What do you get with a divided house?

Nothing.

SOME people make the argument that a house divided is stronger than a unified house. Of course, some others have made the point that’s not true. I would be in that boat. I have also stated several times in the past that within two years, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would do so much damage to the Democrat Party that not only will they lose the Presidential election, they most likely would lose their majority in Congress. So far, it’s looking like I over-estimated their chances to survive two years. Barely three months into their leadership I made the “saving Republicans” post. Now eight months in, it’s much, much, worse:

An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job — the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll.

Last year The Rolling Stone did a piece called “Worst Congress Ever”. They based it on the fact that they don’t like Conservatives. They even said so. Part of the reason it was the worst ever was because one of their worst leaders ever was a Christian. They were pandering to poll numbers. Now, Rolling Stone and whoever agreed, what to make of THIS Congress? Remember Nancy’s 10 point plan? How much of that has actually been realized? More transparent government? They tried to hide pork. Cleaning up the culture of corruption, William Jefferson is STILL in Congress and Nancy won’t say a peep about it. Getting our troops out of Iraq? Harry goes home while the rest do nothing. Anyone still wonder why this Congress has a 14% approval rating? The lowest Zogby has EVER registered.

The plan as I laid out on November 7, 2006 is moving way ahead of schedule. I really thought Nancy and Harry could hold things together at least one year. I was wrong.

OK, divided supporters, that was mostly sarcasm. Harry and Nancy never had a chance because the guy who signs their legislation into law won’t. Rather than seeking some common middle ground as other, wiser, leaders have done in the past to show progress, Harry and Nancy are thumbing their noses at the guy that signs their legislation. As stupid as media and a lot of people paint Bush, his popularity has increased while Nancy and Harry’s has plummeted since they took the spotlight. That should tell ya something. But, I’m sure it won’t. A House divided will not stand. That doesn’t have anything to do with party lines. However, because of the infinite wisdom of our Founding Fathers, a broken House can be fixed in two years or less. In this case, I’m betting it gets repaired in about fifteen months. One way or another. Give Nancy and Harry another fifteen months and the Democrats won’t have a chance. This could get very, very messy very, very soon. The person who is getting hurt the worst by this inept leadership of Nancy and Harry is Hillary Clinton. Anyone remember what happened to people who got in Hillary’s cross-hairs in the past?

Related Posts

  • June 3, 2008 -- Democrats riding high on the strength of the most unpopular Congress ever (0)
    A lot is being made of the momentum the Democrats are on.  They've picked up quite a few seats in Congress over the last couple of years.  They are starting to get their agenda, to some degree, pas...
  • August 13, 2007 -- Karl Rove resigning (1)
    Karl Rove has announced he is resigning effective August 31. Good. I have always felt Rove is a genius at coordinating national campaigns. Probably the best there is right now. However, he ...
  • July 19, 2007 -- AFL-CIO defends the worst. Congress. Ever. (0)
    No sooner than I posted the previous comment, I read this: For too long, leaders in control of Congress neglected the needs of working Americans. But our new Congress listened to what working Ame...
  • July 22, 2008 -- Harry Reid is clueless (0)
    Apparently smarting from polls that put his Senate leadership in the single digits, Harry Reid decided to fight back starting with this letter to The Hill Blog: When our country is in crisis, Cong...
  • September 6, 2008 -- Unemployment jumps to five year high ( I told ya so! ) (0)
    Almost two years ago, I warned Nancy Pelosi what would happen if they jerked around with the minimum wage without adjusting other funding to account for it.  She's a stubborn old bag and didn't lis...
Zemanta

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com mw

    First, you did actually miss that 2006 prediction. So did I, but I was closer, calling for a 50-50 Senate. If you don’t count Lieberman as a Democrat, then I nailed it. Moreover, we learned that it is indeed possible to nationalize a mid-term election, if there is enough dis-satisfaction with the party in power. I don’t like saying “I told you so” but this a point I made in ““All Politics is Local, except when it is not.” – like it wasn’t 2006.

    So on to your 2008 prognostications. I am not yet ready to venture a guess on the Presidency, at least until I see the candidates. But I will take the other side of your 2008 Congressional prediction. History and the structural factors are against you. There are 33 Senate seats contested in 2008. Of these, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Simple numbers – the Republicans have a lot more at risk, and will be playing defense. The Democrats have many more opportunities to take seats than Republicans. Advantage Democrats. Big Big advantage. In the 100 years since we have been directly electing Senators, the House has never flipped majority unless the Senate did also. Never. Not even once.

    So, I am predicting the the Dems will retain their majority in the Senate and House. In fact, I expect they will increase their majority in the Senate (but I doubt they can get to 60). I would expect their majority in the in the House to shrink.

    Perhaps a wager is in order? I wager the Dems retain majorities in both houses of Congress in the 2008 election. You say they don’t.

    Stakes? How about the loser must give the winner an un-edited guest post on their blog (assuming we are both still blogging in 2008).

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com mw

    First, you did actually miss that 2006 prediction. So did I, but I was closer, calling for a 50-50 Senate. If you don’t count Lieberman as a Democrat, then I nailed it. Moreover, we learned that it is indeed possible to nationalize a mid-term election, if there is enough dis-satisfaction with the party in power. I don’t like saying “I told you so” but this a point I made in ““All Politics is Local, except when it is not.” – like it wasn’t 2006.

    So on to your 2008 prognostications. I am not yet ready to venture a guess on the Presidency, at least until I see the candidates. But I will take the other side of your 2008 Congressional prediction. History and the structural factors are against you. There are 33 Senate seats contested in 2008. Of these, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Simple numbers – the Republicans have a lot more at risk, and will be playing defense. The Democrats have many more opportunities to take seats than Republicans. Advantage Democrats. Big Big advantage. In the 100 years since we have been directly electing Senators, the House has never flipped majority unless the Senate did also. Never. Not even once.

    So, I am predicting the the Dems will retain their majority in the Senate and House. In fact, I expect they will increase their majority in the Senate (but I doubt they can get to 60). I would expect their majority in the in the House to shrink.

    Perhaps a wager is in order? I wager the Dems retain majorities in both houses of Congress in the 2008 election. You say they don’t.

    Stakes? How about the loser must give the winner an un-edited guest post on their blog (assuming we are both still blogging in 2008).

  • Moonage

    I have never said the Dems would or would retain Congress. What I have said is IF Nancy and Harry persist in the detached ultra-liberal non-productive personal agendas and don’t start doing something constructive, that 83% disapproval rating WILL be reflected at the polls. If your theory is correct and people all across the land totally ignored local issues and only voted on national issues, then they voted for a change from the perception they had of the Republicans. What change has actually occurred? Answer that question and you’ll get the answer to why I think the polls now are much more harsh on the Democrats than they were on the Republicans. If Nancy and Harry do totally mitigate the difference in what seperated Democrats from Republicans, then it will boil down exclusively to who is running against whom in each of the elections. There’s too many races and I don’t have the resources to check them all. So, there’s no point in just guessing what the numbers will be. The Republicans have a definite uphill battle due to the races that are coming up. As I have stated before, Congress is totally ripe for the Dems holding power. The only thing that could screw those chances up are Nancy and Harry. What I will bet is those two will make it interesting in 2008.

    Now, while we’re on the topic of 2008, if Hillary does win the presidency, and the Dems hold Congress, I fully expect you’ll attack them will the same vigor as you have the Republicans. No need for a wager on that one. Right now the Dems have almost as much control over the House and Senate as the Republicans ever had. For some reason I don’t see any vitroil for the pathetic agenda this Congress has accomplished versus what the previous two did.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com mw

    I’ll take that as a no.

    I am frankly not as concerned or interested in Congress because I don’t think the Congressional elections can be nationalized in ’08. Congressional productivity was not what the ’06 election turned on. It was corruption and the war, in that order. Do I think the Dems are potentially as bad as Reps in Congress? Yes. Murtha is certainly just as corrupt as Hastert. But they won’t have enough time to fully realize that potential in the next 14 months. Even if there is a perception that they are as bad as you say, GWB still owns the war and cancels out most of any Republican advantage to be gleaned by a Dem Congress. So for all the reasons I outlined, a Dem congress remains a high probability. Sure, they are certainly capable of still pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory before 2008. Maybe if they find Pelosi keeps male pages in bondage under her desk. That might do it. Not sure what else will.

    Regarding the presidency, I have stated here and on my blog that I will be supporting the Republican nominee for president, regardless of who it is, in order to maintain divided government. In fact, I have announced my intention to change parties and register Republican for the primaries in order to support a Republican candidate that I think will be good for the country and will win in the general election. My candidate is a real fiscal conservative, a real social conservative, a real war hero, intelligent, articulate, and an independent thinker with demonstrated high integrity. In short, he is the Anti-Bush. His name is Chuck Hagel. Unlikely to win the nomination, he is still the best the Republicans have to offer. A distant second choice is Mitt Romney, whose core convictions are found at the intersection of his ambition and political convenience. His Clintonesque quality of blowing with the prevailing polls means he can be reliably trusted to end the War in Iraq, regardless of what he says to get the nomination.

    In order to continue to enjoy the benefits of divided government, I am perfectly happy with Nancy and the Dems continuing to hold a majority in the House. The Republicans can retake the Senate in 2010 when they will have a structural advantage, Iraq will be resolved, and the electorate really will be getting tired of the Dems. I’m good with that too.

    But right now, I agree that the only way to avoid a single party Democratic government in 2009 that will be every bit as bad as the single party Republican government of the last six years, is to elect a Republican President in 2008.

  • Moonage

    I don’t think registering with a party you don’t philosophically agree with accomplishes anything. What happens if everyone thought the same way and voted against the incumbents in office and a Republican for president purely because they thought they were preserving balance? We’d just have a mess on our hands because it could very well wind up being exactly what people didn’t intend it to be. Look at the last Congress, and look at this one. Which of the two got the most done? Trick question I know as neither did. That’s because no one party was truly in power. The Republicans had the majority, but not by enough to over-ride a filibuster. The Democrats had enough that they could kill legislation with just a hand full of Republican defectors. That’s true balance. We have true balance with this Congress in exactly the same way. No one party can get anything done without some support from the other. The only difference between what’s going on now and two years ago is Nancy and Harry are dead set on sending legislation to the President they know he will veto just to make political statements while nothing gets done. That’s not good government and it’s showing in the polls.

NAVIGATION

« « Previous: Honeymoon over for Fred?

Next: AFL-CIO defends the worst. Congress. Ever. » »