How Dems will Lose in 2006!

Sometimes I like to put on a virtual biochem hazmat suit and stroll over through sites like Free Republic and Red State just to see the depth of psychosis on the "other" side. (Not that we don't have our own psychos here, I'm just saying they're pretty easy to spot from a distance) While there I occasionally spot a post that pique my interest. That happened yesterday with the thread...

Why Republicans will Win in 2006

Seeing as I love fairy tales - I dove right in. Join me gentle readers ...

I haven't done this since I challenged a random Conservative blogger over the Legality of the NSA Spying Program which led to not one, but two follow up diarys. Neither of our positions changed, but I for one learned a great deal in the exchange.

In this case the Red-Stater in question laid out the essential issues that would take Republicans over the top in 2006. In a rare moment of nearly honest self-reflection he also presented the three largest vunerabilities for the Repubs. With each he supplied a solution - and I now, will provide my own (slightly snarky) rebuttal to each.

Illegal Immigration: Illegal Immigration needs to be addressed in terms of national security. Any democrat trying to take advantage of the Dubai ports deal, like my Senator Bob Menendez has, in attempts to act tough on national security will get crippled by not supporting a tough barrier between the US and Mexico. Nearly every poll I have seen says the same thing: 60-70% of Americans want some kind of barrier between the United States and Mexico, this is an issue that's nearly as pro-Republicans as gay marriage.

First off, Illegal Immigration is not a "National Security" issue. I've had this debate on FDL taking on both Jane and Christy over the link between Illegals and Terrorists.

THERE. IS. NONE.

When the Repubs are done bitching about the NSA revelations "letting the terrorists see our playbook", maybe they should take a look at their playbook once in a while. As most of us know from a basic 9-11 101 class, none of Mohommad Atta's team entered the country illegally - they didn't climb under a fence, crawl through a tunnel, or swim from Cuba - they all used the normal legal visa process. It's true that they falsified some of their entries on the form, and we need Homeland Security to focus and closely monitor the Visa process in order to prevent future attacks, but the point is in order to implement their plan they needed to get Legal drivers licenses and legal flight training. They had to have access to our vital resources in order to turn them against us. Someone undocumented whose just made the Desert March isn't really going to be useful for the kind of high profile attacks that are Al Qaeda's stock in trade.

Just rememeber, we didn't catch Moussaoui because of brilliant detective work and super-secret NSA Surveillence - it was because of his expired Visa, he didn't jump the wall, he walked in and stayed too long.

Sure, we might have another McVey or Eric Rudolf knuckle-head, but genuine Al Qaeda operatives simply aren't going to get a job at a chemical or nuclear plant where they can do some real damage without being clean as a whistle, period. Al Qaeda knows this, we should know it too.

Simply setting off a car bomb isn't enough for Bin Laden, he's got to take out 12 Planes or 4 Embassies all at the same time. A total grand-stander. Right now, that dramatic and grandiose trait of his is our best protection. It's going to be years before he has all his players in position again.

The fact that people are afraid of immigrants (documented or not) having a huge impact on the American Economy and way of life is true - but it's clear that bills such as Sensenbrener's and Tancredos have done nothing so much as Galvanize what could be Millions of votes against the Republicans. Democrats had best stay out of the way, or even better yet - finally defuse the situation by insisting that the State Dept abolish the Visa quota system it currently uses to unreasonably punish people from Central and South America who actually want to abide by the law, but can't because the process itself is discriminatory, illegal and Unconstitutional.

We don't need to create a "Guest Worker Program", an H-1 or H-2 Visa already does exactly that - (allow someone from another nation to work here temporarily as was recently diaried concerning Arnold Schwarznegger's H-2 Visa) - the problem is again, the Quota System that only allows for one hundreth the number of Legal Visas per month from Mexico and Central America (975) as it does from Europe (11,225) or Africa (16,950). And - Gee Whiz - aren't many of the Terrorists are from- gasp - Africa?!. (You better bet that Al Qaeda knew this when they decided to recruit the highjackers from Saudi Arabian and the UAE. They didn't try and get people from Porta Villarta, ok?)

Fix that, grant or deny the Visa based on the merit and qualifications of the person instead of their nation of origin - y'know the way the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act require us to do - and most of your "illegal" problem will go away. People will follow the law if the law itself is fair. Yes, that might mean more immigrants from El Savador and less from Qatar - boohoo. The problem of fear has to be solved by facing that fear, not running away from it.

Democrats are probably not going to do what needs to be done here, but neither are Republicans. Most likely Repubs are going to blow it with fear-mongering that will alienate the next several generations of immigrants and their Voting Children.

Back to Red-ville...

Gas Prices: Every Republican challenger in 2006 needs to adopt the position of pro-drilling in ANWAR. Never before has the public been so pro-drilling than now. Gas prices are going to remain high til November and the sticker shock has just begun as drivers go on vacations during the summer. Gas prices has generally been seen as a pro-Democrats issue for some reason, but the fact is, Democrats have no short-term solution. We do, and its in drilling in Alaska.

I think we can all agree that there isn't a short-term solution to this. But neither is ANWAR a short, mid or long-term solution. It's no solution. A stop-gap at best. There are still questions about how much Oil we'll find there, and even if there is vast amounts of Oil we certainly won't see any of it for ten years even we started drilling today. This is a typical Republican band-aid solution - let's just completely fuck-up one our last and greatest unspoiled natural wildlife refuges on the hope and prayer that it might create some temporary jobs, and some temporary relief from our foreign Oil addiction. That's right, we'll get off the junk by getting a new supplier. Yeah, Right.

Oddly enough, I think the President is saying the right words when it comes to this issue. But Republicans trying to come to Environmental Table this late in the game just aren't credible. We just can't trust him to follow through on it with his ties to Big Oil and Big Energy - and that's where Dems have an advantage. Dems need to lobby for a Marshall Plan on Energy Independance. Rep Rahm Emmanuel, head of the DCCC, has come out hard on this issue supporting R&D Tax Credits for building more Hybrid Vehicles, the development of energy efficient vehicles and more.

Band-aids aren't going to stop the bleeding.

Taxes: Making the tax cuts permanent should be a rallying call within all Republicans because the rhetoric "Do you feel you have too much money?" is more convincing than any "We need to kill the deficit" rhetoric. Republicans need to articulate that our economy is strong, and its because of the Bush tax cuts that our economy is growing. I think slowly but surely, the myth that our economy is weak for some reason is being killed.

As was shown by both the Reagan and Bush Senior Administrations - irresponsible Tax Cuts always lead to huge Tax Increases in order to shore up the defecit. It's not a matter of "If", only "When". G.H.W. Bush going back on his "No New Taxes" pledge effectively ended his reelection bid. Eventually this binge is going to lead to a big fat purge, the only question is - will Republicans have the stomach for it (not likely) and will they be able to do it in a way that not only doesn't cripple the economy but allows it to grow at record paces the way that it did under Bill Clinton's Budget Plan?

Hell - freaking - No!.

Dems need to counter this lunacy with fiscal sanity. The Bush tax cuts need to be ended, but not simply repealed. They need to be rolled-over into Tax Credit Plans like Emmanuel's above. John Kerry had a similar Tax Credit Plan for employers who hire American Workers rather than sending jobs overseas. We need more this in order to counter the charge that the "Dems just want to Raise Your Taxes. There are literally hundreds of oppurtunities where Private Money can be Spent on the Public Good which should be rewarded in this way, so much so that it could even completely offset the Bush cuts. (Ok, maybe not - but I'm an optimist!) If framed properly this idea can even capture some anti-tax Republicans because it follows their own logic that Private individuals and organizations know how to spend their money better than the government does. (At least sometimes) We should say -"Ok - put your money where your rhetoric is". Go spend private funds on helping Rebuild The Gulf Coast and get a Tax-Credit for what you accomplish. Make it work, if you can. GO FOR IT. Every private dollar that eliminates the need for the government to spend - should be rewarded IMO.

The theory is that if people and good corporate citizens step up to the challenge, government spending will automatically go down and so will taxes. It's a total Win/win.

Now let's talk about the Downside for Republicans (most of which I think we're quite familiar)

Iraq: Iraq is hurting Republicans [V. Ya think!], and it's not going to get any better by November (or at least it doesn't look like it will). However, Iraq will not be the defining issue of 2006, especially since there is no clear consensus from either Republicans or Democrats on what to do with it. However, on the bright side, those who called for immediate pullouts are still radicals, and those who called for the 6 month pullout plan can still be debated and labelled as radicals.

I think the "radical" argument is a losing gambit. It didn't work for Jean Schmidt when she tried to Swiftboat John Murtha and it won't work in November. The publics patience has more than run out on Iraq and the consensus that a tight concise goal driven exit strategy such as John Kerry's are gradually gaining favor. The Prez continues with his Happy Talk that "we're making progress" while General after General comes forward to blast Rumsfeld for his incompetence on handling the War and it's aftermath.

The simply truth is this: If we have genuinely trained over 250,000 Iraqi troops - why aren't they standing up so that we can stand down in some type of phrased gradual redeployment? What's the hold-up?

The more we have revelations like those by Tyler Drumheller and the White House Memos that Bush was well informed that Iraq did not possess WMD's and simply ignored the evidence while using his authority to leak lies and several members of his administration conspired to out a Covert Agent in order to hide the truth - the worse it gets. With the still very real likelyhood that Karl Rove could be indicted for either his role in the leak or his efforts to cover it up, it's clear that Republicans who rally around the President on failure after failure, and crime after crime are going to feel the brunt of this rising tide in November.

Just remember, the Bush forecast is 32% and still falling.

The Deficit: While I do not like the deficit, it is not adversely affecting our economy. Our economy is growing, and when push comes to shove, nobody is going to buy that their taxes need to be raised in the name of the deficit. The call for fiscal responsibility is very ineffective when the economy is as strong as it is...

Sure, the Deficit is no big deal unless you notice that Medicaid is going bankrupt, while we're spending $10 Billion a month in Iraq. Yes, the economy is doing ok right now, but it's the weakest economic recovery we've seen in decades while we have a projected Budget Deficit of $337 Billion this year and it's clear that almost half of that is from Iraq Alone. Could you imagine what the economy could do if we didn't have the weight of $billions worth of interest payments on it's back? Look, New Orleans is still largely uninhabitable even 9-months after Katrina - does anyone think this will get better in November after yet another record Hurricane Season? Meanwhile, Bush still hasn't found a replacement for Heckuvajob Brownie yet and the Republican Congress doen't say a peep, they just keep their rubber stamp inked and ready to go.

If Dems link the Deficit directly to Bush and Repub Congress poor stewardship of the nation across the board - they have a winner of an arguement.

And lastly...

Corruption: Complaining won't get the job done. The so-called "Culture of Corruption" will not be able to win out over people struggling with gas prices and worries over national security. Corruption simply isn't a primary issue, it's a secondary issue. And its especially ineffective in a mid-term election year when those who are percieved as corrupt aren't even on the ballot. Look for this talking point to be very ineffective in 2006. Even if Democrats take a strong Lobbyist reform stance, this issue just doesn't hit home like the first three do.

Ok, on this one I think he's just trying to talk himself into believing this B.S.

Yes, It's true that Former White House procurement Officer David Safavian isn't running for anything, he's in jail for accepting bribes.

It's true that Former White House Adviser Claude Allen isn't running - he's in jail, (or possibly out on bail by now) pending his shoplifting trial.

It's true that "Duke" Cunningham isn't running in November - he's in jail too.

Former House Majority Tom Delay isn't running either - because he's probably going to jail in Texas.

But Rep Bob Ney, who is heavily linked to Abramoff and Scanlon is running. Bill Frist is being investigated for Securities fraud, and he's running .

Meanwhile, the number of current Democratic Leaders who are already in jail or on the verge of going to jail because of a current criminal or Grand Jury Investigations : ZERO!

Speaking of those who are running - all but three Republican members of Congress (Tom Osborn-NE, Chris Shays-CT & Mark Kirk-IL) have direct financial ties to Tom Delay, who has been charged with Money Laundering in connection with Texas Campaign Finance Laws. And also let's not forget the continuing allegations of Delay's and Abramoff's involvement in the Saipan Sweat-Shops, Sex Trade and Forced Abortions - all with the complicity of the Republian Congress - one good high profile story in this should keep lots of the Rapture Right home this Novemeber.

IMO it simply won't be so easy to completely disavowed the corrupt and partisan nature of the K-Street Project and how this had led directly to the passage of the Bankruptcy Bill and Medicaid Part-(De)form.

I feel that True Campaign Reform requires an entirely new tact. Simply addressing the supply by tightening the screws and attempting to chase the money via McCain/Feingold simply isn't enough. We need completly public funding of political campaigns to take away the demand for those contributions, illicit or not. Connecticut has already passed legislation in this area for Statewide offices, but I think that we need to go a step further nationally. We need to provide free and equal airtime to all candidates to public office, the cost of which can be offset via a Tax Credit for all participating broadcasters. The idea is that the money won't have to come directly from the campaigns - and officers holders won't have to spend 70% of their time chasing donations, they might actually have time to govern. Maybe they could even take time read a bill before they vote on it. Politicians could still accept contributions, they just won't need as much and Broadcasters who currently depend on campaign advertising money will instead have it credited against their corporate taxes so they won't lose any actual revenue as long as they air all competeting ads equally. Again, a Win/Win proposal that Democrats are just inches away from (See Rahm and Kerry) while Republicans aren't even in the building.

Dems have the ideas - we just need to be bold with them.

Even if we aren't I think our chances look great in November except for three things that our Red-Stater didn't mention.

DIEBOLD. ES&S. and SEQUOIA.

Whether you're a tin-foil hatter or not, detailed works like Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again, make it quite clear that the greatest danger to Dems losing in November aren't any of these issues -- it's fraud in the election process itself.

Yes, Dems need to do more than simply bitch and complain - they can't afford to be complacent with the fate and soul of our Nation at stake - they need to put forth bold proposals such as the Real Security Plan, but neither can they expect that they're going to automatically get a fair shake behind the ballot box either. E-voting Whistle-blower after Whistle-blower have come forward, while we fight them in the courts.

Dems need to do everthing they can to fight for fair and accurate elections in each and every race in each and every state - or else suffer the fate of inaction.

2006 isn't their election to win, it's ours to lose.

Vyan