Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
If they take the House, will Dems pay attention?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 23, 2006

That remains the $64,000 question. From a Newsweek poll:
Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.) Rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts would be contentious too: 38 percent of Americans say the Dems should make that a top priority; 28 percent say it should be a lower priority; and 28 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all.
So those two are losers for the Dems.

On the other hand:
Most worrisome for the president, should the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, the American public supports their proposed “First 100 Hours” agenda. An overwhelming majority says allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies should be a top priority for a Democratic Congress (74 percent, including 70 percent of Republicans); 68 percent want increasing the minimum wage to be a top priority, including 53 percent of Republicans; 62 percent want investigating impropriety by members of Congress to be a top priority; and 58 percent want investigating government contracts in Iraq to be a top priority. Fifty-two percent say investigating why we went to war in Iraq should be a top priority (25 percent say it should a lower priority and 19 percent say it shouldn’t be done.)
Those appear to be winners. Obviously economic ignorance keeps the minimum wage nonsense alive. I can't imagine why the government was prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices in the first place (OK I can, and I think it was stupid to agree to the prohibition). And if they limit themselves to the top two investigations, I think they're fine. But I don't think they really want the third investigation (as they're as complicit as anyone).

My guess? Full speed ahead on all of them to include the two losers (and plus a whole bunch more investigations). And you know what I think all of that will do in '08 unless Dems can reign in some of their inclinations to go after the President and his administration (instead of attempting to make a case to the American people for keeping them on) on everything they think they can get him on.

It is time to realize he isn't running in '08 and begin now, with any chance they get out of the midterm elections, of trying to convince voters why they're a better choice in '08. But I can't help but believe, good money to bad, they'll blow it.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Just trying to get this straight (from a Brit who doesn’t care if Bush gets impeached or whatever - not my business).

28% of all Americans say it should be a top priority
23% of all Americans say it should be a low priority
That means that 51% of all Americans think it should be done or perhaps don’t care, yes? Or 51% think it should be done but are split on whether it should take precedence over other things? So less than half the population (44%) actively oppose impeachment.

Also:
38% think rolling back the tax cuts should be high priority. 28% think that it should be a low priority, which could be read as being in favour but other things are more important to do first. This is implied by the last part which says that 28% don’t think it should be done at all.

So that means that 66% of the population are generally in favour of rolling back the tax cuts.

I am having difficulty seeing how you call these as losers for Democrats?


 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Just trying to get this straight (from a Brit who doesn’t care if Bush gets impeached or whatever - not my business).
I think that you’d find the "23 percent say it should be a lower priority" to be an extremely mushy group with many of them fleeing immediately to the 44% who say "no" if it was actually initiated. I’m arguing that there’s really just no real desire for this among the majority of Americans.

Same goes with the 28% who say tax cuts should be a "lower priority". That’s a nice way of saying "I’d like to see you win but don’t you dare touch my tax cuts". Any move in that direction would again, in my estimation, harden a majority against.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"68 percent want increasing the minimum wage to be a top priority..."

Undoubtably the same (roughly) 62% in another recent poll (Harper’s?) who believe the president has significant influence over gas prices.

Sigh.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
If this were 2002, and we knew then what we know now, I’d be highly supportive of impeachment proceedings, but there doesn’t seem to be much point now. Not that I don’t believe that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, I do, I just don’t see what good it will the country to spend the last two of his lame duck administration talking about the past.

Surely anyone who has questions about either why we went to war or how we prosecuted has to admit that they would like to see answers to some questions made under oath in a public hearing. This may be hard for Democrats to pass on, once they have subpoena power.

On the tax cuts, I think that if the DemoCongress were to roll back the tax cuts at the top income brackets, but leave the rest alone, they may find this to be a popular (and populist) plan (as opposed to the polling results above).

On minimum wage, everyone seems to be sure of the economic soundness of their positions. Opponents have excellent arguments, proponents have excellent historical evidence. For my part, having little philosphical opposition to the idea, am generally supportive of a reasonable increase in the MW. I believe that this may be the most effective weapon to combat illegal immigration (most illegals are paid "on the books").

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I believe that this may be the most effective weapon to combat illegal immigration (most illegals are paid "on the books").
I seriously doubt it. While you are correct that most illegals are paid "on the books" it’s been my experience that very few are willing to work for anything close to the minimum wage.

And I live in a city with a large illegal population and a low cost of living for a city it’s size.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
I seriously doubt it. While you are correct that most illegals are paid "on the books" it’s been my experience that very few are willing to work for anything close to the minimum wage.
Anecdotal evidence aside...

The average income of illegal aliens is $7.31 per hour. This is the AVERAGE, and considering that almost none should be under $5.25, and a significant number would be above $7.31, the fewest illegals at minimum wage would be around 40%. The fact is that illegals work for 40% lower wages than legal immigrants and they work for far less than half of what natives average.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/poverty.html


Would this policy reduce the number of jobs available? Presumably, it would — but that is what opponents of illegal immigration want. Hamburger flipping, car washing, hotel bed-making, apparel production and strawberry picking would cost more, absent the illegals. With fewer jobs to offer, the attraction to enter the U.S. illegally would diminish.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
My guess? Full speed ahead on all of them to include the two losers (and plus a whole bunch more investigations). And you know what I think all of that will do in ’08 unless Dems can reign in some of their inclinations to go after the President and his administration (instead of attempting to make a case to the American people for keeping them on) on everything they think they can get him on.
Not according to Nancy Pelosi.
From last night’s 60 minutes,
She has pledged that as Speaker she would give the Republicans rights they’ve denied the Democrats, like allowing them to introduce amendments to bills. But she may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge. There’s already talk of multiple investigations and impeachment of the president.

"No, impeachment is off the table," she says.

"And that’s a pledge?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it’s a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it’s a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time," she replies.

"Wouldn’t they just love it, if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth in 12 years, is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them," Pelosi says. "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."
Of course one does not have to believe her.
I watched the interview. She kinda fumbled the bit about the pledge. Not sure what that means, though.

Personally, I don’t think they’ll impeach unless there is evidence revealed through investigations that we don’t have as of today.

If, say, evidence was uncovered suggesting Bush knowingly lied to congress, or something. Then the Dem’s might try to oust The Decider.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
Bush has been a lame duck since Social Security fell through. Does she think that any possible outcome of the ’06 election would change that fact?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider