Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Democrats Pre-Emptive Strategy

POLITICS / DEMOCRATS PRE-EMPTIVE STRATEGY

Smiley Flag Waver

Pelosi cautioned that the number of Democratic House victories could be higher or lower and said her greatest concern is over the integrity of the count -- from the reliability of electronic voting machines to her worries that Republicans will try to manipulate the outcome. "That is the only variable in this," Pelosi said. "Will we have an honest count?"

The "only variable"? How about the variable of voters making up their own minds?

The Dems' Pre-Emption Strategy

~ By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Finally, Democrats have a battle plan. This month, they went to war -- on the American electoral process. Their pre-emption strategy? Call into question the results of the midterms even before Election Day had begun.

Brigadier General Nancy Pelosi of the 8th Drapery Division led the charge in an interview with her hometown San Francisco Chronicle last week:

The "only variable"? How about the variable of voters making up their own minds?

Two days before the election, left-wing Boston Globe columnist Robert Kuttner also advanced the Democrat strategy of pre-emptive delegitimization -- which Boston radio talker Michael Graham rightly characterized as "Either We Win Or You Cheated."

Wrote Kuttner: "[U]nless there are levels of theft and fraud that would truly mean the end of American democracy, a Democratic House seems as close to a sure thing as we ever get in American politics three days before an election . . . November 2006 will be remembered either as the time American democracy was stolen again, maybe forever, or began a brighter day."

Meanwhile, a gaggle of left-wing lawyers and college students mobilized at the polls to "protect" the integrity of the voting process. Behind the civic-minded facade of these groups, including the Election Protection Coalition and Video the Vote, are far-left radicals whose main concern is not in ensuring a fair election process -- but in pre-emptively undermining and delegitimizing it.

Video The Vote is led by anti-Bush documentarians who champion Cynthia McKinney's race-card politics and tinfoil hat conspiracies about 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. The supposedly "bipartisan" poll watchers are supported by Norman Lear's People For the American Way and MTV. Allied with this coalition are the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) -- the liberal advocacy group that has turned the minority voter registration business into a government boondoggle and corrupted the very process it claims to guard. Last week a federal grand jury in Kansas City indicted four ACORN workers in an illegal scheme to register voters with 15,000 fraudulent forms using bogus names, signatures and addresses.

What did the Democrats have to say about the ACORN indictments and other ACORN fraud probes stretching from Wisconsin and Colorado to Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania?

Nada.

The "stolen election" virus and Democrat blind spot on liberal voting fraud have afflicted the Left since 2000. Leading up to the 2004 election, Jesse Jackson played the pre-emption card: "The big issue in Florida is not whether we vote, the big issue is vote suppression." Failed Democrat vice presidential candidate John Edwards echoed the warning: Republicans were "up to their old tricks . . . trying to keep people from voting."

And last April, failed Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa, blamed the Democrats' loss in 2004 on rigged Diebold voting machines. She openly questioned the election results and fixated on areas of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes. "Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Mrs. Heinz Kerry intoned, and it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

Asked for evidence of her "mother machine"-hacking theory, the ketchup heiress refused further comment. But a cacophony of conspiracy theorists and mainstream Democrats have since taken up Kerry's moonbat baton, from Truther types to Black Box paranoiacs to Hillary Clinton.

Never mind the glaring contradiction of their attack on a Bush administration too incompetent to govern, yet so nefariously efficient and devious that it can rig hundreds of thousands of voting machines to deny the Democrats their "honest count" and entitled victory.

When all is said and done this week, one thing will be resoundingly clear: The Dems' election pre-emption plan -- like all their plans -- is a phony vehicle to sow seeds of doubt, paranoia and chaos as substitutes for action.

Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!

Townhall.com
1901 N. Moore Street | Suite 205 | Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-294-6046
Email Address: info@townhall.com

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Speaker Pelosi A Victory For Women?

POLITICS / SPEAKER PELOSI WILL FARE WORSE THAN REPUBLICANS IN RUNNING CONGRESS

Smiley Flag Waver American women should be careful what they wish for. Over the next two years, they will witness some of the consequences of having liberals in charge, as Democrats push for bigger government, higher taxes, and more regulation -- none of which benefit women.

American women will also learn how higher taxes hurt the economy.

Many women may celebrate Speaker Pelosi’s ascension to one of the highest offices in the land as a milestone reached for women. Yet this could be a turning point of another kind.

Republicans were far from perfect in their running of Congress, but sadly, all indications are that Speaker Pelosi will fare worse.

Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?

~ By Carrie Lukas
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

They say it’s a historic moment for women -- Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House! Not only will Madame Speaker be in charge of the ”people’s house” of Congress, she will be third in line for the presidency. In the weeks to come, no doubt, breathless pundits will explore whether Pelosi’s ascension is a harbinger of another, more profound turning point: A President Hillary Clinton.

Many female voters may feel vindicated. For two decades, women have consistently voted for more liberal candidates than men. If only women voted, America would have had a President Gore in 2000, a President Kerry in 2004 and a Democratic-controlled Congress. This voting trend sends the apparent message: Women want caring, nurturing, “feel your pain” Democrats running the show on Capitol Hill.

American women should be careful what they wish for. Over the next two years, they will witness some of the consequences of having liberals in charge, as Democrats push for bigger government, higher taxes, and more regulation -- none of which benefit women.

Consider taxes. Democrats have derided the Bush tax cuts as solely rewarding the rich. Yet when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, middle class families will learn how much these tax laws have benefited them. In four years, the child tax credits will be cut in half, the marriage penalty will return, and the bottom income tax bracket will rise from ten percent to fifteen percent. Middle class families may be surprised that the Democrat’s agenda of repealing Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” will put a serious squeeze on their family budget.

American women will also learn how higher taxes hurt the economy. Many of us don’t feel directly affected by investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. Yet these cuts have a significant, positive impact on the economy, and their elimination will have the opposite effect. Increased taxes on investment make capital more expensive, which makes it harder for businesses to expand and create jobs. That means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

One of the few specific items in the Democratic agenda for 2007 is a minimum wage increase. Like most Americans who don’t look closely at the policy, many women see this as economic common sense. The reality is, like all regulations, a higher mandated wage comes with hidden costs like unemployment and higher consumer prices. Liberals portray employers as having an endless supply of money that they could give to employees were they not so coldhearted. The truth is companies forced to increase wages must find ways to cut costs or to increase revenue. This means reducing other salaries, firing workers, hiring less, or raising prices.

Democrats champion numerous, feel-good spending initiatives. They want more government funding for healthcare and welfare programs, and greater subsidies for student loans and daycare. Sounds appealing, but these “giveaways” come with significant costs. They increase taxpayers’ burden, short circuit economic growth, change people’s decisions, and usually result in greater government control over important areas of our lives. Consider if Washington further subsidizes institutional daycare facilities. Many women may find their private daycare providers struggling to compete and closing their doors, leaving women fewer (and often less appealing) options. Similarly, government provision of healthcare invariably means lower quality and less choice.

These domestic policies are only the beginning. Democrats have different priorities for fighting the War on Terror. The incoming Speaker of the House voted against the Patriot Act, opposed the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance program, and -- while a big spender in just about every other area -- has supported cutting funds for intelligence programs. Many American women are frustrated by the course of the war in Iraq, but will they feel comfortable with Speaker Pelosi’s tactics of reigning in our intelligence and national security community’s effort to defend our homeland? Intelligence is our only alternative to military campaigns abroad.

Many women may celebrate Speaker Pelosi’s ascension to one of the highest offices in the land as a milestone reached for women. Yet this could be a turning point of another kind. Over the next two years, American women will become reacquainted with the consequences of Democratic policies and may begin rethinking their support of liberal politicians, regardless of their gender. Republicans were far from perfect in their running of Congress, but sadly, all indications are that Speaker Pelosi will fare worse.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Be the first to read Carrie Lukas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!

Townhall.com
1901 N. Moore Street | Suite 205 | Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-294-6046
Email Address: info@townhall.com

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Christians & Politics No Wiser Than 15 Years Ago

POLITICS & RELIGION / SHOULD CHRISTIANS WORK THROUGH A THIRD POLITICAL PARTY?

The American View

Smiley Flag Waver “Should Christians work through a third political party?” Okay. So, my answer is: “I don’t know. This is not something I’m dogmatic about.” Indeed, Christendom in America is in such a deplorable, sinful mess that I don’t believe most Christians today -- or perhaps, more accurately, I should call them “Christians” -- are sufficiently fit to work effectively in any area.

Christians And Politics: No Wiser Than 15 Years Ago

~ By John Lofton, Editor

Having just moved, I have come across many things I had long ago forgotten about. One was the following article I wrote for “The Christian Statesman,” the September-October, 1991, issue. This Special Issue was devoted to several people addressing this topic: “A Christian Political Party: Is One Necessary? Is One Proper?” I, alas, see no significant, noticeable improvement in American Christendom since I wrote this piece 15 years ago -- J. L.

My assignment is to write a brief answer to the question: “Should Christians work through a third political party?” Okay. So, my answer is: “I don’t know. This is not something I’m dogmatic about.” Indeed, Christendom in America is in such a deplorable, sinful mess that I don’t believe most Christians today -- or perhaps, more accurately, I should call them “Christians” -- are sufficiently fit to work effectively in any area.

The Barna Research Group in Glendale, Calif., reports that there are about 350,000 Protestant and Roman Catholic churches in our country. More than 1,100 radio stations emphasize Christian programming; 350 TV stations do the same. Over 30,000,000 of us read Christian publications regularly. In addition, more than $30 billion is donated to churches annually; another $8-$l0 billion is given to so- called “parachurch” ministries (a term I hate because it subtly denigrates God’s work being done outside official church buildings). And Christian products are sold through more than 6,000 retail stores and numerous direct-marketing agencies, with sales totaling more than $1 billion a year.

Furthermore, a recent poll of 13,000 people by the City University of New York -- the largest national sample of this kind ever taken -- revealed that 86 percent of Americans say that they are Christians. Amazing, no?

Yet, despite all of the above, a recent (mid-1990) Barna Research Group study has found that even though the Christian Church is pervasive in our society, it is not bringing forth “much fruit,” that “people, for the most part, see the Church as an outdated institution that means well, but has little to offer to a contemporary person. The Church is not viewed as a valuable resource.”

So, what’s the problem? Well, I think pollster George Gallup (a Christian) tells us. In a story carried by the Religious News Service in May 1991, Gallup say (and he deserves to be quoted at length): “I doubt if more than five to ten percent of Christians are prepared to defend their faith. Many don’t know what it means to be a Christian.” He says: “The Sunday school and religious education system in this country is not working … . While we worry about secular education we really ought to worry about religious education, which is more important.”

Amen!

Calling this “a very frightening situation, because not being grounded in one’s faith means we’re open for anything that comes along,” Gallup says that New Age beliefs are just as strong among traditionally religious people as among those who do not share these views. And he says that church involvement “does not seem to make a great deal of difference in the way we live our lives,” with church members being “just as likely as the un-churched to engage in unethical behavior.”

Gallup says that although most Americans say they believe in God, “this God is … not a demanding one. He does not command our total allegiance.”

So, my brothers and sisters in Christ, this is the problem, in a nutshell: The overwhelming majority of those in our country who say they are Christians know virtually nothing about what this means. They are, alas, Biblically illiterate and unable therefore to apply God’s Word to any area of life. Thus, as our Lord predicted, these millions of “Christians” are the savorless salt He predicted would be trodden under the feet of men and would be, in fact, so bad they are not even fit for the dung heap!

We must, of course, continue to discuss how Christians, or even “Christians” for that matter, can be most effective in politics. About this matter reasonable men and women can, and do, disagree. But while discussing this, we must realize that our problem is far greater than this political question.

We must repent of our sin of disobedience, before God, ask His forgiveness, study His Word seriously and then apply it to all areas of life. Then, and not until then, “all things” will work together for good because we will have demonstrated by our being doers of God’s Word that we love Him, and “are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).

WARNING: These items may be hazardous to your mental health -- particularly if you believe being a Republican is synonymous with being a Christian and/or a conservative.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Liberal Gains Will Result In Conservative Losses

ELECTION 2006 / LIBERAL GAINS WILL RESULT IN CONSERVATIVE LOSSES

Smiley Flag Waver Key parts of their agenda call for repealing the bulk of the administration's tax cuts, ending the ban on federal funding for new lines of stem-cell research and limiting some of the investigative, prosecutorial and surveillance methods in the counterterrorism USA Patriot Act.

Liberal Democrats have no plan to restore American Heritage, Tradition And Values.

This is what the voters want. This is what they will get.

Democrats Will Reverse 5 Years Of Conservative Gains

[Edited From The Original]
~ Original By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 19, 2006

The Democrats' election-year agenda, which says what they will do now that the voters have put them back in charge of Congress, will seek to overturn or change just about everything President Bush and the Republicans have done since 2001.

Key parts of their agenda call for repealing the bulk of the administration's tax cuts, ending the ban on federal funding for new lines of stem-cell research and limiting some of the investigative, prosecutorial and surveillance methods in the counterterrorism USA Patriot Act.

Many of the details of their agenda may not have been that widely known among rank-and-file voters, but opinion surveys show that ignorance may not matter as the election concludes. On just about every major issue -- Iraq, terrorism, the economy, health care, immigration and ethics in government -- voters said they trust Democrats more than the Republicans to do a better job of handling them, according to recent polls.

But a top election pollster questions whether the Democrats' agenda played that much of a role in the election's outcome and whether many voters even knew whether they have offered alternatives to Mr. Bush's policies. At the same time, a Democratic defense-policy strategist thinks his party's national-security proposals were excessively watered down to appeal to a broader electorate.

"The Democrat win, will have all the elements of a Forrest Gump victory. In other words, things swirling around them over which they were barely aware," independent pollster John Zogby said, referring to the slow-thinking movie character who always succeeded, but without any grand design in mind.

"There will not be a proactive agenda that wins this for them. I don't know if the electorate sees the Democrats as having an alternative to the Bush plan. They've put it out, but the party's leadership hasn't led with it," Mr. Zogby said. "They have pretty much sought to avoid a discussion of Iraq."

This would stand in contrast to the 1994 congressional sweep by Republicans who ran on their comprehensive, highly detailed "Contract With America," giving them a more-sweeping mandate than is likely for the Democrats.

Any Democratic agenda would still be constrained by Mr. Bush in the White House and his veto power.

Democratic leaders call their agenda "A New Direction for America," but much of its details are what Republican leaders call "boilerplate" Democratic dogma that the party has been proposing for years, such as raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25, rolling back the Bush tax cuts, expanding new stem-cell research, raising taxes on oil companies and boosting government spending for college-tuition loans and Pell Grants.

On the war in Iraq, the Democrats' agenda calls for "a tough, smart plan to transform failed Bush administration policies in Iraq" and for a "phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq."

To combat terrorism, it proposes to "double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorist networks like al Qaeda" and to "rebuild a state-of-the-art military capable of projecting power wherever necessary." Both provisions, national-security analysts say, have been at the heart of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's military reforms ever since the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who often advises Democratic congressional leaders, says that although the agenda's phased redeployment "is not cut and run, I would rather see Democrats offer some more ideas about what we could do in Iraq to make things better."

"At least this [agenda] avoids the problem of being too extreme. They are generally trying to be responsible and reasonable. But it's still thin gruel, given how much we need good ideas," Mr. O'Hanlon said.

Democratic officials, however, said their agenda was a key factor in their consistent lead in the election polls.

"We have talked about it in campaigns across the country and we'll keep talking about it," said Stacie Paxton, a Democratic National Committee spokesman.

On the agenda's Iraq proposals, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's chief spokesman, Brendan Daly noted that even former Republican Secretary of State James A. Baker III "now says we need significant changes in strategy in Iraq."

A major domestic-policy plank in the Democrats' agenda is a rollback of the tax cuts, which has become the party's campaign mantra. But there is division within the party's ranks over how far they should go in attempting to repeal the across-the-board tax cuts that lowered tax rates for low-to-moderate income workers and doubled the child-tax credit that affects mostly middle-income families.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, who will likely become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee now that the Democrats have won the House back, has said that he could not think of a single Bush tax cut that he supported and suggested that all of them should be repealed. But Mrs. Pelosi, who has become speaker, said last week that the tax-cut rollback would only affect people earning $250,000 a year or more.

"But the consequences of repealing all the Bush tax cuts would hit people in much lower income-tax brackets and millions more who were removed from the tax rolls by Bush's reforms," said Scott A. Hodge, chief executive of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

"There are about 15 million more taxpayers off the tax rolls today, compared to the end of the Clinton administration. Almost all of those people have incomes below $50,000 a year. Many have children who not only receive the $1,000-per-child tax credit, but also the refundable earned-income tax credit for families in need of additional income," Mr. Hodge said.

"They would all be back on the tax rolls if you repealed the Bush tax cuts," he said.