Kruse Kronicle

A Liberal Supermajority

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on. …

Comments

8 responses to “A Liberal Supermajority”

  1. Alan Wilkerson Avatar
    Alan Wilkerson

    Reminds me of the old adage, “Be careful what you pray for, you just might get it.”
    Alan
    all that aside, if it happens then in four years if the economy doesn’t get better and there is another attack on US soil there is only one party to blame for it. And this is from a Registered Democrat who will vote a mixed ticket this year.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Republicans deserve to take some heat for their incompetence. However, the policies the Democrats and Obama are promoting (protectionism, higher taxes, labor union formation without a private vote, etc.) are going to drive the economy deeper into peril, raise the price of everything here in the US and do serious damage to emerging economies that include the poorest of the poor. That is just one of things that keeps me up at night about this election.

    Reply
  3. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    It would be one thing if Obama was elected in a situation where Republicans held a majority in either the House or Senate. Not only will that not be the case, but the Democrats may well achieve a filibuster-proof majority.
    With that kind of dominant one party majority in DC, we will see the most aggressively partisan and left-wing legislative agenda in the country’s history. Given that Obama has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, I don’t see him as being inclined to moderate anything. Why should he?

    Reply
  4. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    Andrew Cuomo, former HUD Secretary under Clinton–one of the architects of the mortgage crisis–is in line for a senior cabinet position.
    It will be a Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration.
    And we shouldn’t forget Rep. Maxine Waters, who, whose extemporaneous policy outbursts are highly revealing:
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=141_1211580974

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Should Obama win, I don’t sense that it will be due to a warm embrace of the policies listed in this piece. Some will vote Obama just because he is charismatic idealistic guy. I think many will vote Democrat as a protest against Bush and the irresponsibility of Republicans in congress.
    This could well be a repeat of 1993 when Democrats thought that just because they got a majority that the public embraced there agenda; or 1995 when the Republicans took Congress and mistook disgust with Democrats as endorsement of Republican policies.
    I don’t sense that the public has moved nearly as far left as congressional Democrats. My guess is that a Democrat Congress with Obama in the oval office just won’t be able to stop themselves from attempting radical changes as well as initiating a variety of deeply partisan “investigations.” That could be their very undoing.
    We will see.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I also meant to add that Intraders give only an 11% chance that Dems will get more than 60 votes in the Senate.

    Reply
  7. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    That could be their very undoing.
    Yes. But the long term damage that will likely be done could last for generations. Social Security, and FDR program, is on track to bankrupt us unless we Change(TM) the way the program is structured dramatically; Johnson’s Great Society has left a bitter legacy of a culture of poverty and urban blight. And yet we have yet to be able to bring ourselves to change or, dare I say it, eliminate these misguided projects.
    And then there’s gun rights, free speech, judges (not just SCOTUS), and every other hot button issue at which liberal activists have been waiting to get their shot.
    A vote for Obama is a vote for at least 2 years of unfettered liberal legislative activism. A vote for McCain is really just a vote for some measure of damage control, IMHO.

    Reply
  8. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    Here’s an interesting piece by a Democrat journalist on the bias and negligence of the press with regard to reporting on the mortgage meltdown.
    http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
    The liberal supermajority has been the MSM’s pet project for the last several years. In the process they’ve abandoned their integrity and have failed the public they so proudly claim to serve.
    In this election cycle I have seen what is by far the worst, most biased coverage of candidates that I have seen in my lifetime. There’s a collusion between one party and the dominant MSM television and print media.
    The only bastion of dissenting voices is on radio, so it’s no surprise that Nancy Pelosi is talking about resurrecting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” in order to correct the situation and get all the media on side with the Democrats.
    It’s an Orwellian use of the term “Fairness” (who could oppose fairness, after all), because those who impose it know that regulation of speech imposed by the legislation will actually discourage the expression of dissent. The mandate that broadcasters provide “balance” forces broadcasters to produce content that draws no listeners and therefore no advertisers. They’ll change their programming to sports and music in order to avoid losing their audiences. This is exactly what happened the first time the Fairness Doctrine was imposed.
    Meanwhile, television and print will continue their biased coverage, because they–like vote fraud organization, ACORN–will be allowed to perpetuate their myth of objectivity/neutrality because the beneficiaries of their bias are the ones pulling the strings and deciding whose speech needs to be “balanced” and whose does not.
    This is not just a sad state of affairs, it’s also potentially very, very dangerous.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to VanSkaamperCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading