October 16, 2007
Republicans Jumping Ship--The Future House of (Democratic Party) Representatives
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives should be very vulnerable. But it's not -- at least, not right now. art.capitol.Republicans will have a hard time recapturing the House in 2008, analysts say.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hold on the gavel is pretty slim. Republicans need 17 more seats to retake the majority. In 2006, Democrats gained 30.When a party wins a big victory in Congress -- as the Democrats did in 2006 -- they usually have trouble holding those gains at the next election. Right now, for example, Democrats hold 61 House seats in districts that voted for President Bush in 2004.
Republicans have only 8 representatives from districts that voted for John Kerry.
So it looks like Democrats have a lot more vulnerable seats to defend in the 2008 elections. But analysts say otherwise.
"A lot of those members are veteran, long-time Democrats who have been in those seats and they are not vulnerable," said Lauren Whittington, a senior staff writer at the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. "You know, people who are in Republican states but who have been there for 20 years, 30 years, and they have seniority.''
Hmm, fellas, what will this mean for public policy discussions after Hilary wins the election?
I'm thinking of moving to either Spain or Guatemala. I can't decide. The reach of government is going to explode under the Clinton II administration.
Posted by anthony at October 16, 2007 02:22 PM | TrackBackNot Puerto Rico?
Posted by: Jake Belder at October 16, 2007 02:46 PMIceland for me.
Posted by: Bianca at October 16, 2007 04:01 PM"I'm thinking of moving to either Spain or Guatemala. I can't decide. The reach of government is going to explode under the Clinton II administration"
Are you serious. The republicans just got through filibustering Habeas Corpus. We are seeing our civil liberties shredded. Wake up.
Posted by: grundygreen at October 16, 2007 04:28 PMYou should move to western Mongolia. I hear they're really conservative out there.
Posted by: tusc0n raider at October 16, 2007 05:18 PMHave you thought of France? They are getting the idea that socialism does not work. Also the country of Georgia is doing well with liberty but Putin could be seizing that country as he continues to consolidate power. So many options brother.
Posted by: Kevin B. at October 16, 2007 07:44 PM"The republicans just got through filibustering Habeas Corpus."
The republicans have done a quick job of increasing spending to astonomical amounts, removing civil liberties, and basically are doing everything they said they wouldn't do before 2000.
But Hillary? She seems bent on wanting things which will cost far more than the Iraq war ("baby bonds," etc).
And in general, the democratic party seems happy to continue passing the (so-called) Patriot Act, so... I don't expect much in the are of civil liberties being restored.
Fortunately, America isn't the kingdom we live for and as such we can live in the time and places God has choosen to put us and/or call us to.
Jake, Puerto Rico is still a U.S. territory, has about a 12% unemployment rate, and has become a welfare island.
Posted by: Anthony at October 17, 2007 09:21 AMOh yeah, true. I didn't even think about that :)
Posted by: Jake Belder at October 17, 2007 12:12 PMyeah Anthony P.R. might be a welfare island, but despite the poverty Boricuas will still enjoy life no matter what hand they have been dealt.
I think I'd move to the South of Chile.
Posted by: berkeleyrican at October 17, 2007 01:06 PMI dunno. Seems to me that, apart from the Brady Bill, things were actually fairly restrained during Clinton 1. They seem to have torpedoed a lot of what they wanted to do by creating a lot of enemies on their way to office. Just might happen again.
That said, gracious host, you've got a darned good point. Might not be pretty for lovers of liberty in the next few years. As if it has been for the past few, for that matter.
Might have been different if W had found his backbone and his veto pen a bit earlier.
Posted by: Robert Perry at October 17, 2007 03:26 PM"Might have been different if W had found his backbone and his veto pen a bit earlier."
Hahaha.... that may be the only time I've heard Bush accused of NOT having a backbone (as opposed to too much of one)... :-)
Posted by: Brad at October 17, 2007 04:03 PM"Might have been different if W had found his backbone and his veto pen a bit earlier."
Hahaha.... that may be the only time I've heard Bush accused of NOT having a backbone (as opposed to too much of one)... :-)
Posted by: Brad at October 17, 2007 04:03 PMFellas, it's time to stop complaining and start campaigning for Ron Paul.
Posted by: Matthew Smith at October 17, 2007 11:24 PMBrad, ironically I've mostly heard the "no backbone" comment. We must be listening to different sources. :^)
(and yup, I'd be curious where you read; for me it's the Pioneer Press, FoxNews, WND, and www.lewrockwell.com)
Posted by: Robert Perry at October 18, 2007 12:39 PM