Archive for May, 2007
Based on this article, I’d say that the impossible just happened in Baghdad. Here’s what I’m talking about:
U.S. forces backed by helicopter gunships clashed with suspected al-Qaida gunmen in western Baghdad’s primarily Sunni Muslim Amariyah neighbourhood in an engagement that lasted several hours, said a district councilman, who would not allow use of his name for fear of al-Qaida retribution.
Casualty figures were not available and there was no immediate word from the U.S. military on the engagement. But the councilman said the al-Qaida leader in the Amariyah district, known as Haji Hameed, had been killed and 45 other fighters detained.
Members of al-Qaida, who consider the district part of their Islamic State of Iraq, were preventing students from attending final exams, shooting randomly and forcing residents to stay in their homes, the councilman said.
Rep. Murtha has repeatedly told us that huge majorities of Iraqis want us out of Iraq ASAP. Obviously, that claim isn’t accurate. In fact, Murtha’s claim is laughable. Let’s also remember the ridicule that Michele Bachmann got for talking about the Islamic State of Iraq during her podcast with St. Cloud Times reporter Larry Schumacher. This is the second time I’ve posted about that name being used. Here’s the first time:
Across the walls of the villas they seized in the name of their shadow government, black-masked al-Qaida militants spray-painted the words: “Property of the Islamic State of Iraq”
For months, al-Qaida turned a part of one Baqouba neighborhood into an insurgent fiefdom that American and Iraqi forces were too undermanned to tackle, a startling example of the terror groupâ€™s ability to thrive openly in some places outside Baghdad even as U.S.-led forces struggle to regain control in the capital.
U.S. forces took back the entire Tahrir neighborhood during a weeklong operation that wrapped up Sunday in Baqouba, a city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad that al-Qaida declared last year the capital of its self-styled Islamic caliphate.
Though the operation was a success, it forced the guerrillas to either flee or melt into the population, soldiers say the extremists are likely to pop up anywhere else thatâ€™s short on American firepower.
In other words, al-Qaida is in Iraq, they’re fighting hard to establish a shadow government and they think of Iraq as the Islamic State of Iraq. What part of this doesn’t Rep. Murtha understand? Or is the better question why he won’t admit that he’s wrong?
Most importantly, it appears as though we’ve cornered AQI in west Baghdad and we’re killing lots of terrorists, including AQI’s leader in that district.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Here’s Gov. Pawlenty’s press release on the final four bills of the session. Gov. Pawlenty’s statement on the Tax Bill is the most noteworthy:
In his veto letter regarding the tax bill, Governor Pawlenty said there were many positive items in the bill, but that legislative leaders were aware of his opposition to including a measure that would automatically incorporate inflation into the budget forecasting process.
“When legislators and the Governor assemble the state budget, we shouldnâ€™t assume that every program should grow on autopilot. We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” Governor Pawlenty said. “When complaints come about provisions lost as a result of this veto, I would encourage people to contact DFL leaders who chose to keep controversial policy language in rather than passing a clean bill.”
During the 1990’s, Bill Clinton’s mantra was about setting priorities. The DFL’s actions this session were dictated by their wish to avoid setting priorities. Proof of that was their failing to set budget targets. They did that to avoid criticism for spending such outrageous amounts of money.
Thank God that Gov. Pawlenty & most GOP legislators still believes in setting priorities that are both beneficial to taxpayers & sustainable for the long haul. That’s something that they should benefit from during the 2008 campaign.
Follow this link to read Gov. Pawlenty’s veto notice. It’s really must reading.
The SC Times has a nice article summarizing Gov. Pawlenty’s veto of the tax bill. This Larry Hosch quote can’t be ignored:
“If the governor wants property tax relief, he needs to call a special session,” said Rep. Larry Hosch, DFL-St. Joseph. “To veto a bill that has so many good things in it and is so important, because he’s afraid of using an accurate description of our budget situation, is disappointing.”
Mr. Hosch’s statement is utterly disingenuous. Let’s start with his saying that the Tax Bill had “many good things in it.” By that, Rep. Hosch means that it had lots of LGA for St. Cloud & Rockville in it. Why was LGA in the Tax Bill? Why wasn’t LGA in the Government Operations bill where it was supposed to be? Had it been in that bill, I’d bet the ranch that Gov. Pawlenty would’ve signed it within minutes. The DFL included it into this bill in the hopes that they’d either force Gov. Pawlenty into signing the bill or that they’d gain a campaign issue in 2008.
Why shouldn’t taxpayers blame the DFL for playing a ‘My way or the highway’ game with property tax relief during the regular session instead of blaming Gov. Pawlenty for not calling a special session to get property tax relief done? Had they worked with Gov. Pawlenty & the GOP legislature instead of trying to jam this bill down his & the GOP legislature’s throat, there likely would’ve been a bill signing ceremony celebrating real property tax relief.
The DFL painted a target on small businesses backs with this legislation. They did that while repeatedly chanting their tax fairness mantra. They knew that that was their only way of selling this legislation. I’d bet that they’d tell you off the record that they knew this bill was an uphill fight at best. I’d also bet that their goal wasn’t permanent property tax relief. I’d bet that the goal behind this bill was to get a campaign issue for 2008.
Let’s ask Mr. Hosch why he voted for job-killing tax increases that would’ve killed Minnesota’s economy. Let’s ask Mr. Hosch why he thought that the phony principle of tax fairness was more important than keeping Minnesota’s economy strong. Let’s ask Rep. Hosch why he doesn’t acknowledge that the property tax ‘relief’ bill that was passed was almost identical to the Senate bill, which was all about increasing LGA in the hopes that cities wouldn’t increase property taxes. Let’s ask him why it wasn’t closer to the House plan which provided real reform of the property tax system. Finally, let’s ask Rep. Hosch why he won’t acknowledge Gov. Pawlenty’s property tax relief plan? Might it be that he doesn’t want to talk about it because Gov. Pawlenty’s plan didn’t rely on job-killing tax increases?
Rep. Hosch expresses concerns with the state budget forecasters not “using an accurate description of our budget situation” but he isn’t the least bit concerned about not painting an accurate picture of who played games with property tax relief & who was serious about it. That’s the height of hypocrisy, Rep. Hosch. You should be ashamed for playing that game.
Local Republicans said they sympathized with the plight of local officials, but they supported Pawlenty’s veto and said there was no need for a special session. “I think we can wait until February,” said Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud. “Had we brought legislation forward earlier and had a more cooperative effort, we might’ve been able to avoid this.”
I know from a brief conversation with Rep. Gottwalt last night that he saw the importance of the LGA for Rockville & St. Cloud but he also saw the importance of vetoing legislation with that many poison pills, too.
The inflation provision was a “poison pill” added by DFLers in the last hours of the session, said Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids. “They tried to force (Pawlenty) into passing a law that he said he wouldn’t sign, and now they’ve got to live with the consequences,” he said.
The DFL fought hard to get that inflation provision included because it would’ve provided instant justification for increasing taxes. That would’ve been a liberal’s dream. Unfortunately, it would’ve been a taxpayer’s nightmare. Thank God for our great goalie.
I’ve gotten alot of mileage from Mike Hatch’s acceptance speech from last June’s DFL State Convention. I titled that post Does Anyone Believe Them? Now I have reason for a ‘sequel to that post. This article provides the quotes needed for the sequel. Let’s first set this up with Hatch’s infamous words:
He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, “we can do this without raising taxes.”
I said then that I’d believe that a Democrat wonâ€™t instinctively raise taxes the day that making sudden movements towards a cobra wouldnâ€™t get you bit. Especially after this session, I’ll stand fast on that belief.
Now let’s look at the basis for the sequel, courtesy of Sen. Pogemiller:
Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said estimating inflation doesn’t require lawmakers to actually give those increases to every program. But he said government shouldn’t be able to hide rising costs. “You just can’t wish away inflation and act like it doesn’t exist,” he said earlier Wednesday on a Minnesota Public Radio program.
I agree with Sen. Pogemiller that estimating inflation doesn’t require lawmakers to increase next year’s budget. Based on this session’s voting record, no objective, clear-thinking individual would trust the DFL not to spend that money & then some. There’s no way that the DFL wouldn’t jump on that opportunity like Justin Morneau jumps on belt-high hanging sliders.
Gov. Pawlenty’s response was swift & to the point:
“We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” Pawlenty wrote in his veto letter to legislators.
Those are fighting words with a typical DFLer. The thought of keeping government efficient is anathema to a liberal. In fact, it’s a liberal’s worst nightmare. If there was transparency in government & efficiency in budgeting, they couldn’t pay off their political allies properly. (Paying off their political allies is something that you can take to the bank.)
All spring long, MOBsters were wondering what type of goaltender Gov. Pawlenty would be. Today, we got our answer. Borrowing a hockey metaphor, I think it’s time to award Gov. Pawlenty with this year’s Vezina Trophy as the top goaltender in Minnesota this session. Here’s why he’s earned that ‘trophy’:
Capping a regular legislative session defined by his vetoes, Gov. Tim Pawlenty fulfilled a threat and vetoed a tax bill on Wednesday, taking down with it more than $70 million in local government aids and $33 million in direct homeowner property tax relief.
Also falling to Pawlenty’s veto pen were public subsidies for expansion of the Mall of America and Thomson-West publishing, as well as a state guarantee of costs associated with next year’s Republican National Convention.
Frankly, vetoing the tax bill is the best gift Gov. Pawlenty could give Minnesota’s taxpayers. Had he signed it, inflation would’ve been factored into the budget forecast, meaning that the DFL could’ve said that the surplus had disappeared & that we needed to increase taxes.
Earlier tonight, I talked with St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis about why I thought this was important. I said that a big reason why the DFL couldn’t gain any traction for their tax-raising insanity is because the official budget report stated that we had a $2.16 billion surplus. I said that the average taxpayer would hear the words “official report” & take their word on it. Mayor Kleis agreed that it’s difficult to win an argument ‘against’ an official government document.
The main poison pill in this legislation was an ‘inflation accelerator’ that would’ve given the DFL a stronger position to raise taxes. It also would’ve assumed that once something is appropriated, it’s always appropriated plus inflation. It essentially eliminates legislative oversight of the budgets. That isn’t being the taxpayers’ ally. That’s being fiscally irresponsible & that won’t cut it with GOP activists.
Gov. Pawlenty, I’m proud to have you as an ally in our fight against the DFL’s irresponsible fiscal behavior. I’m glad we had you as our goalie.
You’ve gotta love the media savvy that Fred Thompson has shown thus far. He upstaged the second debate by doing taking on Michael Moore in the Breitbart video. Now he’s got new plans to be the center of attention without debating:
Thompson advisers point out that the new testing-the-waters entity is not quite a campaign committee, though it will officially begin accepting contributions on June 4. On that day, the First Day, as it were, the campaign will take in donations that it can then tout as an impressive one-day haul. A corollary benefit will be that news reports about Thompson’s non-entry entry will run on June 5, when the declared candidates will meet in New Hampshire for their third debate. (Thompson won’t be required to disclose his donors and the amounts they give to the Federal Election Commission until September.)
In other words, Sen. Thompson will send a ‘fundraising shot’ across the frontrunners’ bow the day of the New Hampshire debate. The next day, the debate will have their headline, Fred Thompson will have his. And he won’t have to deal with Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo.
Simply put, Fred Thompson is setting the terms of his engagement and he’s benefiting from it. These aren’t debates. They’re an opportunity for fourth tier candidates like Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul to spew their purist blather to a big audience.
Former Georgia Senator Mack Mattingly, a First Day Founder who was on the conference call, says that he has chosen to back Thompson for two reasons. “First, he’s a conservative. Second, he’s a leader.” Mattingly believes that the creation of the new committee will change the dynamics of the race. “I don’t want to say anything bad about the other candidates,” he says. “There’ll probably be people who were supporting some other candidates who will be joining us. We’ll welcome them, too.” (Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn last week announced that she was switching her support from Mitt Romney, whom she endorsed in January, to Thompson.)
Sen. Mattingly states the obvious that Thompson’s entry into the race changes the dynamics of the race. That’s illustrated by Rep. Blackburn shifting her support from Mitt to Sen. Thompson. I suspect that she’s merely the first to switch allegiances from other candidates to Sen. Thompson.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
According to this USA Today article, Sen. Fred Thompson has taken a big step in running for the GOP presidential nomination.
Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson hasn’t formally announced he’ll run for the Republican presidential nomination, but today he did begin raising money for a prospective bid, USA TODAY Washington bureau chief Susan Page writes. She continues:
In a conference call with about 100 people, many of whom have urged him to jump in the race, Thompson asked for their help in raising funds for a testing-the-waters committee, which is likely to be formed next week. That money could be used for a campaign when and if he’s ready to run.
“I’m not saying anything against any of the candidates, but I think he can fill the vacuum that has not been filled yet on the Republican side,” Mack Mattingly, a former U.S. senator from Georgia who was on the call, says of Thompson. He predicts the actor and former senator “will be just like a magnet” who can attract conservative Democrats and Republicans.
During a conversation I had with a friend last weekend, my friend said that Thompson pulled 40 percent of the vote in a Georgia GOP state convention straw poll. My friend said that McCain drew 2.8 percent in that same straw poll. I think that Sen. Mattingly is exactly right in saying that Sen. Thompson “‘will be just like a magnet’ who can attract conservative Democrats and Republicans.”
As I noted here, Sen. Thompson is already garnering significant grassroots support from Christian conservatives:
“Itâ€™s not â€˜ifâ€™ but â€˜when,â€™ he will announce,” one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race. A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, fall short of social conservativesâ€™ expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesnâ€™t. “Heâ€™s right on the issuesâ€¦Heâ€™s better than all of the above.”
As I said then, this isn’t the type of thing that will put a smile on the three supposed frontrunners’ faces. Of the trio of Giuliani, Romney and McCain, the only candidate with frontrunner capabilities is Giuliani. Sen. Thompson is a social conservative. Sen. Thompson believes in Supreme Court justices like John Roberts, whom he shepherded through the Senate prior to his confirmation hearings. Most importantly, Sen. Thompson’s got the most coherent and appealing position on immigration reform.
Sen. Thompson also understands terrorists better than everyone else except Giuliani. Here’s what I’m basing this on:
“Al-Qaida have a 100-year plan,” Thompson said. “We have a plan until the next election.”
Patrick Poole wrote something about the Muslim Brotherhood’s 100 year plan, known as The Project. Though I haven’t heard of al-Qaida’s 100 year plan, I’d be surprised if they didn’t have one. Based on that Thompson quote, I’d say that he understands what President Bush means when he calls the GWOT “the Long War.”
This isn’t just another step for Sen. Thompson. It’s a large step, one that’s leading to his announcement. This Ryan Sager article in the NY Sun offers a more detailed insight into the process:
A “testing the waters” committee is a step before the more familiar presidential exploratory committee. It allows the former Tennessee senator to raise money and hire staff. But it also prevents him from doing a number of other things: advertising his candidacy, referring to himself as a real candidate (presumably just in public, he can say whatever he likes in front of the bathroom mirror), raising money that could be transferred to another candidate, or raising money to get on the ballot.
This provides another advantage to Thompson in that he isn’t obligated to participating in the cattle shows that the Agenda Media refers to as debates. The winner of the last two debates has been Fred Thompson because he hasn’t participated in either of them.
The Thompson adviser I spoke to yesterday wanted to downplay the significance of the forthcoming announcement (“Don’t expect huge fanfare,” were the adviser’s exact words). But for the Republican Party, this is clearly huge.
Mr. Sager is exactly right. Thompson’s candidacy is huge. He’ll be instantly recognized as the true conservative in the race. While Romney’s religion isn’t an obstacle that can’t be overcome, Romney’s past statements will cause people to wonder if he’s an election year convert or if he’s sincere. Sen. McCain has been a stalwart on Iraq. He’s been solid on earmark reform and spending restraint. His hopes at the nomination were dashed several times, most recently by his collaboration with Ted Kennedy on the immigration non-reform reform bill. His selling out President Bush’s judicial nominees is something that conservatives will never forgive him over. His stubbornness on BCRA is another issue that conservatives won’t forgive him over either.
That essentially leaves Giuliani and Thompson. May the
only best conservative win.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
This guy is so smooth that he slices and dices people while not raising his voice. That’s the mark of a great communicator. Check out this Fred Thompson slice and dice of Nancy Pelosi while she’s on her climate change vacation:
Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.
NASA says the Martian South Pole’s ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.
This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.
Talk about sliced and diced. I’ve gotta come clean on something though. This Thompson shot at Nancy Pelosi wasn’t written today. In fact, I can’t promise that it was originally intended for Ms. Pelosi. Sen. Thompson wrote this back on April 13, 2007. It’s most likely to have been directed at Al Gore.
For those still wondering about what’s causing the climate change on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto, I’m still waiting for confirmation on whether their climate change is being caused by gas-guzzling SUV driving aliens or if it’s simply America’s fault. You can never be too sure.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
I didn’t think I’d ever see the day when a major party presidential candidate proposed a socialist economic policy. That day has now come with this Hillary article. Howard Wolfson is certain to spin this as not being socialism but he’s lying through his teeth. Here’s what I’m talking about:
Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity. The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
The minute that a Democrat starts talking about fairness, it’s time to hide your wallet. It’s that simple. Implicit in Hillary’s statements is her opinion on your ability to make wise decisions. I’m perfectly comfortable making my own decisions. I suspect that most people think that they can prosper with a minimum of governmental help. I further suspect that most people don’t think in terms of the gap between the rich and poor widening. I’m betting that most people focus solely on being prosperous.
“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”
TRANSLATION: Free markets work best when we micromanage them to the Nth degree. We know that the rich will abuse the working class people if we don’t micromanage them into submission.
There’s no more destructive economic force than a liberal with a pro-regulation agenda and a micromanagement mindset. What isn’t fair about keeping taxes low on everyone? Why shouldn’t we assume that people will prosper if government stays out of their way?
This is just another facet of Hillary’s “it takes a village” agenda. That was just a gussied up term for nanny state, the goal of which was to indoctrinate children.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Ron Cass has an interesting take on what I’m calling the ‘Do Almost Nothing’ Congress. He doesn’t paint a flattering picture of Democrats.
Democrats, after controlling Congress almost continuously from 1933 to 1995, were the minority party in the House of Representatives for a dozen years and for 10 of 12 years were the minority in the Senate, too. So, perhaps, it’s not surprising that they’ve gotten very good at complaining about how the nation is governed and not so good at actually doing it.
But few people have connected that to the performance of the 110th Congress. With Congress out for its Memorial Day break, commentators across the nation are taking stock of its first quarter performance and concluding that the Democrats have come up dramatically short. From left and right alike, observers are drawing the same picture of a Do-Nothing Congress. And, happy or sad, most are proclaiming surprise.
After all, things looked very different last fall, when Nancy Pelosi was promising a Democratic Congress that within its first 100 hours would pass laws that would raise the minimum wage, bring the troops home from Iraq, expand health benefits, reform immigration laws, make college affordable for all, secure energy independence, and address broad taxing and spending issues. She also promised to “drain the swamp” – changing a Congress that failed to address ethical problems of individual members and that used “earmark” provisions to give pork to constituents and favors to lobbyists. Harry Reid and colleagues on the Senate side had similar, though more muted, messages.
After 140 days, however, congressional Democrats left town with no significant accomplishments, one long-delayed bill finally enacted into law, and lots to make fun of. There was no increase in morality, no magically bipartisan era, no sweeping enactment of a coherent agenda for change, akin to what Republicans promised in their Contract With America in 1994. Instead, the 110th Congress has been a combination of “now I’ll get mine” and “now you’ll get yours!”
If Pelosi, Reid & Company don’t start passing and enacting sensible laws between now and the next election, independents will abandon them in droves. This isn’t the way to expand their base. The suburbs went heavily for Democrats this last election. If they don’t start chalking up significant achievements soon, those suburbs will return to GOP hands in 2008.
One thing that they’ll have to do better on is in dealing with Washington corruption. Democrats upped the ante by campaigning hard on that issue. If they don’t do something serious about corruption soon, people will start thinking that they were sold a bill of goods. Rest assured that organizations like the Club for Growth will attack them for voting for the biggest tax increase in history by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
Imagine the difficulties Democrats would face campaigning after not passing serious anti-corruption legislation and after passing the biggest tax increase in history. They’d be greeted with brickbats, not applause. (And I’ll gladly incite the people.)
It hasn’t been pretty. And it isn’t likely to get better. Only those who were paying very careful attention last fall saw this coming.
There were lots of people who saw this coming. Unfortunately, nobody listened to conservatives like me. That’s their loss. Next time they’ll learn that we know what we’re doing.
Given the sources of the victory last fall, the story of this Congress has to be told in three parts: ethics, Iraq, and everything else. Ethics concerns included the misbehavior of individual congressmen as well as the systemic problems with earmarks and lobbyists.
From the very start, things got off on the wrong foot. Nancy Pelosi’s first act as Speaker was to push anti-war activist and vocal critic of all things Republican, John Murtha, as her choice for House majority leader, despite serious issues respecting Murtha’s ethics. The Democratic Caucus helped Ms. Pelosi out by rejecting her choice, but Pelosi has made Murtha her caucus’ number one voice on war policy.
I used this post to highlight Murtha’s ‘legacy’ of corruption, both recent and ancient. I’d also argue that making him their “number one voice on war policy” will backfire.
If the practice of earmarking hasn’t ended, it has changed a bit, for the worse. House Appropriations Chair David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, says he has so many requests for earmarks to add to major legislation, over 30,000 in five months, that he has no choice but to tack them on after work on the bill is complete and won’t reveal them until after both Houses vote. The other real change is that not all earmarks are put in writing; now Democrats who don’t want anyone to know what they’re doing can simply phone in the instructions on where to send the money (a practice Washington insiders now call “phone-marking”), as Harry Reid did in a call to the Energy Department.
Republicans should talk about phone-marking in every stump speech they give this summer. They should start that conversation immediately. Part of their stump speech should be spent talking about John Murtha’s and David Obey’s willful avoidance of earmark transparency. Conservatives all across the nation should condemn their shameful actions as unethical and unacceptable.
It’s also important to point out that Ms. Pelosi promised that this would be the most ethical congress in history. By pointing out Obey’s and Murtha’s avoidance of transparency, we open the door to asking why Democrats don’t believe that “sunlight is the greatest disinfectant” to the political process.
Democrats still haven’t learned that people expect more from them than diatribes and investigations now that they’re the majority party. They expect solutions to their biggest problems. Thus far, Democrats have failed miserably. The fact that Congressional Democrats have lower approval ratings than President Bush suggests that people have noticed how ineffective this ‘Do Almost Nothing Congress’ has been.
That should scare sane-thinking Democrats heading into 2008.
Cross-posted at California Conservative