Kurtz: Democratic Leadership in Congress Wouldn't Be So BadSomehow
this fails to relieve me.
Can the Democrats pass their agenda? Not with a Republican-run Senate. And even if the Dems captured both houses, they would have to approve legislation by veto-proof margins. So we're much more likely to see the Democrats playing defense--that is, blocking what remains of the Bush agenda--and using control of the calendar and the House floor to spotlight their issues.
What would they do about Iraq? That, at the moment, is anyone's guess.Does "Cut and Run" sound familiar?
Michael Barone (in the same article) raises some interesting points:
"Consider the fact that 34 House Democrats, most from districts carried by Bush in 2004, voted for the terrorist interrogation bill supported by George W. Bush and John McCain. That means a narrowly Democratic House is unlikely to act on presumptive Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel's suggestion that it defund the military campaign in Iraq, as a 2-to-1 Democratic House voted to refuse funds for bailing out South Vietnam in 1975 . . ."But:
"On domestic policy, a Democratic House will be able to obstruct but not to impose its own will. Rangel will surely see to it that no extensions of Bush tax cuts come out of Ways and Means, which means tax increases in outyears. Budget levels will be subject to fierce negotiations, as they were in the Clinton-Gingrich years. John Dingell as chairman of Energy and Commerce will deploy his considerable skills on regulatory issues, but these do not always split on party lines. The smart and canny Henry Waxman, as chairman of Government Reform, will undoubtedly launch a series of newsworthy investigations moments after being sworn in on Jan. 3.Broken glass, people!
