Posted on 10/31/2006 8:13:19 AM PST by ACU Outreach
A Look at What Happens if Democrats Win Congress
By Deroy Murdock
Scripps Howard News Service
October 26, 2006
Hypothetically, if Democrats win Congress, don't expect a mild left turn. Watch the U.S. Capitol building spin nearly 180 degrees.
Congress' current Republican leadership—their haplessness and profligacy aside—generally feature senators and representatives with solidly conservative vote records. Conversely, minority leaders and ranking Democrats on congressional committees are among their party's staunchest liberals.
A Democratic victory on Capitol Hill naturally would involve a jump to the Left. But their steering the ship of state hard aport could toss passengers overboard.
Consider the latest vote scorecards from the ACLU, AFL-CIO, Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) on the Left. On the Right, peruse the ratings from the American Conservative Union (ACU), National Taxpayers Union (NTU), Citizens against Government Waste (CAGW), and the Center for Security Policy (CSP).
The contrast is jarring.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, earned a 100 percent rating from the ACU and CSP. Each judged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, a zero. While the ACLU gave Pelosi a 100, it handed Hastert a zero. This is a public-policy yin-yang.
The House Judiciary Committee could go from chairman James Sensenbrenner's, R-Wisconsin, zero rating to a 95 for John Conyers, D-Michigan, who is poised to become chair.
The numbers 0 and 95 also reflect the respective PIRG ratings for Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-California, and ranking member Charles Rangel, D-New York.
Another key reversal could befall the House Intelligence Committee, where chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Michigan, has a 100 ACU rating versus a four for Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, reportedly expected to head Intelligence if Democrats prevail. A shift from Hoekstra's 11 ACLU rating to Hastings' 95 would sway a panel that oversees, among other things, terrorists interrogations.
In November 1988, incidentally, the House impeached then-U.S. District Judge Hastings. The Senate convicted him in October 1989 of perjury and conspiracy to solicit a bribe and ejected him from the federal bench. Three years later, he won a U.S. House seat.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist's, R-Tennessee, 74 NTU rating could be subsumed by minority leader Harry Reid's five.
While Appropriations chairman Thad Cochran's, R-Mississippi, 63 CAGW rating is not stellar, it glistens beside West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd's nine.
Foreign Affairs Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, with an 88 ACU rating, could yield to Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, with an eight.
On Intelligence, Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, who earned zeros from the ADA and AFL-CIO, might swap with West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who received 100 and 79 from those groups.
Today's GOP House speaker, majority leader, and the chairmen of Ways and Means, Budget, Appropriations, Judiciary, International Relations and Intelligence average a 91 ACU rating. Their Democratic counterparts score seven. Conversely, compare the GOP's average ADA rating of four with a 95 for these Democrats.
Today's Senate GOP majority leader and chairmen of Finance, Budget, Appropriations, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence average an 84 ACU rating and an 11 ADA rating. Democrats' equivalents are 12 and 96.
Some applaud all this potential change.
"This Congress is clearly well out of step with American values," says Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "The ACLU's scorecard focuses on key votes for civil liberties and the Constitution—and we can see that the current leadership is flunking the test. All recent polls underscore that the American public wants a Congress that believes in our Constitution and the values that make America a great country, and not a government that condones torture and illegal actions by the president."
Others deem a Democratic takeover scarier than Halloween.
"CAGW has been critical of Republican spending, especially the increase in pork-barrel projects over the past several years," says CAGW president Tom Schatz. However, "If Democrats take over the House and/or Senate, taxpayers should expect massive increases in wasteful and ineffective domestic programs. The growth of entitlement programs also will explode; attempts to save them for future generations will be scuttled. And kiss your tax cuts goodbye."
For free marketeers, these data should offer a cautionary tale—and an impetus to keep a Democratic congressional takeover strictly hypothetical.
Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service. Researcher Marco DeSena contributed to this piece.
FYI.
Rothenburg pulled the trigger today. He's now predicting Democrats win 34-40 seats in the House.
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/11/2006-house-ratings.html
Lean Democratic
1 D 01 (TX-22) DeLay*
2 D 02 (AZ-08) Kolbe*
3 D 03 (PA-10) Sherwood
4 D 04 (IN-08) Hostettler
5 D 05 (NY-24) Boehlert*
6 D 06 (CO-07) Beauprez*
7 D 07 (PA-07) Weldon
8 D 08 (OH-15) Pryce
9 D 09 (IA-01) Nussle*
10 D 10 (PA-06) Gerlach
11 (FL-16) Foley*
11 D 12 (NC-11) Taylor
Toss Up
12 D 13 (IN-02) Chocola
14 (CT-02) Simmons
15 (NM-01) Wilson
13 D 16 (OH-18) Ney*
17 (IN-09) Sodrel
18 (CT-04) Shays
19 (WI-08) Green*
14 D 20 (OH-01) Chabot
15 D 21 (FL-13) Harris*
16 D 22 (CT-05) Johnson<<
23 (VA-02) Drake
24 (WA-08) Reichert
25 (NY-26) Reynolds
25 (IL-06) Hyde*
27 (NY-29) Kuhl
28 (PA-08) Fitzpatrick
29 (WY-AL) Cubin
30 (MN-06) Kennedy*
31 (KY-04) Davis
32 (NY-20) Sweeney
33 (FL-22) Shaw
17 D 34 (AZ-05) Hayworth
Lean Republican
18 D 35 (NY-25) Walsh
19 D 36 (ID-01) Otter*
20 D 37 (KY-03) Northup
38 (MN-01) Gutknecht
21 D 39 (NH-02) Bass
40 (AZ-01) Renzi
41 (NV-03) Porter
42 (OH-12) Tiberi<<
22 D 43 (CA-11) Pombo
44 (CO-04) Musgrave
45 (PA-04) Hart
46 (NY-19) Kelly
47 (OH-02) Schmidt
48 (NV-02) Gibbons*
49 (IL-10) Kirk
50 (NC-08) Hayes
51 (IA-02) Leach
52 (VA-10) Wolf
53 (NY-03) King
54 (CO-05) Hefley*
55 (NJ-07) Ferguson
56 (TX-23) Bonilla
57 (NE-03) Osborne*
58 (CA-04) Doolittle
Likely Republican
59 (WA-05) McMorris
60 (NE-01) Fortenberry
61 (IN-03) Souder
62 (FL-08) Keller
63 (CA-50) Bilbray
64 (KY-02) Lewis
65 (KS-02) Ryun
66 (MN-02) Kline
67 (MI-08) Rogers
68 (OH-14) LaTourette
69 (IL-11) Weller
70 (FL-09) Bilirakis*
Toss Up
01 (GA-08) Marshall
02 (IL-08) Bean
Lean Democratic
03 (WV-01) Mollohan
04 (VT-AL) Sanders(I)*
21 R 05 (GA-12) Barrow
06 (IA-03) Boswell
07 (LA-03) Melancon
08 (OR-05) Hooley
Likely Democratic
09 (IN-07) Carson
10 (IL-17) Evans*
11 (SC-05) Spratt
12 (TX-17) Edwards
13 (CO-03) Salazar
14 (NC-13) Miller
15 (LA-02) Jefferson
16 (KS-03) Moore
Why? Because Whitehouse has ethics problems and republicans and independents are coming home to Chaffee. Stay tuned.
Ya, that was a shocker. I am not sure I believe it. The problem is that many voters might perceive that Senate control rests on one seat, as it well might.
I won't be posting final ratings until tomorrow night, but I can go ahead and mention that I've made major changes to my House list over the weekend. My Senate ratings are effectively unchanged since I posted my forecast in that contest thread by NYRepublican. I'll be posting the final edition of that tomorrow as well, so if there is any late-breaking development we shall see! As for the governor races, which you don't follow quite so intently, there are still a half dozen where I haven't yet made a final call. Again, I'll be posting those tomorrow.
Come on just do it! Sure you can revise and extend later. I am way out there on the limb, going a lot by my gut, although I did a survey of the polls before going out on the branch. :)
Understatement of the year. :)
Pelosi ought to ponder that question.
By the way, I really sweated about some of the choices, about 15 of them. Wilson, Shays, Simmons, Pombo, Hyde, Johnson, Chicola, Harris, Foley, Northrup, Otter, Davis, Hayworth, Sodrel and Walsh, were really tough. Maybe I missed a couple. Delay is also bothersome. But I think the machine dial there is just too tough to work. I suspect I have a slight GOP bias, but I tried to be fair and balanced. The real range is about 15-30. I just think the GOP will win their share of these toughies - the wave.
OK, fine! I'll try to get them all posted today. I'm busy right at the moment, but I should get the Senate & Governor ratings up this evening. The House ratings probably won't be ready until later tonight.
Errata: the wave = no wave. :)
PS. And tomorrow night I'll simply post an Addendum, if need be.
My prediction? The numbers will approach the low end of averages for off year elections in second terms of incumbent POTUS.
Musgrave is another worry spot that I pondered. She obviously is a miserable candidate - always in trouble in a safe GOP district.
The Chafee poll was very surprising to me. Still is.
However, I read this Charlie Cook bit a couple of days ago, and preceded to ignore it. Now I'm reexamining it again; maybe he wasn't just somking crack.
"The strange ones are Conrad Burns and Lincoln Chafee in Montana and Rhode Island, respectively. Both races are basically even, pretty remarkable considering how dismal their prospects looked just a couple weeks ago. While even is a bad place for a Republican to be going into Election Day in this kind of environment, both have some momentum at this point."
Pelosi is bragging about a 22-26 gain for her. Something is wrong when the experts are expecting more victories for the RATS.
Just very briefly, are you aware that the Siena Poll now has Sweeney trailing Gillibrand by 3%? That one Siena Poll was of course a big reason why the Majority Watch polls that had Sweeney way behind were widely dismissed. Anyhow, I should concentrate on what I'm working on so I can get to my ratings, which will be much more enjoyable! :)
What does that mean, numbers wise? Your time horizon on that one makes a rather huge difference. The most recent were 1986 and 1998. If you add in 1958, or for that matter 1938, well, that affects the number, but ain't that ancient history?
I was aware of it. Sweeney wins, unless and until I see a heavyweight polling outfit say something to the contrary. Seeney, despite being a apparent lush, is pretty well entrenched, and viewed as effective - the same thing that is going to save Reynolds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.