has a front-page story saying Democrats are toast in November, Democrats might as well throw in the towel.

Morning Joe had the author of the article, one Jeff Zeleny, on this morning, and he highlighted three powerful Democrats in particular who were in trouble, including House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey (D-WI) . More importantly, though, is what he describes in the article:

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats — including a wave of first-term members — and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop.

And later:

Mr. Obey, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, is one of three House Democratic chairmen who have drawn serious opposition. Representatives John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, who oversees the Budget Committee, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, who runs the Armed Services Committee, have been warned by party leaders to step up the intensity of their campaigns to help preserve the Democratic majority.

The article is pretty good- I recommend reading it in its entirety. Republican difficulties against Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and for the Florida seat should Florida Governor Crist run as an independent are highlighted, as they ought to be, but the main focus is on the sweep Republicans are likely to make come November.

The beginning of the article- and my first quoted section above- include the fact this November is not just another trade of moderate seats that happen all the time in Congress. Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats are constantly grabbing up valuable and vulnerable seats, and so gains in some of those districts and states are to be expected on a regular bases. My biggest fear, however, is that Zeleny is wrong, and that this November will just be another part of the regular shift in D.C., and no real conservative swing will take place. As Mark Steyn noted on March 5 (emphasis mine),

So there was President Obama, giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that “now is the hour when we must seize the moment,” the same moment he’s been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.

Why is he doing this? Why let “health” “care” “reform” stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?

Because it’s worth it. Big time. I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (Let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative”).

The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

The admittedly liberal Center for American Progress noted two weeks ago that in poll after poll Americans like Social Security and Medicare, the two biggest impacts on the federal deficit and debt. Further, even President Obama couldn’t cut defense spending in his “freeze” proposal without a massive backlash. Without cutting Social Security, Medicare and military spending, how do we ever expect to balance the budget, never mind eliminate the debt? I hope Americans realize the tough decisions that must be made, and I hope they vote in politicians who will actually do what’s best for the country, not their re-election hopes. However, I must admit that I am not entirely optimistic.

Politico Calls ‘Em Out

Yesterday, Politico led with an article describing some deep hypocrisy among so-called fiscal hawks among both parties. According to Politico, the “hawks” are very much for cutting spending…unless it’s within their state’s limits. Senators DeMint, Enzi, McCaskill and Tester, among others, are targeted for their support for fiscal discipline outside of their state.

Today, Politico targeted Democratic deals designed to pass health care reform. Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” has been taken out of the picture…but Senator Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) “Louisiana Purchase” is still on the table. According to Politico:

But there is no visible movement to erase a Medicaid deal with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that she has said is worth $300 million, three times the amount of Nelson’s agreement.

Or to strike a line item that exempts Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan from a 40 percent tax on insurers that provide expensive health plans. Or to remove a provision that sends an extra $500 million in Medicaid funding to Massachusetts and $600 million to Vermont for being leaders in providing health insurance to their residents.

Politico snags statements from a number of Democrats senators regarding their state’s deals. Below are two:

“It is very clear from the process that took place in the final days of the bill that Americans are disturbed about the process,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “I believe it would be important for us to take out the egregious items.”

Does that mean he might forfeit the money for Massachusetts?

Not at all. Kerry argued the funding was completely legitimate because Massachusetts has already used significant state resources to extend benefits beyond what the current federal Medicaid rules require.

“I don’t think adjusting for Medicaid costs for states that have already done some things is inappropriate,” Kerry said. “I’m not for a single-state fix. I’m for every state in the country that has taken action, to have that reflected somehow, and that should be part of the fix.”

Kerry’s remark highlights an axiom of Washington: Every deal is egregious except your own.

On the labor deal, Levin said he signed off on it initially “in the context of trying to get the bill passed.”

But now that party leaders have gone back to the drawing board, he said critics want another chance to eliminate the tax completely. Barring that, he said they would like to raise the threshold on plans that would be taxed and exempt additional benefits — under the terms of the labor deal, only basic coverage would be taxed, exempting things like dental and vision coverage.

Other senators and several representatives are noted as getting their own deals in as well. While this is the way Congress works, and thus no bill is ever free from deal-making…this is pretty shortsighted of Democrats to make more of the same kinds of deals that hurt them so much in Massachusetts.

I first heard about the deals when Politico’s Mike Allen was on Morning Joe today. Arianna Huffington was on the show, and after Allen pointed out the Massachusetts, Vermont and Michigan deals, she made the observation that (and this is as best as I can remember, 25 minutes after the fact, so please excuse the lack of an exact quote)) beyond what was in the deals, Democrats are using the same secretive processes that made them so devastatingly vulnerable in Massachusetts. It’s the process, she noted, that is anathema to Americans most of all.

Following Huffington’s statement Joe Scarborough, the host of Morning Joe, offered some advice to President Obama on how to get rid of these backroom deals and get health care reform back track. Again, from memory, Scarborough said that President Obama should call each and every troublesome Democrat- and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)- in and inform them that they will support the health care bill he likes. If they don’t, he will veto their appropriations. Secondly, for those who are up for re-election this year, he should threaten to primary them if they don’t get in line. With his experience as a representative from Florida, Scarborough claims he knows that each senator will flinch at these threats.

I have to agree with Huffington; beyond making deals, which I think most Americans grudgingly accept as part of the political system- of course, that acceptance becomes significantly easier to bear when money comes to their state or district- we want the kind of transparency offered by C-SPAN, open dialogue, etc. Secondly, I agree with Scarborough. Elections and money to their own state are the lifeblood of U.S. Senators, and threatening both will lead very quickly to Democrats (and Joe Lieberman) falling into line. (Also, threatening to away Lieberman’s chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee would probably help Democrats.)

Scarborough Makes My Morning

Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, is a former Congressman from Florida who is unfortunately moderate but has a good grasp of the issues of the day. This morning, he was debating (along with a number of other people) one Jonathan Capart, a Washington Post editorial writer. While I cannot find the clip, even at Morning Joe’s home page, I would like to share what especially impressed me with regards to how Scarborough and one other guest made Capart look like an absolute fool.

The debate was over whether probable terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) should be tried in New York City, and if he should be tried in a civilian court. Scarborough made the case that both moves by the Obama administration (the civilian trial over a military trial and trying KSM in NYC)  are being done for solely public image and symbolism-related goals. Capart immediately denied this, of course, and was subsequently asked by one of the other guests what would happen if KSM was found innocent. Capart immediately took the following tactics:

1. Blank, deer-in-the-headlights look, with eyes wide open in horror at the question and his lack of a convincing answer.

2. Fall back on the liberal mantra that his being found innocent would never happen.

3. Back up statement #2 by stating the government has too much evidence for KSM to ever be found innocent.

4. Avoid the actual question, as there is no good answer. Granted a civilian trial, KSM can be found innocent. Plain and simple. Despite his having been allegedly willing to plead guilty in a military trial, he may now be found innocent in a civilian court of law.

This followed White House Press Secretary Gibbs’ statement on Sunday that KSM would “meet his maker” after a trial goes through. Which leads, of course, to one of the other questions Scarborough asked Capart: if we are trying to be a symbol to the world of American decency and European-style liberalism and enlightenment, why utilize the death penalty? (Paraphrased, of course.)

To steal from Ed Morrissey, an exit question: Why are we still debating this? Whatever one thinks of waterboarding, long prison stays without a trial, etc. KSM is not an American citizen. Giving him a civilian trial not only gives him the right to walk free, but also throws the idea of treating enemy combatants differently from criminals (especially terrorist combatants) overboard. Talk about a bad precedent, and one that has no legal backing.