There’s been endless babble about how if the Republicans lose the House or the Senate in Washington, they will have deserved it and caused it. This is, I presume, because not many people feel that the Democrats truly deserve to actually “win” the majority position back (except for die hard Democrats I’m sure).
Instapundit recently outlined this in a “Post-Mortem” that has become kind of infamous, even to the point of securing wrath from Rush Limbaugh. Sufficed to say that many conservatives and libertarians are walking around with their heads in their armpits for want of reasons to vote out the Republicans, because although they have proven themselves to be clumsy, inept and in some cases downright corrupt, the alternative is the Democrats. Not much of a choice.
My first impression is to just stay with the Republican and hope that they get it eventually, as I have no confidence that booting them out of office will really correct their behavior or improve their focus on their moral compass anyway (did it improve the Democrat's behavior?).
And just as I’m reconsidering that and voting for some Independents, I link to this article by Paul Krugman, whom I hardly ever find myself in the same ballpark with, and he makes a very horrifying point.
[W]hile the Democrats won't gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony... Those who think it's a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely. Those who believe that the administration should be left alone to do its job should be aware that any vote for a Democrat makes investigations more likely.
Hat tip to TigerHawk on that quote.
And that sealed my vote.
3 comments:
Why would it be "horrifying” to investigate "allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraqi contracting"? You say that "in some cases" Republicans in power were "downright corrupt". Is that in reference to Iraqi contracts? Aren't there better reasons to vote Republican than to vote in order to thwart any accountability over corruption? Don't you want Justice AND Politics? Don't confuse me with the "unjust war" crowd, that's not what I mean, but would you actually condone sweeping under the rug those actions that you yourself see as "downright corrupt"?
I guess what I'm saying there is that I fear that the Democrats would stop up the system big time with lots of meaningless grand jury type posturing. Are there corrupt legislators on both sides of the aisle? Sure. When you see a legislator call for an investigation, how often is it because they actually are concerned that the reputation of the body is in jepardy as opposed to how often it's just bitter politics?
Recall I didn't make the statement about the corruption in Iraqi contracting, which I think is BS, and coming from the guy who said it leads me to believe the target is Bush himself, whom I hold in higher regard. Of all the investigations they've already thrown out there, which ones actually identified something legitimately bad?
So, if it makes you feel any better, it's the rampant investigations of non-existant Bush corruption that I'm afraid of.
Nicely put, "rampant investigations of non-existant Bush corruption"! I'm with you there!
Post a Comment