Politics Blog

It’s been roughly 270 days since George W. Bush and Congress began their latest terms in office.

Regarding domestic legislative reforms, here are some of the things your federal gumbmint has accomplished over that period:

1) Pro-gun liability reforms were passed and signed into law.

2) They passed a budget for the current fiscal year in which: (i) the growth rate for Medi-caid spending was cut, (ii) the growth rates for various other federal spending programs (including farm subsidies, pension welfare, and tuition grants) were cut or completely frozen, and (iii) further small-business tax breaks were granted.

3) The CAFTA free-trade statute was passed and signed into law.

4) The first slate of what eventually will be a series of immigration and border control reforms – Real ID Act, asylum reforms, and stepped-up funding for our border control operations – were passed and signed into law.

5) Comprehensive class action lawsuit reforms were passed and signed into law.

6) Comprehensive bankruptcy reforms were passed and signed into law.

7) Comprehensive energy policy reforms – including massive expansions of our nuclear and natural gas capabilities – were passed and signed into law. And at a total cost in public dollars of roughly 0.76% of real GDP. And that’s not even adjusted for increased revenue from net gains in employment (e.g., infrastructure construction, transportation, etc.).

There is, of course, more than one full *year* remaining in this Congress. And over three full *years* remaining in this presidency.

Next up on the legislative agenda (in no particular order):

ANWR drilling.

Further tort/lawsuit reforms – asbestos reform, junk obesity lawsuit reforms (which already have passed the U.S. House), medical malpractice reform.

Further tax cuts (AMT; estate tax; standard income tax).

Further border control measures.

And the initial dialogues for what likely will be a 15 to 20-year process substantially to reform what once was known as the “third rail of American politics.” As in: “Touch it and you’re dead!”

Now, for a different perspective on the past nine months, here’s a nice example of B.D.S. in action from Pravda-USA Today.

Since the 1980 election cycle, inclusive, the Democrats have lost a grand total of 24 Senate seats in connection with open races. On the other hand, during that period the GOP has lost merely 9 seats in connection with such races.

That disparity in comparative electoral achievements has come despite the pro-Democrat union cabals, the non-voting conservative blocs, the partisan-Democrat media outlets, the left-wing academia cabals, and the Democrat corpse, felon, ghost, family pet, and phantom voter blocs.

Freshman incumbents?

They win more often than they lose. But it’s certainly not uncommon for them to be defeated.

Multi-term incumbents?

Ah, yes.

{ahem}

That’s the dirty little political secret the MediaCrats figured out eons ago. But it’s a political secret about which many conservatives and Republicans – on the heels of being out of power for most of their lifetimes, and having been bludgeoned into states of political depression by the Pravda-Media and by academia– still are coming to grips.

Following in the wake of the epochal landslide in favor of Ronald Reagan – so, in other words, beginning with the 1982 election cycle – multi-term U.S. Senators have won bids for re-election at 80-100 percent ratios.

And those re-election ratios have prevailed over the whole of the past 22 years. Regardless whether the salient elections have occurred within presidential cycles, or in mid-term cycles, and irrespective whether the former resulted in a landslide, a close contest, or a third-party plurality affair. Notwithstanding major scandals (ABSCAM, Iran-Contra, the S&L’s, Whitewater), or natural disasters, wars, economic recessions, economic booms, a stock market crash, bull markets, a real estate crash, a wealth mania, a ghastly bear market, impeachment but then acquittal, 9/11, Scalia, Bork, Doug Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Nothing has changed.

Multi-term incumbent Senators rarely if ever lose re-election bids.

That was the case in 1982 – the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

It was the case in 1992 – the worst job market since the early-1980’s.

And it was the case in 2002 – the worst job market since 1992, the very height of the Enron and Worldcom scandals, and the worst bear market since the collapse of the “nifty fifty” back in the 1970’s.

And every election cycle in between.

Just keep all that in mind when next September and next October roll around, and the usual suspects begin hyperventilating that the MediaCrats are poised to re-take the Senate.

Here’s a number you won’t see if you’re getting your political analyses from drones employed by the Pravda-Media:

11.

The GOP has lost a grand total of 11 net House seats in connection withopen races since the 2000 election cycle, *inclusive*.

So, we’re talking first about a low-turnout presidencial cycle in which conservatives stayed home and didn’t vote – by the millions!

Then a mid-term cycle in the wake of 9/11, but also in the midst of: massive job losses, the worst slate of corporate scandals in over a decade, and, as alluded to above, the worst bear market for stocks in a full generation.

Then another presidential election cycle, but on that occasion a high-turnout affair in which the MediaCrats and their allied slush funds spent 500 million hard dollars bashing the GOP’s national nominee. And for which a shooting war, surging gasoline prices, a plummeting U.S. Dollar, various media-driven “scandals,” a flu outbreak, and a string of destructive hurricanes provided some of the backdrops.

As stated, however, merely 11 net seats were lost by the GOP in open Congressional races throughout those disparate cycles – combined.

Incumbents?

House incumbents in the modern era win re-election bids almost 100 percent of the time.

The GOP holds a 231-202-1 majority in the Lower Chamber. And as soon as that run-off election to replace Chris Cox is completed, down in Orange County,California, the margin will be 232-202-1.

Just keep those numbers in mind when next Summer rolls around, and B.D.S.-ridden academics and media pundits literally begin chanting – on Fox News, CNN, NPR, CNBC, PBS, and MSNBC – the GOP is about to lose the U.S. House.

The NJ Governor’s race is beginning to throttle up, and it appears Forrester has the Corzine campaign speechless.

The Newark Star Ledger has an interesting article on a recent fund raising dinner in NYC with Jon Corzine and some lawyers who have contracts with the State of New Jersey. Hum, so the money is supposed to go to the DNC. Will it find it’s way back to the Corzine campaign in the next few weeks?

Oh, by the way Jon, you want to be Governor of NJ. Are there no good restaurants in NJ, and don’t you want to aid the economy of NJ?

Bruce Kesler comments on an interesting (and surprising if you believe the MSM) bit of information compiled by Tim Kane at the Heritage Foundation about who serves in ourmilitary and links Mark Tapscott’s excellent summary of the report.

GOP and the City has the latest crazy talk from Charlie Rangel. This time the subject is Dick Cheney. Less than a week ago Rangel was comparing George Bush to Bull Connor. How does Rangel repeatedly get away with making outrageous, ridiculous and just plain false statements without any media scrutiny whatsoever? I know the answer. I am just suggesting a topic of conversation for those who would like to comment on the subject.

Ian Schwartz has video of Mark Green on Hardball accusing the Bush administration of being corrupt. Chris Matthews asked him to back that up and Green, well, he backed up.

This is very illuminating. Hat tip: Midwest Kay

James Taranto explains why Democrats can’t stop the next Supreme Court nominee:

The GOP has 55 senators, so six of them would have to vote “no” to defeat a nominee. Coincidentally, that is the number of Republicans who voted against Robert Bork in 1987. But liberal Republicans were more numerous then. Today there are just three GOP liberals, all from New England–Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine–who seem likely to vote against a too-conservative nominee. Only one Bush judicial appointee, an Arkansas district judge named Leon Holmes, has ever received a negative vote from any Republican other than the New England trio. Virtually any nominee other than Judge Holmes, then, seems assured of at least 52 votes.

The Democrats could filibuster, a dilatory tactic that allows 41 senators to block a vote. This they did in 2003-04 to prevent the confirmation of a dozen or so appellate court nominees. But in May, under threat of the so-called nuclear option–a GOP maneuver that would have changed Senate rules to abolish judicial filibusters–seven Democratic senators agreed to a compromise in which they disavowed the filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances.”

That exception carries the potential for mischief, but it is unlikely to be realized. Five of the seven compromising Democrats come from states President Bush carried last year, as do 11 other Senate Democrats. These senators are no doubt mindfulthat their former leader, Tom Daschle, lost re-election in November in substantial part because of his obstruction of judicial nominees. With constituents much more conservative than Mr. Schumer’s, they are far less inclined to do the bidding of extremist groups like People for the American Way. Thus red-state Democrats voted 13-3 in favor of Chief Justice Roberts, while more than two-thirds of blue-state Democrats opposed him. Anyway, if the Democratic compromisers do dishonor their agreement, Republicans can retaliate by going nuclear, vaporizing the filibuster forever.