Blog suggestion

If you like this blog I suggest you also check out a blog being started by a good friend of mine, which can be found at powerandtheglory.blogspot.com

I seriously recommend his blog if you want serious commentary on the important issues.

Contingency Plan if the Democrats win in 2006

Let's say its election night this year and the Democrats have won control of the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate, making them partially in control of Congress. Liberals are rejoicing that they are back and Bush is through. It seems like the Republicans won't ever recover completely and that the Democrats are destined to establish themselves as a new majority for a generation or more. In this moment the dreams of the leftist bloggers and activists and the more moderate centrist Democrats appear to have come true. They have finally beaten Bush now and there is no way for him to recover, and he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents our nation has ever had.

Is this destiny if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November?

Perhaps.

Is it inevitable?

What is described here is a contingency plan in the event that the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, which would provide for Bush's political comeback in time for the election of another Republican in 2008. The key to this plan is to accept that politicians are done in not only by their failures but by their successes, and sometimes putting the agenda of your opponent on the fast track makes them twist in the wind until election time having only their unpopular policies to propose.

The key to Bush's political comeback is to allow the Democrats to pass the popular elements of their proposals quickly, so they will enjoy a honeymoon with voters, but one that will be over by the time of the 2008 elections. Specifically, things like health care expansion and border security and college tuition tax credits should be allowed to pass. If something is going to be popular with voters as a whole but unpopular with the Republican base the strategy should be for the President to allow it to become law without his signature. Thus, as an arbiter he would be deeming the legislation unworthy for the American people, but would be allowing the Democrats to pass it to eliminate popular elements of their agenda. Putting their popular programs onto fast track are the key to this plan.

Then, they will have to move on to unpopular things, and begin their investigations of the administration. The strategy with the investigations is to turn public opinion against the investigators themselves, and specifically, the man who would be Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers of Michigan, who believes the 2004 election was stolen and that Bush should be impeached. The focus of the attacks should be on any investigations of the domestic intelligence program to focus attention on Conyers and make him very unpopular personally. Nancy Pelosi should also be a target of attacks.

The way to do this is to run ads attacking Conyers by playing some of his more outrageous accusations and saying "is this the man you want overseeing the justice system of the United States in the House." Bush has the presidential microphone and would be able in addition to deliver that message. The ads should aim to drive down the popularity of Conyers with the public but to also goad him into continuing the investigation and making things worse for the Democrats with more outrageous allegations. The Democrats would not be able to abandon the investigations without being responsible for the alienation of their base of support from liberal voters who contribute large amounts of money to them.

Regaining the advantage on the budget is important also, and Bush should stand firm against any budget that doesn't dramatically reduce the deficit, but the reductions should come from cuts in unpopular programs. Popular things, including those passed by the Democrats should be allowed to remain in place. Bringing the Democrats in congress into a trainwreck confrontation over the budget, and if necessary shutting down the the government, would reestablish Bush's fiscal responsibility credentials. The key to the trainwreck is advertising to turn public opinion agianst them and only resolving the shutdown once great damage has been done.

Thus, having regained his popularity with voters, the President will not be a liability to the Republican candidate in 2008, but the Democrats base would be angry enough to want a liberal candidate to be their nominee in 2008. Then the key is to drive up the Republican candidate's margin high enough to overturn the Democrats majority in the House after only one congress.

Telephone monitoring could help the President

When the news about the secret NSA program to use data mining to keep a log of millions of phone calls in an attempt to find out patterns of terrorist activity broke there was uproar in congress from both sides of the aisle. The conventional wisdom is that its going to be another blow to the administration already beset by approval ratings as low as 31 percent in many polls. This may not, however, be the case as polling done after the story broke indicates most Americans support the domestic surveilance program as necessary for national security. Really this is more of an issue to rile up the Democrats base than something appealing to swing voters.

Generally with criticism that Bush is doing too much to protect the country from terrorism there is a natural blowback effect caused by the fact that such criticism implies that he is doing enough to protect the country. It is difficult to argue he is failing at homeland security and also argue that he is doing too much to protect the nation without sounding incoherent. Terrorism, is the, albiet diminshed area, where the President is the strongest with voters and any focus on the issue could both build up his rating as well improving his standing on other issues. It is not likely for the midterm elections that the President will make a complete political recovery, but if his ratings improve from 31 percent to about 38 or even maybe 35 percent it makes it that much harder for the Democrats to win control of either chamber this November.

Another danger for Democrats is their ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, who has been known as an advocate of Bush's impeachment for some time. If the investigations into the administration (which the Democrats would conduct if they win control of the House or the Senate are about Iraq intelligence it could do political damage, but to investigate the domestic intelligence program plays right into the administration's hands and could lead to a political comeback of sorts in time to deprive the Democrats of the White House in 2008.

Is Bush going to rise from the ashes like a phoenix and improve his approval rating to above the 50 percent mark? Unlikely. But it doesn't mean the Democrats aren't making a bad mistake by urging censure and investigations of the domestic intelligence program.

Thaskin and Democracy

If anyone has been aware there were riots in Thailand over alleged political corruption involving the Prime Minister, Thaskin Shinawatra. The protests were led by opponents of Thaskin and his leadership of the country, and were largely initiated when he decided to sell off his family's interests in some of his businesses. The details are not as important as the fact that a minority of the country was able to bring down the government still enjoying the support of the majority of the population. The fact is that Thaskin won the elections in 2001, then again in 2005 and then he won the snap election in 2006 he called to try and strengthen his political position.

His opponents cannot and should not have been allowed to force him from office through protesting against his govenrment even though a majority supported him. Is there something about democracy and majority rule that they don't seem to understand? They cannot exercise a veto over the right of the majority party to form a government, no matter how painful. If every opposition decided to take things to the streets in democracies when they don't like something the duly elected government does the precedent would be disastrous for democracy and for the future.

There has to be a point where you recognize you lost the elections and then try and fight again next time.